chapter 6: Crafting Understandings

         While I was reading chapter six, I felt struck by the same realization as the health teacher Bob, whom Wiggins and McTighe use as an illustration throughout the book: “Boy, this is difficult, but I already see the benefits of getting sharper on what, specifically, my students need to come away understanding” (145).

          This chapter begins by asking the reader to compare examples of understandings to nonexamples and determine what generalizations we can make about understanding(127). In other words, how do we distinguish between examples and nonexamples? These are my observations, made before I read and determined what the authors might say about the chart (127):

1.             The understandings are statements, complete sentences, whereas the nonexamples were generally phrases.

2.            The understandings were not general or vague.

3.            The understandings explain how something works or show relationships.

4.            The understandings can be tested or tried out, like scientific hypotheses.

           When I resumed reading, I realized I didn’t notice the way each understanding is acquired.

            It is unlikely that learners will immediately and completely understand the meaning of the statement simply by hearing it or reading it. They will need to inquire, to think about and work with it. In other words, the understanding will need to be uncovered, because it is abstract and not immediately obvious. (127)

            That is, I couldn’t articulate this idea. I think I was on to something when I noticed the understandings were not general or vague, but I didn’t quite nail the reason why.

One thought that recurred to me over and over as I read this chapter is the notion that much of science education has understanding right. We formulate hypotheses, test those hypotheses, and come to an understanding about why something is the way it is.

             I like the fact that whenever possible, Wiggins and McTighe try to use examples from a variety of disciplines. The challenge in creating so many examples must have been great, but as reader, I really appreciate it because it helps me see how to apply what I’m learning as I read to my own discipline.

As the authors state, “When our teaching merely covers content without subjecting it to inquiry, we may well be perpetrating the very misunderstanding and amnesia we decry” (132).

 “Students should understand that…” Instead, “Students will identify…” seems to indicate that students simply need to plug in the correct responses instead of really understand why, for example, people in the two regions disagreed about so many fundamental issues .

Ultimately one of the problems in planning is that some of us, myself included, have sometimes considered the plans or assessments as the end result rather than a means to a result. No wonder students ask us why we’re doing something or what the point is. If we haven’t figured out a way to articulate that yes, there is a point, and a very good one, we run the risk of sending the message that there is no point or that we don’t know what the point is, either.

           I think Wiggins and McTighe have a valid point about the transferability of these types of standards. Asking them to, for example, merely identify isn’t enough if we want to engage higher order thinking skills. On Bloom’s Taxonomy, “identifying” would be at the bottom in Knowledge. It would not be anywhere near the Application, Synthesis, and Evaluation levels. If that is the case, and we are talking about standards for an entire curriculum and not just, say, a lesson, then I think they need to be framed in a more open-ended way.