Week+2+Discussion

__Requirements:__

To complete this week discussion requirement, you are asked to work with other students as a team:
 * 1) Find the analysis paper in Content.
 * 2) Examine carefully the paper to see how well or poorly the author understands the issues, guidelines, principles, and suggestions discussed in chapters and incorporated them into the analysis paper.
 * 3) What particular criteria do you use to make your judgment? Be very specific. You must convince the instructor (me) that your critique is guided by what you read from chapters.
 * 4) What strengths and weaknesses of the paper does your team identify?
 * 5) Check also organization, flow, and clarity.
 * 6) Add your own meaning to your critique.
 * 7) Make your team’s suggestions to help improve the paper.
 * 8) Your suggestions and rationale should be concrete, constructive, and well grounded in scientific knowledge (e.g., Kemp’s guideline of task analysis and writing objectives (ch. 4 (97-105) and ch 5.)
 * 9) Post your team’s critique by Tuesday (9/14) to Discussion. The length doesn’t matter. However, succinct, insightful, well-justified critique is highly valued.

Anne's Paper:
Analysis of this paper revealed many shortcomings in the methods used to develop the lesson “Let’s Ban VBOs (Vague, Boring and Overused words). It is apparent that the task analysis was either insufficient or incomplete. Most notably, the author failed to concisely identify the instructional problem or need to be addressed. The absence of a definitive performance problem results in prescribed instruction that is both unfocused and unsuccessful in meeting instructional goals. Furthermore, without a proper task analysis, instructional goals may be improperly outlined. There is one stated instructional objective in this lesson and it is broad and ambiguous. Numerous objectives should be written that clearly address each of the instructional goals. Objectives should be precise statements that indicate the performance standards expected of the learners. Behavioral objectives should include a verb and related content, conditions and criteria. Cognitive objectives should be general in nature but must include an adequate description of expected learner performance. Given the behavior history of the learners, there may also be a need for an expressive objective addressing classroom behavior. According to the paper, students have limited prior knowledge. The lesson should commence with supplantive instruction on grammar and word classification to give students some declarative knowledge. Once concepts are mastered, the whiteboard could be used effectively for practice drills and cooperative exercises among small student groups. This would integrate technology, promote student-centered learning and assist in minimizing behavioral issues that could arise. The flow of this paper was somewhat disjointed. Immediately stating the intent of the lesson would have allowed the reader to consider and relate later information to the intended outcomes. The paper includes a bulleted list of what could be construed as objectives or instructional activities, but it is located at the end of the paper, thus misleading and confusing. Simple formatting could have clarified the author’s intent and improved understanding. Learner characteristics such as past knowledge, behavior issues, attitudinal trends and familial support systems are determinants of the effectiveness of instruction and should be considered throughout the lesson design process. It did not appear that the author considered this information when creating lesson activities

Kristen's additions and minor changes: (additions are in bold/italics), few other text changes... mostly just to make it flow better with the new information.
Analysis of this paper revealed many shortcomings in the methods used to develop the lesson “Let’s Ban VBOs (Vague, Boring and Overused words)." It is apparent that the task analysis was either insufficient or incomplete. T**//ask analysis is a way to "provide an initial definition of the breadth of the project and provide the designer a focus" (Kemp 2007, p.76).//** //**It is important that the instructor have an initial focus on what instructional goals they will be meeting. The reader is more able to identify with the author's motives if they are able to clearly identify with the instructional problem.**// Most notably, the author failed to concisely identify the instructional problem or need. The absence of a definitive performance problem results in prescribed instruction that is both unfocused and unsuccessful in meeting instructional goals. Furthermore, without a proper task analysis, instructional goals may be improperly outlined. There is one stated instructional objective in this lesson and it is broad and ambiguous. The objective states, //**"this lesson will help increase students' use of adjectives to describe, encourage them to stay away from vague, boring and overused words. (VBOs), thus, increasing their vocabulary."** **First, even though the lesson is grammar related, it is not written in proper english.**// Numerous objectives should be written that clearly address each of the instructional goals. Objectives should be precise statements that indicate the performance standards expected of the learners. Behavioral objectives should include a verb and related content, conditions and criteria. //**For example, within this lesson, a behavioral objective may be to name the list of twenty VBO's from memory.**// Cognitive objectives should be general in nature but must include an adequate description of expected learner performance. //**For example, the author could state that learners will employ strategies to avoid using vague, boring and overused words.**// Given the behavior history of the learners, there may also be a need for an expressive objective addressing classroom behavior. //**Specifically, it could state that learners will participate in small groups for 10 minutes to practice replacing VBO's with a new vocabulary. If a common behavior issue is students becoming distracted, the time limit will minimize off-task behavior.**// According to the paper, students have limited prior knowledge. The lesson should commence with supplantive instruction on grammar and word classification to give students some declarative knowledge. Once concepts are mastered, //**which can be tested throughout the lesson using formative evaluation,**// the whiteboard could be used effectively for practice drills and cooperative exercises among small student groups. This would integrate technology, promote student-centered learning and assist in minimizing behavioral issues that could arise. The flow of this paper was somewhat disjointed. W//**hen beginning to read the lesson analysis, it appeared to be a narration from the middle of an article and not a lesson plan because it lacked an introduction with a topic and focus.**// By immediately stating the intent of the lesson it would have allowed the reader to consider and relate later information to the intended outcomes. The paper includes a bulleted list of what could be construed as objectives or instructional activities, but it is located at the end of the paper, thus misleading and confusing. Simple formatting could have clarified the author’s intent and improved understanding. Learner characteristics such as past knowledge, behavior issues, attitudinal trends and familial support systems are determinants of the effectiveness of instruction and should be considered throughout the lesson design process. //**Specific f****acts the author should have taken into consideration include the large diverse ethnic population amongst the students, below grade-level reading skills, and abrupt and constantly changing home-lives.**// It did not appear that the author considered this information when creating lesson activities. //**In fact, it did not appear that the author gave any thought to the actual lesson activities, but only thought about the lesson in the larger sense.**//

//Kyles Information and Minor Edits://
Analysis of this paper revealed few positive critiques to go along with the many shortcomings in the methods used to develop the lesson “Let’s Ban VBOs (Vague, Boring and Overused words)." It is apparent that the task analysis was either insufficient or incomplete. T**//ask analysis is a way to "provide an initial definition of the breadth of the project and provide the designer a focus" (Kemp 2007, p.76).//** //**It is important that the instructor have an initial focus on what instructional goals they will be meeting. The reader is more able to identify with the author's motives if they are able to clearly identify with the instructional problem.**// Most notably, the author failed to concisely identify the instructional problem or need. The absence of a definitive performance problem results in prescribed instruction that is both unfocused and unsuccessful in meeting instructional goals. Furthermore, without a proper task analysis, instructional goals may be improperly outlined. There is one stated instructional objective in this lesson and it is broad and ambiguous. The objective states, //**"this lesson will help increase students' use of adjectives to describe, encourage them to stay away from vague, boring and overused words. (VBOs), thus, increasing their vocabulary."** **First, even though the lesson is grammar related, it is not written in proper english.**// Numerous objectives should be written that clearly address each of the instructional goals. Objectives should be precise statements that indicate the performance standards expected of the learners. Behavioral objectives should include a verb and related content, conditions and criteria. //**For example, within this lesson, a behavioral objective may be to name the list of twenty VBO's from memory.**// Cognitive objectives should be general in nature but must include an adequate description of expected learner performance. //**For example, the author could state that learners will employ strategies to avoid using vague, boring and overused words.**// Given the behavior history of the learners, there may also be a need for an expressive objective addressing classroom behavior. //**Specifically, it could state that learners will participate in small groups for 10 minutes to practice replacing VBO's with a new vocabulary. If a common behavior issue is students becoming distracted, the time limit will minimize off-task behavior.**// According to the paper, students have limited prior knowledge. The lesson should commence with supplantive instruction on grammar and word classification to give students some declarative knowledge. Once concepts are mastered, //**which can be tested throughout the lesson using formative evaluation,**// the whiteboard could be used effectively for practice drills and cooperative exercises among small student groups. This would integrate technology, promote student-centered learning and assist in minimizing behavioral issues that could arise. The flow of this paper was somewhat disjointed. W//**hen beginning to read the lesson analysis, it appeared to be a narration from the middle of an article and not a lesson plan because it lacked an introduction with a topic and focus.**// By immediately stating the intent of the lesson it would have allowed the reader to consider and relate later information to the intended outcomes. The paper includes a bulleted list of what could be construed as objectives or instructional activities, but it is located at the end of the paper, thus misleading and confusing. Simple formatting could have clarified the author’s intent and improved understanding. A few positives that came out from the paper included the detailed description of the learning enviornment and Insturctional needs. After identifying the flow of the paper, sections could be evaluated by a task analysis. The writer describe the learning environment by listing by listing a detailed description of the student demographic. "An in-depth investigation into what the environment is like where instruction will, indeed, be used in that environment (Ragan, 49)." The writer included the number of students, race, length of time at the school and how many had behavior issues. This would be a key piece of information if it was not your own classroom. One issue that isn't mentioned that should have been inlcluded is the level of experience of the teacher and trainer. In this case, the Media Specialist should have been listed on their experience and knowledge of VBO's. One other section listed out to be analyzed was Instructional Needs. In the Learning Context portion of the paper, the author clearly states what the technology needs the children and teacher/Media Specialist will need and have access to. In this case, it's 30 laptop computers, overhead projector and Interactive Whiteboard. Again if it's your classroom, you generally have an idea of what technology is available. If this isn't your class, it nice to know the information presented on what should and could be used. Once again though, they fell short in their description by not addressing the fact of what's available to the students outside of class time for technology needs. In conclusion, l earner characteristics such as past knowledge, behavior issues, attitudinal trends and familial support systems are determinants of the effectiveness of instruction and should be considered throughout the lesson design process. //**Specific f****acts the author should have taken into consideration include the large diverse ethnic population amongst the students, below grade-level reading skills, and abrupt and constantly changing home-lives.**// It did not appear that the author considered this information when creating lesson activities. //**In fact, it did not appear that the author gave any thought to the actual lesson activities, but only thought about the lesson in the larger sense.**//