Unit 3

Teacher Planning I: Rationale for Planning

and Models of Planning
Overview

In the previous unit we examined the knowledge base for teaching which represents what
teachers should know and be able to do in the classroom. That knowledge base is
essential for the performance of one of the main or core function of teaching. That core
function is planning which is the topic to be examined in this and the next unit. As one of
the core or main function that teachers perform, planning forms the basis for all of the
essential tasks that teachers do in school especially in terms of lesson delivery, and
assessment. In view of the centrality of planning to the teaching enterprise we examine
the rationale for planning in this unit, the different levels at which teacher planning is
carried out in schools and the different models which show how planning takes place or
how it should proceed. The models of planning provide the theoretical framework for our
discussion of teacher planning which is not only a mental or intellectual activity but a
practical one as well. In this unit we examine some of the models which have been
developed to depict the planning process beginning with the model designed by Ralph
Tyler (1949).

Tyler was the first to illustrate the curriculum planning process as a means of outlining
the steps involved in designing a curriculum for instruction. His model is based on four
fundamental questions which he stated should guide the planning process. Tyler’s model
of curriculum development provided a blueprint for the development of other curriculum
and instructional models, four of which (in addition to Tyler’s) we will examine in this
unit. In our examination of these well known models, you should be able to discern the
ways in which they have been influenced by Tyler’s work while arriving at your own
personal conclusion as to the extent to which Tyler’s model and the others derived from it

53
are a realistic and rational representation of how classroom planning can logically
proceed.

The unit is organized into two sessions. In session 1 we examine the rationale for
planning and the different levels at which planning takes place. In session 2, we focus on
the different models of planning, with specific reference to the following planning
models:

The Linear Rational Model by Ralph Tyler

The Grassroot Rationale by Hilda Taba

The Direct Instructional Model by Madeline Hunter

The Events of Instruction by Robert Gagne

The Backward Design Model by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe

Objectives of the Unit

After completing this unit you should be able to:
1. Outline the rationale for instructional planning
2. Explain the different types/levels of instructional planning
3. Compare the curriculum/instructional planning models of Tyler, Taba, Hunter,
Gagne and Wiggins and McTighe
4. Assess the relevance of the curriculum/instructional models to classroom planning
and instruction

Readings
Kyriacou, C. (1998). Essential teaching skills, (2nd ed). Stanley Thornes (Publishers)
Ltd.(Chapter 2 – Planning and preparation)

Lang, H.R., McBeath, A., & Hêbert, J. (1995). Teaching strategies and methods for
student centered instruction. Toronto, Ontario: Harcourt Brace and Company
Canada Ltd. (Chapter 3 – Planning for teaching)

54
Session 3.1
Planning for Instruction: Rationale, Levels and Types of Planning

Objective of this Session

Outline the rationale for instructional planning

Explain the different types/levels of instructional planning

Introduction

We begin this session with a brain teaser. Think carefully and surface the tacit and
implicit views which you might have on the issues below without being aware of them.
Make your responses and discuss them with your peers and be prepared to amend your
responses as you progress through this and the follow up unit.

Table 3.1 Activity 3.1

Preliminary Task

Record your answers to the following prompts and revisit them as you progress through
this and the follow up unit.

1. Planning is? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Planning is a mental activity only (true/false) Justify your response -----------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. One main reason why teachers should plan is -------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

55
4. Beginning teachers need to engage in formal planning because-----------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Experienced teachers do not need to plan (true/false) Justify your response --------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Lesson planning can only begin with a knowledge of the content of instruction
(agree/disagree) Justify your response ----------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Teacher planning should result in the production of a tangible product – a lesson
plan (agree/disagree) Justify your response ----------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Teachers do not need to formulate lesson objectives before instruction to know
how to assess students at the end of a lesson/unit (agree/disagree) Justify your
response --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Lesson planning should be required in all schools as a universal standard for
professional practice (agree/disagree) Justify your response --------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Subject departments should be allocated time in the school’s timetable for
monthly planning from which teachers will plan their daily/weekly lessons
(agree/disagree) Justify your response ----------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

56
If you have attempted to respond to all the prompts above, you might have already
concluded that not all can be answered in a straightforward manner and that some of the
issues that the prompts give rise to are debatable and even contentious. As we proceed
however, we might at the very least have a more balanced perspective on what teacher
planning involves and why certain aspect of this core function is not amenable to any one
justifiable perspective. It is in this very function of teaching that theory and practice seem
to be most disconnected. This does not mean however that theoretical ideas are of little
use to classroom practitioners where curriculum and instructional planning are concerned.
It means that this is an area in which teachers practical theories can be transformed into
professional knowledge if novice teachers are to benefit from the knowledge produced by
researchers and practitioners alike.

As I indicated earlier in this unit, we examine the rationale for planning and the different
levels at which planning takes place in the classroom in session 1, while in session 2, we
examine some planning models which have been developed to depict the stages involved
in curriculum and instructional planning. It is from these models that you might be able to
relate what happens in the classroom to what is proposed by these models with a view to
assessing their relevance and applicability to classroom practice. By the end of the follow
up unit you should be able to argue convincingly on the way in which teachers’ practical
planning activities can inform theories on teacher planning and become a part of the
professional knowledge base for teaching. This unit provides the framework for a fuller
analysis of teacher planning – examined in unit 4 - as it takes place at the level of the
classroom and at the stage at which students and teachers interact with the curriculum as
a part of the instructional planning process.

What is Teacher Planning?

Before we examine the rationale for planning, it seems necessary that we have a common
understanding of what we mean by teacher planning. From my perspective planning
within the context of teaching, is a deliberate or intentional activity carried out for a
specific purpose. That purpose is three-folds; instruction, learning and assessment.
Embedded in this three dimensional purpose is the assumption and expectation that

57
planning for instruction also entails some planning for the management of students
behaviour on which successful learning depends. Irrespective of how planning is
conceptualized, it includes some amount of mental activity which involves thinking about
the subject matter to be taught, thinking about the students for whom the lesson is being
planned, thinking about what the lesson will contribute to students’ learning or the
learning outcomes to be achieved, thinking about logistical issues such as the sequence in
which the material will be presented, the timing of the activities to be done by students
the strategies to be used to deliver the content and even the ways in which students’
learning will be monitored and assessed.

Even if you believe that teachers might not consider all these matters prior to instruction,
I am suggesting that planning takes place not only before instruction but during and after
the instructional event. I am also suggesting that the planning issues identified above
should be among the things that teachers think about when planning for teaching if
meaningful learning is to be the outcome when measured against the goals of instruction.
We need now to look at what we mean by planning when we use the word to describe
what teachers do as a major part of their professional responsibility. We begin by
considering a relatively contemporary view of planning offered by Skowron (2006). In
her discussion of planning, she made a number of observations. She noted for example
that “When teachers plan instruction, they engage in a complex mental process” which is
“conscious and deliberate” in the beginning (p.4). She noted that beginning teachers
apply a great deal of thinking to the planning process and produces a detailed plan. In the
process of doing so “The teacher visualizes the enactment of the plan, makes changes,
refines and completes the job” (p.4).

Skowron (2006) contrasts this planning behaviour of the novice teacher with the
experienced teacher who, having engaged in instructional planning a number of times,
“has a well developed schema for instructional planning” (p.4). In view of this, Skowron
(2006) argues that the experienced teacher plans easily and efficiently and no longer
needs to attend to every precise detail. “Deliberate thought” she states, “is replaced by
automatic action...” thus planning for instruction “has reached a level of automaticity that
resembles intuition” (p.4) Skowron clarifies the meaning of intuition, not to mean

58
instinctive actions but to refer to “the development of automatic and metacognitive
processes” She noted therefore that “Intuitive teachers are expert planners who
understand instructional planning and know how to design instruction”. As experienced
teachers develop automaticity, they also become more intuitive since intuition draws on
prior knowledge. Experienced teacher therefore “engage in precision planning, put plans
into action, and reflect on the outcome of their instruction” (Skowron, 2006, p.4). In view
of the points raised, planning, as defined by Skowron (2006), “is a metacognitive,
reflective process in which the teacher thinks, reflects, adjusts, and fine-tunes the various
components until a coherent plan emerges” (p.21). She noted further that “When
reflection is an intrinsic part of the instructional design process and teachers take time to
analyze their planning efforts, they learn through their experience, and future planning
becomes more effective and efficient “ (Skowron , 2006, p.21).

Instructional planning by teachers is also defined as “the process by which teachers

decide (1) what to teach (2) how to teach it, and (3) how they will determine whether the
students have learned and are satisfied (Cruickshank, Bainer Jenkins and Metcalf, 2006,
p. 147). Planning is similarly defined by Jacobsen, Eggen and Kauchak (2006) as “a
complex process that involves making a number of important decisions...” (p.100). The
similarities in the definitions are to be found in the reference to decision making which
indicates that it is central to the work done by teachers. Given that “decision involves a
resolution or a conclusion that requires the professional judgment of the person making it
(Jacobsen et al, 2006, p.100), teachers, irrespective of their levels of experience, are
involved in decision-making all the time. What might and very often distinguishes the
nature of the planning decisions made by teachers is the contextual or experiential
knowledge that the teacher possesses. The qualitative difference in the knowledge base of
novice and experienced teachers is made manifest in John’s (1995) discussion of teacher
planning.

In describing teachers as designers, in view of the fact that they design courses and
lessons and make decisions in doing so, John (1995) observes that planning for teachers
is a vital activity in which they all engage. He described planning as a cognitive and
behavioral activity which is also at the same time highly practical. At one level, planning

59
may be seen as John discusses it, as an abstract mental activity at which time the teacher
engages in what he describes as “eidectic thinking” [seeing the lesson as it unfolds in
one’s head/mind] whereby they visualize future events and construct on the basis of this,
“a map or framework that will guide the action decided upon” (John, 1995, p.2). As John
also noted, planning is also an “intensely creative” activity at another level “with the
teacher devising original solutions to the solving of new and persistent problems” (p.2). It
is perhaps for this reason that teaching has been described “as complex and cognitively
demanding as the practice of medicine, law or architecture” (Clark, 1989, p. 312, cited in
John, 1995, p.2).

Whilst the act of planning is an important activity in which teachers engage, it does not
take place in a vacuum. This means that teachers require some essential knowledge in
order to engage in the planning process. John (1995) in commenting on the knowledge
that is required for planning cites Smith (1985) in noting that “one of the strongest
influences on teachers’ curriculum planning was their perception of the subject matter,
the types of knowledge it represented and the methods and activities appropriate to teach
it (John, 1995, p.19). Knowledge of subject matter and pedagogy do not constitute all of
what teachers need to know in order to plan for teaching. Calderhead (1988) observes to
the contrary that “planning relies heavily on the interrelationship between various forms
of knowledge and skills that gradually shapes the content into worthwhile learning
experiences for pupils” (cited in John, 1995, p.21). Among the knowledge that teachers
need to have to commence planning is contextual knowledge or knowledge of the
working environment. This includes knowledge of the students, their age, ability, gender
interpersonal relationships, behaviour, previous learning experiences and numbers among
other issues such as the size and layout of classrooms, and the availability of equipment
(John, 1995).

John (1991) points out however that this knowledge is not held to the same extent by
beginning and experienced teachers. He observed therefore that “The beginning
teacher...not only lacks detailed contextual knowledge but also lacks the experience upon
which to make informed judgements”. He observed also that it takes time for novice
teachers to develop expert knowledge and they therefore need “to think carefully about

60
every aspect of the teaching context before embarking on lesson preparation” (John,
1995, p.22). This difference between novice and experienced teachers with respect to
planning has also been commented on by Bourdillon and Storey (2002). They noted that:

Experienced teachers are less likely to need to think through and write down in
detail the way that they are preparing to teach a certain topic or lesson. They have
done it many times before, they know the sorts of questions and prompts that
elicit responses, and they have a well-tuned awareness of the capabilities of the
pupils they will be working with. Experienced teachers have well-developed
routines and procedures together with a mental map of how long activities will
take, and what they can expect to do in one lesson. They also have a wealth of
knowledge about the pupils they are teaching, which allows them to concentrate
on learning in the classroom (Bourdillon and Storey, 2002, p.88).

With respect to beginning teachers however, Bourdillon and Storey (20020 contend,
similar to other writers mentioned earlier in this session that, “the process of planning has
to be thought through and externalized.” Thus, beginning teachers engage in the
production of detailed written lesson plans, which “becomes very important as they
develop their classroom knowledge and classroom routines” (Bourdillon and Storey,
2002, p.88). Detailed written planning is also more critical to the classroom practice of
beginning teachers who are more likely to “overlook or forget some crucial aspects of
either subject development or classroom management” (Bourdillon and Storey, 2002,
p.88).

The final definition of planning that we will examine in this session comes from a
particularly active period of research done on teacher planning. From Clark and Yinger
who conducted research on teacher planning in the late 1970’s come the description of
teacher planning as “a basic psychological process in which a person visualizes the
future, inventories means and ends, and constructs a framework to guide his or her future
action – ‘thinking in the future tense’” (Clark and Yinger, 1987, p.86). Planning in effect,
is both a psychological process in terms of the mental or cognitive work that is involved

61
 and a practical activity based on the actions which it leads to as when teachers enact their
plans in the classroom.

Table 3.2 Activity 3.2

Review of Preliminary Task

Take this opportunity to review the answers you gave to the preliminary activities
given at the beginning of the unit. Please share your revised responses (where they have
been substantially altered in the discussion forum)

1. Planning is ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Planning is a mental activity only --------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Beginning teachers need to engage in formal planning because ---------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Experienced teachers do not need to plan -----------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Lesson planning can only begin with a knowledge of the content of instruction -------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

62
Rationale for Teacher Planning

As a core teaching activity there are a number of reasons why teacher should plan. From
the rationale for planning given by a selection of writers, they generally concur that
planning is a necessary rather than an optional activity. Let us attempt to establish some
of the reasons why teacher should plan for teaching. In expressing their view of why
planning is important, Lang, McBeath and Hébert (1997) stated that “in the
teaching/learning cycle, successful lessons rarely ‘just happen.’ Such lesson, they noted,
are the product of careful planning for the three major phases of effective lessons (p.52).
Similarly, Kellough and Kellough (2003) have noted that “effective teaching does not
happen: it is produced through the thoughtful planning of each phase of the learning
process” (p. 120). Thus, the reasons for planning are obvious and have indeed been
reinforced by research findings which indicate that:

Planning is the key to eliminating management problems. Teachers who are

organized and plan well will find they do not have to be strict disciplinarians,
because their classrooms and lessons are characterized by a smooth flow of
activities and ideas (Arends, 1988, cited in McIntyre & O’Hair, 1996, p.16).

We will examine some of the reasons for planning as suggested by Kellough and
Kellough (2003) and Jacobsen, Eggen and Kauchak (2006) in some details:

Among the reasons why teachers plan for teaching are the following:

To ensure curriculum coherence. Periodic lesson plans are an integral part of a

larger plan, represented by course goals and objectives, department goals and
school and national goals.

To give consideration to students’ experiential background, learning capacities
and styles, reading abilities and specific needs. Without planning it would be
impossible to personalize the instruction and properly attend to the students’ need
and differences.

63

Planning is necessary to ensure efficient and effective teaching with a minimum
of classroom control problems. After deciding what to teach, you face the
important task of deciding how to teach it.

To efficiently use precious instructional time, planning should be accomplished
with the goals in mind to not waste anyone’s time during the time allotted for
instruction, and to select strategies that most effectively promote the anticipated
student learning.

Planning helps ensure program continuation. The program must continue even if
you are absent and a substitute teacher is needed. Planning provides a criterion for
reflective practice and self-assessment after a learning activity and at the end of
school term, you can reflect on and assess what was done and how it affected
students’ learning. Planning provides a means to evaluate your teaching (Kellough
and Kellough, 2003, pp.122 – 123).

According to Jacobsen, Eggen and Kauchak (2006), there are a variety of reasons
why professionals plan and these are classified into four categories. These are
conceptual, organizational, emotional and reflective:

Conceptual planning means working out from the outset what is to be done and
how it will be done. Thus conceptual planning allows teachers to present ideas in
a coherent and connected way.

Organizational planning means making decisions about classroom rules and
procedures, how instructional time will be used and how to make optimal use of
the physical environment.

Emotional planning provides a source of security and confidence for teachers.
Research has shown that teachers tend to take extra care in planning when they
face content that is new to them or difficult for students.

Reflection is facilitated by planning. It helps teachers make clear decisions about
their goals, why the goals are important, and how they’ll go about trying to help
students reach the goals. This establishes reference points that allow them to
reflect on the appropriateness of the goals and how effective they were in helping

64
 students reach them. Without careful planning, the process of reflecting becomes
murky and uncertain at best (Jacobsen, Eggen and Kauchak, 2006, pp. 101-102).

Table 3.4 Activity 3.4

Topic Review

Review the rationale given for planning and consider whether these reasons are more
applicable to beginning or novice teachers than experienced teachers. Do you believe that
all teachers, irrespective of their levels of experience need to plan in the same way and
for the same reasons? Share your views in the open forum.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Planning Levels and Types

Levels of Planning

Of the myriad number of tasks that classroom teachers perform, planning is certainly one
of the most fundamental whether teachers spend hours consumed in the mental task
involved in planning or whether they do so during interactive teaching. Planning is
therefore not just a mental activity it is also a practical activity as we noted earlier and it
not only take place prior to instruction, but during and after instruction as well. As
decision-makers, teachers are engaged in thinking all the time about what to teach, how
to teach and in choosing among alternatives in the midst of action.

Planning is done in a number of ways; formally and deliberatively, usually before

instruction or spontaneously and intuitively notably during instruction in response to

65
classroom events. As a formal professional activity, planning for teaching takes place at
different levels, usually at the level of the school and/or department and at the level of the
individual classroom teachers. This planning can cover three/four distinct types of
planning; (1) yearly planning, (2) monthly/unit planning, (3) weekly and/or (4) daily
planning depending on how schools organize and carry out their curriculum planning
function.

Cruickshank, Bainer Jenkins and Metcalf (2006) have outlined three levels/types of
planning in which teachers engage. They commented in this regard that teachers engage
regularly in “long-, intermediate-, and short-range planning” (p.163). When teachers
engage in long-range planning, they are deciding how generally to approach teaching
either for an entire year or for a semester-long course and need to know how many
weeks, days, or hours are available for instruction. Cruickshank et al (2006) regard unit
planning as intermediate or medium-range planning, noting that it “involves decisions
about how courses can be broken into chunks, parts, or units, each with a particular
theme”.

They noted also that units or topics are arranged in a “meaningful order, thus determining
the sequence of the course” (p.163). Following intermediate planning, teachers next plan
for the short-range which means planning for the week and for daily lessons. This type of
planning involves spelling out in some details the learning that students will engage in
and how that learning can be most effectively accomplished. Leask and Davison (2001)
on the other hand, identified two main stages of planning for pupil learning. These two
stages are representative of the different levels at which planning occurs. The first is the
scheme of work also called ‘programme of work’ or the ‘unit of work’ and is more
typically referred to as instructional units or just unit in our Caribbean context.

The scheme of work, according to Leask and Davison (2001) “sets out the long-term
plans for learning and thus covers an extended period of time – this could be a period of
years, a term or half a term, or weeks” (2001, p. 67). The second stage of planning
identified by Leask and Davison is the lesson plan which “provides an outline of one

66
lesson within a scheme of work” (2001, p.70). We examine both unit and lesson planning
in some more details looking first at the scheme of work or instructional unit.

Types of Planning – The Unit or Scheme of Work

Unit planning involves the planning for the teaching of topics, themes or major concepts
which constitute specific aspects of a course of study. A number of definitions have been
offered for unit plans:

• A unit is “a series of many intended learning activities and experiences unified

around the topic, theme, or major concept” (Moore, 2007, p. 137).
• Unit planning is the “intermediate step between long-term planning and the
process of constructing specific lesson plans” (Jacobsen, Eggen and Kauchak,
2006, p.108).
• An instructional unit is a cohesive portion of a prescribed course that centers on a
topic, theme, or major concept. Units organize course content into manageable
areas of investigation, focusing instruction and learning on specific course
objectives (Lang, McBeath and Hébert p.398).
• A unit is a major subdivision of a course... [which] is comprised of learning
activities that are planned around a central theme ( Kellough and Kellough, 2003,
p.175).

In explaining the purpose of units, Kellough and Kellough (2003) stated that “Organizing
the content of the semester or year into units makes the teaching more manageable than
when no plan or only random choices are made by a teacher” (p.175). They also
identified two types of instructional units; the standard, conventional, or traditional unit
and the integrated unit.

The traditional or conventional unit is typically organized around topics which form part
of a discrete discipline such as History, Geography or English Language. This type of

67
unit focuses on a topic, theme or major concept as noted above and organizes the
knowledge and skills in a sequential manner in the form of lessons. Thus:

Each lesson build on the previous lesson by contributing additional subject matter,
providing further illustrations, and supplying more practice or other added
instruction, all of which are aimed at bringing about mastery of the knowledge
and skills on which the unit is centered (Kellough and Kellough, 2003, p.175).

Whereas the standard unit is organized around a central theme the integrated or
interdisciplinary unit is designed to integrate disciplines such as Science and
Mathematics, or by combining Social Studies and English/Language Arts or by
combining core disciplines (Kellough and Kellough, 2003). They suggested that a course
should consist of a series of several units, each containing a series of three to twenty or
more lessons that flow from one topic to another to form a logical whole by promoting
integration of students’ understanding and performance capabilities (Lang, McBeath and
Hébert, 1995, p.398).

Based on the different ways in which units are conceptualized they can be viewed
generally as long but more usually medium term plans for teaching over a specified
period in that they “can last anywhere from a week or two to a month or more depending
on the topic” (Moore, 2007, p.108).

Seen as a form of medium or long term planning what really is the purpose of unit
planning? It cannot be denied that planning is time consuming and tedious, especially if
planning is essentially futuristic. While experienced teachers would have developed some
knowledge and experience of what to plan for, novice teachers would necessarily
experience some challenges in planning for the long/medium term for the teaching of
topics with which they are unfamiliar. Planning requires both contextual and content
knowledge to be done effectively.

The question then become this. If unit planning requires so much forecasting, is it simply
more work for teachers to do, can teaching proceed purposefully without it, must it be
done collaboratively or individually and how does it help students in the long term?

68
Examine some of the benefits of unit planning identified by Cruickshank, Bainer Jenkins
and Metcalf (2006) below, and consider the extent to which they justify the need for unit
planning. Hopefully they might help to address the questions posed and perhaps some
that you might have asked yourself.

Benefits of Unit Planning

There are many benefits to be derived from the planning of units of instruction. Among
these are:

• Once completed, unit plans give clear direction for short-term planning – for a
week, day or lesson. An ounce of unit planning now may save a pound of work
and classroom anxiety later.
• Good unit planning makes you more aware of your learners’ unique qualities [a
matter we will understand more clearly in the next unit]
• Unit planning causes you to think imaginatively about how to get the job done
using a variety of instructional materials and activities. It weans you away from
mere textbook teaching.
• Unit planning asks you to consider how to help students study some topic or
phenomenon in an interdisciplinary or holistic way. Through use of units, you can
incorporate writing, reading, reporting, and so forth into learning activities
(Cruickshank, Bainer Jenkins and Metcalf, 2006, p.167).

Lesson planning

The second planning stage is that which takes place at the level of the individual
classroom teacher. According to Moore (2007), the daily lesson plan represents the most
specific type of plan and is, simply put, the class activities for a single day. Thus, as he
noted, unit planning does not eliminate the need for daily lesson planning but since the
“objectives, general activities, experiences, and necessary materials have been specified
in a well-done unit plan, the daily lesson plan flows naturally out of the unit plan”
(p.144). Cruickshank et al (2006) similarly explains that the “lesson plan describes
specifically what and how something will be learned within a brief period, usually one or

69
a few class hours” (p.168). Since the lesson plan is derived from the unit plan it is
described as being nested within the unit plan. When taken together, the individual plans
within a unit will add up to the delivery of a specific section of the curriculum.

The tangible product of the lesson planning process is a lesson plan which is “a concise,
working document which outlines the teaching and learning that will be conducted within
a single lesson” (Butt, 2006, p. 21). It is a practical instrument according to Butt (2006)
which should be used within the lesson as an aide memoire” (Butt, 2006, p.21). Finally,
the lesson plan provides the means by which a given lesson is implemented. Such a
lesson “consists of a sequence of activities that occur in a classroom during a finite time
period... for some reason”. Thus a lesson, as we will discuss in the next unit, possess
“three primary features: (a) activities, (b) purpose, and (c) sequence and time period
(Anderson, 1991, p.54). In addition, as Lang and Evans (2006) observed, lesson planning
and decision making takes place in three phases: before [also referred to as the preactive
phase], during [also referred to as the interactive phase], and after [also referred to as the
postactive phase], instruction. The phases are explained below:

During the first phase (preinstruction), teachers choose the content to be studied
and a variety of teaching strategies, methods, and student activities. They think
about the content, how rapidly to cover it, the time allocated to each topic,
classroom management expectations, routines and procedures...

In the second phase (the developmental or interactive), teachers make

instructional decisions. They think about whether presentations and student
activities are effective, how they can help students, whether transitions from one
part of a lesson to another or from one lesson to another are smooth, and if pacing
is appropriate...

In the third phase (postinstructional), summative tests or other measures are given
and marks assigned, recorded, and reported. Testing may be through paper-and-
pencil examinations, papers, projects, or portfolios (a combination technique).

70
 Tests provide feedback and an opportunity for teaching... (Lang and Evans, 2006,
pp.202-204).
Rationale for preparing written lesson plans

Kellough and Kellough (2003) have outlined the following rationale for preparing written
lesson plans:

Carefully prepared and written lesson plans show everyone... that you are a
committed professional... A written lesson plan shows that preactive thinking and
planning have taken place.

Written and detailed lesson plans provide an important sense of security, which is
especially useful to a beginning teacher. A written and detailed lesson plan
provides a road map to guide you and help keep you on track.

Written lesson plans help you to be or become a reflective decision maker.
Without a written plan, it is difficult or impossible to analyze how something
might have been planned or implemented differently after the lesson has been
taught. Written lesson plans serve as resources for the next time you teach the
same or similar lesson and are useful for teacher self-evaluation...

Written lesson plans help you organize material and search for “loopholes”,
“loose ends”, or incomplete content. Careful and thorough planning during the
preactive phase of instruction includes anticipation of how the lesson activities
will develop as the lesson is being taught. During this anticipation you will
actually visualize yourself in the classroom teaching your students, using that
visualization to anticipate possible problems.

Written plans help other members of the teaching team understand what you are
doing and how you are doing it... Written lesson plan also provide substitute
teachers with a guide to follow if you are absent (Kellough and Kellough, 2003,
pp. 189-190).

From the discussion on the types and levels of planning as well as the rationale and
benefits enumerated for planning generally and for unit and lesson planning in particular,
it can be assumed that you are now fully attuned to the necessity for teacher planning and
the reasons why it should be seen as an important professional activity. The nature of the

71
planning process should suggest that some planning be done as a collaborative venture,
usually the unit planning activity, which should then provide the basis for individual
teachers to plan their lessons. These lessons in turn should represent an appropriate blend
of individual creativity and collective wisdom in keeping with the curriculum on which
the planning is based.

The diagram below depicts and summarizes the different types of planning which takes
place at different levels. Planning which takes place on a yearly basis would more likely
be that which identifies topics to be covered for the academic year giving the sequence
and a general outline of the content. Unit planning is done at both the departmental and
individual levels depending on institutional practices and is the planning which clarifies
how the learning experiences to be provided for students are to be sequenced. Lesson
planning on the other hand seem to be largely done as an individual activity and
represents planning for a specific class period

72
Figure 3.1: Types/Levels of Teacher Planning

Yearly Planning
Topics to be covered for the year identified

Unit Planning (Scheme of Work)

Planning done to cover a specific topic or theme for a
specified period – could be for several weeks depending on
scope of topic

Lesson Planning
Planning done on weekly and/or daily basis to cover a segment
of the unit topic/theme (which might be taught over a number
of sessions or a single session depending on duration of a
session)

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase

Preactive Interactive Postactive

planning planning (during planning
(before instruction) (after
instruction) instruction)

Table 3.4 Activity 3.4

Session Review

1) Review your understanding of the different levels at which planning generally

takes place. Why is unit planning an important activity for teachers and do you
believe this planning should be done on a departmental or individual level? Why
or why not? In other words, what are the benefits and pitfall of collaborative as
against individual planning at that level? -------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Though we will look in some details at the issue of lesson planning as it relates to

73
 the research literature, what are your views on this aspect of a teacher’s work?
That is should all teachers – beginners and experienced alike – produce written
lesson plans as evidence of their planning activities? And, should lesson plans be
expected to be more detailed for beginners than the experienced teachers?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Should schools require different types of plans from teachers depending on their
years of experience? How should these plans differ in your estimation?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

74
Session 3.2

Planning for Instruction: An Examination of Some Planning

Models

Objective of this Session

Compare the curriculum/instructional planning models of Tyler, Taba, Hunter,
Gagne as well as Wiggins and McTighe

Assess the relevance of the curriculum/instructional models to classroom
planning and instruction

Planning Models

Tyler’s Model of Curriculum Planning (The Linear Rational Model)

Planning models refer to the different frameworks which have been developed to depict
or explain the curriculum/instructional planning process. They depict the different
elements or components which make up the planning process and the steps or sequence in
which these elements are considered. The first and most well known planning model is
that developed by Tyler (1949). According to this model, there are four fundamental
questions which must be answered in developing any curriculum and plan of instruction.
These questions are in keeping with the different stages in the development of the
curriculum as illustrated below:

Table 3.5 The Tyler Rationale: The Questions that should Guide Curriculum
Planning
Purpose (objectives)
1. What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?
Selection of learning experiences
2. What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these
purposes?
Organization of learning experiences
3. How can these educational experiences be effectively organized?

Evaluation
4. How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained?

75
 This model or approach to curriculum planning has been described as the Tyler Rational-
Linear approach because it outlines, specifies, or prescribes a definite sequence for
curriculum planning as illustrated below:

Figure 3.2 The Linear Rational

Organize learning
Specify Select learning activities Design evaluation
objectives activities procedures

Source: Eggen, P & Kauchak, D. (1997).Educational psychology. Windows on

classrooms (3rd ed). (p.446). New Jersey: Merrill.

Something to Think About

The diagrammatic representation of Tyler’s curriculum model shows why it is
described as a linear model and how the specification of objectives eventually
determines the evaluation procedures used to check for their attainment. What the
model stopped short of doing is to demonstrate how the results of evaluation
should feed back into the next cycle of planning.

Skowron (2006) also reminds us that “Instructional design is not a linear process.
During the planning phase, decisions are continually adjusted and modified as
new ideas and insights present themselves” (p.6).

The model suggests that the questions can only be answered in the order in which they
are posed since the answer for one is premised on that which precedes it. The question
relating to educational purposes is concerned with specifying the objectives of instruction
and doing so by identifying the sources which can inform the framing of these objectives.
Thus Tyler identified students themselves as constituting a source from which objectives
could be formulated thereby catering to the needs of the learners for whom the
curriculum is designed. Other sources which he identified as useful sources of objectives
include studies of contemporary society and subject specialists.

Contemporary society is a useful source of objectives for in essence schools are largely
expected to prepare students for the world of work and can only do so by providing an

76
educational foundation that would enable students to function effectively in society.
According to Tyler (1949) “there are two commonly used arguments for analyzing
contemporary life in order to get suggestions for educational objectives”. These
arguments are:

1. Contemporary life is so complex and is ever changing so it is very necessary to

focus educational efforts upon the critical aspects that are of importance today so
that students’ time is not wasted in learning things that were important fifty years
ago but no longer have significance at the same time we are neglecting areas of
life that are now important and for which the schools provide no preparation.
2. The second argument for the study of contemporary life grows out of the findings
relating to transfer of training. The view here is that if the various faculties of the
mind were trained then the student could use these faculties under a variety of
conditions thereby eliminating the need for analyzing contemporary life to
suggest objectives. In other words, the important focus of instruction is that of
developing the several faculties of the mind and as life develops the student would
be able to use this trained mind to meet the conditions encountered. Studies of the
transfer of training suggest however that such transfer is more likely to take place
when a student is able to recognize similarities between situations encountered in
life and the situations in which learning took place. This similarity between life
and learning situations were like to be perceived if (1) the life situations and the
learning situations shared many similarities and (2) if student is given practice in
seeking illustrations in life outside of school for the application of things learned
in school. These findings according to Tyler (1949) are used to support the value
of analyzing contemporary life to identify learning objectives for the school ...
(pp. 17-18).

Subject specialists are also considered as another important source of objectives, for as
Tyler noted such specialists should be asked “What can your subject contribute to the
education of young people who are not going to be specialists in your field?” He
expressed further that:

77
 If subject specialists can present answers to this question, they can make an
important contribution, because, presumably, they have considerable knowledge
of the specialized field and many of them have had opportunity both to see what
this subject has done for them and for those with whom they work. They ought to
be able to suggest possible contributions, knowing the field as well as they do,
that it might make to others in terms of its discipline, its content, and the like
(Tyler, 1949, pp.26-27).

By educational experience, Tyler speaks of the “activities that may be written into the
curriculum plan and that provide opportunities for students to reach the objectives
specified” (Marsh and Willis, 1999, p.27). In organizing the learning experience, Tyler
emphasizes the need for such experiences to help students attain the objectives. He thus
suggested that learning experiences be organized such that each learning experience build
upon earlier ones (vertical organization) and that these experiences be reinforced by
activities in other subjects (horizontal organization) (Marsh and Willis, 1999). The final
element in Tyler’s model is evaluation. In answering the question related to this element
of his curriculum plan, he noted the need to see how far the learning experiences that
have been developed and organized actually produce the desired result” (Marsh and
Willis, 1999, p.28).

Tyler also emphasized as Marsh and Willis explained that paper-and-pencil tests are not
the only means by which evidence of changes in students’ behaviour can be ascertained.
Tyler therefore advocated “other techniques such as observations, interviews,
questionnaires, and samples of students’ work...” (Marsh and Willis, 1999, p.28). The
linearity of the Tyler model is clearly indicated in the evaluation procedures he outlined
in which he argued that “The process of evaluation begins with the objectives of the
educational program”. He noted further that:

Since the purpose is to see how far these objectives are actually being realized, it is
necessary to have evaluation procedures that will give evidence about each of the kinds
of behaviour implied by each of the major educational objectives (Tyler, 1949, p. 110).
When Tyler’s model for curriculum planning was developed in 1949, it provided a

78
welcome development in curriculum circles where no such guidelines existed. According
to Marsh and Willis (1999), Tyler’s curriculum model had a liberating effect as it
provided curriculum workers with an approach to planning which was both
comprehensive and workable. Based on the prescriptions that the model provided,
teachers “were advised to concentrate on student behaviours in devising objectives for a
unit and to emphasize appropriate learning experiences rather than simply identifying
content to be covered” (Marsh and Willis, 1999, p.29). The advances Tyler’s work
promoted are outlined below:

79
Table 3.6 Advances made by Tyler’s 1949 rationale
Before Tyler Tyler
Purposes of Instruction General statements about what Specific statements about
the teacher should do students’ behaviours to be
used to bring about certain
ends
Topics Selected Statements about content to be Statements about learning
taught experiences needed to achieve
objectives
Organization of Teaching Support in general for teacher- Support for teacher-directed
directed, didactic methods methods but emphasis on
concept development, vertical
and horizontal integration of
concepts, student awareness
of the purpose of learning
activities
Methods of Use of content-based tests and Tests to be based upon course
Assessment/Evaluation standardized tests at the objectives; informal and
completion of a teaching unit formal methods of evaluation
to be used; evaluation to occur
throughout the teaching of a
unit

Source: Marsh, C. J., & Willis, G. (1999). Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ongoing
issues. (2nd ed). (p.30). New Jersey: Merrill.

Hilda Taba’s Theory of Curriculum Planning

Another curriculum planning model which is informed by the Tyler model is that which
comes from Hilda Taba who was a student of Tyler. Taba contended that “there was a
definite order to creating a thoughtful, dynamic curriculum model” (Ornstein and

80
Hunkins, 2009, pp.214-215). Taba’s curriculum model is referred to as the grassroots
rationale or approach seemingly because she was of the view that the curriculum should
be designed by its users – the teachers. This was in direct contrast to the top-down
approach which had been taken to curriculum development where “administrators gave
teachers ideas from curriculum experts and then supervised the teachers to ensure that the
ideas were implemented” (Ornstein and Hunkins, 2009, p.215).

It was Taba’s view that teachers should begin the curriculum development process by
designing specific teaching-learning units for their students and move from there to a
more general design. She therefore took an inductive rather than a deductive approach to
curriculum. Taba’s curriculum model differed from that of Tyler’s approach mainly in
that it added another step to Tyler’s four step approach. The first step of Taba’s theory
specifies the diagnosis of needs. This diagnosis takes place prior to establishing
objectives, which is identified as the first step in Tyler’s rationale. Her theory or model of
curriculum planning also differs from Tyler’s in how she divided the different steps into
smaller steps which clarifies what happens at each major step in the process. Taba’s
theory places strong emphasis on students’ thinking processes by requiring teachers to
formulate and use questions not only to diagnose students’ learning needs but to do so by
requiring them to engage in inductive thinking. Marsh and Willis (1999), citing Erickson
(1995), describe how this process, as theorized by Taba (1962) works:

The teacher begins by asking questions that are either focused on important
generalizations to which the students’ thinking will lead or are about specific
topics or content areas from which generalizations will arise naturally. Early
questions are diagnostic; they elicit information about whether students have
sufficient background to make generalizations on the topics. When background is
insufficient, the teacher should provide students with further sensory experiences
with the topics (for example, readings, audiotapes, videotapes, fieldtrips). Once
students are able to begin thinking inductively, the teacher’s task is to ask
questions and to provide activities that help students develop and refine their
thinking skills (Erickson, 1995, cited in Marsh and Willis, 1999, p.109).

81
Ornstein and Hunkins (2009) outlined the seven major steps which are included in Taba’s
grassroots model as follow:

1. Diagnosis of needs. The teacher (curriculum designer) identifies the needs of the
students for whom the curriculum is being planned.
2. Formulation of objectives. The teacher specifies objectives.
3. Selection of content. The objectives suggest the curriculum’s content. The
objectives and content should match. The content’s validity and significance also
are determined.
4. Organization of content. The teacher organizes the content into a sequence,
taking into consideration learners’ maturity, academic achievement, and interests
5. Selection of learning experiences. The teacher selects instructional methods that
will engage the students with content.
6. Organization of learning activities. The teacher organizes the learning activities
into a sequence, often determined by the content. The teacher needs to keep in
mind the particular students who will be taught.
7. Evaluation and means of evaluation. The curriculum planner determines which
objectives have been accomplished. Students and teachers need to consider
evaluation procedures. (Ornstein and Hunkins, 2009, p.215).

If you were to consider seriously what is involved in getting students to engage in

thinking through questions posed by teachers and in providing their responses, you would
agree that for this to happen students would have to feel that it is okay for them to reveal
what they know but more so what they do not know without feeling embarrassed. It
means that the teacher would have established a non threatening, supportive and
cooperative classroom environment in which students would feel some form of
encouragement and freedom to express their ideas and opinions “without fear of ridicule
or reprimand” (Marsh and Willis, 1999, p.109). Very often it is the absence of this feeling
of trust, honesty and openness within the classroom environment which prevents students
from engaging in the type of thinking and speaking which promote and foster the
development of both inductive and deductive thinking skills. Examine another

82
representation of Taba’s theory below and consider the ways in which it differs from or is
similar to Tyler’s.

Table 3.7 Steps in Taba’s theory

1. Diagnosis of needs
2. Formulation of objectives

Basic knowledge (concepts and generalizations)

Thinking (concept formation, inductive development of generalizations, application of

principles

Attitudes, feelings and sensitivities

Academic and social skills

3. Selection and organization of content

Basic concepts

Main ideas

Specific facts

Pattern for organizing content

4. Selection and organization of learning experiences

Sequence of learning experiences for cognitive development

Sequence of learning experiences for affective development

5. Evaluation

Diagnosis

A range of instruments to evaluate whether objectives have been achieved

Source: Marsh, C. J., & Willis, G. (1999). Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ongoing
issues (2nd ed) (p.30). New Jersey: Merrill.

83
Madeline Hunter’s Direct Instruction Lesson Approach

Hunters’ model is based on a direct instructional approach to lesson planning. Though the
model is viewed as essentially behavioural, Lang and Evans (2006) contend that it was
Hunter’s intent that “lesson steps provide a useful structure for many kinds of lessons,
including nonbehavioural ones” (p.220). The steps identified by Hunter are outlined
below:

Table 3.8 Madeline Hunter’s Direct Instruction Model

1. Objectives (intentions). The teacher decides what students are to know or be able to
do as a result of a lesson. Decision making includes a determination of whether students
have the needed prerequisite knowledge or skills.

2. Standards. The teacher needs to explain what will occur in the lesson, the procedures
to be followed and what students are expected to do, what students will achieve through
the lesson, and how they will demonstrate what they have learned.

3. Anticipatory set (set induction). Students are told what will be done to secure student
attention and put them in a receptive frame of mind for what is to follow. Set can
include an “advance organizer” or framework for the content and activities that will be
part of the lesson.

4. Teaching/presentation. Presentation includes three parts. The first is input – the

information needed by students to gain the knowledge or skills presented, whether by
lecture, videotape, PowerPoint presentation, computer, or other means. The information
could be drawn out of students, through questioning or gleaned through research by the
students. The second part is modeling – “How to do it” is modeled. Students are shown
examples of what is expected and an end product of what their work will be like. Key
aspects can be explained in a variety of ways. Students need to visualize what they will
be expected to know (e.g., how to solve a problem or perform an operation). The third
part of the presentation is a check for understanding – before students begin to work, a
check is made to discover whether they understand what is to be done. They need to
“get it” before they begin. If necessary, reteaching should occur.

84
5. Guided practice/ Monitoring. Students practice what was modeled. The teacher
circulates to observe the level of mastery being achieved and, as appropriate, provides
positive reinforcement for progress made, remediation and encouragement.

6. Closure. The intent is to bring the lesson to an appropriate conclusion. Closure

involves review and clarification and should consolidate or organize understanding –
that is, make sense for students. In short, it should help students construct personal
meaning and understanding. Furthermore, it lets students know they have achieved
something important

7. Independent practice. When the content or skill has been mastered, to ensure
retention, a schedule is initiated for repeated reinforcement practice. This may be
homework, or group or individual work in class. Provision for transfer to relevant
situation including other contexts, also need to occur

Source: Lang, H.R., and Evans, D. N. (2006). Models, strategies, and methods for
effective teachers (p.220). Boston: Pearson.

85
Figure 3.3 Gagne’s Instructional Model

Examine the diagram below and write what you believe it is showing about the
instructional process.

1.
Gaining attention

2.
9.
Inform the learners of
Enhance retention and
objectives
transfer

8. Gagne’s Model for 3.

Assess Lesson Planning Stimulate recall
performance of prior learning

7.
Provide 4.
feedback Present the
material

6. 5.
Elicit performance Provide guidance
for learning

Gagne Instructional Model

Source: Gagne, 1985, in Lang, H. R. & Evans, D. N. (2006).Models, strategies, and
methods for effective teaching (p. 219). Boston: Pearson.

86
Table 3.9 Activity 3.5
Personal Interpretation of Gagne’s Instructional Model

Write out in your own words your understanding of Gagne’s model---------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the model presented by Gagne reminiscent of how you were taught or how you
currently teach? Perhaps, you might not employ all the steps since you are currently
engaged in professional preparation but it is not unusual for teachers generally to get
students to tell them what they know of a topic before elaborating on the topic
themselves. Theories of learning tend to justify starting with the students’ experiences,
that is, to begin with what they currently know so that their preexisting mental schema
can accommodate new learning. Prior knowledge needs to be activated so as to serve its
function as an anchor for new learning. This observation is reinforced by Coletta and
Norris-Bauer (2007) who contend that:

It is critical that preservice teachers learn the importance of beginning lessons by

finding a link or connection between the topic under study, and student’s prior
knowledge and experiences. This connection, often known as an “advance

87
 organizer” or “anticipatory set” is made easier when a meaningful concept within
the topic is identified and related to what the students already knows (p.3)

Pay keen attention to Gagne’s model of instructional planning and its relationship to the
theories of learning with which you are familiar.

Gagne can be described as a theorist who straddled both the behaviourist (theorists who
believe that learning can be demonstrated by observable behaviour) and cognitivist
(theorist who believe that learning is an internal mental process) traditions. Perhaps his
best known work is ‘The Conditions of Learning’ which was first published in 1965. This
book was published four times, the last in 1985. It is through these publications that the
evolution of his theory can be discerned, as his earlier work reflects a behaviourist
orientation which gradually gave way to a more cognitivist perspective, in particular that
based on the information processing model of cognition. The information processing
model of learning suggests that:

Internal structures of the human learner and the kinds of processing accomplished
by each of these structures can be seen as analogous to those of a computer.
(Gagne & Medsker, 1996, p.45).

In explaining his theory, Gagne noted that internal processes are subject to the influence
of a variety of external events. He defined instruction as the arrangement of external
events to activate and support the internal processes of learning (Maschke, 2005).Gagne’s
theory included three major components; (i) the taxonomy of learning outcomes, (ii)
specific learning conditions required for the attainment of each outcome, (iii) and the nine
events of instruction (Driscoll). We are particularly concerned with his model which
depicts the events of instruction since we are presently looking at planning models. You
will observe how the information processing theory influenced Gagne’s work in terms of
the conditions of learning identified by him which includes both internal and external
events.

Gagne arrived at the nine events of instruction having drawn the conclusion that in order
for the internal processes of learning to take place, the learning conditions must be

88
appropriately selected to activate and support the internal processes. Noting that the
conditions for learning do influence the achievement of the learning outcomes humans
are capable of, he argued that instruction must then facilitate these learning conditions
which will then facilitate the learning of various outcomes. He thus referred to the
external conditions as the events of instruction showing at the same time the internal
learning events to which they relate. These are shown in the table below.

Table 3.10 Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction Associated with the Internal
Learning Processes They Support
Internal Process Instructional Event Action [by teacher]
Reception 1. Gaining attention Use abrupt stimulus change.
Expectancy 2. Informing learners of the Tell learners what they will
objective be able to do after learning.
Retrieval to working 3. Stimulating recall of prior Ask for recall of previously
memory learning learned knowledge or skills.
Selective perception 4. Presenting the content Display the content with
distinctive features.
Semantic encoding 5. Providing “learning guidance” Suggest a meaningful
organization.
Responding 6. Eliciting performance Ask learner to perform
Reinforcement 7. Providing feedback Give informative feedback.
Retrieval and 8. Assessing performance Require additional learner
reinforcement performance with feedback.
Retrieval and 9. Enhancing retention and transfer Provide varied practice and
generalization spaced review.

Source: Driscoll, M. (2000).Psychology of learning for instruction. (2nd ed). (p.364).

Boston: Allyn & Bacon. & Gagne, R. & Medsker, K. (1996). The conditions of learning.
Training applications. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

From the table above it should be obvious that events 1 to 5 are focused on the actual act
of teaching new information using certain actions to activate or stimulate learning. These

89
include cueing learners into the lesson (# 1), informing learners of the objectives of
instruction and getting learners to recall previously learnt information to establish the
context for new learning since it has been established that “learning cannot occur unless
the learner is in some way oriented and receptive to incoming information” (# 3)
(Driscoll, 2000, p.364). Other events include the presentation of the material to be learnt,
(# 4) and providing suitable guidance depending on the characteristics of the learners, the
goals of instruction and the instructional time available (# 5).

Events six to nine are focused on ascertaining how much learning has taken place by
providing opportunities for learners to demonstrate this, for the provision of helpful
feedback to correct or enhance performance and for performance to be formally assessed.
Although provision is usually made to enhance retention and transfer throughout the
lesson, this can also be checked for at the end when it is expected that a fuller
understanding might have been achieved based on the opportunities presented throughout
instruction to facilitate retention and transfer.

The Backward Design Approach to Instructional Planning (Wiggins and McTighe,

1998)

One of the latest model of curriculum development and the final model to be examined in
this session of the unit is that which is referred to as the Backward Design Model. This
model has as its advocates Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe who contend that their
position is to argue for the reverse of the traditional models of curriculum planning by
starting with the end – “the desired results (goals or standards)” – and then construct the
“curriculum from the evidence of learning (performances) called for by the standard and
the teaching needed to equip students to perform” (Wiggins and McTighe, 1999, p.i). The
backward Design Model as its name suggests therefore, starts from the opposite end of
the models considered earlier. Note that the starting point of this model is focused on
decision making.

Rather than using evaluation as its end point, the model begins with a consideration of
what students should achieve at the end of a course of study and works from this to the
design of the activities and selection of content to aid in the accomplishment of this

90
instructional end. According to Ornstein and Hunkins (2009), Wiggins and McTighe
specify three levels of decision making in the first stage of their models. Thus,

At the first and most general level, an educator considers goals and checks on
national, state, and local content standards. At the second level of decision
making, curriculum developers (including classroom teachers) select content –
valuable information and skills that might lead students to the desired result.
(Ornstein and Hunkins, 2009, 216).

The questions that are posed at this level are those which seek to establish the basic
understandings and skills that students need in light of stated standards community
expectations and research results. Planners should be able to identify the generalizations,
concepts, and facts that students must master in order to achieve. In addition, decisions
must be made with respect to the procedures, methods of analysis, and thinking
strategies that students must experience to become self-learners. (Ornstein and Hunkins,
2009, p.216).

The decision making involved at the third level of stage one involves narrowing the
content possibilities. This requires answers to questions such as “What specific courses
will be taught and what particular content (both declarative and procedural)? This final
level is referred to as identifying “enduring” understanding that will “anchor the unit or
course. As Ornstein and Hunkins (2009) remarked “The term enduring refers to the big
ideas, the important understanding, that we want students to ‘get inside of’ and retain
after they’ve forgotten many of the details (Wiggins and McTighe, 1998 cited in Ornstein
and Hunkins, 2009, p.217).

The second stage in the backward design model is concerned with evaluation. As such
the question to be answered at this stage is that which seeks answers to the question
“How will we know whether students have met the set standards?” and, “What evidence
will be collected to assess the curriculum’s effectiveness?” Wiggins and McTighe not
only think that the backward design model gets teachers to think like assessors before
they develop curriculum and unit lessons but they even made suggestions as to the

91
methods that teachers can consider when deciding on evaluation. These methods include
“informal checks, observations of students dialogue with students, quizzes and tests, and
performance tasks and projects” the questions that can be asked during the second stage
of the backward design model include:

What knowledge and skills will students need to succeed in the course?

What activities will enable students to master the requisite knowledge and skills?

What should be taught, and how should it be taught, for students to become
knowledgeable and skillful in the identified content realm?

What materials will foster student success in the curriculum?

Does the overall design of the course or units fulfill the principles of curriculum
development? (Ornstein and Hunkins, 2009, p.217).

The final stage of the backward design model is the stage at which the unit and lesson
plans are developed to provide students with the opportunity to reach the desired
objectives or learning outcomes. Wiggins and McTighe utilize an approach using the
acronym WHERE to illustrate the issues taken into consideration in the design of “a
lesson plan that will provide students with the opportunity to reach the desired
objectives” The issues to be considered are represented by the acronym WHERE as
follow:

W - Where they are heading, Why they are heading there, What they know,
Where they might go wrong in the process, and What is required of them.

H - Hooking the students on the topic of study.

E - Exploring ideas and being Equipped with the necessary understanding to
master the standard being taught.

R - Rehearse, Revise, and Redefine their work.

E - Evaluation. (Wiggins and McTighe, 1999, [Link])

92
Figure 3.4 The Backward Design Planning Model - Wiggins and McTighe

The Three Stages

Stage 1: Identify
desired results

Stage 2: Determine
acceptable evidence
(concerns with
evaluation)

Stage 3: Plan learning

experiences and
instruction (stage at which
unit and lesson plans are
developed

Examine the different models carefully and you will notice that they exhibit some
similarity and seem to be based on or informed by the basic model first provided by
Tyler. In fact, many writers have commented on the durability of the Tyler model which
has informed many curriculum designs as well as teacher education programmes where
the teaching of instructional planning is concerned. John (1991) for example observed
that

The dominant model of lesson planning is that associated with the rational-linear
framework begun by Tyler (1950) and further elaborated on by Taba (1956),
Popham and Baker (1970) and direct instructional theorists like Gagne and Briggs
(1983). This perspective has dominated curriculum texts, teacher preparation
programmes and central planning criteria, in spite of contrary research evidence
which shows teachers plan in a way which contrasts markedly with the linear
process (John, 1991, p.11).

93
Research evidence that points to the fact that classroom teachers plan for teaching in
ways that deviate from the rational-linear approach taught in teacher preparation
programme points to an interesting yet very pointed example of the theory-practice divide
as well as the discontinuity which exists between preparation and practice. What teacher
educators and educational researchers have so far failed to do is to establish some
framework that combines planning as it happens in practice to planning as it is theorized
by curriculum experts. This would not only take account of teachers’ practical knowledge
but would provide an opportunity for theoretical propositions to be seen as relevant rather
than as purely abstract and impractical. This is a point to which we will return in the final
session of this unit as we examine the research literature on teacher planning which
compares teacher planning in theory with teacher planning in practice.

Table 3.11 Activity 3.6

Session Review

1. Examine the models of instructional planning which have been presented in this session
of the unit. What similarities are there among the models and how do they differ?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Can you detect any impracticality in the planning models? That is, are there any features of
the models that appear unworkable or unrealistic in the real world of the classroom in terms
of the constraints teachers face with respect to time, resources and even in the variability in
teachers’ knowledge base and the abilities and backgrounds of their students?

94
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. How is the Backward Design Model different from the more traditional models
presented? And does it reflect more closely the way in which teachers’ work in the
classroom? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Relevance of the Planning Models to Classroom Practice

After completing the activity above, it should have given you an idea of the extent to
which the curriculum and instructional models examined in the unit are of relevance to

95
what classroom practitioners actually do. The first point you should perhaps remember is
that the models provide a framework that can be used to guide and inform classroom
practice. While they might not capture the dynamics of the classroom situation they
certainly can help teachers to plan for and be prepared to respond to that dynamics. Each
model has something specific to offer classroom practitioners. Tyler’s model reminds us
that as decision makers we need to know what we are planning for and what we hope to
achieve. Taba’s model invites teachers to participate integrally in the shaping of
curriculum since they are the ones who will be interacting with the product of the
curriculum development process. Teachers using this model will be better able to respond
to students needs when designing instruction since they commence with the diagnosis of
learning needs.

The instructional models of Hunter and Gagne are of direct and immediate use to
classroom teachers since they provide a structure or format that teachers can use to plan
for the different stages of instruction. Whereas both models provide guidance as to the
actions teachers can take at different stages of an instructional cycle, Gagne’s model
provides some insight into the internal learning processes while identifying the
corresponding instructional event and teaching action suited to activate different aspects
of the learning process.

Finally, the Backward Design Model designed by Wiggins and McTighe while it might
seem to be just a rearranging of what others have done before actually helps teachers to
design units and lessons that are closely aligned to how assessments will take place and
with the learning outcomes in mind. Combined, the different models do offer classroom
teachers more than a set of practical tools with which to practice their craft. They offer a
useful framework and opportunity for students to achieve the outcomes intended for them
through the learning experiences provided.

Summary
In this unit we:

Examined the rationale for teacher planning

96

Considered the different types/levels of planning which takes place in schools -
focusing on unit planning or schemes of work and lesson planning

Examined some models of curriculum and instructional planning namely the
models developed by Tyler, Taba, Hunter, Gagne, and Wiggins and McTighe as
well as a constructivist approach to instructional planning

Explored the relevance of the planning models to classroom practice

97
 References
Anderson, L. W. (1991). Increasing teacher effectiveness. Paris: UNESCO,
International Institute for Educational Planning.

Biehler, R. & Snowman, J. (1997). Psychology applied to teaching (8th ed) Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Co.

Butt, G. (2006). Lesson planning (2nd ed). London and New York: Continuum.

Clark, C. M. and Yinger, R. J. (1987). Teacher planning, In J. Calderhead (Ed.),

Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 84-103). London: Cassell Educational
Limited.

Coletta, A. J. and Norris-Bauer, N. (n.d). Lesson planning and preservice teachers: A

model for implementing research-based instructional strategies. Retrieved March
23, 2007 from:
[Link]

Cruickshank, D. R., Bainer Jenkins, D., and Metcalf, K. K. (2006). The act of
teaching. (4th ed). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice. A framework for teaching.

Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Driscoll, M. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.

Eggen, P & Kauchak, D. (1997). Educational psychology. Windows on classrooms (3rd

ed). (p.446). New Jersey: Merrill.

Gagne, R. & Medsker, K. (1996). The conditions of learning. Teaching applications.

Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

98
Jacobsen, D. A., Eggen, P. and Kauchak, D. (2006). Methods for teaching: Promoting
student learning in k-12 classrooms. (7th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Merril Prentice Hall.

John, P. (1995). Lesson planning for teachers. London: Cassell Educational Limited.

Kellough, R. D., and Kellough, N. G. (2003). Secondary school teaching: A guide to

methods and resources. (2nd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merril Prentice Hall.

Kyriacou, C. (1998). Essential teaching skills, (2nd ed). Stanley Thornes (Publishers)
Ltd.

Lang, H. R. and Evans, D. N. (2006). Models, strategies, and methods for effective
[Link]: Pearson.

Lang, H.R., McBeath, A., & Hêbert, J. (1995). Teaching strategies and methods for
student centered instruction. Toronto, Ontario: Harcourt Brace and Company
Canada Ltd.

Leask, M., and Davison, J. (2001). Schemes of work and lesson planning, In S. Capel,
M. Leask and T. Turner (eds), Learning to teach in the secondary school: A
companion to school experience (3rd ed) (pp.65-76). London and New York:
Routledge/Falmer.

Marsh, C. J., & Willis, G. (1999). Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ongoing issues
(2nd ed) New Jersey: Merrill.

Maschke, K. (n.d). Robert Gagne’s instructional design approach. Retrieved February

26, 2005 from [Link]

99
McIntyre, D. J. and O’Hair, M. J. (1996). The reflective roles of the classroom
teacher. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Moore, K. D. (2007). Classroom teaching skills (6th ed). Boston: McGraw Hill

Ornstein, A. C. & Hunkins, F. P. (2009). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues

(5th, ed ). Boston: Pearson.

Schunk, D. (2004). Learning theories. An educational perspective. (4th ed). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Skowron, J. (2006). Powerful lesson planning. Every teacher’s guide to effective

instruction (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Torgrude, M., Anderson, R., & O’Connor, B. (2001). Backward design and its relevance
to distance education. Retrieved February 7, 2009 from
[Link]

Tyler, R. W. (1949/1969). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago

and London: The University of Chicago Press.

What is backward design? Retrieved February 7, 2009 from

[Link]

100