AI-Powered, Integrated Unit Goals and Lesson Objectives for K-12 English Learners
By Lynn Shafer Willner
Lynn Shafer Willner begins this article by first presenting the major issues faced by both ELs and their teachers.
- ELs in Kindergarten and first grade – learning to read is slower
- Middle school long-term ELs lag in literacy and cannot exit ESL
- “Integrating multiple sets of educational standards” in lesson planning which results in non-cohesive instruction that does not meet the needs of ELs.
She then proposes two solutions:
- Backward design – to align state standards with measurable objectives based on guidelines from WIDA
- A closed AI system that produces consistent goals and objectives – (The closed system uses only “pre-vetted, standards-based documents”)
To provide background, Shafer Willner discusses federal guidance and research on embedding standards: what students should be able to do, in addition to the use of state standards in English Language Development (ELD) to “promote an approach called content-based language learning.”
These integrated standards should be combined with the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) using “multimodal scaffolding”, such as visual, hands-on, and verbal support. This also includes direct teaching of language patterns and features within subjects. All of this results in an increase in language growth.
To facilitate the connection between state ELD standards and the WIDA Standards Framework, educational experts in Georgia developed a resource called “standards correspondence mappings,” which outlines the broad learning goals. From these, “educators can create three types of lesson objectives to guide instruction: (1) discipline-specific academic language, (2) focused language study, and (3) ELD-embedded foundational literacy skills.” The article provides charts with examples of how this integration is worded. Shafer Willner then expands on the literacy standard.
Because this integration requires significant time, the use of a closed AI system, such as Google NotebookLM, is recommended, as it is more accurate and reliable; however, vetting of the results by educators remains necessary. Table 5 in the article illustrates the basic steps for setting this up, and includes sources: documents, resources, and an example of a prompt. Table 6 contains a condensed version of the AI output for a sample lesson.
Implementing an AI system requires training educators in its use, but automating this aspect of instructional planning provides more time for collaboration, more challenging content, and better outcomes for ELs.
