From the Theoretical to the Practical

The curriculum approaches outlined above are theoretical and give us food for thought – and perhaps bases for research. What we need, in addition, are practical, simple approaches to curriculum development. For that, we turn to curriculum, instruction, and assessment specialists such as Dee Fink, Grant Wiggins, and Jay McTighe. Fink (2007) writes about designing significant learning experiences in college courses using a process called integrated course design (ICD). His model includes the familiar triad of learning goals, teaching and learning activities and feedback/assessment. Learning goals identify what we want students to learn, learning activities identify how students will learn what it is we want them to learn, and the feedback/assessment identifies how we will know students have achieved the intended goals. Fink emphasizes, however, that these components are all influenced by “situational factors,” such as course context, professional expectations, and the nature of the subject, the students, and the teacher. He presents a taxonomy of significant learning that outlines six kinds of learning to consider when designing a course. The taxonomy, unlike Blooms’s well-known cognitive taxonomy, is interactive rather than hierarchical. The identified kinds of learning include foundational knowledge, application, integration, human dimension, caring, and learning how to learn. Fink’s book (2003) explores each aspect of the taxonomy and includes feedback from professors who have used this approach to curriculum design and have found it helpful. Currently, one of the most influential books on curriculum development is Wiggins and Mc Tighe’s (1998, 2005) Understanding by Design. The authors call their approach “backward design” and, sure enough, they cite Ralph Tyler’s (1949) model as providing the logic behind their “new” idea. However, the backwards design model avoids the mechanistic predisposition of behaviorism and offers a major advantage by featuring the latest thinking in assessment. Though it draws most of its examples from K-12 education settings, the principles put forth by the authors are relevant to curricula at any level. Wiggins and McTighe say their design is backward because it starts with the end, the desired results, first and then works backward to a curriculum based on acceptable evidence of learning. The stages in the backward design process are
1- Identify desired results
2- Determine acceptable evidence
3- Plan learning experiences and instruction
In stage 1, consideration is given to what students should know, understand, and be able to do, and here is where it becomes clear that the orientation to curriculum design is more constructivist than behaviorist. The authors suggest a framework for establishing curriculum content by considering three levels of knowledge: that which is worth being familiar with, that which is important to know and do, and that which represents an “enduring” understanding. Third level knowledge, enduring understandings, refers to essential principles of disciplinary and/or

Stage 2 asks how we will know if students have achieved the desired understandings and skills. At this point, thought is given to what assessment evidence will document that the desired learning has taken place. The authors advocate considering a wide range of evidence and assessment methods ranging from informal checks for understanding to complex performance tasks and projects. It is this stage that is probably the most “backward” for instructors. There is a strong tendency not to think about assessment until toward the end of a topic or unit or course. Considering assessment as evidence of learning, and considering it before teaching, puts assessment not only in a new place, but in a new light. (For a very interesting article presenting principles for assessment in higher education, see Wiggins “Toward Assessment Worthy of the Liberal Arts: The Truth May Make You Free, but the Test May Keep You Imprisoned” at http://www.maa.org/SAUM/articles/wiggins_appendix.html). It is not until stage 3 that the learning experiences (instructional strategies) are planned. Since acceptable evidence has already been considered, the learning experiences are designed to enable students to produce the desired results. Teaching is viewed as a means to an end, not an end in itself. Wiggins and McTighe suggest asking the following questions during this stage: What enabling knowledge and skills will students need to perform effectively and achieve desired results? What activities will equip students with the needed knowledge and skills? What will need to be taught and coached, and how should it best be taught, in light of performance goals? What materials and resources are best suited to accomplish these goals? Is the overall design and effective? (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998, 13)