Ashford 3 Week 2 Assignment Instructional Plan Design Analys

Ashford 3 Week 2 Assignmentinstructional Plan Design Analysisthre

Ashford 3: - Week 2 - Assignment Instructional Plan Design Analysis Three instructional plan templates constructed by a variety of leaders in education provide solid examples of what quality instructional plans should include. The work of Madeline Hunter dates the furthest back and is still used today, primarily in the elementary setting. Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe provide a more modern approach to curriculum and lesson design with their model of Understanding by Design (UbD). Others, as modeled by the New York State Educational Department, work closely to align their instructional plans with the Common Core State Standards. Review each of the provided instructional plan designs: · Common Core aligned instructional plan template · Understanding by design-backwards design lesson template · Madeline Hunter’s lesson plan format Analyze each instructional plan and structure a Word document, essay-style as such: a. Introduction: Introduce the essential elements, purpose, and value of creating and following a high-quality instructional plan. Include a thesis stating your intent to highlight key elements of each respective plan as well as your intent to identify what you find to be the most effective plan while justifying your reasoning. b. Body: Discuss the following for EACH instructional plan design. (Do not list—this is paragraph format without headings/subheadings.) · The source's name (i.e.; Hunter). · Key components representing most essential instructional plan requirements (standard, objective, activities, assessments, etc.). · Unique components (What makes each plan different from the others? What is notably missing or added compared to the others?). · Description of how Gradual Release of Responsibility Model is or is not represented. · Description of how assessment is embedded and potentially supports informing a teacher of student mastery of the objective(s). · Evidence that the instruction plan stimulates critical thinking. Your intent in this first part is to: · Inform the reader through the introduction and body. · Identify the instructional plan template that YOU believe is the most well-rounded and high-quality and justify your reasons with research and examples. · Conclusion: Make a selection between the three templates as to which one represents the best instructional plan to you. Include the key elements you’ve explored thus far. Explain its strengths, and recommend two ways to make it more effective and high quality. Be sure to justify why enacting your recommendations would make it better. Your essay will be between four to five pages, not including the required cover and reference pages, and should follow APA formatting requirements. You must include a minimum of five peer-reviewed articles or web references (in addition to the textbook), including the three from which the templates came, at least one from any reference used in Weeks One or Two, and one outside source of your own.>

Paper For Above instruction

Creating high-quality instructional plans is a fundamental aspect of effective teaching that ensures both clarity of learning objectives and alignment of instructional strategies. An instructional plan serves as a roadmap guiding teachers through the learning process, ensuring that educational goals are comprehensively addressed through well-structured lessons, appropriate assessments, and engaging activities. The purpose of such plans is to maximize student learning outcomes by providing focused, coherent, and adaptable frameworks that facilitate critical thinking, mastery of content, and the development of higher-order skills. In this analysis, I will explore three prominent instructional plan templates—the Madeline Hunter model, the Understanding by Design (UbD) framework by Wiggins and McTighe, and the Common Core aligned instructional plan—highlighting their essential elements, unique features, and overall effectiveness. I aim to identify which template offers the most comprehensive approach for structuring lessons, providing justified reasoning based on scholarly research and practical applications.

The Madeline Hunter instructional plan is one of the oldest and most widely recognized models, emphasizing clarity of instructional procedures and the gradual release of responsibility. Its key components include objectives, anticipatory set, input, modeling, checking for understanding, guided practice, independent practice, and closure. Hunter’s approach ensures a balanced focus on teacher-led instruction and student-centered activities, fostering an environment where mastery is reinforced through systematic checks and diverse teaching techniques (Hunter, 1982). What makes this plan distinct is its emphasis on sequencing and classroom management, which encourages active engagement and scaffolding. However, one notable limitation is its limited explicit focus on critical thinking; while it promotes skill mastery, it may not inherently challenge students to analyze or evaluate content deeply. The plan does incorporate assessment mainly through formative checks like questioning and observation, which effectively inform teachers of student progress and mastery, allowing for timely adjustments (McTighe & Wiggins, 2013). The model does incorporate the Gradual Release of Responsibility (GRR) model—“I do, we do, you do”—through modeled instruction followed by independent activities that promote autonomous mastery.

The Understanding by Design (UbD) model by Wiggins and McTighe prioritizes backward design, beginning with desired outcomes and performance tasks that demonstrate understanding. Its core components revolve around identifying learning goals, designing assessments that diagnose understanding, and planning instructional activities aligned with these targets (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). Unlike Hunter's model, UbD emphasizes constructing a cohesive plan that focuses heavily on transferability and higher-order thinking skills. Its unique feature is the emphasis on “big ideas” and essential questions that stimulate inquiry. UbD intentionally omits rigid steps and promotes flexibility, encouraging teachers to adapt lessons based on formative assessment data and student needs. The model explicitly integrates the Gradual Release of Responsibility by positioning assessment and student-driven inquiry as central elements, fostering independence and analytic thinking (Leahy et al., 2019). Assessments under UbD are embedded as essential tools for understanding student progress, not just as summative indicators but as ongoing diagnostic measures that guide instruction. This approach effectively supports critical thinking by requiring students to apply knowledge in novel contexts and justify their reasoning.

The Common Core aligned instructional plan template is designed to ensure explicit standards alignment, integrating state standards into every aspect of lesson planning. Its key elements include standards, learning objectives, activities, assessments, and differentiated instruction strategies (NYSED, 2014). Its distinctive aspect is the direct linkage to specific standards, making it highly accountable and transparent. While this plan emphasizes standards mastery, it often lacks detailed guidance on fostering higher-order thinking unless explicitly integrated into activities and assessments. Unlike Hunter and UbD, this template may sometimes prioritize compliance over deep cognitive engagement if not carefully designed. It does not inherently specify the use of Gradual Release principles but can incorporate them if planned intentionally. Assessment strategies tend to focus on formative and summative measures aligned with standards, providing data on student mastery but with potential limitations in supporting nuanced critical thinking skills unless explicitly included (Darling-Hammond et al., 2020). To stimulate critical thinking, teachers must infuse higher-order questions and problem-solving tasks within the activities, ensuring assessments are designed to measure more than memorization.

Considering the representations of the Gradual Release of Responsibility Model, Hunter’s plan explicitly aligns with the “I do, we do, you do” approach, making its implementation straightforward. UbD, while flexible, emphasizes student independence, aligning with gradual release through scaffolded inquiry and formative assessments. The Common Core plan can incorporate GRR but requires deliberate inclusion by teachers. For assessment integration, Hunter and UbD embed formative assessments to inform instruction continually, with Hunter using checks for understanding and UbD employing performance-based assessments. The Common Core template primarily uses assessments for standards mastery but can be enhanced to better support critical thinking through the inclusion of tasks that require analysis and synthesis.

All three instructional plans demonstrate varying degrees of fostering critical thinking. Hunter’s approach can include higher-order questions but often focuses on skill mastery. UbD inherently promotes analytical thinking through inquiry, transfer, and performance tasks. The Common Core aligned plan, with careful design, can also support critical thinking but is more dependent on teacher implementation. Based on these considerations, the UbD model is the most comprehensive, integrating essential components of assessment, standards, and cognitive development, making it highly effective for preparing students for higher-order thinking and real-world applications.

In conclusion, while each instructional plan has unique strengths, the Understanding by Design (UbD) framework emerges as the most well-rounded and effective model for lesson planning. Its emphasis on backward design aligned with assessment and inquiry fosters deeper understanding and critical thinking, key elements in today’s educational landscape. To enhance its effectiveness, I recommend incorporating more explicit strategies for differentiated instruction and integrating technology tools to support diverse learners and real-world problem-solving. These enhancements would not only personalize learning experiences but also further prepare students for complex, 21st-century challenges. Implementing these improvements would make UbD even more adaptable, engaging, and capable of delivering high-impact instruction in various educational settings.

References

• Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C. M., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97-140.
• Hunter, M. (1982). Mastery Teaching: Increasing Instructional Effectiveness in Middle and High School Classrooms. ASCD.
• Leahy, S., Giordano, C., & Ryan, R. (2019). Understanding by Design: A Framework for Backward Planning. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(4), 439-453.
• McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (2013). Understanding by Design (2nd ed.). ASCD.
• New York State Education Department (NYSED). (2014). Common Core Learning Standards. New York State.
• Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design. Alexander Street Press.
• Smith, P., & Ragan, T. (2005). Instructional Design (3rd ed.). Wiley.
• Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners. ASCD.
• Marzano, R. J. (2007). The Art and Science of Teaching. ASCD.
• Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. National Academy Press.