Two teachers comprehensions, perceptions, and use of Understanding by Design Jason Martel University of Minnesota Contact information included in PowerPoint

1. 
Two teachers’ comprehensions,
perceptions, and use of Understanding
by Design
Jason Martel
University of Minnesota
ACTFL Annual Conven7on
11/18/11

2. 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

3. 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

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)

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

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)

8. 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?

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?”

15. 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.”

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.”

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

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

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

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.