WTS 7 Entry

Page 1

Improving Instruction
Amber Whiting
Saint Marys University of Minnesota
Schools of Graduate and Professional Programs
Portfolio Entry Documenting a Guided Learning Process for Wisconsin Teacher Standard 7
EDUW 693 Instructional Design and Assessment
Sara Heisler, Instructor
March 20, 2016

WTS 7 Entry

Page 2

Entry Introduction
This WTS 7 entry documents a seven-step professional learning process to improve instruction.
The WTS 8 entry focused on a guided process to learn how the seven steps apply to improving
instructional assessment. This process serves as a transition from guided to independent learning in
applying the seven-step process for continued professional growth. The aim of this WTS 7 entry is to use
new instructional methods, strategies, and techniques that help students learn efficiently and effectively.

LEARNING STEP 1: Expand perspectives based on educator and student standards.

The essential question for this guided learning process: How do I improve instructional
assessment to achieve each students developmental capabilities through confident and
independently competent learning?
Three types of standards guide teacher improvement in this learning process:

Wisconsin Teacher Standards (WTS) guide instructional improvement.

Academic Performance Standards guide content learning in each subject.

Wisconsin Literacy Standards for All Subjects guide communication of learning.

Educator Standards: Wisconsin Standards for Teacher Development and Licensure

Source: Wisconsin DPI website at http://tepdl.dpi.wi.gov/resources/teacher-standards
Areas emphasized during EDUW 693 are preceded by a rather than a symbol.
Wisconsin Teacher Standard (WTS) 7: Teachers are able to plan different kinds of lessons.
The teacher organizes and plans systematic instruction based upon knowledge of subject
matter, students, the community, and curriculum goals.
Knowledge
The teacher understands learning theory, subject matter, curriculum development, and
student development and knows how to use this knowledge in planning instruction to meet
curriculum goals.
The teacher knows how to take contextual considerations (instructional materials,
individual student interests, needs and aptitudes, and community resources) into account in
planning instruction that creates an effective bridge between curriculum goals and students'
experiences.

WTS 7 Entry

Page 3

The teacher knows when and how to adjust plans based on student responses and other
contingencies.
Dispositions
The teacher values both long-term and short-term planning.
The teacher believes that plans must always be open to adjustment and revision based
on student needs and changing circumstances.
The teacher values planning as a collegial activity.
Performances
As an individual and a member of a team, the teacher selects and creates learning
experiences that are appropriate for curriculum goals, relevant to learners, and based upon
principles of effective instruction (e. g. that activate students prior knowledge, anticipate
preconceptions, encourage exploration and problem-solving, and build new skills on those
previously acquired).
The teacher plans for learning opportunities that recognize and address variation in
learning styles, learning differences, and performance modes.
The teacher creates lessons and activities that operate at multiple levels to meet the
developmental and individual needs of diverse learners and help each progress.
The teacher creates short-range and long-term plans that are linked to student needs and
performance, and adapts the plans to ensure and capitalize on student progress and motivation.
The teacher responds to unanticipated sources of input, evaluates plans in relation to
short- and long-range goals, and systematically adjusts plans to meet student needs and enhance
learning.
Student Standards for Academic Performance
Academic Performance Standards Guiding Content Learning
See Artifact B for targeted academic standards guiding the targeted learning unit.
Literacy Standards Guiding Communication of Learning
See Artifact B for literacy standards guiding the targeted learning unit.
LEARNING STEP 2: Pre-assess. Assess current educator effectiveness and student outcomes
based on evidence compared to educator and academic performance standards. Reason
inductively from that evidence to define area(s) most in need of improvement.
See Artifact B for student performance pre-assessments.

WTS 7 Entry

Page 4

Pre-assessment Analysis Conclusion and Essential Question to Guide Research

The general essential question guiding this learning process: how do I improve
instruction to achieve each students developmental capabilities through competent and confident
learning? The inductive reasoning visual below shows a pre-assessment analysis, interpretation,
and the resulting inquiry question more specifically suited to the areas I need to improve.
Reasoning Inductively to a Valid Inquiry Question Based on Assessed Evidence
1. Analysis
Gathered Data for Analysis, Grouped by Type of Evidence:
Key Idea Representing
Areas to improve transferred from each pre-assessment.
Each Area to Improve
Instructional Area to Improve (first underlined WTS 7
Creates learning experiences
descriptor): As an individual and a member of a team, the teacher selects Curriculum goals
and creates learning experiences that are appropriate for curriculum
Effective instruction
goals, relevant to learners, and based upon principles of effective
instruction (e. g. that activate students prior knowledge, anticipate
preconceptions, encourage exploration and problem-solving, and build
new skills on those previously acquired).
Instructional Area to Improve (second underlined WTS 7
descriptor): The teacher responds to unanticipated sources of input,
evaluates plans in relation to short- and long-range goals, and
systematically adjusts plans to meet student needs and enhance learning.
Designing Coherent Instruction (Table 1 )
Area to Improve: Provide an array of cognitive, but suitable, challenges
that engage the student in meaningful learning.

Evaluates plans
Long/short ranged goals
Adjusts
Student needs
Enhance learning
Engage

Designing Student Assessments (Table 2)

Area to improve: Design in engaging formative assessments.

Engaging
Formative assessments

Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques and Engaging Students in

Learning (Table 3).
Area to improve: Activities and assignments.

Activities
Assignments

2. Interpretation: Group key idea words into one/two focus topics

Effective instruction, Engaging activities, Student Goals
3. Draw a Conclusion:
The general question guiding professional growth for this process: How do I improve instruction to
achieve each students developmental capabilities through confident and independently competent
learning?
The specific inquiry question that emerged from my pre-assessments: How do I create effective
instruction with engaging activities that meet student goals?

WTS 7 Entry

Page 5

LEARNING STEP 3: Research professional sources to find practical answers.

To focus on learning to apply the 7-step learning process for instructional improvement,
this research section uses key words and phrases in outline format to summarize inquiry findings.
Introduction
Many special education teachers have to use scripted programs. Often times, students are
disengaged because materials are chosen for them and they experience the same pattern each
day. Therefore, this research investigated different reading comprehension strategies to create
effective instruction with engaging activities. Some of the strategies involved clarity, discussion,
and metacognition strategies. Many strategies can be implemented immediately.
Research Summary
Most significant insight gained from source #1: Quick strategies to encourage students to answer
comprehension questions.
Content Summary of Source #1: Adler (n.d) offered quick strategies to be implemented into the
classroom to increase reading comprehension.
Key answers gained from Source #1:
1. When students are given solid comprehension strategies, they can become purposeful,
active readers who are in control of their reading comprehension.
2. Monitoring comprehension by thinking about what makes sense
3. Metacognition strategies to become aware of how they think best
4. Summarizing strategies, such as identifying and generating the main ideas.
Most significant insight gained from source #2: It is very beneficial to watch videos, because
seeing strategies in action makes them clearer.
Content Summary of Source #2: Meier (n.d) narrated a video showcasing Cathy Doyles
strategies that allowed student to categorize, activate background knowledge, and grow students
knowledge of vocabulary.
Key answers gained from Source #2:
1. List-Group-Label
a. Brainstorm subcategories
b. Group categories so they are related
c. Find the descriptive words for the same topic and label each.
2. Grows background knowledge and vocabulary
Most significant insight gained from source #3: When teachers differentiate instruction to meet
the needs of all learners, the students are able to demonstrate their learning confidently.

WTS 7 Entry

Page 6

Content Summary of Source #3: Jones (2014) wrote about 6 strategies that are easy to implement
to create equality in the classroom.
Key answers gained from Source #3:
1. Equity sticks and leveled questions
2. Multiple ways to express understanding.
3. Share airtime, small group
4. Each time a child contributes to the discussion they put a pompom in the center of the
table.
5. Differentiated rubrics
Most significant insight gained from source #4: it is essential to add new tricks to our bag as we
gain experience as a teacher.
Content Summary of Source #4: Alber (2015) wrote about 6 strategies beneficial to any grade
level that is taught.
Key answers gained from Source #4:
1. Clarity to provide purpose and learning goals
2. Discussion to learn from each other, not teacher.
3. Formative assessment with feedback
4. Metacognitive strategies
5. Collaboration as ways to increase student involvement in the classroom: example given
was student discussion of text to increase understanding.
Most significant insight gained from source #5: best practices in teaching work for K-12 and
beyond .
Content Summary of Source #5: Weimer (2009) offered upper-level and college strategies for
teach reading.
Key answers gained from Source #5:
Good teaching strategies can be utilized k-12 and beyond.
a. Interest
b. Compassion from an adult to show respect for students
c. Assessment and feedback
d. Active engagement, learning from students, etc. were familiar
Conclusion
Good teaching strategies to engage students include differentiating with technology to
heighten interest. Another important factor is using different activities to increase background
knowledge. Finally, a teacher needs to keep learning new strategies to continually change
instruction continually to avoid boring the students. When readers feel like they are in control of
their learning, they tend to increase their reading comprehension.

WTS 7 Entry

Page 7

Research Implications for Implementation in Planning and Instruction

The essential question guiding professional growth for this process: how do I improve
instruction to achieve each students developmental capabilities through confident and
independently competent learning?
My specific inquiry question: how do I create effective instruction by engaging activities
that meet student goals?
Answers/insights from research and course learning that I plan to apply in planning and
instruction for my targeted learning unit:
1. Incorporating technology to increase student engagement
2. Using interesting videos to increase background knowledge and interest
3. Formative assessment on their quality of work
4. Timing and varying centers
5. Each student actively contributing
LEARNING STEP 4: Incorporate learning into a plan.
See Artifact A for evidence of incorporating learning into lesson planning.
LEARNING STEP 5: Implement plan and gather educator and student evidence.
See Artifact A. Evidence gathered during implementation included whole-class and a
lowest, median, and highest formative task sample.
LEARNING STEP 6: Assess teacher/student evidence compared to pre-assessment results
See Artifact A for post assessment information related to teacher evidence. See Artifact
B for post assessment information related to student evidence.

WTS 7 Entry

Page 8

LEARNING STEP 7: Reflection of entire learning process from two perspectives

The essential question guiding this learning process: how do I improve instruction to
achieve each students developmental capabilities through confident and independently
competent learning?
Teacher-as-Learner Perspective
Most significant insight, attitude, or practice that worked best for more efficient and
effective learning in comparison to my previous seven-step learning process: It is always
important to keep learning as a teacher to stay on top of what interest the students. When
watching the initial video and post-learning video, it was plain to see that the students level of
engagement increased significantly. The videos showed a change from background talking to no
talking, as well as an increased focus on the task-at-hand.
Teacher-as-Learner Perspective
My next logical learning step(s) to achieve more efficient and effective learning as an
educator: Continue to learn new technology so I can continue to interest my students. I have
discussed with my district LMS about finding other technology sources that will be easy to
utilize in my classroom.
Teacher Perspective
Most significant insight, attitude, or practice that worked best to improve student outcomes
in this learning unit in comparison to previous outcomes: When I utilized technology, the students
were more willing to participate, more engaged, utilized formative assessment , and completed
their homework consistently.

WTS 7 Entry

Page 9

Teacher Perspective
My next logical learning step(s) for improving teaching practices to benefit student learning:
Continue to utilize the technology to increase participation, motivation, engagement, and assessment.

WTS 7 Entry

Page 10

Research References
Adler, C. (n.d.). Seven strategies to teach students text comprehension. Reading Rockets.
Retrieved from http://www.readingrockets.org/article/seven-strategies-teach-studentstext-comprehension
Alber, R. (2015, February 27). 5 Highly effective teaching practices. Edutopia. Retrieved from
http://www.edutopia.org/blog/5-highly-effective-teaching-practices-rebecca-alber
Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. (2nd ed.).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Heisler, S. (2013). Write teaching. Retrieved with password and username write1 from
MY SMU to Blackboard site at http://www.smumn.edu
Jones, L. (2015, April 1). 6 differentiation strategies for new teachers. Teaching Channel
Retrieved from https://www.teachingchannel.org/blog/2015/04/01/6-differentiationstrategies/
Meier, J. (n.d). Classroom strategies. (n.d.). Reading Rockets. Retrieved from
http://www.readingrockets.org/strategies
Weimer, M. (2009, July 15). Effective teaching strategies. Faculty Focus. Retrieved from
http://www.facultyfocus.com/topic/articles/effective-teaching-strategies/

WTS 7 Entry

Page 11

Artifact A: Pre- and Post-Assessment of Teacher Evidence and Related Improvements

LS 2, 4: Danielsons Framework for Teaching (Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness System)
Descriptors in each cell paraphrase Danielson Framework for Teaching assessment descriptors
from the 2007 version. Underlined comparison words in each descriptor show pre-assessment ratings.
Italicized comparisons or added words show post assessment ratings.
Unchanged ratings or descriptors that are both underlined and italicized generally represent
improvements within the same developmental range as the pre-assessment.
Rating codes: U=Unsatisfactory, B=Basic, P=Proficient, D=Distinguished.
Table 1: Pre- and Post-assessment of Instructional Design for Optimal Learning Processes
Danielson A Framework for Teaching, Domain 1: Planning and Preparation Component 1e: Designing
Coherent Instruction (p. 55-59 and chart on page 60).
Element
Rating Assessment Based on Danielson Framework Criteria.
Learning
B
1. {No/few/some/all} learning activities are suitable to students or to the
activities
to
instructional outcomes. Learning activities are {not/somewhat/mostly/all} highly
P
suitable to diverse learners and support instructional outcomes.
2. {None/some/most/all} learning activities represent
{limited/moderate/significant/high-level} cognitive challenge.
3. {No/some/all}are differentiated for groups of students. Activities are
{not/somewhat/mostly/all} appropriately differentiated for individual learners.
Instructional U
1. {None/few/some/all} of the materials and resources are suitable to students,
materials
to
support the instructional outcomes, and engage students in meaningful learning.
and
P
2. There is {no/some/substantial/continual} evidence of appropriate use of
resources
technology and {no/little/some/appropriate} student participation in selecting or
adapting materials.
Instructional U
1. Instructional groups {do not/partially} support the instructional outcomes.
groups
to
2. {No/little/some/continual}variety in grouping students. Instructional groups
U
{are not/are} appropriately varied for students and different instructional outcomes.
3. {No/little/some/obvious}evidence of student choice in properly selecting
different patterns of instructional groups.
Lesson and
B
1. The lesson or unit has {no clearly defined/recognizable/workable/clearly
unit
to
defined} structure that organizes activities.
structure
D
2. The overall structure is {chaotic/not uniformly maintained/maintained/clearly
maintained} throughout learning unit.
3. {No/Uneven/Even/Highly} coherent progression of activities.
4. {Unrealistic/mostly unrealistic/somewhat realistic/reasonable} time allocations
for each activity.
5. {Does not allow/Some allowance for/Allows} different pathways according to
diverse student needs.
Evidence sources:
Lesson plans for February 22-26.
Area to improve:
Provide an array of cognitive, but suitable, challenges that engage the student in
Evidence sources:
meaningful learning. Instructional groups is an area to improve; however, due to
Most improved area: limited students, I do not have a lot of flexibility in this area.
Lesson plans from March.
Learning activities

WTS 7 Entry

Page 12

Most Significant Evidence in Designing Optimal Learning Processes

1. Pre: All learning activities are suitable to students or to the instructional outcomes. All of my

students have been assessed and supports have been put in place according to student IEPs. The
curriculums have been chosen by the district, and they are level to best meet the student abilities.
Post: Before, I did not use any technology during my LLI reading programs. Now, I am utilizing many forms of
technology to motivate and engage students.
2. Pre: I plan my lessons based on the program, and they are very structured. Post: Now, I created
the structure to increase student engagement.
3. Pre: My lesson is differentiated per each student IEP. The curriculum offers differentiation ideas but, I
work at each students individualized level. Post: Now the lessons allow the student to work independently and be
engaged the whole time.

Table 2: Pre- and Post-assessment of Assessment Design

Danielson A Framework for Teaching, Domain 1: Planning and Preparation (p. 63)
Component 1f: Designing Student Assessments (Read pages 59-63.)
Rating options: U=Unsatisfactory, B=Basic, P=Proficient, D=Distinguished
Element
Rating Current Evidence to Support Rating/Area to Improve
Congruence
P
1. {None/Some/Most/All} instructional outcomes are assessed through the
with
To
proposed assessment approach.
instructional
P
2. Assessment methodologies {have/have} not been adapted for groups and
outcomes
individuals as needed.
Criteria and
U
1. {No/unclear/somewhat clear/clear} criteria and standards.
standards
To
2. Students {contribute/do not contribute} to development of assessment criteria.
B
Design in
U
1. Lesson plans include {no/rudimentary/well-developed/aligned} formative
formative
To
assessments strategies for all instructional outcomes.
assessments
P
2. Lesson plans include {no/minimal/particular/aligned} approaches to
engaging students in assessment and correction of their work.
Use for
P
1. {No plans/Plans} to use assessment results in designing future instruction.
planning
To
2. {Does not use/Uses} assessment results to plan for whole class (basic) and/or
P
group (proficient) and/or individual instruction. {Distinguished is all 3 levels.}
Evidence:
Lesson Plans from February 22-26.
To improve:
Design in engaging formative assessments.
Evidence:
Lesson plans from March.
Most
Design in formative assessments.
improved:
Most Significant Evidence of Designing Appropriate Student Assessments
1. Pre: My assessment results on my running records for LLI directly impact how I formulate my
instruction for the next text. I code the reading based on how errors were made and self corrected so I can see the
strategies that a student is using. Post: Before, my lessons did not contain a development of assessment criteria;
now, I am using rubrics for quality and content.
2. Pre: Students evaluate their work by giving thumbs up/down periodically throughout the lesson. Post:
Lesson plans now include a checklist and a rubric for students to assess their work.
3. Pre: My lesson are aligned with the standards and delivered in a direct instruction approach. Post: Lesson
plans now included engaging student assessment.

WTS 7 Entry

Page 13

Table 3: Pre- and Post-assessment of Instructional Design for Engaged Learning

Danielson A Framework for Teaching, Domain 3: Instruction. Component 3b: Using Questioning and
Discussion Techniques and Component 3c: Engaging Students in Learning
(This table combines rows in the Danielson charts on pages 82 and 85).
Element
Rating Assessment Based on Danielson Framework Criteria.
Quality of
B
1. Teachers questions are {of poor/a mix of high and low/high/uniformly high}
questions
to
quality in cognitive challenge.
B
2. Students generally respond with {single correct responses/some thoughtful
responses/thoughtful responses/formulating many questions of their own}.
3. Questions are asked {in rapid succession/a mix of succession combined with
inadequate time to respond/a succession with some time to respond/a paced
succession with enough time to respond and learn objectives}.
Discussion
U
1. Teacher-student interaction is predominantly {recitation style/with some
techniques
to
attempt to engage student in genuine discussion/creating genuine
B
discussion/creating student responsibility for the success of the discussion}.
2. Teacher {mediates all questions and answers./mediates some questions and
answers./steps aside when appropriate./steps aside when appropriate and
students often initiate topics and make unsolicited contributions}.
Student
B
1. A few students dominate the discussion. OR Teacher {attempts with limited
participation to
success to engage /successfully engages (1:1)} all students in the discussion.
B
OR Students themselves ensure that all voices are heard in the discussion as a
whole class or in groups.
Activities
and
assignments

U
to
P

Evidence sources:
Area to improve:
Evidence sources:
Most improved area:

1. Activities and assignments are {inappropriate/appropriate} to

{few/some/most/all}(1:1) students age or background.
2. {No/Some/Almost all/All} student are {mentally/cognitively} engaged in the
activities and assignments in exploring content.
3. Students {do not/sometimes/generally} initiate or adapt activities and projects
to enhance their understanding.
Digital recording of instruction from January and teacher observations.
Activities and assignments.
Digital recording of instruction from March, teacher observations.
Activities and assignments

Most Significant Evidence in Designing Engaged Learning

1. Pre: Within each lesson there are discussion questions that are design to be within the text, about the text,
and authors purpose type questions. With these questions, my student often comes up with thoughtful questions.
Post: Before, the activities were inappropriate for all students age or background. Now, the activities are engaging
to all students age and background.
2. Pre: My student engages in reading and discussing the text by asking questions about the text, noticing
the pictures, and identifying how the story changes. Post: Before, all students were mentally engaged in activities;
now, students are cognitively engaged in the activities.
3. Pre: The material we work through is leveled, and the student is placed according to ability; so prior to
reading, I gauge students background knowledge Post: Before, student did not adapt the activities to enhance
understanding. Now, students are actively questioning and wanting to know more so they can learn about the
content.

WTS 7 Entry

Page 14

Evidence of Improved Instructional Planning

LS 2: Typical Lesson Plan Prior to EDUW 693
Prior to EDUW 693, my planning practices and instructional materials could be described
in one sentence as a rigorous curriculum, provided by the district, to target the lowest learners.
The first seven-step learning process focused on improving instructional assessment.
From that process, I learned that I may be able to expand student knowledge by including
student-led formative assessment in the provided curriculum.
This second seven-step learning process focuses on improving instructional practices so
students learn content more efficiently and effectively.
LS 4: Improved Lesson Plan: Evidence of Aligning Essential Planning Elements
This plan demonstrates understanding of 693 expectations for lesson design processes
and elements, guided by expectations in WTS 7-8. Highlighting represents planning terminology
and practices aimed at aligning expectations, content, process, product, and assessment elements.
5 assessment tools/methods: five formative or summative methods
6 levels of Blooms Taxonomy (explain missing or eventual levels)
5 thinking patterns (place term next to synonym: Introduce/Define by group
5 instructional strategies/techniques: see 693 term sheet for ideas
1 use of technology incorporated into entire unit (green type)
1 example of making purposeful connections: widening perspectives to realities, interests,
students past/present/future, cultural/racial/ethnic awareness, gender sensitivity, etc.

LS 4a: Improved Planning Related to Assessment

Targeted Subject: Reading Topic: Comprehension
Length of Entire Learning Unit: 1 week
Students Age/Grade Level: 7/ second grade
Lesson Plan Source: Leveled literacy instruction
LS 4b: Summative Task/Assessment for Targeted Learning Unit
I have included my daily formative assessments in the lesson samples. I will be
performing a cold read summative task at the end of the week to gauge the students independent
reading level. The student gives me thumbs up at the end of each comprehension question to
gage how he answered each one.
LS 4c: Key content expectations for proficiency range for the units summative task:
Current developmental LMH proficiency range: Gr. Pre K to Gr. 1
Targeted Proficiency Range for Learning Unit: Gr. K to Gr. 1
LOW Differentiation: Differentiated for one Special Education student.
HIGH Differentiation:

WTS 7 Entry

Page 15

LSS 4d: Key literacy skill expectations for proficiency range for summative task:
Current developmental LMH proficiency range: Gr. Pre K to Gr. 1
Targeted Proficiency Range for Learning Unit: Gr. K to Gr. 1
LOW Differentiation: Differentiated for one Special Education student.
HIGH Differentiation:
LSS 4e: Essential Connections that Align Learning to Learners in Learning Plan:
Essential UNIT Question (student appeal to motivate/broaden learning beyond academics):
How do I use a pictures give clues meaning?
Essential UNIT Answer/Understanding (lasting truth/principle/rule/insight to answer EQ):
1. I answer 5Ws and How by studying clues in picture
2. Do my answers make sense with the title and other clues?
Essential Thinking Pattern to Connect EQ to EA:
Define what makes sense by grouping with the 5Ws and How.
Compare text reading by similarity or difference to check express based on emotions.
Essential Connection to Expand Perspectives Based on Diverse Realities: (real applications that
appeal to learner interests; cultures; past, present, future events; personal needs, etc.)
What is something that does not make sense in your life right now?
Can you think of someone who is not acting as expected?
Essential Connection to Build Integrity, Empathy, and/or Insight:
Discuss how the characters in the stories feel and the evidence in the story that shows
that. How would the child feel in that situation?
Essential Conditions for Appropriate and Equitable Learning and Evidence of Learning?
Oral answers

WTS 7 Entry

Page 16

LSS 4f: Evidence of Aligning Essential Assessment Elements in Learning Plan

Backward Design: Align ending elements, beginning elements, and bridge the gap.
Process: Pace challenging and contrasting activities to sustain diverse learner participation.
Purposeful design so 3Cs build 6Cs: (Teacher cares, corrects, confirms to build student connections,
competence, confidence, cooperation, consideration, captivation.)
What to learn?
[objective(s)/action word +
content/topic]
FO1: First KEY Formative
Objective(s) for new content:
KNOWLEDGE
identify letter names

FO2: ANALYSIS
demonstrate using voice for
expression where the print
matches text
FO3: KNOWLEDGE
state words slowly to
identify the first letter sound

FO4: APPLICATION
write words left to right
leaving space between
words

How to learn?
[process for student learning]
(define instruction , including differentiation)
Show a letter to the student to DEFINE
letter by EXAMPLE of written letter and
sound.
RELATE
(PURPOSE PATTERN+topic) +
(Developing pattern + subtopic)
Previously model in lessons
COMPARE reading of text by
SIMILARITY OR DIFFERENCE to my
modeled voice.
Prompting get your mouth ready
COMPARE printed letter by similarity
and difference to how face feels to make
right sound. (learning phases).
RELATE printed letter to how face feels
to make sound (If I see (letter), THEN I
feel (certain way) to make sound.
Observing student behavior
DEFINE

FO5:COMPREHENSION
follow events of a simple
plot
FO6: COMPREHENSION
recognize the funny part of
the text
FO7: KNOWLEDGE
identify words that rhyme

Monitoring for meaning

Discuss how the story relates to life

FO8: SYNTHESIS
compose sentences to write

Observe writing behaviors

DEFINE

FO8: EVALUATION
assess understanding on a
running record and discuss
the text using evidence
within the text to support
Key SLOs at END of
TARGETED UNIT

Giving the running record/coding reading

behaviors.
EVIDENCE/CIRCUMSTANCE/COMP
ARE

Monitoring for understanding

Giving a word to be rhymed

Evidence of Learning?
[product + assessment]
(task + assessment method)
FT = read letters, thumbs up if they think they are
correct
A= observe for correct letter./ student gives
thumbs up if they think it is correct

FT = point to each word

A= observe for student pointing
FT = read words initiating the first sound get
your mouth ready, thumbs up if they got they
mouth ready
A= observe

FT = write sentences in student journal, check list

for writing behaviors
A= Student checks for spaces between words and
then can check it off on the checklist. EVIDENCE
by Exampe of WORK.
FT = recall the elements that happened in the
story, checklist for each story part
A= teacher records answers
FT = recall events in the story, thumbs up if they
found the funny part
A= teacher records answers
FT = reads rhyming words and express that the
words rhyme
A= teacher listen for the rhymes, student give a
thumbs up or sown evaluating how they did
FT = Write sentences in the student
journal=writing sample.
A= Students use rubric to assess.
FT = Shows textual evidence to respond to a
comprehension question
A= Teacher observation
Evaluate
Sum. Task: cold running record
Summative Assessment Method: 1:1

WTS 7 Entry

Page 17

LSS 4g: Lesson Plan Excerpt for Week of February 22-26

The excerpt from the published plans I use includes the first lesson and subsequent
lessons for a unit that takes a week.

WTS 7 Entry

Page 18

Artifact B: Pre- and Post-Assessment of Student Performance Evidence

Targeted Subject: Reading Topic: Sight words, fluency, comprehension Task: Reading level C text,
answering comprehension questions, and writing sight words.
Note: This learning process started by targeting instructional improvement in working with one firstgrade student reading at kindergarten level. When the student was absent during the entire
implementation time, I shifted the focus to applying strategies to three students at fifth-grade level with
second-grade abilities. The following ratings represent the pre- and post-level of performance for the
second set of three students. Low represents the lowest performance for each skills set, which may not
be the same student for each set.
LS 1: Vertical Academic Performance Standard(s) Guiding Content Learning
Source of academic standards in vertical format: Both academic and literacy expectations drawn
from Wisconsin Literacy Standards for All Subjects http://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/ela/resources
/CCSS_Vertical_Articulation_ELA.pdf
Set 1: Targeted vertical academic descriptors representing range of student abilities to capabilities:
Informational Text: Craft and Structure CCR Anchor Standard 4: Interpret words and phrases as
they are used in a text, including determining technical, connotative, and figurative meanings, and analyze
how specific word choices shape meaning or tone
Kindergarten With prompting and support, ask and answer questions about unknown words in a
text.
Grade 1 Ask and answer questions to help determine or clarify the meaning of words and phrases
in a text.
Grade 2 Determine the meaning of words and phrases in a text relevant to a grade 2 topic or
subject area.
PRE-LOW. Grade 3 Determine the meaning of general academic and domain-specific words and
phrases in a text relevant to a grade 3 topic or subject area.
PRE-MEDIAN/HIGH. POST-LOW/MEDIAN/HIGH. Grade 4 Determine the meaning of
general academic and domain-specific words or phrases in a text relevant to a grade 4 topic or subject
area.
Grade 5 Determine the meaning of general academic and domain-specific words and phrases in a
text relevant to a grade 5 topic or subject area.
Grade 6 Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including
figurative, connotative, and technical meanings.
Set 2: Targeted vertical academic descriptors representing range of student abilities to capabilities:
Informational Text: Craft and Structure CCR Anchor Standard 5: Analyze the structure of texts,
including how specific sentences, paragraphs, and larger portions of the text (e.g., a section, chapter, scene,
or stanza) relate to each other and the whole. Grade-Specific Standard
Kindergarten Identify the front cover, back cover, and title page of a book.
Grade 1 Know and use various text features (e.g., headings, tables of contents, glossaries, electronic
menus, icons) to locate key facts or information in a text.
PRE-LOW. Grade 2 Know and use various text features (e.g., captions, bold print, subheadings,
glossaries, indexes, electronic menus, icons) to locate key facts or information in a text efficiently.
PRE-MEDIAN/HIGH, POST-LOW/MEDIAN/HIGH. Grade 3 Use text features and search tools
(e.g., key words, sidebars, hyperlinks) to locate information relevant to a given topic efficiently.
Grade 4 Describe the overall structure (e.g., chronology, comparison, cause/effect,
problem/solution) of events, ideas, concepts, or information in a text or part of a text.

WTS 7 Entry

Page 19

Set 3: Vertical literacy descriptors for range of thinking/communication abilities to capabilities:

Informational Text: Craft and Structure CCR Anchor Standard 6: Assess how point of view or
purpose shapes the content and style of a text.
Grade-Specific Standard
Kindergarten Name the author and illustrator of a text and define the role of each in presenting the
ideas or information in a text.
Grade 1 Distinguish between information provided by pictures or other illustrations and
information provided by the words in a text.
PRE-LOW, POST-LOW. Grade 2 Identify the main purpose of a text, including what the author
wants to answer, explain, or describe.
PRE-MEDIAN/HIGH. POST-MEDIAN/HIGH. Grade 3: Distinguish their own point of view from
that of the author of a text.
Grade 4: Compare and contrast a firsthand and secondhand account of the same event or topic;
describe the differences in focus and the information provided.
Set 4: Vertical literacy descriptors for range of thinking/communication abilities to capabilities:
Informational Text: Integration of Knowledge and Ideas CCR Anchor Standard 8: Delineate and
evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, including the validity of the reasoning as well as the
relevance and sufficiency of the evidence.
Grade-Specific Standard
Kindergarten With prompting and support, identify the reasons an author gives to support points
in a text.
Grade 1: Identify the reasons an author gives to support points in a text.
Grade 2: Describe how reasons support specific points the author makes in a text.
PRE-LOW/MEDIAN/HIGH. POST-LOW/MEDIAN. Grade 3: Describe the logical connection
between particular sentences and paragraphs in a text (e.g., comparison, cause/effect, first/second/third in
a sequence).
POST-HIGH. Grade 4: Explain how an author uses reasons and evidence to support particular
points in a text.
Grade 5 Explain how an author uses reasons and evidence to support particular points in a text,
identifying which reasons and evidence support which point(s).
Grade 6 Trace and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, distinguishing claims that
are supported by reasons and evidence from claims that are not.
Student Evidence
Pre-assessment Student Sample
LS 2: Pre-assessment task information: Since the information in this entry shifted from working
with one first-grade student whose absence necessitated a shift to documentation involving three students
at fifth-grade level with second-grade abilities, the evidence was not collected to complete the usual
comparisons. For the new situation, all of the content is differentiated to each students level, based on
IEP goals. I have one student working on decoding, and the other two students are working on
comprehension. Out of these three students, one has a disability that affects her working memory and this
causes her to process information slowly. This impacts how much content the student completes.
LS 6: Post Assessment Student Sample
Differentiated objectives, content, process, product, assessment: Measurable progress: I assess the
students comprehension based on their ability to understand what they are reading and their ability to
write about reading. To assess the progress, I observed how well they understand while they read,

WTS 7 Entry

Page 20

assessed with a running record with an Aims web probe, and assessed what they wrote about what they
read.
Remaining proficiency gaps: Each of my students is behind peers by more than a year, but they
made progress within our individual reading group, which, I discuss in the following section:
Due to the circumstances of student absences for the entire week of targeted implementation, I
was unable to collect evidence for post-assessment from the first-grade student. However, after our first
WTS 8 process, I received permission to vary from the scripted program and try the strategies I was
learning with my fifth-grade students.
The strategies were applied to the lesson The Corpse Flower. In this group, I have three students.
There are two boys and one girl. These students are all more than a year behind in reading. They struggle
with attending and working memory. The big goal we are working on this semester is nonfiction text.
Following is the list of strategies I tried:
1. Incorporating technology to increase student engagement
a. Padlet: used a discussion board and a way to get media to students.
b. Poplet: used to create a KWL chart.
c. Seesaw: a parent communication app that I feel increases accessibility and
accountability for both students and parents.
d. Pic collage: Students created a picture document to demonstrate their learning
by synthesizing learning with a picture that represented their comprehension
of the text.
e. Videos: Students made short clips instead of doing a book walk that gave
them information to think about the text. In the videos they made a prediction
before they read the text based on what they saw on the book cover. They
had to think about the text with no prompting.
2. Using interesting videos to increase background knowledge and interest: Videos from
the web, such as a three-minute video from National Geographic embedded in a
Padlet, which they watched to increase background knowledge.
3. Formative Assessment on their quality of work: Checklist created to answer three
questions: Did I do my best work, use my time wisely, and ??
4. I expanded the timeline to four days a book and set specific parameters around
varying centers. The parameters for unit were based on different centers, which are
not used in LLI instruction.
a. Monday: Whole group, introduction video (5 minutes), with a LLIs formal
introduction to the text.
b. Tuesday: 3 independent centers for students: a technology center with Poplet
task, an iPad center in a reading intervention program called Lexia, and the
third center was reading with me. Tuesday night the student had to complete
reading the text to finish remaining text that was unfinished during the day.
c. Wednesday: 3 Padlet stations(7min), each with a different comprehension
question: question from within the text, making an inference about the text,
and an authors purpose question beyond the text. An 8-minute discussion
followed. After the discussion, students filled out a checklist on quality work

WTS 7 Entry

Page 21

d. Lexia while students are with a supervising teacher while Im on lunch duty.
e. Friday was writing about reading day. Reading response journal about what
they learned. Students fill out a rubric on quality writing
Below is a summary of typical pre-implementation outcomes and post-implementation
outcomes resulting from the new strategies:
1. Engagement increased by at least 60%. Students were especially interested in the new
technology.
2. Background knowledge for LLI was a ritual of questions like Go to page 4. What
does it say? What do you think about that? Now, the video immediately caught their attention,
because I named it Dr. Popsicle (the nickname of the Doctor in the text), which they thought was
hilarious. The book was about his studies of hypothermia, and when students learned his real
name in the nonfiction book, they made the connection between his nickname, the topic, and his
real name. For the first time, it was obvious students were interacting with the text and the
reactions were obviously stronger than any time reading a text previously. No more of Why do I
have to do this? and Do I have to read?
3. Last week, some of the delay was in teaching the technology. Now this week, Im
seeing more independent motivation in watching the videos. That, in turn, is making the book
more interesting to them. They are participating all the way through the book.
4. Homework increased, too. Before, maybe one of the three students would do
homework, with no consistency in who did the homework. Two of three students came with the
homework completed this week. The rule is they need to do the reading homework before they
can use the Padlet.
This sample shows the questions created by the high student using Poplet. The topic was about
hypothermia before we read the text. All three students participated 100% in this activity and
made the connections to answering their questions as we read the story.

WTS 7 Entry

Page 22

The post-high example below shows the students summary of the nonfiction text we read. Notice the
comparison to the amount of writing on the partial view of the previous page. The retention of content
was far more than previous text they read.