Backwards by Design

[Bill Ivey]

Backwards by Design

 

I remember being excited when I first heard of the concept of “backward design.” It made intuitive sense to start with your goals, think about how you will know when you’ve reached those goals, and then figure out how to get there. To some extent, this concept continues to underlie the unit design work my students do in the Humanities 7 course. For having brought this concept to me through their book Understanding by Design, Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe won my respect.

So I was shocked to read a tweet from ASCD linking to a blog entry by Grant Wiggins in which he proposed the banning of fiction from the curriculum. Surely there was a typo somewhere? Sadly, no. In fact, not only did the article include pedagogically suspect claims of the value of replacing fiction with non-fiction, but also it veered into sheer, unapologetic misogyny.

Let’s start with several valid points he did make. I hope that no one would argue against the inclusion of non-fiction in the curriculum, both reading and writing. Of course, reading non-fiction offers the chance to develop skills in critical thinking, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. These skills can then be further developed through writing. I would agree with Wiggins on the importance of students’ developing all these skills. Furthermore, some students are indeed more taken by non-fiction than fiction, and any responsible school works to meet the needs of all their students.

Ironically, I begin to part ways with Mr. Wiggins on another point of agreement: that ELA Departments should not have sole control over the teaching of reading and writing and that a variety of genres should be taught. However, where he simply dismisses ELA departments as being blind protectors of long-dead, irrelevant authors and ossified promoters of stultified, formulaic essay writing, I would push for initiatives to promote the teaching of reading and writing across the curriculum, looking for a balance that best meets students’ needs.

Research is clear and has been for some time: nothing builds reading interest, reading skills, vocabulary, grammar, and spelling more than independent and free choice reading. I have observed this in my own Humanities and ESL classrooms. Truly free choice should absolutely include non-fiction. But it should absolutely include fiction as well. Similarly, a well-designed school-wide writing program should include opportunities for fictional writing as well as non-fiction as there are benefits to learning to write in multiple genres. This is in fact how our middle school’s program has been designed.

Additionally, reading fiction can add important perspectives to coursework. While the students in my Humanities class build units around questions that sound more like social studies than English (“How does power affect the types, targets, and effects of prejudice?”), discussions of carefully selected group novels in each unit can contribute immeasurably to students’ understanding of the various issues they have studied down through the years.

So if this is what research suggests (and my own experience confirms), then on what basis does Grant Wiggins argue for the elimination of fiction from our classrooms? For one, “Fiction reading is mostly a leisure activity. Indeed, for long stretches of time in our history, fiction-reading was the province of the leisure class - and most readers were women.  William James sarcastically observed that women who wept at tragedy on stage often ignored the poor people on the sidewalk begging outside the theater.” Lest one miss the point, Wiggins adds, “This issue of gender is not a minor historical footnote. Like others who make this claim, I think that the required readings in most English classes do not serve males at all. Is it any wonder that boys lose interest in reading when so little non-fiction is assigned? And why are we afraid to assign the kinds of fiction that boys love - namely, science fiction and war-themed sagas? My son put it best a few years ago: Dad, English class is just an earnest woman talking with earnest young women about stuff of no interest to guys.”

Wow. So much for teachers like Bill Ferriter, who has written extensively about the importance of his being a role model for boys who like to read. So much for teachers like José Vilson, who model their love of reading and writing poetry for their students. So much for teachers like Bev Maddox, who work hard to find ways to reach every single one of their students, including boys and girls. So much for any teacher, really, who values all their students and who seeks to meet their individual needs while factoring in their likes and dislikes. And so much for any boys who don’t like non-fiction, science fiction and war-themed sagas, or for any girls who do.

So much, for that matter, for girls and women, period. Following up on the negative stereotypes of women whether they be excessively emotional, overly concerned with the arts to the detriment of real life, or so earnestly focused on advancing the cause of girls that they completely neglect boys, Wiggins concludes his blog entry by saying, “So, let’s make a concerted effort to rid the curriculum of most fiction. At least half the population will thank you.” By implication, Mr. Wiggins seems to be saying, “And tough patooties for all those women and girls who might not thank you.”

I see no possible way in which proposing to redress a perceived imbalance of priorities with another imbalance of priorities improves the situation at all. Furthermore, I see no possible way in which reinforcing the gender binary and then belittling half the human race improves the situation at all. If Mr. Wiggins really wants to improve educational practice, if he wants to join with those of us who are reading research, listening to our students, learning what they like and dislike, and working to build their creativity, their critical thinking skills, and their respect for each other, all through a careful blend of both fictional and non-fictional books and writing, he is more than welcome to.  An apology and a follow-up blog article to this one would be a great start.

[Patrick F Bassett]

Well-said, Bill.  Fiction and all the belletristic arts need more airtime, not less!

Backwards design needs some updating, in my opinion.  We've used it and curriculum mapping to fill in the gaps of the old world discipline-based curriculum.  The process needs now to be applied to the new learning imperative of skills and values, not discipliens:  creativity, critical thinking, collaboration, character, and communication (writing, speaking, and technology).

[Debbie Van Ryn]

In response to the negative reaction to his blog post, Grant Wiggins says that the article was meant to be satirical.  Although he does think that the reading list sometimes needs to be changed to reflect
boys' interests, he is not really against novel reading in English
classes.  He has removed the blog post (see http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/teaching_now/2010/12/wiggins_propo...).

In response to Pat Bassett's comment, I believe Heidi Hayes Jacobs has been working on updating curriculum mapping and the like to address 21st century skills.  Has anyone read her newest book, Curriculum 21: Essential Education for a Changing
World?  Or seen the accompanying website?

[Bill Ivey]

I read that interview, and while I was deliberately relatively mild in my comment there, I remain somewhat perturbed by the misogyny of the piece. Mr. Wiggins had to go back and scrutinize the piece to see how people could think it was sexist? And even then he could only "sort of see it"? I have to say, that deeply disturbs me.

I was intrigued by Pat's comment, and was thinking it would be fun to have a longer conversation on the idea of applying backwards design to skills and values. Perhaps the Heidi Jacobs book would be a good starting point, or else (although it was written from a public school perspective) Teaching 2030: What we must do for our students and our public scho....

[Sarah Hanawald]

Bill, I didn't read your post until just now.  As an English teacher, and an Academic Dean, I'm, well, horrified.  Fiction/non fiction isn't an either/or for any decent teacher.  Period.  My biggest issue is that reading others fiction is more academically "weighty" than is writing fiction.  I have the same issue with art history being more "academic" than studio art courses.

 

Perhaps we could do an online book discussion, a la the English Companion Ning?  True confessions time--I've owned Curriculum 21 since it came out, but I've only read bits of it.  This would motivate me.  Bill--if you and I start talking and reading in an organized fashion, maybe others will join in.

 

Sarah

[Bill Ivey]

Cool idea, Sarah. Let me get the book ordered and we can figure out a good time to get started. :-)