Understanding by
Design is an educational curriculum-planning tool developed by Grant Wiggins
and Jay McTighe. It is based on
backward design that intends to teach for understanding. In the most general sense the backward
design that Understanding by Design is based on involves creating a curriculum
based on what you want the learner to ultimately take away from what they are
taught in the long term. Wiggins’
and McTighe’s Understanding by Design (UbD) has been trademarked and published
by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. UbD is a rather popular handbook on in
American education, with teachers and universities alike utilizing and teaching
the program. Teachers and curriculum writers are thought of as coaches of
understanding and the “backward” development process ensures that text books
and lessons are used as resources not the curriculum itself.
More
specifically, UbD relies on the concept that learners will ultimately exhibit
the 6 aspects of understanding, which are that of explaining content,
interpreting content, applying content to different situations and contexts,
considering different perspectives, using knowledge to empathize, and having
self-knowledge about what one knows and how one learns. With that as a rather abstract and
subjective ideal, the backward design, otherwise known as backwards planning or
development, is rooted in an adaptation Bobbitt and Charters’ task analysis
model. Very simply put, a task
analysis model of curriculum starts with what is thought to be most important
for students to know by identifying more specific tasks needed to learn
academically or a task.
The
backward design model itself entails 3 stages. The first stage is to identify the desired outcomes- the
program goals. This stage has 3
more specific sub levels, the first of which is to consider goals in terms of
content standards; in New Jersey educators and curriculum writers would be the
hold the NJ core curriculum content standards as the overall general goal. The second level would be to then
consider the content, that which includes any skills, concepts, facts, ways of
thinking, etc that needs to be understood and mastered. Thirdly, stage one
involves a more detailed account of the content that will be taught, i.e. what
actual subject matter and courses.
As the text notes, the understanding that should occur at this sub-level
should be the enduring understanding matters- the main ideas that’s resonate
after details are forgotten.
Stage
two of the backwards design is the evaluation and assessment development so to
provide a means to provide evidence of learning and understanding. This is
where performance is measured through implementing assignments and projects,
tests and quizzes, discussions, etc in order to gauge that the goals and
content standards are being met.
The third and final stage of the backward design model is the
development of individual learning activities. This stage is where the lesson plans are developed and
particular facts and skills are taught for each subject area. Appropriate materials and the best
instructional methods should be considered here in this stage.
Throughout
the development of a curriculum using the UbD model, it seems practical and
realistic that the idea of understanding can be subjective to an extent and
parts of a curriculum can and should be tweaked and revised to better allow for
full understanding as the curriculum is being developed; It does not seem to be
a very rigid, one-size fits all template.
The UbD framework works best with the concept of essential questions
being answered throughout the development of the curriculum. Those essential questions should be
rather easy to pick out if a curriculum is well written and likewise answers
should be able understood by students if properly developed and implemented in
an environment conducive to learning.
This idea is what the creators of UbD call teaching for understanding.
Although
this model has its benefits, the creators Wiggins and McTighe warn about not
mistaking their Understanding by Design program as a cure-all for
underachieving curriculums nor it a philosophy of education, but rather a
system to be used with whatever educational philosophy of the educators. The authors also claim that their
design is conditional, meaning that if the aim of the educators is to have
students gain a fuller understanding of knowledge and material then this model
is suitable.
No comments:
Post a Comment