Understanding by Design Versus Traditional Curriculum Development

Part: 1 Explanation and discussion of the curriculum design and development process currently used in Australian Secondary schools.

Today’s education system is challenged with creating and incorporating the most effective and meaningful methodological and conceptual curriculum designs to date. One of the key challenges is to design curriculums that facilitate understanding, retention, and generalization (Bulgren, Deshler, & Lenz, 2007, p. 121-122). However, there is no single way to overcome these challenges due to the variances and complexities within each content area. These, along with the demands of meeting high stakes testing, and the endless revolving door of performance standards, places teachers in a constant state of turmoil as they seek to create coexistence between student achievement and rigorous and challenging standards. One strategy being implemented

Curriculum, as stated by Glickman (2014) “is the what of instruction”. Additionally, Ornstein and Hunkins, (as cited by Glickman, Gordon and Ross-Gordon, 2014) have listed the elements of the curriculum and they “are sequence and continuity, scope and balance”. The mastery with which a teacher can incorporate the elements of the curriculum in instruction is categorized by levels. The levels of teacher involvement in curriculum implementation are described and exemplfied

How have you organized your program to enable student learning of all grade-level curriculum expectations?

Beginning with an end in mind, both standards start off detailing what students should be able to know and do in each art discipline, an outcomes-based approach. (#)Both standards explain that Jay McTighe’s and Grant Wiggins’s framework Understanding by Design(UbD) was the basis for their standards. The writers National Arts Standards even obtained McTighe’s assistance in the development in their standards and assessments. Both standards also offer educators suggested assessments that align with their objectives; however they differ in the components

Although not a new idea, the deliberate use of backward design for planning curriculum units and courses results in more clearly defined goals, more appropriate assessments, more tightly aligned lessons, and more purposeful teaching.

UDL is a set of principles for lesson design that gives all students equal opportunities to learn. UDL focuses on three core principles, representation, expression, and engagement. These principles are used to help teachers design motivating and engaging lessons that increase the participation of all students, especially those with special needs. It involves “how to teach the content to make it accessible (representation), how students will show what they learned (expression), and how to motivate all students to do their best work (engagement)” (Spencer, 2011, p.11).

The National Curriculum has some resemblance towards the Objectives Model established by Ralph. W. Tyler in 1949 (Brady & Kennedy, 2010) whereas the curriculum is designed answering 4 key questions. Tyler’s Objectives model involves establishing the objectives or aims, stating the experiences or structure of the learning activities, implementation of the objectives and the assessment and evaluation of the learning activities/objectives. Tyler (as cited in Brady & Kennedy, 2010, pg.207) believes ‘evaluation is also a continuing process. Feedback may lead to a

As educators, we are responsible for enlightening, motivating, engaging and teaching our students. Indeed, this responsibility

Additionally, I have also learned from the class discussion that there are other alternative assessments or assessment options in having students realize meaningful objectives about not only what they have learned from what is being taught, but also how they can investigate deeper into pursuing from the opportunities from what they have learned. One example was with the group that I participated in doing a test analysis of the Brigance Transition Skills Activities. From analyzing this set of materials, our group uncovered that this assessment (if one was to call it that) served not so much in having students demonstrate what they have learned in translating to various measurements academic achievement or status of learning comprehension so much as to have available for the instructor an organized curriculum designed to help

Perhaps best known for his Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (1956), learning theorist Benjamin Bloom spent much of his life devoted to helping others see “education as an exercise in optimism” (Eisner, 2000) through the work he performed. In his work as a university examiner Bloom wanted to have more reliable procedures for assessing students and the outcomes of educational practices (Eisner, 2000). This need resulted in his Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Handbook 1 in the Cognitive Domain (1956) to be used in the preparation of evaluation materials. Bloom’s Taxonomy examines cognitive operations and orders them into six increasingly complex levels, with each level dependent on the student’s ability to perform at the levels that precede it (Eisner, 2000). These levels of cognition, from simple to most complex are as follows: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Bloom, 1956). Today Bloom’s Taxonomy is not just for university examiners; undergraduate and graduate students in education study this taxonomy so that as teachers they may better assist those they teach to reach the most complex levels of cognition in their studies and demonstrate true understanding.

In order to incorporate UbD and DI as a partnership in my school, I would first want to find out what my teachers know about UbD and DI. According to Tomlinson, (2001), differentiation is matching your instructional approach to the needs and interest of every student”. UbD is focused on what and how educators teach. I need my educators to know and understand UbD and DI is the perfect framework to combine together.

The big idea of this type of curriculum design is to focus on creating a curriculum that focuses on teaching students material that is enduring. Backwards design suggests a sequence of curricula that focus on three stages. Stage one focus on

From the Rusken College speech in 1976, a whole new approach to education was to be invented and from this came the introduction of the craft based qualifications, his idea of the government putting money into education and seeing very little return, made him concentrate on making people fit for work, in turn helping the economy and paying the government back on their investment. This is the main model used in my specialised curriculum. One of the attractions of this approach to curriculum theory is that it involves detailed attention to what people need to know in order for it to work. Lesson plans are produced with the main theme of ‘by the end of the session the learner will

After examining the Understanding by Design framework by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe, I have learned how to develop a unit by working backwards. The development of a unit is multi-layered in its focus on curriculum, instruction, and assessment. In planning I need to first assess what the big ideas are that I want my students to learn and why they are so important. In our study of Mesopotamia, we look at how our world began with the first civilization and the achievements that led to advances throughout history. The big ideas framed as understandings that I want my students to know are that the locations of civilizations and city-states in relation to specific landforms affects development and technology achievements can benefit society in a variety of areas. Then I look at what essential questions are raised and what I want students to know and be able to do. The framework looks to deepen student understanding and transfer that understanding of knowledge and skill into a performance task and other evidence of formative and summative assessments.