background preloader

What is UbD™?

What is UbD™?
Understanding by Design® (UbD™) is a framework for improving student achievement. Emphasizing the teacher's critical role as a designer of student learning, UbD™ works within the standards-driven curriculum to help teachers clarify learning goals, devise revealing assessments of student understanding, and craft effective and engaging learning activities. Developed by nationally recognized educators Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe, and published by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), Understanding by Design® is based on the following key ideas: A primary goal of education should be the development and deepening of student understanding. Students reveal their understanding most effectively when they are provided with complex, authentic opportunities to explain, interpret, apply, shift perspective, empathize, and self-assess. In practice, Understanding by Design® offers: The potential of UbD™ for curricular improvement has struck a chord in American education. Related:  Education Theories

Understanding by Design Understanding by Design, or UbD, is a tool utilized for educational planning focused on "teaching for understanding" advocated by Jay McTighe and Grant Wiggins in their Understanding by Design (1998), published by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.[1][2] The emphasis of UbD is on "backward design", the practice of looking at the outcomes in order to design curriculum units, performance assessments, and classroom instruction.[3] "Understanding by Design" and "UbD" are registered trademarks of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development ("ASCD"). According to Wiggins, "The potential of UbD for curricular improvement has struck a chord in American education. Backward design[edit] Understanding by Design relies on what Wiggins and McTighe call "backward design" (also known as "backwards planning"). The Backward design approach is developed in three stages. Stage 2 focuses on evidence of learning by assessment. Teaching for understanding[edit]

A.2 How does this work? - Ed Tech Challenge Question: How do I start? Answer: You've already started! Just keep clicking the green arrow at the bottom of the page. Question: Do I have to follow a timeline? Answer: You can take this course at your own pace. Question: Can I have an overview of what I will be creating this year? Answer: Your first task will be to transfer all your text and presentation documents into Google Apps and create a paperless classroom so that you can collaborate more efficiently with students and coworkers. Question: How will my progress be tracked? Answer: Your demonstration of learning will be represented by your Ed Tech Challenge Portfolio. Question: Is this course tied to any standards? Question: Will I get credit for this course? Answer: TBD. Learn more about the software we chose for this course.

UbD exemplars You Can't Teach Understanding You Can’t Teach Understanding by Grant Wiggins, Ed.D, Authentic Education A cardinal principle in aiming at understanding is that understanding requires different pedagogy than acquisition of knowledge and skill. They have to think and rethink. They must be required to draw inferences and come to realizations, try performing with that understanding, and draw further inferences from what works, what doesn’t, when, and why. Thus, to achieve understanding as an educator, you have to help students “by design” come to realizations that they own and appreciate as insightful. The temptation to teach understandings is great. Alas, it almost never works in the end. No, there is no way around it. The Essential Question as Anchor Let me offer a concrete example from when I taught English of how to get students to draw inferences and come to realizations without “wasting” time even though it takes more time than just “teaching” the readings. Ancient texts and fairy tales! “Falling Behind”

Model Curriculum - Curriculum and Instruction Focus of K2 This video of the kindergarten classroom in a Boston Public School provides a look at curriculum and instruction using Focus on K2 (kindergarten), which was created by Boston Public Schools' Early Childhood Department. A grant called Focus on Early Literacy allowed teachers, instructional assistants, principals and specialists in several districts in Massachusetts to participate in professional development and implement one 8-week unit from Boston's Focus on K2 curriculum in the spring of 2015. Coming Soon! The ESL MCUs take a functional approach to language teaching and are organized around WIDA’s Key Uses of Academic Language. As part of a Race to the Top Grant, the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE) has developed over 100 Model Curriculum Units (MCUs.) These MCUs were created by teams of teachers from across the Commonwealth with guidance and support from ESE curriculum and content specialist. MCUs for grades PK-12 in Testimonials

Bloomin' Apps This page gathers all of the Bloomin' Apps projects in one place.Each image has clickable hotspots and includes suggestions for iPad, Android, Google and online tools and applications to support each of the levels of Bloom's Revised Taxonomy.I have created a page to allow you to share your favorite online tool, iOS, or Android app with others. Cogs of the Cognitive Processes I began to think about the triangular shape of Bloom's Taxonomy and realized I thought of it a bit differently.Since the cognitive processes are meant to be used when necessary, and any learner goes in and out of the each level as they acquire new content and turn it into knowledge, I created a different type of image that showcased my thoughts about Bloom's more meaningfully.Here is my visual which showcases the interlocking nature of the cognitive processes or, simply, the "Cogs of the Cognitive Processes". IPAD APPS TO SUPPORT BLOOM'S REVISED TAXONOMYassembled by Kathy Schrock​ Bloom's and SAMR: My thoughts

A New Way to Learn Traditional Computer Based Learning (CBL) methods typically rely on one-way transmission of information. These methods are seen as extensions of classroom learning and thus viewed by children as restrictive. Consequently, results from such CBL initiatives have, at best, been mixed. In Contrast, Hole-in-the-wall Learning Stations seek to create a new paradigm in the learning process by providing unrestricted computer access to groups of children in an open playground setting. We believe that such an open setting will use child’s natural curiosity to stimulate learning. The essential features are: - The learning station is set up in an outdoor playground setting which children can access at any time. The playground setting offers a host of other advantages. - The learning station fosters collaborative learning among groups of children instead of following the usual school model of rote based learning (unidirectional). - The Learning Stations are used for various real life projects.

Clarifying Transfer & How It Impacts What We Think Students Understand Preface: In collaboration with Grant Wiggins of Understanding by Design and Authentic Education, TeachThought will be bringing you Grant’s industry-leading expertise on understanding, learning frameworks, and curriculum planning. This article originally appeared on Grant’s personal blog. There is some understandable confusion about the goal of transfer. When we say we want students to be able to “transfer” their learning, there are two possible meanings to our aim. We might mean that transfer involves a high-level ability that is thus somehow different content from low-level content. Or we could mean that for the same content that can be different learning goals – merely knowing it vs. being able to transfer it (where the “it” signifies that we are talking about the same content). The confusion occurs, in part, because of the contrasting examples we tend to use. Here is an example. What is the Pythagorean Theorem? None of these questions requires transfer of prior learning. In sum:

Change Magazine - September-October 2010 by Cedar Riener and Daniel Willingham There is no credible evidence that learning styles exist. While we will elaborate on this assertion, it is important to counteract the real harm that may be done by equivocating on the matter. In what follows, we will begin by defining “learning styles”; then we will address the claims made by those who believe that they exist, in the process acknowledging what we consider the valid claims of learning-styles theorists. What is a Learning Style? The claim at the center of learning-styles theory is this: Different students have different modes of learning, and their learning could be improved by matching one's teaching with that preferred learning mode. The most popular current conception of learning styles equates style with the preferred bodily sense through which one receives information, whether it be visual, auditory, or kinesthetic (for some reason, no one claims that there are tactile or olfactory learners). Why Should College Educators Care? 1.

Language Teaching Methodology | Language Teaching & Learning This is language teaching methodology as modeled by Richards and Rogers (2001). From a language teaching perspective, Richards and Rogers (2001) identified three principles in explaining the concept of methodology. These are: i. Approach ii. Design iii. Approach, according to Richards and Rogers, refers to theories about the nature of language and language learning that serves as the source of practices and principles in language teaching. In view of this, they defined design as: The level of method analysis in which we consider (a) what the objectives of the method are; (b) how language is selected and organized within the method, that is, the syllabus model the method incorporates; (c) the types of learning tasks and teaching activities the method advocates; (d) the roles of learners; (e) the roles of teachers; (f) the role of instructional materials. Like this: Like Loading...

Chia Suan Chong: A trip down the memory lane of methodology Chia Suan Chong: A trip down the memory lane of methodology Submitted by Paul Braddock on 1 September, 2012 - 13:00 Date : 29th November 2012 Time : 8pm UK time ( check what time this is in your country ) Watch a recording of the webinar : click on the link below to watch a recording of Chia's webinar Theme : As we walk down the memory lane of English language teaching, we can see a correlation between the trends in the most popular language acquisition theories of its time, and the application of such assumptions into the language classroom. Since the late 1960's, we've seen Hymes refute the focus on grammatical competence, highlighting instead the importance of communicative competence. About the speaker: Chia Suan Chong is a general and business English teacher and also runs teacher training courses such as the CELTA and the Cert IBET, in addition to cultural training courses. Printer-friendly version

Real Learning is a Creative Process Those who have studied successful skill mastery describe a common process that is followed, one that requires practice, effort, patience, experimentation and deep concentration. This is as true for basketball, chemistry and guitar playing as it is for cooking, painting, karate, engineering, parenting and brain surgery. Take the example of language learning. With a computer you simply transfer the data from one location to another. This is why force-feeding decontextualized “knowledge” and then measuring retention with standardized tests is a dead end approach to education. Tests that focus on memorization of data or a narrow range of skills do not measure deep comprehension and mastery. Human beings are not empty containers or machines into which information can just be downloaded in one direction. Maria Montessori pointed this out decades ago, as have modern researchers and educators such as Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Ken Robinson, Carol Dweck and Howard Gardner.

Related: