Last spring, I had the opportunity to participate in the CTE Best Practices Institute. Through discussion and discovery, the experience completely changed the way that I think about teaching. I discovered the idea of “backward design” from Understanding by Design by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe. This approach starts with the end goal in mind instead of beginning with textbooks or assignments. Although not a new idea by any means, it furthered the approach by advocating creation of the assessment tool at the beginning of the planning stage and asking readers to consider what would we accept as evidence of student learning before planning the teaching and learning experiences (8). However, it was during a discussion when Dan Bernstein mentioned “component composite analysis” that my thinking transformation began. It allowed me to name and define a framework for what I was, in a sense, already doing. I was able to move from the abstract to the concrete.
As I am a designer and not a psychologist, I have a limited but “design-contextualized” understanding of component composite analysis. A complex performance requires that students be able to put together parts of information and understanding (components). The instructor must be able to identify the components and provide opportunities, through practice and feedback, to allow students to acquire the component knowledge so that they can put together the total performance (composite). Proponents of this idea argue that students who appear to lack talent may be missing the opportunity to learn the component skills, thereby making the composite too hard to achieve. It places the responsibility on the instructor to identify three things: a successful composite performance, the component knowledge needed, and where the student would have acquired the skills. When the formal analysis is completed, the instructor teaches to the component skills. After discovering component composite analysis and backward design, I started to fully examine my teaching methods. The theory seemed to make perfect sense, and having this conceptual framework was enlightening. It expanded my thinking by defining a methodology whereby I could take my experiences and organize them into a new, yet familiar, context.
My observation is that for many, teaching is about using our collections—collections of lectures, collections of projects, and/or collections of tests and paper assignments. Usually missing from this discussion is what these collections represent. What do they mean to students? What do we want students to do with them? In design studio courses, we often use projects to define and identify course content. We speak confidently of what an individual project will teach, yet rarely talk about a course in terms of overall teaching/ learning goals, but rather in terms of our collection of assignments. If we start with the learning goals and requisite component skills defined, then we can evaluate our collections and choose lecture content and assignments that will help students perform successfully and confidently. Even the simple mind shift into thinking that if each project is a specific component, then what is the composite of the course as a whole has opened up new possibilities for me.
I have often wondered why beginning teachers, most of whom are excellent graphic design professionals, get so lost and frustrated in the classroom, losing patience with students who “just don’t get it.” Although I understood intuitively what the problem could be, especially in the introductory courses, I did not have a framework to answer the question until component composite analysis. If a teacher assumes that students have acquired the component knowledge needed but, through no fault of their own, they have not, then frustration will occur not only for the instructor but for the students, as well. I constantly remind myself that instead of asking “Why can’t students (fill in the blank)?” my first thought should be “How can I help facilitate this skill?”
Now that I have bought into the idea of backward design and component composite analysis, the question becomes “Does this teaching approach create students who can successfully complete the task?” As I mentioned earlier, my process of teaching was similar to component composite analysis. I have always taught design projects by expanding parameters, initially keeping the parameters limited so students could discover basic design principles and then expanding the visual opportunity to increase learning and retention as the project went along. Over the years, I have been happy with the results. Last fall, using component composite analysis, I refined the idea in VISC 524/Graphic Design IV, a senior-level studio course for graphic design majors. The first step was to clearly define the composite or products of the performance and make sure they were clearly listed on the assignment sheet. After conducting a formal analysis of the component skills needed to successfully complete the task, I refined the process that I have the students move through during the course of the project. The assignment sheet defined the process in terms of component skills and provided time and feedback to discover or synthesize information. For skills that would not have been taught in previous coursework, I conducted mini-performances within the overall assignment. These detours allowed a student to practice or discover a component skill that could then be brought back into the assignment proper. Finally, I used the component skills to construct a comprehensive rubric that would allow for an objective evaluation of the composite performance. This fall, when I teach the course again, I will hand out the rubric at the beginning of the project in order to make the evaluation criteria transparent to the students. Overall, I was extremely pleased with the result as the projects demonstrated strong conceptual thinking and solid formal skills. The only change I plan on making at this point is with the schedule. I will allow more time at the end for the Brand Identity Study (a publication that captures the student’s process throughout the project).
Along with studio courses, I am also responsible for teaching a lecture course entitled The History and Philosophy of Design. The course uses the traditional art history delivery method of dual slide projectors and a collection of lectures organized by design movement and philosophy, presented in chronological order. I share many of the complaints voiced by my colleagues, such as why do students have a hard time writing clearly and thoughtfully? Why are they seemingly unable to synthesize and apply information? Reminding myself of my earlier question, “How can I help facilitate these skills?,” my thoughts have shifted: What do they remember after the course is over? What do I want them to remember? What is truly important? Why do I write tests the way that I do? Is it because that is the way it has always been done? Interestingly, I have never thought to apply lessons I have learned in teaching studio to teaching a lecture course. What is the complex performance (the composite) I expect from them? Can it be something more than a test or a paper? What skills would they need to complete this task? Since the course itself is available to any major within the design department, as well as anyone who has completed Art History I/II, where would students have acquired (through practice and feedback) the skills that might be required? How could I address something new within what already seems like a packed schedule? One might think that from the sheer number of questions I have raised, the prospect of change would seem too daunting. Just the opposite. Armed with my “design-contextualized” understanding of component composite analysis, I am energized by the idea of applying the theory to many different situations and under different conditions as a way to test its appropriateness and discover its strengths and weaknesses as a methodology.
In order for reflection to truly impact teaching, one must be open to the possibilities that present themselves as a result and ultimately act on them. I am surprised that a moment of clarity, the simple discovery of a framework around which to organize my thoughts, would yield so many compelling questions. My task now is to prioritize the questions as they relate to each of the courses that I teach. If I try to tackle everything at once, nothing will get done. This is the challenge that I have given myself: How will I direct my energy into manageable yet significant changes?
Andi Witczak is an assistant professor of design. She began teaching at KU in 1996.
