Section 1 Lesson Preparation Teacher Candidate Name G 878060

Section 1 Lesson Preparationteacher Candidate Namegrade Levelunits

Create a title for each lesson and 1-2 sentences summarizing the lesson, identifying the central focus based on the content and skills you are teaching. Describe important classroom factors (demographics and environment) and student factors (IEPs, 504s, ELLs, students with behavior concerns, gifted learners), and the effect of those factors on planning, teaching, and assessing students to facilitate learning for all students. This should be limited to 2-3 sentences and the information should inform the differentiation components of the lesson.

Develop a comprehensive three-day mathematics unit plan tailored to meet specific student needs, including appropriate modifications and assistive technologies. Incorporate strategies for activating prior knowledge, presenting content in multiple ways, engaging students in exploring and applying the content, and assessing understanding through formative and summative measures. The plan should also integrate an English Language Arts writing standard related to the student's goals and outline ways to involve families in supporting student learning outside the classroom.

Paper For Above instruction

The development of a tailored instructional plan for students with diverse needs is essential in ensuring equitable access to education. This paper presents a comprehensive three-day mathematics unit plan designed to support a ninth-grade student, Fiona, who faces challenges in her algebra class due to reading comprehension difficulties and learning below grade level. The plan integrates research-based strategies, assistive technologies, differentiation, formative and summative assessments, and family engagement to optimize learning outcomes and promote mastery.

Fiona’s case exemplifies the complexities faced by students with disabilities within mainstream classrooms. Her prior instruction in a resource setting underscores the importance of differentiated instruction and targeted support to bridge gaps in foundational skills. The instructional strategies selected—explicit vocabulary instruction and the concrete-representational-abstract (CRA) approach—are grounded in evidence demonstrating their effectiveness for students with learning challenges (Swanson, 2001; Maccini & Gagnon, 2009). These strategies are appropriate for Fiona, as they provide structured, scaffolded approaches that promote conceptual understanding and help build independence in solving algebraic problems.

Explicit vocabulary instruction is crucial for Fiona to understand key algebra concepts, such as variables, coefficients, and equations. This involves pre-teaching vocabulary with visual supports, using real-life examples, and reinforcing terminology through multisensory activities (Baumann et al., 2010). The CRA approach systematically progresses from concrete manipulatives, like algebra tiles or counters, to visual models, and finally to symbolic representations of algebraic expressions. This scaffolding aligns with Fiona’s needs by strengthening her conceptual grasp and reducing cognitive load (Fuchs et al., 2010). Implementation tips include consistent use of manipulatives during lessons, visual aids displayed prominently, and regular vocabulary checks to ensure retention and transfer of knowledge.

The three-day unit plan is structured to progressively develop Fiona’s algebra skills, incorporating strategies that align with her learning profile. Each lesson begins with an anticipatory set that activates prior knowledge and stimulates interest. For instance, a real-world scenario involving shopping or budgeting can serve as an entry point to introduce algebraic expressions. Differentiation extends to content, process, and product; for example, providing visual supports or simplified tasks for ELL students and students with special needs, while offering extension activities for gifted learners.

Presentation of content employs multiple means of representation, including visual aids, interactive software, and tactile manipulatives, to address diverse learning preferences (Dalton & Grisham, 2011). For Fiona, digital algebra tools with voice-over features and adjustable font sizes can be particularly beneficial. During the exploration and practice phases, students engage with problems through collaborative activities, individual worksheets, and technology-assisted exercises, ensuring multiple means of engagement tailored to their readiness levels.

Assessments are integral to monitoring progress and guiding instruction. Formative assessments include exit tickets, observational checklists, and quick quizzes to gauge understanding in real-time. Summative assessments involve performance tasks that require students to solve real-world algebra problems, demonstrating transfer of knowledge. Differentiation in assessment considers Fiona’s needs by providing answer choices or additional scaffolding for some, and open-ended problems for others, ensuring all students can demonstrate their understanding. Furthermore, an ELA writing standard is integrated, such as writing explanations of solving algebraic expressions, to reinforce literacy skills and mathematical reasoning (NCTM, 2014).

Involving Fiona’s family in her learning process enhances her chances for success. Regular communication of progress, strategies, and ways to support learning at home is essential. An at-home activity could involve parents guiding Fiona through solving simple algebraic equations using manipulatives or drawing diagrams to visualize problems. This shared activity fosters numeracy and literacy skills, as well as strengthens the home-school connection, which research shows significantly benefits student achievement (Epstein, 2011; Wilder & Bergen, 2009).

In conclusion, designing an effective, adaptable, and engaging unit plan for students like Fiona requires integrating evidence-based instructional strategies, appropriate technology, differentiation, ongoing assessment, and family involvement. By focusing on Fiona’s unique learning profile and promoting active engagement and mastery, educators can facilitate meaningful and accessible mathematics learning experiences that support all students’ growth towards academic standards.

References

  • Baumann, J. F., Kame'enui, E. J., & Ash, G. E. (2010). Research on vocabulary instruction: Implications for reading comprehension. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(1), 50-61.
  • Dalton, B., & Grisham, D. (2011). Comprehension strategy instruction: An integrated approach to reading in the 21st century. Guilford Publications.
  • Epstein, J. L. (2011). Transforming family–school partnerships into community–school partnerships. Journal of Community Psychology, 39(7), 839-850.
  • Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2010). Smart RTI: A next-generation approach to multilevel prevention. Guilford Publications.
  • Maccini, P., & Gagnon, J. C. (2009). The effect of using concrete-representational-abstract strategies on the mathematics achievement of students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 43(4), 208-221.
  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. NCTM.
  • Swanson, H. L. (2001). Research on strategies instruction for students with learning disabilities: What have we learned? The Elementary School Journal, 101(3), 319-331.
  • Wilder, S., & Bergen, L. (2009). Home–school partnerships and early literacy development. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(6), 587-598.

Related Assignments