Backward Design.
Does going backward move us forward?
In the post prior to this one I discussed how modular design dominates online course structure. Using this approach, an instructor creates a course comprised of a set of modules providing discrete, self-contained pieces of content.
Photo by dylan nolte on Unsplash
An issue with modular course design is that there is a chance that the student won’t be able to see the forest because of the trees. Can they take all those separate bits of content and use them to form a coherent whole? How well do the modules connect with each other? Does the learning pathway from module 1 to module 2 to module 3 develop the learner’s skills and abilities, or are modules all on the same level without any developmental hierarchy: each module is different but really just more of the same?
A way to mitigate this issue comes in the form of backward design. This practice has become popular in all levels of course and curriculum design from kindergarten to grad school. Its best known proponents are Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe whose book Understanding by Design has been around for about twenty years, but the gist of it is neatly outlined here and here.
Courtesy of S. Thibeau.
At its most basic, the backward course design process has three stages:
Identify desired results (the students’ “learnings,” as some people now say, which would be identifiable at the end of the learning process)
Determine acceptable evidence (what kinds of assessment will show that results have been achieved?)
Plan learning experiences and instruction (that will lead you to the results)
This process appeals to many because it keeps instructors and courses on track. For example, by focusing on the results - what the students can do at the end of the course - instructors can avoid being sidetracked by less important material, or simply covering material because that’s what you do in a course: you cover material because there is material to be covered.
By not starting with content (input) but rather with “deliverables” (output), backward design streamlines things and keeps our focus on the larger picture. To achieve these goals, assessment takes on a bigger role in the design process (though not necessarily in the minds of the students taking the course). A backward designed course is designed with the learner top of mind: what will the learner know, how will the learner demonstrate that knowledge, what must the learner see/read/hear in order to prepare for that demonstration of knowledge. A through line from content to results provides the consistency with which disconnected or independent modules could possibly interfere.
As promising as this all sounds, there is one major drawback to backward design, and that is the emphasis on results, deliverables, productivity. The intention here is good: make sure the student’s learning experience is valuable and on target. But it forces all content to serve an assessment purpose. The age-old question - “will this be on the exam?” - becomes a demand - “this had better be on the exam, otherwise why am I studying it?” Is that what we want in higher education, that learning be solely about achievement and results as opposed to curiosity and exploration? If I were more of a trendy academic I would decry backward design’s inherent neoliberal goal-oriented tendencies. Backward design does suit an age in which education is viewed as a stepping stone to a secure lifestyle. But shouldn’t knowledge-making generally and university teaching specifically be about more than that?
For Fall Term 2020 this blog will be exploring issues informing education during a pandemic. It is appearing as part of a graduate seminar on online teaching and learning. You can read more about the seminar or see the other posts.
Post 13/60.
