Instructional Plan Design Analysis: Three Instructional Plan

Instructional Plan Design Analysisthree Instructional Plan Templates C

Instructional Plan Design Analysis three Instructional Plan Templates C

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.

Paper For Above instruction

The development of effective instructional plans is fundamental to successful teaching and learning. They serve as structured frameworks guiding educators in delivering content, assessing student understanding, and fostering critical thinking skills. Analyzing different instructional plan templates reveals varying emphases and approaches, but each aims to optimize student engagement and mastery of objectives. This essay compares three prominent instructional plan models: Madeline Hunter’s lesson plan format, the Understanding by Design (UbD) model by Wiggins and McTighe, and the Common Core-aligned instructional plan by the New York State Department of Education. The intent is to evaluate their core components, unique features, the incorporation of the Gradual Release of Responsibility model, assessment strategies, and the stimulation of critical thinking, ultimately identifying the most comprehensive and effective template that can guide high-quality instruction.

Madeline Hunter’s lesson plan format has been a longstanding and influential framework, particularly in elementary education. Its core components include state standards, learning objectives, instructional activities, checks for understanding, and assessments. Hunter’s approach emphasizes a systematic progression of instruction with clear sequencing and focus on teacher clarity. One notable feature is her emphasis on “Variables,” which involve analyzing the factors influencing student learning, and "Closure," ensuring students consolidate understanding. However, Hunter’s plan is sometimes critiqued for its prescriptive nature, potentially limiting flexibility. The plan implicitly supports the Gradual Release of Responsibility (GRR) model by sequencing instruction from teacher-led explanation toward student independence, although this progression isn’t explicitly detailed. Assessments in Hunter’s framework tend to be formative, with the focus on immediate checks for understanding that inform ongoing instruction. Evidence suggests that her approach fosters critical thinking by encouraging students to participate actively, clarify concepts, and reflect during the closure phase.

In contrast, Wiggins and McTighe’s Understanding by Design (UbD) emphasizes backward design, beginning with end goals or desired results. Its essential components include identifying desired learning outcomes, determining acceptable evidence of mastery (performance tasks, assessments), and planning learning experiences aligned with these outcomes. This model differs notably by prioritizing the alignment of instruction and assessment from the outset, promoting a focus on deep understanding rather than rote coverage of content. The UbD template explicitly incorporates the Gradual Release of Responsibility by designing learning experiences that scaffold student understanding from guided instruction to independent application, aligning with phases like “modeling,” “guided practice,” and “independent practice.” Assessments are embedded as performance tasks that serve both formative and summative purposes, providing ongoing feedback for both teacher and student. This planning inherently promotes critical thinking by requiring learners to apply knowledge in novel contexts and demonstrate transfer skills, embodying higher-order thinking as outlined in Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom, 1956).

The third plan, the Common Core aligned instructional template by the New York State Department of Education, integrates standards-based planning with specificity towards Common Core expectations. Its key components include clear standards, objectives, instructional activities, formative and summative assessments, and alignment with state benchmarks. Unique features involve explicit connections to college and career readiness standards, emphasis on authentic assessment, and data-driven instruction. This template often includes performance-based tasks, cross-curricular integration, and differentiation strategies, offering a comprehensive approach tailored to the standards. It also demonstrates a clear integration of the Gradual Release of Responsibility by sequencing activities that shift responsibility from teacher to student progressively. Assessments are embedded within activities, providing real-time feedback and enabling teachers to gauge mastery effectively. The plan’s focus on authentic assessments and data use aims to stimulate critical thinking through problem-solving, analysis, and synthesis opportunities, aligning with the cognitive demands of the standards (New York State Education Department, 2020).

Evaluating these models reveals distinctive strengths and omissions. Hunter’s plan excels in clarity, straightforwardness, and a structured approach suitable for foundational classrooms. However, its less explicit emphasis on assessment design for transfer or higher-order thinking is a limitation. Wiggins and McTighe’s UbD offers a robust conceptual framework emphasizing enduring understanding, transfer, and higher-order skills, making it highly adaptable and student-centered. Its backward design ensures assessment informs instruction effectively. The New York State template’s strength lies in its alignment with standards, authentic assessment focus, and emphasis on data-driven instruction, which supports critical thinking and real-world application. However, it may lack the explicit step-by-step procedural guidance found in Hunter’s plan.

Regarding the incorporation of the Gradual Release of Responsibility, Hunter’s model implicitly incorporates it through its sequence, starting with teacher-led instruction and moving toward student independence. Conversely, UbD explicitly models GRR components within its scaffolding stages, promoting increasingly autonomous learning. The New York State template also aligns well with GRR principles by sequencing activities from teacher-led to student-centered tasks, emphasizing gradual responsibility transfer. Assessment in all three models serves as a surveillance tool for mastery; Hunter’s frequent checks inform day-to-day teaching. UbD’s embedded performance tasks provide ongoing insights into student understanding, aligning with formative assessment principles. The New York State plan’s authentic assessments aim to reveal higher-order thinking and mastery, providing comprehensive data to inform instruction.

All three plans demonstrate evidence of fostering critical thinking. Hunter’s plan promotes active engagement through questioning and reflection strategies. UbD’s emphasis on transfer tasks and metacognitive activities enhances critical thinking by requiring students to analyze, evaluate, and create using their knowledge. The New York State template’s focus on authentic, real-world tasks encourages analysis, problem-solving, and higher-order reasoning, aligning well with Bloom’s taxonomy. Based on this comparative analysis, the UbD model emerges as the most well-rounded and adaptable, as it effectively integrates backward planning, scaffolding, assessment, and alignment with higher-order thinking. Its emphasis on understanding over coverage and its explicit scaffolding for independence make it most effective in promoting sustained deep learning (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).

In conclusion, selecting the most suitable instructional plan template depends on specific teaching contexts and goals. However, overall, the Understanding by Design model stands out as the most comprehensive and flexible framework, encapsulating key elements such as backward design, scaffolded learning, embedded assessments, and critical thinking stimulation. Its strengths lie in its capacity to foster deep understanding and transfer of knowledge, making it highly effective for diverse learners and subject areas. To enhance this template further, I recommend incorporating more explicit guidance on differentiation strategies to address diverse student needs and integrating technology-based assessment tools to provide real-time feedback. These enhancements would promote more inclusive and adaptive instruction, supporting varied learning styles and increasing student engagement.

References

• Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. David McKay Co Inc.
• Diamond, R. M. (2013). Designing and Assessing Courses and Curricula: A Practical Guide. Jossey-Bass.
• Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design. ASCD.
• New York State Education Department. (2020). Common Core Learning Standards. Retrieved from [website]
• Schmoker, M. (2011). Focus: Elevating the Essentials to Radically Improve Student Learning. ASCD.