Understanding by Design

Understanding by Design (UbD) is a curriculum development model introduced by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe in 1998. Often referred to as the backwards design model, UbD emphasizes starting with desired learning outcomes before planning assessments and instructional activities. This approach encourages educators to clarify enduring understandings and essential questions that guide teaching and learning, making it easier for students to grasp complex concepts. The UbD framework is organized into three stages: identifying desired results, determining acceptable evidence of student understanding, and planning learning experiences that facilitate the achievement of those results.

One of the core principles of UbD is the focus on enduring understandings—key concepts that students should retain long after the details are forgotten. The model also advocates for ongoing assessment that aligns with instructional goals, allowing educators to adapt their teaching strategies as needed. By promoting a constructivist approach, UbD encourages students to actively engage with material and develop their own understandings through exploration and inquiry. This method not only accommodates diverse learning styles but also prepares students for real-world applications. Overall, UbD provides a structured yet flexible framework for creating meaningful and impactful learning experiences.

Published in: 2021

By: Loeser, John

Subject Terms

Understanding by Design

The understanding by design model (UbD) of curriculum development was put forth in 1998 by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe in their book Understanding by Design (UbD). Also called the backwards design model, UbD approaches curriculum development by beginning with desired learning outcomes and objectives, then working backwards to define assessment modalities and finally daily lessons and instructional activities. By developing curriculum in this manner, teachers are better able to clarify enduring understandings, essential questions, and unit questions towards the ends planning instruction and designing accurate and meaningful modes of assessment.

Keywords Breadth of Curriculum; Constructivist Approaches; Depth of Curriculum; Enduring Understandings; Essential Questions; Rubrics; Six Facets of Understanding; Uncovering Curriculum; Understanding by Design (UbD); Unit Questions

Curriculum Organization > Understanding by Design

Overview

Basics of the Understanding by Design Model

"Understanding by Design (UbD)," also known as the "backwards design model," was first introduced by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe in 1998. The model encourages teachers to plan lessons and units backwards, starting with final learning outcomes and then working backwards toward individual daily lessons that aim to achieve teachers' desired results. Briggs (2007) indicates that UbD asks questions such as:

• What aspects of learning will be relevant to students in the future?

• How will students be able to see the bigger picture?

• How will teachers know that students have achieved desired learning goals?

Wiggins and McTighe (1998) simplify the UbD model into three stages including identifying desired results, determining acceptable evidence that students have achieved desired results, and planning each learning experience and instructional activity to help students achieve desired results (pg. 9). To further clarify, Wiggins and McTighe (1998) indicate that UbD requires the designer to begin with an end in mind and map back from the desired result to daily lessons in order to determine the best way to reach the intended outcome(s) (pg. 146).

Kolenda (2007) asserts that UbD provides the framework necessary to develop strong units of study filled with essential understandings and authentic assessments. Kolenda (2007) further claims that UbD fosters inquiry, constructivism, and student engagement. The model also helps tailor lessons to meet students' myriad learning styles and needs.

Applications

Stage 1: Identify Desired Results

The first stage of the UbD model requires teachers to identify desired learning outcomes by beginning with what they want students to understand at the end of a learning experience or unit of study. Some guiding questions for the identification of desired results are:

• What should students know, understand, and be able to do?

• What is worthy of understanding?

• What enduring understandings are desired? (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998, pg. 9).

Wiggins & McTighe (1998) indicate that at this stage of planning, teachers must consider their goals as well as examine national, state, and local published content standards of learning (pg. 9).

Golland (1998) discusses the critical importance of having an aim, purpose, or objective when planning a unit of study. He further asserts how important it is for teachers to be clear with regard to final learning outcomes in order to be able to develop meaningful learning experiences that contribute to overall understanding. With a strong purpose or final learning objective, teachers are prepared to work backwards to design the types of learning experiences which will be most beneficial to students.

Wiggins & McTighe (1998) suggest that teachers think of this stage in terms of identifying what students should be familiar with, what is important from them to know and do, and what is essential to their lifelong, enduring understanding (pg. 9). When considering what students should be familiar with, teachers should list everything from a unit of study that could be worthwhile for class discussions, activities, etc. However, as Wiggins & McTighe (1998) indicate, it is often impossible to cover all of the ideas and topics a teacher might consider worthwhile. Teachers can further narrow the list by determining what students need to know and be able to do. This level of analysis includes facts, concepts, principles, and skills (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998, pg. 9). However, facts and concepts are not easy to retain if students are unable to relate them to a larger picture of understanding and real life application.

For these reasons, it is essential for teachers to narrow down learning outcomes to the most important, enduring understandings that should remain with students throughout their lives. Wiggins & McTighe (1998) refer to enduring understandings as "big ideas"; they are the concepts that teachers want students to get "inside of" through a unit of study. Wiggins & McTighe further clarify that enduring understandings are what students should retain even if they don't remember the details (pg. 10).

Determining What is Worth Understanding

Wiggins & McTighe (1998) suggest a framework for determining what qualifies as an enduring understanding, and what teachers should identify as final learning outcomes and desired results. First, they suggest that teachers analyze whether or not an idea, topic, or process represents a "big idea" that will have value beyond the classroom. Second, the authors recommend considering whether the idea, topic, or process is central to the discipline. Third, teachers should think critically about whether the idea, topic, or process requires "uncoverage." Finally, they should consider whether or not the idea, topic, or process offers potential for engaging students (pg. 11).

By using these filters to determine what is essential to student understanding, teachers can identify unit goals that can guide instruction for a unit of study. Wiggins & Grant (1998) emphasize the critical importance of specificity with regard to development of such goals. The authors articulate three levels of specificity including topical statements, general understandings, and specific understandings. For example, Wiggins & Grant (1998) assert that "Students will understand the Civil War" is a topical statement that barely gets to the heart of the unit goal. "Students will understand the causes and effects of the Civil War," is more specific, but still general in terms of the actual modalities of learning that will take place. "Students will demonstrate through historical and social analysis and role-plays their understanding of the Civil War as a struggle of state versus federal power over economic and cultural affairs that continues to present day," however, represents a specific understanding that serves as a guiding focus for the unit of study (Wiggins & Grant, 1998, pg. 24).

Once learning outcomes, unit goals, and enduring understandings are identified, teachers need to think critically about the essential and unit questions they will use to guide their instruction throughout the unit of study. Wiggins & Grant (1998) highlight the difference between essential and unit questions. They assert that essential questions grant insight into deep and enduring concerns (pg. 28). Furthermore, they assert that essential questions reveal the richness and complexities of the subject material, can be returned to repeatedly, and can occur across the curriculum over many years (pg. 28). Unit questions are slightly different in that they provide subject and topic specific paths to essential questions. For example, an essential question may read as "Who is a friend?" or "Must a story have a moral, heroes, and villains?" whereas a unit question may be "What is the moral of this story?" or "Are Frog and Toad true friends?" (Wiggins & Grant, 1998, pg. 31).

What Constitutes Understanding?

Wiggins & McTighe (1998) also provide a strong theoretical framework to help teachers determine if students understand what teachers identify as worthy of enduring understanding. The authors assert that students truly understand a matter when they can explain, interpret, apply, demonstrate a perspective, empathize, and display self-knowledge (pp. 47-57).

According to Wiggins & McTighe (1998), students demonstrate understanding when they can explain their own theories and ideas, link facts with larger ideas, justify their conclusions, or effectively show their work (pg. 47). Students demonstrate understanding by creating their own interpretations rather than uncritically accepting what a teacher says is true (pg. 51). Moreover, they demonstrate understanding by applying their knowledge to real-world problems and by adapting it to different contexts (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998, pg. 52). Wiggins & McTighe (1998) further highlight that students demonstrate understanding by seeing and hearing others' points of view, finding value in what others think, and reflecting on and assessing understanding (pp. 55-60).

With a strong framework from which to determine levels of understanding, teachers are better prepared to make decisions on how best to assess student understanding and how best to determine if students are able to "dig deep" to uncover the enduring understandings and learning goals intended for a particular unit of study.

Stage 2: Determine Evidence of Student Understanding

Briggs (2007) indicates that assessment must go hand-in-hand with curriculum development. If teachers understand assessment as separate from curriculum development, problems can occur. Furthermore, Briggs (2007) indicates that assessment must be ongoing; teachers must consistently measure and change curriculum as needs are identified.

Assessment plays a key role in the development of any curriculum. However, teachers usually think about assessment only after they have taught a unit of study. UbD forces teachers to make a paradigm shift as they are required to think of assessment prior to designing lessons. Wiggins & McTighe (1998) assert that in Stage 2 of the curriculum design process, teachers need to analyze how they will determine if students have achieved the desired learning outcomes identified in Stage 1. Teachers need to determine what they will accept as evidence of students' comprehension of the enduring and essential understandings and questions from the lesson(s). Once teachers have identified the form of assessment they will use at the end of a unit of study, they are better prepared to work backwards to develop the lessons that will lead toward mastery of the concepts and understandings students will need to be successful on the final assessment. Wiggins & McTighe (1998) encourage all teachers to think like assessors (pg. 12). They further argue that, by thinking like assessors, teachers will learn to identify hallmarks of understanding and distinguish between degrees of understanding (pg. 67).

Assessment

Wiggins & McTighe (1998) describe to an assessment continuum in which a variety of assessment techniques and tools are recognized as effective ways to monitor student understanding. The assessment continuum includes frequent checks for understanding, ongoing observation and dialogue, quizzes and tests, academic prompts, and performance tasks or projects (pg. 12). A key component of the UbD model, the performance task or project, requires students to apply their knowledge in context to demonstrate their level of understanding.

The authors distinguish between two different roles in the development of assessment techniques and tools: that of the assessor and that of the activity designer. According to Wiggins & McTighe (1998), the assessor thinks in terms of the evidence necessary to demonstrate understanding. An assessor identifies the types of performance tasks that will focus instruction and anchor the unit of study (pg. 68). Additionally, assessors engages in a dialogue to determine how they will distinguish between degrees of understanding. Alternatively, an activity designer plans an assessment around the available materials or resources, students' interests, any assignments that will be given, how grades will be given, etc. (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998, pg. 68).

When thinking about the six facets of understanding (explanation, interpretation, application, perspective, empathy, and self-knowledge), Wiggins & McTighe (1998) provide numerous examples to help teachers determine how best to assess understanding. Teachers can ask students to dialogue about subject material, defend conclusions, justify decisions, develop their own theories or explanations, and relate understandings to bigger the picture. Through explanation, teachers can identify understandings and clarify any areas that students may misunderstand (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998, pp. 85-88). Teachers can ask students to interpret stories, weave together their own stories, and extract main ideas from what they read, hear, or experience. Furthermore, teachers can use real-life situations and simulations to determine whether or not students are able to apply understandings in different contexts (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998, pg. 91).

Wiggins & McTighe (1998) further suggest that teachers assess students' abilities to adopt critical perspectives, understand others' perspectives, teach other students, and self-assess their own understandings of material (pp. 93-97). By doing so, teachers require students to demonstrate empathy, develop their own perspectives, and assess their own thinking and degrees of understanding. Wiggins & McTighe (1998) highly encourage using rubrics to assess student understanding because rubrics allow for a continuum of understanding. Rubrics, inherently, illustrate that learning occurs over a range, and that individual students can demonstrate different degrees of understanding of enduring and essential concepts.

Stage 3: Planning Learning Experiences & Instruction

Stage 3 of the UbD model requires teachers to plan actual lessons and instructional activities that will contribute to student understanding and provide the scaffolding necessary for students to demonstrate that they have achieved desired learning outcomes. While it seems counterintuitive to some teachers to plan a lesson after determining modes of assessment, the model is based entirely on the theory that lessons and activities cannot be meaningfully and purposefully connected to enduring understandings unless such understandings and modes of assessment are predetermined.

Wiggins & McTighe (1998) suggest that teachers, when planning lessons and activities, think about the knowledge and skills students will need to achieve the desired results and what activities will best equip them to attain these results (pg. 13). Additionally, teachers need to identify what content should be taught or coached and how to best do so. During this phase of the UbD model, teachers address all of the specifics of instructional planning including how they will teach, what methods they will use, how they will sequence their lessons, and what types of materials are necessary to ensure success (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998, pg. 13). As Golland (1998) indicates, teachers need to know the sequence of each lesson and the relationship of one lesson to another in order to create the best possible learning conditions for students.

A central component of the planning phase of the UbD model requires teachers to focus on "uncovering" curriculum as opposed to "covering" it. It is very common to hear teachers refer to anxiety about "covering" all of the curriculum. Wiggins & McTighe (1998) again ask teachers to shift their thinking and refer to this part of Stage 3 as finding as many different avenues for students to "uncover" curriculum by arguing, applying, developing, and inquiring about different points of view of the lesson content (pg. 99). The authors further distinguish between depth and breadth of curriculum. Depth refers to how intensively surface teachers want students to delve into an idea or topic. Breadth refers to how many extensions and connections teachers want students to make by relating different ideas within a unit of study (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998, pp. 100-101). Wiggins & McTighe (1998) highly encourage teachers to find a balance between depth and breadth when developing lessons and activities related to enduring understandings.

Lastly, Wiggins & Mctighe (1998) suggest an acronym that teachers can use to develop lessons and instructional activities during this stage of the UbD model. Using the acronym "WHERE" teachers can effectively plan the activities necessary to ensure students achieve desired learning outcomes. "W" requires teachers to think about "where" they are heading with the activity. "H" refers to how teachers will "hook" students into a lesson through engaging activities. "E" asks teachers' to think about how they will encourage exploration and engage students in learning. "R" requires teachers to "reflect" and think about how to encourage students to dig deeper into ideas and topics. Finally, "E" refers to how teachers will exhibit and evaluate what has been understood through performance tasks and final products (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998, pg. 116).

Further Insights

What Does Teaching Look Like When Using the UbD Model?

Wiggins & McTighe (1998) summarize a classroom that uses the UbD model as a place in which more learning occurs through less teaching (pg. 161). They highlight the idea that these classrooms use more constructivist approaches as teachers encourage students to explore and develop their own understandings and perspectives of material. The authors assert that students must make their own meanings. They cannot simply receive information from teachers and be told what to think. If complex ideas are to be understood, students must engage activities that promote understanding (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998, pg. 161). With these goals in mind, teachers in such classrooms employ a variety of teaching methodologies ranging from direct instruction and coaching to more constructivist approaches such as guided inquiry, group discussions, explorations, etc. (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998, pg. 168).

In the past year, collaborative work between Wiggins & Mctighe and the leading researcher in the field of differentiated instruction, Carol Ann Tomlinson, has produced powerful research on integrating the UbD model for curriculum development with differentiated instructional methodologies. As Connor (2007) indicates, the book Integrating Differentiated Instruction and Understanding by Design focuses on the entire teaching process including planning, teaching, assessing, and understanding students. In upcoming years, it remains to be seen how both models of curriculum development will impact teaching and learning.

Relation to The Common Core State Standards

Many states have adopted, or are in the process of adopting, the Common Core State Standards (the Common Core) in English and mathematics for KÐ12 schools. The Common Core are a set of educational standards developed under the leadership of the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, with input from researchers, teachers, parents and school administrators. Nelson Graff (2011) argues that because the Common Core states goals that should be accomplished in classes at a particular grade level, these standards are well-suited to the backwards design process for curriculum design. He notes that an increased emphasis on evaluation and testing can encourage teachers to focus on training students to meet the specific requirements of the Common Core (or any other set of standards), but that the backwards design process can help them focus on the big ideas that the specific requirements are meant to support, and the connections among the different tasks specified in the standards.

Graff cites as an example a California standard for 9th grade English that states that students should be able to infer the character traits of a literary character such as George in John Steinbeck's novel Of Mice and Men from evidence in the text. While this is a common expectation in an English curriculum, Graff argues that teachers should think beyond the narrow focus of a single character or novel, and to develop ways to help students apply learning from one class (such as the techniques of literary character analysis) to other classes, and to other aspects of their life. ..FT-McTighe (2012) also argues that the Common Core has many commonalities with the backwards design process. These commonalities include beginning with goals that students are meant to accomplish, and planning a curriculum based on those goals; a focus on big questions and broad, long-term goals, and an emphasis on rich and complex assessments as an integral part of applying the standards in real teaching situations. He notes that the Common Core does not specify a curriculum, or how teachers should teach, but instead states the outcomes that should be achieved through the curriculum.

Terms & Concepts

Breadth of Curriculum: Breadth of curriculum refers to how many extensions and connections teachers want students to make by relating different ideas within a unit of study.

Constructivist Approaches: Constructivist approaches to classroom instruction encourage students to explore and develop their own understandings and perspectives of the material studied.

Depth of Curriculum: Depth of curriculum refers to how intensively teachers want students to delve into an ideas or topics.

Enduring Understandings: Enduring understandings are the "big ideas" that teachers want students to get "inside of" through a unit of study. They are what students should retain even if they forget the details (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998).

Essential Questions: Essential questions help students develop deep and enduring understandings (pg. 28). Furthermore, they reveal the richness and complexities of the subject material, returned to repeatedly, and can occur across the curriculum over many years (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998).

Rubrics: Rubrics help teachers assess student understanding by describing a continuum of understanding. Rubrics illustrate how learning occurs across a range and how individual students can demonstrate different degrees of understanding of enduring and essential concepts.

Six Facets of Understanding: The six facets of understanding are explanation, interpretation, application, perspective, empathy, and self knowledge (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998).

Uncovering Curriculum: Students "uncover" curriculum by arguing, applying, developing, and inquiring about different points of view of lesson content.

Understanding by Design (UbD): The UbD model encourages teachers to plan lessons and units backwards, starting with final learning outcomes and then working backwards toward individual daily lessons that work toward achieving desired results.

Unit Questions: Unit questions differ slightly from essential questions in that they provide subject and topic specific paths to essential questions.

Bibliography

Briggs, L. (2007). Magnum B.I. T H E Journal, 34 , 40-45. Retrieved September 10, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24823294&site=ehost-live

Connor, D. (2007). Integrating differentiated instruction and understanding by design. Roper Review, 29, 284. Retrieved September 10, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=25810931&site=ehost-live

Davidovitch, N. (2013). Learning-centered teaching and backward course design — From transferring knowledge to teaching skills. Journal of International Education Research, 9, 329-338. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=92510748&site=ehost-live

Golland, J. (1998). A lesson plan model for the supervision of student teaching. Education, 118 , 376. Retrieved September 10, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=497388&site=ehost-live

Graff, N. (2011). "An effective and agonizing way to learn": Backwards design and new teachers' preparation for planning curriculum. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38, 151-168. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=65631510&site=ehost-live

Kolenda, R. (2007). Japanese lesson study, staff development, and science education reform - The neshaminy story. Educator, 16 , 29-33. Retrieved

September 10, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=25430039&site=ehost-live

McKinney, G. (2013). Building common knowledge. Journal of Staff Development, 34, 42-54. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=89669063&site=ehost-live

McTighe, J. & Wiggins, G. (2004). Understanding by design professional development workbook. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McTighe, J. & Wiggins, G. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria,Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Misconceptions about Common Core. (2012). Phi Delta Kappan, 94, 6. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=84303707&site=ehost-live

Understanding by Design

On this Page

Subject Terms

Understanding by Design

Curriculum Organization > Understanding by Design

Overview

Basics of the Understanding by Design Model

Applications

Stage 1: Identify Desired Results

Determining What is Worth Understanding

What Constitutes Understanding?

Stage 2: Determine Evidence of Student Understanding

Assessment

Stage 3: Planning Learning Experiences & Instruction

Further Insights

What Does Teaching Look Like When Using the UbD Model?

Relation to The Common Core State Standards

Terms & Concepts

Bibliography

Suggested Reading