CS471: Computer Science Pedagogy - Framing Your Lightning Talk in UbD (100 Points)

Assignment Goals

The goals of this assignment are:
  1. Understand the principles of Understanding by Design (UbD) and Backward Design
  2. Apply UbD principles to the design of a lightning talk
  3. Reflect on the video by Grant Wiggins and its implications for computer science education
  4. Reflect on the importance of backward design in lesson planning

Background Reading and References

Please refer to the following readings and examples offering templates to help get you started:

The Assignment

In this written report assignment, you will discuss in detail how to apply the principles of Understanding by Design (UbD), and in particular, Backward Design, to the lightning talk you gave previously. You will also reflect on the video by Grant Wiggins found on the Understanding by Design guide page.

Begin by watching the video by Grant Wiggins on the Understanding by Design guide page. Reflect on his commentary on education in general. A few items he raises that catch my attention are:

  • “It’s your job to know where you want to end up.”
  • The need to teach critical and creative thinking over compliance
  • Teaching as “value added:” Not relying on enrolling “smart students” as a measure of graduating successful ones

You do not need to comment on these per se, but you should reflect upon his guidance for teachers in the context of your own learning experiences. Can you recall a time when a teacher (grade school or higher education) applied the ideals for which Wiggins advocates? If not, recall a time when you feel your learning would have been enhanced by them, and how.

With these ideas in mind, reflect upon your lightning talk(s). Revise them according to these principles of Understanding by Design: that is, with an eye toward the end goal. How does your talk differ given that your content is driven entirely by progress toward your goals for your learners (and your audience)?

You will give your revised lightning talk, but in this report, you will describe how your perspective on presentiation has changed, and how the structure and content of your lightning talk has changed. In particular, if your lightning talk didn’t have an end goal, you should explicitly craft one (or more). In addition, if you did not have ways of connecting the “take-home problem” to evidence of competency toward that goal, you should make this explicit as well.

Instructions

  • Watch the Video: Watch the video by Grant Wiggins on the Understanding by Design guide page.
  • Review Your Lightning Talk: Review the lightning talk you gave previously.
  • Apply UbD Principles: Discuss how you can apply the principles of UbD and Backward Design to enhance your lightning talk.
  • Reflect on the Video: Reflect on the insights and implications of the video by Grant Wiggins for computer science education.
  • Write the Report: Compile your discussion and reflections into a comprehensive written report. In addition, revise and submit your lightning talk materials.

Design Questions to Help You Begin

Please answer the following questions in your README file before you begin writing your program.
  1. What are the key principles of Understanding by Design (UbD) and Backward Design?
  2. How can UbD principles be applied to the design of a lightning talk in computer science?
  3. What insights did you gain from the video by Grant Wiggins, and how do they apply to computer science education?

Submission

In your submission, please include answers to any questions asked on the assignment page in your README file. If you wrote code as part of this assignment, please describe your design, approach, and implementation in your README file as well. Finally, include answers to the following questions:
  • Describe what you did, how you did it, what challenges you encountered, and how you solved them.
  • Please answer any questions found throughout the narrative of this assignment.
  • If collaboration with a buddy was permitted, did you work with a buddy on this assignment? If so, who? If not, do you certify that this submission represents your own original work?
  • Please identify any and all portions of your submission that were not originally written by you (for example, code originally written by your buddy, or anything taken or adapted from a non-classroom resource). It is always OK to use your textbook and instructor notes; however, you are certifying that any portions not designated as coming from an outside person or source are your own original work.
  • Approximately how many hours it took you to finish this assignment (I will not judge you for this at all...I am simply using it to gauge if the assignments are too easy or hard)?
  • Your overall impression of the assignment. Did you love it, hate it, or were you neutral? One word answers are fine, but if you have any suggestions for the future let me know.
  • Using the grading specifications on this page, discuss briefly the grade you would give yourself and why. Discuss each item in the grading specification.
  • Any other concerns that you have. For instance, if you have a bug that you were unable to solve but you made progress, write that here. The more you articulate the problem the more partial credit you will receive (it is fine to leave this blank).

Assignment Rubric

Description Pre-Emerging (< 50%) Beginning (50%) Progressing (85%) Proficient (100%)
Application of UbD Principles (25%) The principles are not enumerated and/or not applied to the lightning talk. An attempt is made to demonstrate some of the principles of UbD, but the ideas do not align with the framework. Lists some of the guiding UbD principles. Applies at least some of these principles to the lightning talk, showing a clear alignment with the end goal and evidence of competency. Demonstrates a comprehensive and nuanced consideration of UbD principles. Applies these principles to the lightning talk, showing a clear alignment with the end goal and evidence of competency.
Video Reflection (25%) Provides minimal or no reflection on the video by Grant Wiggins. Lacks connection to personal learning experiences or teaching ideals. Provides a basic reflection on the video but struggles to connect it to personal learning experiences or teaching ideals. May lack depth or insight. Provides a thoughtful reflection on the video, connecting it to personal learning experiences or teaching ideals with minor inconsistencies or lack of depth. Provides a deep and insightful reflection on the video, seamlessly connecting it to personal learning experiences and teaching ideals. Demonstrates a strong grasp of the implications for computer science education.
Revision and Enhancement of Lightning Talk (25%) Provides minimal or no revision of the lightning talk. Lacks clear application of UbD principles or consideration of end goals. Provides basic revision of the lightning talk but struggles to apply UbD principles or articulate clear end goals. Some inconsistencies or misunderstandings are evident. Provides thoughtful revision of the lightning talk, applying UbD principles and articulating clear end goals with minor errors or omissions. Provides a thorough revision of the lightning talk, applying UbD principles and articulating clear end goals. Demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of how the talk has changed and why.
Quality of Writing and Report Structure (25%) The report is poorly organized, lacks clarity, and contains numerous grammatical errors. Fails to compile the discussion and reflections into a comprehensive report. The report is somewhat organized but may lack clarity or contain grammatical errors. Struggles to compile the discussion and reflections into a cohesive report. The report is well-organized and mostly clear, with minor grammatical errors or inconsistencies. The discussion and reflections are included in a comprehensive report with minor omissions. The report is exceptionally well-organized, clear, and free of grammatical errors. The discussion and reflections are synthesized into a comprehensive and insightful report.

Please refer to the Style Guide for code quality examples and guidelines.