The 5 Phases of Lesson Design: Uniting UDL, Cognitive Science, and CARE for High-DOK Learning

Sources: The Science of Lesson Planning by Lori Cohen

Introduction: The 5-Phase Transformative Lesson Planning Framework

Instructional design frequently begins with analyzing academic standards to determine the target level of cognitive complexity. Under conventional Depth of Knowledge (DOK) taxonomies, educators focus heavily on the embedded action verb—such as infer, analyze, or evaluate—to gauge student learning expectations (Webb, 2002). However, analyzing an isolated verb fails to address the underlying cognitive architecture or the environmental conditions required for students to perform high-level thinking (CAST, 2018; Sweller et al., 1998).

To bridge the gap between benchmark expectations and classroom execution, instruction can be structured around the 5-Phase Transformative Lesson Planning Framework (Cohen, 2026). Rather than treating lesson preparation as a linear checklist of activities, this framework organizes instructional design into an interconnected cycle centered on human agency and cognitive alignment:

Phase 1: Center People and Purpose (Ground the Learning) — Establishing psychological safety and contextual relevance before selecting activities or handouts.

Phase 2: Explore Pathways to Learning (Explore Content and Express Learning) — Expanding the instructional toolkit through engagement options and evidence-based learning strategies grounded in cognitive science.

Phase 3: Design the Learning Journey (Explore Content and Express Learning) — Structuring lesson sequencing and building a visible culture of learning that supports brain-friendly cognitive pacing.

Phase 4: Implement and Adjust (Execute and Assess) — Formatively monitor learning micro-artifacts in real time and provide responsive feedback.

Phase 5: Reflect and Refine (Reflect and Celebrate) — Evaluating student growth against clear success criteria, celebrating progress, and refining future instructional iterations.

When applied to Grade 4 Reading Informational Text (CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.4.1)—which requires students to ‘refer to details and examples in a text when explaining what the text says explicitly and when drawing inferences from the text’ (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers [NGA & CCSSO], 2010, p. 12)—the 5-Phase Framework provides a structured blueprint. By deliberately aligning environmental security, engagement pathways, cognitive load management, and visible thinking routines, educators empower fourth graders to achieve DOK 2/3 inferencing with clarity and confidence.

Phase 1: Center People and Purpose (Grounding the Learning)

Phase 1 establishes the human foundation of lesson design before any instructional tasks are selected (Cohen, 2026). It addresses two critical features that condition the learning environment: Psychological Safety and Context.

Psychological Safety in Literacy Instruction

Psychological safety creates a classroom culture where students feel secure taking intellectual risks, asking questions, and making errors without fear of humiliation (Cohen, 2026). In fourth-grade literacy, drawing inferences carries an inherent risk of being incorrect, as students must make unstated logical leaps beyond explicit print. When students experience threat or anxiety, the brain’s affective filter activates, prioritizing self-protection over higher-order reasoning (CAST, 2018). By normalizing struggle, encouraging curiosity around errors, and framing initial text encounters as exploratory, educators lower affective barriers and unlock working memory capacity for higher-level cognitive tasks.

Context and the Brain’s Salience Network

Context serves as the bridge between curriculum standards and students’ lived realities (Cohen, 2026). Answering the student question,’When will I ever use this?’, requires connecting abstract informational topics(such as animal adaptations or ecosystems) to tangible, familiar experiences. Grounding content in students’ backgroundknowledge activates the brain’s salience network, which prioritizes information deemed meaningful and relevant (Cohen, 2026).

Alignment with the UDL Tree Ecosystem

This phase directly mirrors the root network within the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Tree Framework (CAST, 2018; UDL Tree Metaphor, 2024). In the arboreal metaphor, the soil and roots represent the learning environment, physical accessibility, and socio-emotional context. Just as a fruit tree requires fertile, well-conditioned soil to send nutrients up the trunk and yield healthy fruit, a literacy lesson requires psychological safety and contextual salience to support high-DOK standard performance (the ‘fruit’).

Phase 2: Explore Pathways to Learning (Engagement & Learning Strategies)

Engagement involves offering flexible entry points into complex texts while balancing guided instruction with student choice and agency (Cohen, 2026). Learner variability is systematic and predictable across any classroom (CAST, 2018). This principle is illustrated through the everyday analogy of consumer listening devices (Learner Variability, 2024). Individuals choose earbuds based on anatomical differences in ear canal shape and size, as well as changing situational contexts—such as running, resting, or navigating noisy environments (Learner Variability, 2024).

To accommodate this variability without lowering cognitive expectations, Phase 2 incorporates specific scaffolding strategies (Scaffolding Strategies, 2024):

• Front-Loading Vocabulary (Strategy 4): Pre-teaching 2–3 domain-specific terms with visual cues before reading to prevent vocabulary friction from stalling comprehension.
• Previewing Text Structure (Strategy 5 & 9): Walking through headers, sidebars, and visual diagrams to orient students to the text layout.
• Flexible Access Pathways (Strategy 7): Providing options for independent reading, audio-assisted read-alongs, or paired reading, ensuring that decoding challenges do not prevent students from engaging in higher-level inferencing.

Learning Strategies: Optimizing Cognitive Architecture

While engagement strategies provide accessible pathways, evidence-based learning strategies ensure that instruction aligns with human cognitive architecture (Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation [CESE], 2017; Sweller, 1988). Human memory comprises a limited working memory—capable of holding approximately four novel information chunks for brief durations (Cowan, 2001; Peterson & Peterson, 1959)—and an unlimited long-term memory organized into structured mental frameworks called schemas (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968; Baddeley, 1983; CESE, 2017).

Phase 3: Design the Learning Journey (Sequencing & Culture of Learning)

Phase 3 organizes instructional ideas into a brain-friendly sequence that respects classroom pacing and establishes a visible Culture of Learning(Cohen, 2026).

Brain-Friendly Sequencing

Sequencing aligns lesson flow with natural cognitive processing rhythms (Cohen, 2026). To prevent working memory overload when tackling the standard CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.4.1, instruction progresses from simple element isolation to complex synthesis: Step 1) Explicit Detail Extraction (DOK 1); Step 2) Prior Knowledge Retrieval (DOK 1/2); and Step 3) Synthesis & Inferencing (DOK 2/3) (van Merriënboer et al., 2003).

Building a Visible Culture of Learning via the CARE Architecture

A robust culture of learning shifts student focus from ‘parroting what the teacher wants’ to developing visible, self-directed thinking skills (Cohen, 2026). This is operationalized through Matt Hudson’s (2024) CARE AI-Ready Classroom Lesson Planning Sheet, which guides students through four progressive stages and micro-artifacts:

Stage 1: CLARIFY (Quick Capture Note): Introduce uncontextualized primary text before the teacher’s lecture. Students record raw initial observations, protecting student-owned thinking.

Stage 2: ARTICULATE (Source Note T-Chart): Students translate explicit evidence into personal language using a worked example T-Chart (Explicit Detail + Prior Knowledge = Inference).

Stage 3: REFINE (Thinking Note): Students apply thinking lenses and peer/AI critique (‘AI reacts. You judge.’) to evaluate counter-evidence and refine initial inferences.

Stage 4: EXECUTE (Action Note): Scaffolds are systematically faded as students write a concise 2–3-sentence supported hypothesis demonstrating standard mastery at DOK 2/3.

Phase 4 & Phase 5: Implement, Adjust, Reflect, and Refine

The final two phases of the Transformative Lesson Planning Framework ensure that learning remains responsive and continuous (Cohen, 2026).

Phase 4: Implement and Adjust (Execute & Assess)

Phase 4 focuses on active lesson execution and real-time formative adjustment (Cohen, 2026). Teachers monitor student comprehension directly through progressive micro-artifacts (Quick Capture → Source Note → Thinking Note → Action Note). If formative data reveals working memory overload or misconception, the teacher immediately adjusts pacing or re-models a worked example before independent synthesis.

Phase 5: Reflect and Refine (Reflect & Celebrate)

Phase 5 closes the instructional cycle by evaluating student outcomes against a 4-level rubric (Explicit Details, Inference Quality, Synthesis Structure, Reflective Refinement), celebrating growth, and refining subsequent instructional cycles (Cohen, 2026).

Strategic Implications for Instructional Designers

Integrating the 5-Phase Transformative Lesson Planning Framework, Universal Design for Learning, Cognitive Load Theory, and the CARE Lesson Design Architecture establishes several vital guidelines for educational practice: 1) Accessibility and cognitive architecture are interdependent; 2) Scaffolding enables high-DOK rigor without lowering standards; and 3) Enforcing sequential micro-artifacts preserves authentic student agency and human cognition.

References

Anderson, R. C. (1977). The notion of schemata and the educational enterprise. In R. C.

Anderson, R. J., Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 415–431). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968).

Baddeley, A. D. (1983). Working memory. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 302(1110), 311–324. Baddeley, A. D. (2002).

Baddeley, A. D. (2002). Is working memory still working? European Psychologist, 7(2), 85–97.

CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, version 2.2. CAST.

Center for Education Statistics and Evaluation. (2017). Cognitive load theory: Research that teachers really need to understand. NSW Department of Education.

Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 347–362.

Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87–114.

Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Cierniak, G. (2009). The scientific value of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 43–54.

Hudson, M. (2024). CARE AI-ready classroom lesson planning sheet: Aligning daily learning targets to academic standards.

Kalyuga, S. (2013). Cognitive load theory: How many types of load does it really need? Educational Psychology Review, 25(2), 207–221.

Learner Variability. (2024). Learner variability and situational context: The earbud analogy. Instructional Image Series.

Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 319–334. Page

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts: Grade 4 Reading Informational Text (CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.4.1). NGA & CCSSO.

Peterson, L. R., & Peterson, M. J. (1959). Short-term retention of individual verbal items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(3), 193–198.

Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 61–86.

Scaffolding Strategies. (2024). Scaffolding strategies for reading comprehension. Instructional Guide.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.

Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312.

Sweller, J. (2016). Story of a research program. Education Review, 23, 1–18.

Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2(1), 59–89.

Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.

UDL Tree Metaphor. (2024). A tree for all: Universal Design for Learning framework metaphor. Instructional Graphic Series.

van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner’s mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 5–14.

van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147–177.

Webb, N. L. (2002). Depth-of-knowledge levels for four content areas. Wisconsin Center for Education Research.