Understanding by Design (UbD) is an educational paradigm which suggests designing curriculum in reverse can lead to the development of deeper student understanding. It was developed by educators Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe and is a growing phenomenon within the field of education. The primary goal of UbD is student understanding of big ideas and applying them in practice across many disciplines and contexts. This is accomplished through “Backward Design”, a three stage process in which curriculum is designed in reverse. Teachers begin planning with the ultimate goal in mind, then deciding upon evidence necessary for proving student understanding of the ultimate goal, and finally planning the activities to drive students toward their ultimate goal (McTighe, 2010). UbD has its fair share of positive attributes as well as what some may consider negative ones concerning the paradigm. A more detailed look at UbD and its concept of Backward Design follows.
UbD begins with its stated primary goal which is the development and deepening of student understanding in terms of big, enduring ideas within the academic disciplines. In order to accomplish this, students need to demonstrate six facets of understanding: the capacity to explain, interpret, apply, shift perspective, empathize, and self-assess (McTighe, 2010). Student learning should focus on much more than memory for procedures and facts. The six facets of understanding are found at the hierarchical top of the Bloom’s Taxonomy pyramid. This is the desired target destination most educators feel students should perform at. The method for achieving this level of understanding is by designing a curriculum where goals, assessments, and lessons are interconnected (Wysocki, 2009). UbD’s authors feel “Backward Design” is the best method for developing such a curriculum.
“Backward Design” is a three stage process for developing curriculum. Stage One begins with determining what you want your students to know at the completion of the unit. Educators should keep in mind academic goals and standards, enduring ideas and essential questions to explore, and potential long-term application of these ideas and skills. The big ideas and essential questions should spark inquiry and discussion, require justification of opinions, and create meaningful connections with prior learning.
Once the big ideas and core skills have been identified, educators must determine what type of assessments and evidence will be necessary to achieve the desired results. In Stage Two educators will think about the aforementioned six facets of understanding and how they can be utilized as an assessment avenue for students to demonstrate their understanding. Each facet of understanding does not need to be represented in a single assessment method; however they should be represented across a continuum of assessment types. Assessments must be reliable, valid, practical and student friendly.
Stage Three is the final stage in designing the curriculum. After identifying the big ideas and core skills at the heart of the unit and determining the assessment evidence necessary to prove understanding, an educator now begins to develop a learning plan consisting of lessons, activities, and teaching methods to maximize student understanding of the unit’s big ideas and core skills. This is accomplished by carefully selecting activities which move students closer toward reaching the ultimate goals. Anything in conflict with the curriculum's big ideas and core skills should not be included(McTighe, 2010).
Backward Design in all three stages provides the opportunity to develop curriculum which drives students toward a deeper level of understanding because core skills and big ideas are well-defined and specifically targeted by the educator. Also vital to UbD is its continuous improvement model. Student work and achievement data needs to be reviewed regularly so targeted adjustments to the curriculum maybe performed if necessary. Feedback from students and peers is encouraged concerning the curriculum and promotes sharing of ideas and working collaboratively. Developing a curriculum through Backward Design is an ongoing process. Feedback and collaboration are forms of quality control which are necessary to avoid mistakes and disappointing results. UbD and Backward design can be applied to as much as a school's entire curriculum (McTighe, 2010).
Wiggins and McTighe contend that UbD is more effective than teaching approaches to delivering curriculum which are present in a majority of classrooms across the nation. “Textbook teaching” and “activity-oriented” teaching is diminished as a result of implementing UbD and its principles in developing curriculum. Engaging students in purposeful, reflective thinking and developing student self-awareness through such exercises are key elements central to UbD and are also lacking in classrooms today. UbD insures curriculum plans are aligned and focused on specific learning goals and objectives. The curriculum's ultimate goals are what drive learning and not daily lessons (McTighe, 2010).
Criticisms might include UbD narrowly defining its content and leaving no avenue for pursuing “teachable moments” outside of the meticulously designed curriculum. Designing curriculum itself in this manner is very difficult. With reflective thinking and self-awareness at its heart, UbD is very subjective in nature. Difficulty can arise when assessing students on their thoughts and feelings toward a topic. UbD also requires extensive professional development before its implementation which costs in terms of time and money. The amount of time and energy which is necessary for designing curriculum in such a manner as well as keeping it running effectively is daunting. Finally, critics argue taking time to train students to think critically and reflectively will drain away time from the central theme of the intended lessons (“6 Facets”, 2009).
I feel some of these criticisms are short-sighted. Devoting classroom instructional time to engage students with the practice of reflective thinking is beneficial to the students’ overall development. I doubt many teachers of any quality are going to ignore “teachable moments” in order not to deviate from the curriculum. Costs, time, and the amount of work necessary to successfully implement a curriculum designed with UbD’s principles are valid criticisms. The amount of time and energy one must devote to write a curriculum using Backward Design is substantial. Teachers will require professional development so they have an understanding of the process. Teachers will then have to deliver a curriculum focusing on reflective practices to students with little or no skills for it. These are very significant considerations and quite an investment on many levels; however if done correctly, the dividends should be more than worth the investment.
I believe that curriculum needs to be written to deliver learning experiences which will prepare students with deeper understanding of the world around them. UbD and Backward Design make this possible. Learning experiences developed which keep in mind UbD’s six facets of understanding are the types of skills students need to become future effective leaders in our society. I am very interested in using the concept of Backward Design along with UbD’s principles for student learning to develop my curriculum for the upcoming school year. I’ll be curious to revisit this writing at a future date to determine the validity of UbD’s perceived pros and cons. I feel confident the investment in time and energy will pay off for my students in terms of academic and personal growth as well as making me a more efficient and well-rounded educator.
Source material: McTighe, J. (2010, September). An introduction to understanding by design. Understanding by Design. Workshop conducted from Columbia, MD.
Wysocki, J. (2009, August 27). Ubd in a nutshell. Retrieved from http://prezi.com/k2j-lcgmgtzc/ubd-in-a-nutshell/
6 facets of understanding. (2009). Retrieved July 23, 2011, from http://edap688sum2009.wikispaces.com/++6+Facets+of+Understanding
Showing posts with label Curriculum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Curriculum. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Understanding by Design (UbD) and Backward Design
Data Driven Decision Making
Accountability is an exercise in hope. When we raise academic standards, children raise their academic sights. When children are regularly tested, teachers know where and how to improve. When scores are known to parents, parents are empowered to push for change. When accountability for our schools is real, the results for our children are real.
—U.S. President George W. Bush (US Department of Education, 2002a)
Data driven decision making (DDDM) is a buzzword often heard in education systems across the nation. DDDM is a process that consists of collecting data and using that data to inform and guide decisions to improve teaching and student learning. “Gut feelings” and teacher instincts are no longer enough to direct the curricula of today’s schools and maintain accountability. No Child Left Behind has presented schools with no other choice but to turn to DDDM to earn incentives and opportunities to improve their curriculum and student performance. DDDM is multi-faceted, in that, there are numerous types of data collected, many uses for the data collected, and a system that is required to make it effective in school districts.
School districts may collect a wide range of data to be used by the central office, administrators and teachers, all with different roles and perspectives in education. First, input data may identify school expenditures or demographics of the student population. Next, process data may provide reports such as financial operations or quality of teacher instruction within the schools. Thirdly, outcome data, which is most commonly used to drive curriculum design and classroom instruction, may be data that reports dropout rates or student test scores. Lastly, satisfaction data would discuss opinions from teachers, students, and parents/community members. These four types of data are systematically collected throughout the year to make decisions within a school district.
Once this large quantity of data is collected, it is said to then go through a cycle. Continuously collected, data is then organized and synthesized by a school leadership team. A leadership team eliminates a heavy load on any one person. Members may include board members, administration, technical specialists, curriculum supervisors, teachers and community members. After the data is collected, it will then be used to make a variety of decisions. Data can be used to inform, identify, or clarify. For example, decisions may be made about the effectiveness of practices within the classroom, the progress made towards goals, the reallocation of resources, or whether all students needs are being met. Most commonly, though, DDDM is being used to determine student present level of performance and what needs to happen to have them reach curriculum goals.
In addition, DDDM can be extremely helpful when identifying patterns of outcomes within a school district. DDDM can strengthen a school by pinpointing successes and challenges, and evaluating effectiveness of programs. DDDM provides accountability for schools, which is an advantage to implementing data driven decisions in a district. Ultimately, DDDM helps teachers to collaborate and work together when discussing the data collected within the classroom. This type of collaboration is what builds strong, empowered teachers, which in turn builds students who have a will to learn. Students are given appropriate opportunities to learn because differentiation of instruction and learning styles are identified by the data collected. Education is no longer about the “average” student. Through DDDM teachers can reach accelerated students as well as those below grade level.
As these are all extremely strong arguments for implementing DDDM in school districts, much is to be considered when administrators and teachers are asked to utilize DDDM. As the cycle indicates, it must be organized and synthesized. Too much data means too much time demanded. Just because the data is collected doesn’t mean that it is being used effectively.
Time and money are the largest factors when discussing DDDM. Following the data collection, there is a need for time to organize, synthesize and train teachers to utilize the data within their classrooms. Without proper training in these areas, data will go to waste. Curriculum guides pressure teachers to keep to a rigorous pace in their instruction. Teachers become concerned with instructional time used to administer assessments and then re-teaching, if the data so indicates it is needed. In addition, there is so much time needed to sift through data collected, it is possible that by the time that data is analyzed students have moved on to other grade levels. Even if there is a leadership team in place all members of the team have other duties and expectations within their jobs.
DDDM demands money. DDDM requires school districts to purchase testing systems, for example. Then consultants from the testing company come in to train administration and teachers to administer and then decipher the data that is reported. Often technical support is needed and a team is formed to maintain a culture which data can be worked through constructively. Time out of the classroom must then be granted to the team members that require substitutes teachers and training for them as well.
In conclusion, our culture supports the use of DDDM, not only in education but also in politics and business. When DDDM is implemented in an educational environment the purpose for data must be clearly stated, and there must be a trained team that can teach and be advocates for the data collected. The team then must revise the data and the system by which it was collected regularly, to keep the development of the school at best. Communication is a necessary piece to DDDM to assure that data is collected, organized, and synthesized on a regular basis and in a timely manner. Then, data can ideally be used to inform and guide decisions made to improve teaching and student learning.
—U.S. President George W. Bush (US Department of Education, 2002a)
Data driven decision making (DDDM) is a buzzword often heard in education systems across the nation. DDDM is a process that consists of collecting data and using that data to inform and guide decisions to improve teaching and student learning. “Gut feelings” and teacher instincts are no longer enough to direct the curricula of today’s schools and maintain accountability. No Child Left Behind has presented schools with no other choice but to turn to DDDM to earn incentives and opportunities to improve their curriculum and student performance. DDDM is multi-faceted, in that, there are numerous types of data collected, many uses for the data collected, and a system that is required to make it effective in school districts.
School districts may collect a wide range of data to be used by the central office, administrators and teachers, all with different roles and perspectives in education. First, input data may identify school expenditures or demographics of the student population. Next, process data may provide reports such as financial operations or quality of teacher instruction within the schools. Thirdly, outcome data, which is most commonly used to drive curriculum design and classroom instruction, may be data that reports dropout rates or student test scores. Lastly, satisfaction data would discuss opinions from teachers, students, and parents/community members. These four types of data are systematically collected throughout the year to make decisions within a school district.
Once this large quantity of data is collected, it is said to then go through a cycle. Continuously collected, data is then organized and synthesized by a school leadership team. A leadership team eliminates a heavy load on any one person. Members may include board members, administration, technical specialists, curriculum supervisors, teachers and community members. After the data is collected, it will then be used to make a variety of decisions. Data can be used to inform, identify, or clarify. For example, decisions may be made about the effectiveness of practices within the classroom, the progress made towards goals, the reallocation of resources, or whether all students needs are being met. Most commonly, though, DDDM is being used to determine student present level of performance and what needs to happen to have them reach curriculum goals.
In addition, DDDM can be extremely helpful when identifying patterns of outcomes within a school district. DDDM can strengthen a school by pinpointing successes and challenges, and evaluating effectiveness of programs. DDDM provides accountability for schools, which is an advantage to implementing data driven decisions in a district. Ultimately, DDDM helps teachers to collaborate and work together when discussing the data collected within the classroom. This type of collaboration is what builds strong, empowered teachers, which in turn builds students who have a will to learn. Students are given appropriate opportunities to learn because differentiation of instruction and learning styles are identified by the data collected. Education is no longer about the “average” student. Through DDDM teachers can reach accelerated students as well as those below grade level.
As these are all extremely strong arguments for implementing DDDM in school districts, much is to be considered when administrators and teachers are asked to utilize DDDM. As the cycle indicates, it must be organized and synthesized. Too much data means too much time demanded. Just because the data is collected doesn’t mean that it is being used effectively.
Time and money are the largest factors when discussing DDDM. Following the data collection, there is a need for time to organize, synthesize and train teachers to utilize the data within their classrooms. Without proper training in these areas, data will go to waste. Curriculum guides pressure teachers to keep to a rigorous pace in their instruction. Teachers become concerned with instructional time used to administer assessments and then re-teaching, if the data so indicates it is needed. In addition, there is so much time needed to sift through data collected, it is possible that by the time that data is analyzed students have moved on to other grade levels. Even if there is a leadership team in place all members of the team have other duties and expectations within their jobs.
DDDM demands money. DDDM requires school districts to purchase testing systems, for example. Then consultants from the testing company come in to train administration and teachers to administer and then decipher the data that is reported. Often technical support is needed and a team is formed to maintain a culture which data can be worked through constructively. Time out of the classroom must then be granted to the team members that require substitutes teachers and training for them as well.
In conclusion, our culture supports the use of DDDM, not only in education but also in politics and business. When DDDM is implemented in an educational environment the purpose for data must be clearly stated, and there must be a trained team that can teach and be advocates for the data collected. The team then must revise the data and the system by which it was collected regularly, to keep the development of the school at best. Communication is a necessary piece to DDDM to assure that data is collected, organized, and synthesized on a regular basis and in a timely manner. Then, data can ideally be used to inform and guide decisions made to improve teaching and student learning.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Global Inequalities, Instability, and Education
The article "Global Inequality and Instability" is a thought provoking essay which paints an alarming picture about the state of education today and its future. The authors, Allan and Jason Ornstein, propose education in the United States does not do an adequate job teaching students about truths concerning other countries in our world. The authors believe education in the United States does not prepare students to become future leaders who will help solve the problems facing our ever changing world. To illustrate their thoughts, the authors begin by travelling back in time to lay the foundation of their argument.
America's founding fathers and other educational theorists through time believed in the need to examine economic and social problems, moral choices, and controversial issues. Engaging in such activities would help strengthen democracy by preparing a populace of educated, thoughtful citizens. To accomplish this goal, they felt students should be active participants in their education. Students should raise questions and challenge teachers and textbooks. I believe this is what education should be all about.
Somewhere over the last one hundred years a shift occurred resulting in what the authors now consider is the "norm" for education. Today students are no longer active participants in their education. Students are rarely challenged in terms of critical thinking activities. Our educational system is not preparing students with the skills they'll need to help combat a world ripe with global inequalities. In fact, our educational system largely ignores discussion of global issues. If global issues are discussed, they are done through the lens of rose colored glasses with America's role sanitized in order to shine the best light upon it. Students are not being exposed to the festering anti-American sentiment which is spreading over the world. Attacks on perceived values and the American way of life are not debated for their merits. This all contributes to the authors’ contention that our schools are not preparing students to become global citizens.
The authors feel educational reform is necessary to help combat the issues in our evolving world. Today's students are going to become tomorrow's leaders. Students need to be challenged with curriculum that develops their critical thinking skills. The role of standardized testing and its importance hinders students. There is not enough time devoted to discussing these issues because teaching what is on the test takes precedence. Global issues need to be discussed in the classroom in order to expose students to the world around them. Existing curriculum does not introduce such concepts to students and thus students are largely ignorant to the world outside of the United States. Students are shielded from a world of growing inequalities and disdain for the United States and what it represents.
Students need to be challenged by their teachers. All too familiar is a teacher standing at the front of a classroom lecturing students from textbooks which do not address the real issues facing the world. Students are passive participants in their education. Critical thinking skills are underdeveloped; there is not enough questioning and debate about the world around them, their role in it, and collaboration with students from around the world about the issues facing them. Wouldn’t healthy debate with foreign students, whom may not agree with our values or way of life (and vice versa), help all parties involved gain insight about one another? I believe this type of activity is essential going forward if we truly want to broaden the minds of our youth in a manner which addresses global issues.
The authors argue today’s youth are self-absorbed individuals swimming in a media-driven cultural cesspool and have no capacity for hearing the cries of the impoverished in lands they could not locate on a map. Today’s youth are consumed with their own problems such as not getting a good enough parking space or having enough goat cheese on their salad. Can today’s youth truly relate to the genuine pain and suffering occurring in the world? How much of this is exaggerated perception and how much is reality?
Our world is changing and not for the better according to the authors. The divide between the “haves and “have nots” is widening at an alarming pace. The rich get richer. The poor struggle to escape what is known as the poverty trap, which is a repeating cycle that siphons away hope and any chance of prosperity for countries caught in it. Global poverty is increasing, yet nations in a position to help stem the tide are not completely altruistic when it comes to aid. Making wholesale changes to help others may jeopardize their standing in the world and they would also be discounting their own domestic problems in the process.
It is drummed into our subconscious that living in the 21st century means being part of a global economy, “a world without borders”, and how the future of communication and overall advancement is through technology. Our students are plugged into a myriad of multi-media devices, while all across the globe children are playing, sleeping, and living in squalid conditions. An obesity epidemic is engulfing the youth of America, while throughout the world there is famine which continues to become increasingly dire as the result of the third world population boom. All of this is not going unnoticed outside of the United States as anti-American sentiment is becoming more voluminous and violent. Even domestically, the gap is widening between the “have and have nots”; how long before unrest and violence erupts in the United States?
The authors conclude by stating they wish educational reform could be the solution to the world’s issues; however they feel the only real hope the world has to combat its issues will come in the form of political revolution, which they identify is also ripe with problems. The article paints a very dim future for our world in the years to come.
I am an optimist and also a realist. I feel there is no easy answer to solving the issues which created the world’s inequalities and instability. We live in a complex world with a multitude of influencing factors touching upon just about anything and everything one could imagine (e.g., age, education, ethnicity, gender, geography, politics, race, religion, history, wealth, food, culture, values). The issues existing in our world, whether viewed domestically or on a global scale, weren’t born overnight. They won’t be solved overnight either. I consider the article’s outlook to be extremely alarmist, which is not to say its indicators aren't rooted in reality. Suggesting what is set in motion cannot be combated at this point would be conceding defeat and how would that help? Education is key in the battle. Students must become active participants in their education while developing critical thinking skills through a dynamic curriculum which addresses global issues in a realistic manner and can be practically applied. Throughout history the human spirit has risen to the occasion to tackle overwhelming odds and overcome issues they were faced with. I am confident this generation and ones after it will do the same, but actions speak louder than words.
As I mentioned these are complex issues and ones which cannot be solved alone. We are all stakeholders in the future of humanity. I’d like to hear some of your thoughts on education’s role in combating global inequality and instability. I look forward to your thoughtful comments!
America's founding fathers and other educational theorists through time believed in the need to examine economic and social problems, moral choices, and controversial issues. Engaging in such activities would help strengthen democracy by preparing a populace of educated, thoughtful citizens. To accomplish this goal, they felt students should be active participants in their education. Students should raise questions and challenge teachers and textbooks. I believe this is what education should be all about.
Somewhere over the last one hundred years a shift occurred resulting in what the authors now consider is the "norm" for education. Today students are no longer active participants in their education. Students are rarely challenged in terms of critical thinking activities. Our educational system is not preparing students with the skills they'll need to help combat a world ripe with global inequalities. In fact, our educational system largely ignores discussion of global issues. If global issues are discussed, they are done through the lens of rose colored glasses with America's role sanitized in order to shine the best light upon it. Students are not being exposed to the festering anti-American sentiment which is spreading over the world. Attacks on perceived values and the American way of life are not debated for their merits. This all contributes to the authors’ contention that our schools are not preparing students to become global citizens.
The authors feel educational reform is necessary to help combat the issues in our evolving world. Today's students are going to become tomorrow's leaders. Students need to be challenged with curriculum that develops their critical thinking skills. The role of standardized testing and its importance hinders students. There is not enough time devoted to discussing these issues because teaching what is on the test takes precedence. Global issues need to be discussed in the classroom in order to expose students to the world around them. Existing curriculum does not introduce such concepts to students and thus students are largely ignorant to the world outside of the United States. Students are shielded from a world of growing inequalities and disdain for the United States and what it represents.
Students need to be challenged by their teachers. All too familiar is a teacher standing at the front of a classroom lecturing students from textbooks which do not address the real issues facing the world. Students are passive participants in their education. Critical thinking skills are underdeveloped; there is not enough questioning and debate about the world around them, their role in it, and collaboration with students from around the world about the issues facing them. Wouldn’t healthy debate with foreign students, whom may not agree with our values or way of life (and vice versa), help all parties involved gain insight about one another? I believe this type of activity is essential going forward if we truly want to broaden the minds of our youth in a manner which addresses global issues.
The authors argue today’s youth are self-absorbed individuals swimming in a media-driven cultural cesspool and have no capacity for hearing the cries of the impoverished in lands they could not locate on a map. Today’s youth are consumed with their own problems such as not getting a good enough parking space or having enough goat cheese on their salad. Can today’s youth truly relate to the genuine pain and suffering occurring in the world? How much of this is exaggerated perception and how much is reality?
Our world is changing and not for the better according to the authors. The divide between the “haves and “have nots” is widening at an alarming pace. The rich get richer. The poor struggle to escape what is known as the poverty trap, which is a repeating cycle that siphons away hope and any chance of prosperity for countries caught in it. Global poverty is increasing, yet nations in a position to help stem the tide are not completely altruistic when it comes to aid. Making wholesale changes to help others may jeopardize their standing in the world and they would also be discounting their own domestic problems in the process.
It is drummed into our subconscious that living in the 21st century means being part of a global economy, “a world without borders”, and how the future of communication and overall advancement is through technology. Our students are plugged into a myriad of multi-media devices, while all across the globe children are playing, sleeping, and living in squalid conditions. An obesity epidemic is engulfing the youth of America, while throughout the world there is famine which continues to become increasingly dire as the result of the third world population boom. All of this is not going unnoticed outside of the United States as anti-American sentiment is becoming more voluminous and violent. Even domestically, the gap is widening between the “have and have nots”; how long before unrest and violence erupts in the United States?
The authors conclude by stating they wish educational reform could be the solution to the world’s issues; however they feel the only real hope the world has to combat its issues will come in the form of political revolution, which they identify is also ripe with problems. The article paints a very dim future for our world in the years to come.
I am an optimist and also a realist. I feel there is no easy answer to solving the issues which created the world’s inequalities and instability. We live in a complex world with a multitude of influencing factors touching upon just about anything and everything one could imagine (e.g., age, education, ethnicity, gender, geography, politics, race, religion, history, wealth, food, culture, values). The issues existing in our world, whether viewed domestically or on a global scale, weren’t born overnight. They won’t be solved overnight either. I consider the article’s outlook to be extremely alarmist, which is not to say its indicators aren't rooted in reality. Suggesting what is set in motion cannot be combated at this point would be conceding defeat and how would that help? Education is key in the battle. Students must become active participants in their education while developing critical thinking skills through a dynamic curriculum which addresses global issues in a realistic manner and can be practically applied. Throughout history the human spirit has risen to the occasion to tackle overwhelming odds and overcome issues they were faced with. I am confident this generation and ones after it will do the same, but actions speak louder than words.
As I mentioned these are complex issues and ones which cannot be solved alone. We are all stakeholders in the future of humanity. I’d like to hear some of your thoughts on education’s role in combating global inequality and instability. I look forward to your thoughtful comments!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)