Erickson D

1
David J. Erickson
College Name, Grand Canyon University
EAD-520: Strengthening Curricular Programs to Promote Continuous School Improvement
Dr. Jeffrey Mehlenbacher
December 14, 2022

2
Part A: Lesson Plan Review
In the lesson plan (provided through my field experience), the teacher was able to provide
scaffolding through the laid out increments ranging between five and 15 minutes per task or
assignment. Additionally, the teacher provided a section that provided previous knowledge and
practice the students had been given. Because of this, scaffolding for that day’s lesson may be
easily broken down into chunks as a step-by-step process. However, the lesson plan lacks
elaboration of what the teacher will do or what the specifics may be for each assignment, which
creates no endpoint for the previous scaffolding. Additionally, the differentiation that is present
is that of the instructional strategy of providing visual notes for the students.
As for the objectives, a strength of the lesson plan how the teacher established the
learning target and success criteria, as well as the common core state standards within the
assignment. Furthermore, the objectives within the learning target for the students can be seen
within the previous knowledge section and within the lesson through the review worksheet.
Weaknesses, still, are present in the objectives. It can also be assumed that the intention for the
final write-up to align with the learning target and the day’s notes, but—because there isn’t a
connection within the requirements to it—no clear connection can be made. As for content, this
lesson plan doesn’t include much as it doesn’t appear to be necessary. Some content is given,
such as the notion that the students will be having a review session of previously learned content
and the introduction of two new concepts (run-ons and fragments). The lesson plan, additionally,
contains a content focus. However, as previously mentioned, the content doesn’t align with focus
of the day, so it appears as another review rather than continue the learning from the day.
The learning and instructional strategies aren’t strongly presented. Though a strength that
can be noted is the structure of the lesson plan itself, which allows for an “Intended Response”
3
section, the teacher’s only strategies for the students to comprehend the knowledge is to review
the first assignment together and provide a PowerPoint with an introduction to run-on sentences
and sentence fragments, with written examples provided on the board. As for technology, the
teacher incorporates technology within the note-taking process and class review of the four
worksheets—both of which allows for instant feedback to the students.
Lastly, the assessments within the lesson are informal as they are designed to guide the
students toward the established success criteria. The assignments the teacher plans for are diverse
and cover a variety of different aspects within grammar. In addition, the assignments review
previous information as well as assess the knowledge of the day’s notes. A weakness to the
informal assignments is the little connection they appear to have to one another and the lack of
student interaction. The assignments, though both pertaining to grammar, don’t offer an
opportunity for collective review, nor do they meet the learning target for the day.
Part B: Coach the Teacher
The strongest points of the lesson plan are the connection the teacher has made to the
common core state standards. By allowing the standards to be present within the lesson plan,
even if information is missing or a task isn’t covered during the specific plan, the administration
and fellow staff members will be able to see an intended focus. As Clement (2016) stated when
attempting to breakdown the basics of correcting a curriculum and lessons, having little planning
causes lessons to not go well, so a “emphasizing that an effective lesson is framed by the
standards” (p. 32) is crucial. An additional strength the lesson plan provides is its slow pace.
Although in Part A I mention a weakness of the lesson is that it is another review rather of
previously acquired information, this could potentially be a piece of scaffolding where it is
necessary to slow down and break down the material.

4
As for areas of refinement, the lesson plan needs to include differentiation strategies for
either teaching the material and for allowing students with enough time to practice. In the lesson,
the teacher doesn’t allow for the students to have an opportunity to work together or to practice
the material aside from a worksheet and write-up. In the case where the students are asked to
review previous knowledge, the teacher could’ve allowed for a gallery walk or four-corners
activity which would’ve given students the chance to choose the grammatical element best. This
would, in turn, allow for student discussion to be more proactive as the students would be
creating something they have an understanding on and be able to share it with their classmates.
Keeping the students to themselves may be beneficial if given a test or a final essay to
write—or, in the case of the lesson plan, they are creating their own mini-lesson—, but when
reviewing material, it is important for them to share their work. Adding this element would also
help meet one of the standards, SL6, the teacher intends to work toward. In support of this
notion, Tucker (2016) added that it is important for teachers to think outside the box. So, adding
interactive strategies that get students moving and exposed to different strategies such as digital
sources like Kahoot or FlipGrid, could potentially improve interaction as “interest in all things
digital can be leveraged for learning by teachers willing to think outside the box” (Tucker, 2016,
p. 83). Lastly, sacrificing understanding and rushing through material will only do more harm
than good. The vision of my school is to provide a strong and rigorous education (Marysville
Getchell High School [MGHS] Student Handbook, 2022), so ten minutes for an assignment with
new information isn’t sufficient. Allowing more time for students to work provides a further
scaffolding strategy that could be referred to later within the lesson and provide students with a
deeper understanding of skills and techniques (Mulvahill, 2022).

5
Reference
Clement, M. C. (2016). Four-Step Lesson Intervention. Principal, 95(3), 32–33.
Mulvahill, E. (2022). 18 Ways To Scaffold Learning for Your Students. Retrieved 15 December
2022, from https://www.weareteachers.com/ways-to-scaffold-learning/
Tucker, C. (2016). Escaping the Lesson-Planning Doldrums. Educational Leadership, 74(2), 83–
84.
Marysville Getchell High School. (2022). Student Handbook.

Erickson D

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Erickson D

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Erickson D

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

College Name, Grand Canyon University

EAD-520: Strengthening Curricular Programs to Promote Continuous School Improvement

Dr. Jeffrey Mehlenbacher

December 14, 2022

Part A: Lesson Plan Review

worksheets—both of which allows for instant feedback to the students.

Part B: Coach the Teacher

previously acquired information, this could potentially be a piece of scaffolding where it is

necessary to slow down and break down the material.

deeper understanding of skills and techniques (Mulvahill, 2022).

Clement, M. C. (2016). Four-Step Lesson Intervention. Principal, 95(3), 32–33.

2022, from https://www.weareteachers.com/ways-to-scaffold-learning/

Tucker, C. (2016). Escaping the Lesson-Planning Doldrums. Educational Leadership, 74(2), 83–

Marysville Getchell High School. (2022). Student Handbook.

You might also like