Running head: PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION, ASSESSMENT 1

Planning, Preparation, Instruction, and Assessment

Kelly Smalley
Regent University

In partial fulfillment of UED 495 Field Experience ePortfolio, Fall 2017

PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION, ASSESSMENT 2

Introduction

Student needs can be met in a variety of ways in the classroom, but when it comes to

academic needs, it is imperative that teachers think about the goal of the learningwhat the

students should know at the end of a lesson or unit (Dean, Hubbell, Pitler, & Stone, 2012, p.

153). With that goal in mind, teachers can begin planning and preparing for instruction based on

what they know about their students. Many teachers choose to use any number of pre-assessment

techniques to gather information on their students level of prior knowledge, and they use that

information to begin planning and preparing materials for instruction. Instruction must be

evolutionary in nature, however. Throughout a unit, and even within lessons, great teachers

collect and use data to continuously change what and how they teach to try to help every student

reach the learning goal.

Rationale for Selection of Artifacts

My first artifact is a student sample of a pre- and post-assessment on Standard of

Learning (SOL) 3.1.a, which states that students will read and write six-digit numerals and

identify the place value and value of each digit (VDOE, 2009) as well as an anecdotal record

from a guided math group. Both the pre- and post-assessment required students to write the value

of an underlined digit in a number (e.g., in 562, the value of the 5 is 500), determine the digit

when given the place (e.g., the digit in the hundreds place of 3,409 is 4), and explain, in writing,

the difference between the value of a digit and the place of a digit in a number. The anecdotal

notes show what was learned each day and each students progress toward the SOL objective.

This artifact demonstrates the effective use of a pre-assessment to plan for and drive

instruction as well as evolving instruction based on student need. Based on the pre-assessment,

none of the students in the class understood the concept of value of a digit, only a few recalled
PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION, ASSESSMENT 3

what was meant by the place of a digit (but only to the hundreds place), and none could explain

the difference between the two. Using the results of the pre-assessment, I placed the students into

three guided math groups, and I took daily anecdotal notes on what the students worked on as

well as their progress. I moved students around in groups as necessary to ensure that they were

appropriately challenged and received the appropriate level of scaffolding.

The anecdotal notes taken each day helped me to plan for instruction the following day

based on the needs of the students. I always started the class with a short whole-group lesson that

included a review of the previous days lesson, and then the students began center rotations,

which included independent projects and activities, computer activities, and guided math. Guided

math provided more review, depending on the students needs, and after that, we worked on the

new concept that had been introduced that day. I was able to challenge students and provide

scaffolding as necessary; for example, higher-level groups only required minimal review during

guided math and were not given tools such as graphic organizers to complete their work, while

lower-level groups spent about half of their time reviewing and the other half building onto that

with what had been introduced that day. They were also given different tools to use to help them

complete their work.

My notes also allowed me to see where students needed more help, whether individually

or as a group; for example, in the A group, one student had difficulty remembering to add a

comma to numbers in the thousands, ten thousands, and hundred thousands place or misplaced

commas, so I was able to work with her individually to discuss the purpose of commas without

having to instruct the whole group. On the other hand, all members of the group had difficulty

with reading and writing numbers with zeros in them, so we spent more time on the concept, and

the entire group worked on it together. After instruction on how to read and write numbers with
PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION, ASSESSMENT 4

zeros in them, three students became proficient at the task, but three still could not perform it, so

I paired proficient students with students who were still developing proficiency and allowed

them to work on an activity together; I provided support as needed. Ultimately, all students in the

group were proficient on their post-assessment (scoring 80% or higher), and the one student who

still could not explain the difference between place and value in writing could verbalize it, so she

received credit, but I continued to work with her on being able to put what she knew into writing.

My second artifact is data taken from student scores on the Phonological Awareness

Literacy Screening (PALS) and a current Guided Reading Level (GRL) obtained by conducting a

running record for each of the students in a kindergarten class. The assessments were given to

students individually or in small groups over a week-long period using materials that were

provided by the school. The PALS, which provides a comprehensive assessment of young

childrens knowledge of the important literacy fundamentals that are predictive of future reading

success (UVA, 2003), provided me with information on each students ability to recognize

letters, letter sounds, rhyming patterns, beginning sounds of words, and consonant-vowel-

consonant (CVC) words as well as their ability to demonstrate concept of word by matching one-

to-one when reading.

Each student was also given a passage to read and a running record was taken; all

students began at GRL A. Students who performed at their independent reading level (95%-

100% accuracy and satisfactory to excellent comprehension) at any given GRL were given a new

passage at the next higher level until they were at their instructional reading level (90%-94%

accuracy with satisfactory comprehension). Students who performed at the frustration level

(below 90% accuracy and limited to unsatisfactory comprehension) at GRL A were moved down

to GRL pre-A (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996, pp. 89-96).

PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION, ASSESSMENT 5

This artifact demonstrates the effective use of data to plan for instruction and further

assess students. Based on the running records, students were placed into one of four guided

reading groups: one low group (GRL pre-A), two on-level groups (GRL A), and one above-level

group (GRL B). During guided reading, I used the data to work with students on the concepts

they needed help with or to introduce new concepts to increase their reading ability; for example,

the students in the GRL pre-A group all had difficulty with concept of word, so I modeled

pointing to each word as I read (both during whole-group lessons and guided reading lessons),

and I worked with them on pointing to each word whenever they were reading. Since they all

also had difficulty hearing individual sounds in words (letter-sound knowledge), we worked on

putting sounds together to form words as part of their word study.

The GRL B group was given more advanced reading strategies to aid in fluency, and they

worked on spelling CVC words since they had shown proficiency in most of the skills on the

PALS. I also used the data to work with students one-on-one or prompt them throughout the day;

for example, for one of the students who was at GRL B but scored low on his ability to recognize

rhyming words, I made sure to point out rhyming words throughout the day or have him tell me

whenever he noticed rhyming words, especially during guided reading.

Reflection on Theory and Practice

Planning, preparation, instruction, and assessment all go hand-in-hand; if one component

is missing, desired learning outcomes may not be met. Standards must be met, but unless they

are unpacked to find essential understandings to make instruction more relevant for students

the planning, preparation, and instruction componentsassessment will consist of nothing more

than the regurgitation of facts. During this process, the student must always be kept in mind; as

Wiggins and McTighe (2005) put it, we must move from thinking only about what we want to
PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION, ASSESSMENT 6

accomplish as the designer to thinking about who the learnersthe end users of our designare

and what they will need, individually and collectively, to achieve the desired results (p. 191).

Conscientious planning and preparation with every student in mind is essential to achieving

desired results.

It is beneficial to begin planning and preparation by asking, What should [my] students

know, understand, and be able to do by the end of this unit or lesson? (Dean, et al, 2012, p.

153), but it is also imperative that I know what my students already understand, which is why

pre-assessments are so important. Pre-assessing helps me to determine my students level of

prior knowledge, how to group them, and which activities will best meet their needs (Dean et al.,

2012, p. 153). I can also determine which activities will meet my students needs by knowing my

students; Rutherford (2008) stated that teachers should be knowledgeable and skillful about not

only the content to be learned, but also about the students who are to learn it (p. 7).

Once I have planned and prepared, I am can move into instruction and assessment;

however, I have an understanding that instruction is not static, and assessments come in many

forms, most of which do not include the use of paper and pencil. Instruction needs to change

based on the needs of the students, and that is why monitoring their progress through anecdotal

records is important. When I keep track of how my students are progressing, I can adjust

instruction accordingly. Progress can be tracked by assessing students through listening to them

discuss concepts with one another, observing them as they complete tasks, asking them thought-

provoking questions, and seeing how they handle relevant task-oriented projects, among other

means. Ultimately, the goal is that they all perform well on the final assessment. There may be

students who fall short of that goal, and I may need to reflect on my planning, preparation,

instruction, and assessment methods for those students, but I also understand that it takes time to
PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION, ASSESSMENT 7

build a repertoire of teaching and learning strategies in order to design experiences which

promote student learning of the curriculum (Rutherford, 2008, p. 4), and I am ready to start

building mine.
PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION, ASSESSMENT 8

References

Dean, C. B. Hubbell, E. R., Pitler, H., & Stone, B. (2012). Classroom instruction that works (2nd

ed.). Denver, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

Fountas, I. C. & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Using running records. Guided reading: Good first

teaching for all children (pp. 89-96). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Rutherford, P. (2008). Instruction for all students (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Just ASK

Publications.

University of Virginia UVA (2003). Background of PALS: Overview. Retrieved from

https://pals.virginia.edu/rd-background.html

Virginia Department of Education VDOE (2009). Math SOL standards grade 3. Retrieved from

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/standards_docs/mathematics/index.shtml

Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION, ASSESSMENT 9

Artifact 1: Pre- and post-assessment for grade 3 math, SOL objective 3.1.a (place value) and
guided math anecdotal notes.

This students pre-assessment showed that he did not understand what value of a digit meant, and
he could not explain the difference between value and place. There also seemed to be some
confusion about what the word digit meant, so that was addressed along with the other
deficiencies. Less time was spent with this student on determining place.
PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION, ASSESSMENT 10

The same student performed much better on the post-assessment; he was able to determine the
value of a given digit in a number, and he could explain the difference between value and place.
He was also no longer confused about the term digit.
PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION, ASSESSMENT 11

The anecdotal notes that provided data to guide instruction. Students were assessed in guided math groups through written examples
(mostly using dry-erase boards and/or manipulatives) and observation. They received a P (proficient) if they showed understanding
and a DP (developing proficiency) if they were still having difficulty; these marks determined what I worked on with them each
day, both collectively and individually.
PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION, ASSESSMENT 12

Artifact 2: The data that I collected from the Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening
enabled me to work on specific skills during guided reading groups and throughout the day.