KYLENELSON

Understanding by Design and IB programs are very similar in nature. According to McTighe and Wiggin’s article they describe UbD as a three stage backwards design for curriculum planning through which all three stages “must clearly align not only to standards, but also to one another.” This alignment is also very similar to what IB planning looks like. Both UbD and planning in the PYP and MYP follow the “backwards design” approach and also encourage collaboration in development of what is being planned.

 

In authors McTighe, Emberger and Carber argue that the “PYP calls for a trans-disciplinary approach to curriculum, whereas UbD units typically are developed around standards within disciplines.” I think that their statement can also reflect the MYP, even though their article is focused more so on the PYP, in that the MYP also encourages a interdisciplinary approach within each subject matter. The authors do then go on to say that the UbD framework can be used to plan and interdisciplinary curriculum as long as the essential questions and ‘big ideas’ of the content areas being connected are “properly honored”.

 

Another connection between Ubd and IB programs is the assessment. Both frameworks aim to assess student work on the idea of a “photo album” rather than single “snapshot” and use guiding/essential questions to get kids to start understanding the “big ideas.” The MYP uses many different criteria over the course of the programs and many of these criteria can and are overlapped into the different subject groups.