Sorting the puzzle together

Backward design, as an introductory chapter to Understanding by Design provides detailed guidance about the process of planning and designing courses and classes, and the respective post reflection that this procedure ought to have.

The chapter starts by a review of what teachers can and can not do when designing a course. It is compulsory to follow the guidelines provided by the authorities in order to achieve what students should know and be able to do. Also, we need to consider the different students' needs and how to reach all students in the classroom. Yet, do teachers take into account them? Do school authorities know about them, and talk about them with their staff? How are they considered in the year planning? The key issue here is that there is little (if so) room to analyse the guidelines and put them into practice in order to satisfy students, school and authorities' needs.

On the other hand, teacher own reflection about the teacher and learning process is almost absent. Teachers do not reflect in / on / about their planning and classroom practices. Therefore, the actual result is never revisited and the vicious circle starts rolling again.

Now that classes are almost over and December and January are used to evaluate the year results and plan the next academic year, it is the right time to sit and reflect on how effective the classes and results were, and go further than the numbers. How much of that 7 represents understanding? Yet, how willing will be teachers to do this kind of analysis? Do school authorities know how to do it?

When doing the year planning or a class plan, do we actually decide the objectives of every single activity? Do we have a plan B, and C? How do we actually expect it to consolidate and reach understanding? It seems that most classroom practices are basically drilling to cover contents in a fixed period of time and - crossing fingers - students will get the gist out of it.

Finally, I would like to refer to the emphasis on methodology and evaluation. One of the aspects which is being taken into account is universities' accreditation is evidencing students' learning. Therefore, course programs have to have explicitly how that is planned and what teachers plan on doing with students' achievement. It encourages formative assessment and action research become main actors into the students' learning process. More than having more things to mark, it is reflecting on what students have done regarding the course objectives and the expected outcomes which have been drawn.

This involves that all actors of the teaching and learning process commit 100% into it, in order to sort the puzzle together.

Mind your words and goals

Rubrics play a key role when validity and criteria are discussed. To produce a good rubric takes a long time of trial and error, and it is related to the establishing of goals. Without clear goals which are known by students, we cannot anticipate to obtain good results. First lesson: establish clear instructions and a transparent system of evaluation when it is not an objective test, and if it is, even clearer.

Holistic rubrics do not look into detail students process, but just the final product. Yet, analytical rubrics show clearly of what it is expected and delivered. In addition, an advantage is that they give feedback to large classes without the actual oral feedback. Thus, students develop autonomy when reading what their outcome was and why.

One of the main constrains of rubrics is that their quality can be questioned after the evaluation has taken place. For that reason, their elaboration has to be very careful.
It would be ideal that teachers meet in July or December meet to discuss, analyse and improve their rubrics in order to progress in the quality of their rubrics.
The latter is better to be done in teams of teachers, in order to unify the criteria. Thus, more validity in the processes is reached.

An everyday example of assessing understanding and gathering evidence are reading comprehension tests with open questions. On the one hand, quality of understanding is assessed, but also quality of performance. In language development, there are little chances of taking students’ work in order to find out their weakest points.
Another aspect is performance assessment as a great opportunity to gather materials to be analysed and obtain the whole picture of the process.

Teacher beliefs are also relevant. Students’ outcomes are very much related to teachers’ expectations of students, and motivation. The latter is usually the only reason for students to participate when there is a reward. If there is no reward or prize, students do not do anything. Thus, there is no understanding.