1

Reflections on creating a Lesson Plan

Portfolio Assignment 5
University of the People
EDUC 5711 Teaching for Diverse and Inclusive Classrooms
Instructor: Dr Airen Wallen
Date: 15th May 2024
 2

Introduction: In this reflective portfolio activity, I look at how I have grown on the knowledge

front as far as creating a lesson plan for diverse and inclusive classrooms. This activity

particularly focuses on a particular topic which I believe is at the heart of computer science

which is Algorithms.

The Bare Basics: I look at two scenarios: one is before I knew about all different strategies,

the modes of instruction, the modifications and the adaptations and one after I knew. Before I

knew the strategies, I knew something in that ‘No-one size fits all’ and that learners think

differently. Learners have different strengths and may have different perspectives. The

reflective question on my mind was ‘Can I modulate my instruction to meet the needs of my

learners? If so, how do I go about doing that?’ This unit provided me the answers to these

complex questions. Before the unit, I mainly was focusing on visual descriptors as a tool to

demonstrate the workings of algorithms and other topics in Computer Science. For the sake of

this activity, since it is a reflection specifically on the lesson plan recently created, I will focus

on the topic of computational thinking and algorithm development. Prior to this unit, I was not

aware of the concepts of Backward Design (Overson C, E (2021)), Differentiated Instruction

(DI) involving many different techniques and Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT).My goal

would be to integrate this technique to the content that I teach (Tomlinson C.A & McTighe

J.(2006)) For example, specifically pertaining to Backward Design and in design of algorithms

would look at ways to get an algorithm in the shortest possible time up and running to

accomplish a particular task. However, that would mean that learners (at least some of them)

would have knowledge of pseudo code and can convert that into useful programs in a language

of their choice. In DI, I learnt about Auditory learners, Tactile learners, Reading/Writing

Learners, Logical/Mathematical learners, Social Learners and Solitary Learners. Of course,

some of these may overlap with each other, but the lesson plan for Algorithms that I prepared,

mainly catered to a combination of Visual and Auditory learners, Reading/Writing learners,

Logical/Mathematical learners and both Social and Solitary Learners as well. Since algorithms

is an exercise in logic and abstraction, the kinaesthetic learners were left out. I reckon though

that there will always be some learners for whom the lesson plans may not appeal in a direct

way. An eye opener in terms of knowledge was CRT wherein the plan was constructed so as

to take into account the ethnicity, culture and diverse races in a global classroom such as an IB

classroom. This is one strategy that I wasn’t aware on a conscious level and only now have

begun to appreciate the reach of its capacity. For example, the scenario in the classroom depicts

different kinds of learners some of whom have linguistic barriers, some of whom have ADHD

while some may be advanced in their knowledge. In constructing the plan, I began to look at

culturally responsive teaching (Gay, 2000), culturally responsive instruction (Au, 2007) and

culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995) and induced bits of it to the best extent

possible. These are very pertinent and are important factors in creating an inclusive classroom.

For example, when I prime my classes with individuals who have contributed to the

advancement of the field of Computer Science, it is global in outlook and I make it a point to

speak about people who have contributed, from underrepresented communities. That sets the

tone for the class and gets all individuals involved regardless of their background, prior

knowledge, gender and ethnicity. I find that I am more inclined towards culturally responsive

teaching which reflects a social justice perspective and challenges assumptions, and the status

quo (Cochran-Smith,2004; Nieto,2000; Sleeter and Grant,2000). Indeed, in my classes,

particularly on ethics of computing, I discuss the right computing practices while asking my

learners their concurrency on the same.

Modifications: The accommodations and the modifications would be needed when we

encounter something away from the norm. Like students with some form of learning disability,

students with speech problems and students with behavioural issues like acting out etc. In some

cases, as is reinforced by some readings from the unit as well, we as instructors should accept
 4

that we might not have the know-how to deal with every situation. In such cases, we should

involve the counsellor who might formulate an IEP for the student in consultation with other

teachers. This is what I learnt is called co-teaching where the responsibility for instructing a

mixed group of learners is shared (Friend, Reising and Cook, 1993). What stood out for me

from the lesson plan constructed recently is the incorporation of Bloom’s Taxonomy principles

for guiding the lesson plan. These were embedded into the plan for teaching algorithms and

made for a very interesting reflection. For example, I could explain the basics of algorithms in

the class while the ELL teacher can start to explain the same things to the learners whose native

language is not English while the counsellor can actually work with the learners with ADHD

issues. That way, a coherent attempt towards the end objectives which can be slightly different

for all may be arrived at. Many learners with special needs lack the metacognitive skills

required to evaluate task demands, monitor work and assess their own strategies (Gurganus

2007). Thinking aloud is a great strategy to get struggling learners to cope with the material

and this is facilitated by the tag team approach when problems are posed in the class. I could

attempt to explain the basic process of algorithm construction, while the others can assist the

ones who genuinely have conceptual difficulty. In fact, this is the idea that should be

implemented as the class size grows reaching numbers as in the present scenario which is

around 20. It would be difficult in an intensive training program like the IBDP for one teacher

to handle a class of this dimension learning to reach out to all different kinds of learners.

Improvements, going forward: In my classes, going forward, if there is a singular factor that

needs to be entertained, besides adhering to the basic skeletal structure of the syllabus, it is

creativity and interdisciplinarity. By its basic nature, the IB curriculum is dynamic in nature

and encompasses the latest technologies to a certain extent. However, I would like my classes

to also focus on the connections to other subject areas in an explicit way. It would be correct

to say that these connections are implicit to a certain extent. For example, how does
 5

mathematical thinking permeate the creation of algorithms? Can we design a better data

structure using a natural construct? All of these questions enable us to be creative learners and

knowledge builders. When we open up the possibilities of inquiry by cross disciplinary

thinking, then it automatically sows the seeds for advancement of the field as a whole. I should

think the earlier we inculcate this in our learners, the better it would be. I would certainly like

to avail the opportunity to co-teach a course with a colleague wherein we bring our strengths

in particular subject areas and synergise. Some interesting ideas almost always emerge. The

other thing that I would like to see in my own classes is optimal use of time for all learners

regardless of levels. Perhaps this might mean that I prepare worksheets on some topics at

varying levels on some topics where my strengths lie while my co-teacher prepare some

worksheets as per his or her strengths. These are the focal points of improvement. I also want

to be able to connect the classroom examples to real-world scenarios. This might involve

discussing some applications and the possible extension of these applications. Lastly in keeping

with CRT principles, I want to be able to infuse my classes with principles of natural justice.

For example, in discussing cryptography, I usually discuss ethics of computing and information

security principles. It is clear that that CS being an application-oriented science, will always

see the building of a product either in hardware or software forms and deploying it for the

benefit of the masses for the most part. What is important to me, as the IB has ethics inbuilt

into it, even from an instructional standpoint, is that the commercial aspect of the technology

does not override the practicality or the utility of the technology and does not stand to gain

from gullibility. As an instructor, I have felt strongly about these issues and naturally I hope to

transmit this vibe in my classroom.

References

Au, K. H. (2007). Culturally Responsive Instruction: Application to Multiethnic

Classrooms. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 2(1), 1–18.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15544800701343562

Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity, and social justice in teacher

education. New York: Teachers College Press

Computer Science in the Diploma Programme

Computer science in DP - International Baccalaureate® (ibo.org)

Friend, Marilyn, Monica Reising and Lynne Cook “Co-Teaching – An overview of the Past,

A Glimpse of the Present, and Considerations for the Future” Preventing School Failure

37, no 4, (1993): 6-10

Gay, Geneva. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, practice, and approach. In James

A. Banks (Series Ed.), Multicultural Education Series (2nd ed.). Columbia University, NY:

Teachers College Press.

Gurganus, Susan P. Math Instruction for Students with Learning Problems. Boston: Allyn and
 7

Bacon, 2007.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. American

Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491

https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465

Nieto, S. (2000). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (3rd

ed.). New York: Longman.

Sleeter, C., & Grant, C. (2000). Making choices for multicultural education: Five approaches

to race, class, and gender (3rd. ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Tomlinson, C.A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction and

understanding by design: Connecting content and kids. Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

https://chca-oh.instructure.com/files/3649/download?download_frd=1

Overson, C. E., & Benassi, V. A. (2021). Backward design, the science of learning, and the

assessment of student learning. In S. A. Nolan, C. M. Hakala, & R. E. Landrum

(Eds.), Assessing undergraduate learning in psychology: Strategies for measuring and

improving student performance (pp. 95–107). American Psychological

Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000183-008