Research consistently shows that well-aligned lesson plans lead to better student learning outcomes. The development of well-aligned plans presents a challenge both to preservice teachers in their attempts to master the process and to the teacher educators who instruct them. This exploratory study examined strategies for teaching lesson plan alignment utilized by 87 teacher educators in the United States. Analysis of the results showed that three instructional approaches–- expository, hands-on, and collaborative–-were used, with the predominant evaluative tool being either an analytic or completion rubric. Data also revealed that the participants tended to focus more on summative performance–-the completed lesson plan–-than on students' engagement in formative practice.
BloomB. S., EngelhartM. D., FurstE. J., HillW. H., & KrathohlD. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals.New York, NY: David McKay.
3.
BogdanR. C., & BiklenS. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
4.
Center for Teaching Quality (2012). About the Center for Improving Teaching Quality (CTQ). Retrieved from http://www.teachingquality.org/
5.
ChoJ., & TrentA. (2005). Backward design: What goes around comes around, or haven't we've seen this before?Taboo, The Journal of Culture and Education, 9(2), 105–122.
6.
Darling-HammondL., BanksJ., ZumwaltK., GomezL., Gamoran SherinM., GriesdornJ., & FinnL. (2005). Educational goals and purposes: Developing a curricular vision for teaching. In Darling-HammondL., & BransfordJ. (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 169–200). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
7.
DrostB. (2012). An action research study: Engaging in authentic formative assessment (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://www.ohiolink.edu/etd/
8.
DrostB. (2014). Engaging in authentic formative assessment.Berlin, DE: Lambert Academic.
9.
FenstermacherG. D., & SoltisJ. F. (2004). Approaches to teaching.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
10.
GlatthornA. A. (1999). Curriculum alignment revisited.Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 15(1), 26–34.
Morine-DershimerG. G. (2011). Instructional planning. In CooperJ. M. (Ed.), Classroom teaching skills (9th ed., pp. 45–81). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
18.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers [NGACBP & CCSSO] (2012). Common Core State Standards initiative: Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/frequently-asked-questions
19.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), Pub. L. No. 107.110 (2002).
20.
OrlichD. C., HarderR. J., CallahanR. C., TrevisanM. S., BrownA. H., & MillerD. E. (2013). Teaching strategies: A guide to effective instruction (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
21.
PorterA. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice.Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3–14.
ScarpaciR. T. (2009). Resource methods for managing K–12 instruction: A case study approach.Boston, MA: Pearson.
24.
ShambaughN., & MagliaroS. G. (2006). Instructional design: A systematic approach for reflective practice.Boston, MA: Pearson.
25.
ShermisM. D., & Di VestaF. J. (2011). Classroom assessment in action.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
26.
ShumwayS., & BerrettJ. (2004). Standards-based curriculum for pre-service and in-service: A partnering approach using modified backward design.Technology Teacher, 64(3), 26–29.
