Understanding By Design

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.

Understanding by Design relies on what Wiggins and McTighe call "backward design" (also known as "backwards planning"). Teachers, according to UbD proponents, traditionally start curriculum planning with activities and textbooks instead of identifying classroom learning goals and planning towards that goal. In backward design, the teacher starts with classroom outcomes and then plans the curriculum, choosing activities and materials that help determine student ability and foster student learning. The backward design approach has three stages. Stage 1 is identification of desired results for students. This may use content standards, common core or state standards. Stage 1 defines "Students will understand that..." and lists essential questions that will guide the learner to understanding. Stage 2 is assessing learning strategies. Stage 3 is listing the learning activities that will lead students to your desired results.

In this model, there is no mystery as to performance goals or standards. Diagnostic assessments check for prior knowledge, skill level, and misconceptions. Students demonstrate their understanding through real-world applications (i.e., genuine use of knowledge and skills, tangible product, target audience). Assessment methods are matched to achievement targets. Ongoing, timely, and descriptive feedback is provided. Learners have opportunities for trial and error, reflection, and revision. Self-assessment is expected and encouraged.

This model became largely used because it provides clear learning goals and transparent expectations. It cast learning goals in terms of specific and meaningful performance. It has also frame the work around genuine issues/questions/problems. It show models or exemplars of expected performance and thinking.

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).