Difference between revisions of "Backward course design"

From Diversifying Economic Quality: A Wiki for Instructors and Departments

Jump to: navigation, search
(Evidence)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 21: Line 21:
  
  
[http://hepg.org/her-home/issues/harvard-educational-review-volume-71-issue-4/herbooknote/the-teaching-gap_99 Stigler and Hiebert (1999)] analyze a video study of 8th grade mathematics classes in Germany, Japan, and the U.S. The researchers found differences in instructional design between the countries concluding that Japanese teachers' goal was to help students understand mathematical concepts whereas U.S. teachers' goal was to teach students how to do something. The authors suggest that this is a possible reason for the underperformance of American students in mathematics internationally. This "pursuit of deep understanding of core ideas" is indicative of Japanese students' superior grasp on mathematics. This same pursuit is what is advocated for in backward course design, to pursue broad learning goals and not just subject material.  
+
[http://hepg.org/her-home/issues/harvard-educational-review-volume-71-issue-4/herbooknote/the-teaching-gap_99 Stigler and Hiebert (1999)] analyze a video study of 8th grade mathematics classes in Germany, Japan, and the U.S. The researchers found differences in instructional design between the countries concluding that Japanese teachers' goal was to help students understand mathematical concepts whereas U.S. teachers' goal was to teach students how to do something. The authors suggest that this is a possible reason for the underperformance of American students in mathematics internationally. This "pursuit of deep understanding of core ideas" is indicative of Japanese students' superior grasp on mathematics (Young 2005). This same pursuit is what is advocated for in backward course design, to pursue broad learning goals and not just subject material.  
  
  
Line 50: Line 50:
  
 
== Conclusion ==
 
== Conclusion ==
 +
There are few research studies that examine the impacts of backward course design but the existing literature points towards generally positive results. Nevertheless there are various studies that investigate the components of backward course design such as interactive lecturing, [[Inquiry-based learning|inquiry-based learning]], and [[Inclusive communication|inclusive communication]]. There is much need for further research on backward course design.
  
  

Latest revision as of 14:34, 17 July 2015

flickr.com Link: https://flic.kr/p/4k2jBh

Backward course design is a method of designing educational curriculum by setting learning goals for students and then planning appropriate assessment methods followed by learning activities. This is contrasted with traditional course design where textbooks and learning activities are chosen first to create a syllabus without identifying learning goals. Backward design was first introduced to curriculum design in 1998 by McTighe and Wiggins. See Wiggins' website.


The central idea in backward course design is to "teach toward the "end point" or learning goals" whereas in traditional course design there is "no formal destination identified before the journey begins." [1] This gives backward course design a stronger direction with an end goal in sight.

Traditional vs backward.jpg


Traditional course design is instructor-centered, it focuses on the topics that the instructor chooses to lecture on and "gives students little information about the level of understanding they should strive for or the skills they are to learn" (Wood, 2009). In contrast, backward course design is student-centered; learning goals explicitly describe what the student should accomplish by the end of the course and informs students of the true essence of the course.


Evidence

Newmann and Wehlage (1995) examined the relationship between student learning outcomes and understanding-based instructional practices called "authentic pedagogy." McTighe and Sief (2003) reference that authentic pedagogy and its assessments support the principles of Understanding by Design (as cited in Noble 2011). Researchers focused only on social studies and mathematics and gathered data by observing classes, reviewing assessments, and analyzing student work products (Young 2005). The results showed that authentic pedagogy boosted academic performance of students across all grade levels in elementary school, middle school, and high school. Furthermore the study revealed that achievement benefits were equitable and equally improved the performance of students from minority backgrounds. Refer to Newmann's book for more information.


Similarly Smith, Lee, and Newmann (2001) investigate the relationship between forms of instruction and learning in elementary school in Chicago. They focused on didactic lecturing and interactive lecturing. Didactic lecturing similar to traditional course design is teacher-centric where the "teacher functions as the main source of knowledge - the expert" whereas interactive lecturing, like backward course design, is student-centric where the teacher acts as a facilitator prompting students to ask questions, pose problems, and communicate thoughts. The results indicated that interactive lecturing had positive gains in achievement after one year whereas didactic lecturing had negative impact.


Stigler and Hiebert (1999) analyze a video study of 8th grade mathematics classes in Germany, Japan, and the U.S. The researchers found differences in instructional design between the countries concluding that Japanese teachers' goal was to help students understand mathematical concepts whereas U.S. teachers' goal was to teach students how to do something. The authors suggest that this is a possible reason for the underperformance of American students in mathematics internationally. This "pursuit of deep understanding of core ideas" is indicative of Japanese students' superior grasp on mathematics (Young 2005). This same pursuit is what is advocated for in backward course design, to pursue broad learning goals and not just subject material.


Childre, Sands, and Pope (2009) discuss the implications of backward design in two classroom environments. In a second grade classroom, the general and special education teacher chose to implement it in social studies and language arts. With the backward course design approach students who normally did not participate eagerly engaged in the activities and performance increased for all students, with and without disabilities. In the high school classroom the backward design approach "facilitated the equal participation of students with disabilities in all aspects of the classroom learning community." While traditional approaches fail to engage students with disabilities, the backward design approach makes learning meaningful for all students.

Examples

McTighe and Wiggins (2012) demonstrate a simple framework to guide curriculum, assessment, and instruction. Identifying learning goals are critical in this process especially to focus on "transfer of learning." In this framework factual knowledge and skills are not taught for their own sake but as a means to achieve "transfer of learning," the ability to apply what they learned to other aspects of their life. For example: applying mathematical knowledge, skill, and reasoning to solve real-world problems.


Advantages: [2]

  • Students are less likely to become overwhelmed by the factual details missing the entire point of the topic.
  • Instruction focuses on the overall outcome of the course and not individual lesson plans, daily lessons can be constructed with regards to the learning goals.
  • Assessment is designed before lesson plans and so instruction is focused on equipping students with the necessary tools for the assignment, which are in line with the essence of what students need to know.

How to

Grant and McTighe (2010) offer a 3-stage design process for backward course design.

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
What long-term learning goals are sought after? What performances and assignments will reveal evidence of targeted knowledge? What activities and lessons will lead to the achievement of results in stage 1 and success at assessments in stage 2?
What essential concepts will students be required to explore in the course? What criteria will be used to assess performance in light of the desired results from stage 1 How will the course be structured and sequenced to optimize time and achievement?
What factual knowledge and skills should students acquire from the course? What other evidence (quizzes, problem sets, presentations) will be collected to achieve desired results? How can the course be tailored to the different needs, abilities, and interests of students?

Conclusion

There are few research studies that examine the impacts of backward course design but the existing literature points towards generally positive results. Nevertheless there are various studies that investigate the components of backward course design such as interactive lecturing, inquiry-based learning, and inclusive communication. There is much need for further research on backward course design.