Bahir Dar University

Humanities Faculty

Department of English Language and Literature

Postgraduate Program (Ph.D. in TEFL)

Course: Issues in Language Teaching, Testing, Curriculum Development and

Material Preparation (TEFL 703)

A Term Paper on “Backward Design to Curriculum Development”

By Megbaru Motbaynor ---------------------- ID No. BDU1402306

Bezabih Mitiku ----------------------------- ID No. BDU

Submitted to: Abiy Yigzaw (Professor)

Dr. Kassie Shifere (Assoc. Prof.)

March 2022

Bahir Dar, Ethiopia

Introduction

There are three essential components (input, process and output) to design curriculum for
English language teaching. However, the issue of how they should be sequenced or ordered
remained controversial and debating. This led to the description and comparison of three distinct
approaches of designing curriculum: forward design, central design and backward design
(Richards, 2013). The question of ‘which approach is the best?’ still remains unanswered since
each of them works well but with different assumptions and circumstances.

For the purpose of this paper, backward design along with its components will be focused.
Particularly, this paper will address the possible sources of inputs perceived by curriculum
developers, how the English language input is decided, how the inputs are organized (linear or
cyclical), if the sequence of inputs helps the students master the skills, and whether the sources
and types of inputs impacts on the shape of the syllabus.
Part A

Backward Design

Backward design is a process to design a lesson, unit, or course by first determining what the
final outcomes are and then planning assessment strategies and finally determining methods of
instruction and assignments. It allows teachers to plan lessons with a focus on student learning
(Office of Undergraduate Education, University of Colorado Boulder
https://www.colorado.edu/office-undergraduate-education/backward-design).

Ralph W. Tyler introduced the idea of "backward design" (without using this particular term) in
1949 when referring to a statement of objectives. Backward design “was sometimes described as
an ‘ends-means’ approach, as seen in the work of Tyler (1949) and Taba (1962), who viewed
instruction as the specification of ends as a pre-requisite to devising the means to reach them”
(Richards, 2013, pp.20). Backward Design was described by Grant Wiggins and McTighe
(1998), in their book Understanding by Design, in an attempt to redirect instructors’ focus from
activities and instruction to the outcomes of instruction. Backward design uses outputs or
learning outcomes as the basis for developing instructional processes and inputs.

Covey (2004, 96) pointed out “To begin with the end in mind means to start with a clear
understanding of your destination. It means to know where you’re going so that you better
understand where you are now so that the steps you take are always in the right direction”. In
backward design, the teacher first thinks of the most important objectives that need to be taught
in the lesson, then figures out what assessment is best to measure those objectives, and then
develops activities that are most appropriate to reach those objectives.

Backward design differs from classic beginning-to-end approaches to instructional design where
the instructor first decides what content to teach before developing activities and assessments for
the resulting learning. Backward Design instead begins with desired end goals by focusing on
what the learner will learn, rather than what the teacher will teach. In this sense, Backward
Design is a student-centered approach (Yale University, 2021).

McTighe and Wiggins (2012, 2) put the following three stages of backward design with their
corresponding actions as follows.
1. Identify desired results (Write student learning goals and learning outcomes).
2. Determine acceptable evidence (Create assessments that measure progress toward outcomes).
3. Plan learning experiences and instruction (Design activities that will prepare learners to
perform well on the assessments).

According to Richards (2013), backward design may involve the following approaches: task
based language teaching (built on activities or tasks) and competency based instruction (starts by
specifying outcomes in terms of competency).

Now, the following are explanations about the questions asked regarding backward design
curriculum development.

A. Sources of Input for Backward Design as Perceived by Curriculum Developers

The possible sources of input in backward design to curriculum development are the following:

Needs analysis (a procedure used to identify learners’ needs) is required as a way of getting
information about the students’ learning needs (e.g. using questionnaires, surveys, interviews, or
through informal talk with individual, group or the whole class) to select a focus for the class.
Those gathered leaning needs of students are used as an input to set the objectives (Shaw and
Dowsett, 1986), cited in Richards (2013, 23). The steps involved are:

1. Identify learner’s communicative needs.

2. Develop statements of learning objectives.
3. Identify linguistic content and skills needed to attain the objectives.
4. Prepare course plans.
5. Select materials and teaching methods.

Stufflebeam et al (1985), as cited in Richards (2013, 22), wrote about need analysis as follows:

“Identifying learning outcomes or objectives is often seen to depend upon a

systematic analysis of the learners’ communicative needs and emerged in the 1960s
as part of the systems approach to curriculum development – an aspect of the
prevalent philosophy of educational accountability from which the use of objectives
was also derived.”
In developing objectives, Richards (2017) suggested, it is necessary to make use of a variety of
sources, such as diagnostic information concerning students’ learning difficulties, descriptions of
skilled performance in different language domains, information about different language levels.

Derived from needs assessment, educational objectives (desired results or outcomes) also in
turn help to select materials, outline content, develop instructional procedures and prepare tests
and examinations (Tyler, 1949). In addition, English corpora (Richards, 2013) for example word
list for vocabulary, textbooks, or any course materials from which lessons are picked up can be
used as sources of linguistic input. These sources specifically deal with any linguistic content to
be taught (e.g. vocabulary, grammar, writing, conversation, etc.).

B. How the English Language Input is Decided upon

The English language input has to be decided based on some criteria such as usefulness,
frequency, authenticity, simplicity, etc. (Richards, 2013:6).

Usefulness: refers to whether the language input is helpful for learners. A linguistic content that
is assumed to add value for learners both in the school environment and the outside world is
appropriate to be included for teaching-learning.
Frequency: deals with an extent or degree repetition of a single linguistic item or language topic.
A single topic should not be repeated many times in a textbook unless it is with some complexity
or difficulty level, and for some sort of emphasis.
Authenticity: refers to whether the content comprises of a real-life or natural language use, not a
standard or made-up use of language. Materials that are not prepared for the purpose of teaching
(like newspapers, magazines, etc.) may use authentic language – language used in real life
situations. The inclusion of authenticity is thus a parameter for selection. It is not only the
teaching material that should be authentic; the task or the learning environment also needs to be a
realistic situation.
Simplicity: deals with if learners will learn it with ease and get familiar with. Learning should
start from simple language aspect and then go on to somehow complicated ones. For example,
grammar items can be considered like from singular to plural nouns, from simple present tense to
simple past tense, etc. The gradual accumulation of parts leads to the whole structure of the
language.
In addition, the level of learners should be taken into account when deciding a language input
upon a certain level of education. English language input in primary level should be simple,
adding some level of difficulty when proceeding to the next grade. This applies to both
secondary and tertiary levels of education.

C. How are the inputs organized (linear or cyclical?)

The inputs of backward design of curriculum, similar to forward design, have linear progression.
What makes them different is that they are exact opposites in terms of the sequence of the
components. The reason behind organizing by starting from outcomes or objectives to process
and then to input, as Richards (2017) suggests, is as follows:

The advantages of describing the aims of a course in terms of objectives are first
they facilitate planning: once objectives have been agreed on, course planning,
materials preparation, textbook selection, and related processes can begin.
Secondly, they provide measurable outcomes and thus provide accountability:
given a set of objectives, the success or failure of a program to teach the
objectives can be measured. Thirdly, they are prescriptive: they describe how
planning should proceed and do away with subjective interpretations and personal
opinions (2017, 144).
So, the emphasis each approach gives determines the organization of inputs as linear or
cyclical. Backward design has three stages.
D. The Sequence of the Inputs in Backward Design to Help Students Master the Skills

Backward design is a process which consists of a sequence of activities beginning with needs
analysis, describing objectives, selecting and organizing content (i.e., syllabus design),
methodology, and assessment. It ensures that the lesson’s objectives, assessment, and instruction
are all aligned or “matched” with each other and that everything that the teacher includes in the
lesson is valuable and important for the student. Nothing is ever wasted in a Backward Design
classroom! Since student learning is assessed on the basis of performance and the ability to
demonstrate mastery of pre-specified skills and behaviours, teaching is generally based on
helping learners acquire the communicative skills needed for specific situations, tasks and
activities (Richards, 2013).

Standards (also known as benchmarks, core skills, performance profiles, and target
competencies) play an important role to describe the outcomes or targets that students should be
able to reach in different domains of curriculum content, including language learning. The
Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) is an example of backward design using
standards. The standards describe in a general way the core content and skills students should
master, and these form the basis for program development, teaching, and assessment.

Learning standards address levels of achievement for content-area skills, concepts, and
performances. When a lesson plan is grounded in one or more standards, students benefit from
this type of goal-oriented approach. Standards contain criteria for mastery of learning and are
grade-level and content-area specific. This approach allows school districts, states, and even
nations to set high expectations for students and accountability for school leaders and teachers
(Dan Herro, 2018). They (standards) describe the knowledge and skills of a discipline, such as
English and math, and reflect what the planners and stakeholders of an educational system
believe are the essential components of teaching and learning.

E. The impact of the sources and types of input on the shape of the syllabus

It is obvious, according to Richards (2013), that forward and backward design of curriculum
have a linear progression while in central design, it can be cyclical or the sequence may be
determined by the learners. This difference in the shape of the syllabus comes as a result of the
variation in the source and type of inputs. For example, language content (e.g. Corpus) is an
input for forward design; central design simply uses activities as a starting point; and backward
design uses needs analysis as a basis to set objectives. Thus, it is fair to say that the sources and
types of input affect the shape of the syllabus.

Part B

A. Select a grade level and a skill for teaching in the new MLC developed by the Ministry
of Education. Explain how the input can be given, the process and the expected
outcome in relation to the excerpt you read below.

For the purpose of this paper, Grade 12 English MLC developed by MoE (2003 E.C),
particularly Unit one listening skill was considered. Accordingly, areas of competency (skills),
listening in this case is given first. And then a variety of text types (dialogues, monologues, news
reports, extended lectures on familiar and unfamiliar topics, interviews, etc.) are given as
listening tasks. Finally, the intended outcomes appear as a form of ‘be able to’:

 predict content using contextual clues,

 identify main ideas,
 identify specific information, etc.

Here is the sample below.

Grade 12 English Minimum Learning Competencies

Area of Competency Grade 12

Listen to a variety of text types (dialogues, monologues, news reports,
Listening
extended lectures on familiar and unfamiliar topics, stories, interviews,
speeches etc.) and a variety of speakers and be able to:
• predict the content (of all or part) using a variety of contextual clues
(such as the topic, first line, the situation, the first part) or by doing
pre-listening activities
• identify gist
• identify main ideas
• identify specific information
B. How do you relate teacher’s language teaching philosophy, pedagogical-content
knowledge, classroom environment and students’ proficiency development?

The syllabus design of Ethiopian Grade 12 English textbook shows that it starts by setting
learning outcomes followed by contents and then learning activities and resources. Thus, it uses a
backward design syllabus. So, the organization of such syllabus might influence the teaching
philosophy of the English language teacher. That means the English language teacher directs his
teaching by designing his lesson plan in accordance with the syllabus. He begins by stating what
the learners will be able to do and understand (learning outcomes) at the end of an instruction.
Then, he may decide on how to assess the learners on that lesson. Finally, he plans what
resources and learning activities help to achieve the desired result or output.

It is not only the lesson plan and teaching method of the teacher that is influenced, but also his
pedagogical (the how) knowledge. The English language teacher and the classroom environment,
through time, get accustomed to the syllabus.

Personal Reflection

We (group-mates) share the same idea that backward design is used to plan objectives-led
instruction and helps learners and teachers to guide and keep themselves on the track towards
achieving the targeted outcomes. The Ethiopian secondary level English textbooks, for example,
use the backward design in terms of the order of three stages. But teachers in Ethiopian context
are guided by the textbook for teaching material and content while teachers in backward design
are given flexibility to use their own teaching material and content as long as they are trying to
achieve the expected outcomes.

In Tyler (1949) and Wiggins and McTighe (1998), backward design involves a bit different
ordering of the stages: they are the same in the first stage (deciding outputs) but different in the
second and third stages (assessment and learning activities respectively for Wiggins and
McTighe, but learning activities and assessment respectively for Tyler). This shows there is still
inconsistency in ordering the elements of curriculum.
 References

Covey, S. (2004) The 7 habits of highly effective people.

MoE (2003) Grade 12 English textbook.
McTighe, J. And Wiggins, G. (2012) Understanding by Design Framework
Richards, J. (2013) Curriculum Approaches in Language Teaching: Forward, Central, and
Backward Design
Richards, J. (2017). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge University
Press (2nd Ed.)
Tyler, R. (1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Wiggins, G. and McTighe, J (2005). Understanding by Design: A framework for effecting
curricular development and assessment.
Yale University (2021) Teaching and Learning Frameworks