Presentation on theme: " Understanding by Design Using Backwards Design Principles to Create Standards-Based Units Welcome! We’re glad you’re here…"— Presentation transcript:
Understanding by Design Using Backwards Design Principles to Create Standards-Based Units Welcome! We’re glad you’re here…
Today’s Objectives Learn and apply Understanding by Design (UbD) elements and principles Be able to create Stage 2 parts of your units Be prepared to create Stage 3 on your own Closure
Setting the Purpose Frontloading what you need to know and be able to do Developing a strong understanding of the intentional focus on Design Building your confidence with the literature connected our Standards- Based work
UbD Overview - The 3 Stages of Design 1. Identify desired results 2. Determine acceptable evidence 3. Plan Learning Experiences
Stage 2 – Assessment Evidence What “preponderance of evidence” would show that students have achieved the desired understanding, knowledge, and skill?
Stage 2 – Assessment Evidence “Think like an assessor, not an activity designer” The goal is valid and reliable evidence for Stage 1: What do the standards and desired results imply for evidence?
Two Different Approaches Thinking Like an Assessor What would be sufficient and revealing evidence of understanding? What performance tasks must anchor the unit and focus the instructional work? How will I be able to distinguish between those who really understand and those who don’t (though they may seem to?) Against what criteria will I distinguish work? What misunderstandings are likely? How will I check for those? Thinking Like an Activity Designer What would be interesting and engaging activities on this topic? What resources and materials are available on this topic? What will students be doing in and out of class? What assignments will be given? How will I give students a grade (and justify it to their parents)? Did the activities work? Why or why not?
Stage 2 – Assessment Evidence Validity involves asking: Can we infer from the evidence provided by the assessment to the standard(s)? Is this the right kind of evidence for making inferences needed? How far can we generalize from the (inherently implied sample of evidence?)
Key Validity Questions 1. Could the performance be accomplished (or the test be passed) without in-depth understanding? 2. Could specific performance be poor, but the student still understand the ideas in question?
Deconstructing a Flawed Model Which elements are not aligned? What might be some ways to improve the validity of this design?
Assessing Understanding How is understanding assessed in light of the Depth of Knowledge?