Running Head: Literature Review 1

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 5

Running Head: LITERATURE REVIEW

Literature Review: Domain D


Jennifer Perlini
TED 690 Capstone
Professor White
July 21, 2016

Running Head: LITERATURE REVIEW

Abstract
This paper will include a review of the article, New Teachers: Designing Lesson Plans:
What New Teachers Can Learn from Moffett and Wagner by Lois Weiner. This review
will summarize two different formulas in which teachers should use when creating lesson
plans for language arts. These formulas will help teachers in reaching all students and can
be used in different ways. Lastly, this paper will explain how these methods can be used
in elementary education.

Running Head: LITERATURE REVIEW

The article, New Teachers: Designing Lesson Plans: What New


Teachers Can Learn from Moffett and Wagner by Lois Weiner explains
two different formulas that teachers should use when creating lessons,
specifically for language arts. These two formulas include the 3Is and
categorizing activities. By using these two methods, teachers will be
able create lessons that are engaging, fun, and relatable to the students, which is
essential when delivering a lesson.
The 3Is formula stands for: Individualization, Interaction, and
Integration. By using these three methods, teachers are able to make
lessons enjoyable to students, which in turn creates an environment
where students can learn. Individualization occurs when students
create their own meaning of the materials. This can sometimes happen
whether the teacher plans it or not, because each student is unique
and will show their understanding in different ways. Interaction is when
students can collaborate with one another. This is especially important
today with Common Core that students work together to solve
problems and find solutions. Integration is the most complex of the 3Is.
Integration happens when, 1. At some point students should be
listening, speaking, reading, and writing; 2. The product or process
should involve authentic communication that taps life outside the
classroom (Weiner, 1997). Again, this is an important concept when
looking at Common Core and the listening, speaking, reading, and
writing standards that are involved in language arts. Lessons should

Running Head: LITERATURE REVIEW

not just involve the teacher standing in the front and lecturing, students need to be
part of the lesson, and by using the 3Is, students can be involved.
The second method is categorizing activities. This is a process of dividing the
lessons into whole group, small group, pairs, or solo work. Each of these is important and
should be used throughout lessons. Whole group takes place when the same material
needs to be given to the whole class. For instance, when a new concept is being taught or
instructions are being given. Small group is best used for students to have interactions,
share their ideas, and clarify what they are thinking. Pairs work well when it comes to
working on their skills. Another appropriate use for pairs is sharing something that is too
personal to be communicated to more than one person (Weiner, 1997). Lastly, solo
activities are best used when assessing a student individual knowledge when it comes to
the concepts and standards being taught. Each of these methods should be used when
creating lessons in order for students to learn and grow.
Reading these formulas, there are many consistencies with the Common Core
curriculum that is used today. For instance, interaction is a large part of using common
core just as working in small groups and pairs are important. Through student teaching, I
learned the importance of working with partners and using Think-Pair-Share. Using the
two formulas from the article, students in elementary school will be able to be involved in
their lessons, instead of just listening to the teacher speak.

Running Head: LITERATURE REVIEW


References

Weiner, L. (1997). New Teachers: Designing Lesson Plans: What New Teachers
Can Learn from Moffett and Wagner. The English Journal, 86(4), 78-79.
doi:1. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/821010 doi:1

You might also like