James Elish

Unit Narrative
Myriad Complexity and Endless Consideration
The Understanding by Design (UBD) framework is most helpful in that it grounds all
action in purpose. In other words, every move in the classroom has a significance relevant to
predetermined goals. There is a flow of objectives, all channeling into one another: daily lesson
objectives drive larger unit designs, which in turn push yearlong themes, etc. Thus, taken to its
most literal extreme, every action in a UBD classroom figures into goals that span months and
years. This grounding stymies the instructor in pursuing flights of fancy within the classroom.
My tendency is to think of an activity and construct a unit around it. This thinking, far from
UBD construction, places the focus on my cool ideas as a teacher rather than on my students
needs. The UBD structure saves me from myself.
As UBD is also colloquially known as backwards design for good reason, the narrative
of the Unit must fall along the same pattern. Though not mandated by the assignment, I decided
to create a Unit that could conceivably appear in the SLA@Beeber social studies curriculum. I
picked 11th grade American History, as my mentor-teacher will be teaching the content for the
first time this coming year. Confronted with the immensity of American History, it was difficult
to determine what the Unit 1 content should be. Starting chronologically seemed frankly boring,
and the organization of the SLA@Beeber curriculum by theme demanded a different approach.
Cognizant of the immense diversity of the United States, I decided to make actively harnessing
the cultural capital of my classroom the focus of Unit 1. As stated in Oakes and Lipton, In
socially just classrooms...dimensions of difference can exist in their own right and should serve
as the source of rich learning interactions.(Oakes and Lipton, p.171) This socio-cultural tenet
1

of instruction, that of individual difference providing communal strength, serves as the

underlying theme of the Unit.
This first week Unit, in highlighting the difference and diversity of our class, lays a
framework for the rest of the year. It fosters a classroom space in which students can feel
comfort and confidence in their differences of opinion and interpretation. The Unit, examining
personal American identities in the context of diverse American immigrant narratives,
strikes at the central concept of what the term American actually means. The essential
questions for the Unit, are meant to provide a framework for authentic exploration, as defined in
Oakes and Lipton, Chapter 6. These authentic learning tasks serve the dual purpose of content
exploration and of critical interrogation of the students self as an active agent in education. The
basis of the Unit is grounded in constructivist and the aforementioned socio-cultural learning
theories. The Unit, as the first of the year, will place the student into a role as participant and
driver of the learning process.
The most difficult aspect of the early planning process is the need to balance content
progression with community and skills building. In its final form, the Unit leans more heavily
toward the latter categories. With this Unit residing at the very start of the curriculum, the skills
and community fostered therein will be utilized in all subsequent units. Building a classroom
community at this first stage allows for more comfort in all following classroom tasks, especially
those of the interpersonal variety. The arc of the Leaders of Change (LOC) class, underlined the
importance of early community building. Though the fieldwork with LOC was ultimately
rewarding, the lack of personal exposure in the first meetings slowed progress. Neither the GSE

contingent nor the LOC cohort ever introduced their personal experiences into the group space in
a structured format. This lack of exposure retarded the formation of interpersonal bonds.
This unit is designed to make the students start creatively considering central questions in
American history, but also to force some personal exposure into the classroom; to mandate, so
far as I am able, some real investment. Haberman put it bluntly, It would be risky for students
to swap a try and make me system for one that says, let me see how much and how well you
really can do.(Haberman, p.6) This Unit, with the final assessment including a personal
artifact, makes clear the need for personal risk in the history classroom.
When constructing the authentic assessment, I sought a mixed format that allows the
students to gain comfort in two tasks common to the SLA philosophy. In part one, the students
participate in a very short presentation to the entire class. They explicate a personal artifact and
instruct the class in its importance. The length of the presentation is short for both practical
reasons and the reduce trepidation regarding the assignment. The environment for the
presentation is carefully cultivated by prior instruction in classroom norms of respect and active
listening. Throughout the Unit, and particularly in the final assessment, I seek to differentiate
options for students with diverse comfort zones. Playing into this notion, as well as SLAs
philosophy of student directed projects, I allow for substantial freedom in designing this
presentation. It can practically be anything (though I do give the students some ideas). The
multiple intelligences of Gardner instructed the diversity of options on the presentation side of
the assessment. The other part, that of the one page paper, allows for the students to connect the
personal presentation with the content of the Unit. It allows me to check for concrete
understandings and to have an early clue as to their writing prowess. The short length of the

written work also aids in making this, their first project of the class, less intimidating. We have
often discussed a need to balance creative lesson planning with skills building. Paper writing,
while not always the most creative endeavor, is crucial for college admittance and success. At
SLA@Beeber, college is an explicit goal; and, therefore, paper writing is simply crucial.
The Unit structure is also designed to expose students to a wide variety of historical
materials. Students are asked to interpret both primary and secondary written sources, they hear
first hand primary source testimony, they are asked to research contemporary news articles, and
they analyze paintings and propaganda. Not only will this exposure facilitate future interactions
with these types of material, but they are asked to think critically about the sources of historical
knowledge. In considering what is important to me as a history teacher, I find myself returning
again and again to Freires
The Pedagogy of the Oppressed
. To avoid perpetuating a pedagogy
that dehumanizes and compartmentalizes, I must instill in my students a disposition of constant
questioning. In this early Unit, we focus on the fallibility of sources. I ask my students to look
at a painting and think about, not just what it visually represents; but also what the intended
audience of the painting might have been, and what the motivations of the artist were. While the
Unit, in its brevity, cannot fully expound upon the idea of competing narratives; I do intend for
the seeds of those questions to be present in the students minds by day five.
It is apparent, from even a cursory review of the plan, that there is an emphasis placed on
group work. Part of the SLA educational philosophy hinges on the idea of cooperative learning.
Second only to the central tenet of Inquiry, Collaboration lies at the heart of SLA learning. The
key, in small group inquiry, is to create an environment in which all types of learners can work.
In this first Unit, all group inquiry has clear direction and strict parameters. There is no open

ended segment of research. Instead, to acclimate the students to working in groups, the
activities are short and have clear steps. Long-term planning is not needed, as each activity
concludes within the space of one lesson. This small group interaction, followed generally by
large group sharing, starts to build the interpersonal trust crucial to classroom function.
The Unit, though ready for review, is not complete. Questions constantly swirl through
my head, and I constantly second guess the balance. The most worrisome feature relates to day
two, the lesson I expanded upon. This day, more than any other, touches on the uncomfortable
terrain of race relations in America. SLA@Beeber is a diverse school, especially when
compared to the district averages. As a teacher in a magnet school, I can be certain that my
students will hail from varied backgrounds of class, culture, and race. The conversations I will
ask my students to engage in, during this Unit, require a maturity and a willingness to wade into
that uncomfortable territory. I cannot be certain though, that an offensive comment will not
occur, or that tension will not overshadow the content. A teacher hoping to operate firmly within
Vygotskys zone of proximal development can never be sure that the students will not fall into
the zone of absolute discomfort. This Unit, with its focus on racial and cultural clashes, is
dangerous territory; though potentially also fertile ground for growth.
In this, the last week of the summer term, I have been visiting the Science Leadership
Academy community professional development week in the mornings. This assignment goes
some way toward tying up the many and varied strands of the past semester. But truly, it has
been this glimpse of the professional world, amidst my future co-workers, that has most
grounded the work of the past six weeks. I have witnessed the care and consideration that goes
into creating yearlong, cross-disciplinary UBD plans. The sheer scope of the decision making in

these practices boggles the mind. Here, in this mere five-day unit, I have been wracked with
doubt and worry. There is always a sense, for me at least, that something is missing; that there is
key element of classroom lesson design that I am somehow failing to consider. In working this
week with the SLA staff, it has become clear that the process is simply never-ending. Lesson
and unit design is a rabbit hole into which ever greater quantities of thought and effort can be
poured.
Each educator present at the professional development meetings brings her own unique
lens. This semester has seen lens become a buzzword of sorts. We have used it so frequently
that it often loses its true importance. Seeing educators work together in the UBD framework,
this idea of lenses regains its true import. The personal experiences of each faculty member
drive complementary visions of lesson design. While history teachers personal experiences
create a heightened vigilance of Gardners Multiple Intelligences, another department member
might instead place an emphasis on a Carey-esque assessment structure. Each educator
prioritizes lesson planning elements, while still seeking universal coverage. When working
together, these alternate priorities meld together to create UBD plan of profound strength and
great consideration. As a rookie teacher, it is heartening to see the professional inter-reliance of
educators many years more experienced. If they still rely on the input and suggestion of their
peers, I will certainly do so to an even greater degree. Despite my ongoing questions about the
unit; were I to implement it at SLA@Beeber this year, I would be confident - knowing that my
community would aid me in addressing the units weaknesses.

Bibliography
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Haberman, M. (1988). Proposals for Recruiting Minority Martin Haberman Teachers: Promising
Practices and Attractive Detours. Journal Of Teacher Education, 39(4), 38-44.
doi:10.1177/002248718803900408
Haberman, M. (2010). The Pedagogy of Poverty versus Good Teaching. Phi Delta Kappan,
92(2), 81-87. doi:10.1177/003172171009200223
Oakes, J., & Lipton, M. (1999). Teaching to change the world. Boston [Mass.]: McGraw-Hill
College.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.