The theme for Week Four is The Cycle of Inquiry: Teaching and Reflecting. To this point, we have spent a great deal of time developing our week-long plan to be inclusive, accessible, engaging, challenging, and effective. This course’s key focus is the intentional design of our instruction and assessments. The other key focus is the reflection of the appropriateness and efficacy of that design. While we are not being asked to teach the whole plan, we are being asked to teach and reflect on a lesson from that plan (see the Signature Assignment). For this assignment, we will similarly reflect on the week-plan in its totality. The focus of this reflection is consistent with all four Course Learner Outcomes, specifically Week Four Learning Outcome #2:
WLO #2: Appraise your specific plans and lessons to identify where and how instructional design adjustments would be needed based on information gained from assignments and assessments in order to ensure equitable access to content and academic achievement by all students.
Instruction
We were to write a discussion post reflecting on creating the week-long lesson plan. In our writing, we should identify specific design choices we made and reflect on how they could be improved or enhanced. We were expected to cite, in APA format, at least three content sources from this course that influenced our design, learning, or reflections. For easy reference, we were to hyperlink/attach our week plan.
Lesson Design: How did you design instruction and assessments to integrate UDL practices, knowledge of student learners, VPA, and other disciplines to support student mastery of your content standards? How would these integrations increase engagement, creativity, and accessibility to your curriculum? Make specific reference to your special populations of students (ELL, students with IEPs or 504s, or other specific needs). Describe how your plan supports academic achievement for all.
Assessments: How did you determine the kinds of pre-, formative, and summative assessments to give in your week-long lesson plan? How did you design the use of the formative assessment to give specific feedback to students who would continue their progress towards mastery? Reflecting on your plan now, how could you do this better or be more strategic with the frequency or type of assessments you would give or the feedback from those assessments?
Adjustments: We can all have a plan, but sometimes our plans have to change based on our students’ response to instruction. Reflecting on your plan, where do you have the potential for having to pause, reteach, pivot, or otherwise respond based on specific learner feedback on assignments, activities, and assessments? If you did not integrate this into the plan thoroughly enough, where could you do this and how will you take this into consideration in future planning? Generally speaking, how would you evaluate your lesson plan, and what would make it better?
In developing my week-long lesson plan, my goal was to incorporate various educational principles that would support the students’ mastery of content standards. I focused on integrating Universal Design for Learning (UDL) practices, knowledge of student learners, and the integration of visual and performing arts (VPA) and other subjects.
Lesson Design:
I created the instruction to provide multiple ways of engaging, representing, and expressing information, which aligns with UDL principles (CAST, 2018). For the summative assessment, I offered students various choices to demonstrate their understanding, catering to diverse learning preferences (Bell, 2017). I integrated VPA by using artistic representations of linear equations to increase student engagement and creativity, providing an alternative way for students to understand mathematical concepts (Bequette & Bequette, 2012).
Throughout the lesson design, I took into account special populations of students, such as English Language Learners (ELLs) and those with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) or 504 plans. I planned language support and accommodations to ensure accessibility and academic achievement for all (Anderson, 2014).
Assessments:
I chose pre-, formative, and summative assessments to monitor student progress from different angles. The formative assessment was a digital quiz that provided immediate feedback, allowing students to gauge their understanding before the summative assessment. Reflecting on this, I realized that I could improve by increasing the frequency of formative assessments and diversifying their formats to include peer reviews or self-assessments, providing a more comprehensive picture of student progress (Black & Wiliam, 1998).
Adjustments:
My lesson plan included potential points for adjustments based on student feedback. However, I recognize that I could enhance this aspect by explicitly planning for differentiated instruction based on assessment results, allowing for more targeted support for students who need it. In future planning, I will consider incorporating more flexible structures, such as mini-lessons or small-group instruction, to address specific learning needs more effectively.
Evaluation and Improvements:
Overall, I would evaluate my lesson plan as a solid foundation for promoting student mastery of linear equations. To improve it, I could integrate more collaborative learning opportunities and real-world applications of linear equations to enhance the relevance of the content and increase student motivation.
References
Anderson, A. (2014). Arts Integration and Special Education: An Inclusive Theory of Action for Student Engagement. Taylor & Francis Group.
Bequette, J. W., & Bequette, M. B. (2012). A Place for Art and Design Education in the STEM Conversation. Art Education, 65(2), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2012.11519167
Bell, K. (2017). Interactive Learning Menus (Choice Boards) Using Google Docs. https://shakeuplearning.com/blog/interactive-learning-menus-choice-boards-using-google-docs/
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. http://udlguidelines.cast.org
