In the articles we've read regarding the Understanding by Design model, it's defined as a backwards design model and the assumption is, that that is a main differentiating quality between UbD and the other models (ADDIE and Dick & Carey) that we have learned so far in the course. But the D&C model also feels like a backwards design model to me, in particular because the very first phase is to Identify Instructional Goals. In this stage, the designer asks what learning should the target audience take away from this lesson or course. In essence that is what the first step of the UbD model, Identify Desired Results, also asks. Building the course based upon expected end results is the basis for the backwards design qualification.

In the same way that UbD strives to ensure that curriculum, content, and assessment align with outcomes and expected skill acquisitions, I see those same overarching themes in D&C and in many respects also in ADDIE.

As far as application uses, I like having awareness of all of these models and being able to choose whichever one I feel may best meet my instructional design needs. On a unit-by-unit or lesson-by-lesson approach I see the value in UbD over the other models. I also love the Essential Question tactic and this attempt to bring in thematic learning that weaves throughout a variety of topics and subjects to deepen students' life skills and build deep as well as wide knowledge frameworks.