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