Reflection on Writing about Reading Revisions (Standard 2)
Standard 2 of the “State 8 Standards” for educators, states, “Instruction – The teacher uses research-based instructional practices to meet the needs of all students.” There are many components of this standard that was shown in my original lesson plan and some that were absent. The goal of this revision assignment is to elaborate more on the subtopics of standard 2 and to fill in the gaps of the ones that were missing.
Much of the feedback I received contained lack of information and specificity. Changes made on my writing about reading lesson are marked in red. As one can easily see, I was missing quite a few components before: Academic language, pre-assessment, a specific learning target, and student’s do. This process exemplifies 2.3 of standard 2, “2.3 Reflecting on Teaching – Teacher makes an accurate assessment of a lesson’s effectiveness and the extent to which it achieved its instructional outcomes and can cite general references to support the judgment.” Because of the lack of information in the first lesson, accurate assessment of lesson effectiveness was faulty. One cannot assess what isn’t there in the first place.
Additionally, another piece of feedback I was given was to add another piece to my lesson in my activity section. Before the revisions, I simply had students fill out a blank piece of paper with their answer to the writing prompt: who is someone in your life that has been as selfless as the giving tree to the boy or my aunt to me? Ending the lesson as I did before simply wasn’t enough. As a result of this constructive criticism, I added the element of putting their responses into an envelope to give to the person they wrote about. Although optional, this new piece of the lesson gives more of a closure to the writing assignment by opening a connection between school and home life for students. Standard 2.2, engaging in student learning, epitomizes the foundation for what this revision entails, “Most activities and assignments are appropriate to students, and almost all students are cognitively engaged in exploring content.” The activities and assignments given prior lacked a need for engagement and connection.
The last piece of feedback I chose to reflect on is based from standard 2.1, “Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques – Most of the teacher’s questions are of high quality. Adequate time is provided for students to respond.” Through the feedback, it came to my attention that the questioning strategies that I implemented prior to revisions needed to have a stronger emphasis for the students. Thus, in the pre-assessment section, I posed the question: have you ever had someone in your life that has always been there for you no matter what situation?, to establish the expectations in questioning strategies for student consideration and response.
Overall, I gained a lot of insight from the process of editing this lesson plan; what am I missing, what do I need to elaborate on, and how could I make this a better lesson for the class’s benefit? Proceeding steps in the process of revising lesson plans is to put them into action – see if the changes I made are successful and if not, reflect again.
*Expected outcomes are expressed as program standards derived from RCW 28A.405.100, which are aligned with State-designated teacher preparation approval standards shown in WAC 181-78A-270. Program standards include criteria (e.g. 1.), elements (e.g. 1.1), and examples. Any level of the program standard is appropriate for reflection, feedback, or evaluation