Wiggins and McTighe call this process "backwards design" or "backwards design." This alludes to the fact that the authors propose to change the logic of how most Teachers plan lessons. Suggest abandoning the sequence-activity-assessment objectives and think about "how I'm going to realize that students learned what I wanted to learn" before thinking about how to teach. Here it is clear that when it comes to change the focus from planning to learning of students is not to say that, then the burden of success or failure of an activity will be focused on them. No way. The primary responsibility for guiding students to the proposed learning lies with the teachers, and what they do (and do not do) to accomplish these goals. When we say that it is essential to see what they do, say and write the students in relation to the purposes for which raised, then, refers above all to think about what went right and what can be done differently next time you teach. STEP 1: Where do we go? What concepts we want students to understand? What do we learn to do, understanding this both physical (eg, weigh with scales) and intellectually (for example, give grounds to substantiate a claim)? At first glance, this may seem like something we all do every time we teach. However, we suggest here that these objectives are made very specifically for each class we give. How far do we want students to come in the understanding of these concepts or the development of these thinking strategies or skills? If I am teaching "states of matter", do you want students to understand the molecular model that explains, I simply know which are the three states, I want to learn to transfer a substance from one state to another in the laboratory or want to identify substances that are in various states in nature? In other words, the teacher is responsible for cutting these goals and to do it very consciously.

Comments are closed.