• I-A-4: Well Structured Lessons
    Unsatisfactory
    Needs Improvement
    Proficient
    Exemplary
    Develops lessons with inappropriate student engagement strategies, pacing, sequence, activities, materials, resources, and/or grouping for the intended outcome or for the students in the class. Develops lessons with only some elements of appropriate student engagement strategies, pacing, sequence, activities, materials, resources, and grouping. Develops well-structured lessons with challenging, measurable objectives and appropriate student engagement strategies, pacing, sequence, activities, materials, resources, technologies, and grouping. Develops well-structured and highly engaging lessons with challenging, measurable objectives and appropriate student engagement strategies, pacing, sequence, activities, materials, resources, technologies, and grouping to attend to every student’s needs. Is able to model this element.
    Why Proficiency in this Element Matters
    • Lesson planning that begins with clear learning outcomes followed by instructional activities that logically drive toward intended outcomes, provides students with coherent, purposeful learning experiences. (Saphier and Gower, 1997; Wiggins and McTighe, 2006).
    • Clear and well communicated lesson framing, such as communicating learning objectives and lesson agenda and providing an activator and summarizer, helps students to organize and make meaning of new information, attach new learning to existing schema and build long term memory (Meyer, Rose & Gordon, 2014).
    • Using multiple means of representation, engagement and expression (UDL) provides students with diverse points of access and stimulates broad neural networks.  This leads to equitable access to the content and improved comprehension and retention. (Meyer, Rose & Gordon, 2014).
    Reflection Questions

    These questions may help to assess how effectively common obstacles to consistent/sustained proficiency in this element are addressed

    For Educators For Evaluators/Coaches

    Lesson Objectives

    • Are both content and language objectives (goals) well defined and appropriately rigorous for all students? Are lesson objectives observable and measurable? Do objectives target higher order thinking processes (consider DOK levels and Blooms Taxonomy)? How do you know?
    • Are objectives clearly aligned to content area standards? How do you know?
    • Are objectives written and presented in a student friendly, accessible format?  How do you know?
    • Are lesson activities logically paced and sequenced to build toward these objectives?  Is the connection between learning activities and lesson objectives made explicit for students? How do you know?

    Lesson Objectives

    • Has the educator developed clear objectives that target higher order thinking processes?  Are objectives conveyed in a manner that is accessible to all students? Are objectives aligned to content area standards?  What specific evidence supports your claim?
    • Do students understand the purpose of lessons?  Can they explain how lesson activities will help them meet the goals of the lesson?  Do student questions and comments demonstrate an understanding for the purpose of the work or do they surface student confusions and misconceptions?  What specific evidence supports this claim?
    • Is there clear and coherent alignment among outcome expectations (objectives), learning activities, materials, student supports and assessments? What specific evidence supports this claim?

    Student Access

    • What relevant student information informed your planning?  Consider students prior knowledge, existing  misconceptions and cultural funds of knowledge.  How have you tapped into these in your lesson plan?
    • Do lessons include a variety of activities, materials and teaching methods? Have you provided opportunities for whole class, group/pair and individual work? How do you know?
    • What difficulties and/or misconceptions might students encounter, and is further support provided? How do you know?
    • Does the lesson meet the needs all learners (including students with diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds and students with special needs) by including multiple pathways to convey information, engage students and foster student expression.  How do you know?
    • Is the lesson structured to foster student processing (both shared and independent) or is task completion the primary focus? How do you know?

    Student Access

    • Does the educator demonstrate an understanding of what students are bringing to the learning experience (prior knowledge, misconceptions, cultural funds of knowledge)? Has the educator developed a plan that reframes misconceptions and leverages students’ existing contexts?
    • Has the educator planned the lesson to include diverse pathways for conveying information, engaging students in the learning process and expressing learning?  
    • Do lesson activities ,materials,  resources and groupings lead students to interact with teacher, peers and content in meaningful ways?  What evidence supports this claim?
    • Is the lesson presented in a coherent manner that logically progresses towards intended objectives and limits loss of instructional time? What evidence supports this claim?
    • Are the needs of diverse learners addressed in the initial planning stages or has the educator retrofitted the curriculum for individual students? What evidence supports this claim?
    • Does the educator plan activities that lead students to engage in metacognition or is the emphasis on right and wrong answers/task completion. What evidence supports this claim?

    Assessments

    • What pre-assessment strategies were used to identify students’ existing knowledge and experiences with the content and identify misconceptions?
    • Do the assessments provide for multiple pathways to gauge student progress toward intended objectives and document understanding? In other words, do assessments answer the question, “Have my students reached the learning object? If not, why not?  How do you know?
    • Are checks for understanding embedded throughout the lesson and especially before transitioning from one activity to the next or releasing students to work independently? How do you know?
     

    Assessments

    • Does the educator have the necessary information about students to plan relevant learning experiences that build on existing knowledge and experiences and taps students’ cultural funds of knowledge?
    • Are  lesson assessments (both formal and informal) specifically designed to provide the educator with information about students level of understanding and progress towards the intended objectives?  In other words, will the assessment plan help the educator identify which students could benefit from reteaching and/or targeted interventions.
    • Does the assessment plan provide students with flexible means to demonstrate learning and/or surface misconceptions.
    What instructional practices should be observed? What student impacts should be expected?
    For TEACHERS this may look like.

    1. Teacher fails to display and/or communicate objectives to students or does so in a perfunctory manner.

    1. Teacher provides an overview of objectives that are either not in clear, student accessible language, not aligned to lesson content and activities, meaningfully revisited, may be disconnected from content area standards, or do not individually challenge students at appropriate levels.

    1. Teacher provides students with a road map to the lesson by displaying, communicating and frequently revisiting student accessible, standards-based content and language objectives and lesson agenda.Objectives are written in a student-friendly language that uses academic vocabulary.

    1. Teacher provides students with a clear and coherent road map to the lesson by explicitly displaying, communicating and frequently revisiting student accessible, standards based content and language objectives and lesson agenda.

    1. Teacher plans or delivers lessons that lack a clear structure with reasonable time allocation.

    1. Teacher plans lessons with either too much or insufficient time allocated to activities, or timing and content that is not suitably differentiated; lesson objectives may be unclear and/or not well aligned to learning activities.

    1. Teacher designs lesson by working backwards from rigorous, standards based learning objectives.  Learning activities are well-paced and logically sequenced to build toward learning objectives.  

    1. Teacher explicitly designs lessons by working backwards from rigorous, standards based learning objectives.  Learning activities are well-paced and logically sequenced to build toward learning objectives and connect to students’ prior knowledge, needs and interests. Teacher demonstrates  this process for peers.

    1. Teacher offers insufficient materials, or materials are not prepared, engaging, or matched to lesson objectives.

    1. Teacher inconsistently utilizes learning activities, resources, materials and student groupings  that provide diverse means of representation, engagement and expression.   Teacher provides materials, however materials are inadequate,  poorly organized and/or lack relevancy to the students prior knowledge, experiences and linguistic and cultural backgrounds.

    1. Teacher utilizes learning activities, resources, materials and student groupings that provide diverse means of representation, engagement and expression that connect to and leverage students prior knowledge, experiences and linguistic and cultural backgrounds.

    1. Teacher can consistently articulate rationale for utilizing specific resources, materials and student groupings that are designed to provide diverse means of representation, engagement and expression and how the resources connect to connect to and leverage students prior knowledge, experiences and linguistic and cultural backgrounds.

    1. Teacher may use student groups, however groupings do not appear to be designed to support student learning.

    1. Teacher may use student groups, however groupings rarely appear to be designed to support student learning.  

    1. Teacher strategically divides students into groups that support student learning and build on students’ strengths.

    1. Teacher regularly and strategically divides students into groups that maximize student-to-student interaction, facilitate collaboration, and support student learning.

    1. Teacher provides minimal learning activities, which are not challenging or aligned to lesson objectives.

    1. Teacher provides only a few challenging learning activities, which may not be fully aligned to lesson objectives.

    1. Teacher prepares challenging learning activities, thought-provoking questions  and materials that prompt every student to engage in cognitively demanding tasks that are aligned to lesson objectives.  

    1. Teacher routinely prepares a variety of challenging learning activities, thought-provoking questions, and materials that prompt every student to engage in cognitively demanding tasks that are aligned to lesson objectives  and transfer learning across contexts.

    1. Teacher does not provide assessment strategies.

    1. Teacher provides assessment strategies that are not aligned to learning objectives and/or assessments fail to allow for flexible means of demonstrating learning.

    1. Teacher designs lessons that include formal and informal lesson assessments that are well aligned to learning objectives and provide students with flexible means to demonstrate learning.

    1. Teacher designs lessons that include formal and informal lesson assessments that are well aligned to learning objectives; provide students with flexible means to demonstrate learning; and provide Teacher with actionable data related to student progress toward intended objectives. Teacher demonstrates this process for peers.

    1. Teacher fails to frame the learning process for students.

    1. Teacher inconsistently frames student learning and/or provides framing that lacks clarity and coherence.

    1. Teacher designs lessons with appropriate framing that activates students’ prior knowledge, facilitates engagement and consolidates learning. Lesson objectives are reinforced throughout the lesson and in summarizer/closing activity.

    1. Teacher consistently designs lessons with appropriate framing to activate students’ prior knowledge, facilitate engagement and consolidate learning. Lesson objectives are reinforced throughout the lesson and in summarizer/closing activity. Teacher i demonstrates this process for peers.
    As a result, the IMPACT on STUDENTS may be...

    1. When prompted, students are unable to summarize or describe lesson objectives.

    1. When prompted, students may be able to partially describe lesson objectives.

    1. When prompted, students identify and explain lesson objectives; students are able to explain how learning activities connect to lesson objectives.

    1. Students identify lesson objectives and explain their relevance to unit learning objectives.

    1. When prompted, students are unable to explain expectations or rationale for lesson activities. Students demonstrate rigid/singular means of  finding solutions and demonstrating  learning.  

    1. When prompted, students may be able to partially describe the purpose of lesson activities or  how to complete the learning tasks.  Students  may demonstrate rigid/singular means of finding solutions or demonstrating learning.

    1. When prompted, students describe how to complete the learning task; describe/demonstrate multiple pathways to solve problems and demonstrate learning; are able to explain how learning activities connect to lesson objectives; and/or are able to identify relationships to real-world knowledge or skills.

    1. Students detail how to complete the learning task; describe/demonstrate multiple pathways to solve problems and demonstrate learning; identify relationships to real-world knowledge or skills, and are able to explain how learning activities connect to lesson objectives.

    1. Students are off-task and display minimal effort for most of the lesson.

    1. Students display low levels of focus, effort, or participation during the lesson; and/or engagement and effort lacks a clear learning focus.

    1. Students are focused and display high cognitive engagement and effort during the majority of lesson.

    1. Students consistently are focused and display high cognitive engagement and consistent effort.

    1. If placed in groups, students do not work collaboratively or equitably with peers.  

    1. If placed in groups, students rarely work collaboratively or equitably with peers. Students often overly rely on teacher facilitation of collaborative work.

    1. If placed in groups, students work collaboratively and equitably to co-construct new knowledge and reflect on learning with minimal prompting from the teacher.

    1. If placed in groups, students work collaboratively and equitably to co-construct new knowledge and reflect on learning, while respectfully monitoring each other’s focus and participation. Students can successfully collaborate with little to no prompting from the teacher.
    Coming Soon
    Coming Soon
    Resource Name Description Resource Type
    new! Heggerty/Fundations Phonics Lesson Plan Template Each sample phonemic awareness lesson plan provides a preview of a complete Heggerty weekly lesson plan. Website
    new! Research for Better Teaching Free registration provides access to videos and downloadable materials. eLearning
    new! Bloom's Taxonomy and Webb's Depth of Knowledge Applies these principles to targeted learning and learning activity outcomes.         Video
    new! Universal Design for Learning Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a framework to improve and optimize teaching and learning for all people based on scientific insights into how humans learn. Website
    new! Grant Wiggins: Understanding by Design (part 1) Framework for improving student achievement that helps teachers clarify learning goals, devise assessments that reveal student understanding, and craft effective learning activities. Video
    new! Grant Wiggins: Understanding by Design (part 2) Framework for improving student achievement that helps teachers clarify learning goals, devise assessments that reveal student understanding, and craft effective learning activities. Video
    new! Multiple Intelligences Theory: Widely Used, Yet Misunderstood One of the most popular ideas in education is applied in ways that its creator never intended. Article


    • Center For Teaching & Learning Excellence. (n.d.). Retrieved July 19, 2017, from http://ctle.utah.edu/resources/Blooms-Taxonomy.php
    • Council for Exceptional Children. (2005). Universal design for learning: a guide for teachers and education professionals.
    • Mcdaniel, R. (1970, June 10). Bloom's Taxonomy. Retrieved July 19, 2017, from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/
    • Hall, T. E., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2012). Universal design for learning in the classroom: Practical applications. New York: Guilford Press.
    • Meyer, A., Rose, D.H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and Practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing.
    • McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. P. (2006). Understanding by design professional development workbook. Heatherton, Vic.: Hawker Brownlow Education.
    • Novak, K. (n.d.). UDL now!: A teacher's Monday-morning guide to implementing common core standards using Universal Design for Learning.
    • Saphier, J., Haley-Speca, M. A., & Gower, R. R. (2008). The skillful teacher: building your teaching skills. Acton, MA: Research for Better Teaching, Inc.
    • Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design. United States: ASCD.