Introduction
For decades, the default approach to course development in higher education followed a familiar and deeply ingrained pattern: a faculty member identifies a list of topics to cover, organizes those topics into a weekly schedule, selects a textbook, and then devises tests or papers to assign grades. While this content-first model is intuitive and comfortable, it is fundamentally misaligned with the most important question in education: What do we actually want students to be able to understand, do, and transfer long after the course is over?
Backward design, a curriculum planning framework introduced by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe in their landmark work on Understanding by Design, offers a powerful and evidence-based alternative. Rather than beginning with content and moving toward assessment, backward design reverses the sequence entirely (University of Iowa, 2024). Faculty begin by identifying the desired outcomes for student learning, then determine how those outcomes will be assessed, and only then design the instructional experiences and content through which students will achieve those goals (MIT Teaching and Learning Lab, 2024).
The result is not just a more logically coherent course. It is a more equitable, more engaging, and more purposeful learning experience that connects students to the enduring ideas and transferable skills that higher education is uniquely positioned to develop (WGU Labs, 2024). This article provides a comprehensive guide to backward design as a framework for higher education course development, walking faculty, instructional designers, and curriculum committees through each stage of the process.
What Is Backward Design? Origins and Core Philosophy
The term “backward design” was introduced to the curriculum development world by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe and is most fully articulated through their Understanding by Design (UbD) framework (College of DuPage Library, 2024). The central premise of UbD is that effective curriculum design should begin with the end in mind, specifically with a clear vision of what genuine student understanding looks like, and then work backward to build the instructional pathway that leads students there (Educational Technology, 2024).
Wiggins and McTighe distinguished between three types of learning goals that form the foundation of the framework. The first is transfer goals, which describe what students should be able to do independently with their learning in new contexts. The second is enduring understandings, which represent the big ideas, core concepts, and lasting insights that students should retain long after the course has ended. The third is essential questions, which are open-ended, intellectually provocative questions that guide inquiry and give meaning to the content students encounter (ETSU Pressbooks, 2024).
This distinction matters deeply in higher education, where the difference between surface-level content exposure and genuine intellectual development is precisely the gap that backward design is designed to close. Georgetown University’s Center for New Designs in Learning and Scholarship noted that backward design emphasizes the importance of leaving students with transferable skills, practice in disciplinary methods, and lasting intellectual insights, in contrast to traditional content-coverage approaches that often prioritize breadth over depth (Georgetown CNDLS, 2024).
The backward design model is closely related to, and reinforces, the principle of constructive alignment, developed by John Biggs. Constructive alignment posits that student learning is maximized when there is explicit, coherent alignment between the learning outcomes an instructor intends, the assessments used to measure those outcomes, and the learning activities and instructional strategies through which students develop the necessary knowledge and skills (Suffolk University, 2024). Together, backward design and constructive alignment form a unified theoretical foundation for high-quality course development in higher education.
Why Traditional Course Design Falls Short
To fully appreciate what backward design offers, it is worth examining the limitations of the traditional approach it is designed to replace. The conventional content-first model of course planning typically prioritizes the instructor’s knowledge and the structure of a discipline over the learning needs and goals of students. As a result, courses can become exercises in information transmission rather than genuine intellectual development.
Inside Higher Ed (2024) observed that the traditional model of course design often results in fragmented, incoherent learning experiences in which assessments feel disconnected from instructional activities, and neither is clearly tied to a coherent vision of what students should ultimately understand or be able to do. Faculty who teach this way are not failing because of a lack of expertise or effort. They are failing because the design model they are using was never built around the question of learning.
The consequences are well documented. Students frequently struggle to transfer knowledge from one context to another, retain information for only as long as the exam requires, and leave courses unable to articulate what they were supposed to have learned or why it mattered. WGU Labs (2024) argued that backward design directly addresses these outcomes by forcing faculty to articulate the purpose and relevance of every element of a course before a single lecture or assignment is designed.
Furthermore, the traditional model often perpetuates inequity. When course design is organized around content coverage rather than student learning, it tends to privilege students who arrive with strong prior knowledge and disadvantage those who need more structured scaffolding to access complex ideas (Every Learner Everywhere, 2024). Backward design, by contrast, begins with what all students need to be able to do and builds instructional supports explicitly around those goals.
The Three Stages of Backward Design
Wiggins and McTighe’s Understanding by Design framework organizes backward design into three distinct but deeply interconnected stages. Each stage informs and constrains the others, creating a coherent system in which every element of the course serves a clearly defined learning purpose (ETSU Pressbooks, 2024; MIT Teaching and Learning Lab, 2024).
Stage One: Identify Desired Results
The first stage of backward design asks faculty to answer a deceptively simple question: What should students understand, know, and be able to do as a result of this course? This question is simple to ask but genuinely difficult to answer well, and the quality of the entire course depends on the rigor and clarity with which it is addressed (Ohio State University, 2024).
Desired results in the UbD framework are organized into three nested categories. At the broadest level are the transfer goals, describing long-term, independent applications of learning that students should be able to perform. At the intermediate level are the enduring understandings, the specific, nontrivial insights and concepts that the course is designed to develop. At the most granular level are the knowledge and skill objectives, the specific content, vocabulary, procedures, and competencies that students must acquire to achieve the broader understandings (College of DuPage Library, 2024).
For higher education faculty, this stage often requires a disciplined process of winnowing. There is almost always more content that could be taught in any given course than time allows. Backward design provides a principled basis for deciding what to include and what to exclude: content that directly supports the enduring understandings and transfer goals belongs in the course, while content that does not serve those goals, however interesting or comprehensive, may need to be set aside (Georgetown CNDLS, 2024).
One of the most practical tools for writing clear, measurable learning outcomes at this stage is Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy of Cognitive Learning Objectives. Originally developed by Benjamin Bloom and his colleagues and later revised by Anderson and Krathwohl, this taxonomy describes a hierarchical progression of cognitive skills ranging from basic recall and comprehension through application, analysis, evaluation, and creation (University of Arkansas, 2024). Using the action verbs associated with each level of the taxonomy, faculty can write learning outcomes that are specific, observable, measurable, and intellectually ambitious (Yale Poorvu Center, 2024).
For example, a history instructor designing an upper-division course might write a surface-level outcome such as “Students will know the causes of World War I.” A Bloom’s-informed backward design approach would produce a far more rigorous outcome: “Students will be able to analyze competing historiographical interpretations of the causes of World War I and construct an evidence-based argument defending a particular interpretation.” The second outcome defines not just what students will know but what they will be able to do with that knowledge, making it a far more useful guide for the design of assessments and instructional activities (Iowa State University CELT, 2024).
Iowa State University’s Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching recommended that faculty align their outcomes to the appropriate cognitive level for the course, ensuring that lower-division introductory courses build foundational knowledge while upper-division and graduate courses demand analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Iowa State University CELT, 2024). This progression ensures that outcomes scaffold appropriately across a curriculum rather than repeating the same cognitive demands at every level.
Stage Two: Determine Acceptable Evidence
Once the desired learning outcomes are clearly articulated, the second stage of backward design asks: How will we know that students have actually achieved them? What will serve as credible, sufficient evidence that understanding has occurred? This stage requires faculty to think carefully about assessment before they have designed a single lesson, activity, or reading assignment (Kent State University, 2024).
This sequencing is deliberately counterintuitive. In traditional course design, assessment is typically the last thing a faculty member designs, often reduced to a midterm exam and a final paper that were decided upon before the course goals were fully articulated. Backward design insists that assessment design must precede instructional design, because the type of evidence we need will shape the type of learning experiences we must create (ADInstruments, 2024).
Wiggins and McTighe recommended that faculty use a combination of assessment types that together provide comprehensive evidence of student learning. These include performance tasks and projects through which students demonstrate transfer goals in authentic, complex situations; evidence of knowledge and skill through quizzes, tests, and exercises; and student self-assessments and reflections through which students develop metacognitive awareness of their own learning (Turnitin, 2024).
Performance tasks are particularly important in higher education because they are the assessment type most capable of revealing whether genuine understanding and transfer have occurred. Rather than testing whether students can recall information under time pressure, performance tasks ask students to apply their learning to novel, meaningful problems that resemble the real-world intellectual work of the discipline (ACM Digital Library, 2024). A biology professor might ask students to design an experiment to test a hypothesis rather than simply describe the scientific method. An education professor might ask students to develop and defend a lesson plan using the theories discussed in class rather than summarize those theories on an exam.
The alignment between assessment and outcomes is the mechanism through which constructive alignment operates. Suffolk University’s Center for Teaching and Scholarly Excellence (2024) described this alignment as the cornerstone of effective course design, noting that when assessments are explicitly and transparently connected to learning outcomes, students are better able to understand what is expected of them and direct their learning effort accordingly.
Formative assessment also plays a critical role at this stage. While summative assessments like final projects and exams provide evidence of cumulative learning at the end of a unit or course, formative assessments provide ongoing, low-stakes evidence that allows faculty to identify misunderstandings and adjust instruction before those misunderstandings become entrenched (University of Alabama K.P. Cross Academy, 2024). In the backward design framework, formative assessments should be explicitly designed to build student readiness for the summative performance tasks, creating a coherent developmental trajectory rather than a series of isolated evaluations.
Stage Three: Plan Learning Experiences and Instruction
Only after the desired learning outcomes and assessment evidence have been clearly established does backward design turn to the question of instructional activities, content, and course structure. This is the stage that most closely resembles traditional course planning, but it is approached in a fundamentally different spirit (Eastern Illinois University, 2024).
At this stage, the central design question is not “What content should I cover?” but rather “What learning experiences will most effectively prepare students to achieve these outcomes and succeed on these assessments?” This reframing transforms content from an end in itself into a means of achieving clearly defined learning goals (MIT Teaching and Learning Lab, 2024).
Faculty designing at this stage should consider a wide range of instructional approaches, including lectures, discussions, collaborative learning activities, case studies, simulations, primary source analysis, laboratory work, fieldwork, and reflective writing. The selection of instructional strategies should be guided by evidence about which approaches are most effective for the type of learning being pursued. Research consistently shows that active learning strategies, in which students engage with content through application, analysis, and creation rather than passive reception, produce deeper and more durable learning than lecture-only approaches (Tandfonline, 2023).
The University of Calgary’s Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning (2024) noted that backward design provides a principled framework for selecting instructional strategies by asking faculty to justify every activity in terms of its contribution to the desired learning outcomes. Activities that do not clearly support the outcomes are candidates for elimination or revision, regardless of how entertaining or traditional they may be.
Scaffolding is a critical consideration at this stage. Complex transfer goals and performance tasks cannot be achieved without carefully sequenced instruction that builds students’ knowledge and skills progressively over time. Faculty should map their instructional sequence to identify prerequisite knowledge, anticipate common misconceptions, and design activities that move students from basic comprehension through increasingly sophisticated application and analysis (Ohio State University, 2024).
The syllabus that emerges from this three-stage process is substantively different from a traditional syllabus. Rather than a chronological list of topics and reading assignments with assessment deadlines inserted at intervals, a backward-designed syllabus is a coherent learning roadmap that makes the course’s goals, assessments, and instructional activities explicitly visible to students and transparently connected to each other (ETSU Pressbooks, 2024).
The Role of Essential Questions in Higher Education Courses
One of the most distinctive and intellectually powerful elements of the Understanding by Design framework is the concept of essential questions. These are open-ended, disciplinary questions that do not have single correct answers and that invite ongoing inquiry, discussion, and intellectual exploration (Wexner Foundation, 2024).
Essential questions serve several important functions in higher education course design. They provide intellectual coherence by giving students a recurring lens through which to engage with diverse content throughout the semester. They model the intellectual practices of the discipline by demonstrating that real scholarly inquiry involves wrestling with genuinely difficult questions rather than accumulating correct answers. And they motivate student engagement by connecting course content to questions that feel genuinely important and worth pursuing (Medium, 2024).
Effective essential questions in higher education might include inquiries such as: “Whose voices have been excluded from the historical record, and how does that exclusion shape what we know about the past?” or “How do market structures shape individual behavior, and what are the limits of economic models in predicting human action?” or “What distinguishes ethical from unethical uses of emerging technology, and who has the authority to decide?” These questions cut across topics, connect course content to larger disciplinary and social stakes, and invite students to develop and defend their own reasoned positions rather than reproduce a received answer (Georgetown CNDLS, 2024).
Faculty designing with essential questions should return to them explicitly and repeatedly throughout the semester, using them as a through-line that gives coherence and meaning to the diverse content, discussions, and assignments students encounter. When students understand from the beginning of the course that they are engaged in a genuine intellectual inquiry rather than a content-coverage exercise, their motivation, persistence, and depth of engagement tend to increase substantially (Catlin Tucker, 2026).
Applying Backward Design to Different Course Contexts
Backward design is a versatile framework that can be applied productively across a wide variety of higher education course types, disciplines, and delivery modalities. While the specific content and assessment types will differ dramatically between, for example, a first-year writing course, a laboratory science course, and an online graduate seminar, the underlying design logic is the same in each context.
General Education Courses: Backward design is particularly valuable for general education course development, where the risk of vague, overly broad outcomes is especially high. Faculty designing introductory or foundational courses should use the backward design framework to articulate specific, meaningful outcomes that connect to broader general education goals such as critical thinking, written communication, quantitative reasoning, and civic engagement. The challenge in general education design is often to move beyond outcome statements like “students will think critically” toward specific, observable descriptions of what critical thinking looks like in the context of the particular discipline (ASEE PEER, 2024).
STEM and Technical Disciplines: In science, technology, engineering, and mathematics courses, backward design helps faculty move beyond the common trap of designing courses primarily around content coverage and procedural skill development. A backward-designed STEM course articulates not only what students should be able to calculate or demonstrate but also what they should be able to analyze, evaluate, and design. Research published in Cogent Education found that applying backward design to undergraduate computer science courses significantly improved student retention and conceptual understanding compared to traditionally designed courses (Tandfonline, 2023).
Online and Hybrid Courses: In online and hybrid course environments, the intentional alignment of outcomes, assessments, and learning activities made possible by backward design is especially important because students cannot rely on in-person classroom dynamics to clarify expectations or fill gaps in course coherence (Every Learner Everywhere, 2024). A backward-designed online course provides students with a transparent, navigable structure that makes the purpose and progression of every module explicit and accessible.
Graduate and Professional Programs: In graduate and professional education, backward design encourages faculty to foreground the transfer goals that are most relevant to professional practice. A graduate course in public health, social work, or business should be designed around the competencies and analytical capacities students will need to exercise independently in professional settings, with assessments that require students to demonstrate those competencies in authentic, practice-relevant contexts (PMC, 2024).
Common Challenges and How to Overcome Them
Despite its conceptual clarity and broad applicability, backward design presents genuine challenges for faculty who are accustomed to the content-first approach, and acknowledging those challenges is essential to supporting successful implementation.
The Coverage Imperative: Perhaps the most common and deeply ingrained obstacle to backward design in higher education is the felt obligation to cover all of the important content in a field. Faculty often experience a discipline-specific anxiety about leaving out material that students might need or that colleagues might expect. Backward design requires a fundamental philosophical shift: the recognition that depth of understanding is more educationally valuable than breadth of exposure, and that coverage without comprehension produces very little lasting learning (Inside Higher Ed, 2024).
Writing Meaningful Outcomes: Many faculty find it genuinely difficult to articulate learning outcomes that are simultaneously specific enough to guide course design, measurable enough to support fair assessment, and intellectually ambitious enough to represent genuine higher-order learning. The process of writing strong outcomes using Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy takes practice and is often more time-intensive than faculty expect (University of Arkansas, 2024). Instructional design support, faculty development workshops, and peer review of draft outcomes can all help faculty develop this skill over time.
Assessment Design Anxiety: Faculty in many disciplines, particularly in the humanities and interpretive social sciences, sometimes resist the idea that student learning can or should be reduced to measurable outcomes. This concern reflects a genuine tension in education between the richness of intellectual development and the bluntness of any measurement instrument. Backward design does not resolve this tension, but it offers a productive response: performance tasks and authentic assessments can capture complex, qualitative evidence of student understanding without reducing learning to right-or-wrong scoring (Turnitin, 2024).
Time and Institutional Support: Designing a course using backward design for the first time requires a substantial investment of time, particularly for the outcome identification and assessment design stages. Scholarly Teacher (2024) observed that new faculty and instructors redesigning existing courses both benefit significantly from structured professional development support, including access to instructional designers, sample backward-designed syllabi, and peer collaboration time.
Backward Design and Equity in Higher Education
One of the most compelling arguments for backward design in contemporary higher education is its potential to advance educational equity. When course design begins with a clear, transparent articulation of what all students are expected to understand and be able to do, it creates the conditions for more equitable instruction and assessment.
Transparency in learning outcomes allows students from all backgrounds to understand what success looks like and to direct their effort accordingly. Students who are unfamiliar with the implicit expectations of higher education, often first-generation college students and students from historically underrepresented communities, benefit enormously from courses in which the rules of intellectual engagement are made explicit rather than left for students to infer from classroom culture (Every Learner Everywhere, 2024).
WGU Labs (2024) argued that backward design supports equity not only through outcome transparency but also through its emphasis on intentional scaffolding. When faculty design with the full range of their students in mind, they build instructional supports that make complex learning accessible to students who need more structured pathways while still challenging advanced students with the depth and complexity of the transfer goals.
Practical Steps for Getting Started with Backward Design
For faculty ready to apply backward design to an existing or new course, the following practical steps provide a structured starting point.
Step 1: Map your course’s big picture. Before writing a single outcome, spend time articulating the transfer goals of your course. Ask yourself: If a student takes nothing else away from this course five years from now, what should they still understand and be able to do? What are the most important ideas, questions, and intellectual practices of your discipline that this course should develop?
Step 2: Write clear, measurable learning outcomes. Using Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy as a guide, draft a set of specific, measurable learning outcomes that describe what students will be able to do by the end of the course. Aim for three to six major outcomes that capture the essential intellectual work of the course without attempting to enumerate every piece of content (Ohio State University, 2024).
Step 3: Design a culminating assessment. Before planning any lessons or assigning any readings, design the major summative assessment or performance task that will serve as the primary evidence of student learning. Make sure this task directly and transparently assesses the major learning outcomes you have articulated (ADInstruments, 2024).
Step 4: Build in formative assessments. Design a sequence of lower-stakes formative assessments that will develop student readiness for the culminating task while providing you with ongoing evidence about how learning is progressing (University of Alabama K.P. Cross Academy, 2024).
Step 5: Select and sequence instructional activities. Now design the specific readings, discussions, lectures, collaborative activities, and other learning experiences that will build the knowledge and skills students need to succeed on the assessments. Justify every activity by its explicit connection to the learning outcomes (Taylor Institute, 2024).
Step 6: Revise the syllabus to make alignment visible. Rewrite your syllabus to make the connections between outcomes, assessments, and activities transparent and explicit. Consider including a brief course alignment table that shows students how each major assignment relates to the course’s learning goals (ETSU Pressbooks, 2024).
Step 7: Solicit feedback and iterate. After teaching the backward-designed course for the first time, gather student feedback on the coherence and clarity of the course design and analyze assessment data to identify areas where students consistently fell short of the learning outcomes. Use this evidence to revise and strengthen the course for subsequent iterations (Scholarly Teacher, 2024).
Conclusion
Backward design represents one of the most well-validated and broadly applicable frameworks available to higher education faculty and curriculum developers. By beginning with the end in mind, it reorients the entire enterprise of course design around the most fundamental purpose of higher education: producing genuine, lasting, transferable student learning that prepares graduates for the intellectual and civic demands of their lives beyond the classroom (Wiggins and McTighe, as cited in College of DuPage Library, 2024).
The process is not without its challenges. It demands disciplinary humility, a willingness to set aside the coverage imperative, and an investment of time and intellectual effort that traditional course planning does not always require. But the evidence is clear and compelling: courses designed around clearly articulated learning outcomes, aligned assessments, and purposeful instructional activities produce deeper understanding, stronger student performance, and more equitable learning outcomes than courses designed primarily around content transmission (WGU Labs, 2024; Every Learner Everywhere, 2024; Tandfonline, 2023).
Faculty who commit to backward design are not simply improving their syllabi. They are engaging in the kind of reflective, evidence-based practice that defines excellent teaching and that makes higher education worthy of the trust that students, families, and society place in it.
References
ACM Digital Library. (2024). Backward design: Aligning learning objectives and assessments. https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/3760213.3704734
ADInstruments. (2024). The power of backward design in education. https://www.adinstruments.com/blog/backward-design
ASEE PEER. (2024). Designing a new course using backward design. https://peer.asee.org/designing-a-new-course-using-backward-design.pdf
Catlin Tucker. (2026, April 2). Backward design in the age of AI: From coverage to deep learning with Jay McTighe. https://catlintucker.com/2026/04/backward-design-in-the-age-of-ai-from-coverage-to-deep-learning-with-jay-mctighe/
College of DuPage Library. (2024). Course design: Understanding by design. https://library.cod.edu/guide_coursedesign/ubd
Eastern Illinois University. (2024). Backward design. Instructional Design. https://www.eiu.edu/instructional_design/backward_design.php
Educational Technology. (2024). Backward design: Understanding by design. https://educationaltechnology.net/backward-design-understanding-by-design/
ETSU Pressbooks. (2024). Understanding by design (UbD) and the backward design framework. https://pressbooks.pub/etsu/chapter/understanding-by-design-ubd-and-the-backward-design-framework/
Every Learner Everywhere. (2024). How this online professional development course centers equity through a backward course design framework. https://www.everylearnereverywhere.org/blog/how-this-online-professional-development-course-centers-equity-through-a-backward-course-design-framework/
Georgetown University Center for New Designs in Learning and Scholarship. (2024). Designing backward. https://cndls.georgetown.edu/resources/designing-backward/
Indiana University Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning. (2024). Backward course design. https://citl.indiana.edu/teaching-resources/course-design/backward-course-design/index.html
Inside Higher Ed. (2024). 7 innovative approaches to course design. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/higher-ed-gamma/7-innovative-approaches-course-design
Iowa State University Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching. (2024). Bloom’s taxonomy. https://celt.iastate.edu/prepare-and-teach/design-your-course/blooms-taxonomy/
Kent State University Center for Teaching and Learning. (2024). Backward design. https://www.kent.edu/ctl/backward-design
Medium. (2024). Understanding by design in practice: How backward planning transforms lesson planning. https://medium.com/@edusfere/understanding-by-design-in-practice-how-backward-planning-transforms-lesson-planning-901eab05f1df
MIT Teaching and Learning Lab. (2024). Where to start: Backward design. https://tll.mit.edu/teaching-resources/course-design/backward-design/
Ohio State University. (2024). Using backward design to plan your course. https://teaching.resources.osu.edu/teaching-topics/using-backward-design-plan-your
PMC National Library of Medicine. (2024). Using backward design in education research. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5976040/
Reynolds, C., & Kearns, K. (2017). A planning tool for incorporating backward design, active learning, and authentic assessment in the college classroom. Academy of South.
https://www.acsouth.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Reynolds-and-Kearns-2017-A-Planning-Tool-for-Incorporating-Backward-Design.pdf
Scholarly Teacher. (2024). Simple strategies for curriculum (re)design for the new instructor. https://www.scholarlyteacher.com/post/simple-strategies-for-curriculum-re-design-for-the-new-instructor
Suffolk University Center for Teaching and Scholarly Excellence. (2024). Constructive alignment. https://sites.suffolk.edu/ctse/home/resources/planning-your-courses/constructive-alignment/
Tandfonline. (2023). Backward design: Integrating active learning into undergraduate computer science courses. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2204055
Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning, University of Calgary. (2024). Innovative approaches to course design. https://taylorinstitute.ucalgary.ca/resources/innovative-approaches-to-course-design
Turnitin. (2024). Backward design: How can meaningful assessment empower students? https://www.turnitin.com/blog/backward-design-how-can-meaningful-assessment-empower-students
University of Alabama K.P. Cross Academy. (2024). Beyond learning objectives: Backward design as a framework for instructional alignment. https://kpcrossacademy.ua.edu/beyond-learning-objectives-backward-design-as-a-framework-for-instructional-alignment/
University of Arkansas Teaching Innovation and Pedagogical Support. (2024). Using Bloom’s taxonomy to write effective learning objectives. https://tips.uark.edu/using-blooms-taxonomy/
University of Iowa Center for Teaching. (2024). Designing intentional courses through backward design. https://teaching.center.uiowa.edu/designing-intentional-courses-through-backward-design
Wexner Foundation. (2024). Backwards design toolkit. https://www.wexnerfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/1c-BD-Toolkit_FNL.pdf
WGU Labs. (2024). Move curriculum forward with backward design. https://www.wgulabs.org/posts/moving-curriculum-forward-with-backward-design
Yale Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning. (2024). Bloom’s taxonomy. https://poorvucenter.yale.edu/teaching/teaching-resource-library/blooms-taxonomy