Fink’s model of course design is similar to the UbD framework in that it is based on backward design.  A key difference is the situational factors are considered before the goals of the course are determined.  These factors include the setting, resources and anything that could enhance or limit the attainment of these goals.  The process also requires great detail and thought utilizing the Taxonomy of Significant Learning for reflection and creation of goals.  This feature entails six types of interactive learning that are meant to be intertwined with one another to result in a better learning environment.  This classification system includes Foundational Learning, Application, Integration, Human Dimension, Caring and Learning How to Learn.  Once goals have been created from the taxonomy, the designer can plan for assessments and feedback, then integrate teaching and learning activities to be used during the course (Fink, 2003). The resulting 3 column Table is easy to understand and helpful to use from creation to implementation. 

I believe that both frameworks are beneficial, especially for elaboration of my Innovation Project.  Backward design is extremely effective in both methods with more frontloading using the resources to prepare the 3 Column Table.  Conversely, an increase in effort and thought occurs until the end when  choosing the Understanding by Design method.  The analysis of the learning activities, though laborious, is more advantageous from the UbD method.  I find that it would be useful for me to use a combination of both techniques, but overall, the ease of the Fink’s model makes it my preference.  Both methods are excellent ways to ensure that teachers plan the facilitation of effective and deep student learning.  

References

Fink, L. D. (2003). A Self-Directed Guide to Designing Courses for Significant Learning. Jossey-Bass.

Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design. ASCD.