5) Given two cartoon characters of the choice, the student will be able to combine personality traits of two characters

( either by melding traits together, multiplying together complimentary traits, or negating opposing traits) into a composite character, and develop a short (no more than 20 frames ) storyboard for a cartoon that illustrates three to five of the major personality traits of the composite character. 6) Having read Shakespeares Merchant of Venice, the student will be able to clearly contrast 2 characters motives behind their actions in a written response measured with an appropriate rubric. Objective ABCD Model No 5 A= the students B= 1) combine personality traits of two charactersinto a composite character 2) develop a short storyboard for a cartoon C= Given two cartoon characters of choice ( either by melding traits together, multiplying together complimentary traits, or negating opposing traits) D=Two (not more than 20 frames) That illustrates 3 to 5 of the major personality traits of the composite character 6 A= the students B= contrast 2 characters motives behind their action in a written response C= Having read Shakespeares Merchant of Venice D= measured with an appropriate rubric Domain Cognitive Level Create CT Strategies
S-11 Comparing Analogous Situations: Transferring Insights to New Contexts S-12 Developing One's Perspective: Creating or Exploring Beliefs, Arguments, or Theories

Cognitive

Understand

S-32 Making Plausible Inferences, Predictions, or Interpretations S-18 Analyzing or Evaluating Arguments, Interpretations, Beliefs, or Theories

Dear Fellows,

After getting the key, I found that there are some foibles in my analysis that need to be dealt with. Regarding objective# 5, the word two was not related to Degree. I re-analyzed it and come to the conclusion that it was simply part of Behavior. What misled me was the idea that this word answers how many but actually Degree was given later in the objective. More, I thought that the parenthetical words no more than 20 frames tell about Degree and I still think that it is a part of Degree. I need your opinion. So far as CT strategies are concerned, I think that the strategies I mentioned against the objective are also applicable and teachable as the level is Creating in Cognitive Domain. However, I believe that out of all these five strategies (3 mentioned in the key and 2 in my analysis) S 1 Thinking independently is the most important. Regarding Objective# 6 , I was not critical enough because I didnt focused on the words characters motives; therefore, I made a mistake and thought that here the level is understanding but actually it was analyzing as the key states. Consequently, the strategies also need to be changed for this objective. I agree with the strategies mentioned in the key against this objective. In addition to this, I strongly believe that S-18
Analyzing or Evaluating Arguments, Interpretations, Beliefs, or Theories is also workable for this objective. But I cross out S-32 Making Plausible Inferences, Predictions, or Interpretations. It shows that I need to be more critical and learn and practice reasoning more and more.

I need your views about it. Regards, Waqar Pakistan

For this task, you will need to access the Lesson Plan Booklet which is available in the Assignments & Materials Week 4 area. Open the document to view all lesson plans that were submitted during the Orientation period. Please locate the lesson plan that you had submitted. Plans are organized alphabetically by first name. second mistake in this objective is that I included a part of Behavior in Condition. I must confess that I wasnt critical when apparently convinced by Draganas opinion I revised the objective# 5 and didnt realized that the words melding , multyplying and negating are behaviors.

This week's task does not include a template, so please post your work right inside the text box, as in a discussion.

The task is to identify and explain 5 specific points in your lesson that you would like to improve in light of critical thinking. In other words, now that you have learned more about what critical thinking is and familiarized yourself with two frameworks, you are to look at your own plan critically and look at your own plan for critical thinking.

Ask yourself questions, such as:

Does this lesson have any critical thinking objectives? Does this lesson include activities that engage students in higher order thinking, such as Bloom's analyze, evaluate, create? (though you may not have used Bloom's terms exactly)

Does this lesson include activities that engage students in deeper analysis, such as Paul's purpose, inference, implication? (though you may not have used exactly Paul's terms) Does this lesson include activities that help students to develop affectively (something similar to Bloom's affective domain or Paul's intellectual traits)? Does this lesson include questioning that probes students thinking? Standards? (though you may not have used this term exactly) Does this lesson make use of techniques that promote and support independent thinking? What can I (the teacher) add to or take away from this plan to help students cultivate critical thinking skills?

Please use these and/or other relevant questions to guide you in your critique, making sure to focus on critical thinking. Sum up (and cite) one or two specific ideas from either the Redesigning Instruction or the Developing Critical Thinking folder readings and explain how it would help develop critical thinking in your lesson.

You may find that organizing your post this way works best: first list the five points to be improved, then, in a paragraph or two, explain your ideas for improvements, making reference to the readings where relevant.

NOTE: Improvements such as "I need to mention what equipment is necessary" or "I should list the duration of each activity," though important, are only relevant if they are connected somehow to the critical thinking component of the lesson (and please make this connection explicit).

*** There is no need to make any changes to the plan. ****

(This task is worth up to 10 points, with 2 points allotted to input on another person's lesson.)

This task draws upon what you have learned so far about CT and frameworks, and simultaneously sets the stage for the week 5 & 6 tasks.

Finally, please read at least one other colleague's lesson plan (again going back to the document that was sent to you) and his/her critique in this thread. You may do this in a second post. You may choose a lesson that is similar to yours if you wish, and comment substantively with additional observations and suggestions. You will not be receiving detailed instructor feedback on your plans or critiques. Therefore, feedback to others is very valuable and can help to identify other strengths and/or weaknesses as well as suggest specific ideas to enhance critical thinking in a colleague's lesson.

Dear all, I reviewed my lesson plan and found the following loopholes in it. I feel the plan needs to be reformulated in terms of the following points. 1. Objectives: I have realized that objectives in my lesson plan need to be reformulated since they are not clear. Objective # 1 though tries to cultivate high-level thinking according to Blooms taxonomy i.e. create, is not formulated according to ABCD Model. On the o ther hand,

objective#2 cultivates low-level thinking in students. More, the behavior is not clear and measurable. 2. Warm Up: Warm up activity also needs to be reformulated as it does not activate the students schema. Warm up activity is actually used to involve the students in learning. It does engage students in learning but unfortunately not in critical thinking. 3. Presentation: In Pauls terminology my presentation is nothing but mother robin teaching and polly parrot learning (1995). It does not inculcate any critical thinking in the students. In this lesson plan, content is independent of thought and is dissociated from active engagement (Paul, 1995). So it also needs to be remodeled. 4. Practice: Activities 1 and 2 are partially inconsistent with objective 1 as both the activities cultivate only writing skill but not speaking skill. Furthermore, no critical thinking skill has practiced in the practice stage. 5. Assessment: Dr. Kizlik (2012) urges: an assessment in a lesson plan is simply a description of how the teacher will determine whether the objective has been accomplished. It must be based on the same behavior that is incorporated in the objective. Anything else is flawed . Assessment is an indispensable element of a lesson plan but I did not include it in the plan. So to assess the students critical thinking as par reformulated lesson plan I need to include appropriate assessment procedures.

Though the lesson plan implicitly manifests some traces of Pauls elements of thoughts, it does not cultivate any intellectual trait or intellectual virtue in the students. The approach used in the lesson is deductive --i.e. first rule then example (Al-Kharrat, 2000).

Feel free to comment. Waqar, Pakistan

Dear Dragana, I have gone through all of your comments. They are quite thoughtful. I thank you for your concern. The word TWO tells about degree. More, I agree with your analysis about cognitive processes and with the improvement you suggested for Condition (CONDITION: either by melding traits together, multiplying together complimentary traits, or negating opposing traits, Answers the question: How will the students accomplish the task?). However, I was supposed to identify the most dominating process so I restricted myself to short and simple analysis. Again, as I was allowed to talk about only 1 or 2 CT Strategies therefore I skipped less dominant CT Strategies in my analysis. Thanks again. Waqar, Pakistan Dear Belkeys,

I read both your lesson and your self-analysis. I feel that you have already pinpointed the areas which need improvement. I agree with you that the lesson does not cultivate critical thinking in students. The next important thing that was missing in your lesson plan was assessment that helps the teacher to improve his/her lesson and teaching to inculcate critical thinking. In addition, I want to share my view about procedure. I think that procedure section needs to be more detailed and more clear. I hope it will help you. I am looking forward to hear from you. Waqar, Pakistan

Obj 8 level categorizing S-29 noting significant similarities and differences Obj 7 word two is degree