Lesson 3: Narrative Writing

In this lesson, the focus was to understand the different characteristics of narrative

writing. This lesson would work towards students learning the enduring understanding because

they will be using their creativity to write their narratives. The guiding questions for this lesson

were “who’s telling the story?”, “what’s the problem?”, and “who said that?” This lesson would

prepare students in understanding the characteristics to include in their final narrative writing

piece. Students have some experience with writing narratives so for this lesson I focused on

what was new for them which was introducing a narrator, establishing a problem, and using

dialogue. There was one guiding question for each of the new writing characteristics that they

learned in this lesson.

I had originally planned to assess students on asking and answering questions (3.RL.1).

Prior to teaching the lesson, I realized that students weren’t asking and really answering

questions throughout this lesson. Instead, I modified it to a language standard of using context

clues to determine the meaning of a word or phrase (3.L.4.A). Since students were identifying if

sentences were first or second person, I felt that this standard was more appropriate. I also had

originally planned for students to just answer the question on the exit pass stating if it was first or

third person. Because I included the context clues standard, I felt that it is important for students

to circle or underline the key words in the sentences that helped them determine the point of

view. This helped in determining if the students really understand the use of context clues.

Instructional Plan

The targeted skill in this lesson was to write dialogue. The strategies used to reach this skill

was analyzing a text that included dialogue, watching a video which included characters
 Bulger p. 2

speaking, and using their whiteboards to practice writing dialogue to a partner. This helped

students with understanding and practice how to write dialogue.

One instructional practice that was effective in this lesson was replaying the point of view

video as students were taking notes. This helped them to understand what each one meant.

Students were able to watch the video the first time, then the second time was to deepen their

understanding. Incorporating the finding nemo video was also an effective part of the lesson

because it helped students in understanding that dialogue was when a character was talking.

Students were able to point out the difference of dialogue in a video and dialogue in a story.

This helped as I was trying to emphasize the importance of using quotation marks in their

writing. Allowing students to practice writing dialogue to each other gave them more practice

creating dialogue and using the quotation marks correctly.

In the lesson for day two, one effective practice was that students really enjoyed writing

their own stories and didn’t want to stop when the timer ran out. They were able to see how they

could use their creativity in fantasy writing. “Engagement is an essential prerequisite for the

development of understanding” (Voke). Student engagement is an essential component in

students learning and mastering concepts. If they are not engaged, they won’t be as focused in

their learning. Another instructional practice that was effective was creating our story as a class

together to practice how to incorporate each part into their stories. When creating our story as a

class about understood dialogue and could add them in different places in our story.

One thing that was ineffective was my original standard of asking and answering

questions. I needed to change the standard to a language standard of using the sentence as clues

to find the meaning. Classroom assessment drives instruction, tracks students’ progress,

determines if lessons effective, and assess students achievement (Tomkins, 2014). If the student
 Bulger p. 3

tasks are not related to the standard, students would be inaccurately assessed for the standard.

Students were not asking questions in this lesson so I felt that this standard would be more

appropriate since students were using clue words from the sentences to determine the point of

view. After changing the standard, I then needed to revise my rubric to better match the new

standard and student tasks.

Another instructional practice that I felt was ineffective was having to split the day one

lesson into two separate days. I felt that this was partially ineffective because what we focused

on during day one, lead into their individual writing. We were unable to do the writing so they

next day, students had to think back to what we covered to complete their writing task. Then we

moved to the next day’s lesson and I was unable to look over what they were able to write before

moving on.

Supporting Diverse Learners

One language modality that was used in this lesson was comparing animation to text. When

watching the finding nemo video, students were able to tell that the characters were talking

because their mouths were moving. After students pointed out the characters mouths moving, I

showed a short example of when characters were talking in a book. Students were able to point

out that in writing, you can tell a character is talking when there are quotation marks. Using this

comparison in the lesson was effective because it showed students the importance of using

quotation marks in their writing when including dialogue.

The academic vocabulary for this lesson included narrator, point of view, first person, second

person, third person, dialogue, and establish. It was essential that students understood these

vocabulary words as it related to the focus of the lesson. The language support used for these

vocabulary words was videos. For each of the vocabulary words relating to narrator and point of
 Bulger p. 4

view, I showed students a video explaining what each means and examples to help them

differentiate between them. For dialogue, I showed students a video of talking and use of

dialogue, as well as a printed text. The video was effective because students were engaged.

“When students are engaged in learning, they are not merely busy, nor are they only on task.

Rather, they are intellectually active in learning important and challenging content” (Danielson,

2014, p. 65). When students are engaged in the activity, it supports their learning in the content.

When I showed the different videos, students were engaged and focused because it was

interesting.

One thing I would do differently is to try and incorporate a variety of different language

supports instead of only using videos. I would like to try incorporating more sentence frames.

“Sentence frames provide an opportunity for students to use key vocabulary while providing a

structure that may be higher than what they could produce on their own” (Herrmann). I would

have different sentence frames for students to practice using the academic vocabulary. Having

this extra exposure to the words and being able to use it in context, it might have helped all

students in understanding what each word means.

I provided differentiating instruction for my English language learners (ELLs) as well as my

striving learners. For my ELLs, I used more wait time during class discussions. One way to

differentiate by student’s readiness is to include more wait time (Tomlinson, 2017). Some of my

ELLs need a longer wait time to process the questions or what they want to say. I think

providing my ELLs with more wait time was effective in this lesson. By providing them with

this extra wait time, they were able to participate more in class discussions. This is important

because the more I see them participate, the better the seem to understand the concepts. For my

striving learners, I planned to use help stations for them to come to for any questions or help.
 Bulger p. 5

Another instructional accommodation based on student’s readiness is providing help stations or

help folders (Tomlinson, 2017). I did not need to utilize the help station in this lesson because I

was able to go around and individually help students as needed at their desks. What was

ineffective was that my striving learners ended up not getting any differentiated instruction. I

was monitoring students and help each of them individually. What I would do differently next

time is use a more appropriate accommodation to better support my striving learners.

Monitoring Student Learning

This lesson had four students learning outcomes. The first two were to create a point of view

tree map and identify different points of view. The monitoring plan I designated to ensure

student progress was being made was using a questioning technique. I anticipated that students

might have a hard time with identifying which sentences are first person and which are third

person. When students had a hard time determining which it could be, I started by asking them

what does first person mean, and what does second person mean. I reminded them to read the

box at the top because it provides example vocabulary for each. I guided students in solving one

problem together, then they were usually able to complete the rest on their own.

The third student learning outcome was being able to write dialogue with their peer correctly

and using the quotation marks appropriately. I anticipated that students would forget to use

quotation marks or they remember but misuse it. For students who forget, I used constant

reminders about what we just covered. Usually this little reminder helped students in

remembering what they should be using. For students who misused the quotation marks, I would

ask them what does dialogue mean. If they were able to tell me that it is when a character is

talking, I would ask them how do I know the character is talking when I am reading a story.
 Bulger p. 6

They could tell me that it’s in quotation marks and realize their mistakes. Whenever students

needed assistance with writing dialogue, I would take note.

The last student learning outcome for this lesson was to create a story with a problem. This

activity was completed as a class. When students couldn’t think of possible problems for our

story topic, I reminded them about past stories we’ve read and the problem that happened in

them. I would guide them in thinking of problems by saying things such as “do you always have

everything you need to make food?” or “does your food always come out perfect on the first

try?” These questions allowed the students to think of problems like you might be missing an

ingredient or maybe the pancakes got burnt.

Originally, my teacher assessment tool was not effective in gathering information about

students learning of the standards. My rubric was not specific enough to determine what

proficiency level students were at. I modified my assessment tool by creating a more detailed

one and making a clear distinguish between each level. I was then able to effectively gather

information on students learning of the standards and determine their proficiency. To help me

visually see where students were, I made a copy rubric for each student and I highlighted each

criterion that they were able to do. This helped me in identifying their individual successes and

areas they needed more support.

One of the skills students were expected to use was using context clues (3.L.4.A). Students

used the context clues to determine if sentences were first or third person point of view. Students

don’t have experience with this standard or strategy. Although they had no prior knowledge,

students did well with the concept. 16 students were able to meet the standard by accurately

using their context clues. One student met with excellence because she added extra details in her
 Bulger p. 7

explanation. There were only four students who didn’t meet the standard, three who were

developing and one who was well below.

Students were also assessed on writing narratives. Based on student data from the pre-

assessment and this lesson, I can see that students made progress within this standard. In the pre-

assessment, seven students were well below, 14 were developing, and two met proficiency.

Looking at the bar graph below, I can see more students are slowly starting to meet in writing

narratives. In their writing students needed to include dialogue. Student don’t have experience

with learning dialogue but they have used it very little. Before this lesson, their dialogue

consisted of very short phrases such as “hi” and always ended with “said” and the person’s

name. Students are not being able to create more sentences and phrases with their dialogue, and

being more creative in how the end it.

In this lesson, I was unable to have a closure because the students were working up until the

bell rang. I had an exit ticket for students to complete at the end to check their understanding

with point of view. Initially, I had planned to take a temperature check on students

understanding based on the concepts that were learned. I also wanted them to share what they

learned and review more at the end to refresh student’s memories. I think having a proper

closure is important in order to determine is students were able to meet the expectations of the

lesson. This is crucial as it can affect the future lesson. I plan to have a proper closure in future

lessons. To ensure that I have a proper closure, I will plan my lessons to have extra time at the

end just in case activities go longer than expected. If I need to in the future, I will take out small

parts of lessons that could be continued on the next day. I want to make sure I can review and

check students’ progress levels at the end of every lesson.

 Bulger p. 8

Student progress from lesson 3 for the standards 3.L.4.A Use key words, and 3.W.3 Write
narratives.

Informing Instructional Practices

There two standards assessed in lesson three were using context clues to determine the

meaning of a word or phrase (3.L.4.A), and writing narratives (3.W.3). Students engaged in

many different activities through this lesson before being assessed on these standards.

For the first standard, only one student was able to meet with excellence. On the exit pass,

this student was able to correctly identify that the sentence was first person, she identified four

key words throughout the sentence and justified her answer using examples from the sentence.

She received a meet with excellence because she was able to compare the sentences to third

person and explain how it could not be that. For example, she stated that it didn’t have third

person words such as they or him. 16 students were able to meet proficiency for this standard.

These students could correctly identify the types of sentences and use key words from the text.

They were unable to compare the sentences to third person key words and justify why it could
 Bulger p. 9

not be third person. Three students were developing proficiency for this standard. These two

students were able to identify that the sentences were first person. They encountered challenges

when explaining why it is first person. One student was well below for this standard. He

encountered challenges with identifying the correct point of view. He stated that the sentences

were third person, and he struggled with providing a justification for that.

For the second standard, four students were able to meet with excellence. These students

were able to create a story that flowed and included two or more examples of detailed dialogue.

They included each part of narrative writing such as a character, setting, and sequence of events.

12 students met proficiency. In these students writing they were able to incorporate the correct

use of point of view vocabulary, and two examples of dialogue. These students encountered

challenges with including a clear setting, characters, and sequence of events. Five students were

developing proficiency in writing narratives. They only wrote one paragraph and their story had

somewhat of a flow but was off in some parts. These students encountered challenges with using

first and second person vocabulary. Throughout the story, they used both when they should have

only focused on one. They were able to include one example of dialogue but need to improve on

providing more throughout their story and making them more detailed. Zero students were well

below for writing narratives which showed me that the students are starting to understand the

concept more.

This lesson was initially supposed to be one day. Because it was split into two, I modified it

and started day two with a review. I looked over the exit tickets after day one and reviewed as a

class to help clarify to the few students who weren’t meeting proficiency. Based on the data, I

tried to slow down the pace of my instructional delivery on day two. I felt that I could use more
 Bulger p. 10

explaining and examples throughout my lessons to help students in understanding. I stopped to

check for questions more often and clarify and confusions.

One modification I will make for the next lesson is to review the story we made as a class

from this lesson. I will remind students of the process we went through in creating each part of

our story. This lesson ended on a Friday and because of the weekend, I feel like students will

need a review before they start writing their individual stories in the next lesson.