Understanding by Design II: Construction of suitable assessment method

Mariett L. Bergantin

In the first part of this article, we presented the Understanding By Design (UBD) teaching framework. The three steps comprising the framework were enumerated and the first step, dealing with setting learning objectives or outcomes, was discussed.

How does the teacher know if the desired learning outcome in the first step has been met by the students? What are the accepted evidences that these outcomes have indeed been achieved? These questions are addressed in the second part of the UBD backward design process.

The second part of the backward design process is designing the assessment. It is argued that that several types of assessment are essential in proving true understanding [1]. According to learning theories, students learn when they can “apply” their learning to new situation or real life problems. In assessing the performance of students, the teacher has to take this into account as well as the suitability of the chosen assessment to the established learning goal.

There are three methods of assessment associated with the UBD framework: Performance tasks, in which student are given real world challenges or the performance of tasks or activities; criteria referenced assessment such as quizzes, tests and prompts, which provide feedback on how well the material has been assimilated to both teacher and students; and unprompted assessment such as classroom observation and journals.

As an example, let us briefly examine projectile motion in the context of performance tasks. Projectile Motion is commonly demonstrated using an object thrown on a moving carrier or an object projected at an angle with respect to the horizontal. As a basis for understanding, students are expected to solve, for example, the time of flight, horizontal distance, the vertical and horizontal component of the projection velocity. Learning can be extended by using these quantities in describing or explaining real life problems.

Scientific learning in projectile motion is done usually using interactive simulation from Phet [2] or a laboratory experiment. After about a week, an assessment, usually comprised of quizzes long test, is performed. UBD stresses that these are not sufficient for students to achieve the required target. Instead, student centered activities are encouraged rather than teacher initiated activities such as demonstrations. Modifications can be made from the old laboratory experiments to make assessment more successful. An example would be to ask students to assemble a golf ball launcher that will produce maximum range. Aside from the student effort, the teacher can gauge if students have prior knowledge on the project rather than giving them the needed materials and measuring the time of flight and distance traveled by the ball. Knowing something is different from understanding the context. This is the essence of the assessment.

To conclude this second part of the UBD framework, we note that a practical advantage of UBD is that tasks are authentic and transparent. In constructing performance tasks scenarios, the GRASPS acronym [3] (goal, role, audience, situation, product or performance, standards for success) can be used in order to maximize the authenticity of assigned tasks. The success of performance tasks is rated through rubrics. Effective rubrics provide criteria that discriminate the different degrees of based on the outcomes differentiating from novice to expert. The big challenge in UBD is the creation of performance tasks that are parallel to the learning objectives. Finally, observations from the application of UBD to Secondary School classes reveal that UBD requires more time compared to traditional chalk-and-talk.

In the next part of this article, we will cover the third part of the UBD framework.

REFERENCES
1. J. Mctighe, R. Thomas, Backward design for forward action. Educational Leadership. 50 (5), (2003).
2. http://phet.colorado.edu/ accessed 19 August 2011.
3. “Performance Tasks,” http://xnet.rrc.mb.ca/glenh/CourseImplementation/grasps.htm accessed 19 August 2011.

Note:
Mariett L. Bergantin obtained a Masters degree in Physics Education from the Ateneo de Manila University in 2010. Her research interests are geared towards curriculum and instruction. She is currently affiliated with the Basic Education Department, Colegio de San Juan de Letran.