Backward Design

Backward design is a curriculum planning approach that begins by defining desired learning outcomes, then determines how those outcomes will be assessed, and only then plans the instructional activities that will lead learners to those outcomes. It reverses the traditional sequence of starting with content or activities and hoping that learning follows.

The concept was first articulated by Ralph W. Tyler (1949), who argued that educational objectives should precede the selection of learning experiences and their organisation. The term "backward design" was formalised and popularised by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe in their influential Understanding by Design (UbD) framework (1998; 2nd ed. 2005), published by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). In language teaching, Jack C. Richards (2013) positioned backward design as one of three fundamental curriculum approaches, alongside Forward Design and Central Design, and identified the CEFR as a major example of backward design in practice.

The Three Stages

Stage 1: Identify Desired Results

The designer asks: What should learners know, understand, and be able to do?

This stage defines the end goals before any consideration of materials or methods. Wiggins and McTighe distinguish three layers of desired results:

Transfer goals — what learners should be able to do independently in new situations beyond the classroom
Understandings — "big ideas" (principles, theories, concepts) that give content meaning and coherence
Essential questions — open-ended questions that provoke inquiry and deepen understanding (e.g., "What makes communication effective across cultures?")

In ELT contexts, Stage 1 typically involves:

Defining target proficiency levels using Can-Do Statements (e.g., CEFR B1: "Can deal with most situations likely to arise whilst travelling")
Writing measurable Learning Outcomes aligned with learner needs identified through Needs Analysis
Specifying target communicative competences (linguistic, sociolinguistic, pragmatic)
Identifying the real-world tasks learners need to perform (e.g., writing a complaint email, participating in a meeting, taking an IELTS exam)

ELT example: An IELTS Writing course at IF2 level defines the outcome as "Learners will be able to write a Task 1 report that identifies main trends and makes basic comparisons, achieving Band 4.5+ for Task Achievement."

Stage 2: Determine Assessment Evidence

The designer asks: How will we know if learners have achieved the desired results?

Before planning any teaching, the designer thinks "like an assessor" and determines what evidence will demonstrate that outcomes have been met. Wiggins and McTighe recommend multiple forms of evidence:

Performance tasks — authentic, complex tasks requiring transfer of learning (not just recall)
Other evidence — quizzes, tests, observations, homework, self-assessments, dialogues

For performance tasks, the UbD framework uses the GRASPS template:

Element	Meaning	ELT Example
Goal	What the learner must accomplish	Write a report comparing two charts
Role	The learner's role in the scenario	IELTS candidate / office worker
Audience	Who the product is for	Examiner / manager
Situation	The context or challenge	Time-pressured exam / quarterly review
Product	What the learner creates	150-word report / presentation
Standards	Criteria for success	Band descriptors / rubric

In ELT contexts, Stage 2 involves:

Designing summative tasks that mirror real-world language use
Creating formative checkpoints to monitor progress
Aligning assessment criteria with target descriptors (e.g., IELTS band descriptors, CEFR scales)
Building rubrics with clear performance levels

ELT example: Before designing any lessons, the course designer creates the end-of-course writing test (two Task 1 reports under timed conditions), plus formative peer-assessment checklists aligned to band descriptors.

Stage 3: Plan Learning Experiences and Instruction

The designer asks: What activities, resources, and instruction will help learners achieve the desired results and prepare them for the assessments?

Only at this final stage does the designer select content, materials, and teaching methods. Wiggins and McTighe use the WHERETO framework for planning instruction:

Letter	Meaning
W	Where are we going? Why? What is expected?
H	Hook and hold student interest
E	Equip students with necessary knowledge and skills
R	Rethink, reflect, and revise
E	Evaluate progress (self-assessment and teacher checks)
T	Tailor instruction to individual needs
O	Organise for optimal learning

In ELT contexts, Stage 3 involves:

Selecting or adapting coursebook units that serve the defined outcomes
Choosing methodology (e.g., PPP, TBLT, Guided Discovery) based on what best supports the target competences
Sequencing activities from controlled to freer, building toward the assessment tasks
Planning recycling and spiral revisiting of key language and skills
Building in explicit strategy instruction and exam preparation where relevant

ELT example: For the IF2 Writing course, lessons are sequenced: analysing model reports → identifying key features in data → practising comparison language → timed writing under exam conditions — all working backwards from the assessment task defined in Stage 2.

Backward Design in Language Curriculum: Richards (2013)

Richards (2013) provides the most influential framework for understanding curriculum design approaches in language teaching. He identifies three approaches, each differing in when issues of input (content), process (methodology), and outcomes (learning results) are addressed.

The Three Approaches Compared

Feature	Forward Design	Central Design	Backward Design
Starting point	Syllabus content (grammar, vocabulary, functions, skills)	Classroom methodology and processes	Learning outcomes and target competences
Sequence	Input → Process → Outcomes	Process → Input + Outcomes	Outcomes → Process → Input
Syllabus role	Drives the curriculum; content selected and sequenced first	Emerges during implementation; not pre-specified in detail	Derived from outcomes; selected to serve target competences
Assessment	Often added after teaching; may not align with instruction	Informal; embedded in classroom processes	Designed before instruction; drives what is taught
Historical tradition	Dominant tradition in language teaching (structural, functional-notional, lexical syllabuses)	Process-oriented movements (Dogme, strong TBLT, Prabhu's Bangalore Project)	Competency-based education, CEFR, standards-based curricula
Examples	Grammar-based coursebooks, structural syllabuses	Dogme ELT, Prabhu's procedural syllabus, strong TBLT	CEFR-aligned curricula, ACTFL proficiency guidelines, competency-based programs
Strengths	Clear content progression; easy to sequence and assess	Responsive to learners; promotes meaningful communication	Ensures alignment between outcomes, assessment, and instruction
Limitations	Assessment may not reflect real communicative ability; coverage =/= learning	Difficult to ensure coverage; hard to standardise; requires highly skilled teachers	Requires clear outcome definitions; may constrain emergent learning
Key proponents	Wilkins (1976), traditional syllabus designers	Prabhu (1987), Thornbury & Meddings (2009)	Tyler (1949), Wiggins & McTighe (1998), Richards (2013)

The CEFR as Backward Design

Richards (2013) identifies the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) as a landmark example of backward design in language education. The CEFR:

Defines proficiency through Can-Do Statements — positive descriptors of what learners can do at each level (A1 through C2)
Provides the target outcomes from which institutions derive their syllabuses, materials, and assessments
Allows curriculum planners to align planning, teaching, and assessment within a programme by anchoring everything to observable performance descriptors
Does not prescribe a methodology or syllabus — these are derived from the outcome specifications

Similarly, the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements in the US context exemplify backward design: educators set proficiency targets, design performance assessments aligned to can-do benchmarks, and then plan instruction to build toward those targets.

Wiggins and McTighe argue that true understanding goes beyond recall. They propose six facets, each representing a different dimension of understanding:

Explanation — sophisticated, apt accounts of phenomena ("Can explain why...")
Interpretation — meaningful narratives or translations ("Can interpret the data to show...")
Application — using knowledge in new situations ("Can apply the strategy to unseen texts...")
Perspective — seeing from different viewpoints ("Can evaluate from multiple stakeholder positions...")
Empathy — perceiving sensitively through others' experiences ("Can understand why a learner might...")
Self-knowledge — awareness of one's own understanding and limitations ("Can identify personal strengths and gaps...")

In ELT, these facets help teachers move beyond testing recall of grammar rules toward assessing genuine communicative competence — can the learner use the language, not just describe it?

Why Backward Design Matters for ELT

Alignment: Ensures that what is taught, how it is assessed, and what learners are expected to achieve are all connected — the central challenge of Course Design
Outcome orientation: Fits naturally with proficiency-based and competency-based language programs where the goal is observable language performance, not content coverage
CEFR compatibility: The CEFR's can-do architecture is inherently backward — defining what learners can do, then deriving instruction from those targets
Prevents the "coverage trap": In forward design, teachers often feel compelled to "cover" the textbook; backward design asks instead whether learners can perform the target tasks
Assessment integrity: By designing assessments before instruction, backward design reduces the mismatch between what is taught and what is tested (Washback)
Transparency: Clear outcomes communicated to learners increase motivation and metacognitive awareness
Programme coherence: Essential for multi-level programmes (like the EH IELTS program) where each course must build systematically toward defined proficiency targets

Criticisms and Limitations

General Criticisms

Constrains emergent learning: Predefined outcomes may limit opportunities for unplanned but valuable learning directions (Wiggins & McTighe acknowledge this and recommend "uncoverage" — but the tension remains)
Assumes clear outcomes are always possible: Not all valuable educational goals are easily stated as measurable outcomes (e.g., creativity, cultural sensitivity, love of reading)
Assessment validity: Difficulties in ensuring assessments are valid and reliable measures of the stated outcomes, particularly for complex competences
Reduces flexibility: Limits teacher improvisation and responsiveness to emerging classroom needs compared to Central Design approaches
Can narrow the curriculum: Focusing strictly on assessed outcomes may cause teachers to neglect important content that does not appear in assessments

Language-Specific Criticisms

Internal syllabus problem: SLA research suggests learners have developmental sequences (see Developmental Sequences, Natural Order Hypothesis, Processability Theory) that do not align with externally imposed outcome timelines. Learners may not be ready to produce target forms on schedule, regardless of curriculum design
Acquisition =/= learning: Krashen's Acquisition vs Learning distinction and the Monitor Model suggest that explicit outcome targets address conscious learning but may not drive acquisition, which follows its own timetable
Proficiency benchmarks can be arbitrary: Setting fixed proficiency targets (e.g., "B1 by end of term") creates pressure to blame learners who develop more slowly rather than questioning the timeline itself
Teaching to the test: When outcomes are tightly coupled with high-stakes assessments, backward design can promote test preparation over genuine communicative development — the same washback problem it aims to solve

Balanced View

Most curriculum theorists (Richards, 2013; Graves, 2000; Nation & Macalister, 2010) recommend a pragmatic blend: backward design provides the overall architecture and alignment, while allowing space for process-oriented responsiveness within individual lessons. The three approaches are not mutually exclusive — a well-designed language programme often uses backward design at the programme level, with elements of central and forward design at the lesson level.

Practical Application in Language Teaching

Programme Level

Conduct Needs Analysis to identify target communicative tasks and contexts
Define Learning Outcomes as can-do statements for each course level
Design end-of-course assessments that test target competences authentically
Build a Scheme of Work working backwards from the assessment tasks
Select and sequence content, materials, and methods to serve the outcomes

Unit/Lesson Level

State Lesson Aims derived from course-level outcomes
Define the success criteria — how will you know the aim was achieved?
Plan activities that build toward the target performance, from controlled to freer practice
Include formative checks throughout

EH IELTS Program Example

The EH IELTS Writing program follows a modified backward design:

Outcomes: Target band descriptors (e.g., Band 4.5 for IF2) define what "success" looks like
Assessment: End-of-course mock tests are designed first, mirroring real IELTS conditions
Instruction: Lessons are built to develop the specific skills and language needed to meet those band descriptors — working backwards from the target performance

Key References

Tyler, R.W. (1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. University of Chicago Press.
Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by Design. ASCD.
Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design (2nd ed.). ASCD.
Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2012). Understanding by Design Framework (White Paper). ASCD.
Richards, J.C. (2013). Curriculum approaches in language teaching: Forward, central, and backward design. RELC Journal, 44(1), 5-33.
Graves, K. (2000). Designing Language Courses: A Guide for Teachers. Heinle & Heinle.
Nation, I.S.P. & Macalister, J. (2010). Language Curriculum Design. Routledge.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Cambridge University Press.
Council of Europe. (2020). CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors. Council of Europe.
Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Longman.
Anderson, L.W. & Krathwohl, D.R. (Eds.). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing (revised Bloom's taxonomy). Longman.