Sarah E. Silverman

I have not used “Backward Design” for two of the last several classes that I have designed and taught myself. I definitely had goals in mind, but I made a conscious decision that I didn’t want to commit to any “outcomes” before learning more about my students and their prior experiences and interests (note that this was possible for me in this context – it may not be possible or advisable for everyone!). It felt almost heretical, as an instructional designer and former/sometimes faculty developer who has often promoted backward design as the gold-standard for instructors who wanted to be intentional about their course design. Backward instructional design (or Understanding by Design, more formally) is a framework for course design that suggests instructors design learning experiences starting with the “desired results” or the learning outcomes that they intend for students to achieve (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). This is followed by determining “acceptable evidence” of learning (how learning will be assessed) and then planning learning activities. I think it is safe to say that backward design is one of the prevailing instructional design models endorsed by Centers for Teaching and Learning and similar campus teaching experts. It has several advantages, which include simplicity (there are only three components to remember) and transparency for students. I have rethought the practice, even if I still use some aspects of it, as I try to implement some elements of “feminist pedagogy.” This post is my attempt at describing how the practice of feminist pedagogy may be at odds with backward design. My intention is not to reject backward design entirely or to suggest that it is a “bad” model, but rather to draw out some of the salient differences and points of tension between these teaching approaches, especially those that relate to the role of the teacher in objective setting and the focus on individual learners rather than a learning community. 

Backward design prioritizes the clarity and transparency of outcomes that are created by the instructor for students. In many ways, this makes the content and expectations of a learning experience accessible for students in a way that it wouldn’t be without the framework. I’ve seen this application of backward design be described as a type of “inclusive teaching.” For example, Janine Wilson (2023) very effectively explains how backward design improved an introductory economics course that was previously designed by “going chapter by chapter through a textbook and creating notes to be delivered in a lecture format on the topics covered in the text” followed by multiple choice exams. The redesigned class used specific, measurable outcomes to guide learning, had students demonstrate their mastery of learning outcomes on assessments rather than answering multiple choice questions, and also made room for students to connect their learning to their own lives in various activities. So, this course was (re)designed very thoughtfully in order to make the desired outcomes clear and more easily achievable. 

One of the ways backward design does not always mesh well with a feminist pedagogy is its assertion that the instructor can and or should determine the outcomes of a course. My understanding and practice of feminist pedagogy takes students seriously as co-creators of knowledge and of their classroom experience. Feminist pedagogy is also attuned to how knowledge is constructed, and the role of identity, community, and lived experience in that construction. It seems to flow from this perspective that determining the “outcome”, or even aiming for any specific outcome (however clear and transparent) of a learning experience before the learning occurs would limit the possibilities of a feminist classroom. Backward design may clarify, but it also constrains. This critique relates to previous critiques of both backward design and “Learning Outcomes Assessment” more generally. Michael McCreary (2021) notes the history of Wiggins and McTighe’s “Understanding by Design” as a reformulation of Ralph Tyler’s behaviorist educational approach which was, when originally introduced in the 1940s, met with criticism for being overly rigid and instrumental. Other teachers have critiqued how the top-down setting of “learning outcomes” by administrators and not teachers (as part of institutional “Learning Outcomes Assessment”) wrongly distances goal-setting from the actual classroom and learning environment and reduces teachers’ ability to experiment (Bennett & Grady, 2014). What is lost when we define learning (and the overall student experience) only by what can (currently) be measured or assessed?

The goals of a feminist classroom are often collective goals rather than individual ones, which are not always straightforward to assess. Feminist pedagogue Catherine Shrewsbury wrote that “one goal of the liberatory classroom is that members learn to respect each other’s differences rather than fear them.” This is the sort of goal that I might have counseled instructors against when I was a faculty developer: It is hard to measure whether the goal has been achieved. It doesn’t neatly fit into “Bloom’s Taxonomy.” It requires that trust be developed between members of the class and the instructor, which may take time and delay or prevent the achievement of other hypothetical course goals. In an essay describing a failed class discussion of the landmark feminist text, “This Bridge Called My Back,” Shafali Lal (2000) noted that “Foregrounding the personal aspects of learning […] can be profoundly unsettling for both students and teachers as it forces a class to develop protocols for sharing sensitive information and to practice compassionate listening and positive critique.” The way that feminist pedagogy aims for a classroom community to engage in this potentially unsettling work would, I think, naturally complicate the process of learning towards predetermined outcomes that backward design promotes.

In addition to collective learning and community building, there is surely individual and personal learning in a feminist classroom. Backward design, in most of its conceptions and implementations, assumes that all students should have the same or very similar outcomes of a learning experience. I think if backward design took some of the ideas of feminist pedagogy seriously it would at least have to acknowledge learning outcomes as a Venn diagram concept (some shared, some individual). My practice of feminist pedagogy also involves an acknowledgement that I will not always be able to observe or measure everything that students learn or otherwise get out of a learning experience. For me, this is expected and desirable. Of course, I can design assignments and activities that help students demonstrate their understanding of concepts or readings, but there may be things that they learn from the course that they do not wish to share with me or their fellow students, or things they have learned that will only become clear after the course has ended. Overall, there is simply much more to a course than my own “desired results.” It is not that backward design is always as reductive as this, but I think it is important to point out how other pedagogies may challenge it.

References:

Bennett, M., & Brady, J. (2012). A radical critique of the learning outcomes assessment movement. The Radical Teacher, (94), 34-47.

Lal, S. (2000). Dangerous silences: Lessons in daring. Radical Teacher, (58), 12.

McCreary, M. (2022). Beyond backward design, or, by the end of this article, you should be able to imagine some alternatives to learning objectives. To Improve the Academy: A Journal of Educational Development, 41(1). 

Shrewsbury, C. M. (1987). What is feminist pedagogy?. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 15(3/4), 6-14.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. ASCD.

Wilson, J. L. (2023). Using backward design to create a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive principles course. The Journal of Economic Education, 54(4), 440-452.