TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING 1 Running head: TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING 1 Teaching for Understanding Framework in Practice Su-Tuan Lulee Professor: Dr. Susan Moisey Prepared for Assignment 1 EDDE 803: Teaching and Learning in Distance Education Ed. D., Athabasca University October, 2010
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING 1
Running head: TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING 1
Teaching for Understanding Framework in Practice
Su-Tuan Lulee
Professor: Dr. Susan Moisey
Prepared for Assignment 1
EDDE 803: Teaching and Learning in Distance Education
Ed. D., Athabasca University
October, 2010
TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING 2
Abstract
This paper describes the Teaching for Understanding framework, a pedagogical theory developed by the
Teaching for Understanding team at Project Zero in the Harvard Graduate School of Education, and ways
of using it in actual instruction. The essential elements of the framework are described first. The paper
then delineates how the framework can be applied in unit design and learning processes with the
supporting tools and techniques. The conclusion points to a need for exploring the integration of
emerging social learning technologies with the Teaching for Understanding framework so that the
framework can better support teaching and learning from distance.
Keywords: Teaching for Understanding framework, instructional design
TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING 3
Teaching for Understanding Framework in Practice
Most educators would agree that learners in schools need to develop understanding about
important academic subject matter, not merely memorize facts and figures. Leaders in all fields would
welcome employees who know how to think and learn in the constant changing Information Age. How
can educators foster understanding outcomes? Educators strive to explain clearly, look for opportunities
to re-clarify, and plan activities that call for and build understanding. However, it is not rare to find that
some students still don’t understand. How can factual knowledge be accumulated into understanding
that equips learners to demonstrate their knowledge in real problems? What strategy would best
support daily teaching for understanding in terms of designing units or curriculum, conducting
educational activities with learners, and assessing learners’ progress? This paper tries to answer the
questions through examining the Teaching for Understanding framework.
Literature Review
In this paper, “Teaching for Understanding” is used as a specific term for describing the
pedagogical theory developed by the Teaching for Understanding team at Project Zero, Harvard Graduate
School of Education. The principal investigators are Howard Gardner, David Perkins, and Vito Perrone
and the project managers are Rebecca Simmons and Martha Stone Wiske
What is Understanding?
“Understanding is a matter of being able to do a variety of thought-demanding things with a
topic - like explaining, finding evidence and examples, generalizing, applying, analogizing, and
representing the topic in a new way” (Perkins, & Blythe, 1994, p. 5). For example, understanding in
mathematics is not just being able to apply equations to routine textbook problems. Students must be
able to carry out a variety of “performances” that apply equations to or make predictions about
authentic situations. Based on this definition, we can say that being able to achieve a high score in a
TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING 4
paper-and-pencil test alone is not “understanding”; being able to describe facts or methods only is not
necessarily “understanding.” Understanding is not just having knowledge (i.e., information) or
demonstrating skills (i.e., routine performances). “Understanding is the ability to think and act flexibly
with what one knows” (Perkins, 1998, p.40).
It is not to say that factual knowledge is not important. Factual knowledge is the foundation of
competence. However, students must understand facts and ideas in the context of a conceptual
framework and organize knowledge in ways that facilitate retrieval and application (Bransford, Brown, &
Cocking, 2000).
Teaching for Understanding Framework
Teaching for Understanding was a research project (1988 - 1995) in Project Zero at Harvard
Graduate School of Education. In the developing years, researchers and participants collaborated to
develop, refine, and test a pedagogy called the Teaching for Understanding framework. The framework
was tested in collaboration with 60 middle and high school teachers. It has grown to become a widely
adopted framework in the US and some non-English speaking countries like Mexico and China through
online teacher development certificate programs. The main contribution of the Teaching for
Understanding framework to the field of teacher education is that it provides a set of language and
structure for planning curriculum and for discussing pedagogy with other colleagues and students.
The core of the framework is a performance view of understanding – When students
“understand” a topic, they not only can rephrase knowledge but also can put their understanding into
action and applies it to a novel situation. For example, a student in a literature class might be able to
describe the outline of a story in her own words,role-play a character in an episode as she reacts to
different part of the story, or write out an imagined debate to the authors to challenge them about some
ideas. These “performances of understanding” provide opportunities for students to demonstrate what
TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING 5
they understand and in the meantime allow the educators to assess students’ levels of understanding
and to adjust their teaching accordingly.
Figure 1: The interplay between the elements of TfU framework
The original Teaching for Understanding framework contains four elements: Generative Topics,
Understanding Goals, Performances of Understanding, and Ongoing Assessments (Figure 1). All these
four elements serve the purpose of focusing the energy and time of the educators on helping students to
learn about the most important topic for understanding in a particular domain or discipline. The fifth
element was added to the framework few years after the model was first proposed, when technology
integration began to be taken into consideration by the researchers (Wiske & Franz, 2005).
Constructivism Assumption
The Teaching for Understanding framework is based on the assumptions of constructivism
(Perkins, 2006b). In general, constructivism is a philosophical and psychological view of learning that
argues that knowledge and understanding cannot be learned through rote learning. Rather, learners
have to construct their knowledge and understanding by experiences given by the world and especially
by the educators. Constructivism emphasizes active participation by the learners and that knowledge
TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING 6
and understanding are socially constructed (Philips, 1995).
Core Elements
Generative Topics
Since limited time is available for teaching at schools, considering “What topics are worth
understanding?” is the first priority for the instructors when planning a curriculum. The instructors need
a topic that is generative enough to allow the essential concepts, principles, and procedures to evolve in
the teaching-learning process. What topic is not only central to the domain, but also interesting to both
students and the instructor? Certainly, to investigate the topic, there must be sufficient appropriate
resources available. Also, the topic should be able to generate multiple connections to more than one
domain. For example, global warming is a generative topic that can connect to weather, glaciers, or rain
forests in a biology course; because it’s an important issue, everyone will be concerned about it; plenty
of resources are accessible; and it has potential for multiple connections.
Generative Topics are not just themes because themes lack centrality to the discipline. For
example, a mathematics teacher may decide to use the theme of gorillas. The unit might involve
measuring the number of gorillas in certain regions, collecting facts about the height and weight of
gorillas, locating gorillas on maps with coordinate tools, and so on. The unit might involve lots of
mathematics, but not a central mathematical idea. As such, “gorillas” is a theme, but not a generative
topic. Generative Topics should be concerned first with the core idea of the domain or discipline.
Due to limited teaching hours, it is difficult to create one generative topic per lesson. The
generative topics are usually designed by unit. A unit is a group of lessons intended to deliver related
concepts, principles, processes, or facts, e.g., Circle, Triangle, and Square could be the three lessons in a
unit on Shapes. The creation of the generative topic should be targeted on the broad concept of shapes
instead of each lesson - circle, triangle, or square.
TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING 7
Understanding Goals
Understanding Goals define what needs to be understood in terms of the ideas, processes,
relationships, or questions involved. Since Generative Topics often have potential to develop more than
one understanding, in order to keep students’ focus on central concepts of the discipline, educators need
to identify several specific understanding goals for a topic. For example, suppose that the topic is
“Globalization.” One understanding goal might be: “Students will understand that globalization is not
only a global issue but will have great impacts on their career.” Another topic might be: “Students will
understand the impacts of globalization on our society in terms of the transnational circulation of ideas,
languages, or popular culture.” There is no right or wrong list of understanding goals so long as they
ensure the focus of the instruction (Perkins & Blythe, 1994). However, Understanding Goals should align
with the central idea or Generative Topic as well as the key disciplinary concepts, processes, and uses.
Most important, Understanding Goals should address the “big ideas” and should not be behavioral such
as “Students will be able to state the three causes of Civil War” (Blythe, 1997; Hetland, 2006; Wiske,
1998a).
The Teaching for Understanding framework suggests two types of understanding goals (Blythe,
1997; Hetland, 2006; Wiske, 1998a). One is the Throughlines that describe the overarching goals of an
entire semester or year long course. Another is the unit-level Understanding Goals that define the focus
of a particular unit. In addition, the theory behind the Teaching for Understanding theory also suggests
that the instructors list their understanding goals in phrases of the form: “Students will understand
that …” or “Students will appreciate that …” Understanding Goals should also be stated as interesting,
student-friendly questions so that students will be interested and focus on what they are expected to
not only individual thinking but also social interaction through which the new knowledge can be
TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING 17
internalized (Vygotsky, 1978).
Figure 2: Developing disciplinary understanding requires delicate considerations on what dimensions to cover and which entry points to utilize. Based on Boix-Mansilla, Hetland, & Ritchhart (1997) Developing Disciplinary Understanding.
Designing Ongoing Assessments
Fair and valid assessments cannot be obtained through paper-and-pencil assessments that
require higher levels of linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences. To learn for understanding,
assessments need to occur frequently within and combined with the instruction (Andrade, 2000). During
the ongoing assessments, students need public criteria, regular feedback, and opportunities for
reflection (Perkins & Blythe, 1994).
There are two useful tools for designing Ongoing Assessments. The first tool is the assessment
funnel, developed by Hetland (2005), in that it synthesizes all key concerns regarding Ongoing
Assessment in one single diagram (See Appendix C). The second tool is the following six-step process,
developed by Andrade (2000), for co-constructing useful rubrics with students and instructors: (1) Look
at models; (2) List criteria; (3) Pack and Unpack criteria; (4) Articulate levels of quality; (5) Create a draft
TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING 18
rubric; and (6) Revise the draft.
Ladder of Feedback
When students are engaged in learning activities, they need appropriate feedback to help them
to perform better. “When teachers successfully developed effective feedback strategies with their
students, self- and peer-assessment are further enhanced.” (Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, & Wiliam,
2003, p. 67) Feedback is an integral part of Performances of Understanding, Ongoing Assessments, and
any group discussion. To keep learning organized and efficient, researchers in the Teaching for
Understanding project developed the Ladder of Feedback to guide a constructive process for improving
understanding through dialogues between students, peers, and instructors (Hetland & President and
Fellows of Harvard College, 2005).
The Ladder of Feedback involves the use of the following sequence when providing feedback:
1. Clarify. Ask questions about unclear points or missing details.
2. Value. Highlight the strengths of the work. Tell students what they have done well and
what makes it good.
3. Offer concerns. Express disagreement with some part of the work or identify potential
problems or challenges.
4. Suggest. Provide suggestions on the concerns mentioned above.
Integrating Emerging Technology to TfU and Future S tudy
Although technology integration with the Teaching for Understanding framework is a recent
addition to the literature (Wiske & Franz, 2005), it has been limited to the use of electronic technology
and stand-alone or intranet computer technology. The emerging technologies such as Web 2.0 and social
learning applications have largely been ignored. To ensure that learners acquire requisite skills and
TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING 19
knowledge as they progress through the course and hopefully to sustain the learning over the long term
as Moisey (2001) advocated educators need to utilize more, if not all, of the five types of media
described by Laurillard (2002): narrative media, interactive media, adaptive media, communicative
media, and productive media. The table below presents an initial proposition for integrating emerging
technology into the Teaching for Understanding framework for use in an online setting.
Table 1 Sample list of media and tools for applying TfU in online learning
Element Key Actions Media Type Tools / Resources
GTs Identifying the topic through
brainstorming & synchronous
/ asynchronous discussion
Communicative
media
Electronic whiteboard, computer
mediated conference, discussion forum,
instant message, and live chat.
UGs Drafting UGs; Negotiating
goals with learners,
publicizing goals
Productive,
interactive, &
communicative
media
Discussion forum, Wiki or co-editor,
presenting tools embedded in LMS.
PofU Present content; nurturing
habit of thinking; visualizing
thinking; implementing
actively-engaged activities;
practicing and demonstrating
Interactive,
adaptive,
productive, &
communicative
media
Books, tutorial, online resources,
lectures, Learning Objects, tutor-led
seminar, workshop, virtual fieldwork,
threaded discussion, WebQuest, web-
supported presentation tools e.g.,
SlideShare & ZOHO.
OA Negotiating criteria with
learners; publicizing criteria;
allowing instructor-, self-, &
Interactive,
adaptive,
productive, &
Online rubric creating tools, e.g.,
RubiStar; feedback, quiz, essay writing,
self-study practice, educational game,
TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING 20
peer-assessment; providing
feedback & revising ID based
on formative assessment;
delivering assessments;
commenting & grading
communicative
media
concept mapping, grading features in
LMS.
RCC Team building; team working;
socializing
Interactive,
productive, &
communicative
media
Grouping features in LMS, web-supported
presenting tools & concept mapping
tools, social leaning software, e.g.,
bookmark manager, blog, wiki.
Note: GTs – Generative Topics; UGs – Understanding Goals; PofU – Performances of Understanding; OA –
How to take advantage of new technology, along with the corresponding implications, to
advance the efficiency and effectiveness in applying the Teaching for Understanding framework to web-
based learning is a topic that worth further exploration.
Conclusion
The world of education is full of advice (Perkins, 2006). Educators learned all kinds of frameworks,
strategies, approaches, techniques, and tools from books, articles, and lectures. Such advice need to be
taken into practice in order to know their applicability and usefulness. Through years of practice, the
Teaching for Understanding framework has showed its validity in supporting daily teaching for
understanding in terms of curriculums, activities, and assessments. Factual knowledge will only
accumulate into understanding that equips learners to perform their knowledge in real problems
through instructional strategies that foster understanding outcomes.
TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING 21
References
Active Learning Practice for Schools (ALPS). (n.d). The TfU Graphic Organizer. Curriculum Design Tools: Planner. Retrieved from http://learnweb.harvard.edu/alps/tfu/design_planners.cfm
Andrade, H. G. (2000). Using Rubrics to Promote Thinking and Learning. Educational Leadership, 57(5).
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., Wiliam, D., & Press, O. U. (2003). Assessment for Learning: Putting it into Practice (1st ed.). New York: Open University Press.
Blythe, T. (1997). The Teaching for Understanding Guide (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R., Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning, & National Research Council. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition (2nd ed.). National Academies Press.
Gardner, H. E. (2006). Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons in Theory and Practice (2nd ed.). Basic Books.
Hetland, L. & President and Fellows of Harvard College (on behalf of Project Zero). (1997). Comparing Performances of Understanding to Activities: What’s the Difference? Project Zero & WIDE World.
Hetland, Lois & President and Fellows of Harvard College (on behalf of Project Zero). (2005). Mixing it Up in the Assessment Funnel. Project Zero & WIDE World.
Hetland, Lois & President and Fellows of Harvard College (on behalf of Project Zero). (2006). Reflection Guide for Assessing TfU Units. Teaching for Understanding Course at WIDE World.
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking University Teaching: A framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Mansilla, V. B., & Gardner, H. (1998). What are the Qualities of Understanding? In M. Stone Wiske (Ed.) Teaching for Understanding: Linking Research with Practice (1st ed.), (pp. 161-196). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Perkins, D. (1998). What is Understanding? In M. Stone Wiske (Ed.) Teaching for Understanding: Linking Research with Practice, (1st ed.), (p. 39). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING 22
Perkins, D. (2006). Action Poetry. Cambridge, MA. Retrieved from http://learnweb.harvard.edu/wide/courses/files/resource_2_22042006-224653.wmv
Perkins, D. (2006). From Idea to Action. Course handout of Teaching for Understanding 2 at WIDE World program developed by Harvard Graduate School of Education. Retrieved from http://learnweb.harvard.edu/wide/
Perkins, D., & Blythe, T. (1994). Putting understanding up front. (Cover story). Educational Leadership, 51(5), 4. doi: Article
Perkins, D., & Wiske, M. S. (2005). Dewey goes digital: Scaling up constructivist pedagogies and the promise of new technologies. In Scaling up success: Lessons learned from technology-based educational innovation. New York: Jossey-Bass.
Phillips, D. C. (1995). The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5-12. doi:10.2307/1177059
Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2009). Instructional-Design Theories and Models, Volume III: Building a Common Knowledge Base (1st ed.). Routledge.
Ritchhart, R., Palmer, P., Church, M., & Tishman, S. (2006). Thinking Routines: Establishing Patterns of Thinking in the Classroom. Presented at the AERA Conference, AERA. Retrieved from http://www.pz.harvard.edu/Research/AERA06ThinkingRoutines.pdf
Ritchhart, R., & Perkins, D. (2008). Making Thinking Visible. Educational Leadership, 65(5), 57-61.
Moisey, S. D. (2001). An Integrated Instructional Design Model to Foster Lasting Behavior Change. Educational Technology, 41(2), 60-62. Retrieved from http://auspace.athabascau.ca:8080/dspace/bitstream/2149/2075/1/integrated_instructional.pdf
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes (14th ed.). Location?: Harvard University Press.
Wiske, M. S. (1998). What is Teaching for Understanding? In Martha Stone Wiske (Eds.) Teaching for Understanding: Linking Research with Practice (1st ed.), (pp. 61-86). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Wiske, M. S. (1998). Teaching for Understanding: Linking Research with Practice (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Wiske, M. S., & Franz, K. R. (2005). Teaching for Understanding with Technology (1st ed.). Location?: Jossey-Bass.