Instructional Design - Jaynee Brannen



Instructional Design

Jaynee Brannen

Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota

Schools of Graduate and Professional Programs

Portfolio Entry for Wisconsin Teacher Standards 7

EDUW 693 Instructional Design and Assessment

Sara Heisler, Instructor

November 1, 2014

Learning Step 1: Start from Developmental Standards

Targeted Descriptors from Wisconsin Standards for Teacher Development and Licensure

The descriptors listed for each Wisconsin Teacher Standard (WTS) on this page and the next are copied from the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction website. Areas targeted for improvement during the course are preceded by a ♦ rather than a • symbol.

Wisconsin Teacher Standard (WTS) 7: Teachers are able to plan different kinds of lessons.

The teacher organizes and plans systematic instruction based upon knowledge of subject matter, students, the community, and curriculum goals.

Knowledge

• The teacher understands learning theory, subject matter, curriculum development, and student development and knows how to use this knowledge in planning instruction to meet curriculum goals.

♦ The teacher knows how to take contextual considerations (instructional materials, individual student interests, needs and aptitudes, and community resources) into account in planning instruction that creates an effective bridge between curriculum goals and students' experiences.

• The teacher knows when and how to adjust plans based on student responses and other contingencies.

Dispositions

♦ The teacher values both long-term and short-term planning.

• The teacher believes that plans must always be open to adjustment and revision based on student needs and changing circumstances.

• The teacher values planning as a collegial activity.

Performances

♦ As an individual and a member of a team, the teacher selects and creates learning experiences that are appropriate for curriculum goals, relevant to learners, and based upon principles of effective instruction (e. g. that activate students’ prior knowledge, anticipate preconceptions, encourage exploration and problem-solving, and build new skills on those previously acquired).

♦ The teacher plans for learning opportunities that recognize and address variation in learning styles, learning differences, and performance modes.

♦ The teacher creates lessons and activities that operate at multiple levels to meet the developmental and individual needs of diverse learners and help each progress.

• The teacher creates short-range and long-term plans that are linked to student needs and performance, and adapts the plans to ensure and capitalize on student progress and motivation.

• The teacher responds to unanticipated sources of input, evaluates plans in relation to short- and long-range goals, and systematically adjusts plans to meet student needs and enhance learning.

Learning Step 2: Pre-assess Evidence Compared to Standards to Define Areas to Improve

Introduction

This entry for Wisconsin Teacher Standard 7 (WTS 7) documents completion of a professional learning process to improve instructional design. The ultimate goal is to achieve each student’s developmental capabilities through confident and independently competent learning. My seven-step process will aim to improve instructional design for a four-year-old kindergarten literacy lesson about letter to sound recognition. Wisconsin Common Core State Standards guided academic performance assessment for students. The Danielson model (2007), guided instructional and learning environment assessments, focusing on expectations coordinated to The Wisconsin Teacher Standards (WTS) 7.

Pre-assessment of Instructional Design Practices Related to WTS 7

Artifact A shows pre-assessment results as of this writing, and after Learning Step 6 the post-assessment results will also be included in each table for ease of direct comparisons. The pre-assessment starts with only an estimation of current student performance for the targeted subject, rather than an assessment based on reliable evidence of low, median, and high student samples. School has yet to start at the time of this writing, so past experiences, first impressions, and any available student evidence related to the targeted subject form the basis for other ratings.

Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 address four areas related to assessing instructional design:

(1) appropriate starting points based on current student performance compared to developmental standards, (2) appropriate outcomes, (3) optimal learning processes, and (4) engaged learning.

Essential Question to Guide Research and Assessment Conclusion

The overall inquiry question to guide my 693 learning process is “How do I improve planning in name writing so my students achieve their developmental capabilities through confident and independently competent learning?” The pre-assessments of student performance, instruction, and learning environment, guided by WTS 7, suggested a need to improve instruction to facilitate all learners. This will include focusing on student outcomes, in order to achieve successful student outcomes. I plan to create more varied lessons that allow ample time and lessons that foster learning through structured lessons that are adaptable to all learners. I will also need to make modifications in my questions that will promote a broader depth of student thinking versus recitation.

Learning Step 3: Research to Find Answers/Insights

Introduction to Research Summary

To address growth related to Wisconsin Teacher Standard 7, teachers aim to “organize and plan systematic instruction based upon knowledge of subject matter, students, the community, and curriculum goals.” Many planning elements and skills are necessary for achieving WTS 7 at a master teacher level. General practices investigated in EDUW 693 include coordinated PK-12 planning, backward design, a developmental understanding of individual and group needs based on reliably assessed evidence, and incorporating specific differentiation strategies and delivery methods to engage all students. This research summary highlights general areas that emerged as logical choices to improve instructional design and delivery, and an investigation of specific new strategies and methods for achieving my targeted lesson.

Freiberg (2002) stated that complete lesson planning is multifaceted and created for change from beginning, middle, to end. There are four components which include (a) visualization, (b) the pulling together of materials, (c) the changes to the lesson plan due to outside factors such as a fire drill, and (d) a reflection piece to analyze what did and did not go well in the lesson. Suppose a 4K teacher is planning to introduce a lesson involving letter-sound recognition. The teacher first visualizes the lesson: singing the Alphabet Song; introducing a letter and the sound the letter makes; singing Alphardy, a letter-sound song with actions; the students all singing and following the gestures, stretching their learning of letters and sounds. Next the teacher pulls together the materials for the successful lesson. Those steps may include reading a book like Chicka Chicka Boom Boom; providing white boards for the students to write the letter of the sound they hear; a proposed question for the student to solve, such as what animal’s name start with a particular letter; time for practice and sharing with other students; and a closing activity like singing Alphardy again with actions. The other elements are self-explanatory, which allows this planning style to be especially helpful to the novice teacher.

A second instructional strategy that a teacher may utilize is the “TEACHER” acronym model (Heisler, 2013). This model assists the teacher in instructional planning and delivery. Upon utilization of this model the teacher follows the following guidelines:

The teacher Teaches one doable step at a time. Make sense of the models and mistakes!

The teacher Expects every student to try. Guide independent effort to expectations.

Students Assess their own work immediately, guided by teacher.

Students Correct their own work while teacher confirms all are proficient.

All Help by cooperating, asking questions, offering assistance.

All Encourage each learning path through struggles and celebrations.

All Respect differences, needs, and every student’s right to learn. (p. 2)

This instructional strategy results in both teacher and student participation, leaving both the teacher and student responsible for learning in a respectful and welcoming environment. One important aspect of this strategy is the emphasis on student assessing and correcting their own work. To provide an example, the strategy applied to sound-letter recognition might include teaching the students about big lines, little lines, big curves, and little curves. This step allows for students to manipulate these lines using wooden pieces cut to resemble big lines, little lines, big curves, and little curves. Next the students would be instructed to make the letter “L,” for example, using one big line and one little line. The students would then assess if they made an “L” by comparing their product to the teacher’s example. The teacher then checks students’ work for proficiency. Students would make the necessary changes so that they had made the letter “L.” Students who have mastered the “L” may offer assistance to those who may be struggling. The teacher could then offer encouragement to the class as all “L’s” are completed. A student who might still be struggling might make his or her “L” using a different big line and little line manipulative such as roll-a-dough. In addition to the process of learning this style of learning creates and fosters a positive learning atmosphere, ultimately encouraging learning and risk taking.

Another way to create meaningful lesson plans is to deconstruct the standards in an attempt to set clear learning targets for learners. This process has been outlined by Educational Testing Service and include: “What knowledge will students need to demonstrate the intended learning? What patterns of reasoning will they need to master? What skills are required? And what product development capabilities must they require?” (2006). Teachers may not usually consider the reasoning patterns that students need to use to understand the objectives, but teachers who identify those patterns tend to create a progression of activities that matches learning steps more accurately. For example, to write the letter “L,” students must first understand the difference between a big line and a little line. This is done through song and the manipulation of big and little sticks. Students must use comparison thinking between actions that achieve big lines and little lines. They need to follow a progression of steps to form the letter, comprised of two segments. The lesson progresses from identifying lines to formations of letters with manipulatives and eventually letter writing. A teacher who understands how to deconstruct standards highlights the necessary information that needs to be taught for optimal learning by all students. This practice makes both the student and teacher accountable for quality learning and quality lessons.

A fourth method is instructional design. This idea encourages teachers, developers, and parents to teach, create, and support new learning styles, often technology, into classrooms making learning more appealing (Kearsley, n.d.). Instructional design is not just taking what is written and digitizing it. This idea takes previous ideas and provides opportunities for new learning. An example of letter recognition might include a child working on a letter recognition app such as Wet Dry Try. The student traces one letter at a time. The program’s design promotes the correct size letter without reversals and includes audio and visual cues. When there is a stroke mistake, immediate feedback is given. Instructional technology allows for self-paced learning and the opportunity for students to pick up where they left off the day before without having to move on before mastery of a task.

Understanding by Design or UbD is a planning framework that focuses on a desired result or standard and working backwards. The goal of UbD is long term understanding. Teachers must teach for understanding and offer their students multiple opportunities to apply their learning. The following are the three stages to UbD as clarified by Wiggins and McTighe (2011): stage one – identify desired results; stage two – determine acceptable evidence; stage three – plan learning experiences and instruction accordingly. For example, if the desired result for learners is to identify letter sounds, then you need evidence of the learners’ ability to identify letters in random order and knowledge of letter sounds. The subsequent learning events need to: help early learners construct letters, identify letters, and speak and identify letter sounds. The next stage involves planning learning experiences and instruction accordingly. The learning experiences should include experimental learning such as hands on activities and multiple and various opportunities to say, listen, and hear letter sounds. The teacher might provide such opportunities in various centers. In the art center the students could be painting the letter for which sound is to be learned; in science a polyvinyl chloride pipe (PVC) phone might be available for the student to talk into and hear themselves saying the correct letter sound; in the listening center a student might be recorded saying the sound and then asked to replay the recording. Effective teachers understand that learning not only relies on practice but also understanding and applying the newly learned material. “We need to think of unit design work as the intellectual equivalent of a GPS device in our car: by identifying a specific learning destination first, we are able to see the instructional path most likely to get us there” (Wiggins and McTighe, 2011, para. 15).

Research Conclusion

Confident and independently competent learning depends on well planned, thought-out lessons that identify and address learning standards in a way that fosters individual learning styles and provides multiple opportunities for learning and applying new knowledge. These five resources emphasized breaking apart standards, providing ample opportunities for learning, reflection, and whole class participation. Utilizing the information gathered from these resources will turn ordinary lesson plans into master teacher lesson plans further enhancing student learning, understanding, and applying of knowledge.

Learning Step 4: Plan, Incorporating Answers and Insights from Research

Research Implications

My inquiry question: How do I improve planning in name writing so my students achieve their developmental capabilities through confident and independently competent learning?

For my targeted lesson, I plan to try these new ideas from research and course learning:

1. Modify instructional design to better utilize technology.

2. Provide examples and opportunities to allow for knowledge application.

3. Incorporate new hands on tools to promote learning.

4. Integrate the TEACHER acronym, focusing on the respect of differences.

5. Visualize appropriate lessons and provide necessary materials for my special needs student.

Research-based Action Plan

See Artifact B, which is the lesson plan that resulted from research and in-class learning. Markings and color coding show evidence of understanding EDUW 693 terms and expectations for instruction planning. This plan is one lesson in a series of lessons forming a learning unit.

Learning Step 5: Implement Plan and Gather Evidence

Artifact C shows student work samples with comments that explain how new planning and delivery actions affected student learning.

Learning Step 6: Post Assess Evidence Compared to Pre-assessments and Standards

Artifact A uses italicized type to distinguish post-assessment information from the pre-assessment. Tables 2, 3, and 4 include subsequent explanations and evidence of significant improvements that proved beneficial to student learning.

Learning Step 7: Reflection of My Entire Learning Process

This WTS 7 learning process focused on improving standards-based instructional design and related delivery practices to achieve competent, confident, and independent learning at each student’s developmental capabilities. Each area below summarizes the two most significant conclusions that emerged from a reflection of my entire learning process:

My Most Effective Actions/Attitudes in My Seven-Step Learning Process, with Evidence

1. The TEACHER acronym model has helped greatly in the success of my students in this lesson. Working in smaller groups and hearing student input has helped in making my lesson better and most appropriate to the various levels of learners in my classroom.

2. By using this lesson plan template I have realized that while I can still use the template required by my district, I can be less wordy but more specific, which will provide me more instructional time and less re-reading and uncertainty about my plan.

My Least Effective Actions/Attitudes in My Seven-Step Learning Process, with Evidence

1. Sticking to one desired outcome. Sometimes I just want my students to be successful so I am willing to bend what they do. I just want them to be successful when really we all need to stick to the plan.

2. Time. With only having students three hours at a time, I need to better manage my time yet make sure that all state requirements are being met regarding time. I need to possibly rework my daily schedule to accommodate better lessons and the implementation of these lessons. I noticed the struggle comes in the morning where I have eighteen students. In the afternoon, I only have nine students so I am able to work one on one or in much smaller groups getting more accomplished.

My Next Steps for Improving My Learning Process (What to Learn and/or How I Learn)

1. I need to remember to slow down and teach one thing at a time. Rushing will not result in a quality lesson or the desired quality in a product from the students.

2. Pre-assess and actually use the information. Many times when pre-assessing, if done, the information hasn’t been utilized properly to create lessons that are appropriate for different learners. A blanket lesson with blanket expectations does not help the kids who need more of a challenge or the kids that are struggling. That lesson did not have meaning for the students but was a time-filler.

References

Culatta, R. (n.d.). Reimagining learning: Richard Culatta at TEDxBeaconStreet [Video file].

Retrieved from

Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Freiberg, J. (2002). Redesigning professional development: Essential skills for new teachers. Educational Leadership 59 (6). Retrieved from educational-leadership/mar02/vol59/num06/Essential-Skills-for-New-Teachers.aspx

Heisler, S. (2013). Write teaching. Retrieved with password and username “write1” from “MY SMU” to Blackboard site at

Rosenshine, B. (2012, Spring). Principles of Instruction that all teachers should know.

American Educator. Spring, 2012. Retrieved from

americaneducator/spring2012/Rosenshine.pdf

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2011). The understanding by design guide to creating high-quality units. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Retrieved from pdf/

siteASCD/ publications/UbD_WhitePaper0312.pdf

Artifact A: Pre-assessment and Post-assessment Comparisons

Italicized type distinguishes post-assessment additions (Learning Step 6) from the earlier pre-assessment (Learning Step 2). (Unchanged ratings generally represent improvements within the same developmental range as the pre-assessment.) Rating codes for Tables 2, 3, and 4: Unsat = Unsatisfactory, Basic, Prof = Proficient, Dist = Distinguished.

|Table 1: Current Academic Student Performance Compared to PK-12 Vertical Standards |

|Skill Level |Grade Level |Current Proficiency Level Based on Early Learning Standards for Literacy |

| | |(proficiency = performance meets ALL expectations at and below the rating) |

| | |Quotes are from rows showing developmental progression. See lesson plan. |

|Lowest |Row 1 |Exploring |

| |to |L-S “All Child(ren) put(s) a three piece inlaid puzzle together with A, B, and C.” Lowest typically needs |

| |Row 1 |assisted manipulation place letters; not independent. Some require a verbal cue to turn the shape. |

| | |S-S “Child sings the ABC song by him/herself singing”…(some (none)out of order). All can sing song, but LMNOP is|

| | |mixed up. About 20% sing LMNOP mixed up as one letter. |

|Median |Row 2 |Recognizing letters to recognizing sounds |

| |to |L-S “Child is able to find and identify some letters and numbers in books, signs, and labels.” About 50% can |

| |Row 3 |identify maybe half of the letters. 30% can identify all 26 letters. |

| | |S-S “Child knows the first letter in his/her name and points to the letter on signs and words in a book and says,|

| | |“My letter.”” About 50% can identify the first letter in his/her name. 100% can identify the first letter in |

| | |his/her name. |

|Highest |Row 4 |Connections of letter to sounds to combinations to speech. |

| |to |L-S “Child sees the letter D on a block and says, ‘D’ is for Daddy.” |

| |Row 4 |70% of students are able to make letter connections to another person or object. |

| | |S-S “Looking at a stop sign, the child says, “Stop starts with the same letter as my name (Susie).”” Some make |

| | |these observations and verbally make comments. |

|Evidence source: |Teacher observations and previous PALS assessments. |

|Area to improve: |Letter recognition and letter sound awareness. |

|Evidence source: |Teacher observation of work and direct conversations with students regarding letters in alphabet and in name. |

| |Letter identification of letters from name in other texts. |

|Most improved area: | |

|Table 2: Pre- and Post-assessment of Instructional Design for Appropriate Outcomes |

|Danielson A Framework for Teaching, Domain 1: Planning and Preparation Component 1c: Setting Instructional Outcomes (p. 51-53 and chart on |

|page 54). |

|Element |Rating |Assessment Based on Danielson Framework Criteria. |

|Value, sequence, |Basic |Outcomes represent moderately high expectations and rigor. |

|and alignment |to | |

| |same |Most outcomes reflect important learning in the discipline and make some connection to a sequence of |

| | |learning. |

|Clarity |Basic |Outcomes are moderately clear, written in the form of student learning. |

| |to |Most instructional outcomes suggest viable methods of assessment. |

| |Proficient | |

|Balance |Basic |Outcomes reflect several different types of learning, but no (has made attempts) attempt to |

| |to |coordinate or integrate disciplines. |

| |same | |

|Suitability for |Basic |Most outcomes are suitable for most students in the class. |

|diverse learners |to | |

| |Proficient |Most outcomes are suitable for most students; however, the needs of some individual students may not |

| | |be accommodated. |

|Evidence source: |Lesson plan sample and previous planning practices. |

|Area to improve: |Lessons that implement and promote successful student outcomes. |

|Evidence source: |Teacher assessment of lesson plan, student response observation, and actual student outcomes. |

| |Clarity and suitability for diverse learners. Variety of opportunities has allowed for more informal |

|Most improved area: |assessment opportunities. |

Most Significant Evidence of Improvements in Designing Appropriate Outcomes

1. Previously, I would have students write their names once a day when they first walked in the door. I would have the student check in with me when they were finished and have them recite their letters to me. Now, I sit with each student or a small group of students and work with them one on one observing and taking notes as to what I can do to best teach and facilitate name writing and letter recognition.

2. Breaking apart the state standards into low, medium, and high levels has made my vision clearer. I now am mindful of what I need to be teaching to meet state standards. Pre-assessing has allowed me to take an ownership of really understanding where students are academically and where they need to go.

3. By defining outcomes, the different parts of the plan: the outcomes, activities, materials, methods, and the grouping of students, all align with one another. The activities are better designed to enhance student engagement.

|Table 3: Pre- and Post-assessment of Instructional Design for Optimal Learning Processes |

|Danielson A Framework for Teaching, Domain 1: Planning and Preparation Component 1e: Designing Coherent Instruction (p. 55-59 and chart on |

|page 60). |

|Element |Rating |Assessment Based on Danielson Framework Criteria. Improve |

|Learning activities |Basic |Some learning activities are suitable to students or to the instructional outcomes. Some represent a |

| |to |moderate cognitive challenge, but with no differentiation for different students. |

| |same | |

|Instructional |Basic |Some of the materials and resources are suitable to students, support the instructional outcomes, and |

|materials and |to |engage students in meaningful learning. Most all of the materials and resources are suitable to |

|resources |Proficient |students, support the instructional outcomes, and engage students in meaningful learning. |

|Instructional groups|Basic |Instructional groups partially (improved to) support the instructional outcomes, with an effort at |

| |to |providing some (more) variety. |

| |same | |

|Lesson and unit |Basic |The lesson or unit has a (an increasing) recognizable structure, although the structure is not |

|structure |to |uniformly maintained throughout. Progression of activities is (less) uneven, with most time allocations|

| |same |reasonable. |

|Evidence source: |Lesson plan sample and previous planning practices. |

|Area to improve: |A creation of varied activities that flow and provide reasonable time for progression and successful |

| |outcomes. |

|Evidence source: |Teacher assessment of lesson plan, self reflection, student outcomes. |

| |Instructional materials and resources are better selected and prepared for student success. Lessons |

|Most improved area: |have more clarity and defined expectations. |

Most Significant Evidence of Improvements in Designing Optimal Learning Processes

1. I am pleased with the students’ ability to stay on task and not lose focus and complete something without rushing.

2. Although time is still an issue, the progression of activities is less uneven and becoming more routine ultimately allowing for more time on task and allowing for everyone to rotate through each center.

3. I don’t think I was providing enough variety in my name writing unit and my expectations were hazy. Now instructional groups support the students through the learning process, which support the wanted outcome.

|Table 4: Pre- and Post-assessment Instructional Design for Engaged Learning |

|Danielson A Framework for Teaching, Domain 3: Instruction. Component 3b: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques and Component 3c: |

|Engaging Students in Learning |

|(combining rows in the charts on pages 82 and 85). |

|Element |Rating |Assessment Based on Danielson Framework Criteria. |

|Quality of questions|Basic |Teacher’s questions are a combination of low and high quality. Only some invite a thoughtful |

| |To |response. |

| |Proficient |Teacher’s questions are a mix of high and low quality in cognitive challenge. Questions are |

| | |asked in a mix of succession combined with adequate time to respond. |

|Discussion |Basic |Teacher makes some attempt to engage student in genuine discussion. |

|techniques |to |Teacher creates a genuine discussion among students, stepping aside when appropriate. |

| |Proficient | |

|Student |Unsatisfactory |A few students dominate the discussion. |

|participation |to | |

| |Basic |Teacher successfully engages 80% of students in the discussion. |

| | | |

|Activities and |Basic |Activities and assignments are appropriate to most students and engage them mentally, but others|

|assignments |to |are not engaged. |

| |Basic |Activities and assignments are appropriate to all students. 20% of students are not mentally |

| | |engaged. |

|Evidence source: |Lesson plan sample and previous planning practices. |

|Area to improve: |Engaging activities and appropriate questions that allow for all student participation. |

| |Teacher observation, self reflection following success and failures of lesson. |

|Evidence source: |Stepping aside during discussions that are fostering learning among students. Providing adequate|

|Most improved area: |time for responses from students. Overall time management of class and lessons, however, this is|

| |still a work in progress. |

Most Significant Evidence of Improvement in Designing Engaged Learning

1. More time on task.

2. 100% participation and 100% willingness to try an activity even when it has been attempted previously. One student even tried to come up with an excuse but stayed on task and was successful when trying to write her name by herself.

Student: “It’s not going to let me do this.”

Teacher: “What’s not going to let you write your name?”

Student: “My arm.” (Child points to arm.)

3. Increased sense of ability and success of students by students. Increased support from peers.

Artifact B: Improved Lesson Planning

The two plans below show previous planning practices compared to a plan created during the EDUW 693 course.

Previous Lesson Plan Example

This first lesson plan excerpt demonstrates ideas that typically guided me for instructing students how to write their name in four-year-old kindergarten, starting in first quarter. Ideas addressed process, content and tasks as a list of activities, and objectives by their number; but did not address assessment or align the five elements. [pic][pic]

Trial Lesson Plan Example

This plan demonstrates understanding of 693 expectations for lesson design processes and elements, guided by expectations in WTS 7. Highlighting represents understanding of lesson planning terminology and practices aimed at aligning expectations, content, process, product, and assessment elements.

▪ 5 planning elements: objectives, content, process, product, assessment (3 types: diagnostic,

formative, summative). One example in CAPITALS/YELLOW HIGHLIGHT

▪ 5 assessment tools/methods: five formative or summative methods

▪ 6 levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy (explain missing or eventual levels)

▪ 5 thinking patterns (place term next to synonym: Introduce/Define by group

▪ 5 instructional strategies/techniques: see 693 term sheet for ideas

▪ 3 different differentiation strategies (LL, ML, HL; multiple intelligences

MUS, VIS, VER, LOG, BOD, INTER, INTRA, NAT, EXIST; learning styles

SEE, HEAR, TOUCH, SMELL, TASTE, DO, EMOtion, SETTING; explained

specific differentiation needs and coded in the lesson.

▪ 1 use of technology incorporated into entire unit (green type)

▪ 1 example of making purposeful connections: widening perspectives to realities, interests,

student’s past/present/future, cultural/racial/ethnic awareness, gender sensitivity, etc.

Lesson Plan Template to Demonstrate Understanding of Lesson Design Elements/Process (WTS 7)

Teacher: Jaynee Brannen

UNIT Name: Name Writing

LESSON Name: same.

Grade(s): 4K

Time Period/Dates for Entire Learning UNIT: 4 days.

Major UNIT Technology/Resources/Materials: (if not mentioned for targeted lesson at step 9)

SUMMATIVE PLAN (APPLIES TO ENTIRE UNIT CONTAINING THE TARGETED LESSON):

1. Current proficiency grade range based on vertical standards and assessed abilities:

↓DIF: Lowest= EL Row 1 Median = EL Row 2 Highest= EL Row 4 ↑DIF:

2. This unit’s proficiency range (P) based on vertical standards and students’ capabilities:

↓DIF: Lowest= EL Row 2 Median = EL Row 2 Highest= EL Row 2 ↑DIF:

3. Assessed standards governing targeted lesson: EL or K-12 Academic Performance or Alternate Achievement Standards and Discipline Literacy Standards. Add other expectations, if any.

(Identify any necessary differentiation of expectations with a ↓DIF or ↑DIF preceding the expectation)

PERFORMANCE STANDARD: C.EL.2 Understands concept that the alphabet represents the sounds of spoken language and the letters of written language (This includes utilizing this concept as an emerging reading strategy.)

|Developmental Curriculum |Sample Behaviors of Children |

|Explores, repeats, imitates alphabet related |Child sings the ABC song by him/herself singing, “ABCD (other letters may be out of order and |

|songs and games. |run together, such as LMNO sounds like “el-i-minno”)... now I know my ABCs.” |

| |Child puts a three piece inlaid puzzle together with A, B, and C. |

|Recognizes the difference between letters and |Child knows the first letter in his/her name and points to the letter on signs and words in a |

|other symbols. |book and says, “My letter.” |

| |Child is able to find and identify some letters and numbers in books, signs, and labels |

|Recognizes letters and their sounds in |Looking at a stop sign, the child says, “Stop starts with the same letter as my name (Susie).” |

|familiar words, especially in own name. | |

|Makes some letter/ sound connections and |Child sees the letter D on a block, points and says, “‘D’ is for Daddy.” |

|identifies some beginning sounds. | |

4. Assessed summative task(s) to demonstrate proficiency in UNIT outcomes/objectives:

Each child will write their first name in all capital letters.

5. Assessment tool or list criteria for measuring summative proficiency range on this task(s).

Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS) name writing assessment.

6. Essential UNIT Answer/Understanding: lasting truth/principle/rule/insight to answer EQ at #8.

A name is a way to identify a person and distinguishes one person from another.

7. Essential UNIT Question: Motivate and broaden learning beyond academics. (Student Appeal!)

I spy with my little eye the first letter of my name, can you spy the first letter of your name?

8. Essential UNIT Connections:

a: Connect thinking patterns for EQ to EA: Relate correct letter shapes and sequence to name: When we put letters together we make words and names.

b: Connect to students and widen perspectives based on diverse realities: Ongoing students bring in cut outs of letters found in own name. Student gets a sticker for each time name is completed.

c: Connect learning to build integrity, empathy, insight: Names are made with lines and curves. Have student compare names written in Spanish and Japanese to compare lines and curves. Does your name look the same?

9.TARGETED LESSON’S Formative Learning Steps Leading to UNIT Standards and Expectations:

|Formative Step # |TIME LENGTH: 4 days |

|9a. Lesson EQ & EA |EQ: What letters spell my name? EA: Say letters in right order in name. |

|9b. Lesson’s Standard(s)/Expectation(s): Identifying letters by sound, identifying letters of name by sound, left-right progression to copy |

|own name |

|9c. What to learn? |9d. How to learn? PROCESS |9e. How Assess? |

|CONTENT | | |

|1. Recall letters in name as |1A. Teacher will point and name each letter in order. MODEL |1. Observation. |

|demonstrated by teacher. |1B. Student will copy, recall, and point and name each letter in | |

| |order. PROCESS GUIDED PRACTICE | |

| | |2. Observation. Assess if |

|2. Students independently compare and |2A. Model Scramble letters. |children truly know each letter|

|apply the model that teacher |2B. Have student point and name letters out of order. |or if they are working from |

|demonstrated to identify letters in | |memory and simply reciting the |

|order. | |letters in their name. |

| |3A. Trace letters in name, (DIFF: draw letters in sand, use a writing| |

|3. Identify letters in name |app as needed for readiness) |3. Guided self-check. Effort to|

|DEFINE Apply knowledge of sequence of |3B. Write name on own below traced name and compare with teacher |copy teacher model. Synthesize |

|letters to write name. |example. |against teacher example and |

| |Independent work. INDIVIDUALIZED HELP |evaluate if written name is |

|4. Understand writing strokes. Compare | |correct. |

|with iPad app. Learning Centers | | |

| |4. Trace full name using “Writing Wizard” app. PRODUCT |4. Instant self eval. from app.|

| | |FORMATIVE |

|5. Create written name. | |ASSESSMENT |

| |5. RELATE sequence and Give evidence of name writing and draw picture| |

| |of self. Making sure to keep picture and name separate. PRODUCT |5. Observation. Is child able |

| | |to write name on name card |

| | |without assistance. |

| | |SUMM. ASSESSMENT |

Artifact C: Student Performance Outcomes

For our PALS assessment students are asked to draw a picture of themselves and write their name. The assessment on the right hand side is an example of this, compared to the previous activity on the left which occurred four days prior to the assessment. Note the improvement from tracing to freehand, and from lined paper to guide versus no lines.

[pic][pic]

[pic][pic]

[pic][pic]

-----------------------

Assessment

Activity

Low Example

Assessment

Activity

Medium Example

Assessment

Activity

High Example

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download