1 Curriculum

Design
From an Objectives-Based
to a Concept-Based Model

F or decades educators relied on Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational

Objectives (Bloom, Engelhart, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956) to write curricu-
lum. The taxonomy brought structure to the thinking dimension of schooling
by differentiating levels of cognition from Knowledge to Evaluation.
Curriculum committees selected verbs representing the six different cognitive
levels to use in writing content objectives. This was a step forward in curricu-
lum design but something still seemed amiss. Just choosing verbs from differ-
ent levels and attaching them to a topic did not ensure that students were
understanding the important concepts of a discipline; nor did the objectives
alone align with our current research on best practices for supporting teaching
and learning. There was more work to do in the field of curriculum design.
In 2001, Anderson and Krathwohl released a significant book updating
the work of Benjamin Bloom. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and
Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives was a
refreshing analysis of Bloom’s Taxonomy and a leap forward in the cur-
riculum field because it clearly differentiated between Factual Knowledge
and Conceptual Knowledge. They are often quoted by curriculum leaders:
“By separating Factual Knowledge from Conceptual Knowledge we high-
light the need for educators to teach for deep understanding of Conceptual
Knowledge, not just for remembering isolated and small bits of Factual
Knowledge” (p. 42). The contributors to Anderson and Krathwohl’s edited
volume addressed a significant need in designing for learning. If we, as
teachers, cannot tell the difference between the factual and conceptual
levels of knowledge then how can we teach for the transfer of learning and
6 •
 CHAPTER 1. Curriculum Design • 7

deeper conceptual understanding? Anderson and Krathwohl explain the

process of “understanding”:

Students understand when they build connections between the

“new” knowledge to be gained and their prior knowledge. More
specifically, the incoming knowledge is integrated with existing
schemas and cognitive frameworks. Since concepts are the build-
ing blocks for these schemas and frameworks, conceptual knowl-
edge provides a basis for understanding. (p. 70)

Norman L. Webb (2005) developed a popular tool used in many schools

today for understanding increasing Depth of Knowledge levels and for
designing related learning activities. This tool relates process verbs to four
levels of cognitive complexity (Recall, Skill/Concept, Strategic Thinking,
and Extended Thinking) and provides learning activities using the verbs
from different levels. This work reinforces the need for educators to deliber-
ately address different levels of cognitive complexity in learning activities.
But even though objectives are written with verbs from more complex levels
of thinking, they still do not ensure that students are developing deeper
levels of conceptual understanding. This is because the focus is more on the
verb driving an activity than on the transferable understanding of the idea
to be realized. It is for this reason that Erickson and Lanning propose a
concept-based model of curriculum design that is idea-centered and moves
students from factual knowledge to conceptual understanding.
The journey to this insight into the critical nature of conceptual under-
standing has been long and winding. Curriculum design has zigged and
zagged over the years in response to pressure from things like international
competition (the Sputnik space race of the 1960s), reports like “A Nation at
Risk” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), and the Third
International Study of Mathematics and Science (TIMSS) study (Beaton,
Mullis, Martin, Gonzalez, Kelly, & Smith, 1996), which was a driving force
behind the STEMs (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics)
movement, as well as from the many innovative attempts to “fix education.”

A SHORT RETROSPECTIVE, FROM THE

AUTHORS, ON EDUCATIONAL SWINGS
Lynn Erickson coined the term Concept-Based Curriculum and Instruction in
her first book, Stirring the Head, Heart and Soul (2008), first published in
1995. To understand the journey to concept-based curriculum and
instruction, Lois Lanning and Lynn share their recent dialogue recollecting
the pendulum swings in U.S. curriculum design over the past four
8 • Transitioning to Concept-Based Curriculum and Instruction

decades. This short retrospective can provide a context for their journey
into concept-based curriculum and instruction.

Lynn: Do you realize, Lois, that between us we have around seventy-five years
of experience in education?! It is interesting to think back on the “pen-
dulum swings” that have taken place over the years. I still remember the
“Open Classroom” philosophy which was in full swing in the 1960s and
1970s. Creativity was the buzz word of the day. Schools were tearing
down walls (or building new schools with minimal wall divisions) to
make open space areas for multi-age groupings and movement.
Curriculum documents were non-existent or ill-defined.
Lois: Yes, the “Open Classroom” experience . . . As a matter of fact, I vividly
remember touring a beautiful new open-classroom private school, built
on a picturesque wooded lot with floor-to-ceiling, angular windows
allowing sunlight to stream into a totally open inside room with enor-
mously enthusiastic teachers greeting everyone who visited! Students
in this school spoke to the teacher on a first name basis—another popu-
lar trend at that time. Although the open classroom philosophy had
some good points, such as student-centered learning, multi-age class-
rooms, and self-paced learning, it faded into the sunset all too quickly.
Noise levels in the open spaces, as well as a lack of accountability to
academic standards eventually led most schools to abandon the idea.
Lynn: It was during the open-classroom years that I heard about the work of Hilda
Taba, who recognized the value of concepts and “conceptual main ideas”
in designing curriculum and instruction. Taba was very influential in cur-
riculum design during this time. And her research and ideas have been
consistently included in curriculum classes at the university level since her
death in 1968. She was one of the pioneers in conceptual curriculum
design. Taba wrote an elementary social studies program based on her
beliefs about the importance of conceptual understanding. Unfortunately,
the fervor of the open classroom movement muted Taba’s influence in my
school. Little did I realize that I would be extending Taba’s path for educa-
tion in my own life’s work. By the way, did I ever tell you that the “H” in
front of my name stands for “Hilda”? How did my parents know?!
Lois: I wondered what the “H” stood for on your books! Remember when the
backlash hit against the “openness” of both society and schools during
the late 1970s? The school walls started to go back up and teachers
were now required to cover defined “behavioral objectives” in each
subject area. These objectives were so specific . . . “Students will com-
pute 3 digit multiplication problems with 80% proficiency.” I also
remember getting a reading manual that must have been six inches
thick identifying every discrete skill students had to learn!
Lynn: Oh yes! I was teaching a Grade 1/2 combination class and remember
being handed a large box of behavioral objectives for reading accompanied
 CHAPTER 1. Curriculum Design • 9

by a foot-long metal rod. We were to feed the rod through holes in light
cardboard folders that contained skill sheets for our reading objectives. Oh
how I hated those drill-and-kill sheets! But I did as I was told even though
I didn’t see how these sheets were developing the minds of my students—or
their reading abilities for that matter. As I look back, it is a wonder one of
my students didn’t get hold of the rod and stab a classmate.
Lois: My big worry was getting my students to read one side of a card up to
a certain color level in our reading program box and answer the three
questions on the back of the card correctly. I had nightmares about
students groaning when I pulled it out each day, but their color levels
were part of my evaluation! I knew there had to be a better way . . .
Lynn: I remember those colored cards and questions too. I think the goal was to
“teacher-proof” the curriculum! In the early 1980s we were still writing
content and skill objectives, and Bloom’s Taxonomy of verbs was the
extension of the curriculum writer’s arm. I led committees of teachers in
writing curricula composed of “cutting edge” objectives using “higher-
level” Bloom verbs. We were so proud of our work! We had wars, dates,
and historical events nailed in our documents. No stone in content was
left unturned. But we sent them out to teachers and they promptly ended
up in a bottom drawer, or worse yet—in the round file by their desk.
Lois: Bloom’s Taxonomy at least got me thinking about how I wanted my
students to be able to think . . . it was a beginning, but you are right,
just using a high-level verb came with no guarantees of deeper levels of
understanding.
Lynn: Yes, it seemed as if something was missing as we covered the objectives,
but the missing element was elusive. Do you remember the era of
Transformational Outcome-Based Education in the late 1980s and early
1990s? It was another huge shift in curriculum design theory that threw
out the traditional structure of disciplines where knowledge builds on
itself in a defined way. Instead, proponents advocated that curriculum
be developed around broad life themes such as working in collaborative
groups or understanding diversity. Curriculum was designed from com-
plex role performances aligned to the themes for living rather than by
traditional subject area designations. The proposed radical restructuring
of curriculum design drew the wrath of some groups in society who
accused the schools of “taking over the minds of children,” and “failing
to teach facts.” As a curriculum director I was called before more than
one group to reassure parents and explain that our district curriculum
model was indeed teaching reading, writing, arithmetic, and the facts.
Lois: Actually, I think this was about the time when many people started rais-
ing more questions about teaching and learning. Standards began to
come into the conversations.
(Continued)
10 • Transitioning to Concept-Based Curriculum and Instruction

(Continued)

Lynn: Yes, it was also during this era that I became aware of the value of
concepts in the design of curriculum. We did identify the kinds of out-
comes we wanted for our students in terms of being “quality thinkers”
and “collaborators,” but realized that we could best accomplish these
ultimate outcomes through a curriculum design that framed critical
factual knowledge and skills with related concepts. For the eight years
that I served as curriculum director, we developed all of our K–12 cur-
ricula in a concept-based format—though we did not write conceptual
understandings (statements of relationship between disciplinary con-
cepts) since I had not yet reached that level of enlightenment in my own
journey. You know, even though the educational swings over the years
seemed to take us off track for a time, each movement brought us some-
thing of value that has eventually taken us to a new level of quality
curriculum and instruction. Progress is not a straight line.

Today there is a growing realization among educators that curriculum

and instruction must move beyond knowledge and skills to include the
deeper, transferable understandings realized at the conceptual level of
thinking. We believe strongly that there are two paramount reasons for
this movement:

As knowledge continues to expand exponentially we must move to a higher level

of abstraction (concepts) to focus and process the information so it can be
thoughtfully and efficiently accessed and utilized.

Developing the students’ ability to think well in order to solve complex problems
and create new ideas requires a more sophisticated curriculum and instruction
model—a model which encourages “synergistic thinking.” When a person is
thinking synergistically there is a cognitive interplay between the factual and
conceptual levels of knowledge and understanding. This interplay stimulates
higher order thinking and leads to deeper understanding of both the facts and
concepts (Erickson, 2007).

Concept-based curriculum models, by design, deliberately include

the conceptual dimension, which is imperative for stimulating synergis-
tic thinking. Concept-based models differentiate clearly between what
 CHAPTER 1. Curriculum Design • 11

students must Know factually, Understand conceptually, and be able to

Do in processes, strategies, and skills. Traditional curriculum models
refer to what students must Know and be able to Do, but too often fail to
highlight Understanding as a third expectation. Perhaps this was because
loud voices in the late 1980s and early 1990s said, “Do not use the word
Understand in curriculum design because it cannot be assessed.” This had
a detrimental effect on curriculum design for many years. We still
remember teachers during the late 1990s who expressed concern about
using the term as we referred to the importance of conceptual “under-
standing” in our workshops. It is true that it is easier to assess factually
specific knowledge, but a myopic allegiance to factual knowledge alone
means we remain locked in a lower-level coverage model for curriculum
and instruction.
Of course “understanding” can be assessed! Assessment for under-
standing uses factually specific information to support conceptual
understanding, as well as for assessing the quality of thinking brought
to the task. Assessments that call for the transfer of understanding
through time, across cultures, and across
situations also indicate depth of under-
Synergistic thinking stimulates
standing. It is clear that the call for evi- higher-order thinking and leads
dence of deeper understanding in to deeper understanding of facts,
education today requires changes in tra- skills, and concepts.
ditional assessment practices.

THE VALUE OF KNOW, UNDERSTAND,

AND ABLE TO DO IN CONCEPT-BASED MODELS
A clear presentation of the curriculum components, referred to as KUDs
(Know, Understand, and able to Do) in concept-based models benefits the
following constituents in the educational family:

Teachers
KUDs provide teachers with clear indicators to guide instruction, but
they also . . .

• move teachers along the continuum in understanding the differ-

ence between a topic-based versus the concept-based model for
teaching and learning by providing quality examples of conceptual
understandings that are supported by the factual knowledge and
skills.
12 • Transitioning to Concept-Based Curriculum and Instruction

• raise the bar for instruction by shifting the focus from covering facts
and skills—to using facts and skills to understand concepts and con-
ceptual understandings.
• create alignment between a concept-based pedagogy and the cur-
riculum design that drives that pedagogy. If we want to teach for
conceptual understanding then we need to see those understand-
ings articulated to guide our instructional planning.

Students
When teachers design learning experiences that employ KUDs and
concept­-based pedagogy students will benefit because . . .

• factual knowledge and skills will be processed interactively and

iteratively with a related concept or concepts in each student’s
mind as he or she constructs personal meaning and understanding.
This synergistic thinking process develops the intellect and moti-
vates the student for learning. The thinking of each child is valued.
For example, inviting students to consider the issue of “Climate
Change” through the conceptual lens of “Evidence/Perspectives”
puts them in the driver’s seat for the inquiry and tells them that
the teacher is interested in how they interpret the topic of Climate
Change when played against the lenses of Evidence and
Perspectives. The students are intellectually and emotionally
engaged in the study because they are invited to think for them-
selves as they consider the factual knowledge in relationship to the
conceptual lens.
• collaborative work groups will engage children in the social con-
struction of meaning as they question, discuss, explore, and create
products and solutions to interesting problems and issues.
• learning to think beyond the facts and transfer concepts and
understandings through time, across cultures, and across situa-
tions expands the worldview of students, helps them see pat-
terns and connections between new knowledge and prior
knowledge, and provides the brain schemata to support lifelong
learning.

Administrators
KUDs provide clear indicators for principals and instructional
coaches on what students need to be learning. These indicators, along
with the administrator’s understanding of concept-based pedagogical
requirements, provide the foundation to support each teacher in develop-
ing into a master concept-based instructor.
 CHAPTER 1. Curriculum Design • 13

Parents
When curriculum documents clearly indicate what students must
know, understand, and be able to do, parents have more complete infor-
mation to be assured their children are receiving a quality education.
When they understand that their children are not only learning critical
facts and skills, but are also developing a deep understanding of the
underlying concepts, they realize that today’s students are learning more
than they had been taught. By hearing their children talk about concepts
and relate factual information to conceptual understandings at the dinner
table, they hear the evidence of what their children Know, Understand,
and are able to Do.
The following is the recollection of a student, Connor Cameron,
now a junior in high school, who experienced learning in a concept-
based classroom in his eighth-grade science class. He was describing
the project as one he especially enjoyed. Notice how the concept-based
instruction kept him motivated and engaged in his learning and what
he still remembers after three years. See if you can identify what
Connor knew factually, understood conceptually, and was able to do in
skills and processes. Where did Connor show evidence of transfer of
learning?

My science teacher, Mr. Presho, at Brier Terrace Middle School in Brier,

Washington, gave us a project to create a device that could be placed into a
fish tank with 18 inches of water and move from the surface to the bottom at
least 3 times. After giving that prompt he basically left us to find a creative
solution to this problem. I realized that I had to figure out a way to have the
submarine raise and lower its average density so it could float and sink in an
automated fashion. After having some experience with the process of
electrolysis from a previous science fair project, I realized that I could use that
process to create a gas while under water. That process would be the
mechanism with which I would lower the overall density of the submarine to
less than that of water so it would float. To contain these gasses (that I was
going to be creating under water) I chose a 2 liter bottle to serve as the
housing for my “submarine.”
Electrolysis, as shown in the illustration, is the process of running an electrical
current through a NaCl (salt) and water solution. What it accomplishes is break-
ing the bonds of the H2O molecules into its constituent gasses of two parts H
and one part O. What it looks like is just air forming in small bubbles on the
metal cathodes.
(Continued)
14 • Transitioning to Concept-Based Curriculum and Instruction

(Continued)

power supply

electrons electrons
carbon steel
anode cathode
+ −

evolved evolved
chlorine hydrogen

Na+Cl−
solution

Source: http://content.answcdn.com/main/content/img/McGrawHill/Encyclopedia/images/
CE221700FG0010.gif

I had solved the problem of getting my submarine up from the bottom of the
tank but I still had to figure out how it would go back down to the bottom. What
I ended up doing was devising a valve that would be sealed while under water,
allowing the gasses to build up, and then open when it breached the surface of
the water. I decided to use a cork and some rubber seals. The cork would float
while under water, forcing the seals against each other but the cork would drop
and break the seals from each other when the valve breached the surface.
I would leave the electrolysis process going constantly and as soon as that
process created enough gasses inside the bottle to change the density to less
than water the submarine would float up to the surface. Then the valve would
release the gasses and the submarine would sink back down to the bottom.
Some things I learned with this project were the obvious problem solving and
creativity skills, but I also learned about the concepts of buoyancy, density, and
matter properties. By leaving this project open-ended the teacher allowed the
students to be creative in the ways they approached the problem. That, in turn,
led to a wide variety of submarines that the students created: from using Alka-
Seltzer tablets to periodically dropping weights. On the concepts of buoyancy and
density I learned how the density (mass per volume) of an object determines
whether it will sink or float in liquid or gaseous solutions. If the density of an
 CHAPTER 1. Curriculum Design • 15

object is less than that of the solution then it will be more buoyant than the solu-
tion; however, if the density is greater, then the object will be less buoyant and
sink. For example, a balloon that is filled with air from a person’s lungs will fall to
the ground whereas one filled with helium will rise. The former sinks to the ground
because the gas in the balloon has the same density as the air around it and the
balloon has a small amount of weight. Those two factors together make the aver-
age density of the air filled balloon greater than the density of the air. The latter
rises because the helium, being the second least dense element, changes the
density of the balloon to less than that of the air around it. Lastly, I worked with
the concept of matter properties when I used electrolysis to change water into gas
in order to take advantage of the fact that gasses are far less dense than liquids.

Did you find these KUDs and evidence of transfer in Connor’s

recollection?

1.
K—knowledge of terms: density, buoyancy, matter; knowledge of
the electrolysis process; knowledge that gasses are less dense than
liquids.
2.
U—understanding that the density of an object determines its abil-
ity to sink or float in a liquid or gaseous solution.
3.
D—able to change the average density of an object in a liquid solu-
tion to cause an object to raise and lower; able to solve a problem
and reach a viable solution by drawing on prior knowledge and
reasoning
4.
Transfer—transferred the concept of density in comparing the abil-
ity to rise between air-filled and helium-filled balloons.

What makes this recollection even more special is that Connor is the
grandson of coauthor Lynn Erickson. It is exciting to see concept-based
teaching and learning taking place in one’s own child’s or grandchild’s
classroom. Thank you Mr. Presho!
Teachers have told us over the years how parents have called and
written notes expressing their pleasure at the level of discussion and
understanding of concepts coming from their children.
These authors are calling for the replacement of traditional objectives
in curriculum frameworks with clearly written KUDs (Knowledge,
Understanding, and Skills). This will provide teachers with the learning
targets they need to achieve with students, while allowing them the
latitude to draw on the science and art of teaching in designing for
learning. Why do we feel the need to “tell” teachers the verbs they must
16 • Transitioning to Concept-Based Curriculum and Instruction

use with specific topics across all subject areas? Why not just provide the
critical knowledge topics that need to be addressed in classrooms—
without attaching a verb to these topics? Why not require that teachers
internalize the “skill set” for their grade level and subject area(s) so they
can design the learning experiences to develop the knowledge,
understanding, and skills throughout the year. Certainly some skills must
be taught before others in subjects like mathematics and language arts; but
if teachers internalize the skills as written in the rich language of the
discipline, they will incorporate them in more robust ways than simply
tacking a single verb like analyze in front of a content topic.

PROBLEMS WITH TRADITIONAL

CONTENT OBJECTIVES
Historically, curriculum has been framed by content and skill objectives
relying on verbs such as Identify, Explain, Analyze, . . . , to suggest the level
of mental processing. But we have too often assumed that “doing a verb with
a topic” leads to deeper conceptual understanding. In fact, research shows
that students, in science and mathematics especially, enter high school and
college with many misconceptions of critical
concepts. A particularly vivid example is the
We have too often assumed that video, “A Private Universe,” produced by
“doing a verb with a topic” leads the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
to deeper conceptual Astrophysics (1987). The demands of the
understanding. 21st century call urgently for higher-order
conceptual thinking abilities:

• The ability to see patterns and connections between new knowledge

and prior knowledge through the transferable concepts and
conceptual understandings
• The ability to categorize knowledge into conceptual schemata in the
brain so that information can be processed efficiently
• The ability to transfer concepts and conceptual understandings
through time, across cultures, and across situations

The traditional model of curriculum design fails to differentiate clearly

between the factual and conceptual levels. This is a problem for educators
who must learn to recognize the difference between the factual and
conceptual levels in order to engage students in synergistic thinking.
Certainly Anderson and Krathwohl’s book addresses this problem with
traditional curriculum designs, but the intentional inclusion and clear
 CHAPTER 1. Curriculum Design • 17

differentiation between factual and conceptual objectives in curriculum

documents remains spotty, at best.
In our workshops over the past two decades we have found that
teachers have had minimal training on the differences and relationships
between topics and concepts, and between facts and generalizations. This
has become a critical component in all of our trainings for teachers and
school administrators. We have seen some increase in teacher training
institutions addressing concept-based curriculum and instruction in the
past decade, but the practice is still not widespread.
Another major problem with the traditional model of curriculum
design is that it is not idea-centered. Teachers can cite objectives (i.e., verbs
linked to topics or skills) but when asked to state the conceptual under-
standings to be drawn from the topics and skills, they struggle to clearly
articulate these ideas. It takes a different thinking process to articulate a
conceptual understanding versus stating a content or skill objective. To
articulate a conceptual idea, one has to mentally
think of the factual support as one crafts the
It takes a different thinking
idea. This “wordsmithing” ability to craft a
process to articulate a conceptual
generalization can develop quickly with
understanding versus stating a
practice, but it is the kind of deep thinking content or skill objective.
seldom required or used in an objectives-
driven model.
Concept-based curriculum designs require that teachers articulate
what they want students to Know, Understand, and be able to Do. Some
countries have national curricula and other countries require academic
standards. These documents can be the starting point for unpacking
Know, Understand, and able to Do expectations for a concept-based
curricula. But all three components must be drawn out to build the local
curricula. National curricula or academic standards are curriculum
frameworks. They are not teachable curricula for the classroom. School
districts or individual schools need to develop classroom curricula aligned
to conceptual, factual, and skill expectations of academic standards or
national curricula. Let’s compare examples of traditional objectives for
History with the more explicit concept-based model.
In Figure 1.1, the Traditional Curriculum Model, the focus is on what
students are to Know. The skill is most often represented by a single verb
that is used to drive the interaction with the topic. There may be some
additional skill objectives drawn from state standards or national curricula
that teachers can use to write learning experiences, but they feel responsible
for meeting the verb/topic pairing in the required content objectives. The
problem is that objectives formed by linking a specific topic to a particular
verb do not ensure conceptual understanding. It is up to the teacher to go
18 • Transitioning to Concept-Based Curriculum and Instruction

Figure 1.1  Traditional Objectives Model

Unit Title: World War II

Students will:

1. Identify reasons for U.S. involvement in World War II, including the growth of
dictatorships and the attack on Pearl Harbor.

2. Analyze major issues and events of World War II such as fighting the war on
multiple fronts, the internment of Japanese Americans, the Holocaust, the
Battle of Midway, the invasion of Normandy, and the development of and Harry
Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb.

3. Evaluate the general costs and benefits of war to a nation and role-play the
debate to enter a chosen international conflict from the perspective of one
nation.

4. Explain the roles played by significant military leaders during World War II,
including Omar Bradley, Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, George
Marshall, and George Patton.

beyond the facts in this history example. This often fails to happen because
of the objectives design. Even when conceptually stated objectives (see
objective 3 in Figure 1.1) are provided, teachers without concept-based
training will likely approach the objective as a verb-driven activity rather
than as an idea to understand.
Figure 1.2 shows the concept-based model, which clearly calls for con-
ceptual understanding as well as knowledge and skills. Notice that the
choice of verbs is left up to teachers, though they are to draw from the rich
repertoire of historical reasoning and thinking skills in a balanced manner
throughout the year. This balance means that students will develop exper-
tise and experience in the wide array of developmentally appropriate
processes and skills across the year.
The concept-based model provides the teacher with significant concep-
tual understandings to be drawn from the students using an inductive
teaching model that will be addressed in Chapter 4.
The traditional objectives focus on the content to cover, and the skills
are usually no more than the skill verb that is attached to the content objec-
tive (Identify, Analyze, .  .  .) in content-driven subjects like history. The
concept-based model lists the content for the unit but leaves the choice of
verbs up to the history teacher in the design of learning experiences
because the content is no longer the end point for instruction. The content
is important for historical literacy, but it is also a tool to develop concep-
tual understandings that become frames for thinking about other similar
 CHAPTER 1. Curriculum Design • 19

Figure 1.2  Concept-Based Model With KUDs

Students will KNOW . . .

• reasons for the United States’ involvement in World War II.
• major issues and events of WWII, such as
 Multiple fighting fronts
 Internment of Japanese Americans
 The Holocaust
 The Battle of Midway
 The invasion of Normandy
 The decision to use the atom bomb and the aftereffects

Students will UNDERSTAND that . . .

• conflicts between nations can lead to shifts in the political, military, and
economic balance of power with victorious nations gaining power and influence
to drive their international agenda.
• “neutral” nations may be forced to intervene in international conflicts to protect
their own political or economic interests.
• governments mobilize human, military, and economic resources in times of war.
• the call for military resources during times of war can create jobs and stimulate
a weak economy.

Students will be able to (DO) . . .

• locate and use primary and secondary sources such as computer software,
databases, media and news services, biographies, interviews, and artifacts to
acquire information.
• analyze information by sequencing, categorizing, identifying cause-and-effect
relationships, comparing, contrasting, finding the main idea, summarizing,
making generalizations and predictions, and drawing inferences and
conclusions.
• identify bias in written, oral, and visual material.

examples through time, across cultures, and across situations. This com-
parative ability to look for patterns, similarities, and differences deepens
mental processing and conceptual understanding. The concept-based cur-
riculum model provides a clearly delineated breakdown of the different
levels and types of mental processing: Know factually, Understand con-
ceptually, and be able to Do in skills and processes.
Historians would be quick to remind us that historical events and
issues are set in time and context that make them unique. This is true—but
it does not mean that generalizations cannot be drawn from historical
events and issues through time. It does mean that we need to be careful
when drawing these “lessons of history.” The generalizations need to be
factually supported by different examples throughout history. Another
caution when writing conceptual understandings for history is to avoid
20 • Transitioning to Concept-Based Curriculum and Instruction

the common trap of “presentism” (Wineburg, 2001). Presentism means

that a contemporary and culturally biased viewpoint is assigned incor-
rectly to the interpretation of past historical events. One example of this
would be writings about the rapid industrial advances during the 19th
century, in a time when unchecked change was widely celebrated—using
present-day moral judgments condemning the environmental and labor
practices without addressing the reasoning of the time period. The era,
and the cultural and social context, is either not considered or is imprinted
with a contemporary perspective. Writing conceptual understandings at
the level of generality that can be supported by factual examples through
time, and using the qualifiers such as “can” or “may” provides the flexibil-
ity to consider implications of time, place, and perspective. One must have
a deep understanding of the facts, time, and context to avoid presentism.
We suggest that KUDs replace traditional objectives in curriculum
frameworks because the KUDs are the objectives. But they are clearer than
traditional objectives; provide greater specificity; differentiate between
knowledge, understanding, and skills; and give teachers the information
they need to thoughtfully design for learning. If state academic standards
and national curricula would use the KUD framework, it would simplify
the development of local curricula. Teachers would be given the critical
conceptual understandings developed by subject specialists working
together to identify the most essential conceptual understandings for each
grade level and discipline at the state or national level. The Next
Generations Science Standards in the United States are heading in the right
direction with the inclusion of “Core Disciplinary Ideas”—which are
essential conceptual understandings.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. Why have traditional objectives been the only model for curriculum
guides since the mid-1950s?
2. Why are educators the world over realizing that concept-based curricu-
lum and instruction provide a stronger model for guiding teaching and
learning?
3. What do KUDs offer teachers that traditional objectives fail to address
clearly?
4. How would you explain the difference between traditional objectives
and the KUD model to parents? To a new teacher in your concept-based
school?
 CHAPTER 1. Curriculum Design • 21

SUMMARY
The long road to a concept-based curriculum and instruction model has
been filled with switchbacks over the years. But the journey has moved
progressively forward because of the many minds and efforts of teachers
and educators worldwide who struggle with questions of what works and
what does not work in schooling. Even during times when the field of cur-
riculum design took wild swings this way or that, there were educators in
classrooms and leadership positions who held to the notion that quality
curriculum design must be more than covering lower level objectives in
check-off fashion—that learning must be about applying, and transferring
concepts and conceptual understandings, supported by facts and skills,
across time, cultures, and situations. Conceptual transfer helps students
see patterns and connections between similar situations; and provides a
springboard for complex thinking and understanding—two critical areas
of focus for workplace readiness as well as for lifelong learning. In Chapter
2 we will contrast the traditional two-dimensional curriculum design with
the concept-based, three-dimensional designs for curriculum and instruc-
tion and will introduce the Structures of Content and Process.