This week we were exposed to 2 lesson planning systems. The first is a format that I am actually
required to use which is backward design planning. The planning template from Wiggins and
McTighe is explained in an Understanding by Design presentation handout.
Newer for me was the 5E Instructional Model developed by the
Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS).
Initially it looked simple. It was
shown in our Topic B course handouts as an uncomplicated graphic organizer.
Most of us addressed each component in a linear format for
our first discussion. From the model, I
understood that we were supposed to connect everything to the evaluation of our
overarching concept. Either as part of
the other Es, or after each E it would be important to have some way to
formatively assess, or summatively assess, student learning.
For the second discussion, we were to combine
what we learned about backward design and the 5E Instructional model with a
Conceptual Flow Graphic. This is where it all fell apart for me. We were provided with the following example
and a blank pdf template.
Many of my classmates had difficulty with this model too,
but for a different reason. There were students
who commented on having difficulty manipulating the template. I was fine
annotating the blank template and adding my own text. My bigger issue was with the flow graphic and
all of the arrows, combined with text.
My instructional plans are for me to follow, but they are
also designed to communicate a plan for learning to the various school
districts my students are from, to my instructional aides, and to my principal
and program director. I think that it
would also be very hard for me to use this planning system to communicate to a
substitute teacher.
That being said, the exercise was a good one for me. It forced me to think about subject matter in
a new way, and it reminded me to be flexible with my students. Just as it was uncomfortable, slow, and
frustrating for me to think and learn in this assigned format, my students may
find the structures that I impose on them to be out of line with their thinking
and learning styles. It is important for
me to watch and listen to my students.
They are young and may not be able to articulate yet how they make sense
out of new information, or how they learn best.
We also had the opportunity to infuse technology;
more specifically web 2.0 tools, into the 5Es.
This task was very enjoyable for me. I especially like reading the
different ways my classmates use these tools since they always think of a way to
use a familiar tool like Prezi that I had never considered.
I guess that after this week’s lessons about planning for
inquiry, I would want to know if I can stick with my original backward design
planning template and address the 5Es within that format, or do I have to use the
Conceptual Flow Graphic model of the 5Es to plan inquiry based lessons?
Johnson, K. (2013). Unit 6 Designing Lessons that are Inquiry Based-Introduction. [Course Handout]. Wilkes, Pennsylvania: Wilkes University.
Johnson, K. (2013). Topic B: The 5E-An Instructional Model. [Course Handout]. Wilkes, Pennsylvania: Wilkes University.
Johnson, K. (2013). Topic C: Lesson Plan Development. [Course Handout]. Wilkes, Pennsylvania: Wilkes University.
Johnson, K. (2013). Topic B: The 5E-An Instructional Model. [Course Handout]. Wilkes, Pennsylvania: Wilkes University.
Johnson, K. (2013). Topic C: Lesson Plan Development. [Course Handout]. Wilkes, Pennsylvania: Wilkes University.
Wiggins, G. (2005). Understanding by Design. Available from:
http://www.grantwiggins.org/documents/UbDQuikvue1005.pdf.
No comments:
Post a Comment