Over several years of teaching English for Professional Development (Business), the course evolved through ongoing adjustments and small refinements. However, a broader review highlighted further opportunities to strengthen the alignment between workload, learning objectives, course content, and assessment. Although student feedback from the course was generally positive, this observation became the catalyst for a more systematic redesign in which I stepped back to reconsider the course from the ground up, leading me to adopt a backward design approach.
Course context
English for Professional Development (Business) is an English for Specific Purposes (ESP) communication course offered by the Language Centre. It is aimed at LUT Business students as an elective and is intended for non‑native speakers of English. While an on‑campus version exists in Lappeenranta, the course is primarily delivered online through independent study across two periods in both spring and autumn.
My motivations for redesigning the course grew from longstanding concerns, particularly whether the workload and certain assignments were fully justified for the number of credits. I also wanted to increase clarity and transparency in how different elements connected – how the workload was structured, how theory informed assessment, and how each component supported the intended learning outcomes. In short, I wanted to critically but constructively analyse what I was asking students to do and why (Biggs et al. 2022).
Applying backward design
Backward design begins with identifying desired learning outcomes, then developing assessments, and finally planning content and activities. This contrasts with forward design, which begins with content, or centre design, which starts with methodology (Richards 2013).
Applying backward design resulted in several key changes benefiting both teacher and students. One significant adjustment involved reducing the overall workload. By estimating the time needed for each module and activity, I developed a clearer breakdown of the 104 hours of student work expected for the course. This was provided as a PDF in the course information section, and each module now reiterates the estimated time commitment.
The redesign also produced a more streamlined and coherent set of learning materials. Analysing alignment between assessments, content, exercises, and objectives highlighted aspects that were redundant or not clearly connected to the intended outcomes. As a result, assessments were revised to include a recorded presentation, an annotated bibliography, and mock interview answers completed with an AI agent, while traditional CV tasks, some compulsory writing quizzes, and extended meetings theory were removed.
Finally, the redesign led to greater conceptual and structural clarity. Writing sub‑objectives for each course learning objective helped clarify what I hoped students would take away from the course, which in turn clarified assessments and content (Davis et al. 2021). From a student perspective, the streamlined structure and explicit time estimations aim to support clearer expectations, and the course received very positive feedback at the end of the semester, particularly regarding the diversity of tasks.
Conclusion
The backward design process provided a constructive framework for re‑evaluating my approach and ensuring each component meaningfully contributed to student learning. While refinement is ongoing, the redesign has resulted in clearer alignment, a more manageable workload, and a stronger rationale for each assessment and activity. Most importantly, it has allowed me to feel more confident that the course now reflects the communicative and professional skills it aims to develop.
Author
Tessa Laba works as a Senior Lecturer in the joint Language Centre of LUT Universities.
References
Biggs, J., Tang, C. & Kennedy, G., 2022. Teaching for quality learning at university. 5th ed. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill.
Davis, N.L., Gough, M. & Taylor, L.L. 2021. Enhancing online courses by utilizing ‘Backward Design’. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism. Vol 21 (4), 437-446. Cited 9 Dec 2025. Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/15313220.2021.1924922
Forouzani, A. 2020. Green, red and yellow wall. Unsplash. Cited 4 Mar 2026. Available at https://unsplash.com/photos/green-red-and-yellow-wall-m0l9NBCivuk
Microsoft. 2026. Assistance with editing and phrasing for an article draft. M365 Copilot (GPT‑5). Cited 4 Mar 2026. Available at https://copilot.microsoft.com
Richards, J.C. 2013. Curriculum approaches in language teaching: forward, central, and backward design. RELC Journal. Vol 44 (1), 5–33. Cited 9 Dec 2025. Available at https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688212473293
