Laura Schilly

Sometimes I have my best ideas in the car on my way in to work. Honestly, it may be something that I will use next week, but I’ve been known to scrap whatever else was planned if NPR sparked some idea that morning. Now that I’ve taken the time to use two different models (Fink’s taxonomy and McTighe’s Understanding by Design) to design a course/unit backwards, I see the error in my ways (I’m not saying I’ll change completely!) But I am left wondering how often I commit one of the twin sins (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). Just because some activity is fun, doesn’t mean it’s engaging the students’ minds. And, how often I am covering material just for the sake of covering material? After the last two weeks of really taking the time to explore course design, I’m left with the nagging feeling of examining quite a few units.

 

 

Building a course “backwards” makes complete sense.  I’ve never set out to remodel a bathroom without a clear end goal in mind. Why would I treat teaching any differently? Fink’s 3 column table (which can be seen here) works best for the big picture – or a semester long course. The UbD template asks for a bit more focus which is extremely helpful when fine-tuning smaller units. What I love about both models is that it forces me to run everything through a check and balance of sorts. Everything ultimately has to match up with the goals; there is no room for aimless coverage or fun for the sake of it.  Below is my backward design for a unit that asks students to (Re)Imagine the Norms – a perfect topic as I continue with my coursework in order to challenge the norms of education with innovation.

​

 

UbD Template 2.0 “(Re)Imagining the Norm”