“Teaching is a means to an end. Having clear goals helps
us, as educators, to focus our planning and guide purposeful action towards the
intended results” (Wiggins & McTighe, 2007).
Understanding by
Design (UbD) is a framework and a toolkit of research-based practices created
by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe, two internationally recognized experts in the
field of curriculum, assessment, and teaching for understanding to help
educators “to promote understanding-based results for learning, expand the
range of assessment tools and processes they use to monitor achievement, and
enhance their design of instructional activities to promote high levels of
student achievement” (Brown, 2004). Educators that have worked closely with the
UbD framework recognize and appreciate its commonsense recommendations for
“unpacking curriculum standards; emphasizing students’ understanding, not just
formulaic recall; expanding assessment tools and repertoires to create a photo
album of student achievement instead of a snapshot; and incorporating the best
of what current research tells us about teaching for understanding to meet the
needs of all learners” (Brown, 2004).
According to Wiggins and McTighe, UbD is not a program or
“recipe for success.” UbD is a way to think purposefully about curricular
planning and school reform as it possesses helpful design tools and design
standards with understanding and the autonomous transfer of learning as its
ultimate goal. Evidence of this understanding is demonstrated through
performance. Teachers should no longer be seen as the “sage on the stage” but
are to be viewed as “coaches for understanding.” Effective planning is done
“backward” from the desired results and the transfer tasks that embody the
goals, mission, and vision of a school. Content standards are transformed into
focused learning targets based on “big ideas” and transfer tasks. This approach
reflects the desire for continuous improvement to design and learning.
The key to learning is understanding. Understanding is
our ability to be actively involved in the process of transferring what we have
learned thoughtfully and effectively to novel situations and problems, to have
it culminate in some new power and perspective that provides us with the
capacity to use content knowledge and skill in order to act wisely, decisively,
and effectively. “The UbD framework helps focus curriculum and teaching on the
development and deepening of student understanding and the transfer of learning”
(Wiggins & McTighe, 2007). The “Backward Design” framework reflects the
desire for continual improvement to student achievement and teacher
instruction. The focus offers a way to think more carefully about the design of
lessons as teachers are challenged to “think like an assessor” as a way to
clarify the results and evidence of those results before lesson planning
occurs. Students and teachers are encouraged to focus on “essential questions”
and “big ideas” related to the school’s mission, vision and content standards.
In doing so, teachers can overcome or avoid what Wiggins and McTighe refer to
as the “twin sins” of “superficial coverage” and “aimless activity.”
The Backward Design framework is based on three phases or
stages. The first stage, Identify the
Desired Results, focuses on reflecting on learning priorities as
performance goals are considered, established content standards are examined,
and curriculum expectations are reviewed. During this stage, educators reflect
on and identify the knowledge and skills that students should master in order
to ensure the “transfer of learning, meaning making, and acquisition of enduring
understandings” (Wiggins & McTighe, 2007). The second stage, Determine Assessment Evidence, is the
essence of Backward Design and alignment as it focuses on linking assessments to
the mission, curricular priorities, and content standards. During this stage,
it is critical to determine what evidence will be considered that demonstrates
student progress toward established learning goals and desired results.
Effective monitoring should incorporate a variety of assessment tools and
processes. It is during this stage that Wiggins and McTighe identify the Six
Facets of Understanding as a way to demonstrate genuine understanding. They
note that when a learner truly understands they become the teacher as they have
the ability to explain what they have learned in their own words. The learner
has the ability to interpret and apply what was learned in new and complex
texts. The learner also has the ability to demonstrate perspective, display empathy,
and has self-knowledge by expressing awareness through the use of reflective
practice and productive habits of mind. “A primary goal of teaching for
understanding should be the assurance that students can use their acquired
understandings and knowledge independently in real-world situations and
scenarios” (Brown, 2004). In the third stage, Plan Learning Experiences and Instruction, teachers design the most
appropriate lessons and learning activities that support the desired results
and incorporate planned assessments in order to address transfer, meaning
making, and acquisition. Seven core design principles for teaching have been
identified by Wiggins and McTighe as key design questions to be considered by
educators when planning learning activities using the acronym WHERETO.
“WHERETO: W = How will you help your students to know where they are headed, why
they are going there, and what ways
they will be evaluated along the way? H = How will you hook and engage staff and students’ interests and enthusiasm
through thought-provoking activities? E = What experiences will your provide to help students make their
understandings real and to equip all
learners for success? R = How will you cause students and staff to reflect, revisit, revise, and rethink? E = How will students express their understanding and engage in meaningful self-evaluation? T
= How will you tailor (differentiate)
your instruction to address the unique strengths and needs of every learner? O
= How will you organize learning
experiences so that students move from teacher-guided and concrete activities
to independent applications that emphasize growing conceptual understandings” (
Brown, 2004)?
Pros:
- UbD reflects what effective teachers do.
- UbD is practical and research-based.
- UbD focuses on enduring understandings and habits of mind.
- UbD causes teachers to reflect on the “why” as well as the “what” behind instruction.
- UbD provides opportunities for rich, collaborative, and reflective conversations between a faculty and the administration.
- UbD provides a guide for effective unit and lesson planning.
- UbD is a way for teachers to reclaim their creativity.
Cons:
- UbD is time consuming. Extensive professional development training for maximum effectiveness is essential. It cannot be a one day workshop without follow up or support.
- UbD is time consuming. The early stages of development and implementation can be very overwhelming.
- UbD requires “buy in” by the teachers. It may receive resistance as it can be viewed as another “flavor of the month” professional development experience.
- UbD may be viewed by some as overly complex in nature as people may not think in terms of “big ideas.”
- UbD requires breaking through the mind-set of traditional textbook or activity-driven lessons that offer “coverage of material to be tested.
- Cost of training and resources.
Understanding
by Design is a commonsense approach to teaching and learning and provides the
opportunity to confront and continually work to close the gap between the
mission, vision, and reality.
References
Brown, J. (2004). Making the most of understanding by design. Retrieved
from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/103110/chapters/Implementing-Understanding-by
Design@-A-Summary-of-Lessons-Learned.aspx
Wiggins, G., &
McTighe, J.(2007). Schooling by Design:
Mission, Action, and Achievement.
Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop.
No comments:
Post a Comment