Author: Christi Jones
Seven years ago, as a newly hired faculty member, my thoughts were a mixture of equal parts excitement and anxiousness as course preparation for the fall of 2017 began. Using the skills gleaned in a single pedagogy course and inspiration from reading “The Courage to Teach” and “McKeachie’s Teaching Tips,” course design loomed large in my mind. How would my course content lead to critical thinking? How might student learning best be assessed? As learning objectives for students were developed, there were program goals, and professional content standards to consider. The number of variables related to the task of course design was a bit overwhelming. Preparation for the first semester of teaching was just the beginning of learning how to design effective courses with student outcomes in mind. Reading professional literature related to best practices, training, mentoring, and accreditation processes has developed these skills since my early days in higher education. While still a work in progress, it seems important to share the nuts and bolts of preparation for teaching with the student in mind. Hopefully, there is some comfort in understanding that learning how to design courses for successful student outcomes is a work in progress for all educators.
My perspective of curriculum design shifted after reading “Understanding by Design.” The authors, Wiggins and McTighe, described educators as designers tasked with crafting curriculum and learning experiences focused on meeting specific purposes and assessments to measure the success of reaching learning goals (2005). The perspective of thinking of myself as a designer, with students as my clients, made sense with reflection on the reciprocal process of teaching, learning, and assessing. The authors made a convincing argument for the use of backward design to begin curriculum design with consideration of the desired result of learning (outcomes). When student learning objectives are chosen based on desired outcomes, and assessments are developed to measure the success of meeting those learning objectives, there is clarity related to the focus of student instruction (Wiggins, & Tighe, 2005).
Backward design consists of three steps: (1) identification of desired results, (2) determination of acceptable evidence, and (3) planning learning experiences, and instruction (Wiggins, & Tighe, 2005). These three steps offer a template for educators to streamline instruction to be focused on student outcomes.
The Three Essential Steps of Backward Design
The first step, identification of desired results, begins the process of course design by asking what students should know, understand, and be able to do at the conclusion of a course. This process requires consideration of program objectives, professional standards, and accreditation standards when choosing student learning objectives. Based on all of these factors instructors must prioritize what is important to measure in the course. Learning objectives are statements of what the student will be able to demonstrate at the conclusion of the course (Wiggins, & Tighe, 2005). Student learning objectives should go deeper than just content coverage, and facilitate student learning, and thinking (Svinicki, & McKeachie, 2014). When designing student learning objectives, instructors should consider what the student will be able to demonstrate. For example, a student learning objective might be: “The student will be able to differentiate between Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, and Adlerian Therapy.” The action required of the student to demonstrate competency is clearly stated. As educators, we often get caught up in focusing on what we will do related to instruction, but with backward design you begin with what you would like to prioritize for students to know, understand, and be able to do. When writing learning objectives it is important to look to the Bloom verbs to make sure your objectives are focused on higher-level thinking. The revised “Bloom’s Taxonomy” describes six levels of cognitive learning which are remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating (Anderson, & David, 2001). Using “Bloom’s Taxonomy” assists in making sure student learning objectives are measuring what is intended at the proper level of cognitive performance.
The second step of backward design involves determining what will be considered acceptable evidence of student achievement of desired learning objectives. This shifts the focus from only covering content to making a concerted effort to ensure there is evidence of student proficiency. This step requires instructors to take a closer look at whether their chosen assessments actually measure student learning at the level indicated in the measured student learning objectives (Wiggins, &Tighe, 2005).
The third and final step of backward design involves planning learning experiences and student instruction. This step requires careful consideration of what students need instructionally to meet objectives with proficiency when assessed (Wiggins, & Tighe, 2005). When the learning objectives and assessments are already determined and aligned, there should be increased clarity related to what is needed in course instruction.
Backward design is a process that assists in teaching with intention rather than only covering content. Thoughtful outcomes-based instruction that is appropriately assessed leads to robust learning opportunities that support student learning through the use of critical thinking. This type of instruction is necessary to prepare competent professionals who are ready for the challenges of their respective fields. This process makes the interconnections that should exist between student learning objectives, chosen assessments, and how learning is provided through instruction and learning opportunities. In the process of learning my preferred approach to course design, my identity as an educator was formed. A passage from “The Courage to Teach” reminds me of what should be at the heart of my work as an educator, “Good teaching cannot be reduced to a technique; good teaching comes from the identity, and integrity of the teacher” (Palmer. 2007). Outcomes-based teaching upholds the integrity of the noble profession of teaching where success is measured through student growth and development into competent and capable professionals.
References
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives (Complete ed.). Longman.
Palmer, P. J. (2007). The courage to teach: exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. 10th anniversary ed. San Francisco, Calif., Jossey-Bass.
Svinicki, M.D., & McKeachie, W.J. (2014). McKeachie’s Teaching Tips (14th ed.). Cengage/Wadsworth Publishing.
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Pearson.