University of Balamand

Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences

Course Name: EDUC 342 “Instructional Design”

Topic: Online Training for Science Teachers

Submitted to: Dr. Guenia Zgheib

Done by: Rasha Aboul Hosn, Rena Debs, and Mona Naim

1
Table of Contents
Section 1: Introduction..............................................................................................................................3
Section 2: Instructional Objectives...........................................................................................................6
Section 3: Instructional Approach and Materials.................................................................................11
Section 4: Formative and Summative Evaluation.................................................................................15
Section 5: Storyboard..............................................................................................................................18
Section 6: Appendix.................................................................................................................................19
Section 7: References...............................................................................................................................24

2
Section 1: Introduction

Instructional Problem Definition

In Lebanon, the students are English Language Learners (ELLs) who learn Science in a foreign

language-English. Science is complex since it requires learning to observe, predict, analyze,

summarize, and express information in diverse ways; these ways vary between oral expression,

writing, and transforming figures to cohesive scientific texts (Lee & Fradd, 1998). Many

research studies explored the underperformance of ELLs in Science (Snow & Kim, 2007; Fradd

& Lee, 1999). Fang (2006) described the transformation that occurs from the “learning to read”

environment in lower elementary classes to “reading to learn” in upper elementary classes and

middle school; this creates language problems in science because science has its language. The

limited language proficiency of ELLs is reflected in the performances (ex: TIMSS and official

exams) in these subjects. Research has shown that one of the factors leading to weak

performances may be related to the limited language proficiency of these students (Princloo &

Harvey, 2018).

Due to the increase of ELLs in schools, the need for those who can teach them becomes a

necessity. Teachers have a vital role in supporting ELLs to improve and achieve better results.

Sagiannis and Dimopoulos (2018) stated “Science teachers attempt to avoid the barrier of stifling

scientific language by merely sidetracking it”. This may be explained by the fact that teachers’

ability to read scientific texts is considered assumptive. Thus, teachers’ awareness of the

scientific language demands must not be taken for granted and the language of science

instruction must not be ignored. Teachers must help students build bridges between their known

and familiar ways of using language, and the academic ways of using language. According to

3
Rymes, Flores, and Pomerantz (2016), the integration of language courses in science could

enhance students’ abilities and performances.

Based on the above-mentioned needs analysis, we will develop an online training that addresses

Science teachers for cycle 3 and train them in using some strategies to respond to the linguistic

demands of science for English Language Learners.

Learner and Contextual Analysis

A. Learner Analysis

· The teachers that will be targeted in this training are ten Science teachers in Lebanese

public schools who teach science to cycle 3 (i.e., middle school) classes. We chose public

schools since the language challenges are more prominent among low socioeconomic

status (Salloum & Boujoude, 2019). To know more about our learners, we administered a

survey via “https://freeonlinesurveys.com/s/T1C0D2Qm.” The results of the survey

revealed a diversity of learners who are going to attend our online training. The questions

included in the survey and the screenshots of the teachers’ responses to the survey

questions (check Appendix 1).

Hereby I will state briefly our learner characteristics:

· The age range of the teachers is between 22 – 44 years old. They are all females.

· Their teaching experience varies from 3 to 15 years.

· Some teachers have high school diplomas, others have bachelor’s degrees while few hold

a master’s degree. In addition to their degree, some teachers hold a teaching diploma.

· They had basic to particularly good computer and internet proficiency skills.

4
 · They showed interest in attending online training because not all of them have previously

attended workshops related to instructional strategies.

B. Contextual Analysis:

Parrish (2009) emphasized that contextual analysis provides rich data for designing realistic and

authentic modules, scenarios, and examples (as cited in Morrison et al., 2013). Conducting

contextual analysis includes the use of surveys, observations, and interviews as tools for

collecting data (Morrison et al., 2013).

Surveys are essential in determining the needs of an audience (Creswell, 2012). To better

understand the context in which our training is going to take place, we administered a survey for

ten Cycle 3 Science teachers in public schools. The results of the survey provided us with the

learner characteristics that I displayed in the learner analysis. However, because we intended to

do the online training for the teachers, it was important for us to know the technical skills of the

teachers, the technology tools that they use during online teaching, and the technology

applications or software (i.e., zoom, teams, Whatsapp, YouTube, and PowerPoint) that they use

for online teaching. These data were collected via the survey that we conducted. Hence, relevant

tools will be selected.

5
Section 2: Instructional Objectives

Objectives:
At the end of this training, teachers will be able to:

· Explore the multiple instructional strategies that can be used to respond to the language

demands of ELLs in Science classrooms.

· Differentiate between the acquired instructional strategies and their potential implementation

among ELLs in Science classrooms.

· Reflect on the instructional strategies in relation to their classroom experience with ELLs.

Task Analysis: (Content Analysis)

We will conduct a topic analysis that will address potential instructional strategies that can be

used in science classrooms with ELLs. We will follow the Jonassen et al. (1999) process of

conducting content analysis. According to Jonassen et al. (1999), task analysis is a “process of

analyzing and articulating the kind of learning that you expect the learners to know how to

perform”. Instructional designers refer to task analysis as a content analysis, subject matter

analysis, or learning task analysis. Despite their different names, each refers to the task analysis

process, and the goal remains the same: to gather information about the content and/or tasks that

need to be part of the instruction being developed.

The combination of the needs analysis and the learner analysis provided us with a starting point

to determine the scope and sequence of the content to be included in our online training. We

thought of various instructional strategies that the teachers attending the online training must

6
integrate in their classrooms to respond to the linguistic demands of science for English

Language Learners.

Instructional Strategies:
1. Graphic Organizer is a visual and graphic display that depicts information in several ways

(Ellis & Howard, 2005). They help learners to focus on areas that are of key importance for

learning, and they also help learners to have a condition to structure connections, and to make

meaning (Helfgott, 2013).

2. Sentence Stems in specific sentence frames can serve as instructional scaffolds (Walqui,

2006), as they model the expected language use for the task at hand. They include sentence

starters, which begin sentences, such as “I predict ___,” as well as sentence frames, which

provide additional support for more complex syntactical structures, such as “I infer ___ because

the text states ___.”

3. Using Analogies: Effective analogies can clarify thinking, helping learners overcome

misconceptions and create ways to enable learners to visualize abstract concepts (Orgill &

Bodner, 2004:15). An analogy entails a comparison between two domains of knowledge; one

that is familiar and one that is not. The idea behind using an analogy is to transfer relationships

from a familiar domain to one that is less familiar (Mason & Sorzio, 1996:4). Hence, analogy use

will promote concept formation among ELLs.

4. Paraphrasing can help in bridging the gap between the scientific language and ordinary

language. Students can familiarize themselves with the scientific language through paraphrasing

exercises (e.g.: while, I conclude, I hypothesize, etc.).

7
Personas:

8
9
10
 Section 3: Instructional Approach and Materials

Learning Objectives Assessment Instructional Learning Activities Technology

Strategies

1- Explore four Answering - Modelling & ·Teachers will be

instructional strategies different Explaining engaged through a fill in

that can be used in the questions (supportive) blanks exercise to attract

https://edpuzzle.com
science classroom to about their attention.
-Exploration /media/6092f94172d
target ELL language instructional
and Creation Teachers will watch a 4f44121735486
difficulties. strategies.
(Exploratory) video (created by

Screencast-O-Matic) on

Ed puzzle about the first

two instructional

strategies that can be

used in science

classrooms for ELLs,

were teachers will

https://quizizz.com/j
respond to different types
oin/quiz/608a997e6f
of questions and interact
597b001d369ee3/sta
with the embedded
rt
material in the video.

. Teachers will interact in

11
 various activities, then

watch a video to explain

the third instructional

strategy. This will be

followed by a formative

assessment done on

Quizizz.

. Teachers will explore

the fourth instructional

strategy through an

inquiry- based learning

activity.

2- Reflect on one Responding ·Collaboration · Teachers will engage in ·https://

instructional strategy to a question (dialogic a group discussion to www.tricider.com/

related to their through a strategies) reflect on an event where admin/

classroom experience group they faced a linguistic 2xf0KVxeamd/

·Reflection
with ELLs discussion on difficulty with ELLs and 18NfjLN0avB
(dialogic
tricider. how they could have
strategies)
responded to it using one

of the strategies they

explored.

3- Select/use Critically · Problem · Teachers will explore

12
appropriate strategies thinking solving different classroom · Microsoft Forms

and organizers based about (Exploratory & scenarios that ELLs face
https://
on different scenarios different in science classrooms and
Supportive) forms.office.com/
in science classrooms classroom select possible solutions.
Pages/
scenarios and
· The correct answers ResponsePage.aspx?
selecting
will pop up for each id=3y4Sirz4-
appropriate
question. Uqrynp5d7nnz3BGp
strategies.
l-

8prNOtdSpeJoz6ZV

UM0I3M1I3SDZB

M0VDVkJBN1ZIW

kxPWkU1MS4u

Description of the activities:

1- Teachers will be engaged through a fill in blanks exercise to stimulate their learning curiosity,

then teachers will explore an inclusive perspective of the importance of the topic, afterwards they

will visit Ed puzzle (https://edpuzzle.com/), and watch an interactive and self-paced video

created on Screencast-O-Matic. In the video, we will introduce teachers to the first two

instructional strategies that can be used in their Science classrooms with their ELLs. The other

two strategies will follow using various activities and inquiry-based learning, stimulating their

13
prior knowledge. These activities align with Gagne’s third and fourth stages, which permits

linking prior experiences to new ones and allows scaffolding, and developing the presentation of

the learning content.

2- After watching the video, teachers will engage in a group discussion posted on Tricider, where

they will find a set of instructions and questions. The questions will address the reflection on a

specific event where they faced a linguistic difficulty with ELLs and how they could have

responded to it using one strategy they explored. On Tricider, they can compare their responses

to others.

3- Teachers will be directed to a set diverse questions created on Microsoft Forms (direct

questions and scenarios). The scenarios will show different difficulties that ELLs face in science

classrooms. Using their critical thinking skills teachers would have to select potential solutions.

This relates to Gagne’s sixth stage, where learners will be given time to practice their knowledge

and skills.

- According to Dabbagh et al. (2019), our instructional strategies include exploratory,

supportive, and dialogical strategies. It falls under the constructivist approach.

 Our first activity includes the Ed puzzle video that permits teachers to explore the

material on their own and respond to the differentiated content that is integrated. The

information that will show at every stage in the video will support teachers'

understanding. Furthermore, the questions that were integrated will stimulate the

teachers' prior knowledge; this will support their comprehension because of scaffolding.

14
 Therefore, it will be considered among the supportive strategies since it includes

scaffolding, modeling, and explaining.

 Our second activity, the group discussion on Tricider, creates a collaborative

environment where teachers can observe other responses and edit accordingly.

Furthermore, the Tricider question allows the teachers to reflect on their experiences and

relate them to their acquired knowledge. Hence, this is regarded as a dialogic strategy.

 Our third activity promotes teachers' critical thinking and problem-solving skills because

of their exposure to different classroom scenarios with Ells, where they be directed to the

most appropriate methods to deal with the corresponding scenarios. Hence, this is

considered as an exploratory and supportive strategy.

Section 4: Formative and Summative Evaluation

Learner Evaluation:
Brown and Green (2016) stated that learner evaluation is a way to check on the level of

accomplishment that the individual achieved during and after the instruction took place.

Similarly, Calhoun, Sahay and Wilson (2021) mentioned that a learner attains different cognitive

and practical skills, and an evaluation can unleash what changes have been achieved in the

learning process. According to Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive domain, our training is at the

comprehension level, since it involves checking on the change of the teacher's knowledge, by

assessing the understanding of the content that was presented, and if they perceived the potential

instructional strategies that can be utilized in science classrooms with ELLs (English Language

Learners).

15
In our training, evaluation of the learners (our teachers) was done at different stages:

 Answering different questions about instructional strategies during:

o The Edpuzzle video to check upon understanding.

o The quiz on “Quizizz” to evaluate the learner's conception of instructed material.

o Inquiry-based learning activities.

 Responding to a question through a group discussion on Tricider thereby teachers’

answers allow us to know what knowledge they acquired post instruction.

 Using critical thinking to explore various classroom scenarios and selecting appropriate

strategies through the diverse questions created on Microsoft Forms (direct questions and

scenarios). Results of this assessment done at the end can reveal teachers’ overall

comprehension and application of the four instructional strategies learned all through this

training.

Formative Evaluation:
According to Brown and Green (2016), formative evaluation is essential to examine how the

instructional process is going and perform updates when necessary. Morrison et al. (2019)

explained that the formative evaluation process utilizes data from media, instruction, and learner

engagement to formulate a picture of learning from which the designer can make changes to the

product before the final implementation. Accordingly, this is essential in the beginning of the

process, particularly before the complete development of the training.

In our training, we conducted meetings with an expert and our peers to collect feedback and

impose changes to our training.

16
  Four meetings were conducted with a professional instructional designer who helped us

visualize how the training will be and provided us with solutions for some of the

difficulties that we may encounter. In addition to that we got the necessary feedback on

the effectiveness of our instruction.

 The meeting with our peers provided us with ideas to improve our design (engagement,

interactivity) as well as giving us an inclusive look about the activities that will be

performed during the training. This is important, since our training is self-paced and

asynchronous, and we cannot modify it later.

Summative Evaluation:
Summative Evaluation takes place after the implementation of the training, where the main goal

of this type of evaluation is to collect data and examine the effectiveness of the training and

detect if the purpose of the client was achieved. This type of evaluation is essential for future

training, because it shows what needs to be modified (Brown & Green, 2016). In order to

achieve an effective summative evaluation, there are four essential levels that the training should

pass through. First, the training was evaluated by meeting with an expert in the field of an

instructional design, then we received peer feedback that functioned as a supportive role to help

in adjusting our training. Furthermore, at the end of the training a survey will be administered.

The trainees must fill a form and answer diverse questions about various parts of the training.

The questions will be multiple-choice questions and open-ended questions. The multiple-choice

questions will help us get answers about specific parts of the training. On the other hand, open-

ended questions are important to allow trainees to express any constructive criticism for further

improvement. In addition to that the questions will be rated on a scale from 1 to 4, with 1 being

the lowest and 4 the highest (check Appendix 2).

17
https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=3y4Sirz4-Uqrynp5d7nnz3BGpl-

8prNOtdSpeJoz6ZVUOUNUTlZVSFlKUjhPQVJXUzJPNUhEMzVYTC4u

Section 5: Storyboard

https://stdbalamandedu-my.sharepoint.com/:p:/g/personal/

rasha_aboulhosn_std_balamand_edu_lb/

EVzVOeJ5C9ZMr8beqtir8W0B9Pty1R6EbsvbIrJVA7RNbQ?e=2s75qs

18
Section 6: Appendix

Appendix 1

19
20
21
22
Appendix 2
Summative Evaluation Form:

1- The training satisfied your needs.

2- The training provided me with strategies that are applicable to my classroom.

3- The training was smooth and understandable.

4- The training was engaging and interactive.

5- I recommend this course to my colleagues.

· Please, do not hesitate to share with us any additional remarks, and or/ideas for further

improvements. (Will be in a box)

23
Section 7: References

Brown & Green (2016). The essentials of Instructional Design .Routledge, Taylor & Francis

Group: New York and London.

Calhoun, C., Sahay, S., & Wilson, M. (2021). Instructional Design Evaluation. In J. K.

McDonald & R. E. West (Eds.), Design for Learning: Principles, Processes, and Praxis.

EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/id/instructional_design_evaluation

Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. J., Morrison, J. R., & Kalman, H. K. (2019). Designing effective

instruction: Wiley.

Wagner, E. D. (2021). Becoming a Learning Designer. In J. K. McDonald & R. E. West (Eds.),

Design for Learning: Principles, Processes, and Praxis. EdTech Books.

https://edtechbooks.org/id/learning_designer

24