Teaching Portfolio
Hiba Hassan
Hiba Hassan
Section 01
Passionate and driven learner with 6+ years of tutoring and administrative experience. Skilled at creating supportive learning environments, managing operational tasks in fast-paced medical settings, and fostering student success. Seeking opportunities to further develop skills in curriculum design, education, and administrative support.
I hold a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy and Mathematics from McMaster University (2020 – 2024), and I am currently pursuing a Master of Science in Educational Leadership at Niagara University (2025 – 2026). I am bilingual in English and Arabic, and I bring a strong foundation in lesson planning, individualized instruction, and curriculum adaptation to everything I do.
Section 02
Niagara University
McMaster University
MiClinic
Self-employed
Technical
R Studio, LaTeX, Microsoft Office Suite
Administrative
Appointment Scheduling, Records Management, Patient Confidentiality, Referral Processing, Workflow Coordination, Technical Reports
Communication
Bilingual (English/Arabic), Lesson Planning, Individualized Instruction, Curriculum Adaptation
Section 03
My philosophy of education is grounded in a simple belief: every student is capable of meaningful growth when the learning environment combines high expectations with real support. In my classroom, management is not separate from instruction. It is the set of conditions that make rigorous, equitable learning possible. I want students to experience school as both approachable and academically serious. They should know that questions are always welcome and that I will support them, but they should also know that attention, effort, and participation are part of the work of learning.
The mission of a school should be to develop knowledgeable, thoughtful, and responsible people while ensuring that opportunity is not limited by background, identity, or perceived ability. Schools should be places where students are seen, challenged, and equipped with the skills to participate fully in society. A school that values equity does not lower expectations. Instead, it removes unnecessary barriers through strong teaching, clear structures, and a culture that treats learning as a process.
Schools shape the societies in which they exist by shaping what young people come to believe about belonging, voice, and possibility. When schools reward speed, confidence, or compliance as if those traits are intelligence, they reproduce inequity. When schools teach students to explain ideas, revise thinking, and participate respectfully in disagreement, they strengthen civic life. I want schools to graduate students who can reason, collaborate, and contribute. The habits students practice in classrooms become the habits they carry into communities.
Curriculum should focus on durable learning: literacy, numeracy, critical thinking, and ethical reasoning. Students should learn to read and write with power, to use mathematics and science to understand the world, and to engage with history and social issues with evidence and care. Content matters, but so does what students learn to do with content. I value learning that emphasizes sense-making, explanation, and transfer, not memorization without meaning.
The hidden curriculum is always present. Students learn who gets to be heard, what counts as smart, and whether mistakes are treated as shameful. I want the hidden curriculum in my classroom to communicate that learning is not a race and that being good at school is not the same as being fast or always certain. Students may be wrong in my room. They may not be cruel. Mistakes, questions, and revision are part of learning, not evidence of inability.
The thinkers that most influence my approach are those who connect learning to structure, equity, and student thinking. I value the idea that strong classrooms depend on teachable routines rather than constant improvisation, because predictability frees students to focus on reasoning. I am also guided by the belief that safe academic climates are essential for productive struggle. Students take risks and share incomplete thinking when they know they will be treated with respect. I am especially attentive to status dynamics in group learning. If participation is not deliberately structured, some students dominate while others disappear, even when those quieter students have valuable ideas. Finally, I believe formative assessment matters when it is used to notice student thinking and adjust instruction, not as a compliance tool.
Learning today happens under real pressure: social comparison, performance anxiety, attention fragmentation, and unequal access to support outside school. A common instructional problem is that students protect themselves when they feel confused. They may stay silent, avoid tasks, or act out to be distracted from not understanding. In response, I aim to design lessons that create productive struggle rather than destructive struggle. Productive struggle pushes thinking forward while scaffolds, models, and feedback keep students from feeling stuck or exposed.
Technology should serve learning, not replace it. I use digital tools when they make thinking more visible, help students test ideas, or support multiple representations. Technology use should be purposeful, visible, and tied to a clear product, such as an annotated graph, a written explanation, or an exit response. Clear routines for devices matter, because hidden distraction undermines trust, attention, and participation. When technology is integrated with intention, it can support exploration and access. When it is unstructured, it can widen gaps.
Meeting diverse needs requires planning for variability from the beginning. Students need multiple entry points, multiple ways to show understanding, and participation structures that reduce fear of embarrassment. Some students need more time, clearer language, or a chance to rehearse with a partner before sharing publicly. Others need challenge extensions that deepen thinking. Equity also requires attention to status. I watch who starts the work, who gets interrupted, who holds the marker, and who withdraws. Then I intervene by widening what counts as competence, naming strong contributions publicly, and using tasks that require interdependence.
I am mostly drawn to working with adolescents, roughly Grades 9 to 12. This stage of development is defined by identity formation, peer influence, and a strong need for belonging and autonomy. Adolescents benefit from clear expectations and predictable routines, but they also need intellectually meaningful work that respects their ability to think deeply. Many students at this age will not take academic risks if they fear embarrassment. That is why culture matters. A classroom that normalizes struggle and revision makes growth possible.
Students have responsibilities in the learning process. They are responsible for showing up prepared to think, attempting tasks before opting out, participating respectfully, and contributing to the learning community. At the same time, students can only meet those responsibilities consistently when teachers design conditions that support success. Clear routines, transparent criteria, structured talk, and meaningful tasks help students build the habits of independence.
Students should be assessed in ways that promote learning rather than fear. I value frequent formative assessments that reveal thinking, such as warm-ups, discussion checks, public work, and short exit prompts. These checks are most useful when they guide the next day's instruction. Summative assessments still matter, but they should reflect the same goals we teach toward: reasoning, representation, and explanation, not only answer-getting. The goal of assessment is to communicate progress, identify next steps, and build student agency through clear success criteria and opportunities to revise.
Classroom management is the set of conditions that protects learning time and creates psychological safety for thinking. The most effective techniques are explicit, predictable routines for entry, transitions, discussion, and closure. I use calm, consistent responses to off-task behavior, beginning with proximity and redirection, then moving to private conversations that preserve student dignity. I frame expectations positively and tie them to learning, such as listening without interrupting, attempting before opting out, and disagreeing respectfully. Management is not about control for its own sake. It is about protecting the rights of every student to learn.
Teachers need strong content knowledge and the pedagogical skill to make that content learnable. That includes knowing how to scaffold, how to build discussion, how to design tasks that require thinking, and how to use assessment information to adjust instruction. Teachers also need training in equity and adolescent development, because learning is social and identity is always in the room.
The most important characteristics of a teacher are care, credibility, and consistency. Students need to trust that the teacher will support them and also hold the line on expectations. Effective teachers are calm under pressure, attentive to student thinking, and reflective about their practice. They notice who is not being heard and they adjust structures to widen participation. Ultimately, I want to be the kind of teacher whose classroom students leave feeling respected, challenged, and more confident than when they entered.
Section 04
| Stage 1: Desired Results | |
|---|---|
| Transfer | |
|
Established Goals What content standards will this unit address? The following NY or Ontario content standards will be addressed in this unit..
|
What kinds of long-term independent accomplishments are desired? Students will be able to independently use their learning to...
|
| Meaning | |
|
Understandings What specifically do you want students to understand? What inferences should they make? Students will understand...
|
Essential Questions What thought-provoking questions will foster inquiry, meaning-making, and transfer? Throughout the unit, students will keep considering...
|
| Acquisition | |
|
Knowledge What facets and basic concepts should students know and be able to recall? Students will know...
|
Skills What explicit or tangible skills and processes should students be able to use? Students will be skilled at...
|
| Stage 2 – Evidence | |
|---|---|
|
Evaluative Criteria What criteria will be used to evaluate attainment of the desired results?
|
Performance Task How will students demonstrate their understanding (meaning-making and transfer) through complex performance? Students will show that they really understand by completing the following complex task:
Other Assessment Evidence What other evidence will you collect to determine whether Stage 1 goals were achieved? Students will show they have achieved Stage 1 goals by...
|
| Stage 3 – Learning Plan | |
|---|---|
|
Ongoing Assessment Pre-assessment How will you pre-assess students' current knowledge, skills, understandings, and attitudes about the topic(s)? Students will demonstrate what they already know about the unit topic(s) by... Progress Monitoring How will you implement formative assessment and informal feedback in order to monitor students' progress with the unit goals(s)? Students will be formatively assessed and receive feedback in the following ways: |
Daily Plan How will the daily lessons be organized in order to prepare students to meet the unit goal(s) and achieve the desired assessment results? The topics and learning activities will be implemented according to the following outline:
|
Adapted from “The UbD Template, Version 2.0” (Wiggins & McTighe, 2011)
| Element of the Madeline Hunter Model | Instructional Plan |
|---|---|
1. Anticipatory Set (Hook)
|
Anticipatory Set (Hook)
|
2. Objectives and Purpose
|
Objectives and Purpose
|
3. Input (Instruction)
|
Input (Instruction)
|
4. Modeling (Show Me)
|
Modeling (Show Me)
|
5. Checking for Understanding
|
Checking for Understanding
|
6. Guided Practice (We Do)
|
Guided Practice (We Do)
|
7. Independent Practice (You Do)
|
Independent Practice (You Do)
|
| “E” | Instructional Plan |
|---|---|
1. Engage (Hook / Introduction)
|
Engage (Hook / Introduction)
|
2. Explore (Hands-On Investigation)
|
Explore (Hands-On Investigation)
|
3. Explain (Concept Development)
|
Explain (Concept Development)
|
4. Elaborate (Application / Extension)
|
Elaborate (Application / Extension)
|
5. Evaluate (Assessment / Reflection)
|
Evaluate (Assessment / Reflection)
|
For my CCA, I planned two consecutive Grade 11 Philosophy (HZB3M) lessons focused on personal identity and the question: “If your memories change, are you still you?” I selected this central focus because it is conceptually rich, aligns naturally with the course expectations B3.1, accurate philosophical vocabulary and C3.2, analyzing arguments encountered in everyday life and developing a reasoned response, and it is highly accessible to adolescents. When planning, I prioritized a topic that could support both skill development such as argument analysis and conceptual understanding such as identity theories while encouraging students to think critically about real-world identity questions that appear in social media, relationships, accountability, and mental health discussions.
A key planning priority was designing lessons that would be engaging for adolescent learners and clearly relevant to their lives. I intentionally built both lessons around dilemmas that create curiosity and invite student voices. In Lesson 1, the “memory-copy” scenario was selected because it immediately invites students to take a position and explain their reasoning, ensuring that students are not passively receiving information; they are drawn into a genuine philosophical problem. In Lesson 2, the Ship of Theseus thought experiment and station cases were chosen because they are memorable, logically challenging, and naturally lead to disagreement, which makes them ideal for practicing structured argumentation.
In planning, I also considered strategies for maintaining engagement during an 80-minute period. I planned for varied pacing such as short hook, direct instruction, guided practice, independent response; then inquiry stations and discussion so the lesson does not become one long task. I also planned moments of student ownership and interaction such as pair shares, structured discussion stems, and station roles so students consistently do something with the ideas rather than simply hearing about them. This planning approach is consistent with engagement strategies that emphasize relevance, authenticity, and bite-sized tasks to sustain attention and participation.
Another planning focus was ensuring both lessons were appropriate for diverse adolescent learners. Personal identity is a topic that can connect to many student experiences, but it also requires careful planning to ensure students feel safe discussing controversial or sensitive ideas. For that reason, I planned discussion norms and structured talk moves that encourage respectful disagreement and protect students from personal exposure. Students are asked to argue about ideas and scenarios rather than disclose personal experiences.
To support a range of learners, I planned explicit interventions and scaffolds while maintaining the same learning targets:
These planning decisions were made intentionally to ensure all students could access the learning goals while still engaging in rigorous philosophical reasoning.
When planning, I also ensured that at least one lesson connected to other disciplines. Personal identity naturally links to:
I intentionally planned to highlight these connections briefly in Lesson 2 during elaboration/discussion, because students often engage more deeply when they see how philosophical thinking applies beyond one course.
I also planned for SEL competencies explicitly. Both lessons were designed to support:
I intentionally built SEL into the learning design because philosophy discussions can become emotional or polarized if students lack tools for respectful disagreement.
Overall, planning these lessons required balancing clarity, rigor, and accessibility. I used the Madeline Hunter model in Lesson 1 to plan a structured pathway into complex thinking: students first learn key vocabulary and a clear argument-analysis procedure before being asked to apply it independently. I used the 5E model in Lesson 2 to plan for inquiry, collaboration, and transfer. Students test theories through stations, articulate and revise their thinking, and then demonstrate understanding through a choice-based evaluation.
Most importantly, I planned with the checklist in mind engagement and relevance were built through authentic dilemmas, differentiation was embedded through scaffolds and options for IEP/ELL support, cross-curricular links were planned explicitly, and SEL competencies were intentionally supported through norms and structured interaction. This reflection is therefore grounded in the planning decisions I made to design instruction that is meaningful, inclusive, and aligned with course expectations.
Section 05
My goal is a classroom where you feel safe to think, ask questions, disagree respectfully, and make mistakes while learning. We will build a community that is respectful, inclusive, and focused on growth. I will be consistent and fair, and I will always explain the “why” behind routines and expectations. When problems happen, we will solve them in a restorative way: repair harm, learn from it, and get back to learning.
| When | What You Do |
|---|---|
| Before you enter | Have materials ready. Phone away, come in calmly. |
| First 5 minutes | Do the warm-up/opening task quietly. Try first, then ask. |
| During Learning | Take notes, ask questions, work with a partner or group when asked, and show your thinking. |
| Group Work | Use roles and make sure every voice is heard. Disagree with ideas, not people. |
| Last 5 minutes | Complete an exit ticket or reflection. Pack up when dismissed, no lining up by the door. |
Sometimes group work can feel unfair if one person takes over or others get ignored. We prevent that with roles and ‘status checks’ so everyone has a chance to contribute.
| Role | What the Role Does |
|---|---|
| Facilitator | Keeps the group on task, invites quieter voices, asks ‘Do we all agree?’ |
| Recording/Board Writer | Writes the group’s thinking clearly, includes everyone’s ideas. |
| Skeptic/Reason Checker | Asks “Why?” and checks steps for errors or missing reasons. |
| Resource Manager | Gets materials, asks clarifying questions, manages time. |
| Reporter | Explains the group’s reasoning to the class, uses the group’s notes. |
Our rules are written as positives (what we do), not just what we avoid.
Conflict is normal. We handle it with respect and repair. If there is harm, we focus on impact, accountability, and making it right.
I will treat you with respect, teach you clearly, and support you when learning is challenging. You will show up, try, and help create a classroom where everyone can learn.
Section 06
For this assignment, you have the option of teaching a mini-lesson that follows the Madeline Hunter model or the 5E model. Templates for both are included below. Please fill in only one template and delete the other.
| Element of the Madeline Hunter Lesson Plan | Instructional Plan |
|---|---|
| 1. Anticipatory Set (Hook) | (Slide 2 – 2 min) Using the zoom chat feature students will respond to the following prompt: “A machine copies all your memories into a perfect copy. The original you remains alive. Which is you?” Options: Original, Copy, Both, Neither |
| 2. Objectives and Purpose | (Slide 3 – 1 min) Today we are learning how philosophers think about personal identity and practicing a key philosophical skill, breaking an argument into claims, reasons, assumptions, and adding a counterpoint. This will help us respond to real-life arguments clearly instead of just with our opinions |
| 3. Input (Instruction) |
(Slide 4 – 2 min) Argument breakdown tools:
Key Terms:
|
| 4. Modeling (Show Me) | (Slide 7 – 3 min) Display this argument on the slide and annotate it with the students ‘If you lose your memories, you’re not the same person because memories define who you are. Without memories, your personality and relationships change, so the ‘you’ after memory loss is a different person.’ Identifying claim, reason, assumption, counterpoint |
| 5. Checking for Understanding | |
| 6. Guided Practice (We Do) | (Slide 8 – 3 min) Display this argument on the slide and students use the zoom chat option to respond ‘You are the same person even if your memories change because you have the same body and brain. Your physical continuity is what makes you ‘you’ over time.’ |
| 7. Independent Practice (You Do) | (Slide 9 – 2 min) Exit Ticket In one sentence students respond using the zoom chatbox, ‘Are you the same person if your memories change?’ Using a claim and 1 reason they input their response into the chatbox |
| Before you teach the lesson | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Why did you select this specific formative assessment? Why do you believe it is an appropriate way to assess student learning of the standards and objectives? | As the lesson will be given through zoom I wanted to prioritize quick and direct feedback responses. The chat is the best way to optimize on time while still seeing where every student is in their comprehension. |
| What type(s) of data will you collect? (observational, discussion, graphic organizer, exit ticket, etc.). | The type of data that I will collect will be through the zoom chat box during the hook, the guided practice and the exit ticket response. |
| When analyzing the assessment data, how will you know if students have met the learning objectives? What evidence will you be looking for? What is the success criteria? |
Students meet the objective when they can accurately label the argument components and apply the correct identity lens. Success requires the following:
|
| Explain the alignment between the learning standard(s), objective(s), and assessment(s). | B3.1 requires students to use identity vocabulary such as personal identity, continuity and different lenses, this is assessed when students use the correct lens language in the assumptions and counterpoints. C3.2 requires analyzing and responding to everyday arguments. This is assessed directly through the chat task where students will identify claim, reason, assumption and generate a counterpoint. |
| Formative Assessment Data Analysis | |
|---|---|
| What does the assessment data tell you? What number/percentage of students seemed to have met the established learning objective(s)? | Based on the evidence collected during guided practice and the exit ticket, most students who responded were able to correctly identify the claim and at least on reason. Several students also identified an assumption and produced a counterpoint using the opposing identity lens correctly. |
| How do you know? Provide specific examples from the data if possible, referencing evidence based on the success criteria. | A successful example of a response that labeled all four elements accurately was by a student named Melanie Pet where she identified the following: Claim: You are the same person, even if your memories change Reason: You have the same body and brain Assumption: Your physical continuity is what makes you ‘you’ over time Counterpoint: Your memories are what make you ‘you’. However, it is important to note that some students were repeating the claim and reason, which indicates the need for one more quick distinction step. |
| Reflection | |
|---|---|
| How does this data inform the next lesson? | The next lesson should begin with a brief review that distinguishes claim, reason, and evidence using a simple non-philosophy example, then return to identity cases. Students are ready to deepen the philosophical content by applying both lenses to new thought experiments and defending their position with clearer assumptions. |
| What additional assistance, support, and/or resources would have better supported student learning? | A one-page organizer for claim, reason, assumption and counterpoint and sentence starters for assumptions. Also providing two quick exemplar answers, one being strong and another being weak would also help students self-correct. |
| How would I teach this lesson differently next time? | I would add a 20–30 second micro-example before modeling to reinforce claim vs. reason. I would require counterpoints to explicitly name the opposing lens, and include a quick revision of your assumption step after feedback so students improve precision in real time. |
Section 07
I walked into EDU 760 thinking, “Just tell me what you want and I’ll execute.” But every assignment kept asking the question I didn’t want to answer: “Why did you plan it that way?” That question kept opening doors.
This room was my comfort zone — checklists, structure, and clear requirements. But I realized I was sometimes planning good activities without building a strong chain of objective → task → proof. My CCA work forced the shift: not just “do an activity,” but define success criteria, teach the skill clearly, and collect evidence that actually matches the goal.
This room taught me classroom management isn’t just rules, it’s culture. Belonging, routines, respectful conflict resolution, student agency… those aren’t “extras.” They’re what makes learning possible. That’s why my classroom handbook focuses on routines and norms that students can actually follow, not just consequences.
This room had one message: “If the teacher is doing all the thinking, it’s not learning.” I grew by planning lessons where students do the thinking — argument analysis, inquiry tasks, stations, and structured discussion. Assessments became more meaningful because they showed patterns like students mixing claim and reason, which told me what to adjust next.
This room was the feedback wall. One note especially changed how I work: “Reflect on planning, not teaching.” That clarified what real reflection is: evidence-based self-assessment, considering alternative approaches, and making a concrete adjustment. My UDL passion project was the same cycle — learn, redesign, build resources, improve.
I didn’t leave this course with a perfect teacher identity. I left with something better: a process.
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a planning framework that helps teachers proactively design lessons to reduce barriers and increase access for all learners. UDL is not extra help after students struggle. Instead, it builds flexible options into the lesson from the start so students can engage with the content, access the ideas, and show what they know in more than one way.
In Grade 10 quadratics, barriers often appear as heavy symbol load, multi-step working memory demands, and pattern confusion. This toolkit shows how to keep the math rigorous while removing predictable access barriers.
Use this table during planning to predict barriers and choose UDL supports intentionally.
| Barrier | What It Looks Like | UDL Supports That Help |
|---|---|---|
| Symbol overload / language load | Students freeze when problems look too busy, misread symbols, or confuse terms such as factor/solve/root. | Pre-teach vocabulary + symbols sheet, color-coded steps, provide worked examples with annotation, allow oral rehearsal. |
| Working memory, multi-step process | Students skip steps or lose track, sign mistakes, or forget to set equation = 0. | Provide a step checklist, use partially filled notes, chunk problems, model decision points, use pause points. |
| Pattern confusion (trinomial types) | Students try random factor pairs; they do not connect product-sum logic. | Decision tree + factor pair table, use area model or algebra tiles option, provide ‘try these first’ strategy list. |
| Low confidence / math anxiety | Avoids attempting or shuts down after one mistake. | Low-floor warm-up, choice of practice sets, normalizing mistakes through error analysis, giving quick wins early. |
| Speed / processing differences | Some finish quickly, others still on step 1. | Tiered practice menu (A/B/C) with same goal, extension tasks for early finishers, teacher small-group support. |
| Time | Plan |
|---|---|
| Warm-up (10 min) | Three entry points: students choose — Area model/algebra tiles, Factor-pair table, Standard factoring. |
| Mini-lesson + modeling (15 min) | Teacher models decision process: GCF? Type of trinomial? Check by expanding. Introduce Zero Product Property by solving. |
| Guided practice (15 min) | Pairs complete 2 problems with organizer/checklist, teacher circulates and runs quick CFU. |
| Active learning: Error analysis (15 min) | Groups diagnose incorrect worked solutions, identify the error type and correct it with justification. |
| Independent practice (15 min) | Practice Choice Menu A/B/C (same target, different scaffolds). |
| Exit Ticket (10 min) | Students complete 1 exit ticket + 1 short reflection: “Which strategy helped you most today and why?” |
The toolkit includes four student handouts:
Three differentiated exit tickets (Supported, Standard, Challenge) with the same success criteria. Each includes a reflection prompt to build metacognition.