The Understanding by Design (UbD) model, developed by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe, is a framework for curriculum planning that emphasizes backward design. Instead of starting with activities or content, UbD encourages educators to begin with the end in mind – focusing first on the desired learning outcomes and then working backward to create assessments and learning experiences that will help students achieve those outcomes (Google, 2025).
The three stages in the UbD model are described below (Poston, L. (n.d.) :
Identify Desired Results (Outcomes)
Instructional designers focus on the learning goals--i.e., what learners should know, understand, and be able to do at the end of the course. This stage involves the following tasks:
Establishing the Goals
Identifying Enduring Understandings
Developing Essential Questions
Determining Knowledge and Skills
Determine Acceptable Evidence (Assessment)
Instructional designers determine assessment tasks and tools to measure learner's achievement of desired results identified earlier. Acceptable evidence takes the form of:
Performance Tasks: authentic, complex tasks that require learners to apply their knowledge and skills to demonstrate understanding.
Other Evidence: a variety of assessment methods that provide a comprehensive picture of learning (e.g., quizzes, tests, work samples, observations, self-assessment)
Plan Learning Experiences (Activities)
Instructional designers plan appropriate activities, teaching methods, and resources that will help learners achieve the desired outcomes. The WHERETO mnemonic is a design tool derived from the UbD model that guides the planning of activities:
W: Where and Why? A clear purpose for learning.
H: Hook and Hold learner interest.
E: Equip learners with necessary experiences and tools
R: learners Rethink and Revise understandings based on feedback.
E: learners self-Evaluate their progress and understanding.
T: Tailor learning to individual needs.
O: Organize learning for maximum engagement and effectiveness.
The following are some of the key implications of the UbD model for instructional design:
A Systematic Approach that Focuses on Meaningful Understanding and Transfer
Like the earlier discussed ADDIE model and Dick & Carey model, the UbD model provides a systematic approach to instructional design. The specific feature of this model however is its backward design process and its emphasis on genuine understanding of knowledge and transfer of skills as opposed to rote learning. The model has templates that can guide the design process and resources that encourage instructional designers to reflect on what authentic performance and application looks like when writing their course outcomes.
Alignment
A major tenet of the model is the alignment of all its three stages. This ensures that learning activities and assessments directly support the goals of the course, which leads to effective instruction.
Student-Centered Learning
The model encourages a student-centered approach in both its planning and delivery phases. Learners are made clearly aware of what they should be able to do at the end of the course and how they will be assessed. Activities are designed to promote the development of the learner's higher-order thinking skills such as analysis, reflection, and self-evaluation. Moreover, the learner's needs, interests and motivations are taken into account when designing engaging and active learning experiences.
Flexible and Adaptable
The UbD model is flexible and can be adapted to different learning environments, subject areas, and curricula. Instructional designers can likewise use UbD principles to improve on existing curricula or to create new ones.
Continuous Improvement
The model encourages a continual improvement approach to the teaching and learning process for both the instructional designer and the learner. For instance, formative as well as summative assessments provides learners feedback on their performance, and these same measurements provide instructors data on how to improve on course design.
The following section describes the strength and limitations of the UbD model as it applies to my minicourse idea.
Strengths
The UbD model's backward design and focus on key ideas and deep understanding directs me to reflect on my own course objectives and ensure that I consider how target outcomes reflect meaningful transfer and application of knowledge and skills into the learner's real-life context. How can my target audience, in this case Pre-K teachers, apply the knowledge and skills from this course in their classrooms?
It's emphasis on aligning assessments and learning activities directly to performance outcomes will help me design a tight and organized course that will maximize the learning experience for my target audience. This will ensure economic use of time and resources on my part when developing the course.
The model's backward design and emphasis on student-centered learning also support considerations on what Pre-K teachers bring into the course and how their particular work environment and motivations will affect their engagement with the material. Teachers of very young children not only have to deliver academic knowledge, but they also have to constantly support the development of student personal-social and self-help skills--all through fun and playful ways. Public school Pre-K classrooms demand a lot from the teacher in terms of time and energy in setting up and managing not only the physical space, but also student behaviors. How might my minicourse aid Pre-K teachers in their efforts?
Finally, the UbD model encourages building both summative as well as formative assessments into course development to make sure my students are progressing toward the course's desired outcomes. How do I effectively measure teacher performance within the learning experience as well as at the final stage of the course? And how will this data inform me on ways I can strengthen my course design?
Limitations
The UbD model provides a systematic and structured framework to instructional design, however it can be complex, time-consuming, and resource-intensive to implement with fidelity, especially for the inexperienced designer.
Moreover, the UbD model assumes that instructional designers already have existing expertise in choosing appropriate instructional strategies and methods to address course outcomes. I would need to lean on other resources and training for guidance on strategies and methods to use when developing course activities and assessments.
Conclusion
Overall, the UbD model's backward design provides me with an organized and reliable framework for the design of my minicourse. While there is the chance that I may not completely implement the prescribed framework due to limited time and resources, I still believe that the guidelines set out in this model can help me be learner-centered in my approach when thoughtfully identifying my course goals and objectives, and when carefully aligning these goals with course assessments and activities.
Text
Google. (2025). Response to "Quick overview of the UbD model" [Large language model]. Gemini (2.0 Flash Thinking). https://gemini.google.com/app/50ab9e0057513917.
Poston, L. (n.d.). UBD Stage #1: Defining goals. LTP Creative Design, LLC. https://ltpcreativedesignllc.com/2020/02/21/understanding-by-design-stage-1/
Poston, L. (n.d.). UBD Stage #2: Assessments. LTP Creative Design, LLC. https://ltpcreativedesignllc.com/2020/02/21/understanding-by-design-stage-2/
Poston, L. (n.d.). UBD Stage #3: The Learning Plan. LTP Creative Design, LLC. https://ltpcreativedesignllc.com/2020/02/21/understanding-by-design-stage-3/