Notes from: Meeting Standards by Design: Embedding Standards in the UbD Framework for Curriculum, Assessment, and Learning (2012)
with Grant Wiggins
Big Idea #1: Close Reading of standards
Standards are complex and need to be read carefully
- Need to think about the meaning of the “text” of standards for curriculum, instruction, and teaching & learning
- Consider: What are the relationships within the standards?
- Ex. Putting them into a hierarchy makes it seem as if they are independent, but they are actually to be taught in an integrated faction
- Appendix: The hierarchy does not mean you teach standards in order
- Learning Progression—recurring ideas and outcomes that appear throughout the document
- Attempt has been to build the learning year after year based on what we know right now about learning, but the progression is likely to change as our understanding of learning changes
- Math specifically has been told to weave the mathematical practices into the mathematical content
- There are at least 2 different types of standards in all the documents: 1) Content (What Chappuis, 2012, calls “Knowledge and Reasoning”), 2) Skill, and 3) Performance
- Wiggins adds “progress” standards—how should we be thinking over time about the development of standards
- Gradual release of responsibility is inherent in the standards and has to be a key part of curriculum design.
- How to do this is not addressed in the standards, but it is implicit
- In math, we tend to overscaffold for too long.
Big Idea #2: Translating the standards
Standards do not have immediate implications for curriculum writing, teaching & learning, and instruction, so you have to translate them.
Need to be translated (inside out, matrix, sideways approaches)
- Have to translate what all the CCSS documents say and imply and translate them into use
- Wiggins presented 3 different ways of breaking down and making the standards more manageable and understandable. Another way to do this is Chappuis (2012) deconstruction method, which I detailed here.
- Inside Out Approach
- Tip 1: Look at the verbs
- Tell us what the student needs to be able to do—when all is said and done, it’s the student who has to do something
- Tip 2: Look at the nouns
- Tip 3: Look at qualifiers
- Qualifying adverbs and adjectives are useful in determining how a student will be judged. Use these words as the criteria areas in rubrics.
- In Math—when a standard begins with “understand,” this is a clear place to connect math practices and content
- Tip 4: Rigor happens in the assessment
i. What kind of task is it?
ii. How is it scored?
iii. Do an audit of local rigor.
- Matrix Approach
- Content across the top, practice down the side.
- Sideways Approach
- Transfer: Ultimate goal of learning—given what they know, what do you want them to do with it?
- Meaning: What kind of thinking do you want them to do?
- Acquisition of Knowledge & Skill: What knowledge do you want them to have (know and do)
Example from ELA:
Example from Math:
Big Idea #3: Backward Design
Design backward from all the desired outcomes
- Curriculum is going to be a blend of content and process
- Begin with the desired end in mind
- Be clear about desired expectations
- Rigor–Comes from the task itself and how it will be scored/evaluated
Social Studies Example of outcome expectations:
This is not a clear outcome.
After in Social Studies:
Before in Math:
After in Math: