One of the complaints I hear a lot in class is how UbD is hard to apply to a language learning context, especially since there are so few examples from language teaching in the book. In the words of Omar from The Wire, "I feel ya." Still, one theme consistently found in the book is the need to think hard and look for understandings to design around.In Chapter 6 (Crafting Understandings), under the heading Understanding about skills, they address the issues of teaching skills from a UbD perspective and note that, "some teachers believe that UbD is not applicable to the teaching of skills. They believe that learning skills is merely a matter of practice and refinement; that is, there is really nothing to understand (p. 133)." They state their disagreement and then list a few examples of understandings from subjects usually considered to be skills (golf education, poetry, world language, cooking) before giving this exhortation on page 133:
Units and courses that focus on skill development need to explicitly include desired understandings. In other words, the learner should come to understand the skill's underlying concepts, why the skill is important and what it helps accomplish, what strategies and techniques maximize its effectiveness, and when to use them. (emphasis in original)Here are some questions:
- To what degree do you think this applies in a ELT context?
- If the learners are beginners or young or both, should these understandings be taught in the L1?
- Do you have examples from your own experience related to the above?
Please leave a comment and please use include your real name when you do. If you leave an anonymous comment, it may be subject to deletion if deemed inappropriate.
Interesting topic Dan and difficult questions to answer since the field of ELT is very diverse (examples: EFL vs ESL and EFL in Europe vs EFL n Asia, young learners vs more mature learners, motivated learners vs unmotivated learner and so on).
ReplyDeleteI remember a professor I had in university talking about the best methodologies and teaching techniques. He said that the research on such topics is sketchy at best and the only thing that comes out is that good teachers all share one thing "they do what works" for their particular teaching context.
I suspect it is the same in regards to UdB. It can work well for some teachers in their particular contexts but may not work for other teachers in similar contexts nor for the same teachers in different contexts.
Thanks for the comments Terry. Of course, you make good points. I should be clear I'm looking for "the" answer. I admit that at this point I tend to think about my current uni in which there most of the students are low (and yet mixed) levels and don't seem to grasp the most basic study skills and strategies (let alone those of the language learning type).
ReplyDeleteI believe that if I continue next year, that I will make a kind of bilingual manual to help introduce good skills and strategies and introduce students to the idea of big ideas and "understandings".
Look forward to your comments. Please share these posts on FB and elsewhere.
I love the idea behind the book... I just think that it is a little overblown.
ReplyDeleteThey take a basically good idea and drill it to death. If you were to remove all the repetitious and self-evident material, the book would be reduced to a pamphlet.
That said, I think the pamphlet would be very handy. The basic concept of making sure that a teacher has a clear grasp on exactly what his or her educational goals are is critical, and I believe often overlooked by many teachers who just naturally assume that they are fulfilling all the needs of their learners.
I shouldn't judge too harshly the fact that the book is perhaps 'overwritten'... it IS for academics (a group of people who typically love to hear themselves talk and often use writing as an opportunity to exercise their lexicon); additionally, it is likely that there are many teachers who find value in the continual reminders of details that the authors provide.
While following the entire process that they lay out may be too time consuming and unnecessary for many teachers (and many aspects of the process may not apply to certain fields of study), the general idea of establishing an end point first and then designing a structure through which that end point can best be attained is a valid and solid tactic... It is like starting at the end point of a maze and working ones way back to the beginning... it's almost always faster and easier (and hence more effective) than winding around aimlessly, hoping you get to the end of the maze before time expires.
One interesting note: The authors are basically prescribing the philosophy of 'teaching to the test'... a process that is generally scorned by teachers. I suppose the authors can justify it since the teacher is the one responsible for creating the test and the materials that it cover as opposed to a large bureaucratic group of administrators.