2.1 Lesson Sequence

2.1 Lesson Sequence: The lesson was well organized and structured (e.g., the objectives of the lesson were clear to students, and the sequence of the lesson was structured to build understanding and maintain a sense of purpose).

This indicator describes how deeply the teacher thought about the structure of the lesson by considering what content and concepts the students needed to learn and what pedagogical approaches would be most appropriate. This indicator can be evidenced by whether the teacher anticipated students’ questions or misconceptions, had methods prepared to address these issues, and reflected those methods in the lesson design. This indicator can also be demonstrated by examining the quality of the learning activities chosen by the teacher, including whether they promoted learning of content objectives, whether they took into account students’ prior knowledge and ability to engage with both procedural and conceptual aspects of the lesson, and whether they were appropriate for the time constraints of the lesson. The rater should also assess whether the lesson had a clear sense of purpose and clearly stated objectives. Finally, the rater should take into account the sequence of the lesson as a whole, and whether it had appropriate and reasonable engagement, learning, and wrap up activities.

General Rubric

1. This item should be rated a 1 if the lesson was structured such that there was little or no productive, learning-focused interaction between teacher and students, and/or the content objectives of the lesson were unclear or inappropriate to the developmental level of the students, and/or the sequence of the lesson was disorganized, and/or there was a major problem with the organization or framing of the lesson that significantly and negatively impacted student learning during the majority (75–100%) of the class period.
   
    
2. This item should be rated a 2 if the lesson was only occasionally structured to engage students in learning-focused activities and/or the purpose/objectives were not communicated clearly, and/or there were some problems with the organization of the lesson that negatively impacted student learning during approximately 50% of the time allotted for the lesson.
   
    
3. This item should be rated a 3 if the lesson’s structure and organization were adequate for the majority of time allotted (50–75%). The lesson may not have been structured perfectly, and there may have been a part of the lesson that was disorganized or confusing to the students, but the lesson sequence generally kept students engaged and moving from one portion to the next in a reasonable manner, and students generally seemed to understand the purpose of the lesson and what they were to do to accomplish this purpose.
   
    
4. This item should be rated a 4 if the lesson was well structured and well organized. A well-structured lesson would be a developmentally appropriate, well-designed sequence of learning activities that kept students engaged in the content and had a clear sense of purpose throughout the vast majority of the class time (75–90%). However, there may have been a minor missed opportunity or minor organizational issue present during the lesson that wasted student time for learning.
   
    
5. This item should be rated a 5 if the structure and organization of the lesson was excellent. The lesson was structured to take into account or build prior knowledge of the topic and was well paced with a thoughtfully chosen sequence of learning activities, and the teacher had anticipated the pedagogical approaches that would be most effective in engaging the students throughout the entire class period.

Specific Examples of Supporting Evidence

1. The teacher structured this lesson such that he worked problems out of the textbook on the overhead projector for entire class, students were expected to take notes silently, and then the class was assigned to work problems independently from the textbook as homework. The teacher did not have questions prepared to check for student understanding and did not plan for student involvement or input. There was no structured introduction or wrap up plan.
   
    
2. The teacher structured this class period as open or “free time,” with students determining their own pace and what work they needed to do without any specific directions from the teacher. The teacher’s structure did include an introduction where the expectations for what the students needed to include in their work samples were stated explicitly and the teacher occasionally reinforced these expectations during the class session and when he announced it was “time to hand in your work” at the end of class.
   
    
3. This lesson structure included a warm up, followed by time allotted for students to work in groups on an activity, and then a wrap up/review at the end of class. The progression from the warm up into the main activity was thoughtfully planned to review some basic concepts, followed by the lab activity that would take the application of this knowledge to the next level as an exploration. The wrap up was sequenced as an extension of the lesson activity but also to provide students with guidance to draw appropriate conclusions from their data analysis. The teacher’s introduction to the lab activity portion of the lesson could have been better structured—the teacher’s plans had him talking through the lab procedures at the front of the classroom while students listened and took notes. He did not prepare written directions with pictures modeling or demonstrating how to handle the equipment needed to conduct the experiment, and this led to some confusion for students when setting up the lab activity.
   
    
4. The teacher had the agenda on the overhead when the students arrived. The teacher began with a Know/Need to Know/Learn activity and explained the day’s task. The lesson was well thought out, and the instructions and expected outcomes were clear. It was designed to be engaging to students and to allow them to grapple with the content. The teacher had prepared and gave the students a well-thought-out rubric describing each aspect of the day’s assignment and how their performance would be evaluated, but some definitions of quality were difficult for some students to grasp, and they spent a small amount of their work time arguing about these meanings in their groups. At the end of the lesson, the teacher brought the class back together, and they reflected on what they had learned during the lesson.
   
    
5. The lesson was structured to begin with a pre-assessment, where student teams were challenged to use claims, evidence, and reasoning to predict causes of pollution in a local river. This introductory segment was followed by an engaging video from a local news station that was stopped periodically by the teacher, who had prepared handouts with probing questions to further challenge students’ predictions and assumptions. The students were told to take notes from the video, using the handout provided, that would develop their evidence or counterpoints to other students’ claims about the causes of pollution. The teacher had also prepared additional questions to use during the video at key points when he stopped it to emphasize certain facts and opinions by the experts interviewed. The lesson structure then had the teacher leading the students into a rapid-fire debate round where teams continued to argue their positions. This structure worked well and kept the students engaged and on task. The students voted on which team won the debate as the wrap up to the lesson.