SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sakarya University Journal of Education / 2021 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 1

Comparison of a More Effective and a Typical Teachers’ Lesson Plan Detail

Fatima Zehra ALLAHVERDİ
Lynn GELZHEİSER
Pages
83–100
Publication Date
2021-04-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The above-average gain teacher wrote more detailed plans and planned on teaching the engaged reader processes in a way that better aligned with the guidance provided by the intervention

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The reasons for teacher variability are not well understood.
📊
Key Findings & Data:One possible reason for teacher variance might be their lesson planning.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The above-average gain teacher wrote more detailed plans and planned on teaching the engaged reader processes in a way that better aligned with the guidance provided by the intervention
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Lesson Plan Analysis · Comprehension · Teacher Comparison

Abstract

The reasons for teacher variability are not well understood. One possible reason for teacher variance might be their lesson planning. Utilizing a case study methodology, this study asked if teacher engaged reader (comprehension) lesson plan explicitness was related to differences in student outcomes by comparing teachers, utilizing data from a larger study. One of the factors that differentiated the above-average gain teacher from the typical teacher was the extent to which the teacher planned to address all three of the engaged reader processes. The above-average gain teacher wrote more detailed plans and planned on teaching the engaged reader processes in a way that better aligned with the guidance provided by the intervention

🔖

Cite This Article

ALLAHVERDİ, F. Z., GELZHEİSER, L. (2021). Comparison of a More Effective and a Typical Teachers’ Lesson Plan Detail. Sakarya University Journal of Education, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 1, 83–100. https://ajindex.com/articles/239947

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  1. Almasi, J.F., & Fullerton, S.K. (2012). The strategic processes in reading. New York: The Guilford Press.
  2. Baecher, L., Famsworth, T., & Ediger, A. (2014). The challenges of planning language objectives in content-based ESL instruction. Language Teaching Research, 18(1), 118-136.
  3. Duffy, G.G. (1993). Teachers’ progress toward becoming expert strategy teachers. Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 109-120. doi: 10.1086/461754 Duke, N., Pearson, D., Strachan, S., & Billman, S. (2011). Essential elements of fostering and teaching reading comprehension. In S. Samuels & A. Farstrup (eds.), What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction (4th ed.,pp. 51-93). Newark: DE: International Reading Association. Flurkey, A., & Xu, J., (Eds.) (2003). On the revolution of reading: The selected writings of Kenneth S. Goodman. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Ghorbani, M.R., Gangeraj, A.A., & Alavi, S.Z. (2013). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension strategies improves EFL learners’ writing ability. Current Issues in Education, 16(1), 1-11.
  4. Guthrie, J. T., McRae, A., & Klauda, S. L. (2007). Contributions of concept-oriented reading instruction to knowledge about interventions for motivations in reading. Educational Psychology, 42(4),237–250.
  5. John, P.D. (2006). Lesson planning and the student teacher: Re-thinking the dominant model. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 483-498.
  6. Kim, W., Linan-Thompson, S., & Misquitta, R. (2012). Critical factors in reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities: A research synthesis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practise, 27(2), 66-78. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2012.00352. Kintsch, W. (2005). An Overview of Top-Down and Bottom-Up Effects in Comprehension: The CI Perspective. Discourse Processes: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 39(2&3), 125-128. doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp3902&3_2 Korkut, P. (2018). The construction and pilot application of a scoring rubric for creative drama lesson planning. The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance, 23(1), 114-125. doi: 10.1080/13569783.2017.1396211 Kymes, A. (2005). Teaching online comprehension strategies using think-alouds. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(6), 492-500. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.48.6.4 Lane, J. S. (2010). An analysis of relationships between lesson planning training and rehearsal. Journal of Band Research, 46(1), 52-65.
  7. Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. S. (2010). Qualitative Reading Inventory – 5. Boston: Pearson. Mason, L.H. (2004). Explicit self-regulated strategy de