Unit Planning
InTASC Standard 7: The teacher plans instruction that supports every student in meeting rigorous learning goals by drawing upon knowledge of content areas, curriculum, cross-disciplinary skills, and pedagogy, as well as knowledge of learners and the community context
Introduction
After completing the long-term plan for my class, I reflect about the needs of my individual students and begin to develop each of the units that can actually be implemented.
Unit 3 in the long-term plan, “Atom, Elements, and Molecules’ is designed to be 10 weeks long—based on observations of my classes, I determined this was too long especially with scheduling issues around Thanksgiving break. For this reason, I split off the periodic table into its own unit and adjusted my instruction accordingly.
Chemistry cannot be taught in a vacuum. A high level of cross-curricular knowledge is required to master the content. Thinking of the actual students in my classroom and how to incorporate multiple academic fields greatly impacted the development of each of my unit plans. My students’ foundational math skills and English proficiency levels are two of the key aspects that impacted my planning. In regards to math, many of the students at my school lack foundational math skills and struggle in the subject. They require a significant level of additional scaffolding and support to master chemistry content when math is involved. For this reason, I moved stoichiometry—a math intensive concept—from the third instructional segment to the fourth. The fourth block begins after winter recess when students will be well rested and less mentally exhausted then they typically are right before the break. Also, stoichiometry plays a significant role in the other concepts covered in the fourth block. It does not make sense to teach this concept before a month-long break where students are likely to forget much of the information.
Furthermore, there are many English language learners at my school—many of whom are classified as newcomers and EL1s. We operate under the philosophy that all teachers—regardless of content—are English teachers. The following unit plan incorporates Common Core State Standards for literacy and English Language Development (ELD) standards and each lesson has a language objective in addition to a content objective. Various activities to increase student literacy are also embedded throughout the following unit.
Unit plan heading
Unit Standards and Goals
When planning a unit it is important to start with the standards. As shown in my long-term plan my units are aligned to the Next Generation Science Standards—with the embedded Science and Engineering Practice and Cross Cutting Concepts—as well as Common Core State Standards for literacy and English Language Development Standards. Each of these standards plays a key role in my planning.
The next step when planning a unit is to establish the essential and guiding questions. I developed these questions for this unit by analyzing the terminology and verbs used in the 2016 California Science Framework. By using all of these aspects from the Framework—which is aligned to the state expectations and the Next Generation Science Standards—I ensured this unit is aligned to my overall course vision.
I then look at the content topics that are included in the unit and develop a list of student understandings. There are two sections of student understandings in the document below—“students will understand that…” and “students will know that…” These give me a clear goal of what students should master by the end of the unit.
Standards and goals
Next, I break these goals down further into learning targets in student-centered language because “you must look at your group of learning goals and translate each one into student-achievement based, measurable, rigorous lesson objectives” (Teach for America, 2011, p.60).
Finally, I need to incorporate requirements from the small learning community in which I teach. Manual Arts is a Linked Learning certified school. One requirement to retain this certification is a semester-long Project-Based Learning (PBL) assessment that must be completed by every student in their advisory. The theme is selected at the beginning of the semester and it must appear in all core content classes. The project is a way for students to draw from multiple content areas and apply their classroom knowledge to a real-world situation. For this unit, I incorporated a learning target about the environmental impact of mineral extraction, which will link to elements on the periodic table as well as the PBL theme.
I view each unit as a journey that students take from where they enter my classroom through when they achieve mastery. Creating each of these standards-based goals, outcomes, and learning targets gives me an idea of the end point. Once they have been created, I design the summative assessment and performance task that will be implemented at the end of the unit—where students will be able to display their mastery. Backwards planning is crucially important because it allows educators to map out the lessons required to achieve our intended goals
Connection to Vision and Big Goal
Overall Course Vision: Connect chemistry concepts to the six overarching, real-world phenomena outlined in the Next Generation Science Standards to contextualize scientific concepts.
Overall Course Big Goal: 85% of chemistry students in the SMART SLC will pass the course with a grade of “C” or better.
The California Science Framework and Next Generation Science Standards summarizes the third instructional block by stating the following:
“Students recognize patterns in the properties and behavior of elements, as illustrated on the periodic table. They use these patterns to develop a model of the interior structure of atoms and to predict how different atoms will interact based on their electron configurations. They use chemical equations to represent these interactions and begin to make simple stoichiometric calculations” (California Science Framework, 2016).
As discussed above, to accommodate the needs of my students, I divided the aspects of this description into chunks. The following unit plan addresses patterns and properties on the periodic table, the internal structure of atoms, and electron configurations. Every part of this summary is addressed directly by learning targets in this unit with the exception of stoichiometric calculations.
It is important to reference back to your Vision and Big Goal frequently throughout every phase of the planning process. I have each of these written on a sticky-note on my desk—where I do my planning—so I am constantly reminded about the goals I am striving to reach.
Schedule of Lessons
Once the standards have been analyzed, the learning targets have been created in student-centered language and the summative assessment and performance tasks have been created, I begin to design each of the lessons and map them on a calendar. On the left you will find my schedule of lessons for this unit with annotations. My school operates on a block schedule and I see each of my sections either two or three times per week. The eleven lessons in this schedule take approximately four weeks to implement.
Schedule of lessons for periodic table unit
Unit Activities and Formative Assessments
In the article “The Case for Classroom Assessment,” it states “systematic use of classroom assessments—weekly or even more frequently—can have a strong positive effect on student achievement” (Marzano, 2006, p.10). There are also many statistics that show the more frequently a student is assessed the greater the positive impact on their academic performance. For this reason, at least one formative assessment has been included during nearly every day of this unit. Students are being assessed multiple times every week. This not only helps students but it can also inform instruction. The final step of unit planning is to continually adjust your plan (Teach for America, 2011). Frequent formative assessments and activities throughout the unit—shown below—act as a tool to ensure students are on track and act as a guide for how I can modify the unit if necessary.
Differentiated and Literacy Based Activity: “There’s Gold in that Ocean”
Day one in the Schedule of Lessons
As previously stated, we have a saying at my school that every teacher—regardless of content—is an English teacher because many of our students are below grade level in their English language proficiency and we have a high number of English language learners. Achieve 3000 is a cross-curricular tool I utilize in my classroom to boost literacy skills. At the beginning of the year, students log into the program and take an assessment that determines their lexile level. I then go through the program’s archive to find recent scientific articles that relate to our topics of study and unit themes. Once I select an article, it will automatically adjust to each student’s individual lexile level. The site continually adjusts—making texts easier or more difficult based on the needs of the individual student. This is a powerful tool for differentiation that allows all students to access real-world, academic texts and make significant gains in their reading abilities.
Student samples of Achieve 3000 literacy activity
Depending on the time of the school year, it is often difficult to get access to computers. When this is the case, I select an article and print out three to four versions of the desired text at various lexile levels. Students are then able to look over each of the versions and select the text that most closely fits their reading ability. If a student is unsure which level to select, I ask them to rank their confidence in their reading ability on a scale of one to 10. I then use their ranking to help them select the appropriate text. I have included several student work samples of one of these differentiated activities on the left. The actual text has not been included due to copyright.
For this unit, a text about deep mining in the ocean was selected. The text incorporates aspects of the periodic table and periodic trends as well as students’ potential PBL topics. The article acts as a way to increase literacy and link what we are learning in class to its real world applications. What we learn in class has implications in the real world and I strive to show students these links as often as possible. This article is presented at the beginning of the unit because it serves as an introduction and allows students to show any prior knowledge they may have about the topics we are about to cover. There is not formal diagnostic assessment for this unit. Instead the post-reading questions—in conjunction with summative assessment scores from our previous unit—are used to assess prior knowledge. This is activity is designed to link to the following learning targets: LT.1, LT.2.
Exit Tickets
Days two, three, four, and five in the Schedule of Lessons
.jpg)
Students take a short, informal, assessment—usually several short response questions—at the end of class each day. I can quickly grade and give feedback on these assessments, and use the data gathered to plan for instruction the next day. Students also immediately know what concepts they were able to easily grasp and which they need to spend more time focusing on. Please see Lesson Planning on the following page for additional student samples of this form of activity I regularly implement in my classroom. Exit tickets in this unit are designed to link to the following learning targets: LT.3, LT.4, LT.5, LT.6, LT.7, LT.8, LT.9, LT.10.
Student sample exit ticket form day three in the Schedule of Lessons
Catalysts
Daily in the Schedule of Lessons
Much like exit tickets—catalysts are short assessments that can be graded and returned quickly. I design the catalyst questions based on the data obtained from the previous lesson’s exit tickets. This is a way for me to reteach concepts that students may not have fully mastered the previous class. Catalyst questions are printed on the top of students’ guided notes and are projected on the SMARTboard at the start of class. Several minutes after the bell rings, I walk around and check for completion.
.jpg)
Students either receive credit or no credit—which impacts their weekly binder check score. We then go over the answers and students are allowed to correct any mistakes they made and ask clarifying questions before we begin new material for the day. The nearly immediate feedback allows students to see what concepts they need to allocate their time to study and which they already understand. Please see Lesson Planning on the following page for additional student samples of this activity. Daily catalysts in this unit are designed to link to the following learning targets: LT.1, LT.2, LT.3, LT.4, LT.5, LT.6, LT.7, LT.8, LT.9.
Students sample catalyst from day three in the Schedule of Lessons
Periodic Table Battleship
Day four in the Schedule of Lessons
In order to practice writing noble gas configurations, in a fun way, students play a version of the game “battleship” with a partner—using the periodic table as a game board. When students guess a “hit” they have to write out the noble gas electron configuration for the element on a whiteboard.
Student samples of periodic table battleship game
To improve my practice I have had many discussions with adults and my peers asking them to reflect on their high school chemistry experience. I have found that more often then not, people remember chemistry as being boring, difficult, and one of their least favorite classes from high school. I shared these feelings from my own experience. I strive to make sure none of my students leave my classroom at the end of the year and remember chemistry in this way. One method I utilize to try to increase engagement and improve the learning experience for all is to incorporate the various aspects of the J-Factor as often as possible. Fun and games are an excellent way to increase engagement and encourage participation in a lesson. Games “draw on kid’s love for challenges, competition, and play” (Lemov, 2010, p. 215). Asking students to complete an individual worksheet to practice noble gas configurations would serve the same purpose as this activity but would likely yield lower levels of engagement. This activity is designed to link to the LT.7 and LT.8 in a fun way.
On the left, you will find two periodic table game boards from a completed game, two student samples of noble gas electron configurations that were written on white boards, followed by the instructions for the activity that were distributed to students.
Concept Map
Day six in the Schedule of Lessons
This activity is designed to be a group assessment for this unit. By having students working in their purposefully assigned table partner—they have the opportunity to express their knowledge in a different way. Instead of straightforward questions, students are asked to connect concepts from the unit and the class as a whole. This allows me to see which connections are shared among most students and analyze if there are any major gaps in knowledge that need to be filled.
On the left you will find a student sample of the concept map for this unit that was designed to link to all of the learning targets as well as the PowerPoint that was used during the lesson to introduce the activity.
Concept map student sample
Informal Polling and Questions
Conducted daily
Each lesson has a discussion time built into the “catalyst” section, giving students the opportunity to demonstrate previous knowledge while linking together concepts. A common method I use for polling the class involves having them show a number of fingers corresponding to a response, or using personal whiteboards to monitor student responses. This allows me to gauge student understanding and adjust my instruction in real time if necessary. This frequent activity also allows me to determine which students and table groups may need additional support and how to allocate my time effectively. Polling activities are designed to link to all stated learning targets in this unit.
Differentiated Performance Task with Student Interest
Day nine in the Schedule of Lessons
In “Chapter 4” of Instructional Planning and Delivery,several different types of units are outlined—including goal-based units, thematic units, and project-based units. Goal-based units are rooted in a specific goal, thematic units focus on a common theme or topic, and project-based units use an end product as a way to motivate students to learn and increase engagement (Teach for America, 2011). The majority the units in my class are thematic units—for example, I have a unit where everything relates back to the amount of calories in a bag of Hot Cheetos—see samples in Instructional Strategies section. The culminating project and performance task for this unit is the Periodic Table project. The first time I implemented the project the requirement was to create a periodic table on a piece of printer paper—but it could be bigger if a student desired. Nearly every student created a poster, and many created tri-folds. Several students asked for extensions because they wanted to use winter break to continue their work. Word spread around my school about this project and new classes ask about it from the beginning of the year. Hardly a day goes by where a student does not reference one of the old projects hanging in my room.
This project—displayed below—immediately follows our discussion of periodic table organization and periodic trends, students are given the opportunity to express their knowledge within a context of something non-Chemistry related that is of interest to them. Students are asked to select a topic and construct a “Periodic Table of ____________.” Their tables must include like groupings and at least one periodic trend (in the groups and periods). Students then present their projects to the class. Students’ projects are evaluated based on the presented rubric and oral feedback was given to each student. This performance task is designed to link to the following learning targets: LT.5, LT.6, LT.8, LT.9, LT.10, LT.11, and LT.12.
Periodic table project student samples and rubrics
This performance task is also differentiated to fit student needs. Students are allowed a high degree of creative freedom when designing their projects. They get to decide how large their project is going to be, the theme, whether the pictures be hand drawn or printed, etc. Furthermore, several of my students have accommodations in their IEPs that state they should not be required to speak in front of the entire class and some students require additional written feedback on writing tasks. These students have the option to come in during lunch, nutrition break, or after school to present their project to a small group. Also students are allowed to submit their written samples for feedback and then make necessary edits before the final submission.
Engagement for this project is one of the highest I see all year. Students enjoy this project because it not only allows them a structure to express their non-content related interests but it also incorporates multiple academic fields. This project is designed to incorporate writing, speaking, listening and art.
Written Summative Assessment
Day 11 in the Schedule of Lessons
According to Instructional Planning & Delivery, there are multiple types of test questions—multiple choice, matching, true-false, factual short answer, higher-order short answer and short essay—each with different purposes (Teach for America, 2011). Several different types of questions were included in the following assessment in order to test a range of knowledge. Scaffolding exam questions and including multiple types of questions allows me to identify where any potential breakdowns in learning are occurring for students who perform poorly. Below you will find a student sample of the written end of unit summative assessment for this unit followed by the scoring rubric.
In order to track mastery by objective, each question in this assessment states the learning target with which it is related. Students were given a learning target log at the beginning of the unit, which they look at every class. There is also a poster of the numbered learning targets on the wall. Students know what these numbers mean and how they relate to the bigger learning goal.
Accommodations are proved to students with special needs in accordance to their IEPs. There is a policy at my school that all students must take the same summative assessment for units and final examinations. While accommodations can be provided, modifications to the actual assessment are not allowed from our administration. Students with IEPs in my classes have various accommodations such as extra time to take the exam, use of guided notes, and the ability to take the assessment in our resource center with the one-on-one support of a special education educator.
Unfortunately, I am also not permitted to modify the exam for English language learners—they are required to take the same assessment as their native English-speaking peers. Since I am not able to differentiate the actual assessment, I differentiate the support I provide to these students. I provide targeted support in regards to scientific vocabulary for English learners where necessary to ensure language levels do not block ELs from accessing the content. Also, I typically shuffle exam questions to create several versions. I make sure ELs are given an un-shuffled version where questions and topics build in the progression in which they were learned. While I strive to increase student literacy in my classroom, the summative assessment for a unit should test a student’s content knowledge and they should not be penalized based on their language abilities. Ordering the topics in the progression in which they were learned, reduces the risk of students being confused by the language.
Written summative assessment student sample
Unit Reflection and Reteaching
At the end of every unit, I look at my desired outcomes in comparison to the student data obtained along the way to determine where the unit was effective as well as areas of weakness that could be improved upon in the future. This reflection process is designed to improve my practice not only for my current students but also students I will have in years to come.
The Big Goal for my class is to have at least 85% of students finish chemistry with a grade of C or higher. I use written summative assessments to determine necessary targeted intervention for students who are not on track to achieve this grade and master the content. Students needed to score at least 31 out of the possible 44 points on the above summative assessment to get a 70% or C. Out of the 189 students who took this assessment 16 scored below a 70%.
After all exams have been graded, I return them to students and allow them to look through the provided feedback and make corrections to questions they answered incorrectly. Students can earn back partial credit for these exam corrections. Each unit in my class builds on the skills and knowledge gained during the previous unit. By giving students class time to go through their mistakes, they have the opportunity to ask questions and clear up misconceptions before moving on to the next unit.
The 16 students whom did not pass the exam have the opportunity to sign up for additional support and reteach sessions during nutrition break, lunch or after school. Nine of the 16 students came to these reteach sessions.
During reteach sessions, we start by going through each student’s binder and looking to see if there are any missing guided notes. Not taking notes during class or being absent and not making up missing work are two of the primary factors that contribute to low scores in my class. Students are given a new set of guided notes and they can look at my binder—which contains filled out copies—to go through the material and ask me questions as needed. I then go through my grade book with each student to determine any missing work they may have. Students are allowed to make up any work for partial credit. Once all missing work has been turned in students are given the opportunity to retake an alternate version of the summative assessment. Out of the nine students who started this reteach process six completed all of their missing work and retook the exam. All six of these students raised their score to passing on their second attempt. Two students even raised their score to an A—scoring 92% and 94% respectively.
To wrap up the unit, I had students complete a reflection survey. Students were asked what they enjoyed and what they would change about the unit. Overall, students stated they enjoyed the periodic table project—many saying it was their favorite academic experience so far this year. Several students said they would have appreciated an additional workday because they felt rushed. I will take this into consideration when making my calendar next year. This project is the primary strength of this unit but moving into next year, I plan to modify it to include a more explicit requirement for the speaking and writing portion.
Also on the survey, several students identified they would have liked more practice with Noble Gas electron configurations. Looking through the unit plan and data from the assessment, I agree this was an area of weakness in the unit. Previously, I taught atomic theory, the periodic table, and periodic trends in one large unit. This was the first time I split the large unit into two. When I made this split, I put long-form electron configurations in one unit and noble gas configurations into the other. Next year, I will put the entire topic of electron configurations in this unit. Also, while battleship was a fun activity, and students were engaged, students did not leave class with work samples they could look back on—other then notes—to review. Next year, I will design a written score card instead of using whiteboards. These score sheets can be graded, I can provide feedback, and students can keep them in their binders to review the content.
Effective planning is a continuous process. It is important for educators to reflect frequently and compare what is actually happening in our classroom to the desired outcomes. Students are all unique individuals with varying needs. Reflecting and editing my plans allows me to effectively operate in the community in which I work. Also, asking students their opinion about the unit gives additional insights into potential strengths and weaknesses as well as showing my students that I value their voice and opinions. It is possible to plan what seems like a great unit on a paper that does not work when actually implemented. By continually reflecting and editing my plans, I can improve my practice as I strive to be the best teacher possible for each of my students.
References
“2016 Science Framework.” 2016 Science Framework – Curriculum Frameworks (CA Dept of Education), www.cde.ca.gov/ci/sc/cf/scifwprepubversion.asp.
Conley, D. T. (2011). Building on the Common Core.Educational Leadership, 68(6), 16–20.
Heritage, M. (2010). Formative assessment: Making it happen in the classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2012). Long-Term planning think-aloud. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2012). Preparation for assessment. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2012). Diagnostic assessment. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Lemov, D. (2010). Teach like a champion: 49 techniques that put students on the path to college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Marzano, R. (2006). Classroom Assessment & Grading That Work.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Popham, W. (2009). Instruction That Measures Up: Successful Teaching in the Age of Accountability. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Teach For America. (2011). Instructional planning & delivery. Retrieved from http://www.teachingasleadership.org/sites/default/files/Related-Readings/IPD_2011.pdf
Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design. Alexandra, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Chapter 1, "Backwards Design" (pp.13-21)