Compare and Contrast the Finks 3 Column Table with the UbD Template.
Comparing Fink’s 3-Column Table with the UbD framework helped me understand that both models serve valuable but very different purposes in the design process. Fink’s model encouraged me to think about learning in a holistic way by identifying not only what students should know and do, but also how they should grow as people. In my role as a CCMR coordinator, this perspective felt especially relevant because so much of postsecondary readiness goes beyond content knowledge. Students need confidence to speak to a college representative, self-advocacy skills to ask for help in TSI preparation, and the “learning-how-to-learn” skills that allow them to manage unfamiliar processes like FAFSA, ASVAB registration, or comparing technical programs. Fink’s framework helped me recognize that these human elements are not “extras” they are central to student success. This pushed me to design learning experiences that intentionally build ownership and personal clarity. For example, the 3-Column Table made me think differently about activities like digital whiteboard pathway mapping or mini-conferences. Instead of treating them as informational sessions, I saw them as opportunities for students to explore their identities, practice communication, and reflect on what matters to them. Fink’s emphasis on integration and caring made it clear why students respond so well to hands-on tools, structured reflection prompts, and one-on-one planning conversations (Fink, 2003). These activities help students feel seen, supported, and capable which is often the missing link in postsecondary planning efforts.
Understanding by Design (UbD), however, operates almost like a zoomed-in lens. UbD forced me to get very clear about what successful transfer actually looks like for students in a specific unit, what they should be able to do independently, and how I will know when they have reached that point. As a CCMR coordinator, accountability and evidence matter because administrators, counselors, and district teams often ask, “How do you know students are ready?” Designing with UbD pushed me to answer that question in concrete terms. Wiggins and McTighe (2005) emphasize that backward design begins with the end in mind, and I saw this clearly when building the GRASPS performance task. Creating the student-led planning conference required me to articulate what real-world readiness should look like, Can a student explain their goals clearly? Can they justify a chosen pathway using research? Can they independently walk through a timeline of steps and requirements? UbD helped me make these expectations explicit, meaningful, and assessable. For instance, instead of assessing students solely with checklists or quizzes on CCMR vocabulary, UbD guided me toward designing a performance task where students present their postsecondary plan, defend their decisions, and reflect on their strengths and next steps. This aligns perfectly with the types of conversations students will have with admission officers, recruiters, or employers and makes the assessment feel authentic.
When I compare the two approaches, I see them as complementary rather than competing. Fink’s framework is more effective when designing a course or program where personal growth, motivation, and long-term outcomes matter. It helps answer the question, “What kind of learner do I want to develop?” In CCMR work, the answer is someone who is confident, self-directed, and resilient, someone who can “connect the dots” between goals, requirements, and opportunities. UbD, on the other hand, is more effective when designing a focused, structured unit that needs clearly defined performance tasks and assessments. It helps answer the question, “What evidence will show the student truly understands and can apply this?” In the context of my CCMR course, Fink helped me articulate the broader BHAG of students confidently planning their futures, while UbD helped me map out specific units like a FAFSA readiness module or a pathway research unit that feed into that broader vision.
Both design processes have genuinely shaped how I approach creating learning environments. Fink helped me recognize that meaningful learning must reach beyond content, it should cultivate identity, agency, belonging, and the ability to direct one’s own growth. This directly impacts how I support campus CCMR teams. For example, instead of focusing planning meetings solely on compliance or deadlines, I now emphasize how activities can support students’ sense of purpose and confidence. UbD helped me ensure those big goals were not just inspirational statements, but were actually supported by clear assessments and intentional planning. Designing with UbD has improved the way I support teachers and counselors by helping them understand how to align their activities with measurable outcomes, such as requiring students to create a Postsecondary Plan Map, conduct a college comparison analysis, or demonstrate readiness through a presentation. Together, the two models give me a balanced mindset which is one part visionary, one part designer.
This balance is especially important as I work on my Digital Career Exploration & Mentorship Program. The innovation plan requires both the heart of Fink and the structure of UbD. Fink allows me to center the human side of mentoring, career exploration, and self-efficacy—outcomes the research strongly supports as essential to persistence and long-term readiness (Conley, 2014). This means I design the program so that students feel supported, connected, and motivated through mentorship and authentic digital exploration. At the same time, UbD gives me the tools to translate those human-centered goals into clear performance tasks, data points, and learning experiences that can be scaled across schools. For example, UbD helped me outline what a successful mentorship cycle should look like, what evidence students should produce (reflection entries, skill showcases, or mentor feedback), and how campus teams will know whether the program is “working.” In many ways, Fink helps me imagine what is possible, and UbD helps me build the roadmap to get there. Combined, they have made me a more intentional, reflective designer who can create learning environments that are not only well-structured, but genuinely transformative for the students I serve.
References
Conley, D. T. (2014). Getting ready for college, careers, and the Common Core: What every educator needs to know. Jossey-Bass.
Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. Jossey-Bass.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (Expanded 2nd ed.). Pearson.