UbD/Six Facets of Understanding (blog post of my choice)

In the spring of 2004 I took the Understanding by Design EARCOS Course Workshop, SUNY EDU # 596 Emerging Programs, Issues and Practices for International Educators, with Jay McTighe here at ISB. An excerpt from my 2004 course reflection summarizes my understanding of student understanding as connected to the six facets of understanding after taking this course…

In their book, (Understanding by Design), Wiggins and McTighe show that student understanding cannot simply be assessed at the end of a unit of study on a traditional paper and pencil test (as a number of correct versus incorrect answers), but is developed, refined and evidenced over time through six different but related “facets”. For a student who really understands a subject can explain (facet 1), interpret (facet 2), apply (facet 3), see in perspective (facet 4), demonstrate empathy (facet 5) and reveal self-knowledge (facet 6) about the key inquiries and core ideas of a discipline. Understanding then is a matter of degree, with understanding mapped on a continuum over time, where progress is movement from left to right as students move from superficial to deep, naive to sophisticated, and simplistic to complex understandings. To facilitate such learning or understanding, teachers (curriculum designers) need to consider, first and foremost, what they want students to be able to do; and then, and only then, to determine what evidence they will accept that students have learned it; and then, and only then, must teachers consider how students can best learn.

At that time Barbara Kalis and I (both English for Academic Purposes, EAP, 9 ESL teachers but with different backgrounds outside of ESL, English literature and Biology respectively) collaborately created two UbD units—a unit teaching the text type of a recount and a unit teaching the text type of a Lab Report, Conclusion and Evaluation Section— for our EAP 9 classes that are still part of the EAP 9 curriculum today, 5 years later. Understanding by Design has been a powerful and lasting addition to our ESL program that we have shared and collaborated on in curriculum design with other ESL teachers, old and new, at ISB. I’m glad our final project for this current course, Information Literacy and Ourselves as Learners, requires the use of the UbD template, as it has become a standard template for my HS ESL courses at ISB.

For members of our Tech cohort group unfamiliar with Understanding by Design and Wiggins and McTighe’s six facets of understanding I have also attached an excerpt from the following page with what I feel are important additions (see yellow highlights) to the information presented in our course reading on the six facets of understanding below.

The Six Facets of Understanding
We have developed a multifaceted view of what makes up a mature understanding, a six-sided view of the concept. The six facets are explanation, interpretation, application, perspective, empathy, and self-knowledge. They (facets) are most easily summarized by specifying the articular achievement each facet reflects. When one truly understands, one
Can explain: provide thorough, supported (‘support’ not shown in our reading’s summary of six facets of understanding), and justifiable accounts of phenomena, facts, and data.
Can interpret: tell meaningful stories; offer apt translations; provide a revealing historical or personal dimension to ideas and events; make them personal or accessible through images, anecdotes, analogies, and models.
Can apply: effectively use and adapt what one knows in diverse contexts.
Have perspective: see points of view through critical eyes and ears; see the big picture.
Can empathize: find value in what others might find odd, alien, or implausible; perceive sensitively on the basis of prior direct experience.
Have self-knowledge: perceive the personal style, prejudices, projections, and habits of mind that both shape and impede one's own understanding. One is aware of what one does not understand, of why understanding is hard, and of how one comes to understand.
The facets reflect the different connotations of understanding, yet a complete and mature understanding ideally involves the more or less full development of all six kinds (facets) of understanding. The first three facets represent the kinds of performances one with understanding can do; the latter three (facets) speak more to the types of insights one has.
These facets are different but related, in the same way that different criteria are used in judging the quality of a complex performance. For example, a "good essay" is composed of persuasive, organized, and clear prose. All three criteria need to be met, yet each is different from and somewhat independent of the other two. The writing might be clear, but unpersuasive; it might be well organized but unclear and somewhat persuasive. Similarly, a student may have a thorough and sophisticated explanation but not be able to apply it, or may see things from a critical distance but lack empathy.



Misconception Alert
We caution readers to treat these divisions (facets of understanding) as somewhat artificial and not the only possible take on the subject. The number six is not sacred, anymore than the five-paragraph essay is the only way to write discursively. The analytic framework we offer makes teaching and assessing for subject matter mastery more manageable. Another analysis might yield only three facets (e.g., application, explanation, and perspective) or five (as our initial theory had it). We have no doubt that further analysis might yield a different number of conceptual distinctions and hierarchies, and we, too, may make changes as we hear from readers and ponder further.
The number and names of the facets matter less than the differences in meaning of the term "understanding." The important point is that understanding should be seen as a family of related abilities. We trust that readers will see that "understanding by design" is made more likely through the kinds of distinctions we are making here.

Image URL.