Running head: CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

Content Knowledge
Abigail May
Regent University

In partial fulfillment of UED 495 Field Experience Portfolio

CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

2
Introduction

The artifacts included are a lesson plan with accompanying assessment and a
summary worksheet. The lesson plan utilizes MA standard 4.9.1 and 4.9.2, which discuss
equality and the associative property. The first standard, concerning equality, does not
expressly concern the assessment and the lesson, but it is something the students must
understand in order to take the assessment. The latter may seem as if it does not apply at
first glance, but when assigning the appropriate standard to the assignment, my
cooperating teacher and I had an in depth discussion as to why we chose the standard we
did.
Rationale for Selection of Artifacts
The first was chosen because it the use of math standard 4.9.1, which states, the
student will recognize and demonstrate the meaning of equality in an equation. The
lesson is on associative property, which utilizes equality, but is not simply equality. This
shows that though the standard being taught is 4.9.2, which requires students to
understand the associative property, there is knowledge outside of that that must be
reinforced in students in order for them to grasp the concept completely.
The second was chosen because of the discussion that I had with my cooperating
teacher concerning the standard assigned to it. The book that the summary is based on is a
non-fiction book. However, the book is narrative non-fiction. The story has real life
details, but it is told in the way of a story. Standard 4.6e requires students to be able to
summarize nonfiction texts with supporting details. Standard 4.5d requires the same thing
concerning fiction texts. Though this book is non-fiction, I made the ultimate decision to
qualify this summary under 4.5d, simply because the story is written as a story and not as

CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

an informative piece. Though the standard 4.5d is not expressly for summary of
nonfiction texts, in requires students to understand the style of fiction, in which the book
is written.
Reflection on Theory and Practice
In class we often had to assign standards to our lessons. We learned that the
standards are in place so that there is a guideline for student education. While working
with the language arts cooperating teacher, I learned just how much standards overlap.
She is constantly teaching the same things, reinforcing skills so that when the students
leave her class, they will be prepared for the requirements of the next grade level. As for
core tasks, most standards documents identify them in tandem with the key skills of
which they are a part (Wiggins and McTighe, 2005, p.62). So, not only are these skills a
part of the standard, the objectives, the essential understandings, but they correspond with
core tasks the students must be able to perform. Standards should overlap; students
should not be taught just one standard at a time. The first artifact, the lesson plan with
assessment, shows that. Standards should be used in the correct way, to reinforce the
proper skills, as the second artifact indicates.
Standards are confusing for a new teacher, especially one that has little experience
with them. They are put in place to be helpful, but they can be overwhelming. The
student teaching experience taught me how to practically implement standards in my
lessons. Before now, I would have thought for each lesson there must be one standard
only. Unfortunately, if that were the case, little would get completed. Some things must
be taught independent of other standards, but many overlap and build on another.
Standards work with each other. Learning how to make standards helpful, rather than a

CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
burden, is one of the most significant things I will take away from the student teaching
experience.

CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

5
References

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (Expanded 2nd ed.).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.