HAVING CLARIFIED UNDERSTANDING—THE DESIREDresult of teaching, in this case—we now move to thesecond stage of backward design. Here, we consid-er the assessment implications by asking the asses-sor's questions:• Given our account of the facets, what followsfor assessment?• What is evidence of in-depth understandingas opposed to superficial or naive understanding?• Where should we look and what should we lookfor to determine the extent of student understanding?• What kinds of assessment tasks and evidenceneeds will anchor our curricular units and thusguide our instruction?Our chart of the three stages of backward design(see Figure 5.1 on p. 64) presents the considerationsand design standards that apply. The Stage 2 section(in boldface) summarizes the elements to considerwhen planning for the collection of evidence fromassessments.Nowhere does the backward design processdepart more from conventional practice than at thisstage. Because instead of moving from target toteaching, we ask, What would count as evidence ofsuccessful teaching? Before we plan specific learningactivities, our question must first be, What counts asevidence of understanding?The six facets (see Chapter 4)—explanation,interpretation, application, perspective, empathy,6364Figure 5.1 A Focus ON STAGE 2 OF BACKWARD DESIGNKey Design QuestionStage 1 . What isworthy and requiringof understanding?Stage 2. What isevidence ofunderstanding?Stage 3. Whatlearningexperiences andteaching promoteunderstanding,interest, andexcellence?DesignConsiderationsNational standards.State standards.District standards.Regional topicopportunities.Teacher expertiseand interest.Six facets of under-standing.Continuum ofassessment types.Research-basedrepertoire oflearning andteaching strategies.Essential andenabling knowl-edge and skill.Filters(Design Criteria)Enduring ideas.Opportunities forauthentic, discipline-based work.Uncoverage.Engaging.Valid.Reliable.Sufficient.Authentic work.Feasible.Student friendly.WHEREWhere is it going?Hook the students.Explore and equip.Rethink and revise.Exhibit and evaluate.What the FinalDesign AccomplishesUnit framedaround enduringunderstandings andessential questions.Unit anchored incredible and educa-tionally vital evidenceof the desiredunderstandings.Coherent learningexperiences andteaching that willevoke and developthe desired under-standings, promoteinterest, and makeexcellent perfor-mance more likely.and self-knowledge—provide the first consideration.Teaching for understanding aims at having studentsexplain, interpret, and apply, while showing insightfrom perspective, empathy, and self-knowledge. Thefacets also suggest where to look for evidence ofunderstanding: to the various performances andproducts central to each facet—explanations, inter-pretations, and applications. For example, Facet 1involves the ability to explain, verify, or justify aposition. We need similar specificity for all the facets.Thus, it will be useful to start with the stem, "A stu-dent who really understands ..." to suggest otherkinds of assessment tasks (see Figure 5.2 on p. 66).The bulleted list for each facet provides the startof a blueprint for assessing understanding.Regardless of our topic or the age of our students,the verbs suggest the kinds of assessments neededto determine whether the students understand.65THINKING LIKE AN ASSESSORIn addition to the six facets, a second designconsideration suggests the use of a range of methodsof assessment noted in Chapter 1. Too often asteachers, we rely on only one or two types of assess-ment, then compound that error by concentratingon those aspects of the curriculum that are mosteasily tested by multiple-choice or short-answeritems. And frequently, we fail to consider the differ-ences between tests and other forms of assessmentthat are particularly well-suited for gathering evi-dence of understanding or its absence.In fact, in aiming for understanding, we err inassuming that formal testing is the mam vehicle forevidence gathering. On the contrary as the phrase"check for understanding" implies and as Bloom'swork reveals, ongoing ton-native and informalassessment is vital if students are to achieve under-standing and avoid misunderstanding.Without pressing the point too much, we urgeteachers to think of students as juries think of theaccused: innocent (of understanding) until provenguilty by a preponderance of evidence that is morethan circumstantial. That's why it is vital for teach-ers to learn to think like assessors and not just activ-ity designers.The following true stories suggest the extent ofthe problem:• A 5th grade teacher proposes to center themajor project of her Civil War unit around a studentdiorama of a great battle ol the war, with supportingexhibit materials. But the stated standards for theunit require students to understand the causes andeffects of the Civil War. Here, then, is a basic valid-ity problem: Excellent or poor performance on theproposed project is unrelated to the content stan-dard. In other words, a student could produce awonderful diorama while having only limitedunderstanding of the wars causes and effects.• A 7th grade general science teacher capturesthe energy and imagination of his students byannouncing that they will have to eat the results oftheir next science experiment. But what is engagingis not always what is most effective or appropriate,given the time available. In this instance, makingpeanut brittle offers little in the way of big ideas andenduring understanding for the week of experimen-tation allotted.Both of these unit assessments have merit, buteach could be made more valid and tied more close-ly to the core curriculum. Our point is that a morerigorous backward design—from the key ideas tothe assessments they imply—would have providedthat tie.Not a Natural ProcessTo think like an assessor prior to designinglessons—what backward design demands—doesnot come naturally or easily to many teachers. Weare far more used to thinking like an activity design-er once we have a target. That is to say, we easily andunconsciously jump to Stage 3 of design, the designof lessons, without asking ourselves whether wehave the necessary evidence to assess for the coreknowledge and are aiming for it.Backward design demands that we short-circuitthis natural instinct. Otherwise, our design is likelyto be less coherent and focused on understanding—and more the result of chance and able students.1Consider a summary of the