In this chapter, you will apply the knowledge you have learned to develop lesson plans. Planning takes place at different levels: state, district, school, department. States usually develop curriculum standards that are used to create lesson goals and objectives. Districts often provide a formal curriculum in the form of textbooks and supplementary materials. Schools are responsible for providing the classroom curriculum in the form of instruction using the state standards and the district’s formal curricula. The breadth and depth of lesson plans often depend on the requirements of school and district administration. While in college, instructors might ask you to provide more details in the lesson you planned as compared to other lessons that you might have been exposed to. It is important to note that regardless of the requirements for the type of lesson plans you will be asked to prepare, lesson plans are considered public documents and are proof of the state standards you have covered.  

Backward Design Process as a Curriculum Development Model

“To begin with the end in mind means to start with a clear understanding of your destination. It means to know where you’re going so that you better understand where you are now so that the steps you take are always in the right direction.” —Stephen R. Covey

The essential question in all curriculum planning is: what should students know and be able to do as a result of the lesson or learning? Since national, state, and local standards often guide the work of teachers and curriculum developers, they serve as a framework to help prioritize the “learning targets.” It is traditional to begin with the frontloading design, which puts the standards first, but in an age of high-stakes testing, many districts are looking at how to match curriculum with state and district testing requirements.

Backward design, or the backloading of curriculum, is often used when the traditional frontloading of curriculum is not practical. Why is this? Frontloading becomes impractical when state or local districts adopt assessments that do not reveal the content of what is tested. This is most often the case with assessments that are published by corporations whose goal is to maintain a “normal curve” with a few students having high scores, with most students scoring in the middle, and some having low scores. This is in contrast to schools and teachers who want to have as many students as possible attain high scores.

To help solve this problem, curriculum developers attempt to match the contents of the local or state curriculum, which are based on the standards, to the test or tests using backward design. Districts often begin with the test items that were released as a starting point in the process. A more in-depth description of this process follows.

 Essential Questions

• How is backward design different than traditional curriculum design?
• What are the main elements of the Backward Design model?
• How is the Backward Design model similar to English’s Aligned Curriculum? How are they different?
• Why isn’t backward design used in all curriculum design processes?

Backward Design

From Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching, Understanding by Design.

Understanding By Design, a text written by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe, offers a framework for designing courses and content units called “Backward Design.” Instructors typically approach course design in a forward design manner, meaning they consider the learning activities (how to teach the content), develop assessments around their learning activities, and then attempt to draw connections to the learning goals of the course. In contrast, the backward design approach has instructors consider the learning goals of the course first. These learning goals embody the knowledge and skills instructors want their students to have learned when they leave the course. Once the learning goals have been established, the second stage involves consideration of assessment. The backward design framework suggests that instructors should consider these overarching learning goals and how students will be assessed before considering how to teach the content. For this reason, backward design is considered a much more intentional approach to course design than traditional methods of design.

The Three Stages of Backward Design

“Deliberate and focused instructional design requires us as teachers and curriculum writers to make an important shift in our thinking about the nature of our job. The shift involves thinking a great deal, first, about the specific learnings sought, and the evidence of such learnings, before thinking about what we, as the teacher, will do or provide in teaching and learning activities.” — Grant Wiggins, Understanding by Design

Figure 8.1 – UbD: Stages of Backward Design

UbD Resources

The blank backward design template is referred to as UbD Template 2.0. The older version (version 1.0) can also be downloaded at the Jay McTighe site previously mentioned, as well as other resources relevant to
Understanding by Design. The template walks individuals through the three stages of backward design.

The following template shows how a curriculum is developed, with an eye to “Desired Results” which can be translated to test scores.

1. Use the UbD Template 2.0  to apply the Backward Design model to one of your favorite units or lessons.
2. Post a brief response to the following question in the ILA Response Group: Did you find the backward design process beneficial? Why or why not?

Benefits of Backward Design

“Our lessons, units, and courses should be logically inferred from the results sought, not derived from the methods, books, and activities with which we are most comfortable. Curriculum should lay out the most effective ways of achieving specific results… in short, the best designs derive backward from the learnings sought.”

In Understanding by Design, Wiggins and McTighe argue that backward design is focused primarily on student learning and understanding. When teachers are designing lessons, units, or courses, they often focus on the activities and instruction rather than the outputs of the instruction. Therefore, it can be stated that teachers often focus more on teaching rather than learning. This perspective can lead to the misconception that learning is an activity when, in fact, learning is derived from a careful consideration of the meaning of the activity.

As previously stated, backward design is beneficial to instructors because it innately encourages intentionality during the design process. It continually encourages the instructor to establish the purpose of doing something before implementing it into the curriculum. Therefore, backward design is an effective way of guiding instruction and designing lessons, units, and courses. Once the learning goals, or desired results, have been identified, instructors have an easier time developing assessments and instruction around grounded learning outcomes.

The incorporation of backward design also lends itself to transparent and explicit instruction. If the teacher has explicitly defined the learning goals of the course, then they have a better idea of what they want the students to get out of learning activities. Furthermore, if done thoroughly, it eliminates the possibility of doing certain activities and tasks for the sake of doing them. Every task and piece of instruction has a purpose that fits in with the overarching goals and goals of the course.

As the quote below highlights, teaching is not just about engaging students in the content. It is also about ensuring students have the resources necessary to understand. Student learning and understanding can be gauged more accurately through a backward design approach since it leverages what students will need to know and understand during the design process to progress.

“In teaching students for understanding, we must grasp the key idea that we are coaches of their ability to play the ‘game’ of performing with understanding, not tellers of our understanding to them on the sidelines,” (Wiggins and McTighe, 1998).

The preceding content from the Vanderbilt Center for Teaching site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

In the following video, Dr. Stephanie Chasteen and others from the University of Colorado Boulder introduce the concept of backward design with some specific examples of how it can be used in developing curriculum for STEM courses.

The preceding video does not have a designated Creative Commons license and may only be used in compliance with the Standard YouTube licensing guidelines, which allow streaming but forbids downloading, adaptation, and redistribution.

Backward Design as a Curriculum-Development Model

Neither backward design nor “frontloading” the curriculum is better than the other. It just depends. The real questions are: where, as a teacher or a committee, do you want to begin?  What are the priorities?

The traditional “frontloading” approach begins with the aims, goals, and objectives as a basis for writing the curriculum, then developing learning activities and assessments (formative and summative) to assess the curriculum. With the backward design, the teacher or curriculum committee either develops the assessments or relies on evidence from commercial assessments or released items from state tests as a beginning point.

A key question here is: what is the evidence that students have met the standards? (i.e., attained the prescribed knowledge and skills to plan the teaching and learning activities). This encourages teachers to “think like an assessor,” according to Wiggins and McTighe. The challenge is that commercial testing companies that develop state tests do not want the most, let alone all the items, known because they fear it would invalidate the test. Experts like Fenwick English argue that if teachers and curriculum committees had more knowledge about what the commercial tests are actually assessing (not specifically individual test items), it would help to create better alignment between what is written, what is taught, and what is tested. This alignment, as we learned earlier, can be helpful to all students, especially students from homes of poverty where there is a paucity of books and reading materials. Unfortunately, most testing companies do not share much of this information, and the released items tend to be those that they will not use again.

Backward design works best when the school or district develops its own tests so they know what the targets are. Even without the knowledge of what is on the tests, most districts tend to favor backward design or backloading because there is great pressure from the stakeholders for students to attain high test scores. In private schools, where high-stakes testing is not as much of an issue, curriculum development is most often frontloaded, particularly with classical education, where the aims, goals, and objectives are of primary importance.

Insight

There is no single “best way” to develop a curriculum. The most important decision for a curriculum committee to make regarding which design to use should be based on what is most appropriate for the school or district.

Summary

Traditional or “frontloading” and backward or “backloading” design models are used to create a curriculum, and both have benefits.  In schools or districts where aims, goals, and objectives are the focus, the traditional model is probably the best choice. In many districts, backward design is used because there is an expectation that students should attain high test scores.

Credits:

Curriculum Essentials: A Journey Copyright © 2021 by Linda J. Button, Ed.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

ReStorying Education Copyright © 2024 by Ed Beck is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

Lesson Planning

Great lessons don’t just happen!  Effective practitioners are intentional about determining a lesson’s purpose and the instructional process they’ll use to best meet their students’ needs.  They plan so that students’ investment of time in learning is valued and productive and moves them toward the attainment of specific learning objectives.

In teacher education programs, teacher candidates are required to prepare comprehensive lesson plans that foster the process of planning effective instruction.  With time and experience, this process becomes intrinsic, leading to the need for less documentation.

This chapter is intended to serve as a resource for beginning teachers as they master the art of effective lesson planning and for experienced teachers as they revisit the components of lesson planning that become second nature over time.

Each chapter presents a component of lesson planning critical for student learning and describes how that component is targeted in our college’s lesson planning tools, including the CPS’s CEP Lesson Plan Template, the CEP Lesson Plan Rubric, and the CPS Lesson Observation Feedback Tool.

 LICENSE Lesson Planning 101 Copyright © 2019 by Deborah Kolling and Kate Shumway-Pitt is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

Constructivism Theory and the 5E Model

Constructivism is a relatively young theory that was brought to the forefront in the 1960’s. The premise is built on the works of cognitive theorist Piaget, Bruner, and Vygotsky. In this paper we will discuss constructivism learning theory, the 5-E model, and how they can work together in the classroom. Bruner stated that “you cannot strip learning of its content, nor study it in a ‘neutral’ context. It is always situated, always related to some ongoing enterprise” (Bruner, 2004).

Key Theorist – Jerome Bruner

Jerome Bruner was born in 1915 in New York City. He is known to be one of the leaders in the rise of cognitive theory in education. “Bruner suggested that intellectual ability developed in stages through step-by-step changes in how the mind is used.” (Smith, 2002) Bruner taught at Harvard University and Oxford University. Bruner wrote The Process of Education (1960), which is considered an important work that greatly influenced American education policy by highlighting four themes that resonated with many teachers. These themes described the learning process of children as exploratory in nature that was driven by natural curiosity. Scaffolding of content was first defined by Bruner. He wrote Toward a Theory of Instruction, which presented “the case for education as a knowledge-getting process” (Bruner, 1966).

 Theoretical Concepts 

Critical Thinking           

Learners need to think critically by considering different viewpoints and acknowledge bias when solving given problems (Hashimoto & Nyikos, 1997). This is especially true when it comes to digital literacy in the 21st century. Social interaction activities play a vital part in the cognitive development of new ideas or varied points of view. In other words, there are two key elements to critical thinking: 1. a frame of mind that allows examination of multiple viewpoints; and 2. determining the reliability of a source, distinguishing relevance, detecting bias, and identifying assumptions (1997).

 Zone Proximal Development          

Within a group, each person has an individual zone of potential. This is due to individuals having different experiences. However, when collaboration occurs and interrelationships are formed, individual
viewpoints and schemas have the ability to grow (Hashimoto & Nyikos, 1997).

5E Lesson Format

 The 5E Instructional Model includes five phases that all begin with the letter “E.”  The five phases are engage, explore, explain, extend/elaborate, and evaluate.
 

5E Model – University of Kansas- Edwards Campus, Julia Fulbright

 Engaged 

When students are engaged, they are able to make connections between past and present learning experiences and mentally engage the student on the concept, process, or skill that is being learned (5E, 2014).  This coincides with the constructivist theory because Vygotsky says that learning occurs when students build off their prior knowledge or experiences.

Explore            

This phase provides students with a common base of knowledge through exploring concepts, processes, or skills to be learned (5E, 2014).  This can be done using Web Tools, social media, collaboration with experts, or any other method of exploration.  This phase relates to Bruner’s contributions to the constructivism theory in his belief that learning must be a process of discovery.

Explain/Elaborate/Evaluate            

The last three phases of the 5E model are: explain, elaborate, and evaluate.  When students explain or verbalize their understanding, the teacher is able to introduce new vocabulary, terms, and explanations (5E, 2014).  The teacher is also able to catch any misconceptions.  The constructivist theory suggests that learning occurs when knowledge is applied to real-life situations.  The 5E model supports this with the elaborate phase.  In this phase, students extend their knowledge through practice and application (2014). Lastly, students should self-reflect on learning and assess their own understanding while the instructor is able to evaluate the
students’ understanding of key concepts (2014).

Sample 5E Lessons: https://oercommons.org/courseware/lesson/96466

Watch the video:  Inquiry-Based Learning: Developing Student-Driven Questions

Application in the 21st Century

Critical Thinking 

The constructivism theory suggests that collaboration plays a vital role in critical thinking. It also believes that the ability to determine the validity of material is equally important. This can be done in the 21st century by using digital Web 2.0 Tools such as blogging, wikis, and discussion boards. 

Zone of Proximal Development    

Zone of Proximal Development (ZBD) is an individual’s ability to learn new knowledge on a subject based on prior knowledge or experiences. Because we all have different experiences, we comprehend things in different ways. Therefore, when put into a group, collaboration can occur, and schemas can grow. This can be done using social media formats such as See Saw. Fortunately, stimulations, gaming, and virtual experiences are other ways that students are able to grow their Zone of Proximal Development in the 21st century.

Conclusion

 The 21st century is evolving around technology.  It is changing the way we think, learn, and operate.  “Buzz words” in the education world include collaboration, higher order, and real-world experiences.  Constructivism is a theory that encompasses these thoughts while applying them to how we learn.  For example, constructivism suggests that learners are able to learn best when they are able to tap into prior knowledge, and information is scaffolded.  Feedback also plays an important role in the learning process, according to constructivists.  This theory has evolved over many years and includes research done by Dewey, Piaget, Vygotsky, and Brunner.  

 The 5E design model lends itself perfectly to helping designers mold lessons and/or courses around constructivist ideas.  The students are expected to engage, explore, explain, elaborate, and evaluate.  The model also entices real-world scenarios, high-order thinking, and collaboration which ties it nicely to the constructivism theory.

 References:

• Bruner, J. (2004). A Short History of Psychological Theories of Learning. Daedalus, 133(1), 13-20. Retrieved from
  http://www.jstor.org.libweb.lib.utsa.edu/stable/20027892
  
• Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge: Mass.
• Hashimoto, R  & Nyikos, M. (1997). Constructivist Theory Applied to Collaborative Learning in Teacher Education: In Search of ZPD. The Modern Language Journal. 81(4), 506-517.
• Smith, M. K. (2002) ‘Jerome S. Bruner and the process of education’, The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Retrieved from
  http://infed.org/mobi/jerome-bruner-and-the-process-of-education/
  

 Constructivism Theory and the 5-E Model by Jennifer Lynn is licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.

Pros and Cons of using the 5E Design Model and Constructivism in Adult Education  by Kathleen Beaser is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.

Launch-Explore-Summarize Lesson Format

The Launch-Explore Summarize Teaching Model is a mathematics instruction model.  In this three-phase lesson format is a problem-solving structure to promote meaningful math learning by activating prior knowledge, letting students explore mathematical thinking, and promoting a math community of learners. The three elements of this format are: launch, explore, and summarize.  

1) Launch: the beginning phase: getting ready;

2) Explore: the middle phase:  students work/explore the content; and

3) Summarize (End): class discussion.

View References

Example: Use This Strategy in the Classroom

Watch how this first-grade teacher uses the three-phase lesson format to teach Operations and Language Skills. Through this problem-solving approach, students persevere to advance their mathematical thinking and Mathematical Flexibility.

Watch the Video: Grade 1 Math Lesson 3 Phase Lesson CCSS

 Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DEDuy6YLtQ

To implement this lesson format, teachers can start by asking thought-provoking questions and connecting the ideas of the mathematical task/problem to prior student experiences. Next, students explore and work on the task independently then with peers. Lastly, teachers bring the whole class back together to discuss the math ideas developed in the task and draw connections to strategies different students used.

Design It into Your Product

 Products can be built around these three-phases to support the problem-solving process. They can also embed task-specific, extension questions or additional support when necessary depending on the learner’s misconceptions, challenges, or strategies. This additional feedback can be useful in stretching learners’ Mathematical Flexibility and Motivation to problem solve.

Design It into Your Product

Products can be built around these three-phases to support the problem-solving process. They can also embed task-specific, extension questions or additional support when necessary depending on the learner’s misconceptions, challenges, or strategies. This additional feedback can be useful in stretching learners’ Mathematical Flexibility and Motivation to problem-solve. 

Additional Resources

Additional examples, research, and professional development. These resources are possible representations of this strategy, not endorsements.

Expanded on This Framework

Planning a Math Unit:

• Launch-Explore-Summarize Teaching Model

• Access the materials: Launch-Explore-Summarize Teaching Model
  

• Launch– Explore- Summarize – Reflect – Apply (LESRA)

• Access the materials: Launch – Explore- Summarize – Reflect – Apply
  

• Launch-Explore-Discuss

• Access the materials:Launch-Explore-Discuss Framework