Ashford 3 Week 2 Assignment Instructional Plan Design 515042

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: 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. 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. Three Lesson Planning Templates There are three lesson planning templates associated with this week’s assignments. They are the Common Core Aligned Standard Template , the Understanding by Design: Backward Design Template , and Madeline Hunter's Instructional Plan Template . Each lesson plan template will lead the user to designing an effective lesson plan.

Paper For Above instruction

Creating high-quality instructional plans is a fundamental aspect of effective teaching, serving as a roadmap for delivering instruction that is aligned, engaging, and assessment-driven. The purpose of an instructional plan is to provide clarity on learning objectives, structure learning activities to facilitate understanding, and embed assessments that inform instruction and gauge mastery. By following well-established templates, educators ensure comprehensive planning that promotes student success, critical thinking, and engagement. The three instructional plan templates analyzed—Madeline Hunter's, Understanding by Design (UbD), and the Common Core-aligned template—each offer unique strengths and approaches that cater to different instructional needs and philosophies. This essay explores the key components of each plan, their distinctive features, the representation of the Gradual Release of Responsibility (GRR) model, their approach to assessment, and their capacity to stimulate critical thinking. Based on this analysis, I will identify the most well-rounded plan and recommend enhancements to optimize its effectiveness.

Madeline Hunter’s lesson plan format, developed in the 1980s, is renowned for its systematic approach to instructional design. Hunter emphasized the importance of clear objectives, anticipation, modeling, guided practice, and independent practice—all structured to ensure smooth transitions from teacher-led to student-led activities. Key components include specific learning objectives aligned with standards, engaging activities that promote active learning, and assessments embedded throughout the lesson to monitor understanding. One distinctive feature of Hunter’s model is its emphasis on “anticipatory set,” which prepares students mentally for learning, and “closure,” which consolidates understanding at lesson’s end. However, Hunter’s plan tends to focus more on classroom management and direct instruction, with less emphasis on student-driven inquiry. It notably lacks a detailed integration of formative assessments aimed explicitly at guiding instruction in real-time. The GRR model is implied through the progression from modeling to independent practice but is not explicitly mapped out within the plan, which could be seen as a limitation. Assessment in Hunter’s approach is primarily formative, designed to inform the teacher of student mastery, though it may not always be designed to foster critical thinking directly.

The Understanding by Design (UbD) framework, crafted by Wiggins and McTighe, emphasizes backwards design—starting with the desired learning outcomes and then planning assessments and instructional activities accordingly. Its core components include identifying desired results, determining acceptable evidence (assessments), and planning learning experiences aligned with these goals. This model uniquely stresses the importance of “big ideas” and enduring understandings that transcend rote memorization, aiming to develop higher-order thinking skills. A significant differentiator in UbD is its explicit focus on designing assessments that promote critical thinking and allow students to demonstrate their deep understanding. The model explicitly incorporates the GRR by scaffolding instruction progressively—starting with teacher modeling, then guided practice, and finally independent application—thus ensuring students assume responsibility gradually. Assessments in UbD are both formative and summative, designed to inform instruction and provide evidence of mastery, especially through performance tasks that challenge students to apply knowledge critically. The plan’s emphasis on essential questions stimulates inquiry, curiosity, and higher-order thinking, making it highly effective for developing critical thinking skills.

Madeline Hunter’s plan and UbD differ markedly in their approach to instructional design. Hunter’s model emphasizes direct instruction and procedural routines, while UbD promotes an inquiry-based, student-centered approach. Hunter’s plan often focuses more on lesson structure and classroom management, which can be beneficial for consistency but may limit opportunities for critical thinking unless explicitly integrated. Conversely, UbD’s planning process inherently incorporates higher-order questioning and performance assessments designed to foster critical thinking. The Common Core-aligned instructional plan template, provided by the New York State Department, integrates standards explicitly, ensuring alignment with state and national benchmarks. It emphasizes measurable objectives, specific activities, and assessments aligned with the Common Core standards. Its distinctive feature is the detailed correlation between standards, objectives, activities, and assessments, which enhances clarity and accountability. However, like Hunter’s plan, its explicit focus on progressions and student ownership of learning is less evident, although improved alignment with standards offers a valuable focus on accountability and consistency.

The representation of the GRR model varies among the templates. Hunter’s plan implicitly covers it through the sequence of modeling, guided practice, and independent work, yet it does not explicitly categorize these stages. UbD explicitly maps out the gradual release of responsibility, highlighting scaffolding strategies that support student mastery at each stage. The Common Core-aligned template incorporates scaffolding, but its explicit connection to the stages of the GRR is often less detailed, tending more toward ensuring standards are met than scaffolding in pedagogical terms. Assessment practices within these templates serve different purposes; Hunter’s relies on ongoing, embedded formative assessments to guide instruction, UbD uses assessments as essential evidence of understanding, and the Common Core template emphasizes standards-based mastery checks. Both Hunter and UbD plans support critical thinking through embedded questioning and inquiry, but UbD’s alignment with high-level performance tasks makes it particularly effective for promoting critical thinking.

In conclusion, while all three templates serve as valuable tools for instructional planning, the Understanding by Design template emerges as the most comprehensive and adaptable. Its focus on backwards planning, emphasis on enduring understandings, and integration of higher-order assessments make it particularly suitable for fostering critical thinking and deep learning. Nonetheless, improvements can be made by integrating more explicit scaffolding strategies, particularly in the initial stages, and ensuring that assessments provide ongoing feedback that informs instruction in real-time. Incorporating technology and collaborative activities could also enhance its engagement and relevance. By adopting these enhancements, the UbD model can further strengthen its effectiveness as a high-quality instructional planning tool that promotes student mastery, critical thinking, and continuous improvement.

References

• Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
• Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design. ASCD.
• Hunter, M. (1982). Mastery Teaching: Increasing Instructional Effectiveness in Elementary and Middle Schools. ASCD.
• New York State Education Department. (2018). Common Core Learning Standards for Mathematics and English Language Arts. NYSED.
• Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing Teachers for a Changing World. Jossey-Bass.
• Tomlinson, C., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating Understanding by Design with Differentiated Instruction. Leading & Learning with UbD.
• Kennedy, M. M. (2016). How Does Professional Development Improve Teaching? Harvard Educational Review, 86(2), 124-150.
• Marzano, R., & Marzano, J. (2003). The key to Classroom Management. Educational Leadership, 61(1), 6-13.
• Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. Routledge.
• Apple, M. W. (2014). Official Knowledge: Democratic Education in a Conservative Age. Routledge.