Backward Design
Also known as: Understanding by Design
Wiggins and McTighe: start with desired outcomes, then plan assessment, then instruction.
Backward Design (also Understanding by Design, UbD) was developed by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe and presented in Understanding by Design (1998, expanded 2nd edition 2005). The framework inverts the traditional curriculum-design sequence (start with content or activities, design assessment last) by structuring design in three sequential stages: Stage 1 (Identify Desired Results — what students should know, understand, and be able to do; what 'enduring understandings' should remain after details are forgotten; what 'essential questions' should organize inquiry); Stage 2 (Determine Acceptable Evidence — what assessment evidence will demonstrate that the desired understandings have been achieved, designed before instructional planning to align assessment with intended outcomes); Stage 3 (Plan Learning Experiences and Instruction — design the activities and sequence backward from the assessment evidence). The framework's central insight is that planning instruction first tends to produce coverage-driven rather than understanding-driven curriculum — teachers cover content because it's in the curriculum, with assessment retrofitted afterward. Backward Design aligns intentions, evidence, and instruction explicitly. The framework includes the Six Facets of Understanding (explanation, interpretation, application, perspective, empathy, self-knowledge) as a substantive account of what counts as understanding beyond mere knowing. Backward Design is the dominant contemporary curriculum-design framework in K-12 US education and substantially influential in higher education.
Core components
- Three stages: Stage 1 Identify Desired Results
- Stage 2 Determine Acceptable Evidence
- Stage 3 Plan Learning Experiences
- Enduring Understandings
- Essential Questions
- Six Facets of Understanding (explanation, interpretation, application, perspective, empathy, self-knowledge)
- Distinction from coverage-driven and activity-driven design
- UbD planning templates
- Connection to assessment-as-learning
Primary use case
K-12 curriculum and unit design in US contexts; lesson planning and unit development; teacher professional development; foundation for many state and district curriculum frameworks; alternative to ADDIE for educator-led course design; substantial influence in higher-education course-design practice.
Common criticisms
- Implementation in many schools has been substantially shallow — the language is adopted but the actual sequence (assessment design before instruction design) is often violated under time pressure
- identifying genuine 'enduring understandings' requires deep disciplinary expertise that not all teachers have
- commercial UbD certification and consulting industry has produced compliance-style adoption
- tension with externally-mandated curriculum standards that constrain Stage 1
- assessment-driven design risks reducing curriculum to what is testable
- the Six Facets of Understanding overlap and operationalize unevenly
- works better for content with stable disciplinary structure (math, history) than for emergent or interdisciplinary content
- the framework's emphasis on understanding can be at odds with skill-based or competency-based curriculum needs.
Lineage
- Siblings
- ADDIE Model, Universal Design for Learning