Lesson Plan Justification and Analysis Essay Sample

Analysis of the three identified phases stated on the lesson contriver shall take topographic point within this assignment. Links will be shown between the learning methods that were incorporated in this lesson contriver which met peculiar larning features. traits and demands of the group or an single ( s ) and relevant educational and theoretical rules. The lesson contriver has been placed in the appendices. as a referral resource. for this assignment. An country on the lesson contriver labelled. ‘Implementing the Lesson. ’ ( see Page 5 of Appendices One ) illustrates the timings and activities of the session. Out of these the undermentioned three timings and activities that the scholars completed. have been chosen. First. I will analyze the initial five proceedingss of the start of the session where I listed the purposes and aims on the Smartboard. I will research secondly. at 1:35pm for 25 proceedingss. whereby I demonstrated how to order decimals. before traveling on to adding and deducting decimals and eventually. Activity Two which was set to take topographic point at 2:30pm and enduring for 25 proceedingss on an equivalency dominoes game has besides been an country identified for treatment. When people think of instruction and larning they often conjure up a image of pupils sitting in rows listening to a instructor who stands in forepart of them ( Harmer. 2003: 114 )

and. “for many. this is what learning agencies. ” ( ibid ) . However. through my instructions there is a inclination to follow differing techniques appropriate to the context of the session being taught. Cohen et Al ( 2008: 184 ) suggests this when he recommends. “that the pupil instructor takes the chance … to seek several different manners. ” in order for scholars features. traits and demands to be matched with the corresponding instruction manner ( Cohen et al. 2008 ) . Brookfield ( 1989 ) as cited in Herrington and Kendall ( 2006: 186 ) provinces that ; What has interested me has been to see the existent leading lights in grownup instruction fighting to happen the one method for learning grownups … use what seems appropriate at the clip.

Harmer ( 2003 ) states that there is a important facet to see when be aftering a session – the scholars – their grounds for go toing the session. their backgrounds ( if applicable ) . what state do/did they reside in. their age and civilization will besides act upon the scholars degrees of motive to go to. Realistically. this information can merely be gained by cognizing the scholars over the initial hebdomads instead than an question type session in hebdomad one of the programme of survey ( Herrington and Kendall. 2006 ) . It is my perceptual experience that ; Equality of chance is … a basic rule … upon which good instruction. acquisition and appraisal are based ( Fawbert. 2003: 7 )

and it was observed that my scholars had ;
entree to allow educational chances irrespective of cultural beginning. age. sexual orientation or grade of larning disablement or trouble ( ibid )

as highlighted in Box 3. 1 on the session contriver ( see Appendices One ) . In add-on ; a group may incorporate people who are highly motivated. every bit good as those who feel they have to some extent been coerced to go to ( Fawbert. 2003: 71 ) .

However. I feel highly fortunate in the motive degree of my scholars. with none sing coercion from any party and besides their ages because although it has been stated that. “it is possible for a larning group to incorporate members from the age of 16 to 19. ” ( ibid ) my scholars age scope is non so huge. being merely from 32 to 62. Planing for distinction ( see Box 3. 1 in Appendices One ) . “is important if the delivered course of study is to run into … the demands of the scholars. ” ( ibid ) . Although. when Thaine ( 1996a ) published an article asking the demand for trainee instructors to be after Sessionss to develop their accomplishments in that country this thought was attacked. whereby the belief of session planning attributed this to working without the scholars ( Rinvolucri. 1996 ) . As Harmer ( 2003: 311 ) himself states. “a instructor should be more like a physician. establishing intervention upon accurate diagnosing. ” .

However. Thaine ( 1996b ) defended the utility of session planning and argued that if the coach chose to do things up as they went along – holding no existent indicant of the session aims or results. “then nil utile or meaningful can be achieved. ” ( Malamah-Thomas. 1987: 3 ) for either party. It is based upon this rule. therefore that the session purposes and results were written on the Smartboard for my scholars. Although. I besides understand that this procedure will non appeal to all scholars. However. my arrangement does non categorize scholars harmonizing to their acquisition manners sing these questionnaires to hold weaknesss and that they. “are non unfailing. ” ( Mainwaring. 2009: 249 ) and so I was unable to finish Box 3. 1 ( see Appendices One ) . I can understand this procedure of non categorizing your scholars as Mainwaring ( 2009: 249 ) provinces. “it is utile to develop your ability to work with other larning manners. ” and non to. “refuse to work with ‘listening’ or ‘doing’ stuffs. ” ( ibid ) .

However. since subjecting this lesson program I can find that three are kinesthetic scholars. whereby they. “think best when traveling. ” ( ibid ) . The staying two scholars prefer. “rules when larning numeracy techniques. ” ( ibid ) . Although. Box 1. 3 ( see Appendices One ) has stated that there were 9 scholars on the registry. this has since been reduced to 5 scholars. JO’C. GP. JG. RS and TT. Therefore. in naming the purposes and aims on the Smartboard ( Boxes 4. 1 and 4. 2 in Appendices One ) I was prosecuting the scholars with the auditory learning manner but besides. informing the other scholars of the class that the session would take. In finishing this I was non cognizant that I was subscribing to the behaviorist theory. Behaviorism is described as a developmental theory that measures discernible behaviors produced by a learner’s response to stimuli. Responses to stimuli can be reinforced with positive or negative feedback to status desired behaviors ( Cain et al. 2009 ) .

There is much to be said that we teach how we ourselves were taught ( Fawbert. 2003 ) . Merely in reflecting on this am I able to qualify that many of my coachs are how one imagines a teacher/learner interaction taking topographic point ( Harmer. 2003 ) . The behaviorist larning theory suggests that we learn by having a stimulation that provokes a response ( Reece and Walker. 2009: 81 ) .

and as a coach I selected the assessment method of oppugning and replying on the session purposes and results to illicit responses. reinforced if right and challenged if wrong. “Such a theory stresses the active function of the instructor with the pupil frequently seen as inactive. ” ( Reece and Walker. 2009: 82 ) . Therefore. “objectives can be made the footing for single programmes. ” ( MacDonald-Ross. 1973 as cited in Reece and Walker. 2009: 83 ) . Boxes 2. 1. 2. 2. 3. 1. 3. 2 and 3. 3 ( see Appendices One ) enable the session to be choreographed to the single scholars whose features. traits and demands differ from those around them because as any coach knows. no two scholars are the same ( Cohen et al. 2008 ) . However. this method could besides be seen as turn toing facets of neo-behaviourism with the scholars suiting. “new larning into a form. that is ‘what leads to what’ . ” ( Reece and Walker. 2009: 83 ) . I did non to the full reason how the scholars engaged with this procedure in the lesson contriver ( see Boxes 6. 3 and 6. 4 in Appendices One ) because it was non an issue that I had thought approximately. It was simply an affectional sphere learning method that I had observed taking topographic point and a perfect technique through which to settle scholars and for larning to take topographic point. whereby I am informing the pupil that they are ; merely required to passively go to to and be cognizant of the information … listen attentively to them ( Reece and Walker. 2009: 55 ) .

However. for the 2nd timing I changed subjects for the scholars. from the review to the new subject to be covered within that session and besides. to interrupt the session up. A point that I made in Box 3. 1: Detailss of distinction. ( Appendices One ) but besides. so that the scholars did non acquire ‘bored’ with the subject and they could prosecute with farther facets of the cognitive sphere. knowledge holding to be gained at the lowest degree before continuing to comprehension and beyond ( Reece and Walker. 2009 ) as opposed to the affectional sphere of listening. particularly sing the varying age ranges of the scholars. Fawbert ( 2003: 88 ) provinces that if ; there is a broad age mix. you will necessitate to supply appropriate compensation and stimulation in order to keep the involvement of all the scholars.

As Brookfield ( 1989 ) provinces. “listen to what they are stating you and organize an educational experience. ” that is appealing ( cited in Herrington and Kendall. 2006: 186 ) . Fawbert ( 2003: 88 ) remarks on. “the learners’ temperament. ” and asks to see the. “session instantly after tiffin. ” ( ibid ) with great attention. Therefore. sing this valuable statements I used a less burdensome method of denary topographic point value by utilizing the Smartboard for illustrations but could see the scholars fighting and holding ‘one of those days’ . I arrived at this point in the session and proceeded to travel ‘off plan’ to a grade. due to my scholars lack of involvement in the subject. As Fawbert ( 2003: 168 ) provinces. “If it adds nil to the session. so it isn’t worth including. ” .

Alternatively. I appealed to the kinesthetic scholars and the 2nd degree of the affectional sphere. “responding … to given outlooks by responding to stimuli. ” ( Reece and Walker. 2009: 55 ) by making ocular stimulation ( see Appendices Two and Three ) which enabled the scholars to be more custodies on and engaged them with the subject. The resources that I used were the foremost. the denary skidders and secondly. the topographic point value cards ( see Appendices Two and Three ) . However. it besides brought in their anterior experience of the topic therefore. conveying. “in the student’s ain experiences … provides involvement and the pupils would hold merriment. ” ( Fawbert. 2003: 26 ) ( see Boxes 2. 1 and 2. 2 in Appendixs One for farther information ) . This facet of the session brought me into struggle with behaviorism and brought my session more into lines with humanistic rules of larning. Atherton ( 2009 ) states that ;

The agenda of support of behavior is cardinal to the direction of effectual acquisition on this footing. and working it out is a really skilled process: merely reenforcing every case of coveted behavior is merely bribery. non the publicity of acquisition.

Whereas humanistic ;
‘theories’ of larning tend to be extremely value-driven and therefore more similar prescriptions ( about what ought to go on ) instead than descriptions ( of what does go on ) ( Atherton. 2009 ) .

I knew what I wanted to make and in what order but it all rested upon my learners’ appreciation of the subject and whether they were prosecuting in the topic. Therefore. I pushed aside the worksheets that I had arranged for my scholars to finish. alternatively I provided them with an extra factsheets ( see Appendices Four and Five ) and proceeded to let the scholars to order how the session should run. thereby they had. “control over the learning procedure. ” ( Atherton. 2009 ) on occasion giving the scholars arrows or offering them advice but I was really authorising their acquisition. Atherton ( 2009 ) besides states that in such occasions as these. “learners need to be empowered. ” . In leting the scholars to larn by them doing errors and their equals rectifying them. I was. “relinquishing a great trade of authorization and became a facilitator. ” ( ibid ) therefore. leting the scholars to construct up their self-esteem and assurance but besides to promote peer larning non merely for TT but besides. other scholars who may hold been mutely fighting with this subject. Rogers ( 1983 ) as cited in Fawbert ( 2003: 185 ) provinces ; that some of the ends of being a humanistically orientated instructor are taking ‘toward a clime of trust in the classroom’ … ‘toward a participatory manner of decision-making in all facets of learning’ .

Towards the terminal of this activity and in order to pull the scholars back to the subject of the session program I asked the scholars to use what they know whilst utilizing the topographic point value cards ( see Appendices Three ) and use it to money. i. e. the usage of the taking nothing ( see About the lesson. Boxes 4. 1 and 4. 2 on the lesson contriver in Appendices One ) which brought them neatly into their following activity and eventually. to the last timing that I am traveling to research. The concluding activity – the fractions/decimals/percentages equivalency game – was to be used in portion as a decision to wrap three hebdomads work up that the scholars were working on but besides. in portion for two of my scholars could finish a formative appraisal at either Entry Level 3 or Level 1 ( see Appendices One Box 2. 1. for elucidation ) . Fawbert ( 2003: 116 ) provinces that Bruner ( 1966 ) ; Sees great value in developing students’ job work outing accomplishments through their ability to transform acquired cognition to new state of affairs … the pupils become more independent scholars and develop … through understanding when they are right and when they are incorrect.

However. as Box 6. 4 ( see Appendices One ) illustrates. the scholars failed to interact with the activity as I had thought that they would. Possibly this was more to make with my behaviorist instructions ( see Appendices Six ) non being every bit clear as they could hold been for this numeracy degree. Conceivably. I should hold read aloud the instructions to the activity in concurrence with the scholars reading the instructions to guarantee comprehension of what needed to be completed. Harmer ( 2003: 207 ) provinces that. “sometimes texts … are far excessively easy or far excessively hard. ” . However. I could hold undertaken this reading as an appraisal because. “some undertakings seem to fall halfway between proving and learning. ” ( ibid ) and with the scholars nearing their formative appraisal at the beginning of February 2010. I should be making everything within my power to guarantee that they are ready. including measuring their literacy competence accomplishments.

Therefore. I have identified. justified and analysed three phases within the lesson contriver within Appendices One with clear links being shown between the methods that I incorporated which met peculiar larning features. traits and demands of my scholars and besides. the relevant educational and theoretical rules. In decision. as a instructor the instruction manners. rules and theories are finally my pick to do when finding how the session shall be planned out. However. one can non bury the statements that have been made for the procedure of be aftering a session in the first topographic point. As the instructor it is necessary to see the scholars and their acquisition manners. dependant upon whether these larning manners have been determined for the instructor. by the establishment or non. Their motives for go toing the session that you are running. such as age. background. ethnicity needs to be considered when be aftering a session and composing out the specific boxes can non be ignored either.

Not merely what your scholars bring to the session but besides. sing the distinction demands of your scholars because they are who your session depends upon – without them you do non hold a session and scholars will ‘abandon a sinking ship’ . Therefore. as their instructor it is your duty to guarantee that at all times the scholars are larning through a assortment of agencies and resources at your disposal. The resources that I used have been included in the Appendixs but as discussed in the chief organic structure of this piece I didn’t integrate a assortment of them. chiefly the worksheets ( instead behaviorist in theory ) in the session due to my learners’ deficiency of comprehension. likely from my behaviorist learning manners non appealing to them. Alternatively. I used other resources which were much more ocular for my scholars which they can pull strings and hence. I empowered the scholars to take control of their ain acquisition and that of their equals through the humanistic instruction theory. In this manner I believe they were able to derive the best from both facets of the session. However. as a trainee instructor I can non ever do as my scholars like. otherwise it will pail off in a figure of Sessionss and go dull and deadening. So. learning manners have to be adjusted because we have chances to see a scope of instruction manners which we as instructors are able to reflect on – either in a negative or positive manner.

Mentions
Books

Brookfield. S. ( 1989 ) ‘Myths and worlds in big instruction. ’ RaPAL Bulletin. Issue 10. Autumn 1989. as cited in Herrington. M and Kendall. A. ( explosive detection systems ) . ( 2006 ) Insights from Research and Practice: A enchiridion for grownup literacy. numeracy and ESOL practicians. Leicester: NIACE.

Bruner. J. ( 1966 ) Towards a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. as cited in Fawbert. F. ( edt ) . ( 2003 ) Teaching in Post-Compulsory Education: Learning. accomplishments and criterions. London: Continuum.

Cohen. L. et Al. ( 2008 ) A Guide to Teaching Practice ( Fifth Edition ) . London: Routledge.

Fawbert. F. ( edt ) . ( 2003 ) Teaching in Post-Compulsory Education: Learning. accomplishments and criterions. London: Continuum.

Harmer. J. ( 2003 ) The Practice of English Language Teaching ( Third Edition ) . Harlow: Longman.

Herrington. M and Kendall. A. ( explosive detection systems ) . ( 2006 ) Insights from Research and Practice: A enchiridion for grownup literacy. numeracy and ESOL practicians. Leicester: NIACE.

MacDonald-Ross. M. ( 1973 ) ‘Behavioural Objectives – A critical reappraisal. ’ Instructional Science 2. as cited in Reece. I. and Walker. S. ( 2009 ) Teaching. Training and Learning: A practical usher ( Sixth Edition Revised ) . Tyne and Wear: Business Education Publishers.

Mainwaring. G. ( 2009 ) Chambers Adult Learner’ Guide to Numeracy.
Edinburgh: Chambers Harrap Publishers.

Malamah-Thomas. A. ( 1987 ) Classroom Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Reece. I. and Walker. S. ( 2009 ) Teaching. Training and Learning: A practical usher ( Sixth Edition Revised ) . Tyne and Wear: Business Education Publishers.

Rinvolucri. M. ( 1996 ) ‘Letter to Craig Thaine. ’ The Teacher Trainer. 10 ( 2 ) .

Rogers. C. ( 1983 ) Freedom to Learn for the 80’s. Capital of ohio: Merrill. as cited in Fawbert. F. ( edt ) . ( 2003 ) Teaching in Post-Compulsory Education: Learning. accomplishments and criterions. London: Continuum.

Thaine. C. ( 1996a ) ‘Dealing with timetabling on 2nd linguistic communication teacher preparation classs. ’ The Teacher Trainer. 10 ( 1 ) .

Thaine. C. ( 1996b ) ‘Letter to Mario Rinvolucri. ’ The Teacher Trainer. 10 ( 3 ) .

Web sites

Atherton. J. S. ( 2009 ) ‘Humanistic Theory. ’
.
( Last Updated Wednesday. 4th November. 2009 ; Accessed on Saturday. 2nd January. 2010 at 15:57pm ) .

Atherton. J. S. ( 2009 ) ‘Behaviourism. ’
& lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www. learningandteaching. info/learning/behaviour. htm & gt ; ( Last Updated Wednesday. 4th November. 2009 ; Accessed on Monday. 4th January. 2010 at 18:57pm ) .

Cain. J. et Al. ( 2009 ) ‘Behaviourism: Learning theory. ’ .
( Last Updated 2009 ; Accessed on Friday. 1st January. 2010 at 13:12pm )

Bibliography
Books

Armitage. A. et Al. ( 2007 ) Teaching and Training in Post-Compulsory Education ( Third Edition ) . Hymen: Open University Press.

Lea. J. et Al. ( 2007 ) Working in Post-Compulsory Education. Hymen: Open University Press.

Marsh. C. J. ( 1997 ) Key Concepts for Understanding Curriculum: Planning. Management and Ideology. London: Falmer Press.

Wallace. S. ( 2001 ) Teaching and Supporting Learning in Further Education. Exeter: Learning Matters.

Web sites

Petty. G. ( 2004 ) ‘Geoff Petty – What the scholar does is more of import so what the instructor does. ’ .
( Last Updated in 2004 ; Accessed on Monday. 4th January. 2010 at 18:42pm ) .