Two teachers comprehensions, perceptions, and use of Understanding by Design
Jason Martel
University of Minnesota
Contact information included in PowerPoint
4. 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)
6. 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
7. 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)
9. 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)
10. 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
11. 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
12. 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
13. 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)
14. 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?”
16. 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
17. 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.”
18. 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.”
19. 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
20. 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
don't 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.”
21. 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.”
23. 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
24. 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
25. 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
26. 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
27. 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
28. 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
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. 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.