Backward Design

Have you adopted Farrel's backwards planning model as a teacher in planning lessons? Does it help align written curriculum, taught curriculum and assessment? Why and why not? Think about the indicators that matter most to you - how do you plan to evaluate the classroom culture and teaching effectiveness in the future? 

   I do follow several elements of the backward design model in my lessons. After deciding the student objectives for the unit, I come up with an assessment, and then a learning plan so that students can meet those objectives. I create these learning plans based on aspects of the objectives. Typically I like the students to do tasks by using the 'ripple' strategy. That is, first, they do the task individually, then they go over what they have done with a partner, and finally, we share with the whole class. By doing it this way, students have the opportunity to do a task their own way before hearing the ideas of others. For the summative assessment, I will take the objectives that have been done formatively and create an assignment where students need to transfer their ideas into a new context. Based on how they do with the transfer task, I can decide which objectives should take priority in the next lesson or unit. 

  I definitely think using this method helps to align the written curriculum, taught curriculum, and assessments.  When planning out a lesson or a unit, it is easy to lose sight of the objectives based on what would be something fun or interesting for the students. Of course, the teacher should aim for engaging and interesting activities for the students, but these activities must be grounded in the unit objectives. If the teacher has the students complete a task that is not relevant to the objectives, this could lead to some confusion among the students. Students must know why they are doing a task, and if the task is being done with nothing in the curriculum grounding it, they may get lost. 

  In my opinion, the application aspect of Ferrel's backward design model is the most important. If a student can show the objectives in a novel situation, we can be more sure that they are showing real understanding and not superficial replication. I also like to use Wiggins', Wiggins', and McTighe's facets of understanding in formative and summative assessments to be confident that students are understanding the objectives. If a student can take a new situation and transfer their understanding with explanation, interpretation, application, perspective, empathy, and self-knowledge, I can be confident that they are truly understanding the material. I find it fairly easy to make transfer tasks, though they are often not authentic. To come up with an authentic real-world task that can be used as a summative assessment is often difficult. 

  I am currently working in an IB school where the objectives are created for the teachers. The objectives are broken down into four categories, A, B, C, and D. Each category has multiple strands of objectives attached to it. We are expected to cover each strand of each category two times each academic year. Within this framework, I have quite a bit of freedom. The strands are extremely vague and can apply to a number of different topics. I try to pick topics that fit with AERO Common Core standards to be sure that my units have merit. I then think of a summative assessment that accurately assesses each strand of the category and the AERO standards. This can sometimes be tricky as the objectives do not always fit well together. I do not like to do this, but if I am having a really hard time fitting everything together, I will create two different summative assessments that hit each of the categories. After this has been done, I develop the day-to-day lessons. To create these lessons, I use each category strand individually. For example, one of the strands for my Individuals & Societies class is about discussing theories. I fit this into the AERO standard which is about understanding different economic systems. As a lesson, I had students create a podcast where they discuss the pros and cons of capitalism and communism. I feel like planning everything like this sets up a solid unit that does everything that it is supposed to do. 

Wiggins, G., Wiggins, G.P. and McTighe, J., 2005. Understanding by design. Ascd.