Running Head: DOMAIN D LITERATURE REVIEW

Assignment 3A: Domain D Literature Review

Sarah Shoemaker
National University
December 10, 2016
TED 690
Professor Clifton Johnson

!1

Running Head: DOMAIN D LITERATURE REVIEW

!2

Abstract
This paper is written as partial fulfillment of the requirements of Assignment 3 for course TED
690 at National University. It presents a supporting reference for Domain C of the California
Teaching Performance Expectations (TPEs) in the form of a literature review. The article
Planning for Learning: A Simplified Method for Student-based Instruction, by Kristi Mally,
has been reviewed. A summary of the article is included, as well as implications of the main
points for my teaching practice. The review concludes with support and rationale for the artifacts
included in my Professional Development Quest Portfolio (PDQP) for Domain D, based on the
assertions of the article.

Running Head: DOMAIN D LITERATURE REVIEW

!3

California TPE Domain D focuses on planning instruction and designing learning

experiences for students. It includes TPE 8, Learning About Students, and TPE 9,
Instructional Planning (Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2013, p. 1). The competencies
of this domain require knowledge of student backgrounds and understanding of state content
standards for effective implementation and growth. In the article Planning for Learning: A
Simplified Method for Student-based Instruction, by Kristi Mally, the author asserts that there is
a positive relationship between planning behaviors and in-class teacher and student behaviors,
and provides a step-by-step guide for designing units in PE curriculum that are standards-based
(2009, p. 39). The practices in the article support the competencies of Domain D and the artifacts
included for the domain in my PDQP.
Thorough planning by teachers yields effective instruction, positive engagement and
interactions with students, and increased quantity and quality of student performance. This is
supported in Mallys article, which outlines a specific method of PE instructional unit design
(2009). The process is called Planning for Learning (PfL), and is intended to simplify unit
planning while maintaining alignment and continual focus on student learning (Mally, 2009, p.
40). There are three steps of PfL, which are based on the backward planning model (Mally,
2009). Step 1 is Identifying an Organizing Center, or ultimate learning goal for the unit (Mally,
2009, p. 40). Step 2 is Terminal Objectives and Task Analysis, or identifying what students
will know or be able to do, and the learning content (Mally, 2009, p. 41). Step 3 is Unit Block
Planning, which involves deciding what students will learn on each day of the unit and
estimating how much time will be needed for informing, refining, extending, assessing, and
repeating the content (Mally, 2009, p. 43). When implemented in detail as laid out by Mally, PfL

Running Head: DOMAIN D LITERATURE REVIEW

!4

increases student focus and alignment with content standards from the beginning to the end of
the unit (2009).
The implications of implementing Mallys PfL method for my own teaching practice are
threefold. First, it requires a thorough understanding of the standards. This is true for effective
teaching using any planning method. However, for my PE dance classes there are currently three
sets of standards by which I design instruction, including the California Dance Content
Standards, the California Physical Education Model Content Standards, and the National Core
Arts Standards for dance (Calif. Dept. of Ed., 2010 & 2016; National Coalition for Core Arts
Standards, 2014). It takes additional planning time to ensure that unit and daily lesson plans align
appropriately with all three sets of standards. Second, PfL requires knowledge of students
backgrounds and abilities for starting points of introduction and extension activities, Third, the
state and national standards for dance instruction are broad. Furthermore, being that I teach at an
arts-centered charter high school that values experience and activity, what it means to meet the
standards in my classes might change vastly from year to year based on the students I have, their
experience and ability levels, and their interests.
The artifacts that I have chosen to include in my PDQP for Domain D reflect the
competencies as well as the implications of PfL based on the assertions in Mallys article. In fact,
all of the artifacts I have chosen are used in planning based on content standards and the
backgrounds and interests of individual students. Artifact #1 is student samples from an index
card activity that provides explicit, first hand information about individual students (Constantino
& De Lorenzo, 2009). Artifact #2 provides evidence of planning for year-long and short-term
with vertical alignment of curriculum through collaboration with my colleague in the content

Running Head: DOMAIN D LITERATURE REVIEW

!5

area (Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2013). Artifact #3 is a unit curriculum guide based
on content standards and objectives that shows where I started my planning growth. Artifact #4 is
this literature review, which demonstrates the desire to improve my planning practices, by
expanding my understanding of where I need to grow (Mally, 2009). Artifacts #3 and #4 together
are evidence of reflection and changing based on experience and research.
Reviewing Mallys article and developing Domain D of my PDQP has encouraged me to
reexamine the notion that planning is essential to effective teaching. Planning for instruction
must be based on thoughtful consideration of pedagogy, content standards and objectives, as well
as student backgrounds and interests. Mally provides a practical, step-by-step guide for how to
use these elements to build instructional units in PE, which can be translated to other content
areas (Mally, 2009). The artifacts I have included in my PDQP for Domain D provide evidence
of competency in TPEs 8 and 9, and can be used to plan instruction via PfL (Commission on
Teacher Credentialing, 2013; Mally, 2009).

Running Head: DOMAIN D LITERATURE REVIEW

!6

References
California Department of Education. (2010). Physical education model content standards for
public schools. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/pestandards.pdf
California Department of Education. (2016). Dance: academic content standards for visual and
performing arts in kindergarten through grade twelve, adopted by the california state
board of education. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/damain.asp
Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2013). California teaching performance expectations
[PDF]. Retrieved from
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/standards/adopted-TPES-2013.pdf
Constantino, P. M. & De Lorenzo, M. N. (2009). Developing a professional teaching portfolio: a
guide for success. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Mally, K. (2009). Planning for learning: A simplified method for student-based instruction.
Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 80(4), 39-47. Retrieved from
https://nuls.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.nuls.idm.oclc.org/docview/
215754274?accountid=25320
National Coalition for Core Arts Standards. (2014). Dance [PDF]. Retrieved from
http://www.nationalartsstandards.org/sites/default/files/Dance%20at%20a%20Glance%2
0-%20new%20copyright%20info.pdf