Reading Wiggins and McTighe’s Understanding by Design put me in a comfortable place. As a high school mathematics teacher teaching in a very rigid, standardized test-based organization where midterm and final exams are written at a district-level and timelines are predetermined, I am used to “working backwards” based on standards and assessments. I will be the first to admit I struggled to wrap my head around L. Dee Fink’s 3 Column Table as it felt unfamiliar and unnatural to what I am used to. Of course, the main priority for any educational model or organization is the student learning. When working backwards to create my unit on quadratic functions, I knew that my goal was to have students be able to complete their catapult project accurately and appropriately while also being able to have high-level conversations using mathematical reasoning with one another. This meant that I had to provide them with a way of developing the prerequisite skills so I could ensure I was putting them in the best position to be successful. The next two stages of the UbD, the evidence and learning plan allowed me to focus in on those skills so my students could develop the conceptual understanding needed.

 

In a topic such as Algebra 2, particularly in an honors setting, where the processes are precise and quite procedural, developing a unit using the 3-column table where the project is the focus from the beginning is challenging. Mathematics is an extremely cumulative subject where each individual lesson builds on the previous. With that said, I do believe that in a different mathematics course, such as my school’s “Senior Math” course it could not only be successful, but significantly more powerful than using the UbD. This course is for 12th grade students and is based around preparing students for their future and ensuring they have the necessary mathematics skills, many of which are financial based, to survive and thrive. Utilizing Fink’s model could allow them to play out a mock post-graduation life where they are presented with challenges they must work through. This would not only provide a more authentic learning environment/experience for the students but allow them to see value and take ownership and they process forward through the course.

 

With this said, it is evident to me that one method is not better than the other, but rather just a better fit for different units or different courses. In a outcomes-based course/unit that has strict requirements and standards to follow the UbD provides comfort in ensuring the activities and assessment align with those required. However, in a competency-based course/unit with a bit more flexibility and freedom that does not rely as heavily on applying procedural based knowledge, Fink’s 3-column table partnered with the overarching BHG allows for a more practical comprehension of the course content base around application and authenticity. Although there is no one-size-fits-all model, I do feel that if both methods are intertwined appropriately, they can both provide value to any class

​

Below is my UbD plan for my Quadratic Functions Unit for my Honors Algebra 2 Course. This class is made up of predominately 9th and 10th grade students with roughly 25 students per class.

 

The direct link to my 3-Column Table can be found below as well.

 Fink's  3- Column Table (Quadratic Functions)