Designing Units with the Ubd Framework to Teach English as a Foreign Language: Benefits and Challenges

Year 2023, Volume: 13 Issue: 3, 435 - 455, 31.12.2023

Gülşah Çelikman Hanratty , Evrim Eveyik Aydın

https://doi.org/10.19126/suje.1277604

Abstract

This study aims to explore English language teachers’ and English department heads’ perspectives on the benefits and challenges of designing and delivering units using Understanding by Design (UbD) framework to teach English as a Foreign Language (EFL). UbD is a unit and curriculum design framework which aims for student understanding and its transfer into real life context through three stages: identifying the desired results, determining the assessment evidence, and planning learning activities. Data was collected through open-ended questionnaires from 39 English language teachers and five department heads, and semi-structured focus group interviews with seven teachers. The content and thematic analysis of the qualitative data revealed that the teachers who implemented UbD within the context of their school perceived it as a design process with benefits on students’ academic achievement and English language skills through its focus on the development of understandings and transfer. The findings also uncovered perceived challenges caused by institutional, instructional, teacher related and learner related factors. Teachers also found UbD implementations challenging due to the characteristics of online education during the global pandemic. These findings suggest that although UbD is not commonly used at schools in the Turkish EFL context, it can be offered as an alternative unit design practice if teachers’ professional knowledge of its underlying principles is increased with regular in-service trainings on its proper implementation.

Keywords

Understanding by Design (UbD), English curriculum design, unit design in EFL

İngilizce’nin Yabancı Dil Olarak Öğretiminde Ünite Tasarım Şablonu Olarak UbD’nin Kullanımı: Yararları ve Zorlukları

Abstract

Bu çalışma İngilizce’yi yabancı dil olarak öğreten İngilizce öğretmenlerinin ve bölüm başkanlarının ünite tasarlarken kullandıkları Anlama Odaklı Tasarım (UbD) şablonu hakkındaki görüşlerini keşfetmeyi hedeflemektedir. Anlama Odaklı Tasarım öğrencilerin kendi anlamalarını geliştirmelerine ve bunları gerçek hayatta uygulamalarına odaklanan 3 aşamalı bir ünite ve müfredat tasarımı aracıdır. Bu 3 aşama istenilen sonuçları belirleme, anlama kanıtlarını saptama ve öğrenme aktivitelerini planlama adımlarından oluşmaktadır. Veri 39 öğretmen ve 5 bölüm başkanı ile yapılan açık uçlu sorulardan oluşan anketler ve sonrasında 7 öğretmenle yapılan yarı yapılandırılmış odak grup görüşmeleri aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Datanın tema ve içerik analizi okullarında UbD uygulayan öğretmenlerin UbD’yi öğrencilerin akademik ve İngilizce dil gelişimine katkı sağlayan bir tasarım süreci olarak algıladıklarını göstermiştir. Çalışmanın sonuçları kurum, öğretim, öğretmen ve öğrenci kaynaklı hissedilen bazı zorlukları ortaya çıkarmıştır. Öğretmenler küresel pandemi sırasında UbD uygulamayı zorlayıcı bulduklarını ifade etmiştir. Aynı zamanda bu çalışma UbD’nin İngilizcenin yabancı dil olarak öğretilen bağlamlarda yaygın olarak kullanılmamasına rağmen, bu tasarım modelinin öğretmenlere yeterli hizmet içi eğitim olanakları sağlayarak profesyonel gelişimlerinin desteklendiği takdirde geleneksel ünite tasarımına alternatif bir şablon olarak kullanabileceğini ortaya koymuştur.

Keywords

Anlama Odaklı Tasarım (UbD), İngilizce müfredat tasarımı, İngilizce ünite tasarımı

References

• Anwaruddin, S. M. (2013). Understanding by design: EFL teachers’ perceptions. Asian EFL Journal, 66(1), 4-27. Retrieved from: https://www.asian-efl-journal.com/monthly-editions-new/understanding-by-design-efl-teachers-perceptions/
• Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 385-405. https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410100100307
• Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain (pp. 201-207). New York: McKay.
• Bolívar, O. L., & Rodríguez Mora, L. C. (2017). A didactic proposal for EFL speaking framed under teaching for understanding principles. [Doctoral Dissertation, Universidad Libre]. UniLibre Repository. https://hdl.handle.net/10901/15478
• Boozer, A. (2014). Planning backwards to go forward: examining pre-service teachers' use of backward design to plan and deliver instruction. (Publication No. 3618183). [Doctoral Dissertation, Arizona State University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
• Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
• Brown, J. L. (2004). Making the most of understanding by design. ASCD.
• Burson, T. (2011). The effects of backward-designed curriculum and instruction on classroom management. [Doctoral dissertation, Lindenwood University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
• Crabtree, B.F., & Miller, W. L. (Eds.) (1999). Doing qualitative research. Sage.
• Day, S. B., & Goldstone, R. L. (2012). The import of knowledge export: Connecting findings and theories of transfer of learning. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 153-176. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.696438
• Florian, T. P., & Zimmerman, J. P. (2015). Understanding by design, moodle, and blended learning: A secondary school case study. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 120-128. Retrieved from: https://jolt.merlot.org/vol11no1/Florian_0315.pdf
• Gloria, R. Y., Sudarmin, Wiyanto & Indriyanti, D. R. (2019). Applying formative assessment through Understanding by Design (UbD) in the lecture of plant physiology to improve the prospective teacher education students’ understanding. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 16(3), 350-363. Retrieved from: https://www.tused.org/index.php/tused/article/view/77
• Graff, N. (2011). An effective and agonizing way to learn: Backwards design and new teachers' preparation for planning curriculum. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(3), 151-168. Retrieved from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23479622
• Gulsvig, P. K. (2009). Teacher candidates' experience of UbD in a social studies methods course. [Doctoral dissertation, The University of North Dakota].
• Heineke, A. J., & McTighe, J. (2018). Using understanding by design in the culturally and linguistically diverse classroom. ASCD.
• Hosseini, H., Chalak, A., & Biria, R. (2019). Impact of backward design on improving Iranian advanced learners' writing ability: Teachers' practices and beliefs. International Journal of Instruction, 12(2), 33-50. https://doi.org/10.9779/puje563
• Johnson, D. C., Peterson, A. D., Spears, A., & Vest, J. (2017). Investigating “understanding by design” in the national music education standards: Perspectives and practices of music teacher educators. Visions of Research in Music Education, 30(1), 5. Retrieved from: https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/vrme/vol30/iss1/5/
• Kelting-Gibson, L. M. (2005). Comparison of curriculum development practices. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(1), 26-36. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ718116
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
• McTighe, J. (2016). How not to kill UbD. Retrieved from: https://jaymctighe.com/downloads/How-Not-to-Kill-UbD.pdf
• McTighe, J., & Brown, P. (2020). Standards are not curriculum. Science and Children, 58(1), 76-81. Retrieved from: https://www.nsta.org/science-and-children/science-and-children-septemberoctober-2020/standards-are-not-curriculum
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
• Noble, C. L. (2011). How does understanding by design influence student achievement in eighth grade social studies?. [Doctoral dissertation, Capella University].
• Özyurt, M., Kan, H., & Kıyıkcı, A. (2021). The effectiveness of understanding by design model in science teaching: A quasi-experimental study. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research (EJER), 94, 1-23. Retrieved from: https://ejer.com.tr/the-effectiveness-of-understanding-by-design-model-in-science-teaching-a-quasi-experimental-study/
• Saldana, J. (2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research. Oxford University Press.
• Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description. Research in Nursing &Health, 23, 331-340. http://doi.org/10.1002/1098-240x(200008)
• Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction & understanding by design: Connecting content and kids. ASCD.
• Uluçınar, U. (2021). Findings of qualitative studies on understanding by design: A meta-synthesis. Uluslararası Eğitim Programları ve Öğretim Çalışmaları Dergisi, 11(2), 167-194. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1329091
• Wiggins, G & McTighe J. (1998). Understanding by Design. ASCD
• Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2011). The understanding by design guide to creating high-quality units. ASCD.
• Yurtseven, N., & Altun, S. (2017). Understanding by design (UbD) in EFL teaching: teachers’ professional development and students’ achievement. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 17(2), 437-461. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2017.2.0226
• Yurtseven, N., & Doğan, S. (2018). Okul öncesi öğretimde UbD uygulamaları: Öğretmen ve öğrenci perspektifinden yansımalar [UbD practices in preschool education: Reflections from teacher and student perspectives]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 33(3), 656-671. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2018037101
• Yurtseven, N., Doğan, S., & Altun, S. (2013). UbD (understanding by design) modeline göre hazırlanmış farklılaştırılmış fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretim planı Türkiye örneğI [A differentiated science and technology curriculum prepared according to the UbD (understanding by design) model in Turkey]. Siirt Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.13159/susbid.30