Understanding by Design

Understanding by Design (UbD), developed by Wiggins and McTighe (2005), is a backward design framework for planning meaningful and aligned learning experiences. The natural tendency for educators is to begin designing content with activities.  However, UbD starts by identifying the desired learning outcomes, then determining what evidence will demonstrate that learning, and finally planning the experiences and instruction needed to achieve those outcomes.  Hence developing activities is the final phase of the planning process. The UbD template provides a practical structure for organizing this process into three stages: desired results, assessment evidence, and learning plan.

Fink’s 3-Column Table and the Understanding by Design (UbD) template have several similarities despite their different approaches.  Fink’s (2003) three columns focus on learning goals, assessment activities, and learning activities (pp. 2, 23), while UbD’s three stages focus on desired results, assessment evidence, and the learning plan (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, p. 18). In both models, the goal is strong alignment between what learners should achieve, how they will demonstrate that learning, and the experiences designed to help them get there (Fink, 2003; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).  The main structural difference is that UbD presents these components in a more sequential manner using the backward-design process.  Whereas Fink uses a nonlinear model that focuses on interaction where the different components influence one another throughout the design process.

Where the two models diverge more significantly is the way they begin the planning process.  Fink (2003) calls for situational factors surrounding the learning environment before developing the 3-Column table.  Next, he says we should ask, “What [do] you want students to get out of the course? What is important for them to learn and retain, 2-3 years after the course is over?” (Fink, 2003, p. 4).  UbD begins instead with the desired results, asking, “What should students know, understand, and be able to do?” and which big ideas are worthy of understanding (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, p. 17)?  Basically, UbD begins by identifying standards, desired understandings, and transferable big ideas (Wiggins & McTighe 2005), and Fink, on the other hand, first gives particular attention to the learners and the context in which the learning will occur.

Nonetheless, despite these differences, both approaches ultimately put alignment at a premium.  Both require educators to move beyond simply choosing activities and instead intentionally connect goals, assessment, and learning experiences (Fink, 2003; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).

Working through both Fink’s 3-Column Table and the Understanding by Design (UbD) template helped me think more intentionally about designing learning environments, but I connected with the two processes in very different ways. When I completed the UbD template, the process immediately made sense to me. The sequence felt logical, and I could see my ideas becoming more concrete as I worked through each stage. Even more importantly, I found the finished document useful.

That practicality matters to me. When I was a classroom teacher, there were years when we were required to create lesson plans using cumbersome templates that seemed to exist primarily to show that we had completed them. I always preferred a lesson plan that I could actually pick up and use to guide my instruction. UbD feels that way to me - it guides practical instructional thinking rather than functioning as a compliance check list. I could set this design aside, return to it several weeks from now, and quickly understand where I was going with it.

Fink’s 3-Column Table felt more abstract to me, but I found it valuable for a different reason. Fink pushed me to think more deeply about the learning environment before designing the learning itself.  I really felt that the situational factors were particularly important because my innovation plan involves working with adult learners (Fink, 2003, pp. 4, 6–7). Their previous experiences, attitudes toward change, and the realities of their classrooms all influence whether the innovation will be successful. Fink also pushed me beyond simply considering what teachers should know or do. The six dimensions of significant learning encouraged me to consider how the experience might affect teachers' thinking, and how they continue growing after the formal learning experience ends (Fink, 2003).

Both processes also reinforced the importance of alignment (Fink, 2003; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). This became especially clear while completing the UbD template. One of my original goals stated that teachers would develop a more authentic approach to formative assessment. When I began thinking about acceptable evidence, I realized that “develop” was difficult to observe. Changing the goal to say teachers would use an authentic approach made the outcome something they could actually demonstrate. This was a small change, but it showed me the value of working backward from the evidence of learning rather than simply creating goals and then moving on to activities (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).

Perhaps this is one of the reasons UbD appealed so strongly to me.  Beginning with the end in mind is something I consistently encourage Pre-K teachers to do. Wiggins and McTighe's (2005, p. 16) warning about the "twin sin" of activity-oriented teaching particularly resonates with me because I see this happen in Pre-K classrooms. It is easy to become so focused on a theme, craft, or engaging activity that the intended learning outcome becomes secondary—or was never clearly identified in the first place. Beginning with the desired results changes the question from “What activity are we going to do?” to “What do I want children to learn, and what experiences will help them get there?” I also appreciate UbD's emphasis on big ideas because that is already part of how I approach curriculum design. Our grade-level curriculum guides identify a "big idea" for each unit to help teachers maintain sight of the larger purpose of the learning.

As I move forward with my innovation plan, I can see value in using both approaches rather than choosing between them. Fink can help me lay the conceptual groundwork, while UbD can help me flesh out the vision into a practical learning design. Fink reminds me to consider the people, context, and deeper change I hope to create. UbD helps me take that vision and work backward to determine what success will look like and what experiences will help teachers get there.

This distinction is particularly important for my innovation project because simply implementing Seesaw will not create the change I am seeking. My larger goal is to help teachers move toward authentic formative assessment by recognizing and documenting evidence of learning within play, centers, small groups, routines, and everyday classroom experiences. If I want this to be successful, the professional learning surrounding the innovation needs to be designed as intentionally as the innovation itself.  I remember when I was creating my implementation outline for my innovation plan in 5305, and I started to realize how important the training and PLCs were going to be that year. Just because I created this wonderful vision for what’s possible with Seesaw does not mean that teachers will magically catch on and implement it. It will take real work and training to get teachers to buy-in and to become proficient in implementation. Therefore, this planning piece is just as critical as all of the other components of my plan. Fink helps me think about the depth of that change, while UbD gives me a practical framework for designing the learning experiences that can support it.

Ultimately, both processes have helped me move beyond simply planning content or activities. They have helped me think more deliberately about who my learners are and what meaningful change I want to create. They have also helped me think about what evidence will demonstrate that change, and how I can intentionally design an environment that helps them get there. As I take on something as large and important as my innovation project, I can see myself drawing from both approaches.

Fink, L. D. (2003). A self-directed guide to designing courses for significant learning. University of Oklahoma.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (Expanded 2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.