Running head: PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION AND ASSESSMENT 1

Planning, Preparation, Instruction and Assessment of Learners

Scarlett Palmieri

Regent University

In partial fulfillment of UED 496 Field Experience ePortfolio, Spring 2019

Running head: PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION AND ASSESSMENT 2

Introduction

As an educator it is imperative that one plans with learning goals in mind, prepares all

materials and resources beforehand, instructs students directly and purposefully, and evaluates

student learning using valid and reliable forms of assessment. Planning, preparation, instruction

and assessment all look very different in the classroom but work together to accomplish the same

goal: effective and far-reaching teaching.

Rationale for Selection of Artifacts

To demonstrate my commitment to planning, preparation, instruction and assessment of

learners I have chosen a pre and post-assessment activity, as well as a cross-curricular lesson

plan. The lesson plan utilizes the Madeline Hunter template, a seven-step decision making model

that is often used for mastery of content. After creating this lesson plan I was able to ensure that I

included every element of a successful lesson and followed through with my instruction

effectively.

Assessments are one of a teacher’s most effective tools in the classroom. Results

collected from various formative and summative assessments can be used to expose critical gaps

in student understanding. Pre-assessments in particular are a great way to gauge student

knowledge and understanding prior to a unit or lesson. Because they take place before any

instruction is given, they enable teachers to base flexible groupings on data rather than feelings

(Pendergrass, p.1, 2014). Post-assessment data, when compared to pre-assessment data, is able to

measure student growth and achievement. By tracking results, teachers can design interventions.

Coupled together, these two types of assessments work together strategically to inform

instructional planning and drive any future teaching.

In partial fulfillment of UED 496 Field Experience ePortfolio, Spring 2019

Running head: PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION AND ASSESSMENT 3

After analyzing the pre-assessment data collected using the inferencing task card, I

noticed a few obvious gaps in student understanding regarding inferencing. The gifted class were

able to make sound inferences, but were often times unable to support their inferences with

information from the text. This told me that students were making inferences without examining

the validity of their thinking. The inclusion class had this same issue but also struggled to “read

between the lines.” Because they had trouble understanding implied information, many of the

students only knew how to work with information that was explicitly stated by the author.

Overall, the pre-assessment results were promising. As expected, the gifted class

performed significantly higher, showing advanced understandings in inferencing. The inclusion

class showed proficient understandings in inferencing. The resulting data was used to drive

instructional planning and allowed me to design adaptations and accommodations for different

learner needs. To target gaps in understanding, I began by coaching students through high-order

thinking skills and instructing them in inferential strategies. As an accommodation for low-level

learners, I posed a simple four-step questioning process: “What is my inference?”, “What

information did I use to make this inference?”, “How good was my thinking?” and “Do I need to

change my thinking?” To accommodate different learners, I planned to use visual resources

(pictures, videos, clips, etc.) to help students understand that inferencing is all about employing

their background knowledge of a subject and linking information together.

The data resulting from the “Making Inferences” post-assessment showed a drastic

increase in student skill and ability. Not only did students make more valid inferences more often

compared to the pre-assessment, they also supported their thoughts with evidence from the text.

Reflection for Theory and Practice

In partial fulfillment of UED 496 Field Experience ePortfolio, Spring 2019

Running head: PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION AND ASSESSMENT 4

Teachers should regard the curriculum as one of their most valuable tools to guide

instruction. When planning any lesson or unit, teachers should “think backwards” by starting

with the end goal(s) in mind. In other words, instead of asking, “What do I want to teach for

today’s lesson?”, teachers should find themselves asking, “What do I want my students to know

and/or be able to do by the end of today’s lesson?” This shift in thinking is known as backwards

design and was introduced by authors Wiggins and McTighe. In short, backwards design consists

of three stages. Stage one involves identifying the desired results whereas stage two involves

determining acceptable evidence and assessment. Lastly, stage three involves developing a

learning plan (Wiggins & McTighe, 2008).

Backwards design is unique in that a learning plan is developed towards the end of the

planning process and only after much thought and deliberation. Because it is purpose driven

rather than task-driven and its focus is on the critical and creative use of content, this design

model requires users to be intentional and employ strategic thinking as it prioritizes general

results over specific ones (Wiggins & McTighe, 2008). It is only after the learning goals are

stated and fixed that the teacher begins considering how he/she will go about instructing

students, delivering content, and assessing learning. For this particular lesson on inferencing, I

first determined what knowledge and skills I wanted students to possess at the conclusion of my

lesson by studying the state and local learning standards. From there I was then able to develop

an engaging lesson in which students made multiple inferences and supported their thinking with

textual evidence. Utilizing this model of backwards thinking was valuable to me because it

allowed my teaching to take on a meaningful form.

In regards to my instruction, I was able to support my low-level readers and those who

benefit from auditory learning by reading the novel aloud. During the read-aloud, I was also able

In partial fulfillment of UED 496 Field Experience ePortfolio, Spring 2019

Running head: PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION AND ASSESSMENT 5

to model inferencing skills making the thinking processes that result in drawing an inference

(Kispal, p.3, 2008). By thinking and asking myself questions aloud, I was able to demonstrate to

students how I monitor my own comprehension and encourage them to do the same.

As far as assessment goes, I used the data from the pre-assessment to expose gaps in

student understanding, inform my teaching and customize my instructional strategies. I used the

post-assessment scores to determine whether or not my instruction was effective and design

future teaching interventions.

References

In partial fulfillment of UED 496 Field Experience ePortfolio, Spring 2019

Running head: PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION AND ASSESSMENT 6

Kispal, Anne. (2008). Effective teaching of inference skills for reading (Report #DCSF-RR031).

National Foundation for Educational Research.

Pendergrass, Emily. (Jan., 2014). Differentiation: It starts with pre-assessment. ASCD

Educational Leadership Journal, 71(4).

Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2008). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association

for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

In partial fulfillment of UED 496 Field Experience ePortfolio, Spring 2019