Synergies Between the Teaching for Robust Understanding Framework and Lesson Study

• In Event: Poster Session 9
  In Poster Session: Understanding Lesson Study From Different Theoretical Perspectives (Part 1)

Abstract

The Teaching for Robust Understanding Framework, known as TRU (see, e.g., Schoenfeld, 2014) and Lesson Study (see, e.g., Lewis, Perry, & Murata, 2006) come from very different traditions. TRU was derived as an analytic framework that highlights the dimensions of classrooms from which students emerge as flexible and resourceful thinkers and problem solvers. Lesson study, a Japanese form of professional development that centers on collaborative development and study of live classroom lessons, has both a long research tradition in Japan and an increasingly large base of practice in the U.S.

Although the formats and traditions underlying the two approaches differ substantially, the underpinnings of both approaches mesh remarkably well. At the coarsest grain size, both focus on two main aspects of classroom practice: making sure that the content is mathematically rich, and paying great attention to student thinking and the ways the students interact with the content. In fact, a leading scholar of Lesson Study (Takahashi, 2015) said that a key benefit of the TRU framework is that it helps to make explicit some of the mathematical and pedagogical traditions that are present in Lesson Study, but carried by cultural tradition rather than being explicitly labeled.

Over the past few years we have undertaken a number of steps to exploit the potential synergy between the two approaches. The TRU framework focuses on five dimensions of classroom practice: the content, opportunities for “productive struggle” and sense making; equitable assess to the content for all students; opportunities for students to develop a sense of agency, ownership of the content, and positive identities as learners; and formative assessment. These dimensions provide a template for observing and commenting upon lessons – a template that has been used to provide the structured formal lesson commentaries that are part of the presentation of public lesson study research lessons. In addition, the TRU dimensions can be seen as generative: during the lesson research and design process they can be used to help structure lesson design. Questions such as “where are we providing opportunities for productive struggle and sense making; where do students have opportunities to take ownership of the content, and build on others’ ideas?” help to flesh out lesson designs and to structure data gathering and analysis. This poster will provide examples and data regarding the implementation of these ideas.

Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Murata, A. (2006). How Should Research Contribute to Instructional Improvement? The Case of Lesson Study. Educational Researcher, 35, (3), 3–14.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2014, November). What makes for powerful classrooms, and how can we support teachers in creating them? Educational Researcher, 43(8), 404-412. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X1455

Takahashi, A. (July 2, 2015) Personal communication.

Authors

• Alan H. Schoenfeld, University of California - Berkeley

• Angela Dosalmas