Backwards Planning a Unit

Resource Bundle

I. Backwards Planning a Unit Resource

II. Eighth Grade Social Studies Exemplar

III. References

Copyright © 2017 Arizona Board of Regents, All rights reserved  SanfordInspireProgram.org

Backwards Planning a Unit
Resource (Back to Table of Contents)

Unit Title:
Grade/Subject: Dates of Unit:

Stage 1: Set the Vision

Standards to Objectives
Select standards to include in the unit. Carefully analyze the nouns, adjectives, and verbs within the standards to identify what students should know and be able
to do by the end of the unit. Use this information to craft a set of objectives for each standard.
Standards Aligned Objectives

Essential Questions
Analyze the selected standards. Identify how the learning is relevant to society and your students, now and in the future. Create some essential questions that will
spark and focus meaningful inquiry.





Copyright © 2017 Arizona Board of Regents, All rights reserved  SanfordInspireProgram.org

 Stage 2: Create an Assessment
Use the following criteria to create and evaluate your unit’s summative assessment.

 Each unit standard is assessed.

 All questions or tasks are aligned to a standard.
 The assessment incorporates real-world application.
 Students are required to address the essential questions.
 Proficiency is clearly identified for each measurement or question.
Unit Goals
Create class-wide academic goals for what all students will be able to achieve by the end of the unit.





Stage 3: Sequence Objectives

Sequence all of the objectives in a logical order.

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5

Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Day 9 Day 10

Day 11 Day 12 Day 13 Day 14 Day 15

Copyright © 2017 Arizona Board of Regents, All rights reserved  SanfordInspireProgram.org

Eighth Grade Social Studies Exemplar
Supplement (Back to Table of Contents)

Unit Title: From Tolerance to Intolerance: WWII, the Holocaust, and the U.S. Internment Camps

Grade/Subject: 8th grade/ social studies Dates of Unit: 11/01/2015 – 11/15/2015

Stage 1: Set the Vision

Standards to Objectives
Select standards to include in the unit. Carefully analyze the nouns, adjectives, and verbs within the standards to identify what students should know and be
able to do by the end of the unit. Use this information to craft a set of objectives for each standard.

Standards Aligned Objectives

 Students will be able to define racism and intolerance.
AZ social studies standard: S2C8PO 5.
 Students will be able to describe the incremental steps of aggression
Describe how racism and intolerance contributed to the Holocaust.
and prejudice that led to the Holocaust.

 Students will be able to identify examples of loaded language and

Common Core reading standard: CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RH.6-8.4 Identify inclusion or avoidance of facts in a text.
aspects of a text that reveal an author’s point of view or purpose.  Students will be able to analyze a text to decipher the author’s point of
view or purpose.

Common core writing standard: CCSS.ELA-Literacy.WHST.6-8.1.B

 Students will be able to support a claim with reasons and accurate
Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content.
evidence.
a. Support claims with logical reasoning and relevant, accurate
 Students will be able to cite credible sources that support a claim and
data and evidence that demonstrate an understanding of the
demonstrate understanding.
topic or text, using credible sources.
Essential Questions
Analyze the selected standards. Identify how the learning is relevant to society and your students now and in the future. Create some essential questions
that will spark and focus meaningful inquiry.
 What does intolerance look like today? How does it compare to the Holocaust?
 In what ways do politicians attempt to make their point of view our point of view?
 Did the use of internment camps tarnish the ways other countries view the US?

Copyright © 2017 Arizona Board of Regents, All rights reserved  SanfordInspireProgram.org

 Stage 2: Create an Assessment
Use the following criteria to create and evaluate your unit’s summative assessment.
 Each standard identified in the unit has been assessed or measured.
 All questions or performance tasks that are used for assessing proficiency are directly aligned to one or more standards.
 The assessment incorporates authentic, real-world application whenever possible.
 The assessment requires the student to somehow address the essential questions.
 Proficiency has been clearly identified for each measurement or question.
Unit Goals
Create class-wide academic goals for what all students will be able to achieve by the end of the unit.
 100% of students will demonstrate 80% mastery (or higher) on the summative assessment.
 100% of students will earn a minimum of 52/64 points on the cooperative learning presentation.
 Students will commit to being diligent and active against intolerance.

Stage 3: Sequence Objectives

Sequence all of the objectives in a logical order.

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5

Students will be able to Students will be able to describe (continue objective) Students will be able to identify Students will be able to
define racism and the incremental steps of examples of loaded language analyze a text to decipher
intolerance. aggression and prejudice that led and inclusion or avoidance of the author’s point of view
to the Holocaust. facts in a text. or purpose.

Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Day 9 Day 10

(continue objective with Students will be able to support a (continue objective with Students will be able to cite (continue objective with
more texts) claim with reasons and accurate more texts) credible sources that support a more texts)
evidence. claim and demonstrate
understanding.

Copyright © 2017 Arizona Board of Regents, All rights reserved  SanfordInspireProgram.org

Backwards Planning a Unit
References (Back to Table of Contents)

Bobbitt, F. (2004). Scientific method in curriculum-making. In Flinders, D.J., & Thornton, S.J. (Eds.), The
curriculum studies (9-16). New York, NY: Routledge.

Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2001). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and
school. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America's commitment to equity will
determine our future. New York: Teachers College Press.

Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, Virginia:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Deci, E. L. (1992). The relation of interest to the motivation of behavior. In Renninger, A., Hidi, S., & Krapp,
A. (Eds.). The role of interest in learning and development. (pp. 27-41) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Inc. Publishers.

Flinders, D.J., & Thornton, S.J. (2004). Looking back: A prologue to curriculum studies. In Flinders, D.J., &
Thornton, S.J. (Eds.), The curriculum studies reader (9-16). New York, NY: Routledge.

Graff, N. (2011). “An effective and agonizing way to learn:” Backwards design and new teachers’
preparation for planning curriculum, Teacher Education Quarterly, 151- 168.

Guskey, T. R. (2005). Formative Classroom Assessment and Benjamin S. Bloom: Theory, Research, and
Implications. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Montreal, Canada.

Johnson, C., Moore, E., & Thornton, M. (2014). A SMART Approach to Motivating Students in Secondary
Physical Education: F. Konukman (Ed.), Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 85(4), 42-
44.

Jones, K. A., Jones, J., & Vermette, P. J. (2011). Six Common Lesson Planning Pitfalls-Recommendations
for Novice Educators. Education, 131(4), 845-864.

Jones, K. A., Vermette, P. J., & Jones, J. L. (2009). An integration of "Backwards Planning" unit design with
the" Two-Step" lesson planning framework. Education, 130(2), 357-360.

Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (1999). Cooperative learning and assessment. In D. Kluge, S. McGuire, D.
Johnson, & R. Johnson (Eds.), JALT applied materials: Cooperative learning (pp. 164-178). Tokyo: Japan
Association for Language Teaching.

Kauffman, D., Moore Johnson, S., Kardos, S., Liu, E., & Peske, H. (2002). "Lost at Sea": New teachers'
experiences with curriculum and assessment. The Teachers College Record, 104(2), 273-300.

Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Alge, B. J. (1999). Goal commitment and the goal-setting
process: conceptual clarification and empirical synthesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6), 885.

Copyright © 2017 Arizona Board of Regents, All rights reserved  SanfordInspireProgram.org

Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (2005). Goal setting theory: Theory building by induction. In K.G. Smith & M.A.
Mitt (Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of theory development. New York: Oxford.

Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Association for Psychological
Science, (15)5, 265-268.

McTighe, J., Seif, E., & Wiggins, G. (2004). You Can Teach for Meaning. Educational Leadership, 62(1),
26-30.

Popham, W. J. (2011). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. Boston, MA: Pearson
Education, Inc.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher,
15(2), 4-14.

Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1997). Understanding and improving classroom mathematics instruction: An
overview of the TIMSS video study. Phi Delta Kappa International, 79(1), 14-21.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2011). Understanding by design: Guide to creating high-quality units.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development (ASCD). Retrieved from
http://www.ebrary.com

Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.

Copyright © 2017 Arizona Board of Regents, All rights reserved  SanfordInspireProgram.org