Week+3

Discussion:

I normally design instruction by beginning with the TEKS. In our district, the TEKS have been aligned to the newly-adopted textbook and grouped into Essential Units of Study in a certain order. Our collaborative team meets and decides what to teach, but we all have different methods of how to teach the content. I usually do lots of examples with students, let them try with a partner, and then their homework is their independent practice. We usually do "teach with the end in mind" and create and assessment first, but this is mainly because we have used them in the past couple of years and are teaching the same concepts—so we already have all the assessments. Yes, we do need to alter some things as we move through the content. For example, last year I added a two-week exponential growth and decay group and technology project because we had time to do it. I conducted a survey afterwards and found that most students enjoyed the project. We would have done it again this year, if we weren’t behind. We have had to spend more time reviewing Algebra I concepts than anticipated. I really like the idea of backward design because it teaches for true understanding instead of just covering topics. Yes, it is more difficult to design lessons that are "results-focused" instead of "content-focused" (Wiggins & McTighe, 2000), but worth it in the long run because students will gain true understanding of given topics. This design does put more work on teachers to design worthwhile lessons instead of just covering material. The best thing about this design is that its main goal is for students to be able to transfer what they have learned to novel situations and engage those higher order thinking skills. As a math teacher—this is what we all strive for and want for our students.

Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2000). //Understanding by Design.// Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.