When we were planning this issue of EL, one colleague, a former middle school teacher, spoke up: Isn't lesson planning dead? he asked, and you could tell from his voice that he was hoping it was. He admitted that back in the day, he rarely put together formal lesson plans. His principal didn't demand it, and he considered it a thankless task.
The recent student teacher in our group had another take. Her cooperating teacher, known for her content expertise and good relationships with kids, "wasn't really a planner," she said. But faced with teaching 22 seniors Hamlet in an eight-week period, this student teacher really wanted a plan. She did come up with dozens of creative ideas, but not until she had spent a few midnight sessions scouring the Internet. Thus, when the school's instructional coach mentioned the Folger Shakespeare Theatre's Guide to Hamlet, she was grateful. "Google is great, but sometimes you just want an authoritative book that lays it all out," she said.
Lesson planning—Master teachers and beginners alike can have a love/hate relationship with it. In this issue, our authors examine some of its seeming contradictions. They also look at what's new in lesson planning and what may be old but worth keeping. From learning how to launch a lesson to exploring how to create scaffolds, you are likely to find ways to make instruction more effective for your students as well as more rewarding for yourself and fellow educators.
Plan for Thinking or Plan for Engagement? The Common Core State Standards and other assessment-related standards have in some ways scrambled the theory of lesson planning, changing the daily agenda from a list of content and activity items to an outline of complex standards that demand rigor. An important question becomes, How do you plan lessons that address requirements, yet engage students so they want to learn?
Susan M. Brookhart dispels the idea that emphasis on higher-order thinking means less intriguing classes. In fact, she writes, "Memorizing facts is boring. Drill and practice is boring. But thinking for most students most of the time is actually fun." The problem is that students who are used to giving you what they think you want may need to be convinced you really want them to think. She describes strategies to accomplish this—from asking more "why?" questions to using more tasks of interpreting or producing.
For ideas about making challenging content engaging, see Kristina J. Doubet and Jessica A. Hockett's suggestions. Or check out Marilyn Burns' math menus for adding choice and differentiation. And for more about planning for the depth of knowledge levels in the CCSS, see Nancy Boyles' plan for rigor at every level.
Plan for the Day or Plan Long Term? Teachers have been reaching for something to teach on Monday morning for a very long time. And sometimes, U.S. teachers in particular think more about planning engaging activities and less about planning for coherence, Bradley A. Ermeling and Genevieve Graff-Ermeling relate. Although these authors favor incorporating exciting and relevant activities, they note that activities often are scheduled at the wrong place in the sequence, before kids know the why behind them. They describe how to think backwards, starting with the end goal and planning guideposts. That way, instead of getting kids excited about the activities, you get them excited about the learning.
What Is the Best Way to Plan? Our authors debate many questions: Should a teacher rely on published curriculum materials, or is it more helpful to create unique lesson plans together? See Janine T. Remillard and Bryan Goodwin for the benefits of using premade lessons plans, and look at Michelle Bauml's perspective on the upsides of planning together. And, finally, is it worth your while to buy and sell lessons in the (sometimes) lucrative online marketplace? Kim Greene examines the pros and cons.
Beg, borrow, or share, or #GoOpen with vetted OERs (open education resources). Planning is the new—and time-tested—route to being the teacher your students need.
