HAX UbD Six Facets of Understanding

Use the six facets as a lens for writing understandings and a blueprint for rubric criteria. This is the focused companion to hax-ubd-stage2. The facets are criteria for judging understanding, not learning styles — they describe what teachers need to see to conclude a student understands.

The six facets (UbD Ch. 4)

Facet	Definition	Key verbs	"A student who really understands…"
Explanation	Sophisticated, justified accounts	explain, justify, verify, prove, generalize, predict	shows their work; gives good reasons; connects facts into a theory
Interpretation	Meaningful narratives/translations	interpret, make meaning, tell significance, translate	finds significance; tells a powerful story; makes the unfamiliar accessible
Application	Effective use in new contexts	apply, transfer, adapt, customize	uses knowledge wisely in diverse, "noisy" situations; has tact
Perspective	Critical points of view	critique, compare, question assumptions, see the big picture	sees from multiple vantage points; exposes questionable assumptions
Empathy	Another's feelings/worldview	role-play, relate, walk in another's shoes	finds what is plausible/meaningful in alien-seeming ideas; has a change of heart
Self-Knowledge	Awareness of one's own biases/limits	self-assess, reflect, know one's ignorance	knows what they don't understand; knows how their habits shape their thinking

When to Use

• "What facet does this target" / "build a rubric for understanding"
• "Which facets should this assessment tap" / "is my rubric measuring understanding or just correctness"
• You are hax-ubd-stage2 building the rubric blueprint (step 4)

When NOT: cognitive level of a task → grad-blooms (the facets are performance criteria; Bloom's is the cognitive level — they compose, see below). Full evidence scrapbook → hax-ubd-stage2.

Methodology

1. For each targeted understanding, ask: which facets, if performed well, would most strongly reveal this understanding? (Not all six apply to every understanding — e.g., Self-Knowledge/Empathy rarely apply to pure math concepts.)
2. Draft rubric criteria per chosen facet using the facet's verbs. Each criterion should describe observable performance, not an internal state.
3. Include ≥1 impact criterion (effect on audience / real-world consequence), not just correctness + craft. Over-weighted craft criteria are the classic validity failure (self-test Q4).
4. Render the rubric as an editable-table (analytic-trait scoring) — one criterion row per facet tapped, columns = performance levels with anchor descriptions.
5. Bridge to grad-blooms: confirm the cognitive level implied by each facet criterion matches the intended objective level (e.g., an Application facet criterion implies Apply or higher).

Facet → evidence component map

Facet	HAX evidence components
Explanation	simple-fields (show work/justify) + editable-table (criteria)
Interpretation	stop-note (make meaning) + simple-fields
Application	GRASPS page + authentic-context media + simple-fields
Perspective	image-compare-slider / a11y-compare-image + simple-fields
Empathy	stop-note (role-play) + simple-fields + media context
Self-Knowledge	self-check (self-assess) + stop-note (metacognition)

Output Format

# Six-Facet Rubric: {understanding}
## Facets tapped
{which facets, why — e.g., "Application + Explanation: this understanding is about using the concept and justifying the use"}
## Rubric (editable-table)
| Criterion (facet) | Level 4 (exemplar) | Level 3 | Level 2 | Level 1 |
| {criterion} (Application) | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| {criterion} (Explanation) | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| {impact criterion} | ... | ... | ... | ... |
## Bloom's bridge
{each criterion → implied cognitive level via grad-blooms; confirm match to objective}
## HAX handoff
{editable-table for rubric; per-facet evidence components}

Acceptance criteria

• Each rubric criterion maps to a named facet.
• ≥1 criterion is an impact criterion (audience/real-world effect), not just correctness/craft.
• Criteria describe observable performance (verbs from the facet), not internal states.
• Understanding/craft criteria are separate and weighted so a lovely product with shallow understanding cannot score high (guards self-test Q4).
• Bloom's bridge: each criterion's implied cognitive level matches the intended objective (no Analyze-level criterion on a Remember-level objective, and vice versa).

Gotchas

• Not all six facets apply everywhere. Self-Knowledge and Empathy rarely apply to pure math/conceptual understandings. Don't force a quota — pick the facets that genuinely reveal this understanding.
• Facets are criteria, not styles. A student need not "have" a facet as a trait; the rubric looks for the performance regardless of preference (like an essay must be persuasive whether or not the writer is persuasive).
• Don't confuse Explanation (Facet 1) with "Understand" (Bloom L2). Explanation is a performance criterion (justify/show work); Bloom's Understand is a cognitive level. The bridge step reconciles them.
• Beware craft-over-understanding. A polished product with shallow thinking is the #1 validity trap. Keep understanding criteria distinct and dominant.

Dependencies

• Reads: the targeted understanding (from manifest.stage1)
• Bridges to: grad-blooms (cognitive level ↔ facet)
• Used by: hax-ubd-stage2

References

• ../hax-ubd-backward-design/references/ubd-element-map.md — facet → evidence component map
• ../hax-ubd-backward-design/references/validity-self-test.md — Q4 (lovely product) is the facet-rubric failure to guard against
• Source: Wiggins & McTighe (2005), UbD Ch. 4, Fig 7.8–7.9.