emilyrejda.files.wordpress.com · web viewa self-study in the development of lesson plans for...

A Self-Study in the Development of Lesson Plans for Higher Leveled Thinking

by Emily Rejda

Graduate Capstone

Presented to the Faculty ofthe University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Degree of Master of Arts

Major: Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education

Under the Supervision of Professors Sarah Thomas and Lauren Gatti

August 2015

1 | P a g e R e j d a

Abstract

Critical thinking and higher ordered thinking is essential to student learning

environments, however, the educational atmosphere of today focuses on widespread standards

and testing. This demonstrates an imbalance of between purpose and methodology of teaching,

in which I explore the challenges of maintaining and integrating critical thinking within the given

educational system. Utilizing lesson plans developed in student teaching I critically analyze

those plans using Bloom’s taxonomy to determine levels of critical thinking utilized within daily

lessons. Using the results I discuss what classroom methodologies and plans worked well and

what did not, proposing new lesson plans in an effort to integrate and include critical thinking

opportunities within the classroom.

Overview/Introduction

Our current educational system is oriented towards standards, evaluating students’

knowledge and comprehension of those standards based upon scores on standardized tests. While

standards are the current method within the education system there still remains a role, and need,

for a deeper education. Teaching for critical thinking is in no way a recent idea or trend within

education, it has been discussed throughout the history of education by theorists and educators.

In this standardized system little emphasis is being placed on student learning. Rather than

fostering and encouraging critical thinking the focus of learning is centered on students’ abilities

to take tests. If that is the case, than we must thoroughly examine what it means to think

critically and its role within education.

In Thinking in Education, Mathew Lipman explains, “Critical thinking is applied

thinking. Therefore, it is not just process-it seeks to develop a product. This involves more than


attaining understanding: It means producing something, said, made, or done. It involves using

knowledge to bring about reasonable change. Minimally, the product is a judgement; maximally,

it is putting that judgment into practice” (211). Critical thinking is necessary to utilize what one

already knows and develop something new from this knowledge. This definition of critical

thinking works alongside Bloom’s Taxonomy, also suggesting that it is not enough for students

to understand the information given to them. Students must work through the levels of thinking

in Bloom’s Taxonomy to an evaluative and creative process, in which they are developing their

own product. These are not useless skills for students to learn, but beneficial in making students

better learners and future contributors to their communities. Critical thinking is important and

has a significant role within the classroom, so the question arises of how we can integrate critical

thinking and higher order thinking skills into the current standardized educational system.

Many educators recognize the need to reevaluate how we educate our students, but

working within a standardized system offers its challenges. Teachers often start out with the

greatest intentions, hoping to facilitate learning in their classroom. Sometimes, without even

realizing, teachers themselves can succumb to the system of standard testing, teaching to the test.

Rather than teaching students how to learn students end up memorizing information to utilize on

tests. Testing is a topic itself that could be discussed but it is this surge for a deeper and more

critical kind of thinking inside the classroom that needs to be examined. Fostering critical

learning a necessary component of classrooms so it is important to evaluate our classrooms and

consider whether or not critical thinking is occurring in our classrooms.

With an objective of including critical thinking in classrooms, we must define and

understand critical thinking. Once we have determined what constitutes critical thinking we must

evaluate the importance and role within in the classroom environment. Why does critical


thinking matter? After explaining the significance of critical thinking we must look at how it can

be implemented. How can we accomplish critical thinking in a system that is focused on

standardized testing?

For this inquiry I will utilize the work of several educational theorists to discuss the

significance of critical thinking in the classroom and how its utility correlates outside of the

classroom for students. I will then transition into a self-study thoroughly examining my own

lesson plans. As a new educator, I am looking to move away from Paulo Freire’s idea of the

banking model of education towards a reformed style of education that focuses on critical

thinking. In preparation for my first year of teaching, I am electing to examine the lesson plans I

developed as a student teacher. In student teaching at a middle school in the second largest

district in the state I encountered a more rigid curriculum, focusing specifically on 7th grade

benchmark exams. My goal is to examine my developed plans to determine if a critical thought

process was utilized and to what extent it played a part in student learning. If critical thinking

wasn’t utilized in the lessons then I plan to reevaluate those lessons and determine what can be

done to further develop those plans to further foster student learning.

My interest in doing a self-study developed from my program of study and the focus on

Bloom’s ideas centered on fostering education, getting students to move through varying levels

of thinking, making sure that they are not only encountering the information and comprehending

and applying but analyzing, synthesizing, evaluating and being given the opportunity to create

their own work. There are many elements that contribute to student centered learning, classroom

environment, course content and curriculum, and the development of the lesson plans. Grant

Wiggins and Jay McTighe’s in Understanding by Design explain, “We cannot say how to teach

for understanding or which material and activities to use until we are quite clear about which


specific understandings we are after and what such understandings look like in practice” (14).

They discuss the concept of backward design, in which lesson plans are developed with the end

goal in mind. The utilization of backwards design, as well as in-depth analysis of plans, will give

our students a thorough education that allows them to utilize various thinking skills.

Literature Review

Students start their educational journey as inquisitive and imaginative young minds. Bell

Hook in Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom explains, “Thinking is an action…The

heartbeat of critical thinking is the longing to know-to understand how life works. Children are

organically predisposed to be critical thinkers. Across the boundaries of race, class, gender, and

circumstance, children come into the world of wonder and language consumed with a desire for

knowledge” (7). When children enter school they have more freedoms that allows them to

embrace being critical thinkers. However, as children progress through school it gradually

becomes more regimented and standardized. They develop routines and follow daily schedules,

even classroom environments become more scripted and uniform, restricting social exchanges

between students and teachers. Lipman explains, “Children gradually discover that such an

environment is seldom an invigorating or challenging one. Indeed, it drains them of the capital

fund of initiative and inventiveness and thoughtfulness that they brought with them to school”

(13). It is as if there is a point in education, somewhere between elementary school and middle

school, in which the function of school and home life alternate. Children learn their first formal

lessons in the home from their parents, entering school at a young age not only to reinforce what

they have learned but as a place to further creativity and socially interact with peers their age.

The first few years of school are set in a very open format, however, with each grade level comes


more structure. This focus on structured formal learning reaches a point where it becomes too

routine students and they lose the motivation to be creative. This then forces creativity, once a

part of their school day, to be done outside the classroom.

Hooks continues this conversation agreeing that school causes children lose their passion

for thinking when they encounter too much conformity in stating, “Sadly, these children stop

enjoying the process of thinking and start fearing the thinking mind” (8). When children learn

early in their educational journey to fear thinking it can cause problems when they arrive at

situations which require thinking. Hooks gives the example of college, many students arrive

fearful of thinking and those who aren’t fearful aren’t prepared to utilize thinking skills,

believing that “thinking will not be necessary, that all they will need to do is consume

information and regurgitate it at the appropriate moments” (8). School becomes a cycle for these

students, never requiring anything more than consuming and reiterating information, and when it

does require more they have lost that natural critical component they had as children.

There is a distinct divide between these two realms, the creative environment and the

structured environment. In our educational system one gives way to the other, as if the two can’t

coexist with one another. Mathew Lipman argues, “The solution lies rather in the discovery of

procedures that encourage both organization and creativity, such as having children invent

stories and tell them to their classmates” (14). It is possible for the two realms to exist together,

they should intertwine, especially if we want students to be prepared and excel in life after

school. These two exist as separate ideas within school, one’s emphasis finding its way into early

education and the other in secondary education, but as Lipman points out, this doesn’t have to

remain the circumstance. The goal is not to teach students how to be thinkers and then teach

them how to follow the system. As educators our goal is to work to develop classrooms that


teach students how to think utilizing the given concepts. We should be working to teach students

to adapt and integrate what they know and how to think in the varying communities in which

they will find themselves.

Finding a balance between structure and creativity is a fine line. If students have too

much guidance and structure this can lead to too much conditioning, students lose their natural

curiosity. On the other hand students have the ability to learn and understand on their own, but

without guided support they don’t know how to build and grow upon their found knowledge.

This is where the role of teachers is vital, finding a way to develop plans in which they are

structured as well as allowing children to be critical and creative thinkers.

***

Lipman identifies two types of academic practices, “normal” and “critical.” Lipman

explains these practices to be “any methodical activity” that “can also be described as customary,

habitual, traditional, and unreflective” (16). These practices focus on essentialist ideas and are

very unreflective, methodical forms of learning. This style of learning is often equated with the

banking model of education. Students are treated as receptacles, there to absorb information

given to them by teachers. Overall, this method doesn’t provide a lot of thinking opportunities,

however, it still plays a role within education. This unreflective learning, while not furthering

understanding, does provide for students a foundation of knowledge of given concepts and

topics. This learning works towards student knowledge, comprehension, and application of the

information, the first three levels of Bloom’s taxonomy.

Most classrooms, driven by standards and standardized tests, use only these first three

levels because they meet the needs of the time in the given context. When the focus centers on

student testing students don’t make it to the high levels of thinking, analysis, synthesis, and


evaluation. So, while “normal” practices work for the given system they are not meant to be the

only educational practices. These practices prepare our students how to obtain knowledge and

how to complete standardized tests.

“Critical” practices can help students become more developed learners, working towards

those higher levels of thinking, can help students develop as learners rather than only receivers.

These skills they obtain can be utilized outside of education; these skills will help them in

everyday situations, their jobs and as daily members of a community. These practices, while

beneficial aren’t always utilized as much as they should. Lipman explains the reason for this is

that while “instructional behaviors involve a fairly broad zone of discretion, the practice of

teaching is normally institutionalized and tradition-bound…Nevertheless, such creative

endeavors on the fringe of normal academic practice are insufficient to bring about large-scale

changes in teacher behavior” (16). Teachers are given concepts, topics, books, and standards that

are to be utilized in the classroom but, to an extent, they are able to implement these in any

instructional method they develop. But, because of the confines of the existing system and the

required content, teachers often fall into traditional teaching practices anyways.

Lipman offers four steps that can be used to make practices more “critical.” Lipman says

these “four steps can be specified as stages of reflection on practice. They are (1) criticism of the

practice of one’s colleagues, (2) self-criticism, (3) correction of the practice of others, and (4)

self-correction” (16). These suggestions are very reflective practices focused on practice but

without their implementation then the development of more critical plans and practices won’t be

created. To create effective critical practice in the classroom one has to evaluate the current

practices taking place and what can be done to change them.

***


In analyzing the “normal” and “critical” academic practices we must consider the roles

both the teacher and student perform. Just as the creative and structured environments must exist

among one another, teachers and students must coexist with one another. Hooks writes, “Critical

thinking is an interactive process, one that demands participation on the part of the teacher and

students alike” (9). This interactive process is one that Paulo Freire first called “dialogic

education.” Teaching is not a single sided structure in which the teacher dictates to students what

they must learn and students in turn retain the knowledge, what Freire calls the banking model of

education. Dialogic exchanges involve both the teacher and student and must include both their

participation and reflection of materials. Freire’s ideas promoted dialogic education as a way to

develop critical thinking which then worked to construct “critical consciousness.” Knowing

one’s role within the world around them, their critical consciousness, will promote their own role

and understanding of their function in a democratic society.

***

Critical thinking is not a new idea, the Critical Thinking Movement first began in the

1980s. The movement was fueled not by liberals but by conservatives who were critical of the

existing educational institution, Lipman refers to them as “educational fundamentalists” (28).

Their belief was that “those emerging from the system knew little, or nothing worth knowing.

Consequently, they concluded, the entire system of schooling was in a crisis” (28). Education at

the time was greatly influenced by an influx of standards. Standardized testing in the United

States first started in the 1970s and was completely underway by the 1980s. With testing in place

an emphasis was placed on results rather than the process of education itself. Students were

being given information vital to the test but not actually relevant outside of class. However,

while testing was added to the education format its addition didn’t significantly alter the practice


of teaching. There were changes, but they consisted of a greater emphasis on the already existing

practices, focusing on memory and reason.

Critical thinking, while not a new concept, is relatively new compared to the use of

memory and reason within education, specifically within English education. According to

Applebee in Curriculum as Conversation: Transforming Traditions of Teaching and Learning

English, as we recognize it today in education, was developed as its on field in the late 19th

century (22). Prior to its development English existed as several different subjects, grammar,

composition, and reading. Applebee explains, “Literature entered the curriculum at a time when

education focused on training and exercising the mental faculties, in particular the faculties of

‘memory’ and ‘reason’ (23). Literature to that point paralleled moral and cultural values, utilized

as something to read for pleasure and conversation pieces but not as academic study. It’s

inclusion into the field came without a designated methodology so it fell upon the faculties of the

time, memory and reason. With English entering education without specific practices it didn’t

show any openness or provide the opportunities to expand down the road, at least not until the

education reform and critical thinking movements.

***

Despite varying theorists’ opinions on method or practice what has seemingly remained

steady, while not always at the forefront of education, has been its function and purpose.

Applebee writes, “Progressives and conservatives alike have argued that students should be

taught to arrive at new understandings, to think for themselves, to become independent knowers

and doers. This in turn will produce flexible lifelong learners able to adapt to changing

conditions in the workplace, the home, and the global communities” (21). Regardless of content


taught or how it is being taught, educators agree that school serves as a place to educate and

prepare our students to be future contributors to society.

John Dewey, an educational theorist and reformer, was one of the first contributors to the

discussion of education as part of democratic process and social system of learning, developing

future members of a society. Dewey wrote My Pedagogic Creed in 1897, offering educational

theories as the English subject was forming. Dewey believed that, “school is primarily a social

institution. Education being a social process, the school is simply that form of community life in

which all those agencies are concentrated that will be most effective in bringing the child to

share in the inherited resources of the race, and to use his own powers for social ends” (35).

School a social setting in which students attend to further themselves as learners as and future

members of society. Schools are meant as a place where education is to take place, fostering

mental growth.

While these are the aims of education as discussed by both Applebee and Dewey,

Applebee states, “these goals are rarely attained” (21). These are desirable goals but seldom do

they fit within the framework of the system, especially the current standardized system. Dewey,

even early on in our current education system, saw that our system is flawed. Dewey said,

“Much of present education fails because it neglects this fundamental principle of

the school as a form of community life. It conceives the school as a place where

certain information is to be given, where certain lessons are to be learned, or

where certain habits are to be formed. The value of these is conceived as lying

largely in the remote future; the child must do these things for the sake of

something else he is to do; they are mere preparations. As a result they do not


become a part of the life experience of the child and so are not truly educative.”

(35)

What we teach in the classroom doesn’t parallel what students need to know outside of the

classroom. Part of this is content related, but it comes down to the method in which we teach and

for what purpose. Teaching critically enables students in the classroom to not only gain the

information for standards that the system is concerned with but also giving students thinking

skills that are applicable outside the classroom.

Methodology

Qualitative research emphasizes behaviors and decision making, focusing on the

explanations of why and how. Sharan Merriam in Qualitative Research and Case Study

Application in Education explains, “Qualitative researchers are interested in understanding the

meaning people have constructed, that is, how they make sense of their world and the

experiences they have in the world” (6). My goal is to understand the environment and levels of

learning I created in student teaching so that I can better develop plans and learning

environments in my future classrooms, this is how I came to utilizing my lesson plans and

developing a self-study.

Using Dewey’s ideas of experience, Clandinin and Connelly in Narrative Inquiry:

Experience and Story in Qualitative Research explain the use of narrative inquiry as a “way of

understanding experience. It is a collaboration between research and participants, over time, in a

place or series of places, and in social interaction with milieus…narrative inquiry is stories lived

and told” (20). Narrative inquiry enables one to study an experience within a given context in an

environment that may not be static, however, it is still that lived experience of the situation.


Clandinin and Connelly write, “Education and educational studies are a form of experience. For

us, narrative is the best way of representing and understanding experience” (18). In discussing a

field based on experiences utilizing those lived experiences, in the circumstance my developed

lessons, is the most useful tool for understanding the outcomes. Education, however it has

changed or will change, the experience of any given situation is still relevant to the conversation

of that context.

Critically examining your own lesson plans allows you the opportunity to determine the

effectiveness and quality of teaching put forth. There are variables within the day to day

classroom environment that can affect the implementation of the lesson, but for the purpose of

this study I chose to analyze the plans in terms of their effectiveness of teaching students and

providing them the opportunity for varied levels of thinking.

Using self-study is the best approach to analyze my lesson plans because I am able to self

reflect upon my own experiences in developing those plans, and then determining in what ways

that can be further developed for future use. As previously discussed, Lipman talks about several

steps that can be taken to move teaching practices from “normal” to “critical.” He lists them as,

“(1) criticism of the practice of one’s colleagues, (2) self-criticism, (3) correction of the practice

of others, and (4) self-correction” (16). Reflective practices are an integral part of education.

These practices enable educators to critically analyze plans and practices to make sure they have

created critical plans and utilize critical practices. As part of my own study, to determine if my

lessons were “normal” or “critical” I will be utilizing two of Lipman’s practices, self-criticism

and self-correction. I will critically analyze the lesson plans and then offer ways in which to

adjust them so they better align with the goal of higher levels of thinking.


As the teacher of the given classroom and the one to develop the lesson plans to conduct

my study I will essentially be using participant observation in which I use collected notes from

the developed plans and then analyze those notes in narrative format. First I will analyze each of

the daily lessons for the unit, then shift to the larger picture and see how each of those lessons

fits within the overall context of the unit. I will be analyzing each lesson and unit considering the

level of thinking used each step of the way to determine if higher levels of thinking were

practically utilized. Each lesson varies in instructional method and level of thinking, this is why I

chose to analyze both each lesson plan as well as the unit as a whole to determine the levels of

thinking incorporated into each lesson and the overall unit.

To analyze each lesson I will utilize the six levels of thinking in Bloom’s taxonomy as

my criteria to determine if critical thinking was a component of the lesson. The six levels of

Bloom’s taxonomy are knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and

evaluation. As you move up the levels of Bloom’s taxonomy it requires more engagement with

materials and more opportunity for critical thinking, eventually moving into utilizing resources

to move to a more creative format, so the first three levels are aligned with “normal” practices

and the last three levels being considered “critical.”

Bloom’s taxonomy correlates well with Applebee’s ideas about “knowledge-out-of-

context” and “knowledge-in-action.” The first few levels of Bloom’s taxonomy demonstrate

more of the “knowledge-out-of-context,” where students are being given information and doing

tasks to understand concepts. The last few levels of Bloom’s taxonomy correspond with

“knowledge-in-action” which requires students to engage more with given materials, analyzing,

synthesizing, and evaluating. This is another way in which I evaluate units and lessons,

determining whether the lesson provided an opportunity for “knowledge-in-action” or only


“knowledge-out-of-context.” Essentially this relates to student engagement, determining whether

or not the design of the units, lessons, and assignments offered students a chance to engage in

meaning making opportunities or complete remedial tasks.

After using both Bloom and Applebee to determine the levels of thinking within each

lesson, determining whether it was “normal” or “critical” I will narrate my findings and consider

how each component, each lesson or assignment, fits within the larger context of the unit. In

student teaching I developed several unit lesson plans for a seventh grade classroom in a public

middle school, however, I have chosen to thoroughly examine two of those units. The first unit I

selected to analyze is the poetry unit I taught utilizing the novel Out of the Dust. I selected this

unit because it was the first unit I taught in which I had completely designed and developed the

lesson plans. The second unit I have chosen to analyze is the final unit I taught which

incorporates both a reading and written component, the unit on the novel Peak and the character

sketch essay. While this is was not a unit I developed completely on my own, it was developed

with the help of my cooperating teacher and resource teacher, I selected it because it was a unit

including a student paper. I wanted to make sure and analyze both a unit that included reading as

well as one that incorporated teaching of writing. I also chose these two units to analyze because

they will be units in which I will be integrating into my upcoming teaching position in another

school district.

Analysis Conclusions

In first looking at the poetry unit the most noticeable thing was the layout of the unit.

Writing poetry wasn’t an element that was focused on in the curriculum but I wanted to

incorporate this in some way. What ended up happening was the poetry unit was almost split into


two units, the reading of Out of the Dust which was a required part of the curriculum and then

after the completion of the novel a week spent on creating poetry. In this way there wasn’t a lot

of cohesion in the unit between reading and writing poetry. However, what was noticeable was

scaffolding at the very beginning of the unit to introduce poetry, characteristics of poetry, and

poetic devices. This worked well to slowly bring in the foundation of poetry before students

started reading or writing. However, it seems that too much emphasis was put on some of these

foundational concepts and that is solely where the emphasis ended up staying the rest of the unit.

There were several reasons these foundational concepts remained the focal point of the

unit for so long, due to upcoming testing and the results from the pre-test and daily warm-ups.

Seventh grade is a benchmark year for NeSA testing, during student teaching it happened to fall

directly after the poetry unit. So, as the unit was underway there was a lot of emphasis and

pressure from Administration as well as teachers on the seventh grade team about preparing

students for these tests. In feeling that pressure from those outside forces I allowed it to affect my

teaching of the unit, in only focusing on what would be necessary for students to know on the

test. The other two factors that also contributed to maintaining the focus on the foundational

concepts was the results from the pre-test and daily warm-ups. The results from the pre-test

demonstrated that students weren’t familiar with figurative language and the poetic devices we

would be discussing so the two grade level English teachers developed daily warm-ups for

students to complete before class as a way to check for understanding throughout the unit. These

daily warm-ups continued to demonstrate that many of the students were struggling to identify

certain poetic devices. These warm-ups did allow me to shift and focus specifically on which

devices students were struggling with. However, in such an effort to get students to understand

the poetic concepts and devices I didn’t allow for varied levels of learning to take place.


The unit showed a lot of repetition in lessons, in method and daily activities. During the

duration of the novel each day essentially followed the same plan, students would read the novel,

complete the double entry notebook requirements. With this repetition and emphasis on basic

concepts the lessons were very “normal” as opposed to “critical.” There were several moments in

the unit in which critical thinking happened, working towards some of the higher levels of

Bloom’s taxonomy, within the seasonal elements of the double entry notebook assignments and

when students wrote several different styles of poems. Overall, in analyzing each day’s lesson

plans most days worked towards remembering, comprehension, and application. There weren’t

very many lessons as a whole that achieved higher levels of thinking. The lesson emphasized

“knowledge-out-of-context” learning, relating with much of the prior knowledge that students

had about the dust bowl and poetry. The scaffolding worked well in the beginning to get students

going with understanding poetry and poetic devices, but as the unit got underway this is where

the levels of thinking remained. “Knowledge-in-action” learning wasn’t happening often, there

were sections of the unit that provided a creative component for students, but as a whole the unit

leaned to focus much more on “knowledge-out-of-context” learning.

The pre-test and post-test for the unit also confirmed the use of “knowledge-out-of-

context” learning. The pre-test consisted of twenty-five questions in which students identified

definitions, matched examples, and identified devices within a given poem. The post-test

contained those same elements with an additional thirteen questions relating to the novel, in

which students identified elements of the plot and poetic devices. The test was created as a

means to evaluate student learning for the schools Public Learning Community (PLC). With this

being the first unit that I was developing on my own I was asked by the group to create the test

that would be used. Rather than offer other forms of evaluation for poetry this is what I ended up


developing. The test parallels the unit in the ways in which it focuses student learning on levels

of remembering, comprehension, and application.

The double entry notebook assignment was developed as a way for students to interact

and engage with the text as a novel and as poetry. There were several elements to this

assignment, three components for each journal entry and then three components for the end of

each season. The three components for each poem read lacked depth in thinking skills. This fell

short of its intention and ended up being a place that focused on knowledge/remembering and

comprehension. This coincides well with the formatting of the pre-test and post-test, but aside

from that do not offer students usefulness in terms of critically thinking about poetry. One way to

have heightened student engagement with poetic devices could have been to not only identify a

poetic device within the poem, but using that identified device to construct a different line for the

poem using that same type of device. Furthering student engagement with the text, and not only

with the poetry, would have also provided several more opportunities to utilize more levels of

thinking, and doing so more often.

The third component did offer a creative element that was completed at the end of the

novel. Students were to select a word or line from the poem for any reason, being that they liked

or disliked it or related to it in some way. After the novel was completed we spent a day working

creating our own found poems creating new meaning from those words. That element itself

provided an evaluative moment where students could create something new from the text.

Utilizing the found poem was an excellent way to transition into developing the other styles of

poetry. The found poem enabled students to be creative while not yet being entirely faced with

creating their own poem from nothing. This specific moment with the found poem not only

enabled students to modify and combine existing work to create a work of their own, but because


they had created their work from another piece were able to put the two next to each other and

compare the ideas and evaluate the varying possible outcomes from the same set of words.

There were also several other moments in which higher level thinking skills found their

way into the plans, however, these moments were limited. The three components for the end of

each season in their double entry notebooks were again meant to work towards higher levels of

thinking but didn’t necessarily end up working in that way. The first element, the 3-4 sentence

summary, worked only as a way to demonstrate student comprehension of the text. The

questioning section was designed to get students thinking deeper and more critically about the

text. While this provides them with the opportunity for moments of analysis or synthesis, after

having taught the class itself, this didn’t happen. So, while on paper itself some of those

opportunities were there more scaffolding and modeling of this would have been useful to

incorporate into the plans to be more effective. While I gave two examples of questions I had

developed in my own notebook and how I chose to answer, further modeling questioning

through a small lesson on questioning skills would have helped students. I explained what kinds

of questions weren’t pushing them to think deeper about the text, but I could have further

demonstrated this by developing questions with the whole class. Then using the questions the

class developed we could have worked on categorize the questions, one that dove into the text

and ones that were only surface level. Giving students an opportunity in class to develop

questions and then walking through them together would have provided a better foundation for

them to be able to question the text on their own.

Another component that attempted to work at higher levels of thinking was the silent

discussion. After each season of the novel students were to meet in their groups and using only a

piece of paper discuss four questions. Each of these questions worked towards levels of applying


what students have already learned about the dust bowl, analyzing relationships in the text,

synthesizing and making judgments on elements of the novel, and evaluating by producing small

pieces of writing. These types of questions and components could have been utilized more daily

within the first set of double entry notebook requirements, rather than only attempting to utilize

these levels of thinking at the end of every season. Instead of stopping at the end of every season

more continual analysis and evaluation of the text in terms of themes and characters could have

been implemented. This would have given the unit more balance and allowed students to focus

on the book as a novel and not only utilizing poetic devices.

However, one of the biggest problems encountered, especially during the duration of

reading the novel, was the differences between the lessons I developed and what I was actually

able to implement in the classroom. While the implementation does bring in other classroom

environment variables I think it does give some insight into lesson plan development. I have

chosen to analyze the developed lesson plans so I do not want to incorporate how lesson plans

were enacted or affected by classroom behaviors, but I think to some degree where one ends up

with their plans as the unit progresses is important. Getting to know the class and students

reading and writing levels as the semester progresses is one thing, but this can also greatly affect

pacing of the unit. For me, that is one thing that I largely misinterpreted which ended up

affecting the portions of the lessons I was actually able to enact in the classroom. Many of my

lessons, while still limited in terms of “critical” practice, didn’t make it some of the more critical

components of my lessons. For example, with this poetry unit, the opportunities for small group

discussion had to be adjusted and only happened as planned once within the unit as opposed to

the four that were planned with each season.


What I found was that students were not making it through the text as I had planned so

more of daily class time was spent on reading and completing double notebooks entries as

opposed to the seasonal components and reflective group discussions. Again, this raises

circumstances of the classroom rather than problems with planning, but in some ways, especially

as a new teacher offers more insights into lesson plan development and planning. Planning the

unit differently would have enable me to adjust the reading schedule and lengthen the time span

of the unit so that some of the developed critical components could have taken place.

In analyzing the second unit over the novel Peak, which included a character sketch

paper, the first thing I noticed again was the structure and layout of the unit. This unit was much

more integrated than the first, while we didn’t focus on the writing of the character sketch as we

were reading there were writing elements that were included as we worked through the novel.

This worked well as a scaffolding tool that helped when it came time for students to construct

their papers.

In terms of reading the novel many of the components centered on levels of knowledge,

comprehension and application. Part of this was due to again the timing and pacing of the unit,

the paper was one of the standard assessments that we had to get through so we had to make sure

and make it through the novel so we could move into the paper. However, there were a few

questions on the reading guides, which we utilized from what the district had developed, that

aimed at some higher levels of thinking. There weren’t an abundant amount of questions

working towards higher thinking but there were a few questions that worked towards application,

analysis, and some evaluation. These questions included some journaling, but also offered

students a chance to make their own personal connections with the character in the novel their

age as well as make some judgments about the events and changing relationships.


The vocabulary within the unit mainly worked towards levels of knowledge and

comprehension for the simple fact that it was vocabulary and students were given a standard

matching vocabulary test over the words. However, this unit different from poetry in that the

words were a part of the novel rather than being concepts that they had to understand. With the

poetry unit the poetic devices were foundational concepts, whereas this unit the vocabulary was a

part of the context of the novel. So, as we were reading, whenever we came across a vocab word

we would stop and discuss it in the context of what was happening in the book, but it didn’t have

to be an emphasis of the unit.

The emphasis of the unit was with the character sketch, which overall was a form of

synthesis for students. Students had to write a character trait paper in which they defended two

strengths, weaknesses, and changes for the main character of the paper utilizing textual support.

From the stance of the final product it was a synthesized product but getting to that point wasn’t

necessarily always using higher levels of thinking. The scaffolding of writing the paper worked

well to set students up as they were reading to help them work on the body of their papers, but

there were moments of the writing process that became very scripted and limited.

In scaffolding the paper we were able to have students begin defending their character

traits before even beginning to write. It was a lot easier to have them pick traits over specific

sections of the text instead of waiting until after having read the novel in its entirety to find

quotes supporting their character traits. While this allowed students to engage with the text and

consider character development throughout the entire novel when it came to writing these traits

in paragraph form there were elements that were more scripted, at most requiring little rewording

or paraphrasing. Most of the first sentences introducing the character and their traits were the

same, only requiring comprehension.


Again, though, it was within the larger scheme of this writing project that students were

able to utilize higher levels of thinking more often. As we read more of the novel students were

able to explore the relationships between the characters and categorize those into specific

character traits, offering a level of analysis. Utilizing the back chalkboard as a giant chart also

helped students in the classroom to not only apply the information they were gaining on

character traits by categorizing and organizing the traits into strengths, weaknesses, and changes

but it gave them the ability to work collaboratively within their own class as well as between

classes. This piece functioned as a great center for discussion, enabling students to consider

quotes and traits that other students had added. By adding traits and requiring that students

include page numbers from the text to support their claim it really helped them to develop their

arguments. Many discussions were fueled by a single trait in which had been written under each

of the categories, it was then up to each student who wrote it to explain and defend the section in

the text that best supported why that trait belonged under the given category.

Overall, this unit provided more opportunities for students to utilize higher levels of

thinking skills, especially in the larger scheme of the unit. However, one area that could have

been improved would be some of the introductions to writing. I think rather than us teaching, or

modeling, for students in a single way it would have been beneficial for students to have further

developed some writing skills that would have made the whole writing experience one that

worked towards synthesis and evaluation, not only working to synthesize and defend their

selection of character traits. This could have been done by taking more time to focus on writing

as a process rather than just giving examples for how to begin each paragraph. I think utilizing a

writer’s workshop would have enabled more students to develop varied and creative versions of

the paper had they been given the opportunity to workshop with another peer after having


modeled several techniques for them. I think this format of workshop would have also helped to

have them work shopping the entire process, just as they were working on the papers the entire

novel. Rather than waiting to peer-edit after they had developed their entire drafts more time

with partners would have been beneficial.

Implications

Self-evaluation can be a process that is easily overlooked, it can be difficult to assess

your own work, and you must make sure that you are able to look objectively at your own work.

In examining my own lesson plans, this process has been very beneficial and one I would

recommend as a process that all teachers utilize. While, it can be especially important for

teachers, a self-evaluative process enables you to consider your quality and productivity in any

field. For teachers, a lesson plan evaluation, raises the question of whether or not you are being

an effective teacher, in this instance working towards critical thinking. For new teachers it can be

especially beneficial, helping to determine the type of teacher you want to be as well as an

evaluative process to determine if you are utilizing what you learned in your teacher education

program. For established teachers it can provide an opportunity to center yourself, to consider if

you’ve maintained effective teaching styles or consider ways in which to change your teaching

approach.

In doing this self-study after only having student taught and before going into my

classroom it leaves me very informed about lesson plan development and how to better design

my plans to create opportunities for more growth and critical thinking in the classroom. When

initially writing lesson plans I felt like I was utilizing practices that created lesson plans that were

creative and engaging for students. However, in looking back at my plans I can see that there is


much more that I could have done initially to develop deeper plans that worked more towards

student thinking. I’ve known there is a difference between creating plans that are seemingly

creative and developing plans that truly are creative and critical but this process has really

demonstrated to me the difference in the two and how to go about truly developing those critical

and creative plans and practices.

With my student teaching experience, I believe I managed to get caught in the trap of

district standards and objectives. So, when I developed plans, instead of creating critical plans

and utilizing critical practices I tried to create creative activities for students that were still

aligned with the objectives. This evaluative process is one that I could have utilized not only

after the semester’s end but throughout the year. This needs to be a continuous process in which

assessing lesson plan happens throughout the year, not only done as a summative process at

years end. It seems as though this self evaluative process should happen in two ways, one in

which you analyze the effectiveness of a single unit after its completed as well as analyzing the

year as a whole. Had I taken a moment to step back while teaching, I would have discovered

what I was doing that wasn’t as effective and found ways to correct them as they were

happening.

In the upcoming academic year I will be teaching at a parochial school, this particular

districting have much less of an emphasis on standardization. This will give me the opportunity

to focus on more student centered learning and higher levels of thinking without getting caught

up in standardization and testing. I realize now that it is possible to achieve higher order thinking

within standardized environments you just have to make the conscious effort to be aware of your

instructional methods.


In having done a self-analysis of my own plans, and realizing this needs to be a continual

effort, I’m left wondering about the other two components that Lipman discussed in an effort to

take lessons from “normal” to “critical.” As part of my study I criticized my own work as well as

offered my own solutions to correct any issues, but I wonder about the incorporation of

“criticism of the practice of one’s colleagues” and “correction of the practice of others” (16). I

wonder how having someone else review my lesson plans would have affected alterations in my

plans. But, I also wonder about the process as a larger scale process and what could be learned if

this were an interactive process, in which two teachers exchange their plans and have a dialogic

exchange about what they’ve noticed. Self-analysis is important, there is much to be said for

coming to some realizations on one’s own and being reflective, but I think there is also a lot that

could be learned and gained from sharing in this reflective process with another teacher.


Appendix A

Unit Notes: Out of the Dust/Poetry Unit

Lesson Objective(s) Activities/Methods Used Level of Thinking (Bloom’s Taxonomy)“Normal” or “Critical”/ “Knowledge out of Context” or “Knowledge in Action”

Any additional Notes: 1 -make connections

with nonfiction unit-recognize difference in format-get into to author/ novel

-Think-Pair-Share (TPS)-Journal-Prezi on author and novel-Pre-test

-Knowledge/Remembering: most of the lesson utilizes prior what was learned in the previous unit. -Synthesis/Evaluation: journaling allows them to put themselves in the characters shoes-“Knowledge out of context” -not every engaging

2 What is poetry? -see how poetry visually looks different-identify characteristics of poetry

-(TPS) Define poetry-Use personal reading books to compare with novel differences in poetry-Discuss/create list of characteristics on the board

Analysis: compare/contrast different genres of booksApplication: generating a chart

Moving towards “Knowledge in action” with analysis component but not quite there

3 -understand and identify characteristics of poetry which will help in reading/writing

-Review chart created yesterday-Explain 5 characteristics of poetry-Students will create their own “poetic devices book” where they will take notes on characteristics and devices-After notes, read aloud and play examples of poems/songs to get students thinking about how they see/use poetry/devices everyday

Application-students are creating a chart for their notes

Knowledge out of Context-giving students the information, not engaging with material beyond copying down notes

4 What is figurative language? What are poetic devices? -understand role of fig. lang. -understand/identify poetic devices-create their own examples of poetic devices

-Recall/review-Finish poetic devices book(give definition of each device, then give my own example. Students must then create their own example to add to their books)-Revisit examples from end of class (specifically devices used in Fresh Prince theme song)

Knowledge/Remembering, Comprehension/Understanding and Application: (In continuing to take notes that are utilizing the charts but are also only being given the definitions of poetic devices. They do some thinking when they have to make sense of the poetic devices and create their own example)Evaluation (very limited use at best-developing their own examplesMainly knowledge out of context but begin to get students thinking about concepts

5 What is free verse? How do you read poetry? -understand and identify free-verse poetry-learn to read poetry aloud

-Recall/review-Introduce free-verse-Explain Double Entry Notebook (DEN) assignment-Read aloud as example first few poems of Out of the Dust (OTD)-After each poem check for understanding/discuss devices-Complete DEN as class for first two season)

Knowledge/Remembering and Comprehension: DEN only utilizes the first two levels of thinking. It was conceived to be more interactive and provoke more thinking but instead only reaches the first two levels.

Knowledge out of Context

6 -comprehend story of the poems-identify poetic devices

-Recall what we read-Continue reading OTD(will read aloud/discuss/DEN as class for first two seasons then students will begin working on their own)-After each season students will complete required season components-After each season students will work in small groups on silent discussion

Knowledge/Remembering and Comprehension: DEN only utilizes the first two levels of thinking. It was conceived to be more interactive and provoke more thinking but instead only reaches the first two levels.Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation: the silent discussion questions were created to specifically get students utilizing each level of thinking. In looking at the plans this works to begin to get students thinking more critically about the text but this was actually only


implemented once in the classroom.

DEN is mainly Knowledge out of Context7 (objectives remain the

same for the remainder of the novel)

(class proceeds in the same way until the novel is completed. Began novel together and then gradually students began reading on their own to complete the novel and DEN) (would do reading checks/and set deadlines to determine which class periods silent discussions would be held)

Knowledge/Remembering and Comprehension: DEN only utilizes the first two levels of thinking. It was conceived to be more interactive and provoke more thinking but instead only reaches the first two levels.

Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation: the silent discussion questions were created to specifically get students utilizing each level of thinking. In looking at the plans this works to begin to get students thinking more critically about the text but this was actually only implemented once in the classroom.

DEN is mainly knowledge out of context8 What is poetry? What

is a found poem? Blackout poem? -Continue to learn/ understand poetry-Understand found poem-Develop their own poem

-Review/recall what we know about poetry and what we read-TPS (what is found poetry?)-Explain found poem and blackout poem-Use NY Times online example to create blackout poem as a class-Utilizing DEN create found poem (1st share my own example from my own DEN)

Comprehension/Understanding: Within TPS utilization explanation to demonstrate understanding of poems.

Application and Evaluation: As a class we developed a new type of poem and then they worked on their own to create their own poems

9 Why do we write? Poetry? -Identify and understand varying reasons for writing poetry-Understand voice within poetry-Develop poem using identify and voice

-Discussion about writing-Intro/explain TED Talk-Watch “Danger of a Single Story” -Spend few minutes discussing/Segway into Pipher’s Writing to Change the World/discuss identity (who are we? Who are you?)-I am From Poems(give my own example, brainstorm who you are, then construct poem from what you want people to know about you)

Comprehension/Understanding: demonstration of understanding through discussion.

Application and Evaluation: Created their own I am From poems

Beginning to move to more critical practice, starting to get more discussion and more reflection and self-reflection in larger social context

10 -understand why we write-understand/identify voice within poetry-understand community-develop poem using your own story (as well as voice and identity)

-Review/recall what was discussed yesterday about single story and why we write-watch clip about 6th grader who writes poetry-Transition into narrative poems (why we tell our stories)-Brainstorm a story to tell (either from activity with I am From poem or personal narrative)-Begin developing narrative poem

Comprehension/Understanding: demonstration of understanding through discussion.

Application and Evaluation: Created their own narrative poems

Beginning to move to more critical practice, starting to get more discussion and more reflection and self-reflection in larger social context

11 What is a persona/mask poem? -develop persona/mask poem

-Review/recall-What are persona/mask poems? -Discuss perspective-Give examples of poems-Students will work collaboratively to create a poem (1st person selects object/person, then passes paper back and next person writes a line, then passes again and writes another line. This continues until the person who selected the topic has their paper)-Take time to read what people said

Application and Evaluation: Collaboratively created persona/mask poems with other members of the class

Creative, not necessary very critical but does attempt to move beyond knowledge in action.

Unit Notes:


Before starting unit, as part of PLC I was asked by the PLC group to make some sort of “pre-test” that we could utilize before and after that would help determine student growth in the unit.

o Pre-test consists of: 13 questions in which the definition of poetic devices are given and

students have to select the correct device 7 matching in which an example of each poetic device is given 5 questions about a given poem, mainly identifying the types of devices

used in the poemo Post-test consists of:

Same elements as the pre-test (13, 7, 5) 13 additional questions which cover the novel Out of the Dust

Some pertaining to the plot of the novel and the others pertaining to identifying poetic devices within the text

Double Entry Notebook Assignmento The notebooks were supposed to be a place for students to further help them

understand the poetry as well as understanding the novel in its entirety being that it was written in poem form. It also served as a piece we would revisit after completing the novel to return to their selected words to create a found poem.

Each journal entry had 3 components Identify a poetic device (include the line from the poem) Summarize what was happening in that poem Select a word/line from the poem and explain why you selected it

(favorite word, sounded interesting, reminds you of something, etc.)

The book was also divided into seasons rather than chapters. For each season there was a separate set of components which allowed students to look at the text in a larger context and utilize higher order thinking skills.

Plot Comprehension-write 3-4 sentence summary of what happened in the season

Questioning-develop 2-3 questions you have about the text (or even asking the characters). Then, answer the questions you posed. Try to think deeply about the text or imagine yourself as the main character.

Creative Element-This varied with each season, including journaling, free-writing, letter writing, and creating a found poem.

Silent Discussion***o This was a portion that was developed in the initial lesson plans but was only

enacted once in class. (make sure in discussion to note differences in plans and what was done in class. Don’t discuss in relation to classroom behaviors but what worked well/didn’t work well in relation to the activity)

After each season of reading the silent discussion was to serve as way to introduce students to classroom discussion by not actually holding a conversation aloud but utilizing four questions within groups of four in which each student would write a response to that question. Then after completing the response would pass the papers around and either respond


to the person before them or provide their own response to the question. This would continue for several rounds, then once all of the questions were answered groups would select one question to discuss briefly aloud. The four questions were developed with the levels of application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation in mind. Each question attempted to have students using that level of thinking, working their way up through the questions.

The unit was essentially split into two mini units rather than integrating writing into reading. The first unit focused on understanding devices and poetry by reading the novel the second focused on creating different styles of poetry.

Peak and Everest Unit

Lesson Objective Activities/Methods Used Level of Thinking (Bloom’s Taxonomy)“Normal” or “Critical”/“Knowledge out of Context” or “Knowledge in Action”

1 -Understand and identify key terms for mountain climbing

-PowerPoint/notes on mountain climbing-Students make flashcards on Mt. Climbing terms-watch Everest video

Knowledge/Remembering and Comprehension-in developing flashcards over vocabulary students worked mainly with “knowledge-out-of-context” rather than applying or thinking critically about the words they recorded them for future use

2 -Understand and comprehend the story

-Begin reading novel together-Students continue reading on their own-Answer reading guide questions

Comprehension, Application, and some analysis-In reading the novel it focused mainly on understanding plot and character development but there were a few questions on the reading guides that provided students with thinking levels of application and analysis.

3 -Understand and comprehend the story-Understand and Identify character traits

-Reading check-Go over reading guide questions-Think, Pair, ShareCharacter Traits (strength, weakness, change)-Discuss character traits and then start brainstorming traits for main character-Continue reading/reading guide questions


Analysis-in beginning to discuss character traits students started to consider character

4 -Understand and comprehend the story-Understand and Identify character traits-Develop character traits using textual support

-Reading check-Go over reading guide questions-Review character traits-Continue discussion of examples of strengths, weaknesses, and changes for main character (as students discuss have them add examples and page number to the chart on the back board)- Continue reading/reading guide questions


Analysis-in beginning to discuss character traits students started to consider character relationships and categorize character traits on the board.

5 -Understand and comprehend the story-Understand and Identify character traits-Develop character traits using textual

-Reading check-Go over reading guide questions-Discuss character traits-move into explaining/modeling how to start writing these character traits (the body of their upcoming paper)-Quiz: The quiz consisted of 10

Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, and some analysis-In reading the novel it focused mainly on understanding plot and character development but there were a few questions on the reading guides that provided students with thinking levels of application and analysis. The quiz questions worked in the say way, mostly levels of knowledge and comprehension.


support questions regarding the storyline (students must also include the page number and paragraph showing their support for the answer) and a written component (students will use what we just learned to write about one strength, weakness, and change for the main character in that particular section of the novel)


Synthesis-in the second component of the quiz students had to defend their character traits by offering textual support and then further explaining their reasoning for that trait.


(This was repeated four times as there was four quizzes throughout the novel. Students would read and answer questions, then we would go over the section/questions they read, discuss character traits and add them to the board, and then take the quiz).

Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, and some analysis-In reading the novel it focused mainly on understanding plot and character development but there were a few questions on the reading guides that provided students with thinking levels of application and analysis. The quiz questions worked in the say way, mostly levels of knowledge and comprehension.


Synthesis-in the second component of the quiz students had to defend their character traits by offering textual support and then further explaining their reasoning for that trait.


-Review the novel and character traits-Moving into writing the paper students need to select the 2 strengths, weaknesses, and changes. (Students went back through their quizzes and used the back board to help narrow down their choices. As a class we went through each students’ choice and as a class determined if their traits worked and if the textual examples supported their traits)

Application, Analysis, and Synthesis-using the chart on the board and previous quizzes students selected their traits

8 -Write character traits/body paragraphs using textual support

-Using a graphic organizer students began to draft their paper starting with the body paragraphs. (Using the traits they selected previously and what they learned during the quizzes students were able to start writing their paragraphs by introducing the trait, quoting from the text, and explaining.)

Analysis and Synthesis-students utilize their quizzes and work thus far to begin constructing their papers in which they defend their character traits by explaining and using textual support.

9 -Develop introduction to paper

-Continuing to use the graphic organizer students will use their body paragraphs to develop their introduction to the paper.

Analysis and Synthesis-students continue to develop their papers, working backwards to develop an introduction.

10 (At this point my student teaching experience was over so I wasn’t able to continue teaching the lessons but the remainder of the unit included writing the conclusion, taking what was written in the organizers and writing a full draft for editing, and then polishing a final draft)

Unit Notes:


The vocabulary first taught at the beginning of the unit wasn’t made an emphasis, while there was a vocab quiz that students took at the end of the unit more emphasis was placed on the contextual knowledge of the words. As we came across the words in the novel we would review in class related to their meaning in the book.

Novel and reading questionso This was the first time students had reading as homework, so there was an

emphasis on getting the reading completed and checking for comprehensiono The reading questions focused on levels of comprehension and application but

there were several questions that did include levels of analysis and synthesis. These reading questions did make a point to connect with the age level of students reading the text offering them a chance to make their own connections and judgements on events and relationships of the text.

Character Sketcho The paper wasn’t the emphasis while reading the novel but rather than teaching

the book and then having students go back to find textual support as we read we worked to find textual support that would make it easier for students to write their papers later

o Creating giant posters on the back board for strengths, weaknesses, and changes worked well as a place for students to work collaboratively. In developing these papers on the same main character and discussing a small portion of text each day the traits and examples were limited so it worked well for students to work together.

o In constructing the paper it also worked well to use their quizzes as a way to include their papers without “working” on their papers. It was a great resource for them to revisit when they came to actually writing the bodies of their paragraphs.

o Writing the bodies first also helped served as a way for them to think backwards about their paper. Rather than setting up a five paragraph essay to begin with and conforming the body to what the introduction said, students were able to write the body about the traits they selected and then write the introduction. This helped students to work with the body more and in selecting textual evidence that actually supported their traits. Had it been the other way around students may have tried making certain traits work just because it was in the introduction. In this instance they were able to find and use solid evidence, then go back and write the traits into the introduction.


Works Cited

Applebee, Arthur. Curriculum as Conversation: Transforming Traditions of Teaching and

Learning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. Print.

Dewey, John. “My Pedagogic Creed.” The Curriculum Studies Reader. Ed. David Flinders and

Stephen Thornton. New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2013. 33-40. Print.

Lipman, Matthew. Thinking in Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Print.

Wiggins, Grant and Jay McTighe. Understanding by Design. Upper Saddle River: Pearson,

Merrill Prentice Hall, 2005. Print.

Merriam, Sharan. Qualitative Research and Case Study Application in Education. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1998. Print.

Clandinin, Jean and Michael Connelly. Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in Qualitative

Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 2000. Print.


emilyrejda.files.wordpress.com · web viewa self-study in the development of lesson plans for...

Documents