Backward Design, Forward Progress
Backward Design, Forward Progress
The focus faculty readers are probably already familiar with the back design. The more easily connected to researchers like Grant Wiggins, Jay McTighe and Dee Fink, during this approach requires the construction of teachers to initially ignore specific class content. Instead, the designer begins the process by identifying desired learning goals and designing optimal instruments to measure and evaluate. It was only later that the specific content in comes in – and even then it is not introduced for the “cover” but as a means to achieve the learning objectives identified above. Courses designed in this way put learning first, they often transcend the traditional boundaries of their discipline’s powers and generally seek to achieve more ambitious cognitive development than classes that often begin and end with mastery of content . Although the advantages of the back of the design are obvious, it is probably even more the exception than the rule of class planning.
However, the rear design has benefits beyond those described above. Just as the technique is advantageous to the students we teach, it is valuable to our own growth path as educators and serves as a useful bridge to interact with teachers outside our disciplines.
Making Difficult Decisions
First, (re) design a course with a back design that forces us to retreat to our areas of expertise, which we know so well and so dearly, and approach the learning process as beginners. In other words, we know even our disciplines and content that it is difficult to imagine someone who is not equipped with such knowledge or a burning desire to acquire it. More importantly, we love the content that is our area, and it is quite painful to imagine excluding elements for the development of skills or the realities of semester boundaries.
The previous construction forces us to make difficult decisions in that it is really necessary contents for our students to reach their learning objectives.
The previous construction forces us to make difficult decisions in that it is really necessary contents for our students to reach their learning objectives. Maryellen Weimer wrote that our attitude towards basic content “has always been dominated by an assumption: more is better” (p. 46). If this building embodies the typical “coverage” approach, then perhaps “just enough content – and No more “could set the course around the principles of back design. And it forces us to make fundamental decisions about learning and the role of basic content, we face the very nature of what we want to achieve as educators. Is it simply that the students know a lot about our area? Or is it mainly so that they can develop the mental habits that characterize the professionals? The previous objective of lowering the objective of the taxonomy of Bloom, since it requires a high trajectory.
Ken Bain wrote about “the failure of expectations” (page 28) as a necessary component of students’ cognitive advancement. That is to say that students should be placed in a situation in which they realize that their existing forms of knowledge are not used correctly. Only then can we navigate through the “learning bottlenecks” (in the language of Diaz et al.) That inhabit our fields. I prefer to push the bathroom analogy: it is often only through our own failures that we as teachers can design the most authentic and meaningful learning experiences for our students. For better or for worse (and usually worse), most of us have begun to teach ourselves how we teach ourselves, and many of us always do. Only when we realize that these approaches do not achieve our desired learning goals. We look at the educational abyss to contemplate the fundamental puzzles of education. If we are lucky, we can ask a partner for help, or stumble across a good educational reading. And if the reverse gear design is considered a solution, maybe we could strengthen our own teaching bottleneck and offer something better.