Comparison of a More Effective and a Typical Teachers’ Lesson Plan Detail

Abstract

The reasons for teacher variability are not well understood. One possible reason for teacher variance might be their lesson planning. Utilizing a case study methodology, this study asked if teacher engaged reader (comprehension) lesson plan explicitness was related to differences in student outcomes by comparing teachers, utilizing data from a larger study. One of the factors that differentiated the above-average gain teacher from the typical teacher was the extent to which the teacher planned to address all three of the engaged reader processes. The above-average gain teacher wrote more detailed plans and planned on teaching the engaged reader processes in a way that better aligned with the guidance provided by the intervention

Keywords

• Lesson Plan Analysis
• Comprehension
• Teacher Comparison
• Engaged Readers

References

1. Almasi, J.F., & Fullerton, S.K. (2012). The strategic processes in reading. New York: The Guilford Press.
2. Baecher, L., Famsworth, T., & Ediger, A. (2014). The challenges of planning language objectives in content-based ESL instruction. Language Teaching Research, 18(1), 118-136.
3. Duffy, G.G. (1993). Teachers’ progress toward becoming expert strategy teachers. Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 109-120. doi: 10.1086/461754
4. Duke, N., Pearson, D., Strachan, S., & Billman, S. (2011). Essential elements of fostering and teaching reading comprehension. In S. Samuels & A. Farstrup (eds.), What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction (4th ed.,pp. 51-93). Newark: DE: International Reading Association.
5. Flurkey, A., & Xu, J., (Eds.) (2003). On the revolution of reading: The selected writings of Kenneth S. Goodman. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
6. Ghorbani, M.R., Gangeraj, A.A., & Alavi, S.Z. (2013). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension strategies improves EFL learners’ writing ability. Current Issues in Education, 16(1), 1-11.
7. Guthrie, J. T., McRae, A., & Klauda, S. L. (2007). Contributions of concept-oriented reading instruction to knowledge about interventions for motivations in reading. Educational Psychology, 42(4),237–250.
8. John, P.D. (2006). Lesson planning and the student teacher: Re-thinking the dominant model. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 483-498.

9. Kim, W., Linan-Thompson, S., & Misquitta, R. (2012). Critical factors in reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities: A research synthesis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practise, 27(2), 66-78. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2012.00352.
10. Kintsch, W. (2005). An Overview of Top-Down and Bottom-Up Effects in Comprehension: The CI Perspective. Discourse Processes: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 39(2&3), 125-128. doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp3902&3_2
11. Korkut, P. (2018). The construction and pilot application of a scoring rubric for creative drama lesson planning. The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance, 23(1), 114-125. doi: 10.1080/13569783.2017.1396211
12. Kymes, A. (2005). Teaching online comprehension strategies using think-alouds. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(6), 492-500. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.48.6.4
13. Lane, J. S. (2010). An analysis of relationships between lesson planning training and rehearsal. Journal of Band Research, 46(1), 52-65.
14. Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. S. (2010). Qualitative Reading Inventory – 5. Boston: Pearson.
15. Mason, L.H. (2004). Explicit self-regulated strategy development versus reciprocal questioning: Effects on expository reading comprehension among struggling readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 283-296. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.283
16. Migyanka, J. M., Policastro, C., & Guiqiu, L. (2005). Using a think-aloud with diverse students: Three primary grade students experience chrysanthemum. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(3), 171-177. doi: 10.1007/s10643-005-0045-z
17. Mitchell, K. E. (2006). Getting to the Heart of a Story. Teaching Pre K-8, 37(1), 66-67.
18. Morrow, L. M. (2011). Developing effective reading curricula for beginning readers and the primary grades. In T. V. Rasinski (Ed.), Rebuilding the foundation: Effective reading instruction for 21st century literacy (pp. 89–112). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
19. National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
20. Ness, M. (2011). Explicit reading comprehension instruction in elementary classrooms: Teacher use of reading comprehension strategies. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 25(1), 98-117. doi: 10.1080/02568543.2010.531076
21. Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L.(1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1
22. Pardo, L. S. (2004). What every teacher needs to know about comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58(3), 272-280. doi: 10.1598/RT.58.3.5
23. Parker, E. C., Bond, V. L., & Powell, B. S. (2017). A grounded theory of preservice music educators’ lesson planning processes within field experiences methods courses. Journal of Research in Music Education, 65(3), 287-308. doi: 10.1177/0022429417730035
24. Peterson, P.L., Marx, R.W., Clark, C.M. (1978). Teacher planning, teacher behavior, and student achievement. American Educational Journal, 15(3), 417-432.
25. Regan, K. S., Evmenova, A. S., Kurz, L. A., Hughes, M. D., Sacco, D., Ahn, S. Y., MacVittie, N., Good, K., Boykin, A., Schwartzer, J., Chirinos, D. S. (2016). Researchers apply lesson study: A cycle of lesson planning, implementation, and revision. Learning Disabilities Research & Practise, 31(2), 113-122. doi: 10.1111/ldrp.12101
26. Schmidt, M. (2005). Preservice string teachers’ lesson-planning processes: An exploratory study. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53, 6-25. doi: 10.1177/002242940505300102
27. Stone, A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344-364. doi: 10.1177/002221949803100404
28. Townsend, D., & Boynton, M.J. (2013). Mediating the effects of reading engagement on reading comprehension of early adolescent English language learners. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 29, 309-332.
29. Watson, S. R., Gable, R. A., Gear, S. B., & Hughes, K. C. (2012). Evidence-based strategies for improving the reading comprehension of secondary students: Implications for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practise, 27(2), 79-89. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2012.00353.
30. Woodcock, R.W., McGrew, K. S., &Mather, N. (2001).Woodcock-Johnson III. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.
31. Zahorik, J.A. (1970). The effect of planning on teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 71(3), 143-151.