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

ZDM - Mathematics Education

Volumn 50, Issue 3, 2018, Pages 491-506

  Schoenfeld, Alan H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Analytic framework; Classroom analysis; Professional development; Robust understanding; Teaching tools; Video analysis

Indexed keywords

EID: 85048044996     PISSN: 18639690     EISSN: 18639704     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11858-017-0908-y     Document Type: Article

References (35)

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.
2. Beeby, T., Burkhardt, H., & Caddy, R. (1980). SCAN: Systematic classroom analysis notation for mathematics lessons. Nottingham: England Shell Centre for Mathematics Education.
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.
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.
6. Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (Eds.). (1997). Working for equity in heterogeneous classrooms: Sociological theory in practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
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.
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.
10. English, L. (Ed.). (2008). Handbook of international research in mathematics education, 2nd Edn. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (Eds.). (1991). Toward a general theory of expertise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
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.
15. Lester, F. (Ed.). (2007). Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning, 2nd Edn. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
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.
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.
21. Richardson, V. (2001). (Ed.). Handbook of research on teaching, 4th Edn. Washington, DC: AERA.
22. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2010). How we think. New York: Routledge.
23. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2013). Classroom observations in theory and practice. ZDM-The International Journal Of Mathematics Education, 45, 607–621. 10.1007/s11858-012-0483-1.
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. 10.3102/0013189X1455.
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)
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.
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.
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.
31. Schoenfeld, A. H., The Teaching for Robust Understanding Project (2018). On target. Berkeley, CA: University of California. (In preparation)
32. Sikula, J. (Ed.). (1996). Handbook of research on teacher education (2 Edn.). New York: Macmillan.
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.
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.
35. Wittrock, M. C. (Ed.). (1986). Handbook of research on teaching (3rd Edn.). New York: Macmillan.