Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Howse Final Isd Project
Howse Final Isd Project
Tracy Howse
Towson University
Instructional Design 2
Section I
Instructional goal and learners
Through a front-end analysis of middle school learners, it is evident that students need
more strategies for collaborative discussions. This instructional problem is especially prevalent
throughout 6th grade discussions on fictional texts. Debates come more naturally to students, who
are conditioned to respond to questions with the “correct” answers about their readings.
This instructional design will focus on increasing 6th grade students’ proficiency in
collaboratively discussing fictional texts. Throughout any design process, including a needs
analysis and learner analysis is crucial to addressing the instructional problems. The progression
of problems seen in the Pebble in the Pond model (See Appendix 1) culminates in the following
instructional goal: students will be able to use strategies including turn taking and active
Front-end analysis
helps the designer choose the intervention needed to achieve the instructional goal. The first step
is to conduct a needs analysis, “which helps determine what kind of change the instruction
should bring about” (Brown, 40). After a needs analysis comes a learner analysis. This step
Needs Analysis:
particularly about fiction texts. Allison Rossett’s 1995 needs analysis model uses data and
responsive recommendations to solve problems (Brown, 50). For gathering information, the
author states that one needs to understand the students’ current level and desired levels of
Instructional Design 3
towards the assignments, causes, and possible solutions. The categories required for gathering
Optimal Performance: The optimal performance coincides with the instructional goal.
Students should use strategies such as turn taking and active listening, classroom
must achieve the progressive goals that lead up to the instructional goal (Appendix 1).
questions.
Actual Performance: Students are currently not operating at this level, especially
regarding fiction texts. They spend a majority of discussion time arguing over predictions
information. Surveys about what makes a good listener will also aide in this data
be apt to give and analyze reading logs. Teachers will be able to see what types of books
students enjoy reading and, therefore, whether they prefer fiction or non-fiction. This will
also show how often they read. Reading logs clarify that the problem is due to a lack of
Causes: Regarding the last section, I have found that the students generally appreciate
fiction works and group discussions. Therefore, the causes of this design are not rooted in
Solutions: The general solutions for this instructional problem must be focused on
Strategies” section.
Observing and collecting this data will enhance the instructional design and further analysis,
Rossett also states that, once you have gathered information about these five categories,
there is a five-step process for conducting the needs analysis. For this process, three steps require
The first step is determining the purpose based on initiators. For this instructional problem,
the initiator is “performance problems” and thus the instructional design should also address
possible causes (Brown 52). Step two requires identifying sources who have the information to
teach and facilitate these group discussions. These sources would be 6th grade English teachers,
reading specialists, and library media specialists within the school. The third step focuses on
gathering data through tools. It is evident that students will need a culminating discussion that
will give them an authentic learning experience through applying their new skills. Throughout
this process, questionnaires and various formative assessments will help teachers monitor
students’ progress.
Step four is performing an assessment of students’ needs. For this step, teachers will
discuss a text previously used in class and analyze students’ current successes with group
discussions. The fifth step is selecting the appropriate solutions, which for this problem, will be
Learner Analysis:
Dick, Carey, and Carey’s 2011’s model focuses on gathering information about the target
population through a list of information. This list includes skill, prior knowledge, attitudes,
motivation, educational and ability levels, learning preferences, attitudes, and group
characteristics (Brown, 80). Observing skill, knowledge, motivation, and group characteristics
will occur during the initial discussion. The reading logs will look specifically at their attitudes
whereas the discussion survey (Appendix 2) will look at their knowledge and skill. The final
learner analysis needed will be educational and ability levels and learning preferences. Since this
is designed for students within their English classes, teachers should have prior evidence of these
Learning Context:
Smith and Ragan’s 2004 analysis of the learning context details two steps: instruction to
help learners reach the instructional goals and describing the learning environment (Brown 52).
Each step of the PITP model outlines knowledge and skills students must learn in order to
achieve that specific goal (Appendix 1). The learning environment for teaching this instruction
will also be based on Smith and Ragan’s supplantive and generative learning environments.
Therefore, educators will focus on supplying instruction about the discussion techniques and
knowledge necessary, whereas students will generate questions and lead these discussions.
Arts standards and the American Association of School Librarians (AASL) Standards for the
21st-Century Learner. For mdk12, I specifically used the College and Career-Ready Standards for
Reading Literature (RL) and Speaking & Listening (SL). The standards, progression of
Formative Evaluation:
Formative evaluation allows us as educators to test the approaches used to teach the
tasks. The formative evaluations used within this plan focus on usability testing. This format
allows educators to test how users were able to complete the tasks based on the end goals in a
controlled environment (Brown, 168). The controlled setting described in the usability testing
will be the isolated information that the students will eventually apply in the summative
evaluation.
evaluation will incorporate usability testing and analyze if this instructional design effectively
discussion and therefore the formative evaluation for pebble one will focus on the students’
abilities to chart these elements on a graphic organizer (Appendix 3). This assignment gives
students the opportunity to collect their thoughts for the discussion. It also allows the teacher an
opportunity to evaluate whether or not the instructional design sufficiently covered this material.
discussions. Similar to pebble one, the assignment will isolate this information and ensure
students acquired this foundational information. The data collection tool is a Venn Diagram
(Appendix 4). Since this task is designated to collect information on a specific topic, teachers
will evaluate the students’ ability to categorize topics like “opinions,” “why questions,” and
“arguments,” “theses,” and “choosing sides” under “debates.” The center of the diagram should
also include many of the strategies: turn taking, active listening, time management. If students
Instructional Design 9
are unable to understand the difference, the educator will have to adjust this topic prior to
The third pebble focuses on turn taking and active listening through roles such as the time
keeper and moderator. In this step, the plan is to teach these roles outside of a discussion.
Teachers will collect data through student-teacher conferences where they will discuss in-class
participation, behaviors during class time, and application of textual knowledge. The reading log
used during the front-end analysis will also aid the teacher in these conferences. During this data
collection, the teacher will take time to ensure students have gained the proper skills necessary
The goal of pebble four is to have students write effective discussion questions. This
section is still utilizing the concepts of usability testing by isolating the discussion questions
prior to the discussion. However, it also incorporates some of rapid prototyping by creating
prototypes of the end products. Students will be creating why and opinion questions that apply
their understanding of the story and discussions. This is their final preparation step before the
group discussion. The teacher will use a rubric (Appendix 5) when assigning the task to the
students and to grade the assignments. This will allow the educators to evaluate if the previous
steps were effective in teaching strategies and discussion questions and whether or not students
Summative Evaluation:
upon the previous four pebbles and formative evaluations. Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec wrote
about group processing in 1998. Group processing ensures that group members reflect on “their
work and interactions with team members,” helping the team improve (Brown, 175). For a class
Instructional Design 10
discussion, it is important to analyze the students’ skill and the classroom environment. This
model outlined by Johnson et al. has four steps including “feedback, reflection, goal
improvement, and celebration” (Brown, 176). The students will have a two-day collaborative
discussion on the fictional text that will incorporate each stage of this model.
The first step, feedback, focuses on giving students information about their participation
and successes within the larger group, which will occur day one through a fishbowl discussion.
The classroom will be set up so that there is an inner and outer ring of students, and each student
will have a partner in the opposite ring. Students on the inner ring will discuss while students on
the outer ring will evaluate their partners. Halfway through the class, students will switch
positions and the discussers will become the evaluators. Their evaluation handout (Appendix 6)
requires them to follow along and check whenever their peer participates.
Step two of Johnson et al.’s model is reflection. For homework after day one, students
will complete the reflection portion of the handout. This gives students the opportunity to reflect
on their participation and the group’s efforts. Once these students have reflected, they will be
On day two, the class will begin discussing ways to improve their goal. This can include
personal goals such as “more participation” or group goals of spending more time on each
question. This gives the teacher the ability to see if the ID process was successful and how
students are responding to the topics. Therefore, the teacher will be able to see if there were steps
Once the class has spent about 15 minutes brainstorming newer goals, the students will
get into a full-class group and wrap up their discussion. This will allow students to work with all
their peers and give them a chance to work together as one large team. It will also give the
Instructional Design 11
educator one final analysis of the ID process at the end, making final notes about altering the
plan for the following year. Johnson et al. explain there should be some celebration at the end. I
suggest some sort of class-wide reward if the students demonstrate effective team work
The fourth instructional problem’s goals state that students will create collaborative
discussion questions, such as opinion and why questions. Students will work independently to
create their questions then utilize instructional activities including reciprocal teaching, critique
sessions, and cooperative learning to edit and improve their responses. The students will also
receive advice through “elaboration feedback” and “review feedback” methods. I will apply
Robert Gagne’s nine events of instruction to organize these instructional methods and the
feedback.
1. Gain the learners’ attention: Gaining the learners’ attention requires the educator to
engage students immediately. Since this is pebble four of a five pebble steps, students
should understand the overall goals. Ruth Akers states in “a journey to increase student
engagement” that a way to increase engagement is “making student choice the norm”
(30). Preparing students for this assignment, the educator will gain their attention through
choice of partners.
2. Inform the learners of the objective: The objective of this specific task is to prepare
questions for the group discussion. Therefore, the students can and should resubmit their
questions until they achieve the standards of the rubric. This way, they will achieve the
highest grade and be sufficiently prepared for the culminating learner evaluation.
Instructional Design 12
3. Stimulate recall of prior learning: To stimulate the recall of prior learning of the three
which students teach each other the content. Although this generally occurs in group
discussions, the students will do this activity in pairs and spend time reviewing these
concepts prior to writing their questions. Since this unit is based on large group
right before the summative evaluation of the design process and final learner analysis.
4. Present the stimulus: Presenting the stimulus for this assignment will occur through
examples. At this point in the PITP model, students understand the foundations of
they are familiar with how the questions should influence the overall discussion, but have
not practiced creating their own to date. This problem-based learning requires students to
take this open-ended topic of fictional stories and incite others to participate. Giving
5. Provide guidance for the learners: The guidance for the learners will occur through the
educators’ rubric (Appendix 5). After seeing these examples of questions, the rubric will
allow them to check the effectiveness of their discussion questions. This guidance is
critical for an open-ended assignment in that it will allow students to stay on track.
6. Elicit learner performance: The instructional activity of critique sessions will elicit
learner performance. In this fashion, students will offer suggestions and praises regarding
their partner’s questions. Students will be able to analyze if their peers successfully
accomplished the objectives from the rubric, thus increasing their analysis of discussion
Instructional Design 13
questions.. This peer review portion prior to submitting the assignment will ensure the
7. Provide feedback: Feedback for instructional problem will take the form of elaboration
feedback and immediate feedback. Wendy Jaehing and Matthew Miller state in their
feedback “tells the learner why an answer is incorrect or why the correct answer is
correct” and gives students the opportunity to increase understanding (224). Studies have
found this type of feedback to be effective for students. This instructional design process
students and the instructors.” The rubric used for this section is further explained in the
8. Assess learner performance: Students must be able to create opinion or why questions
that use the text to inspire connections and discussion. The educators will use the rubric
Students will be graded on content, connections, and grammar, ensuring that their
discussion questions make sense, use text information, and give opportunities for
connections. Students will be graded at this portion of pebble four, but may continue to
resubmit the assignment to increase their grade and better prepare for the discussion.
9. Enhance retention and transfer: As stated in stage eight, students may resubmit their
assignment to increase their grade. The instructional activity utilized here is cooperative
learning, which will be especially effective after the stage six “critique session.” Students
will work together to improve their discussion questions through analyzing the teacher’s
feedback and collaboration. This method is review feedback, which requires students to
Instructional Design 14
continue responding until they have achieved the correct answer. Jaehing and Miller
claim that this continuation of instruction may also function as reinforcement (227).
Therefore, students will retain the change in skill and will be able to create more effective
The plan focuses on the supplantive and generative learning environment suggested by Smith
and Ragan (2005), as stated in the Learning Context section. This section is more specifically
generative learning, in that the students will be creating text-based discussion questions, rather
Learner Evaluation
In pebble four, this plan is evaluating a change in skill through writing discussion
questions that incorporate details from the text and spark responses. This is not a change in
knowledge because students are not being tested on their knowledge of the text, nor is it a change
in their attitude about the text. Students are being evaluated on their ability to take the
information from the text and present supported opinion or why questions.
The data collection instrument suited for this will be a rubric (Appendix 5). This rubric is
critical to the formative evaluation step, because it allows the teacher to analyze the ID process.
However, it will also be used specifically for the learner evaluation when looking at whether the
students can effectively create questions for their class discussions. This is a category of
instructional delivery is “providing immediate feedback to both students and the instructors.”
Brown states that students and instructors can “communicate with each other in a way that
allows them to adjust their activities according to feedback received” (Brown, 110). Thus, just as
the rubrics can provide guidance and academic feedback for students, they can contribute to
References
Akers, Ruth (2017). “A journey to increase student engagement.” Technology & Engineering
tu.researchport.umd.edu/login?ins=tu&url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct
=true&db=tfh&AN=120774321&site=eds-live&scope=site
American Association of School Librarians (2007). “Standards for the 21st-Century learner.”
Retrieved from
http://www.ala.org/aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/guidelinesandstandards/learningsta
ndards/AASL_LearningStandards.pdf
Brown, Abbie H., & Green, Timothy D. (2016). The essentials of instructional design:
Connecting fundamental principles with process and practice (3rd ed.). New York:
Routledge.
Jaehing, Wendy, & Miller, Matthew L. (2007). Feedback types in programmed instruction: A
systematic review. The Psychological Record, 57, 219-232. Retrieved from http://proxy-
tu.researchport.umd.edu/login?ins=tu&url=http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-
tu.researchport.umd.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=24658186&site=eds-
live&scope=site
Maryland State Department of Education (2014). “Maryland college and career ready curriculum
http://mdk12.msde.maryland.gov/share/frameworks/CCSC_Speaking_Listening_gr6-
8.pdf
Maryland State Department of Education (2014). “Maryland college and career ready curriculum
http://mdk12.msde.maryland.gov/share/frameworks/MDCCRS_Reading_Literature_gr6-
8.pdf
Instructional Design 17
Appendix 1
Instructional Problem: 6th grade students have difficulty discussing fictional texts.
Instructional Goal: Students will be able to use strategies including turn taking and active
listening, classroom management, and creating questions to lead a collaborative discussion.
Guidance
Provided Learners: 6th Graders
SWBAT use
strategies including
SWBAT SWBAT turn taking and
SWBAT SWBAT create
identify the demonstrate active listening,
demonstrate a collaborative
difference strategies for classroom
foundational discussion
between a turn taking and management, and
Progression understanding questions, such as
debate and active creating questions to
of Problems of fictional opinion and why
collaborative listening. lead a collaborative
stories. questions.
discussion discussion.
Be able to
demonstrate
techniques for
taking turns
within a
discussion.
Be able to
demonstrate
active listening
skills, including
listening to other
opinions.
Instructional Design 19
Appendix 2
Student Survey
1. After reading an assignment, do you prefer to…
a. Answer questions
c. Do a “free write”
2. Do you prefer…
a. Individual presentations
c. Whole-class discussions
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Instructional Design 20
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Instructional Design 21
Appendix 3
Story Elements
Name: ___________________________________ Date: __________________
Directions: Outline the story elements. Then take notes for a classroom discussion.
Climax:
Exposition: Resolution:
Setting:
Characters:
Instructional Design 22
Conflict:
Questions:
Additional Notes:
Instructional Design 23
Appendix 4
Venn Diagram: Collaborative Discussions vs. Debates
Name: ___________________________________ Date: __________________
Directions: List similarities and differences between Collaborative Discussions and Debates.
Write “Collaborative Discussion” features on it’s their side of the diagram and “Debates” on the
other side. Write the similarities in the middle.
Appendix 5
Discussion Question Rubric
Name: ___________________________________ Date: __________________
Directions: Create three questions (opinion or why questions) for our class discussion. They each
be graded using the following rubric:
3- Excellent 2- Average 1- Below Average
Content The question draws The question uses The question is not
from the text and minimal elements related to the text.
use elements from from the text.
the story. You do not as an
You ask an opinion opinion or why
You ask an opinion or why question. question.
or why question.
Connections The question The question The question asks
connects different connects different about one fact
parts of the text. parts of the text. within the story,
rather than inspiring
The question gives The question is too conversation.
others the specific.
opportunities to
make connections.
Grammar There are no There is one There are multiple
grammatical grammatical grammatical
mistakes that affect mistake. mistakes and is
understanding. difficult to
understand.
Instructional Design 25
Appendix 6
Group Fishbowl Discussion Observation
Who Spoke: ________________________ Who Evaluated: ________________________
Directions: Write your name next to “Who Spoke” then exchange papers with your partner.
Evaluate your partner when they are part of the group discussion. Every time your partner
participates, place a check in the appropriate box.
Makes an original comment
Additional Thoughts: