Standard Three | Planning for Differentiated Instruction
The competent teacher plans and designs instruction based on content area knowledge, diverse student characteristics, student performance data, curriculum goals, and the community context. The teacher plans for ongoing student growth and achievement.
Artifact 1: Lesson on Opening Statements and Arguments for Debate
Growth in Knowledge Indicator D: understands when and how to adjust plans based on outcome data, as well as student needs,goals, and responses.
Growth in Knowledge Indicator F: understands how to co-plan with other classroom teachers, parents or guardians, paraprofessionals, school specialists, and community representatives to design learning experiences.
Growth in Performance Indicator F: develops plans based on student responses and provides for different pathways based on student needs.
Growth in Performance Indicator G: accesses and uses a wide range of information and instructional technologies to enhance a student’s ongoing growth and achievement.
Growth in Performance Indicator J: develops or selects relevant instructional content, materials, resources, and strategies (e.g., project-based learning) for differentiating instruction.
This artifact is a lesson plan that I created during observation in the fall semester of 2012. I was working in a Speech class and the teacher was implementing a unit on debate. I taught this lesson in the beginning of the final week of debate preparation for the students before their formal, graded debate. I used the packet that students completed during the lesson as a way to gauge their comprehension of the material and preparedness for the coming debate, and gave them feedback that they used in the construction, editing, practice, and final performance of their arguments.
Artifact 1: Lesson on Opening Statements and Arguments for Debate
Growth in Knowledge Indicator D: understands when and how to adjust plans based on outcome data, as well as student needs,goals, and responses.
Growth in Knowledge Indicator F: understands how to co-plan with other classroom teachers, parents or guardians, paraprofessionals, school specialists, and community representatives to design learning experiences.
Growth in Performance Indicator F: develops plans based on student responses and provides for different pathways based on student needs.
Growth in Performance Indicator G: accesses and uses a wide range of information and instructional technologies to enhance a student’s ongoing growth and achievement.
Growth in Performance Indicator J: develops or selects relevant instructional content, materials, resources, and strategies (e.g., project-based learning) for differentiating instruction.
This artifact is a lesson plan that I created during observation in the fall semester of 2012. I was working in a Speech class and the teacher was implementing a unit on debate. I taught this lesson in the beginning of the final week of debate preparation for the students before their formal, graded debate. I used the packet that students completed during the lesson as a way to gauge their comprehension of the material and preparedness for the coming debate, and gave them feedback that they used in the construction, editing, practice, and final performance of their arguments.
Reflection 1:
The artifact embedded above applies to the third Illinois Professional Teaching Standard, which states that teachers should be able to consider curriculum goals while teaching, and "plan for ongoing student growth and achievement." My chosen lesson plan illustrates these skills in that I considered and used previous student performance data to see what they needed to work on in the inquiry and activity centers, thought about how to make the lesson a continued resource for students during the rest of the unit, and worked to incorporate outside contexts for students to connect with the curriculum goals. By having a station in which students read transcripts of the presidential debates between Obama and Romney, they were able to think about politics that were immediately relevant while analyzing the persuasive techniques used by each speaker. By having a station in which students played the "telephone game" with both good and bad opening statements, students worked on an area of their speech performance that needed improvement - enunciation - and an area of writing that I wanted to highlight - clarity and conciseness. I created a packet for students to complete as they moved from center to center with the goal that it would facilitate long-term student growth and achievement. They used the packets to edit and complete their opening statements and arguments for the duration of the unit. The center at which they gave each other feedback and peer evaluation on the opening statements, as well as the feedback I provided on each of their packets, was crucial in helping them reach the curriculum goal of creating and performing successful, persuasive, and succinct arguments. I was also able to use the packet to assess their learning and see what needed to be stressed in following lessons. The centers themselves and the accompanying packet introduced the importance of considering multiple contexts (i.e. newspaper headlines, presidential debates) and continually working to improve one's writing and argumentative skills. The assignment was differentiated in that each station focused on a different aspect of creating an opening statement so students struggling in different areas all benefited from the lesson; this fits in directly with Performance Indicator F, which states that a competent teacher "provides for different pathways based on student needs." The lesson was also differentiated because there were different styles of learning and methods of instruction at each center, and the centers approach itself is a good, unique way to help struggling students access the information and work. Overall, the activities at the centers were engaging to students, and they worked well to help students improve and achieve throughout the larger unit. The students had amazing opening statements and arguments during their formal debate at the end of the unit, and this lesson was pivotal in providing the framework and skills they needed to achieve that success. The lesson was also successful in that it allowed me to better understand how students work and learn in collaborative groups and with differentiated activities.
The artifact embedded above applies to the third Illinois Professional Teaching Standard, which states that teachers should be able to consider curriculum goals while teaching, and "plan for ongoing student growth and achievement." My chosen lesson plan illustrates these skills in that I considered and used previous student performance data to see what they needed to work on in the inquiry and activity centers, thought about how to make the lesson a continued resource for students during the rest of the unit, and worked to incorporate outside contexts for students to connect with the curriculum goals. By having a station in which students read transcripts of the presidential debates between Obama and Romney, they were able to think about politics that were immediately relevant while analyzing the persuasive techniques used by each speaker. By having a station in which students played the "telephone game" with both good and bad opening statements, students worked on an area of their speech performance that needed improvement - enunciation - and an area of writing that I wanted to highlight - clarity and conciseness. I created a packet for students to complete as they moved from center to center with the goal that it would facilitate long-term student growth and achievement. They used the packets to edit and complete their opening statements and arguments for the duration of the unit. The center at which they gave each other feedback and peer evaluation on the opening statements, as well as the feedback I provided on each of their packets, was crucial in helping them reach the curriculum goal of creating and performing successful, persuasive, and succinct arguments. I was also able to use the packet to assess their learning and see what needed to be stressed in following lessons. The centers themselves and the accompanying packet introduced the importance of considering multiple contexts (i.e. newspaper headlines, presidential debates) and continually working to improve one's writing and argumentative skills. The assignment was differentiated in that each station focused on a different aspect of creating an opening statement so students struggling in different areas all benefited from the lesson; this fits in directly with Performance Indicator F, which states that a competent teacher "provides for different pathways based on student needs." The lesson was also differentiated because there were different styles of learning and methods of instruction at each center, and the centers approach itself is a good, unique way to help struggling students access the information and work. Overall, the activities at the centers were engaging to students, and they worked well to help students improve and achieve throughout the larger unit. The students had amazing opening statements and arguments during their formal debate at the end of the unit, and this lesson was pivotal in providing the framework and skills they needed to achieve that success. The lesson was also successful in that it allowed me to better understand how students work and learn in collaborative groups and with differentiated activities.
Artifact 2: "The Fall of the House of Usher" Lesson
Growth in Knowledge Indicator D: understands when and how to adjust plans based on outcome data, as well as student needs, goals, and responses.
Growth in Knowledge Indicator E: understands the appropriate role of technology, including assistive technology, to address student needs, as well as how to incorporate contemporary tools and resources to maximize student learning.
Growth in Knowledge Indicator G: understands how research and data guide instructional planning, delivery, and adaptation.
Growth in Performance Indicator D: incorporates experiences into instructional practices that relate to a student’s current life experiences and to future life experiences.
Growth in Performance Indicator F: develops plans based on student responses and provides for different pathways based on student needs.
The artifact below was developed and taught as part of my student teaching practicum experience this semester. It is from the middle of a unit on romanticism and gothic literature.
Growth in Knowledge Indicator D: understands when and how to adjust plans based on outcome data, as well as student needs, goals, and responses.
Growth in Knowledge Indicator E: understands the appropriate role of technology, including assistive technology, to address student needs, as well as how to incorporate contemporary tools and resources to maximize student learning.
Growth in Knowledge Indicator G: understands how research and data guide instructional planning, delivery, and adaptation.
Growth in Performance Indicator D: incorporates experiences into instructional practices that relate to a student’s current life experiences and to future life experiences.
Growth in Performance Indicator F: develops plans based on student responses and provides for different pathways based on student needs.
The artifact below was developed and taught as part of my student teaching practicum experience this semester. It is from the middle of a unit on romanticism and gothic literature.
Reflection 2:
The artifact embedded above reflects Standard Three of the Illinois Professional Teaching Standards, which focuses on instruction informed by content area knowledge, student performance data, and curriculum goals, among other things. My lesson exemplifies differentiated instruction that follows those guidelines because I incorporated different reading comprehension techniques and different reading activities into the lesson and into the unit. I also utilized formative assessments to understand what students were struggling with and what their strengths were; I then developed this lesson with those assessment outcomes in mind. This shows my understanding and practice of Knowledge Indicator G, which states, "[a competent teacher] understands how research and data guide instructional planning, delivery, and adaptation." In addition to the formative assessments, I noticed that when we read Edgar Allan Poe's "Hop Frog" earlier in the class, students struggled to get through the density of his writing style. Therefore, I decided that I would read the beginning of "Usher" to students out loud, to model how to read difficult writing and clarify confusing passages as I read. This fits with Growth in Knowledge Indicator D, which calls for teachers to "[understand] when and how to adjust plans based on outcome data, as well as student needs, goals, and response." I also knew that I needed to get students invested and interested in the subject and style of Poe's work if they were to push through the difficulty of the writing. Therefore, my introductory presentation to the students incorporated as many connections to the students' lives as possible. By drawing connections between gothic literature and students' interests, I "[incorporated] experiences into instructional practices that relate to a student’s current life experiences and to future life experiences," which is Performance Indicator D of the standard. Once I had made connections and scaffolded students' comprehension of the story through the presentation and by reading aloud to them, I utilized a model of reading in which students worked first in groups and then by themselves. Within their groups, they also split different reading comprehension roles among themselves using the Reciprocal Teaching model. These plans were "[developed]...based on student responses and provides for different pathways based on student needs" because I knew that some students were better at summarizing, for instance, while others were better at asking questions or clarifying confusing passages. I also knew that some students worked better in groups and others worked better alone. In this way, our reading of "Usher" focused around differentiated instructional plans that benefited every student, playing to their strengths but also scaffolding their weaknesses. To extend the lesson, I included plans to have students put their Reciprocal Teaching responses and group work on a class blog, showing my understanding of Knowledge Indicator E, which asks teachers to "incorporate contemporary tools and resources to maximize student learning."
The artifact embedded above reflects Standard Three of the Illinois Professional Teaching Standards, which focuses on instruction informed by content area knowledge, student performance data, and curriculum goals, among other things. My lesson exemplifies differentiated instruction that follows those guidelines because I incorporated different reading comprehension techniques and different reading activities into the lesson and into the unit. I also utilized formative assessments to understand what students were struggling with and what their strengths were; I then developed this lesson with those assessment outcomes in mind. This shows my understanding and practice of Knowledge Indicator G, which states, "[a competent teacher] understands how research and data guide instructional planning, delivery, and adaptation." In addition to the formative assessments, I noticed that when we read Edgar Allan Poe's "Hop Frog" earlier in the class, students struggled to get through the density of his writing style. Therefore, I decided that I would read the beginning of "Usher" to students out loud, to model how to read difficult writing and clarify confusing passages as I read. This fits with Growth in Knowledge Indicator D, which calls for teachers to "[understand] when and how to adjust plans based on outcome data, as well as student needs, goals, and response." I also knew that I needed to get students invested and interested in the subject and style of Poe's work if they were to push through the difficulty of the writing. Therefore, my introductory presentation to the students incorporated as many connections to the students' lives as possible. By drawing connections between gothic literature and students' interests, I "[incorporated] experiences into instructional practices that relate to a student’s current life experiences and to future life experiences," which is Performance Indicator D of the standard. Once I had made connections and scaffolded students' comprehension of the story through the presentation and by reading aloud to them, I utilized a model of reading in which students worked first in groups and then by themselves. Within their groups, they also split different reading comprehension roles among themselves using the Reciprocal Teaching model. These plans were "[developed]...based on student responses and provides for different pathways based on student needs" because I knew that some students were better at summarizing, for instance, while others were better at asking questions or clarifying confusing passages. I also knew that some students worked better in groups and others worked better alone. In this way, our reading of "Usher" focused around differentiated instructional plans that benefited every student, playing to their strengths but also scaffolding their weaknesses. To extend the lesson, I included plans to have students put their Reciprocal Teaching responses and group work on a class blog, showing my understanding of Knowledge Indicator E, which asks teachers to "incorporate contemporary tools and resources to maximize student learning."