Talk:Understanding by Design
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Understanding by Design article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Find sources
[edit]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
America?-centric terms
[edit]"The UbD framework was designed by nationally recognized educators" What nation ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.156.32 (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- In addition, what does it meet to be "recognized?"--202.54.254.66 (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Merge from Backwards design into Understanding by Design
[edit]As a co-author, I would agree that 'backward design' should be merged with 'Understanding by Design'. I would also edit the America-centric focus of the above comment to say 'well known' or 'internationally known' authors, since Understanding by Design is in use in many countries around the world as a planning framework (e.g. the Phillippines, Canada, the UK, and many international schools)
98.110.125.155 (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Grant Wiggins
I agree that Backwards Design and Understanding by Design should be linked. As an educator, I have used UbD and feel that the creators of UbD actually coined the term. Although the UbD entry could certainly used more filling, the overall gist of the article is correct. To answer the above questions: USA is the country of record and G. Wiggins and J. McTighe are nationally recognized as educational researchers and educational consultants. -Travis Washmon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.200.78.46 (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe's book title is Understanding by Design. Related versions of the same might include "Teaching for Understanding" (such as Harvard's Project Zero. If you are looking at instructional design at Harvard, you'll look for the term 'backwards design', such as you see in the learning goals of this course. In other words, backwards design is the generic term, and Understanding by Design is a brand name of the innovation. It's certainly not a new one. One of the best explanations comes from the late Grant Wiggins here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.227.133 (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
We generally merge FROM the specific example TO the general concept, not the other way. I am not sure whether this should be merged or not. Will do some thinking and source searching. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- My reading of the above discussion is that:
- Understanding by Design is a modern, specific and independently notable form of example of backward design; hence a merge to backward design isn't necessary due to independent notability
- backward design is a more general concept, so a merge into Understanding by Design wouldn't be appropriate
- As neither merge direction sees appropriate, and this discussion has been going on for more than 3 years, I'll remove the merge templates. If there are objections, perhaps a new proposal could be made. Klbrain (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)