Backward Design and Learning Objectives

What is backward design?

On “Backward Design”
from Grant Wiggens and Jay McTighe
Understanding by Design (1998):

Why do we describe the most effective curriculum design as “backward”? We do so because many teachers begin with textbooks, favored lessons, and time-honored activities rather than deriving those tools from target goals or standards. We are advocating the reverse:

One starts with the end—the desired results (goals or standards)—and then derives the curriculum from the evidence of learning (performances) called for by the standard and the teaching needed to equip students to perform.

The backward design approach to building courses means that you essentially begin at the end and work backward. We recommend this process, because it shifts our focus onto students and their learning, rather than on course content. In other words, it changes the foundational question from,
“What do my lectures—or textbook—have to cover?” to,
“What do I want my students to learn?”

In their book Understanding by Design (2008), Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe make the case for backward design, suggesting that there should be three phases to the design process:

Identify the desired results:
What do I want my students to learn?
Determine acceptable evidence:
How will I (and they) know that they have learned it?
Plan learning experiences and instruction:
How will they learn it?

Your answers to the question, “What do I want my students to learn?,” begin to form your course learning objectives which you can use as a guide for developing all the components of your course, e.g., field work, lectures, assignments, and assessments.

What are learning objectives?

CTL videos on learning objectives

Course learning objectives are specific outcomes—ascertainable competencies, knowledge, and even attitudes or values—that you hope your students will have after taking your course. Some faculty have expressed doubt that learning objectives make sense for their course because their students engage in organically emerging focal topics or projects. However, for courses like this, abilities or qualities of inquiry, insight, creativity, problem-solving, and leadership can also be articulated as objectives and demonstrated by students.

For instructors, articulating the course learning objectives can help clarify your expectations for what students will do and achieve and provide a touchstone for developing the course. Referring to your learning objectives as you create lectures, assignments, and assessments helps to keep all of these teaching components conceptually aligned.

For students, learning objectives describe exactly what they can expect from your course and they provide a rationale for the work you’ll ask them to do.

Try this exercise to begin writing your learning objectives:

Make a list of knowledge, skills, or competencies you hope students will gain from taking your course. Try to keep the ideas on your list specific, observable, and measurable as well as aligned with your department’s expectations for the course.
Start with a stem sentence that begins…

“At the conclusion of the course [or unit or module], students should be able to…”

…and then refer to one of the taxonomies below to choose a verb that’s specific and measurable, for example, “At the end of this module, you should be able to list and describe [insert the knowledge here].”
Consider the level of achievement you expect for each item on the list, and whether students will be expected to achieve it with or without aids (e.g. dictionary, reference guide, etc.).

As you plan your course, you can ask yourself these questions:

Does this course content (e.g. reading, activity, practice, assessment, or feedback) support one of my learning objectives? (Relevance)
Then reverse the question: Have I listed an objective that isn’t addressed in specific course content or activities? (Relevance)
Is this objective being evaluated at the point in the course where students are expected to have achieved it? Prior to that? (Timing)
Are students aware of how each element of their coursework relates to their achievement of a course objective? (Transparency)

Two taxonomies for writing learning objectives

1. Bloom’s taxonomy

→ What is Bloom's Taxonomy?

In brief, in the 1940s a group of educators began to develop a classification system for educational learning objectives for three domains: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. The work on the cognitive domain resulted in a book titled a Taxonomy of educational objectives; the classification of educational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners (B. Bloom et al, 1956). This work is now commonly referred to as Bloom’s Taxonomy.

These taxonomic models present a hierarchical classification of learning objectives that, reading from left to right, successively become more complex and specific.

Originally, the cognitive domain was ordered as follows:

However, in 2001, a revised version of Bloom’s Taxonomy was published, A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R. 2001), that reflects new research and presents the taxonomy shown below.

We think that Anderson and Krathwohl’s revised taxonomy provides a good framework for starting to write your learning objectives. Each domain linked here has a list of verbs that form a hierarchy of increasing complexity from left to right and describe concrete and measurable actions.

→ Cognitive domain (revised)

Bloom’s taxonomy (Revised) cognitive domain
Remember	Understand	Apply	Analyze	Evaluate	Create
Choose Describe Define Label List Locate Match Memorize Name Omit Recite Select State Count Draw Outline Point Quote Recall Recognize Repeat Reproduce	Classify Defend Demonstrate Distinguish Explain Express Extend Give Example Illustrate Indicate Interrelate Interpret Infer Match Paraphrase Represent Restate Rewrite Select Show Summarize Tell Translate Associate Compute Convert Discus Estimate Extrapolate Generalize Predict	Choose Dramatize Explain Generalize Judge Organize Paint Prepare Produce Select Show Sketch Solve Use Add Calculate Change Classify Complete Compute Discover Divide Examine Graph Interpolate Manipulate Modify Operate Subtract	Categorize Classify Compare Differentiate Distinguish Identify Infer Point out Select Subdivide Survey Arrange Breakdown Combine Detect Diagram Discriminate Illustrate Outline Point out Separate	Appraise Judge Criticize Defend Compare Asses Conclude Contrast Critique Determine Grade Justify Measure Rank Rate Support Test	Combine Compose Construct Design Develop Formulate Hypothesize Invent Make Originate Organize Plan Produce Role Play Drive Devise Generate Integrate Prescribe Propose Reconstruct Revise Rewrite Transform

→ Affective domain (revised)

Affective learning can be difficult to evaluate and is often overlooked when designing learning outcomes. That said, students can demonstrate affective learning through reflective writing, role playing, or expression of values connected to knowledge. As with the cognitive level, there are verbs affiliated with each affective level.

An example of an affective learning objective at the “Respond” level is that students will be able to “Consider evidence for a utilitarian response to hunting, reflecting on questions of ethics, conservation, and preservation.” An example of an affective learning objective at the “Characterize” level is that students will be able to “Demonstrate professional empathy to a mock patient’s statements and actions.”

Revised taxonomy of the affective domain
Receive Phenomena	Respond to Phenomena	Value	Organize	Internalize Values
Ask Choose Follow Give Hold Identify Listen Locate Name Select Reply Use	Answer Assist Aid Comply Conform Discuss Greet Help Label Perform Practice Present Read Recite Report Select Tell Write	Complete Demonstrate Differentiate Explain Follow Form Initiate Invite Join Justify Propose Read Report Select Share Study Work	Adhere Alter Arrange Combine Compare Complete Defend Explain Formulate Generalize Identify Integrate Modify Order Organize Prepare Relate Synthesize	Act Discriminate Display Influence Listen Modify Perform Practice Propose Qualify Question Revise Serve Solve Verify

→ Psychomotor domain (revised)

The psychomotor domain articulates learning that students will demonstrate by doing something, starting with perceive, students encounter the set stage followed by guided-respond, mechanize, complex overt-respond, adapt, and originate.

As with the other domains, the levels within the psychomotor domain build on one another. For instance, as students’ dexterity with a skill grows, they become increasingly able to complete that activity smoother or better and eventually can adapt it or invent new activity to meet particular needs.

An example of a psychomotor learning objective at the “Respond-Guided” level is that students will be able to “Mimic the steps for preventative taping post-sprain on ankle.” An example of a psychomotor learning objective at the “Mechanize” level is that students will be able to “Measure streamflow utilizing stage-discharge calculation.”

Revised taxonomy of the psychomotor domain
Perceive	Get Set	Respond	Mechanize	Respond (Complex/Overt)	Adapt	Originate
Choose Describe Detect Differentiate Distinguish Identify Isolate Relate Select	Begins Displays Explains Moves Proceeds Reacts Shows States Volunteers	Copies Traces Follows React Reproduce Responds	Assembles Calibrates Constructs Dismantles Displays Fastens Fixes Grinds Heats Manipulates Measures Mends Mixes Organizes Sketches	Note Assembles Builds Calibrates Constructs Dismantles Displays Fastens Fixes Grinds Heats Manipulates Measures Mends Mixes Organizes Sketches The Key Words are the same as Mechanize, but will have adverbs or adjectives that indicate that the performance is better, more accurate, quicker, etc	Adapts Alters Changes Rearranges Reorganizes Revises Varies	Arranges Builds Combines Composes Constructs Creates Designs Initiate Makes Originates

If you’re interested in delving a little further into the revised taxonomy, see this 3-page handout from Rex Heer, of the Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching at Iowa State University. It charts the levels of knowledge which were included in the original work, but modified in the revision: “A Model of Learning Objectives–based on A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives”

2. Fink’s Taxonomy for Significant Learning

In 2003, Dr. L. Dee Fink published an alternative to Bloom’s Taxonomy, “Taxonomy for Significant Learning.” In his paper titled, “What is ‘Significant Learning’? [PDF],” (Fink, 2003) he writes:

There is no question about the value of what Bloom and his associates accomplished by creating this taxonomy. Any model that commands this kind of respect half a century later is extraordinary. However, individuals and organizations involved in higher education are expressing a need for important kinds of learning that do not emerge easily from the Bloom taxonomy, for example: learning how to learn, leadership and interpersonal skills, ethics, communication skills, character, tolerance, the ability to adapt to change, etc. (2003:2)

The conceptual basis of this framework is the integration of these dimensions of learning:

Foundational knowledge
Application learning
Integration
The Human dimension of learning – Caring
Learning how to learn

Resources

Download to check alignment as you design your course:
Grid (.docx).

References

Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2008). Understanding by design. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives; the classification of educational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. Benjamin S. Bloom, editor [and others. (1st ed.].. ed.). New York: Longmans, Green.

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.

Center for Teaching & Learning