Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 56Science Education and PedagogyEducational Assessment and PedagogyProblem and Project Based Learning

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Understanding by Design: A Framework for Effecting Curricular Development and Assessment

Open access
Roth, Don·2007·CBE—Life Sciences Education
DOI 10.1187/cbe.07-03-0012PMC PMC1885909
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Successful learning outcomes require the integration of content and meaningful assessment with effective pedagogy. However, development of coherent and cohesive curriculum is seemingly overwhelming even to experienced teachers. Obviously this creates a barrier to successful student learning. Understanding by Design (UbD) overcomes this impasse by providing concise and practical guidance for experienced and inexperienced teachers. In programs sponsored by the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, teams composed of University of Wyoming graduate students and science teachers from grades 6 to 9 designed motivating, inquiry-based lesson plans intended to get students to think and act like scientists. In this process, teams utilized principles outlined in UbD with great success. UbD describes a practical and useful “backward” design process in which anticipated results are first identified; acceptable evidence for learning outcomes is established and, only then, are specific learning experiences and instruction planned. Additionally, UbD provides procedures to avoid content overload by focusing on “enduring principles.” WHERE, the UbD sieve for activities, was used effectively to develop tasks that are engaging, that are consistent with state educational standards, and that promote self-directed, life-long learning.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1187/cbe.07-03-0012

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Roth, D.
Affiliations
University of Wyoming (US)
Corresponding author
Roth, Don
Venue
CBE—Life Sciences Education
Publisher
American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB)
Published
2007-06
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
95-97
ISSN
1931-7913 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1187/cbe.07-03-0012
PMC
PMC1885909
OpenAlex
W2092544386
Cited by
47
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CBE—Life Sciences Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0538642)
  • National Institutes of Health (1r25rr022740-01)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Problem and Project Based Learning
Keywords
Understanding by Design, backward design, curriculum development, assessment design, learning outcomes, inquiry-based learning, science education, junior high school science, lesson planning, enduring understandings, content overload, self-directed learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review