The Six Facets of Understanding

Extracted from: Understanding by Design (2005) from Wiggins & McThigh

“The improvement of understanding is for two ends: first, our own increase of knowledge; secondly, to enable us to deliver that knowledge to others.”

–John Locke

For my PGCEi I have been asked to research and evidence understanding in schools. Through my literature search, I came across “Understanding by Design” by Wiggins and McTighe (2005), which gives us an account of six different facets of understanding to explain the multi-dimensional character of understanding, and how it applies for designing suitable learning activities and assessment in schools. Here are some extracts of my readings to better understand understanding:

The word understanding has many meaning, and our usage of this word suggests that understanding is not one achievement, but many. In the classroom, understanding is revealed through different kinds of evidence. We use different tactics to “check for knowledge” or “to check for understanding”.

Because of the complexity of the different models of understanding it makes sense to identify different (though sometimes overlapping) aspects of understanding, present in the way we design and assess in school, across different subjects. The six facets are:

• Can explain—via generalizations or principles, providing justified and systematic accounts of phenomena, facts, and data; make insightful connections and provide illuminating examples or illustrations.

• Can interpret—tell meaningful stories; offer apt translations; provide a revealing historical or personal dimension to ideas and events; make the object of understanding personal or accessible through images, anecdotes, analogies, and models.

• Can apply—effectively use and adapt what we know in diverse and real contexts—we can “do” the subject.

• Have perspective—see and hear points of view through critical eyes and ears; see the big picture.

• Can empathize—find value in what others might find odd, alien, or implausible; perceive sensitively on the basis of prior direct experience.

• Have self-knowledge—show metacognitive awareness; perceive the personal style, prejudices, projections, and habits of mind that both shape and impede our own understanding; are aware of what we do not understand; reflect on the meaning of learning and experience.

All of these facets are manifestations of transferability. In a sense, we can say that we have understood something if we are able to transfer that knowledge from one scenario to another, these six facets can show evidence of understanding through transferability. In that sense, students might have apt knowledge and a sophisticated explanation of a concept, but not be able to apply it, interpret it or reflect on the importance of said knowledge. These aspects of understanding can help us clarify the desired understandings, the necessary assessment tasks, and the learning activities that will most likely advance student understanding. They should remind us that understandings are not facts, and that certain learning actions and performance assessments are required to bring about the needed meaning-making by the learner.

What any curriculum designed for understanding must do, then, is help students realize that their job is not merely to take in what is “covered” but to actively “uncover” what lies below the surface of the facts and to ponder their meaning. This is, of course, what constructivism means: Meaning cannot be taught; it must be fashioned by the learner via artful design and effective coaching by the teacher. Thus, part of what a curriculum designed to develop student understanding will do is “teach” students that their job is not merely to learn facts and skills but also to question them for their meaning.