Backward Design

The Backward Design keeps the 'light bulb' moment in mind.

One of the things that I love most about teaching is the 'a-ha' moment, the instance when an idea or concept finally 'clicks' and the light bulb switches on in a child's mind. It's energizing and motivating to me as a teacher and I always try and thinks of ways to generate light bulb moments in my classroom. The backward design makes me think about how make those light bulbs turn on. The brain is the light bulb, but how do I make the light bulb work? Follow me through the light bulb analogy.

I need a source of electricity (battery). The resources and materials will be used to provide the instruction. This makes the teacher seek out what is available and be creative in generating a plan. What types of electric sources can be used - batteries, solar powered, outlets, a lemon? The resources operationalize curriculum objectives and brings them to life by providing evidence of what they've learned through assessments (formal and informal), discussions, projects, etc.

I need a circuit board (or copper wire) to conduct the electricity. The teacher is the conductor; s/he provides the paths necessary to achieve the desired objective - understanding. There may be several pathways to facilitates learning, and the strongest pathways overlap. Overlapping subjects, or integration, is very powerful for student learning in that it helps students make connections between subjects, thus, strengthening understanding.

Backward design makes teaching purposeful. With a goal in mind, teachers can think about what steps need to be taken in order to reach that goal.

Identify desired outcomes --> Determine acceptable evidence --> Plan learning experiences and instruction.

How does it compare to traditional design?

The traditional design often focuses on the teaching rather than the learning, input as opposed to output (15). In the backward design model, the function table is reversed; output or end result is given and the teacher must figure out what to input in order to research the desired outcome. Traditional teaching often has a content-focused design, while the backward design is results-focused.

WHY does it feel unnatural? Or is this always the way you’ve planned?

This format forces teachers to think about the end result - what essential skills and concepts do you want the students to have after completing the lesson(s)? It helps me to better design lessons as units of instruction as opposed to isolated activities. It lends itself well to integration because it is multi-faceted; you start with the big ideas and essential questions and you work your way backward by adding layers of skills from related subjects to better help students see the big picture.

"Though considerations about what to teach and how to teach it may dominate our thinking as a matter of habit, the challenge is to focus first on the desired learnings from which appropriate teaching will logically follow" (14). It makes teachers shift our thinking from instruction that leads to desired understanding to the desired understanding that informs instruction (instruction --> understanding to understanding --> instruction). Before starting my graduate coursework, I was guilty of thinking about what I will teach and how I will teach it. The resources I was given helped to define what I would teach. I was very much involved in the creative aspects of teaching Now, with the help of my graduate studies, professional development, and teaching experiences, I can honestly say that I start with the objectives in mind and then identify the resources and experiences that would help the students understand the objectives. I am better able to craft, identify, and implement lessons that help students understand the NCSCOS. This is especially important because with the implementation of CMAPP (Wake County's instructional map that all educators are required to utilize to plan instruction), it makes me justify why I may choose to deviate from the specific lesson listed and instead implement a lesson that may be better suited for my students in understanding the objective.

Of course, I still have plenty of room for growth in this area; now that I have objectives at the forefront, my challenge is to think of the assessment more often before designing instruction. As a grade level, my third grade team is working to establish more common assessments as the level of understanding maybe different within each classroom. But this is delicate when it comes to standardized tests such as EOGs; it doesn't benefit students to teach to the test.

References: Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.