You are on page 1of 6

RUNNING HEADER: LITERATURE REVIEW 3 - DOMAIN D

Literature Review 3 - Domain D: Planning Instruction

What is your Objective?: Preservice Teachers’ Views and Practice of Instructional Planning

Sean Watson

National University

TED 690 – Professor Daniel Weintraub

6/20/2019
Literature Review 3 - Domain D 2

Abstract

This literature review is based on the article What is your Objective?: Preservice Teachers’

Views and Practice of Instructional Planning by Eun Kyung Ko. (2012) This article researches

preservice teachers views of lesson planning and how they organize and plan their instruction.

Few preservice teachers considered instructional objectives to be important when planning,

rather using more visuals and sequencing in their instruction. This paper also highlights the

importance of objectives and goals through experience in lesson planning that are indicated in

the Teacher Performance Expectations of California.


Literature Review 3 - Domain D 3

This article investigates preservice teachers views and processes when they develop a

lesson plan. A study was conducted looking into how 45 preservice elementary teachers use

various ways of organizing and preparing lesson plans through survey, lesson plans, and a

follow-up interview. Eun Kyung Ko(2012) finds that “few preservice teachers considered

instructional objectives to be the most important component in a lesson plan.” (Ko, 2012, p. 89)

also discovered that many preservice teachers focused on the content of their lesson plan and

sequencing their activities using more visual forms of lesson plans(concept mapping, graphic

organizer) because of multiple unexpected changes when giving lesson plans. Ko(2012)

proposes 3 research questions about how preservice teachers view lesson plans, how they

generally process lesson plans, and what alternative formats can be used during lesson planning.

According to the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium(INTASC)

“instructional planning is considered to be one of the most important facets of a teacher’s work

in order for students to have a meaningful experiences.” (Ko, 2012, p. 89) According to

Ko(2012) results of lesson plans, 38 out of 45 agreed that the process of designing a lesson plan

is very helpful. Seven participants; however, expressed that the traditional lesson plan format is

not useful and too descriptive. As a teacher states, “I think that they can be helpful, but also very

time consuming and re-writing what a teacher edition says is just a waste of time.”(Presurvey,

P.11) (Ko, 2012, p. 92) Other results of procedures of lesson planning found that only 25% of

the participants were concerned about the topics, only 11 participants focused on hands-on

activities. “They listed what activities they would provide rather than conceiving a plan of how

to effectively deliver such activities in light of instructional objectives.” (Ko, 2012, p. 93) When

it came to the formatting of the lesson planning, twenty teachers used a concept map type of

lesson plan instead of a traditional format. Concept maps have more visuals to see the lesson
Literature Review 3 - Domain D 4

structure. Fifteen teachers used a bullet point style list of the lesson plans, and ten teachers only

used a traditional ten step format of lesson planning. From these results, Ko(2012) developed

three different conclusions. The first one is that many preservice teachers felt that a lesson plan

helps organization and more than half of the participants were negative about using the objective

as the first part of the lesson as they noticed many other teachers did not specify the objective in

their plans. The second conclusion is that an objective-first lesson plan was not preferred by all

the participants. And finally, the third conclusion from the study indicated that the majority of

the preservice teachers preferred to use alternative lesson plan formats then traditional ones. The

findings from this study imply that not all teachers are one in the same and need to reconsider the

format of instructional planning to not only improve their understanding of the lesson, but also to

utilize the lesson plan itself for their instructions.

This article highlights some very interesting points when developing instructional

planning. I really think it depends on the type of teacher and circumstance when it comes to

formatting a lesson plan. I believe the objective should not only be clear for the one making the

lesson, but for the students who will be receiving the lesson. Goals should also be identified as

well as questions such as: what will the students learn? What will they use in the lesson? What

will they be able to do? Graphic organizers and concept maps can be a very effective tools in

developing a lesson when provided with an objective. Based on my experiences creating

multiple style lesson plans whether bullet-points or more visual, the use of a graphic organizer or

a traditional layout promotes instructional planning that evolves more as we evolve in the 21st

century. “Candidates reflect on and improve their planning based on their instructional

experiences and analyses of student work.” (Credentialing, 2019) It is my goal to really improve
Literature Review 3 - Domain D 5

as a teacher and create new ideas when it comes to instructional planning in order to be a

successful teacher.
Literature Review 3 - Domain D 6

References
Credentialing, C. o. (2019, June 8). California teaching performance expectations. Retrieved
from www.ctc.ca: https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-source/educator-
prep/standards/adopted-tpes-2013.pdf

Ko, E. K. (2012). What your Objective?: Preservice Teachers' Views and Practice of
Instructional Planning. The International Journal of Learning, 18(Issue7) 89-100.