Lesson Plan: Revision 5.0

by Kate Ter Haar

by Kate Ter Haar

In order to develop a quality lesson, I will make revisions based on my previous recommendations, which encompasses components of Technology Pedagogy and Content Knowledge, Universal Design of Learning and using a Professional Learning Network. These revisions to Lesson 1.0 will result in my new 5.0 Lesson. The first revision I made was to add a Social Studies GLEC, in order to make sure I am creating context based on strong content. I also made the lesson a project based lesson as it was more reflective of a strong pedagogy. Which ties to the Pedagogy aspect of TPACK. Next in the introduction of the lesson I devised a time for students to reflect on their knowledge of Michigan characteristics. As CAST depicts, representing works by using the recognition area of the brain which recognizes patterns (CAST 2009). By activating prior knowledge I give the student an opportunity to explore past patterns of this experience. Also I have allowed for students to determine what type of map and tools they will use to create their project.Provide options for recruiting interest by allowing students to participate in the design of the lesson (CAST 2011). I allowed students more opportunities to evaluate their learning process by adding a reflection piece that included; having them reflect on other 3rd graders work and analyzing the effectiveness of the technology tool they used to create their thematic map. Components of using their own Professional Learning Network was added by having them post their maps in order to receive feedback from another 3rd grade class along with allowing them to comment on others work. This revision also facilitated the UDL component of multiple forms of evaluation, where the evaluation came from the teacher and peers.

In order to revise my work; I reflected on my original work, evaluated my lesson based on my understanding of new acquired knowledge, made changes to my lesson, provided evidence as to why I made changes, edited my work, and considered specified feedback. During the revision process each time I developed a new understanding of a concept, theory or practice it created a better version of my lesson. Knowing that the steps to my process, required reflection, synthesis, writing and citing also helped me understand that these are phases which lead me to better evaluations. My instructor(s) are able to gain a better understanding of how I process information in order to narrow down which teaching approach(s) work best. The development of my learning is the goal, as is the revision of teaching practices. It seems that there can be no substantial growth in student learning if there is no adjustment in teaching. The role these revisions have had is the concept that teachers need to understand the learning process of our students. Also where these learning processes break down, in order to drive the teaching approach. Evaluations seem less important and more of a checking point while working on getting students to grow academically.

When I take into consideration the theory of TPACK and UDL, and the practice of using a PLN I believe my understanding of what is needed to help a student grow has changed. Student growth consists of more than a grade. It consist of being able to assess the student in order to modify my teaching strategy, in which will also allow for my development. Professionally I was enlightened by the fact that although I thought I had an understanding of what constituted a quality lesson, quite often I was only putting one or two of these concepts into practice and only part of the time. Most often I was focused on the evaluation portion of my lesson. I had never appraised what it took for a teacher to become an expert and all the components such as Pedagogy knowledge, content knowledge and Technical knowledge and how together these create an area of new knowledge (Mishra, P. & Koehler. M. J, P.15). From this framework a teacher has the skills necessary to dissect student processing along with their understanding of information in order to make monumental changes in student evaluations.



CAST (2009). Universal Design for Learning. Retrieved from http://udlonline.cast.org/page/module1/l144/

Cochran-Smith, M., & Dudley-Marling, C. (2012). Diversity in teacher education and special education: The issues that divide. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(4), 237. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.msu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1035630752?accountid=12598

Mishra, P. & Koehler. M. J. (2009). Too cool for school? No way! Using the TPACK framework: you can have your hot tools and teach with them, too. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(7), 14-18.

Rose, D.H. & Gravel, J. (2011). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines (V.2.0).Wakefield, MA: CAST.org. Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s