Martel ACTFL UbD Presentation 11/18/11
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Martel ACTFL UbD Presentation 11/18/11

on

  • 994 views

Two teachers comprehensions, perceptions, and use of Understanding by Design

Two teachers comprehensions, perceptions, and use of Understanding by Design

Jason Martel
University of Minnesota
Contact information included in PowerPoint

Statistics

Views

Total Views
994
Views on SlideShare
994
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Martel ACTFL UbD Presentation 11/18/11 Martel ACTFL UbD Presentation 11/18/11 Presentation Transcript

  • 
Two
teachers’
comprehensions,
perceptions,
and
use
of
Understanding
by
Design
Jason
Martel
University
of
Minnesota
ACTFL
Annual
Conven7on
11/18/11

  • Objective
of
study
  To
understand
how
Wiggins
and
McTighe’s
(2005)
 Understanding
by
Design
framework
(henceforth
 UbD)
is
considered
and
applied
in
a
tradi7onal
 foreign
language
context

  • Rationale
  No
empirical
study
of
this
framework
  Used
all
over
the
country
in
schools
of
educa7on
 and
professional
development
programs
  Although
this
study’s
par7cipants
are
university‐ level
instructors,
the
results
are
extendable
to
K–12
 contexts,
in
which
UbD
is
more
commonly
used

  • Value
premises
  I
believe
that:
   Foreign
languages
are
best
learned
through
content,
 which
gives
an
authen7c
purpose
to
foreign
 language
use
in
the
classroom
(Cammarata,
2009;
 2010;
Lyster,
2011;
Snow,
Met,
&
Genesee,
1989)
   UbD
is
an
exci7ng
framework
that
can
help
foreign
 language
teachers
to
integrate
content
into
their
 curricula
   Tradi7onal
foreign
language
teaching
needs
to
move
 away
from
form‐focused
pedagogies
to
ones
that
 contextualize
focus
on
form
within
a
predominant
 focus
on
meaning
(Tedick
&
Walker,
1994)

  • What
is
UbD?
  What
have
you
heard
about
UbD?
Have
you
used
it
 before?
If
so,
what
was
it
like?

  • What
is
UbD?
  A
curriculum
development
framework
based
on
 construc7vist
principles
that
links
planning,
assessment,
 and
teaching
  An
inversion
of
the
tradi7onal
approach
to
curriculum‐ planning
   Stage
1:
iden7fy
desired
results
   Stage
2:
determine
acceptable
evidence
   Stage
3:
plan
learning
experiences
and
instruc7on
  Key
concepts:
big
ideas,
enduring
understandings,
 essen7al
ques7ons,
six
facets
of
understanding,
GRASPS,
 WHERETO

  • UbD
and
foreign
language
  Foreign
language
is
commonly
referred
to
in
UbD
as
a
“skill‐ focused
area”
(Wiggins
&
McTighe,
2005,
p.
112);
this
type
of
 descrip7on
can
reinforce
pedagogies
that
treat
language
as
an
 object
rather
than
a
subject
for
meaningful
communica7on
 (Tedick
&
Walker,
1994)
  Foreign
language
educa7on
is
moving
away
from
object‐focused
 pedagogies
(e.g.,
grammar
transla7on)
towards
communica7ve
 ones
that
provide
opportuni7es
for
exchanges
of
meaningful
 informa7on
(Richards
&
Rodgers,
2001)

  The
essen7al
ques7ons
examples
provided
in
UbD
seem
to
imply
 discussion
in
students’
na7ve
language,
for
example:
   “What
dis7nguishes
a
fluent
foreigner
from
a
na7ve
speaker?”
   “What
can
we
learn
about
our
own
language
and
culture
from
 studying
another?”
(McTighe
&
Wiggins,
2004,
p.
89)

  • Research
questions
  What
are
the
par7cipants’
percep7ons
of
UbD,
in
 par7cular
concerning
its
viability
for
foreign
 language
teaching?

  What
impact
has
UbD
had
on
their
teaching?


  • Methodology/methods
  Case
study
methodology
(Creswell,
2007;
Merriam,
 2009;
Stake,
1995,
2000)
  Purposeful
sampling
(Paion,
2002);
par7cipants
 involved
in
a
course
on
foreign/second
language
 curriculum
design
using
UbD
  Qualita7ve
data
collec7on
methods:
observa7ons,
 interviews,
and
documents
(Merriam,
2009)
  Mul7ple
case
study
(Stake,
1995,
2000;
Yin,
2008)
  Qualita7ve
coding
techniques,
cross‐case
analysis
 (Creswell,
2007;
Merriam,
2009)

  • Case
#1:
Antonia
  Teaches
Italian
at
a
university
in
an
adjunct
posi7on
  Was
teaching
first
and
third
semester
Italian
at
7me
of
study
 and
was
using
a
new
textbook
for
first
semester
course
called
 Avan1
(Aski
&
Musumeci,
2009)
  Is
an
Italian
na7ve
  Experienced
form‐focused
instruc7on
while
ini7ally
learning
 second
languages
(English,
La7n,
German)
  Is
currently
working
towards
a
M.A.
in
Curriculum
&
 Instruc7on
with
a
focus
on
foreign
language
educa7on;
has
 taken
several
classes
in
foreign/second
language
teaching
and
 learning
at
the
university

  • Case
#2:
Loretta
  Teaches
Italian
at
university
in
an
adjunct
posi7on
  Was
teaching
first
and
fourth
semester
Italian
at
7me
of
study
 and
was
using
a
new
textbook
for
first
semester
course
called
 Avan1
(Aski
&
Musumeci,
2009)
  Is
an
Italian
na7ve
  Experienced
form‐focused
instruc7on
while
ini7ally
learning
 second
languages
(French,
English,
German)
  Is
currently
working
towards
a
M.A.
in
Curriculum
&
 Instruc7on
with
a
focus
on
foreign
language
educa7on;
has
 taken
several
classes
in
foreign/second
language
teaching
and
 learning
at
the
university

  • More
context
  Antonia
and
Loreia
were
both
enrolled
in
a
second/ foreign
language
curriculum
design
course
at
the
7me
of
 the
study

   They
read
por7ons
of
the
UbD
text,
not
all
(this
was
their
 introduc7on
to
UbD)
   The
course
focused
on
content‐based
instruc7on
(CBI)
   The
course
also
exposed
them
to
other
curricular
 frameworks
such
as
Stoller
and
Grabe’s
(1997)
“Six
Ts”
 framework
  Given
this
context,
the
par1cipants’
percep1ons/use
of
 UbD
in
this
study
must
be
considered
in
rela1on
to
use
 with
CBI

  • Theme
#1:
Varied
take‐aways
  The
par7cipants
expressed
different
take‐aways
   Antonia:
big
ideas
   More
than
just
language
forms
   A
“frame”
or
a
“path”
   Loreia:
assessment
   Think
about
assessment
in
a
new
way
   Align
classroom
ac7vi7es
with
assessments;
went
back
to
 tests
she
uses
  An
interes7ng
phenomenon
given
their
close
 collabora7on/the
similarity
of
input
they
experienced
   Lines
up
with
the
concept
of
mul7ple
points
of
entry
 (both
men7oned
this
concept
in
their
interviews)

  • Theme
#1:
Varied
take‐aways
  Antonia:
“What
do
I
want
the
student
to
learn
at
 the
end
of
this?
What
do
I
want
them
to
know?
 That
there
is
Prada
and
Gucci
and
Armani?
Or
do
I
 want
to
make
them
think
more
why
in
Italy
is
it
so
 important
to
be
well
dressed?
Why
do
Italians
like
 to
be
well
dressed?
What’s
behind
that?
What
does
 it
show
about
their
mentality,
their
way
of
their
way
 of
thinking
about
fashion?”

  • Theme
#1:
Varied
take‐aways
  Jason:
“When
you
think
back
to
UbD,
what
are
the
 first
things
that
come
to
mind
for
you?”
  Loreia:
“Assessment,
because
that’s
not
the
way
I
 used
to
think;
I
didn’t
used
to
think
in
those
terms.”





  • Theme
#2:
Implementation
concerns
   The
par7cipants
expressed
that
UbD:
   “…made
me
think
differently…it’s
more
like
my
line
 of
thinking
is
different.”
(Loreia)
   Has
poten7al
in
foreign
language
teaching
(Loreia)
   Requires
a
different
way
of
using
the
textbook
 (Antonia)
   They
also
expressed:
   A
need
for
concrete
examples
   That
they
were
excited
to
use
project
they
created,
if
 possible

  • Theme
#2:
Implementation
concerns
   Jason:
“Is
there
anything
about
UbD
that
you
could
 use
while
also
using
Avan1
the
textbook?”

   Loreia:
“We
can
always
start
thinking
about
the
 assessment
first
and
then
going
back
to
the
 ac7vity…
Some
of
the
things
you
can
apply
no
 maier
what
you
do,
no
maier
what
textbook
you
 have,
as
long
as
you
can
really
cover
the
syllabus
 and
that
there
are
not
too
many
incongrui7es.”

  • Theme
#2:
Implementation
concerns
   Jason:
“How
do
you
perceive
UbD
as
a
fit
with
a
 textbook
like
Avan1?”
   Antonia:
“You
could
use
[Avan1]
as
the
reference
 for
the
students…
Rather
than
just
doing
the
 chapter
as
it
is
in
Avan1
actually
plan
a
unit
on
that
 and
then
you
take
from
Avan1
the
parts
and
 integrate
your
unit…
We
use
Avan1
as
a
 supplement,
as
a
tool,
but
not
as
a
main.”

  • Theme
#3:
Whole
kit
and
kaboodle
   The
par7cipants
carried
out
a
few
minor
 implementa7ons
in
prac7ce,
e.g.,
pilo7ng
of
unit
for
 fourth‐semester
class
   Their
emails
suggest
that
UbD
has
not
significantly
 affected
their
prac7ce
   This
suggests
that
for
them
“doing”
UbD
involves
 using
a
product
(e.g.,
a
unit)
in
its
en7rety

  • Theme
#3:
Whole
kit
and
kaboodle
   Antonia:
“As
I
men7oned
to
you
the
other
night,
my
 only
concern
is
that
my
lessons
are
following
a
 syllabus
developed
by
the
coordinators.
Therefore
I
 dont
have
much
opportunity
to
modify
the
lesson
 plans,
in
both
the
classes
I
teach.
If
you
think
this
is
 not
an
issue
for
your
study,
then
it
will
be
fun
to
 help
you.”

  • Theme
#3:
Whole
kit
and
kaboodle
   Loreia:
“I
will
be
happy
to
par7cipate
in
your
study;
 however,
my
only
concern
is
if
I
can
really
help,
 because
things
haven’t
changed
much
in
the
 curriculum
of
the
second
year,
since
only
the
first
 semester
of
the
first
year
has
been
revised.
I
could
 implement
part
of
a
unit
in
my
[fourth
semester]
 class,
when
I
worked
on
a
project
last
semester
(in
 the
Curriculum
Design
class),
but
other
than
that
 our
program
doesn’t
follow
the
backward
design
at
 this
moment.”


  • Implications
  What
do
the
findings
of
this
study
mean
for
using
 UbD
in
foreign
language
teaching?

  • Implications
  Provide
models
of
foreign
language
UbD
units
   We
also
need
some
way
of
sharing
ones
that
are
 made,
e.g.,
MCTLC
Swap
Shop
   Look
to
other
disciplines’
models
in
the
UbD
text
  Develop
strategies
for
implemen7ng
UbD
in
 prac7ce
in
a
baby
steps
rather
than
a
whole
kit
and
 kaboodle
way
   Explode
themes
of
textbooks
with
enduring
 understandings,
essen7al
ques7ons,
supplementary
 texts,
performance
assessments

  • Implications
  Foster
collabora7ons
with
teachers
in
other
 departments
in
school
   Co‐development
of
curricular
units
   Content‐related
teaching
(Curtain
&
Dahlberg,
2010;
 Na7onal
Standards
in
Foreign
Language
Educa7on
 Project,
1999)
   More
difficult
at
the
university
level,
according
to
 Loreia
  Provide
sustained
professional
development
 opportuni7es

  • UbD
and
CBI
  CBI
is
recommended
in
ACTFL’s
Program
standards
for
the
 prepara1on
of
foreign
language
teachers
(ACTFL,
2002);
it
is
a
 “hot
topic”
in
foreign
language
teaching,
and
teachers
in
 tradi7onal
contexts
need
to
work
out
how
to
appropriate
it
  The
use
of
UbD/CBI
is
a
dras7c
departure
from
how
foreign
 languages
are
taught
in
most
schools
(cf.
Tedick
&
Cammarata,
 2010);
we
need
to
develop
strategies
for
appropria7ng
both
  UbD
can
facilitate
the
crea7on
of
content‐based
thema7c
 units;
it
can
be
used
as
a
tool
to
help
implement
CBI
  Models
from
other
disciplines
are
more
helpful
for
CBI,
such
 as
the
Nutri7on
Unit

  • A
particular
concern
  Lack
of
content
knowledge
when
UbD/CBI
are
used
 together
(cf.
Cammarata,
2009;
Pessoa
et
al.,
2007)
   Winging
it/relying
on
intui7on
   Staying
on
the
surface
   Looking
to
other
disciplines’
standards
(content‐ related
instruc7on)
   Matching
content
to
cogni7ve
level
of
students
   Fostering
collabora7ons
with
teachers
elsewhere
in
 school 


  • A
content
knowledge
example
  A
true/false
ac7vity
from
a
French
class
I
taught
this
 past
summer
   The
tropical
rainforest
isn’t
in
danger
   Global
warming
is
a
result
of
the
popula7on/human
 ac7vity
   Air
pollu7on
in
ci7es
began
in
the
20th
century
   Agriculture
contributes
to
water
pollu7on
   We
have
reduced
the
greenhouse
effect
   Ocean
level
is
currently
rising

  • Future
research
  How
should
we
study
UbD?
   Surveys
and
case
studies
of
foreign
language
teachers
and
 teacher
educators
   A
variety
of
levels,
especially
implementa7on
in
lower‐ level/ter7ary
setngs
  Link
with
teacher
cogni7ons
(Borg,
2006)
   Knowledge
base
for
teaching
   Teachers’
beliefs
about
foreign
language
teaching
and
 learning
  We
need
to
start
a
conversa7on
about
UbD
and
foreign
 language
teaching/learning

  • Questions?
Comments
  Please
feel
free
to
contact
me
with
any
further
 ques7ons/comments:
   marte145@umn.edu
  This
PowerPoint
is
available
for
download
at:
   …..

  • References
  American
Council
on
the
Teaching
of
Foreign
Languages
(ACTFL).
(2002).
 Program
standards
for
the
prepara1on
of
foreign
language
teachers.
 Washington,
DC:
ACTFL.
  Aski,
J.,
&
Musumeci,
D.
(2009).
Avan1
(2nd
ed.).
McGraw
Hill.
  Borg,
S.
(2006).
Teacher
cogni1on
and
language
educa1on:
Research
and
 prac1ce.
London:
Con7nuum.
  Cammarata,
L.
(2009).
Nego7a7ng
curricular
transi7ons:
Foreign
language
 teachers’
learning
experience
with
content‐based
instruc7on.
The
Canadian
 Modern
Language
Review,
65(4),
559–585.
  Creswell,
J.
W.
(2007).
Qualita1ve
inquiry
and
research
design:
Choosing
 among
five
tradi1ons
(2nd
ed.).
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
Sage.

  • References
  Curtain,
H.,
&
Dahlberg,
C.
A.
(2010).
Languages
and
children:
Making
the
 match
(4th
ed.).
Boston:
Allyn
&
Bacon.
  Lyster,
R.
(2011).
Content‐based
second
language
teaching.
In
E.
Hinkel
(Ed.),
 Handbook
of
research
in
second
language
teaching
and
learning,
Vol.
2
(pp.
 611–630).
New
York:
Routledge.
  McTighe,
J.,
&
Wiggins,
G.
(2004).
Understanding
by
Design:
Professional
 development
workbook.
Alexandria,
VA:
ACSD.
  Merriam,
S.
B.
(2009).
Qualita1ve
research:
A
guide
to
design
and
 implementa1on.
San
Francisco:
Josey
Bass.
  Na7onal
Standards
in
Foreign
Language
Educa7on
Project
(1999).
Standards
 for
foreign
language
learning
in
the
21st
century.
Yonkers,
NY:
Author.

  • References
  Paion,
M.
Q.
(2002).
Qualita1ve
research
&
evalua1on
methods
(3rd
ed.).
 Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
Sage
Publica7ons.
  Pessoa,
S.,
Hendry,
H.,
Donato,
R.,
Tucker,
G.
R.,
&
Lee,
H.
(2007).
Content‐ based
instruc7on
in
the
foreign
language
classroom:
A
discourse
perspec7ve.
 Foreign
Language
Annals,
40(1),
102–121.
  Richards,
J.
C.,
&
Rodgers,
T.
S.
(2001).
Approaches
and
methods
in
language
 teaching.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press.
  Snow,
M.
A.,
Met,
M.,
&
Genesee,
F.
(1989).
A
conceptual
framework
for
the
 integra7on
of
language
and
content
instruc7on.
TESOL
Quarterly,
23,
201– 217.

  • References
  Stoller,
F.
L.,
&
Grabe,
W.
(1997).
A
six‐T’s
approach
to
content‐based
 instruc7on.
In
M.
A.

  Snow
&
D.
M.
Brinton
(Eds.),
The
content‐based
classroom:
Perspec1ves
on
 integra1ng
language
and
content
(pp.
78–94).
White
Plains,
NY:
Addison
 Wesley
Longman.
  Stake,
R.
E.
(1995).
The
art
of
case
study
research.
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
Sage.
  Stake,
R.
E.
(2000).
Case
studies.
In
N.
Denzin
&
Y.
Lincoln
(Eds.),
The
 handbook
of
qualita1ve
research
(pp.
435–454).
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
Sage
 Publica7ons.
  Tedick,
D.
J.,
&
Cammarata,
L.
(2010).
Implemen1ng
content‐based
instruc1on:
 The
CoBaLTT
framework
and
resource
center.
In
J.
Davis
(Ed.),
World
language
 teacher
educa7on
(pp.
243–273).
Greenwich,
CT:
Informa7on
Age
Publishing.

  • References
  Tedick,
D.
J.,
&
Walker,
C.
L.
(1994).
Second
language
teacher
educa7on:
The
 problems
that
plague
us.
Modern
Language
Journal,
78(3),
300–312.
  Wiggins,
G.,
&
McTighe,
J.
(2005).
Understanding
by
design.
Columbus,
OH:
 Pearson
Educa7on,
Ltd.
  Yin,
R.
K.
(2009).
Case
study
research:
Design
and
methods
(4th
ed.).
 Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
Sage.