A major part of a teacher’s job is
to design lessons and curriculum in order to meet certain standards and
specific purposes. Backward design
is a means to start at the end or the goal and derive a curriculum from
there. The chapter states that
evidence comes from goals. Initially, this seemed counterintuitive, especially since it
is entitled “backward” design. It
did not seem like a process that comes naturally. But after thinking about the concept more, it makes
sense. When planning for a
vacation, you don’t plan the route before you pick where you are going. Teachers will have to make specific
goals and standards before they start to plan their unit. Because of this, teachers are able to
focus on these goals throughout the unit.
If a teacher understands exactly what he wants from his students and
where a unit is going, then the directions to his students will be clearer and
yield better results.
This also allows teachers to make
sure that every activity and lesson work toward the end goal. There is a lot of negative connotation
in the phrase “teaching to the test.”
If a teacher is planning a curriculum with an end goal in mind, is this
considered teaching to the test?
Do you see any limitations teachers might face if they are only teaching
to their end goal? On the other
hand, if a teacher does not use backward design, he can create a test based on
what he taught during the unit.
Which way do you think is more efficient and creates an effective
curriculum?
Great post Danielle,
ReplyDeleteMy opinion here might be bias since I have used the UbD and the backward design templates to design a unit plan before. Having said that, the template is really hard to use at first, but it really makes you think about the goal of your unit. It is also a nice way to make sure that everything in the unit connects.
As for your question about “teaching to the test” I do not think you are doing that when you use backward design, actually you are being as transparent as you can to your students. That’s because the template makes you think about the standard that you want to teach, the questions you need to ask to address that standard, the way your going to teach it, the way your going to asses understanding and the materials that you would use. At the beginning of the unit you write your standard on the board and move forward with your lesson. Reinforcing to students that everyone is working towards that end standard, making sure they understand that everything you do in class will help them complete that standard. Which to me is not teaching to the test, but being transparent about what the students should be able to do at the end of each unit.
Instead of thinking of it as teaching to the test, just say learning with a purpose. Every form of teaching can successfully use this model that provides a large goal to work towards and acknowledges Progress. This Process will help to ensure that you are not teaching lessons that are basically filler.
ReplyDeleteGreat post Danielle. Also, Dan I like how you suggest thinking of it as "learning with a purpose" as opposed to the more traditional, "teaching to the test." Often times a mere change in vocabulary can really offer a more positive view on something.
DeleteFurthermore, and as I know we've discussed multiple times in class, these readings only further the idea that as teachers we will need to be as flexible, open-minded and responsive as possible in the classroom. Obviously, if you start out with a new lesson plan, having used the Backwards Method, with a more goal-oriented path, you still have to be able to adapt to the needs of the students, should they change throughout the lesson. I do agree however that creating a lesson plan with large goals at the forefront of the lesson and then building backwards, can be an effective method to make sure you have a "purpose for learning" as Dan mentioned above. Once again, we just have to remember that if students needs/interests change along the path of the lesson, then we too as teachers have to modify/change our direction.
ReplyDeleteI feel as if the stigma of the phrase “teaching for the test” comes when the teaching material that is only important to know because it will be in a test. However, who is to say that a teacher cannot integrate higher thinking activities that will cover the standards required to learn. Most standards are too vague to help a teacher model an impactful lesson. In science, most of the standards that are chosen as “important” have a background that will be culturally irrelevant and not truly create higher thinking amongst students. For example, one of the NGSS standards for science curriculum is the conservation of matter. If you were to teach students this topic in efforts to just test for their knowledge, it would be a waste of time to introduce a lab that will cause your students further expand on the theory. However, this would be a great disservice to the critical minds of the mini-scientist you have in your classroom. One way I would approach this standard to promote higher level thinking would be an interdisciplinary lesson that involves mining of a resource that is scarce in the world. By allowing the students to further think of how this concept applies to the real world it not only promotes higher thinking but also covers a standard that is required to teach.
Danielle, I like your analogy connecting goal oriented instruction and driving toward a destination. I also like the questions you pose, and I will focus on the first one in my response. I don't think teaching to the test is necessarily synonymous with teaching with the test in mind. I think it is important to be cognizant of standardized testing when teaching, since--unfortunately--it does happen to be a large part of college admissions; however, the problem occurs when the test becomes the central focus of instruction. I think that building conceptual understanding, learning how to problem solve, etc. should be the focus of each lesson, and testing skills should be embedded into the lessons, so that students acquire those skills without making that the focal point.
ReplyDeleteGood job on your post Danielle. I for one am an advocate of the backward design model for instruction. I believe it lets you align each action taken in the classroom with a preset goal and standard in mind. Although this seems to align with “teaching to the test”, I feel they are two separate things. If the test is created in a manner that emphasizes the main ideas, topics, standards, and goals that will be present in the unit, this is backwards design. It just so happens purpose and an emphasis on teaching for understanding rather than a good grade.
ReplyDeleteI think the backwards design model explained in this reading has far too many pros to outweigh any cons. I do however feel that in order to implement this model successfully, you must remain true to your students and create your lessons around their needs while still keeping one eye on the target. Flexibility in instruction, educational activities, and time, I believe are key elements to using backwards design effectively.
When thinking of teaching to the test, I really only think of one type of assessment used to reflect students' understanding of the given material. On the other hand, when planning through backward design, a teacher has an opportunity to take the time to find and fit various forms of assessment into their unit that will cater to diverse learning styles and levels of understanding which, in turn, makes for a more effective curriculum and promotes deeper understanding for students. Through backwards design, teachers attention is more focused on the students and how they will retain information and develop understanding throughout. I never really read much about backwards design until this class, but after learning more about it in detail, I feel that it is a very efficient and effective way to plan curriculum as it can help us as teachers keep in mind througout our planning that there are multiple paths to understanding that are important to include in our diverse classrooms.
ReplyDeleteTo me, teaching to the test means teaching students to come up with specific conclusions. In a way, its like telling them the answers, rather than teaching them the process of coming up with their own solutions. They are memorizing, not learning. Therefore, you can never really measure how much a student has really learned, and what they have taken from the lessons. I think its important to have the goals in mind, and the end result in mind as the book suggests. Rather than teaching to the test, I think what’s more important is figuring out the mastery skills you want your students to achieve. For instance, this style is applied to the school I currently observe at, Benito Juarez. So for example, in the English 1 class for regular students, the first mastery of the first quarter is for student will be able to analyze. Hence the level of mastery is to understand and identify within a text (tone, POV, diction, imagery, etc). Hence learning experiences would include note taking, learning definitions of elements, ect. This way allows students to learn the skills that are needed in the test.
ReplyDeleteDanielle,
ReplyDeleteI can see you struggling to decide whether backwards design is truly the way to go. I feel the same way. Backwards design is good when you have an end goal in mind. It helps to narrow down activities you want to teach and what will be on the test. It is also more measurable to assess. However, as teachers, we all want our students to think outside the box and give us a different look or perspective at a subject that we never have thought about before. That cannot be done with backwards design, since there is a certain end result that you are looking for. I believe that what needs to be done, if backwards design in the way to go for you, is to make the end goal more flexible so that students can have open opinions and free flowing thoughts.
I believe teaching to the test refers to teaching to standardized tests. which is semi counter to backwards design. It focuses on "high stakes" testing that really only measures a very small part of what a student should learn or know, and is not an efficient mode of assessment, but because the bigger picture goals that is step 1 of backwards design tend to be 'well they have to pass these tests or they dont get into college or we look bad and we dont want to be held accountable' type cases. Backward design I think in its good intentions is meant to get teachers to focus beyond just the test and look at what they want their students to know and why. It also brings up the importance of accounting for different types of learners in the class, to me that includes sudents with different paths not just college readiness, which can be teh focus of many standards, standarized tests and other goals. In this regard backward design isn't necessarily teaching to the test if that is not the goal in mind, but rather it offers more flexibility in lesson design to teachers who don't feel that the goal of their students to be to score well on a standardized exam.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question I feel like it might have to be a mix of both. I believe it is good to have goals in mind while teaching and have those goals guide your instruction, however as I'm sure most of us will learn, lessons don't always go as planned. By the end of the semester you may realize you didn't teach exactly what or how you planned, therefore it may not be feasible to give that test you made in the beginning of the semester to your students.
ReplyDeleteA recurring theme that I hear often is that solid learning objectives written before a lesson make for clear assessment and goals.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, Danielle. Personally, I find the backward design approach to the development of curricula and instruction tremendously appealing. The feature of backward design that I find most attractive is the emphasis it necessarily places on big-picture thinking. Rather than allowing ourselves to become bogged down in the minutiae of complex ideas/concepts, we must always take care to operate from an understanding of the destinations at which we need our students to arrive. Of course, as others have suggested, even the best, most well-designed plans are likely to go off the rails. But, having already settled on the big-picture objectives a lesson or unit is intended to meet, we should be able to adjust in ways that will allow us to move forward without serious difficulty.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey Danielle,
ReplyDeleteI like your metaphor of planning a vacation, designing units towards an end goal is a lot like that I think. I do not really think that backwards planning is not like teaching to the test however. When I think of the phrase “teaching to the test,” I think of students not actually learning the material before they take the test, and just regurgitating the material that is on the study packet immediately on to the test. I can’t tell you how many science or math tests I took that when I immediately got the test I would fill the margins with the formulas I just learned even before looking at the test.
Hi Danielle,
ReplyDeleteAs to your question "Do you see any limitations teachers might face if they are only teaching to their end goal?" I think that you raise an important objection. What if, as I take your point to be, the end goal is merely to pass a test. The answer to your question, imho, is "no, the lesson objectives are not limiting and should always be the motor that drives the lesson" provided that the objectives you aim toward are good ones. The problem then is to select the most vital objectives, a problem that we all know is complicated by standardized tests and other impositions on purposeful lesson objectives. Adjustments are necessary and good as long as some other crucial objective becomes the new aim. As new teachers, I'm sure we'll all need to make adjustments to each individual class, and these adjustments will also help use to learn how to better plan the unit for the next academic year.
I think backwards design is naturally tailored to how we produce a lesson. Think about it- the first thing we do when planning a lesson is objectives, or thinking of the final outcome of what we want students to take from and learn from our lessons. Even in every day life, as Danielle you specify with your vacation metaphor, we think of our goals in life. It's only after we know what we want to do that we think of ways to get there. Sometimes, we never really find out until it's happening to us.
ReplyDeleteFor that reason, I think that when we are in the midst of creating lesson plans, the goal is always clear and we know what procedures we want to do to tend to that goal. It's not until after that we remember these standards that we are held to. However, what I've noticed is that by planning lessons that incorporate all we've learned in our teaching careers here at UIC, we end up incorporating some of these standards regardless. Everything is backwards, but instead of thinking that as counterintuitive, I actually think it is the natural way to do things. Thinking ahead, then moving after we've figured out where we want to go.
Good afternoon:
ReplyDeleteI do not find backward design as something that ought to cause the anxiety of "teaching to the test." Part of the reason for this lack of worry is for the real understanding that students will, regardless of the form, be called to put some type of knowledge to work in the course of their time in class. That is, they will be asked to build off their prior understandings of concepts in the service of producing some new formulation. Now this can take shape in the form of an essay, and it's usually the protocol in the English classroom for it to be such, but this does not mean, to me, that students ought not be able to demonstrate their learning through other modes of communication; oral exams, theatrical productions, cinematic productions, photo displays, and the like are all valuable forms in my opinion. I guess what I am getting at is the notion that "teaching to the test" should not be something that is viewed as inherently problematic. If we as educators desire to know if we have done our job and sparked some sort of inquisitive response in our students in relation to an object of knowledge, then we need some way of knowing that that took place outside of the students mere word that they are indeed "learning something," or that "they found 'x' interesting." In short, we need some sort of assessment.
I also like the vacation metaphor but it does bring up a question I have in regards to the backwards planning! If I'm planning a trip somewhere and am taking my students to the destination, I'm really not incorporating where they want to go! Sure, on the way to California, they may say let's stop at the Grand Canyon, and we do, but I've decided, as teacher, California is the end goal. I've created the itinerary and have the ultimate say as teacher. So my question is, how do we involve students in this process? How do we, as some have mentioned, change the destination along the way to benefit the needs of students, but still keep our required state standards as the primary end game. ( For the record, I like the backward design process, it allows for more critical thinking, but I do think our "hands are tied" somewhat in the overall process!
ReplyDeleteDanielle,
ReplyDeleteGreat post! Although it's important to remember that teachers can be--and most often are--"she"s too. :)
I really love backward design, mostly because it seems intuitive and practical. It was great to see the suggested templates in this chapter, as well as the suggestions on when it's okay/not okay to differentiate expectations. The fact that "desired results" should always be the same goes back to a discussion we had last week, with all students hoping to achieve the same end goal but taking different paths along the way.
Re: your question, "If a teacher is planning a curriculum with an end goal in mind, is this considered teaching to the test?" I don't think that is the case, because when you plan a curriculum with the goals in mind you are more just organizing your lessons/units purposefully and, like I said, practically. Students need to know WHY they are doing something, and how it will serve them. Using backward design makes it easier for teachers to show students why they are learning something. My mentor teacher keeps it simple--she does not put standards or objectives up on the whiteboard, but rather a simple question such as, "Why are we doing this?" and an answer (that connects to a CC Standard), "Because we need to learn the words to help us say what we mean." While students ideally will be able to demonstrate, eventually, their knowledge ON a test, they have also (ideally!) picked up the necessary skills and competencies along the way.
Backward design is about starting of with a goal and creating a plan to reach that goal. To me this is a good concept the reason why is I know where I'm going before I even start the unit/lesson. By starting of with the goal I can plan on how to get to the end.
ReplyDeleteI think goals can be hard for teachers to follow. Some lessons may be a success but others may have to be adapted to the students pace and ability. Teachers can never have set in stone lessons but a good lesson is one than can be modified for at anytime.
ReplyDelete