Designing a Course That Works
Backward design, constructive alignment, and the evidence-based architecture of a course — engineered for Keiser's four-week block and your Allied Health, Nursing, Business, and General Studies students.
This workshop is itself built with backward design — so, as you should, we start by naming the outcomes. By the end, you will be able to:
- Explain backward design and constructive alignment, and why they outperform "covering the content."
- Write measurable learning objectives calibrated to Bloom's revised taxonomy.
- Choose assessment evidence that actually reveals the objective (the validity question).
- Engineer a learning plan using retrieval practice, spacing, and worked examples.
- Build an alignment grid and a four-week block calendar you can reuse every term.
Enter the name and email you'd like on your certificate. This stays in your browser; it is used only to generate your certificate and (if your campus enables it) to log completion to the TLC. This is a confidential, growth-oriented resource — never personnel evaluation.
Start from the destination, not the syllabus
Most of us first learned to plan a course the way it was handed to us: open the textbook, list the chapters, divide them across the weeks. That is forward design — and it quietly substitutes coverage for learning. The trouble is a well-documented one: coverage is not the same as learning (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). You can present every chapter and still leave students unable to do the one thing the course was for.
Backward design (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) flips the order into three stages: (1) identify the desired results, (2) determine acceptable evidence of those results, and only then (3) plan the learning experiences. You decide where students must arrive before you choose the route.
Its companion idea is constructive alignment (Biggs, 1996): your objectives, your assessments, and your learning activities should all point at the same target. When they do, students spend their effort on exactly what you'll measure — and what you measure is exactly what you taught.
This isn't only tidy; it's effective. In a meta-analysis of 225 studies, active learning raised exam performance by roughly half a letter grade and cut failure rates by about a third compared with straight lecture (Freeman et al., 2014). Alignment is what makes that active time pay off — activity aimed at the outcome, not activity for its own sake.
Forward: "Weeks 1–4 cover business models, marketing, finance, and the pitch." (A list of topics. What should students be able to do? Unstated.)
Backward: "By the end, students can pitch a viable business model and defend its revenue assumptions to a panel." Now the final (a live pitch), the rubric, and every activity — model canvas drafts, peer critique, retrieval quizzes on finance terms — line up behind that one verb: pitch and defend.
Which stage of backward design comes first — and why does it matter on a four-week block?
Open your current syllabus and write, in one sentence, the single thing a student must still be able to do 30 days after the course ends. That sentence is your North Star for the rest of this workshop.
Decide what's worth lasting beyond the final
Stage 1 forces a priority decision most syllabi never make explicit. Wiggins & McTighe (2005) sort content into three nested circles, and the move is to filter, not to fit everything in:
- Enduring understandings — the big ideas you want students to still hold in a year. Few in number, high in value. ("Management is the work of balancing competing stakeholder interests.")
- Important to know and do — the knowledge and skills that enable those understandings (key terms, procedures, models).
- Worth being familiar with — useful background you'll expose students to but won't assess heavily.
Two tools sharpen Stage 1. Essential questions are open, recurring questions that drive inquiry ("When does a manager's duty to shareholders conflict with duty to employees?"). And transfer goals name what students should do with the learning in a new situation — the real test of understanding.
To calibrate how ambitious an outcome is, use Bloom's revised taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001): remember → understand → apply → analyze → evaluate → create. A course built only at "remember/understand" rarely produces transfer; naming the intended level keeps you honest about what you're really asking.
Enduring understanding: "Management decisions almost always trade off competing stakeholder interests; good managers make those trade-offs deliberately."
Essential question: "How should a manager decide when stakeholders' interests collide?"
Transfer goal: Given an unfamiliar workplace dilemma, recommend and justify a defensible course of action.
"List the four functions of management" vs. "Diagnose which management function a struggling team most needs and justify it." Which is the enduring understanding, and which is merely important to know?
For the course you named in Module 1, draft one enduring understanding and one essential question. Keep the understanding to a single sentence a student could repeat a year later.
If you can't picture the assessment, rewrite the verb
A learning objective is a promise about what the student will be able to do — observably. The single most useful test: can you already picture the assessment from the verb? If the verb is "understand," "know," or "appreciate," you can't — those happen invisibly inside a student's head. Swap them for verbs you can see: apply, analyze, calculate, diagnose, compare, design, defend.
A clean objective has three parts
- An observable Bloom verb — one verb, at the cognitive level you actually intend.
- The content — what they act on.
- The condition or criterion — how well, or under what circumstances ("…given an unfamiliar case," "…with 90% accuracy").
Aligning the verb to the assessment is the whole game. An "analyze" objective measured by a multiple-choice recall item is a misalignment — you promised analysis and tested memory.
Weak: "Students will understand motivation theories." (Invisible. Untestable. No level.)
Strong: "Given a described team's performance problem, students will apply two motivation theories to diagnose the cause and recommend an intervention." (Apply + analyze; the assessment writes itself — a short case.)
Which is the better objective, and what's wrong with the other? (a) "Be familiar with the marketing mix." (b) "Construct a marketing mix for a given product and justify each element."
Find one objective in your course that uses understand / know / learn / appreciate. Rewrite it with a Bloom verb you can see — then check that you can already name the assessment that would measure it.
Would this evidence convince a skeptic?
Stage 2 asks a deceptively hard question: what evidence would prove a student met the objective? Wiggins & McTighe call this "thinking like an assessor" — before you plan a single activity, you decide what counts as proof. The discipline here is validity: the evidence must match the cognitive level of the objective. A test of recall cannot prove a skill of analysis.
Two kinds of evidence, both planned on purpose
- Formative — low-stakes checks during learning that inform your next move and give students feedback (exit tickets, retrieval quizzes, drafts). On a block, these should be frequent and ungraded or lightly graded.
- Summative — the higher-stakes evidence that the outcome was reached (the case analysis, the performance task, the cumulative final).
For higher-order objectives, a performance task — apply the skill to a realistic, novel situation — is usually more valid than a selected-response test. And how you communicate the task matters as much as the task. Transparent assignment design (TILT; Winkelmes et al., 2016) makes three things explicit — purpose, task, and criteria — and in a multi-institution study, that small change produced gains in confidence, sense of belonging, and persistence, with larger benefits for first-generation and underserved students.
Objective: "Recommend a market-entry strategy for a firm expanding abroad and justify it against political and currency risk." (evaluate/create)
Mismatched evidence: a 20-item multiple-choice quiz on entry-mode definitions. (Tests recall, not recommendation.)
Valid evidence (TILT): a 2-page entry brief. Purpose: mirror the analyst memo you'll write on the job. Task: pick a country + entry mode, justify against two named risks. Criteria: rubric rewarding risk reasoning, not just a "right" answer.
Your objective says students will "evaluate competing treatment plans." A colleague proposes a true/false quiz. What's the alignment problem, and what evidence would fix it?
Take your next assignment prompt and add the three TILT lines at the top: Purpose (why this matters / what skill it builds), Task (exactly what to do), Criteria (what good looks like). Ten minutes; measurable equity payoff.
Where the learning science actually lives
Only now — after results and evidence are fixed — do you plan activities. Every activity should earn its place by serving the objective and preparing students for the evidence. Stage 3 is also where you install the strategies with the strongest replicated support:
- Retrieval practice (the testing effect) — having students pull information from memory beats re-presenting it. Roediger & Karpicke (2006) showed repeated retrieval produces far better long-term retention than repeated study. Build frequent, low-stakes retrieval into class.
- Spaced practice — the same study time spread across days beats one block. Distributed practice reliably outperforms massing (Cepeda et al., 2006).
- Interleaving — mixing problem types within a session improves discrimination and transfer over blocking one type at a time (Rohrer, 2012).
- Worked examples + fading — for novices, show a fully worked solution first, then gradually remove steps so students complete more on their own (Sweller; Renkl, 2014). This manages cognitive load — protecting working memory for learning, not for hunting (Sweller, 1988).
- Dual coding — pair words with relevant visuals; don't bury them under decoration (Mayer's multimedia principles).
- Feedback that moves learning forward — the most useful feedback targets the task and the process, and builds self-regulation, rather than praising the person (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).
Worked example: instructor talks through one full dimensional-analysis problem, every step visible.
Fading: next problem has the setup done, students finish; the third gives only the order, students do it all.
Interleave + space: mix oral, IV, and weight-based problems in the same set; reopen a 3-item retrieval quiz on Day 1, Day 3, and Day 7 — not one big drill the night before.
A student says rereading the chapter three times is "studying." From the science in this module, what's the better swap — and why does rereading feel like it's working?
Pick one lecture segment in your course and replace its last 3 minutes with a retrieval activity: "Close everything. Write the three key ideas and one question you still have." Collect or discuss. You've converted passive listening into durable practice.
One grid that catches every design flaw
The fastest way to audit a course is to put it in a three-column alignment grid: Objective → Assessment → Activity. Every row must connect across all three columns. The grid surfaces three classic failures at a glance:
- Orphan activity — a beloved activity that serves no stated objective. (Cut it or attach it to one.)
- Unassessed objective — an objective you teach but never measure. (You can't claim it; add evidence.)
- Untaught assessment — an item on the test that no activity prepared students for. (The most common source of "unfair test" complaints.)
| Objective (verb) | Evidence | Activity |
|---|---|---|
| Apply the 4 functions to diagnose a team | Mini-case (formative) → case on final | Worked case + faded practice; Day 1/3/7 retrieval |
| Evaluate a leadership decision | 1-page decision memo (TILT) | Structured debate; rubric calibration |
| Define core terms accurately | Low-stakes quizzes (interleaved) | Retrieval flashcards; spaced review |
Your grid shows a final-exam essay on ethics, but no objective and no activity mention ethics anywhere else. Which flaw is this, and what are your two options?
Build a three-row alignment grid for the hardest unit in your course. If any cell is blank, you've found exactly where to spend your design time.
The block changes the rhythm, not the principles
A Keiser course is roughly four weeks. That compression is unforgiving of two things: cramming and improvisation. Backward design is what lets you engineer against both at the build stage, when you have the most time and the most leverage.
Translate the science to the block
- Retrieve daily, not weekly. With only ~16–20 contact sessions, weekly quizzing wastes most of the spacing benefit. A 2–3 minute retrieval check should open or close most sessions.
- Expanding spacing inside the course: review new material at 1 day → 3 days → 7 days. Schedule these intervals on your calendar in advance; don't leave them to chance.
- Interleave within the week rather than across courses — mix the week's problem types in one practice set so students learn to choose the right approach, not just execute a known one.
- Design the cumulative review. A deliberate Week-4 cumulative review before the final is non-negotiable — build it, don't improvise it.
- Anchor reviews after the course: for courses in a sequence, a short review at 14 and 30 days fights forgetting before the next dependent course starts.
- Front-load the build. Design once — grid, calendar, retrieval bank, TILT prompts — and reuse every term. The block rewards reusable scaffolds, especially for adjuncts teaching solo.
Wk 1: Intro business model · daily 3-min retrieval · first spaced review of Day-1 content on Day 3.
Wk 2: Marketing + finance interleaved · re-quiz Wk-1 ideas (7-day interval) · model-canvas draft (formative).
Wk 3: Pitch construction · peer critique with rubric · cumulative mixed quiz.
Wk 4: Designed cumulative review → live pitch (summative). Anchor review pushed to Day 14/30 for the next course in the sequence.
You introduce a tricky concept on Monday of Week 1. Using the recommended schedule, on which days should the first two spaced reviews fall — and why not just review it again at the Week-4 final?
Open your four-week calendar and drop in three retrieval checkpoints at the 1-, 3-, and 7-day marks for your first major concept. Two minutes of scheduling now prevents a Week-4 scramble later.
What derails good design — and how to catch it
Four pitfalls to watch
- Coverage as a proxy for teaching. "I got through everything" answers a logistics question, not a learning one. Alignment and retrieval are the evidence that teaching happened.
- Reuse without re-alignment. Inheriting a shell course is fine — but verify each objective still maps to its assessment and activities before you teach it.
- Letting the test bank drive the course. Publisher banks skew toward recall. If your objectives are higher-order, the bank can't be your summative evidence by default.
- Treating student evaluations as proof of learning. Student ratings measure satisfaction and carry known biases; they don't measure learning. Triangulate with direct evidence — performance on aligned assessments (a growth tool, never a gotcha).
- One enduring understanding + essential question named.
- Every objective uses an observable Bloom verb at the intended level.
- Each objective has aligned evidence that matches its verb (validity check).
- Key assignments carry TILT purpose / task / criteria.
- Activities trace to an objective — no orphans, no gaps.
- Daily retrieval + 1→3→7 spacing scheduled on the calendar.
- A deliberate Week-4 cumulative review is built, not improvised.
- Scaffolds saved for reuse next term.
A colleague says, "My evals were great, so the course clearly works." From this module, why is that not yet evidence of learning — and what would be?
Run the build checklist against one course before your next term starts. Anywhere you can't check a box is your highest-leverage redesign — fix it once at the build stage and reuse it.
Before the check — retrieve the core moves
You just experienced the strategy you're meant to design: spaced retrieval. Here are the load-bearing ideas. Try to recall each before reading it.
- Backward design = results → evidence → activities (Wiggins & McTighe).
- Constructive alignment = objectives, assessments, activities all aimed at one target (Biggs).
- Objectives use observable Bloom verbs; if you can't picture the assessment, rewrite the verb.
- Evidence must match the verb (validity); use TILT — purpose, task, criteria — for transparency and equity.
- The learning plan runs on retrieval, spacing, interleaving, worked examples, managed load, and forward-moving feedback.
- The alignment grid exposes orphan activities, unassessed objectives, and untaught tests.
- On the block: retrieve daily, space 1→3→7, design the Week-4 cumulative review, anchor at 14/30 days, front-load the build.
- Retire the myths: learning styles, rereading/highlighting, cramming, "digital natives are AI-literate," and evals-as-learning.
APA 7 references (click to expand)
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364.
Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380.
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAS, 111(23), 8410–8415.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119.
Renkl, A. (2014). Toward an instructionally oriented theory of example-based learning. Cognitive Science, 38(1), 1–37.
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255.
Rohrer, D. (2012). Interleaving helps students distinguish among similar concepts. Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 355–367.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). ASCD.
Winkelmes, M., Bernacki, M., Butler, J., Zochowski, M., Golanics, J., & Weavil, K. H. (2016). A teaching intervention that increases underserved college students' success. Peer Review, 18(1/2).
The check is 10 questions. You'll need 8 correct (75%) to earn your TLC certificate. Retakes are unlimited and questions reshuffle. Take it open-note if you like — recalling and locating are both good practice.
Show what you'll carry into your next build
Select one answer per question, then submit. You'll see your score, rationales for any misses, and — at 75%+ — your certificate.