Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp 491–506 | Cite as

Video analyses for research and professional development: the teaching for robust understanding (TRU) framework

  • Alan H. Schoenfeld
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

This paper provides an overview of the teaching for robust understanding (TRU) Framework, its origins, and its evolving use. The core assertion underlying the TRU Framework is that there are five dimensions of activities along which a classroom must do well, if students are to emerge from that classroom being knowledgeable and resourceful disciplinary thinkers and problem solvers. The main focus of TRU is not on what the teacher does, but on the opportunities the environment affords students for deep engagement with mathematical content. This paper’s use of the TRU framework to highlight salient aspects of three classroom videos affords a compare-and-contrast with other analytic frameworks, highlighting the importance of both the focus on student experience and the mathematics-specific character of the analysis. This is also the first paper on the framework that introduces a family of TRU-related tools for purposes of professional development.

Keywords

Analytic framework Classroom analysis Professional development Robust understanding Teaching tools Video analysis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges support for this work from The Algebra Teaching Study (US National Science Foundation Grant DRL-0909815 to Principal Investigator Alan Schoenfeld, U.C. Berkeley, and NSF Grant DRL-0909851 to Principal Investigator Robert Floden, Michigan State University), The Mathematics Assessment Project (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Grants OPP53342 to Principal Investigators Alan Schoenfeld, U. C Berkeley, and Hugh Burkhardt and Malcolm Swan, The University of Nottingham), and TRUmath and Lesson Study, (US National Science Foundation grant 1503454, to Principal Investigator Alan Schoenfeld, U.C. Berkeley).

References

  1. Baldinger, E., Louie, N., & The Algebra Teaching Study and Mathematics Assessment Project. (2016). TRU mathematics conversation guide: A tool for teacher learning and growth (mathematics version). Berkeley, CA; E. Lansing, MI: Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley and College of Education, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  2. Beeby, T., Burkhardt, H., & Caddy, R. (1980). SCAN: Systematic classroom analysis notation for mathematics lessons. Nottingham: England Shell Centre for Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  3. Cazden, C. B., & Beck, S. W. (2003). Classroom discourse. In A. C. Graesser, M. A. Gernsbacher & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 165–197). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Clarke, D. (2006–2014) The learner’s perspective study. https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/the-learneras-perspective-study/. Accessed 31 October 2015.
  5. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing groupwork: Strategies for heterogeneous classrooms (revised edition). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (Eds.). (1997). Working for equity in heterogeneous classrooms: Sociological theory in practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  7. Coppin, C., Mahavier, W. T., May, E. L., & Parker, E. (Eds.). (2009). The Moore method: A pathway to learner-centered instruction. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar
  8. Danielson, C. (2011). The framework for teaching evaluation instrument, 2011 edition. http://www.danielsongroup.org/article.aspx?page=FfTEvaluationInstrument. Accessed 1 April 2012
  9. Engle, R. A. (2011). The productive disciplinary engagement framework: Origins, key concepts, and continuing developments. In D. Y. Dai (Ed.), Design research on learning and thinking in educational settings: Enhancing intellectual growth and functioning (pp. 161–200). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  10. English, L. (Ed.). (2008). Handbook of international research in mathematics education, 2nd Edn. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (Eds.). (1991). Toward a general theory of expertise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gresalfi, M. S., & Cobb, P. (2006). Cultivating students’ discipline-specific dispositions as a critical goal for pedagogy and equity. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 1, 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Institute for Research on Policy Education and Practice. (2011). PLATO (protocol for language arts teaching observations). Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on Policy Education and Practice.Google Scholar
  14. Junker, B., Matsumura, L. C., Crosson, A., Wolf, M. K., Levison, A., Weisberg, Y., & Resnick, L. (2004). Overview of the instructional quality assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  15. Lester, F. (Ed.). (2007). Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning, 2nd Edn. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Marder, M., & Walkington, C. (2012) UTeach teacher observation protocol. https://wikis.utexas.edu/pages/viewpageattachments.action?pageId=6884866&sortBy=date&highlight=UTOP_Physics_2009.doc. Accessed 1 April 2012.
  17. Measures of Effective Teaching Project (2012). Gathering feedback for teaching. http://metproject.org/downloads/MET_Gathering_Feedback_Research_Paper.pdf. Accessed 4 July 2012.
  18. Mehan, H. (1985). The structure of classroom discourse. In T. A. Van Dijk (Ed.) Handbook of discourse analysis, volume 3: Discourse and dialogue (pp. 119–131). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  19. PACT Consortium (2012) Performance assessment for California teachers. (2012) A brief overview of the PACT assessment system. http://www.pacttpa.org/_main/hub.php?pageName=Home. Accessed 1 April 2012.
  20. Pianta, R., La Paro, K., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring system. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
  21. Richardson, V. (2001). (Ed.). Handbook of research on teaching, 4th Edn. Washington, DC: AERA.Google Scholar
  22. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2010). How we think. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2013). Classroom observations in theory and practice. ZDM-The International Journal Of Mathematics Education, 45, 607–621.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-012-0483-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2014). What makes for powerful classrooms, and how can we support teachers in creating them? Educational Researcher, 43(8), 404–412.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X1455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schoenfeld, A. H., Floden, R. E., El Chidiac, F., Gillingham, D., Fink, H., Hu, S., Sayavedra, A., Weltman, A. Zarkh, A., & The Algebra Teaching Study and Mathematics Assessment Project (2018). On classroom observations. Berkeley, CA: University of California. (In preparation) Google Scholar
  26. Schoenfeld, A. H., Floden, R. E. & The Algebra Teaching Study and Mathematics Assessment Project. (2014). The TRU mathematics scoring rubric. Berkeley, CA and E. Lansing, MI: Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley and College of Education, Michigan State University. http://ats.berkeley.edu/tools.html and http://map.mathshell.org/trumath.php. Accessed 9 July 2015.
  27. Schoenfeld, A. H., Floden, R. E. & The Algebra Teaching Study and Mathematics Assessment Project. (2015). TRU mathematics scoring guide version alpha. Berkeley, CA; E. Lansing, MI: Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley and College of Education, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  28. Schoenfeld, A. H. & The Teaching for Robust Understanding Project. (2016a). An introduction to the teaching for robust understanding (TRU) framework. Berkeley, CA: Graduate School of Education. http://map.mathshell.org/trumath.php or http://tru.berkeley.edu. Accessed 3 December 2017.
  29. Schoenfeld, A. H. & The Teaching for Robust Understanding Project. (2016b). The teaching for robust understanding (TRU) observation guide for mathematics: A tool for teachers, coaches, administrators, and professional learning communities. Berkeley, CA: Graduate School of Education, University of California.Google Scholar
  30. Schoenfeld, A. H. & The Teaching for Robust Understanding Project. (2016c). On target: A TRU guide. Berkeley, CA: Graduate School of Education, University of California.Google Scholar
  31. Schoenfeld, A. H., The Teaching for Robust Understanding Project (2018). On target. Berkeley, CA: University of California. (In preparation)Google Scholar
  32. Sikula, J. (Ed.). (1996). Handbook of research on teacher education (2 Edn.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  33. Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (Eds.). (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313–340.Google Scholar
  34. University of Michigan (2006). Learning mathematics for teaching. A coding rubric for measuring the mathematical quality of instruction (technical report LMT1.06). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, School of Education.Google Scholar
  35. Wittrock, M. C. (Ed.). (1986). Handbook of research on teaching (3rd Edn.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Elizabeth and Edward Conner Professor of Education, Graduate School of EducationUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options