Aligning Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment

As an educator working in aviation and aerospace programs, I have found Farrell's backwards planning model to be a powerful framework for designing effective lessons, though it requires careful adaptation for STEM contexts. Unlike traditional forward-design approaches like Hunter's model, which begin with teacher-led instruction, Farrell's backwards approach creates a more student-centered learning process that better aligns written curriculum, taught curriculum, and assessment. However, implementing this model effectively requires recognizing both its strengths and limitations, particularly in hands-on STEM fields where theoretical knowledge must connect to practical application.

Farrell's model fundamentally shifts how teachers approach lesson design by beginning with independent practice rather than ending with it. His premise that "all learning begins in text" emphasizes students' active engagement with materials before receiving direct instruction. In my aviation programs, this translates to having students analyze technical manuals, flight data, or engineering specifications before I explain key concepts. For example, when teaching aerodynamics, I provide students with NASA's published research on wing designs and ask them to identify patterns in lift and drag coefficients before any formal lesson. This approach achieves several important goals: it activates prior knowledge, creates authentic engagement with technical texts, and allows me to assess students' baseline understanding before designing instruction. The results are consistently stronger than when I used a more forward design model, as students arrive at explanations with concrete questions rather than passive expectations of being fed information.

This text-first approach also improves alignment between written and taught curriculum. When students begin by engaging directly with source materials, whether technical documents in STEM or primary sources in other disciplines, the taught curriculum naturally emerges from their interactions with these texts rather than from my predetermined presentation. This creates a more dynamic relationship between the planned curriculum (the written materials) and the taught curriculum (how students actually engage with those materials). I can then tailor instruction to address the gaps and misconceptions revealed during their independent work, rather than making assumptions about what they need to know. The assessment becomes integrated throughout the process, beginning with their initial text analysis and continuing through guided practice and application. In my opinion, this ongoing assessment is far more meaningful than traditional end-of-lesson tests because it measures understanding at multiple points and in different contexts.

However, implementing Farrell's model effectively requires addressing its limitations, particularly in STEM education. The heavy emphasis on text-based learning can be challenging for students who struggle with technical reading or for concepts that are better understood through hands-on experimentation. Aviation is inherently a practice-based field, and some principles, like the feel of aerodynamic forces or the troubleshooting of mechanical systems, cannot be fully grasped through text alone.

Looking forward, I plan to evaluate the effectiveness of this adapted backwards approach through several key indicators. First, I can assess the depth of student questions during the independent practice phase, since better engagement with materials should lead to more nuanced, specific questions. Second, I can track the transfer of skills to new contexts during application phases, as true understanding should enable students to adapt knowledge to novel challenges. Most importantly, I will evaluate the classroom culture that emerges from this model. A successful implementation should create an environment where students are comfortable wrestling with challenging materials, where struggle is seen as part of the learning process, and where the teacher's role shifts from information-deliverer to learning-facilitator. These indicators matter more to me than standardized test scores because they reflect the deeper, more transferable learning that aviation and aerospace demand.

Interestingly, my experience aligns with Farrell's critique of traditional models like Hunter's. Just as he observed teachers relying too heavily on front-loaded instruction, I've seen STEM programs overemphasize teacher demonstrations at the expense of student exploration. The backwards model corrects this by putting the cognitive work where it belongs, which is on the students. However, I've also learned that strict adherence to any single model is limiting. I think the most effective teaching combines Farrell's text-based approach with targeted direct instruction when needed, creating a balanced pedagogy that honors both the content and the learners.

Ultimately, a backwards planning model has transformed how I align curriculum, instruction, and assessment. By starting with independent engagement, I gain better insight into students' needs. By using text (broadly defined) as the foundation, I create more authentic learning experiences. And by continually cycling between practice and instruction, I build assessments that truly inform teaching. While the model requires adaptation for hands-on STEM fields, its core principles, such as student ownership of learning, teacher as facilitator rather than lecturer, and assessment as an ongoing process, have proven invaluable in creating the kind of deep, transferable understanding that aviation education requires. As I continue to refine my practice, these principles will remain central to evaluating and improving my teaching effectiveness.

References
Glatthorn, A. A., Boschee, F., Whitehead, B. M., & Boschee, B. F. (2019). Curriculum leadership: Strategies for development and implementation (5th ed.). SAGE.