sections and then provide a backward design planning template.
Table 2.1: Definitions, Key Questions, and Examples of the Input-Output-Impact Framework
| Phase | Definition and Key Questions | Examples |
| Input | Definition: Actions and resources (such as time or money), processes, and programs, directed toward the mission Key question: What actions, processes, and resource allocations will you need to achieve your mission? | • The school establishes curriculum-mapping committees within and across disciplines. Review existing curriculum for horizontal and vertical alignment. • The school provides schoolwide staff development on the Understanding by Design® framework for curriculum design. It purchases the unit-design software. • The school establishes the collaborative team, schedules, and meeting protocols. • The school forms a committee to explore service-learning opportunities for students. |
| Output | Definition: Tangible results of organizational inputs (such as curriculum, new programs, or structures) Key questions: What are the results of our actions, processes, and resource allocations? What products will be produced? | • The school develops horizontally and vertically aligned curriculum maps for both academic standards and 21st century skills. • Teachers review a collection of Understanding by Design units against Understanding by Design standards. • The school analyzes, in teacher teams, student work from common assessments each quarter. • The school makes available a series of structured service-learning opportunities for secondary students. |
| Impact | Definition: Observable and measurable student learning based on the mission and program goals Key question: What are the most important observable and measurable goals for student learning relative to our mission? | • Students show increasing proficiency across the grades in targeted 21st century skills. • Students show growth in understanding and transfer in academic subjects. • Students demonstrate specific skills and observable dispositions valued in the workplace. • Students demonstrate traits of engaged citizens through their service experiences. |
Curriculum Development
The idea of planning curriculum backward from desired results is not new. The four critical questions of a professional learning community (PLC) summarize the intent of backward planning for educators (DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2008; DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Many, & Mattos, 2016): (1) What do we want students to learn? (2) How will we know they have learned it? (3) What will we do when they haven’t learned it? (4) What will we do when they have already learned it? These questions summarize the intent and the sequence of the three stages of backward design Wiggins and McTighe (2005) describe in Understanding by Design. Here is a summary of each stage.
1. Identify desired results: This stage in the design process calls for clarity about long-term goals and instructional priorities. Teachers consider long-term goals based on established academic standards and related educational outcomes (such as 21st century skills). They also identify the big ideas they want students to understand and frame companion essential questions around these targeted understandings. Finally, they identify more specific knowledge and skill objectives.
2. Determine assessment evidence: Teachers endeavor to think like assessors before planning lessons and activities in stage 3. This approach requires them to consider the assessment evidence they need to validate that they have achieved the learning outcomes targeted in stage 1. Doing so sharpens and focuses teaching.
3. Plan learning experiences and instruction: With clearly identified learning outcomes and appropriate assessment evidence in mind, teachers can plan the most appropriate instructional activities for helping learners acquire targeted knowledge and skills, come to understand important ideas, and apply their learning in meaningful ways.
We find that the intentional use of backward design for curriculum planning results in more clearly defined goals, more appropriate assessments, and more purposeful teaching. However, we have also observed that teachers do not always follow this approach when planning. Instead, there is a tendency on the part of some to jump from stage 1 to stage 3, to plan daily lessons and learning activities rather than consider long-term goals and assessment evidence up front. For these educators, backward design requires a shift in familiar planning practices.
Education Initiatives
You need not limit backward design to curriculum development. Indeed, we have found that it offers a robust process for organizational planning, and we recommend using it explicitly when planning for any major education initiative, including modern learning. The backward design framework also meshes nicely with the I-O-I framework. In matters of school and district reformation (implementing a futures-oriented vision), the logic of backward design, as presented in the book Schooling by Design (Wiggins & McTighe, 2007), suggests the same three-stage process, with minor variations for systemic initiatives.
Stage 1: Identify Desired Results
In this stage, you (including your leadership team or PLC) establish the vision and long-term mission for 21st century learning in terms of learning outcomes. You also consider what various constituents (teachers, parents, students, board members, the community, and so on) will need to understand about the proposed reforms, and you frame the initiative around essential questions to focus your efforts.
Stage 2: Determine Evidence of Success
As when designing for curriculum development, in this stage, you think like assessors before developing specific action plans. The backward design approach requires that you carefully consider the evidence you need to show that you are realizing your vision. As we noted in the I-O-I framework, evidence should primarily focus on desired impacts and not on inputs or outputs. Thus, backward design departs from the common practice of thinking about evaluation as something participants do at the end of a project. You need clarity about the success indicators from the start, and you should designate these indicators through the lens of student performance. In other words, you need to get in the habit of asking the assessor’s questions, as in the following.
• “How will we know if we have achieved the desired results?”
• “What will see in terms of student performance if we are successful?”
• “What data do we need from the start to set a baseline related to our goals—to measure the gap between our goals and our current reality?”
• “How will we collect this evidence?”
• “How will we track our progress along the way?”
Such questions and their answers are key not only for making wise plans but also for clarifying an understanding of your mission and the impacts it will have on student learning. Only with clear and appropriate evidence in mind can you gauge your progress and know when you need to adjust your actions. Waiting until the end to see how (or if) they worked is simply too late.
In addition to impact evidence, you must also gather evidence related to inputs
