a unit plan in this manner as a series of four steps.
1. The teacher identifies the priority standard and associated scale that he or she will teach during the unit of instruction. (This can be more than one priority standard. For purposes of explaining the process, we limit the example here to a single standard, but with multiple standards the process is the same. Instruction to each standard is integrated throughout the unit plan.)
2. The teacher reviews the proficiency scale to be clear about the learning progression from score 2.0 to score 3.0 and on to score 4.0. The teacher identifies the number of learning targets at each score of the scale.
3. The teacher proceeds to build the unit plan day by day, including:
► Adapting the sequence of lessons to scaffold learning through the scale’s scores
► Making frequent reference (often) to the learning goals and the proficiency scale
► Discussing how homework will play a role in supporting the unit’s learning progression
► Giving assessments often enough for students and teachers to use the results of the assessments formatively
4. The teacher reviews the unit plan and makes adjustments.
It is also true that the teacher should ask students to progress as rapidly as possible through the scaffolded learning. Expect faster progress than has been seen in a traditional approach in the past, since the focus of instruction is narrower with standards-based learning. At the same time, as always, the teacher should be sure to provide sufficient learning experiences for students to make progress before he or she asks students to perform at the next score level of the learning target. Developing a “feel” for the pace of instruction takes time. Teachers should make informed decisions early on but be ready to do some adjusting in the first few units taught in this manner.
For an example of how the same process can be applied at the elementary level, please see appendix B (page 145). This appendix illustrates the creation of a unit plan for a second-grade mathematics unit.
The logical and straightforward process for creating unit plans presented thus far in the chapter can be applied to multiple different teaching frameworks and templates that teachers may already be using in their classrooms. The following section presents an example of adapting the previously presented standards-based method of unit design to a sample planning template.
Using a Planning Template
A well-organized template that captures the unit designer’s thinking as the unit plan is developed can aid not only the teacher doing the design but also teachers who may review or use the unit plan later. The example that follows (see figure 1.7) is a modification of a template developed by Uinta County School District #1 in Wyoming. This template uses the four questions central to the PLC process (DuFour & Marzano, 2011, pp. 22–23) as a starting point, with the addition of an important question for planning: “How will teachers facilitate the learning?” In following the sequence of these PLC questions, the teacher addresses each aspect of curriculum and instruction necessary to meet the needs of all students.
Source: © 2017 by Uinta County School District #1. Used with permission.
Figure 1.7: Sample planning template.
A quick review of this template will demonstrate how the information developed through the four-step process mentioned previously (page 22) can be used to complete the template. PLC questions one and two are directed toward identifying the specific state (or provincial) standards that teachers will address in the unit and determining the assessment methods that will measure student progress toward, and past, proficiency. In the case of this template, state- and district-level assessments are cited; the teacher could also substitute specific assessments their students will take or simply use classroom teacher-designed or common assessments. The template then includes a sample proficiency scale, which teachers can use as the basis for the answer to the planning question. In answering this question, the teacher would include the sequencing of lessons as outlined in the unit plan example mentioned previously (see figure 1.6, page 19), using the proficiency scale as the basis for that design. Question three requires teachers to consider how they will respond when student learning has stalled, and question four considers what will happen to students who have reached proficiency while the unit is still underway—this is essentially level 4.0 on the standard.
In using a version of this template, we can include the planning from our previously provided example of the eighth-grade ELA teacher designing a unit on theme or central idea (see figure 1.6, page 19). The completed template might look like the example in figure 1.8.
Source: © 2017 by Uinta County School District #1. Used with permission. Source for standards: Adapted from National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (NGA & CCSSO), 2010a.
Figure 1.8: Sample completed unit design template.
In adapting the planning work from our example to this template, for PLC question one, “What do we want all students to know and be able to do?” we have included the priority standard in two learning targets. It is possible that we could have added some supporting standards, though in this case we have chosen not to. Supporting standards receive instruction but would likely not be assessed, though their role in any given unit is an important consideration, and the template can prompt the teacher to think through that issue. We have recorded the previous and the next grade-level standards, looking at the logical progression of skills from year to year. In this case, the previous and next grade-level standards are very similar, but in many cases the standards are substantially different and teachers should consider the learning progression on the specific skills and content in the standard. Next, we have translated each of the learning targets into language the teacher can use in the classroom with students and identified one potential way in which a student might demonstrate proficiency on these targets. Finally, we have broken down the level 2.0 content on academic vocabulary into two categories: (1) key vocabulary terms which might be defined as those that are absolutely essential to proficiency
