Backward Design: Overview

As an adjunct professor for Buena Vista University, I was invited to take a one-unit course on Understanding by Design. The School of Education at BVU has a new program for undergrad teacher candidates that is heavily influenced by backward design.

The first unit in this course is an Overview of Backward Design by Wiggins and McTighe. I’m excited to finally really learn Understanding by Design.

Background

Over ten years ago, I was part of the Intel Teach to the Future program. It was an amazing professional development opportunity where I was first introduced to the idea of Essential Questions. I remember spending hours poring over the proper wording of the essential question I was to write about the rocks and minerals unit I was creating. My question was something like “What good are rocks?” I remember at the time wondering if the topic was even “essential question” worthy. It was hard to find people to talk to who “got” the essential question concept. Now, all these years later I’m ashamed to say, it’s still a fuzzy concept for me. I never fought through the then-new Understanding by Design process.

During the past two years my junior high classes have become much more student-centered. As a result, I love teaching more than ever, and it makes more sense to me! However, lately I have come to see that I swung to an extreme and need to bring back a bit more structure, perhaps more rigor and clarity in my objectives. When Barb Kruthoff invited me to take this course to help me be a better adjunct professor, I jumped at the chance. Here is the journal of my learning from the first unit of study.

Journal of Learning

I believe traditional planning does start with the why. When I became a teacher in the 1980s, the oldest version of a lesson plan I’ve ever used started with Objectives. Theoretically, we should always ask why we are teaching something. After objectives, then it went on to include anticipatory set, materials, procedure, modeling, checking for understanding, guided practice, independent practice, closure, evaluation. Any lesson planning template is pretty much some combination of these parts, and always starting with the objectives.

Now, I realize that many of the lesson plans I’ve created, written, stolen, observed do not start with the why. Oftentimes, the cool or favorite activity is chosen and the standard that fits is written in later.

However, Wiggins and McTighe have changed this. The Understanding by Design process is heavy on Stage 1, the desired results. What do we want the learners to know and be able to do? What are the big ideas, the ideas worthy of connecting with other subjects, the major themes, and so forth that we truly want them to understand? What I’m realizing is this stage has to be hammered out before the activities are chosen.

Stage 2 is about how to assess understanding. What will we do to gather evidence of learning? Finally, the learning plan is developed.

CC image by Ben Sutherland

I have been guilty of the twin sins of “aimless activity” and “superficial coverage.” According to Understanding by Design, the long term goal of education is not content mastery, but the ability to use and extend content effectively, which is another way to describe understanding.

Extremely helpful in this lesson was the example of a before and after third grade pioneer unit. The before unit was full of “fun” activities that helped students experience a few activities that pioneers experienced, like churning butter and writing with a quill pen. The objectives were not clarified, and, though fun, the unit did not hold up when put to the Understanding by Design test.

In the after pioneer unit, there were big questions asked like, “Why do people move?” and “What is pioneer spirit?”

Both my junior high and my college undergraduate courses can benefit from what I learn about true understanding and how to design units with the end of understanding in sight.

As I said, I’m guilty of the twin sins. I am also guilty of doing activities without properly doing the hard work of WHY and how will I assess  to know if students really understand. I’m looking forward to learning more.

 

 

ASSIGNMENT: Analyze the difference between traditional planning and ‘backward design’ by comparing and contrasting the two. Also include in your written response how the key features of ‘backward design’ can be implemented in your own classroom or that of those you supervise (university supervisors).

Hope, Engagement, Well-Being, and Genius Hour

I happened to see a tweet from @mrstg recently. She had retweeted @bundtjd message below:


There was “much to think about from this presentation” by Brandon Busteed, education director of Gallup. In the speech, he addresses business leaders about the future of education.

Early in the speech he asked the listeners what they remember about their best teacher. According to people surveyed, teachers care about us. In addition, they know what makes each of their students tick, so they individualize for their students. They are also relational. These are the important things people think of when they think of the teachers that made a difference to them.

He says we neutralize the best teachers because we continually take away their ability and time to care, individualize, and relate. We ask teachers to meet different objectives — those measured by standardized tests, rather than care, individualization and relationships.

The future of education is not about knowledge. We can’t compete on knowledge. “The cost of knowledge is trending toward free,” Busteed said. For instance, MIT’s courses are all available online for FREE. Though you can’t get a degree by taking them, you certainly have access to all the knowledge.

If we want students to be successful, we don’t drive them toward success by working on standardized tests only. In fact, there is a negative correlation in the 30 or so countries that took both the GEM (Global Entrepreneurship Measure) and PISA (Program for International Standardized Assessment) tests.

Schools with an over-emphasis on standardized tests neutralize entrepreneurial spirit. Many entrepreneurs and innovators drop out of school or college because of that — Mark Zuckerberg, John D. Rockefeller, Oprah Winfrey, Thomas Edison, Walt Disney, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Ellen DeGeneres, Ted Turner to name a few.

According to Busteed, standardized tests can only account for one-third of the success of our students. Hope, he says, is actually a strategy when it comes to school success. We can help students have hope.

As educators we need to get out of the knowledge business and into the learning business. Busteed goes on to say that hope, engagement and well-being account for as much as one-third of the variance in student success. (That’s one-third — the same as standardized tests!)

We can take at least some of our time to give students choice in what they are doing in school.  Genius hour gives students (and educators) hope, engagement and well-being. Read what Melina, a high school senior, says about this kind of learning:

Read more of Melina’s beautiful words on her blog post.

In this age where knowledge is ubiquitous, and no longer belongs to the teacher to dispense during lessons, school needs to change. We need to inspire students to become lifelong learners. Genius hour can begin to do that.

Busteed suggests students have these three rights. They should be able to come into school every single day and say YES to:

Brandon Busteed said every student should be able to say YES to these.

Would your students be able to say YES to those rights?
Don’t we owe it to them to let them say YES?