Backward Design

The concept of backward design is straightforward, but not always easy to apply. For it to work, one must continually focus on the end result, and resist the temptation to get caught-up in the details alone.

This past week, I begin updating a class to meet the needs of online synchronous instruction (my ARP). One of the main areas of change is to create more interaction throughout the curriculum. Interactivity is needed to help engage the distance learners. This is a worthy effort, but I realize I need to consider the end result of the instruction throughout the redesign. Do these new activities and discussions help meet my objectives, or do they just provide interaction for interaction sake? Also, do they lead the learners to consider and understand the courses "big ideas?" For that matter, have I even considered what are the "big ideas," those that would lead to enduring understanding?

In some ways, I see the advantage of developing a course from scratch. In revising a course, one needs to decided if the designer was following a backward design approach. In my case, the I know the original designer did start the design process with end in mind. My challenge then is to redesign the course to meet the needs of the online learner and maintain the integrity of the course. Definitely not easy!