1

Running Head: PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT

Planning, Preparation, Instruction, and Assessment

Ashley Baker

Regent University

In partial fulfillment of EFND 595 Field Experience ePortfolio, Spring 2020

2
PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT
Introduction

“A lesson plan is the instructor’s road map of what students need to learn and how it will

be done effectively during class time” (Milkova). Effective lesson planning takes into account

teaching styles and delivery preferences, subject matter, and audience. Student needs, abilities,

interests, and learning styles are also taken into consideration. While some teachers may prefer a

whole group or lecture approach to teaching, I prefer differentiation and student-centered

learning. It is my opinion that both allow for increased instructional freedom and an opportunity

to reach every student’s academic ability.

Rationale for Artifacts

My first artifact includes a pre and post-assessment and an analysis of the data. I created

the pre-assessment to gather information on the student’s background knowledge of the intended

learning target. For this lesson, the learning target was aligned with SOL 2.4: “The student will

a) name and write fractions represented by a set, region, or length model for halves, fourths,

eights, thirds; and sixths; b) represent fractional parts with models and with symbols; and c)

compare the unit fractions for halves, fourths, eighths, thirds, and sixths, with models” (VDOE,

2016).

The pre-assessment served as a formative assessment, which is intended to gauge a

student’s “prior knowledge…and to notice what is not yet part of their understanding”

(Chappuis, 2015, p.59). Whereas the post-assessment allowed me to measure the student’s new

level of understanding, if any, that was gained from the lesson. By employing both assessments,

I was able to best determine grouping for guided math, plan and prepare instruction based on the
3
PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT
ability of each group and follow up with one-on-one remediation for those who failed to reach

the intended learning target.

My second artifact contains the lesson plan I created after administering the pre-

assessment. The lesson plan follows the Madeline Hunter format, which incorporates whole

group instruction, as well as guided and independent practice. The lesson plan utilizes clear

learning targets to establish lessons, activities, and practice work. Many of the activities included

in the lesson plan offer differentiation and cooperative learning opportunities. Whole group

discussion was used to review the calendar, fractions, and comparing. Guided and hands-on

practice involved small group or partner work with identifying, representing and comparing

fractions. Students also worked independently on computers to practice identifying and

comparing fractions. Some students worked with me in a small group at the teacher table. The

small group instruction was dependent upon the area in which the students struggled on the pre-

assessment. After the lesson plan components were completed, the post-assessment was

administered to determine the success of the lesson.

Reflection on Theory and Practice

Reflective lesson planning helps determine the achievement of the learning target by

measuring a student’s understanding before and after a lesson. By including pre and post-

assessments, I can “revisit the lesson plan once it has been completed, prior to the lesson, and

after the lesson” (Pemberton et al., 2009, p.118). I chose the pre-assessment, post-assessment,

and lesson plan artifacts because they are significant components of reflective lesson planning,

and, together, they make it easier for me to incorporate differentiation and cooperative learning

in my classroom.
4
PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT
The artifacts described meet many standards for the Interstate Teacher Assessment and

Support Consortium (InTASC) and the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation

(CAEP). Taking learner differences into consideration, I modeled InTASC standards 2 and 3 by

using cooperative learning activities (University of Hawaii). Cooperative learning affords

students an opportunity to learn and practice content based on their ability and interest. Students

were engaged in the learning process because the lesson included various activities, social

interaction, and collaborative learning (University of Hawaii).

InTASC standards 6 and 7 and CAEP standard 3 were also met because the assessments

and lesson plan artifacts “monitored learner progress and supported instruction based on student

learning goals” (University of Hawaii). The assessments provided the data needed to “organize

and manage small group instruction to provide more focused and intensive instruction to meet

the learning needs of each child” (CAEP, 2019). The ongoing use of reflective lesson planning

meets CAEP standard 5.b, as the lesson plan is continuously revised, changed, and remediated

based on student learning data (CAEP, 2019).

Lesson planning is a process. If that process is rushed or incomplete, the quality of the

whole lesson suffers. However, those who take time to gather and successfully incorporate

assessment data into their lesson planning are better equipped to assess, instruct, and reassess

student learning. This helps to ensure that lessons are student-centered, include various

instructional strategies, and continuously improve over time.

5
PLANNING, PREPARATION, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT

References

Chappuis, J. (2015). Seven strategies of assessment for learning. (p. 59) (2nd edition). Hoboken,

NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2019). CAEP Standards. Retrieved

March 7, 2020, from http://www.ncate.org/~/media/Files/caep/standards/2018-caep-k-6-

elementary-teacher-prepara.pdf?la=en

Milkova, S. (n.d.). Strategies for effective lesson planning. Retrieved March 5, 2020, from

https://venktesh22.github.io/Strategies_for_Effective_Lesson_Planning.pdf

Pemberton, R., Toogood, S., & Barfield, A. (Eds.). (2009). Maintaining control: Autonomy and

language learning. (p. 118). Hong Kong University Press. Retrieved March 7, 2020, from

https://books.google.com/books?

hl=en&lr=&id=C3E7AvmxPN0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA109&dq=lesson+planning+articles&o

ts=QXjPrGa7CR&sig=iZPSSg8fyB-Na67ZotDlFZ-6LSk#v=onepage&q=lesson

%20planning%20articles&f=false

University of Hawaii at Manoa. (n.d.). At a glance: InTASC standards. Retrieved March 7, 2020,

from https://coe.hawaii.edu/sites/default/files/extranet/documents/InTASC - Field

Progression.pdf

Virginia Department of Education (VDOE). (2016). Mathematics standards of learning for

virginia public schools. Retrieved March 7, 2020, from

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/standards_docs/mathematics/2016/stds/stds-

grade2.pdf