Week 5 Blog

 

UDL Research and Connections to My Final Project Lesson

    This week I read a research article focused on Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and the role of professional development in increasing teachers’ actual implementation of UDL in classroom practice. The main takeaway from the article is that UDL implementation improves when teachers experience PD that is intentionally designed for learning transfer, not just awareness. In other words, UDL becomes more consistent when teachers have time to practice, see models, receive feedback, and reflect on how the framework functions in real instruction.

Summary of the Research Article

    Craig, Smith, and Frey examined whether a structured UDL Summer Institute led to measurable changes in teacher practice compared to teachers who did not attend. The study used a quasi-experimental design and relied on administrator observation ratings using a district rubric aligned to UDL indicators. This matters because it moves beyond perception data. The study is not just asking whether teachers liked the training or felt confident. It is asking whether the observable instructional environment shifted in ways that reflected UDL principles.

    The researchers found that teachers who attended the Institute improved their overall UDL implementation scores more than teachers who did not attend. The total score improved in a meaningful way, even though the smaller subscale scores did not show the same clear change. The authors explain that a total score often shows patterns more clearly than individual parts. This suggests teachers may improve overall lesson design and access first, while specific UDL areas still need more practice.

    The article also emphasizes that one-time PD is typically not enough to produce sustained instructional change. UDL requires consistent instructional decision-making around barriers, access, and flexible pathways. That kind of change is more likely when teachers receive modeled examples, structured practice opportunities, and feedback cycles that support revision and refinement.

Connections to My Final Project Lesson Plan

    My final project lesson is titled Scientists at Work: Summarizing with Main Idea & Details and is designed for 6th grade ELA in a 50–60 minute class period. The lesson objective is explicit and measurable: students use a Newsela informational text and a teacher-provided Google Slides template to identify the main idea, select 2–3 supporting details, and write an objective 2–3 sentence summary, producing a 4–5 slide deck aligned to a checklist and quick rubric.

    This lesson connects directly to the UDL focus of the research article because the design is structured to reduce predictable barriers before students ever begin the independent product. Instead of relying on after-the-fact accommodations, the lesson builds accessibility into the core workflow through representation, action/expression, and engagement supports.

    The lesson includes both printed and digital versions of the article, with options like read-aloud or partner reading, chunked text with stop points, and vocabulary supports (mini-cards, picture cues, student-friendly definitions). This is important because students cannot write a strong summary if they do not understand the text first. If vocabulary, reading stamina, or confusing text structure gets in the way, the task turns into writing without comprehension. The article reinforces that representation supports should be built into the lesson, not added only when students struggle. In my lesson, these supports are part of the routine: read a chunk, write a quick gist, clear up vocabulary, and restate what the author is mostly explaining.

    The lesson is a template-based slide deck instead of an open-ended essay. It includes sentence frames, a word bank, and speech-to-text or dictation options. This is important because it helps students show what they understand without writing getting in the way. Students still meet the same goal (main idea, details, objective summary), but they have supports to help them do it. This matches the rubric focus on accuracy and relevant information.

    The lesson procedures include quick checks for understanding, partner support roles, brief sharing, and a simple checklist students use during revision. When students know the purpose and can track their progress, they are more likely to stick with the task. The “glow and grow” step and the 3-2-1 exit ticket also add reflection and give me quick information for reteaching.

How I Can Refine My Lesson Plan Based on the Research Article

    The connection between the article and my planning is that implementation improves with modeling, practice, feedback, and revision. My lesson already includes reteaching when students do not meet expectations (recheck the text, revise main idea/details, and update the summary using teacher feedback). This matches what the study suggests about how adults learn UDL. It also helps me improve the lesson over time by watching for common errors (main idea too narrow, details unrelated, opinions in the summary) and adjusting supports and sentence frames for the next time I teach it.

Reference

Craig, S. L., Smith, S. J., & Frey, B. B. (2022). Professional development with universal design for learning: supporting teachers as learners to increase the implementation of UDL. Professional Development in Education, 48(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1685563

Week 4 Blog

Brisk and Paraphrasing Lesson (6th-Grade ELA Special Education)

This week I explored an AI tool that supports educators with planning and classroom materials. Instead of MagicSchool, I used Brisk, which my district provides. I guided Brisk to build a lesson around an article I selected from Newsela. I chose this text to use with a paraphrasing lesson because this is a major focus for my campus PLT this school year, and I wanted a lesson that directly teaches students how to restate information in their own words while keeping the meaning the same.

Part 1: Lesson Plan (Brisk + Newsela)

Brisk Paraphrasing Lesson Plan

The lesson Brisk generated is a three-day plan focused on paraphrasing. It starts with direct instruction and modeling, then moves into guided practice and independent work. Day 1 focuses on defining paraphrasing, identifying the main idea and supporting details, and modeling how to restate a paragraph. Day 2 includes more guided practice with partner work and peer feedback. Day 3 shifts to independent paraphrasing with a short assessment and a rubric.

Overall, the plan is well aligned to the objective I gave Brisk. The steps match what students need to do in order to paraphrase well. Students first identify the main idea and details, then use that information to write a paraphrase. The lesson structure also supports my students because it uses a clear I Do, We Do, You Do format and repeats the skill across multiple days.

The rigor is appropriate for a 6th-grade SPED ELA class because it does not ask students to simply swap words. It teaches them to hold onto the main idea and important details while changing the wording and sentence structure. I also like that the plan includes vocabulary and synonym work, since limited vocabulary is a common barrier for my students.

The assessments are aligned to the lesson goal. Formative checks are built in during guided practice, and the final rubric measures the key parts of paraphrasing, such as including the main idea, using important details, using one’s own words, keeping the meaning accurate, and writing clearly.

Improvements I would suggest:

1. Add a short mini-check that shows the difference between copying too closely and true paraphrasing. Many students think changing one or two words is enough, so I want a quick routine for catching that.

2. Add a brief note about respectful terminology if the text includes terms that may be outdated or sensitive. I want to make sure the lesson is accurate and culturally respectful.

3. Keep the technology tools simple and consistent. For my students, one clear option is better than several different tools.

In my opinion, Brisk is useful for creating rigorous lesson plans when the teacher provides clear guidance. I had to make the important instructional decisions first, such as choosing the article, naming paraphrasing as the focus skill, and describing the needs of my students. Brisk helped me turn those choices into an organized plan with materials and a rubric that I could implement and refine.

This lesson also connects to what we have been discussing in class because it focuses on explicit instruction, scaffolding, and feedback. Students get repeated practice, structured support, and multiple chances to revise.

Part 2: Another Brisk Tool I Used

In addition to the lesson plan, I used Brisk to support scaffolding and feedback tools for students. For example, I used it to create paraphrasing supports such as sentence stems, a word bank, and an organizer that helps students track original words versus their own words.

These supports are useful because they target the most common paraphrasing problems I see. Students either copy the original text, leave out key details, or struggle to restate ideas with their own sentence structure. The organizer and stems give them a starting point without doing the thinking for them.

I would use these tools for instruction and assessment. For instruction, they help students practice the skill with guardrails. For assessment, the rubric and checklist make the expectations clear and help me give specific feedback.

Part 3: Reflection

Overall, I see Brisk as a resource I would continue using. I would like to collaborate with my colleagues to gain insights and refine my own use.

The biggest benefits are efficiency and structure. Brisk helps generate a multi-day plan, scaffolds, and a rubric quickly. That gives me more time to focus on what matters most, which is modeling, guided practice, and feedback.

The main challenge is that AI output still needs teacher review. I need to check for accuracy, clarity, and appropriateness for my students. I also need to make sure any technology suggestions align with district expectations for privacy and responsible use. I would not enter student names or any sensitive information into AI tools.

The Oklahoma guidance on AI use connects to this experience because it emphasizes responsible, human-centered decision-making. In my use of Brisk, the tool supported planning, but I stayed in control of the instructional choices. I selected the text, targeted a specific skill, and adjusted supports to fit my learners.

I have also used other AI tools for drafting, brainstorming, and generating examples. The difference with Brisk is that it is designed specifically for classroom work and provides education-focused outputs like lesson structures, scaffolds, and rubrics. For me, it works best as a planning assistant, not a replacement for instruction or professional judgment.

This lesson also connects to Kolb’s Triple E Framework because the technology use is tied to the learning goal rather than the tool itself. Brisk supports engagement by helping students stay focused on the paraphrasing task through clear steps, sentence stems, and guided practice routines. It supports enhancement by adding scaffolds that improve the quality of paraphrasing, such as word banks, organizers, and targeted feedback that helps students revise for meaning and originality. It supports extension when students apply the same paraphrasing process to new paragraphs and later texts, so the skill transfers beyond one article and becomes a reusable strategy for reading and writing across content areas.

Resources:

Kolb, L. (2020, December 9). Triple e framework. https://www.tripleeframework.com

International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). ISTE standards for students. https://www.iste.org/standards

Oklahoma State Department of Education (2020). Oklahoma academic standards. https://www.oklahoma.gov/education/services/standards-learning/oklahoma-academic-standards.html

Week 3 Blog

 

In this post, I integrate key ideas from Chapter 6, “Motivation to Learn,” in How People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM, 2018) describes motivation as a changing, context-dependent process influenced by students’ beliefs about competence, the value they assign to learning, their goal orientations, and the degree of belonging and agency they experience in school. The chapter emphasizes that students are more likely to sustain effort when learning feels meaningful, success feels attainable, and classroom structures encourage growth, reflection, and productive struggle rather than simple performance comparisons (NASEM, 2018). These findings align with the design of creative learning environments that build relevance, offer meaningful choice, and support learners through feedback that strengthens autonomy and confidence. They also connect to the ISTE Empowered Learner standard 1.1.a: “Set learning goals, develop strategies leveraging technology to achieve them and reflect on the learning process to improve learning outcomes” (International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE], 2024).

Below is an infographic with key takeaways from the chapter.

References

International Society for Technology in Education (2024). ISTE standards. https://www.iste.org/standards

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2018. How People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24783

Week 2 Blog

This week we are looking at looking at Authentic Intellectual Work (AIW) which describes learning that looks and feels like real thinking outside of school. Instead of focusing mainly on recall, routine procedures, or completing tasks for points, AIW emphasizes students building meaning, using evidence, and creating work that serves a purpose. Newmann, King, and Carmichael (2007) define authentic intellectual work as the construction of knowledge through disciplined inquiry that results in discourse, products, or performances with value beyond school. Put simply, AIW asks students to do more than “get the right answer.” It asks them to explain, connect, and apply what they learn in ways that resemble how people read, write, reason, and solve problems in everyday life (Newmann et al., 2007).

AIW is organized around three connected components: construction of knowledge, disciplined inquiry, and value beyond school. Construction of knowledge means students interpret, analyze, synthesize, or evaluate information instead of repeating it. Disciplined inquiry means students use prior knowledge, develop deeper understanding, and communicate their thinking with details and evidence. Value beyond school means the work matters outside of simply earning a grade, such as informing others, solving a real problem, or sharing ideas with an authentic audience (Newmann et al., 2007). One helpful reminder is that relevance alone is not enough. A task can feel “real world” but still be shallow if students are not expected to think deeply, use evidence, and communicate clearly. AIW requires both rigor and relevance working together (Newmann et al., 2007).

Chapter 2 summarizes research showing that students who experienced higher levels of authentic instruction and assessment tended to achieve at higher levels than students who experienced lower levels, across grade levels and subject areas (Newmann et al., 2007). The summary also notes that authentic pedagogy can support performance on both authentic assessments and more traditional tests, which challenges the idea that deeper learning takes away from basic skills. It also highlights that secondary students with mild to moderate learning disabilities benefited when they were given more authentic assignments and the supports needed to complete them (Newmann et al., 2007). Overall, the research points to an encouraging message. When students are asked to think and communicate at higher levels, many of them rise to the expectations.

A concrete example of AIW in English Language Arts could be an oral history and community storytelling project about a local event, tradition, or place students care about. Students could interview a family or community member, then use at least two additional sources to confirm details or add background, such as a local news archive, museum webpage, or city record. They could construct knowledge by choosing key themes and the most important details instead of retelling everything they found. They would practice disciplined inquiry by making a clear claim about why the story matters, using interview quotes as evidence, and explaining how the sources support the narrative. The work would have value beyond school by sharing the final product with a real audience, such as through a class podcast series, a digital exhibit on the school website, or a community night showcase. This also aligns with ISTE Student Standards because students evaluate information as Knowledge Constructors and share ideas through digital formats as Creative Communicators (International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE], 2016).

The 2024 National Educational Technology Plan (NETP) does not directly name AIW, but its Digital Use Divide section connects well to authenticity. The NETP explains that some students use technology mostly for passive or low-level work, while others use it to create, collaborate, analyze, and solve problems (Office of Educational Technology, 2024). From an AIW perspective, that difference matters because technology can either support shallow tasks or strengthen deeper thinking and communication (Office of Educational Technology, 2024; Newmann et al., 2007). The NETP also points to Universal Design for Learning (UDL) to help schools choose tools and design lessons that are accessible and flexible for all learners, including students with disabilities (Office of Educational Technology, 2024). For the inquiry task, that could mean offering sources in text, audio, captioned video, and visuals, and letting students show learning through writing, a recording, an infographic, or a short presentation. The goal is for every student to participate in meaningful reasoning and communication, not just those who do best with one format.

AIW connects well with the Triple E Framework because both focus on learning goals and using technology to improve learning. Gaer and Reyes (2022) explain that Triple E looks at engagement, enhancement, and extension. In the inquiry task, engagement happens when students collaborate, make choices, and use digital tools to analyze sources and create a product. Enhancement happens when technology helps students draft, revise, organize evidence, and communicate more clearly (Gaer & Reyes, 2022). Extension happens when students connect learning to real life by gathering evidence from their environment and sharing their ideas with an audience beyond the classroom (Gaer & Reyes, 2022). AIW describes what strong student work looks like, and Triple E helps teachers check whether technology is supporting that work.

References

Gaer, S., & Reyes, K. (2022). Finally, some guidance! Using the Triple E Framework to shape technology integration. Adult Literacy Education, 4(3), 34–40. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1370043.pdf

International Society for Technology in Education (2024). ISTE standards. https://www.iste.org/standards

Newmann, F. M., King, M. B., & Carmichael, D. L. (2007). Authentic instruction and assessment: Common standards for rigor and relevance in teaching academic subjects. Iowa Department of Education.

Week 1 Blog

 

Introduction

Hello and welcome! My name is Jennifer Smith. At this time, I am nearing the halfway point of working towards my master's degree in Curriculum and Instruction with an emphasis in English. I currently reside and work in the Tulsa, Oklahoma area. I am in my nineteenth year of teaching. I taught for thirteen years in Houston, Texas before moving back to Oklahoma in 2020. I have been a special education teacher for eighteen of my nineteen years. I have taught 5th through 8th grade language arts. As I head into the final decade of my teaching career, I plan to transition to teaching general education in high school. While I have a deep love of special education, I am ready for a new challenge. 

ISTE Standards Review

Knowledge Constructor indicator 1.3.b asks students to evaluate the accuracy, validity, bias, origin, and relevance of digital content (ISTE, 2024). In an 11th grade ELA classroom, students could apply this skill while addressing Oklahoma Academic Standard 11.3.W.3 by completing a media credibility case study. They could compare how three different digital media platforms cover the same current event and then write an argumentative review of which coverage is most trustworthy and why. Students would select a current topic and gather three to five digital pieces about it. They would then gather information about author, publication, intended audience, evidence quality, and language choices that suggest bias. Next, students could verify central claims and track where the media platforms agree, where they disagree, and what each omits. Finally, students could write a review style argument that presents a clear claim and thesis that acknowledges counterarguments. Digital tools students might use include Google Docs for collaborative annotation and drafting, a shared spreadsheet or form for organizing credibility criteria, and a simple publishing format such as Google Sites, Canva, or Slides to present their findings in a reader friendly way (ISTE, 2024; OSDE, 2021).

Kolb’s Triple E Framework

Kolb explains that effective technology integration begins with strong instructional strategies rather than “fancy tools,” and the Triple E Framework was created to help teachers align instructional moves, learning goals, and purposeful tool selection so technology has a positive impact on learning outcomes (Kolb, 2011). That idea fits the media credibility case study because the learning target is argumentative writing and evidence evaluation, and the tech tools are simply the vehicle that makes students’ thinking visible and easier to manage. The lesson strengthens engagement when students are actively comparing claims and debating credibility criteria, especially when paired with guided practice, modeling, teacher monitoring, and purposeful partnering, which Kolb lists as strategies that support engagement (Kolb, 2011). It enhances learning by helping students organize complex information in a way that improves the quality of their arguments. Finally, it extends learning beyond the classroom because students practice a real-world skill they will use every day, evaluating news and online claims, and they can share their reviews through a class publication space or present findings to an audience, aligning with Kolb’s emphasis on real world issues and authentic discourse as extension strategies (Kolb, 2011).

References

Kolb, L. (2020, December 9). Triple e framework. https://www.tripleeframework.com

International Society for Technology in Education (2024). ISTE standards. https://www.iste.org/standards

Oklahoma State Department of Education (2020). Oklahoma academic standards. https://www.oklahoma.gov/education/services/standards-learning/oklahoma-academic-standards.html