I first thought backward design was partly just forward design in disguise. The first step of content-focused design versus results-focused design seemed the same. Teaching a lesson on racial prejudice was the same as the more results-focused, "What are the consequences of racial prejudice?" Bottom line: racism bad. What was interesting was when Professor Hanley advised that the point of the first step isn't so much as to plainly state what we want students to learn but to open the topic up so that the students could THINK about the lesson and not just binge and purge lectures and activities. This was difficult to do as a group because I didn't quite grasp this idea till the end of class. The next two steps were also difficult to do as a group because we tended to slip into forward design by thinking of actual activities tasks before coming up with the evidence - did these two steps go hand in hand or is it strictly one then the other? I'm still struggling with this.
Given the difficult climate teachers and students have to deal with I don't see backward design as a practical method of teaching despite it being ideal - time consuming, really hard. However, I do think the thought process of backward design is a healthy way for teachers to engage their students and I'm glad I learned about it now rather than when I'm a grumpy, old teacher set in my ways.
I'd be curious to see how backward design could be executed on all levels besides literature. Can it work for something like math, where there usually only one answer? What about learning how to bake a pie, a very step-by-step process? It seems like for these kind of subjects forward design would be the go-to method, just a rambly thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment