beginning with the end in mind

Thomas S.C. Farrell, the author of chapter 3 in our anthology, defines a daily lesson plan as "a written description of how students will move toward attaining specific objectives" (31). I think its very hard, though, to define a lesson plan in a simple sentence! Farrell's article caused me to reflect upon my own lesson planning strategies, and because reflection is an important skill for a teacher, I decided to write about that here.

Farrell acknowledges in his article that all teachers plan differently, which I thought was important. He comments that "lesson plans of 'real' teachers don't usually focus on behavioral objectives, but rather, a sequencing of activities". The first lesson plans I ever created were for my tutorial classes at the ELI. I began teaching at the ELI when I was a sophomore - admittedly, long before I knew anything about teaching! :) My plans, if I had any written out at all, were usually just a list of activities, and maybe a few phrases to help me transition between the activities. I sometimes included specific vocabulary I wanted to introduce as well. These plans actually fit their purpose very well. They helped me remember what to do, and that is, perhaps, the most important part in the early stages of teaching.

However, lesson planning can be much more effective, and I learned that in my C&I 289.75 class. In that class, I learned how to create lesson plans according to behavioral objectives. I found that those helped my lesson plans to be much more effective, because they required me to think through the entire lesson and my END GOALS.

Now, in my current education classes, those end goals are being enforced more than ever before. Farrell describes Tyler's rational linear framework in the early part of his chapter. He describes the four steps as being 1) specify objectives, 2) select learning objectives, 3) organize learning activities, and 4) specify methods of evaluation. He puts the end goals at the end, which logically makes sense. You plan the lesson and then you decide how you are going to evaluate. However, I mentally began to question his method. Recently, I've been learning about 'backwards design' which despite its title I believe holds a lot of merit.

In backwards design, you plan your evaluation first. You design your assessment and what its going to test, so that you can plan the unit and the lessons such that the students will be taught material that will be very relevant for the test. So essentially, Tyler's steps are just out of order - step 4 should be first.

Farrell also introduces the "Generic lesson plan in 5 phases" and one thing I really like about this is that he has steps IV and V as "Closure" and then "Follow-up", respectively. I think sometimes its easy to mistakenly "close" a lesson and assume it is done. I think that follow-up is critical, however, to ensure student understanding and to push students to a higher level of achievement.

This brings me to Finney's article, chapter 7. He states that "learner- and learning-centered learning is the only possible model for education in a world that is changing faster than ever before". Both of the above methods of lesson planning are very learner-centered because they focus on the students' end needs and goals. And, they help the teacher see the end also, which makes lessons more effective.

Finney also discusses how syllabus design is critical to instruction and planning. He explains that one of the most widely used syllabus models is one that incorporates language as it is learned, acquired, and used - a variable focus on proportional model. He explains that Yalden describes the "advantages of this mixed-focus model [are that] it 'would seem to allow the syllabus designer the most freedom to respond to changing or newly perceived needs in the learners, and at the same time provides a framework for the teacher who may not be able or willing to 'go fully communicative'. I would add that it provides the experienced teacher with a framework that allows for choice in how to implement the syllabus, and with further development can create space for learner-teacher negotiation in 'real life' communication in the classroom" (76). In summary, such a model allows a teacher to accommodate for learner needs. Once again, this is a learner-centered approach.

I guess I am learning that all of our design should begin with the end in mind. And even more importantly, we should ALWAYS have the learner in mind. What are their needs? How will they respond? And are we teaching so that they can learn?