Research to Practice Brief
Improving Secondary Education and Transition Services through Research
November 2003 • Vol. 2, Issue 4
Teaching for Understanding
By Christine D. Bremer and Catherine Cobb Morocco
Introduction
Most people would agree that education should be about teaching for
understanding,
but fewer would say that our schools are regularly achieving this goal.
While
traditional lectures, exercises, and drills may help students memorize
facts
and formulas and get the right answers on tests, this time-honored style
of
teaching does not help students achieve the depth of understanding they
need
to understand complex ideas and apply knowledge in new settings or
situations.
Noted Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner, in a 1993 interview, commented
that
studies have shown that many students, even at the college level,
“do
not understand, in the most basic sense of that term. That is, they lack
the
capacity to take knowledge learned in one setting and apply it
appropriately
in a different setting” (Brandt, 1993, ¶ 3).
Gardner supported his statement with examples from science, mathematics,
social
science, and language arts, noting that even students who do well on
tests cannot
readily apply what they have learned. Rather, many high school and
college graduates
cannot answer simple questions about things they have been taught.
Gardner cites
the example of a 1989 video by the Private Universe Project (Nelson,
1999),
taped at a Harvard graduation, in which new graduates and faculty were
asked
why the earth is warmer in summer than in winter. Of the 25 people
responding,
22 answered incorrectly that it was because the earth was closer to the
sun
in the summer. Only three remembered what they had been taught about the
tilt
of the earth on its axis and the resulting change in the angle of the
sun’s
rays.
In recent years, a number of researchers and education reformers have
worked
to define student understanding and to identify strategies that teachers
can
use to help students acquire the skills of understanding. The Research
Institute
to Accelerate Content Learning through High Support for Students with
Disabilities
in Grades 4-81 (REACH), directed by Catherine Cobb Morocco, has extended
this
thinking to address the particular challenges of teaching for
understanding
in inclusive classrooms. These classrooms include students with a range
of abilities
and educate students with disabilities alongside their non-disabled
peers. Morocco
(2001) notes that in order to implement teaching for understanding in
these
classrooms, teachers must learn a new and challenging style of teaching
information
and concepts, while at the same time addressing the widely varying needs
and
learning styles of students in the classroom.
What is Understanding?
We use the words understand and understanding in varied ways. One
dictionary
definition of understand is “to achieve a grasp of the nature,
significance,
or explanation of something.” Definitions of understanding include
“the
capacity to apprehend general relations of particulars,” and
“the
power to make experience intelligible by applying concepts and
categories”
(Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, 2002).
The Teaching for Understanding Project at the Harvard Graduate School of
Education
(Blythe & Perkins, 1998) developed a definition of understanding that
it
calls the performance perspective. In this view, “understanding is
a matter
of being able to do a variety of thought-provoking things with a topic,
such
as explaining, finding evidence in examples, generalizing, applying,
making
analogies, and representing the topic in new ways” (p. 12).
Research Findings
Several research efforts have focused on enhancing students’
understanding
through improved teaching methods. Unfortunately, few of these studies
report
results for students with disabilities. An extensive research effort on
teaching
for understanding in high school classrooms was undertaken by researchers
at
the Harvard Graduate School of Education from 1988 to 1995. During this
time,
researchers collaborated closely with four high school teachers in
Boston-area
schools to address the following questions:
- What topics are worth understanding?
- What must students understand about the topics?
- How can we foster understanding?
- How can we ascertain what students understand? (Wiske, 1998a, p.
3).
The researchers found that each teacher’s experience was unique,
and
that efforts toward teaching for understanding varied in their impact on
student
performance. However, this study showed the promise of teaching for
understanding,
as some of the teachers saw notable improvements in student performance.
These
findings inspired others to explore teaching for understanding with
students
in inclusive classrooms.
Recent research by REACH on teaching for understanding with students
with disabilities
includes studies involving upper elementary classrooms (Baxter, Woodward,
Voorhies,
& Wong, 2002; Cutter, Palincsar, & Magnusson, 2002; Feretti,
MacArthur,
& Okolo, 2001; MacArthur, Ferretti, & Okolo, 2002; Palincsar,
Magnusson,
Collins, & Cutter, 2001; and Woodward, Monroe, & Baxter, 2001)
and seventh
and eighth grade middle school classrooms (Hindin, Morocco, &
Aguilar, 2001;
Morocco, Hindin, Mata-Aguilar, & Clark-Chiarelli, 2001; Morocco &
Hindin,
2002). Morocco (2001) notes four cross-cutting findings of these studies:
- When students with disabilities participate in instruction based on
the
four principles Morocco describes (see below), they show gains
comparable
to those of their normally achieving peers.
- Students with disabilities may benefit from explicit instruction
about ways
of investigating and learning within each domain of knowledge.
- In order to successfully implement these new ways of teaching, it is
important
that teachers have access to ongoing professional development.
- The design of assessments is critically important. Proper assessment
requires
that teachers be well versed in the content domain being studied, and
that
they use assessments that reveal the depth of students’
understanding.
Assessments may include methods like interviews, problem-solving
tutorials,
and journaling.
In each of the REACH studies, teaching for understanding included
aspects of
both curriculum design and delivery of instructional units. Curriculum
unit
design is linked to several guiding principles of instruction for
teaching for
understanding. These principles reflect a convergence of social,
cognitive,
and special education research around how understanding develops. They
include
the following:
1. Authentic tasks
Instruction designed around authentic tasks helps
students become fully engaged in learning and developing an understanding
of
content. Authentic tasks have three key characteristics. First, they
engage
students in constructing knowledge by integrating preexisting knowledge
with
new information. Activities that promote such integration include
formulating
questions, seeking information, and synthesizing information. Second, the
tasks
employed should be tailored to each content area to help students
understand
major ideas. Finally, the tasks should have real-life relevance and
provide
a basis for understanding issues and problems encountered outside of
school.
2. Opportunities to build cognitive strategies
Strategies for upper elementary and middle school students range
from more
basic skills such as organizing materials and correcting spelling to
higher
level skills like editing the content of a class paper for coherence,
breaking
down a math problem into its elements, and writing persuasively. It is
possible
to teach cognitive strategies either through explicit instruction or by
modeling
and encouraging use of these strategies within a subject area.
3. Learning that is socially mediated
Learning and understanding are
enhanced when students are able to interact constructively with one
another
in building and integrating new knowledge. Morocco suggests several ways
that
teachers can support socially mediated learning: (a) ensure shared
ownership
of the learning activity; (b) encourage students to make their thinking
visible
to each other through visual representations or dramatization; and (c)
select
problems and materials that allow for a range of perspectives.
4. Engagement in constructive conversation
Students can best engage
in constructive conversation when they are able to express their own
ideas and
questions and listen to and integrate the perspectives of others into
their
own thinking. Teachers can encourage constructive conversation by
maintaining
a focus on a theme, allowing time for significant discussion, and
responding
thoughtfully to the content of students’ comments in class.
Figure 1 presents a template for the design of a
curriculum
unit that reflects these four principles. A unit is organized around a
set of
overarching goals related to understanding particular ideas and concepts
in
a subject area. These goals might encompass several months of work. The
unit
addresses these large goals through a specific unit topic and
unit-specific
goals related to that topic. The unit includes a set of instructional
opportunities—authentic
tasks that encourage students to actively construct knowledge through
experience.
These activities engage students in learning with one another and
participating
in conversations that encourage them to express ideas, pose questions,
and synthesize
information. Individual support practices make the activities accessible
for
students with a range of abilities and individual learning needs. One
frequent
source of support is instruction in the ways of thinking and learning
(cognitive
strategies) that are important within a content domain.
Note: From "Teaching for understanding with students with
disabilities:
New directions for research on access to the general education
curriculum,"
by C. C. Morocco, 2001, Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 24, p.
11.
Assessments take two forms (see the bottom left of Figure 1): ongoing
assessments
of student understanding that guide the teacher in further modifying the
instruction,
and a culminating assessment activity that enables the student to
demonstrate
his or her understanding of the major skills, strategies, and concepts
emphasized
in the unit. These assessments are themselves authentic tasks that
require students
to express their understanding of important ideas in the unit.
One example of a curriculum unit designed around this structure is a
middle
school social studies unit on the topic of immigration to the United
States
in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (MacArthur, et al., 2002).
Students
were asked to investigate the experience of one of two immigrant groups:
Chinese
or Eastern European Jews. An overarching goal of this and earlier units
was
to help students understand some of the causes and consequences of
immigration.
A unit-specific goal was to study these groups’ ways of life that
gave
rise to their immigration and the conflicts that ensued as a result of
arriving
in the United States. Instructional opportunities included working
together
in heterogeneous groups to study and interpret information about the
immigrant
and nativist viewpoints on immigration (nativists were Americans who
opposed
immigration between 1870 and 1920, often for economic reasons). For the
most
part, materials that students investigated were excerpted from authentic
primary
sources that historians use in their investigations, including diaries,
drawings,
and photographs.
The designers used a pilot test of the unit to identify students’
misconceptions
about the topic and their difficulties with the central concepts and then
revised
the unit for further classroom-based research. Based on the pilot
findings,
the designers constructed a “migration and conflict” schema
to help
students organize the information they gathered about their immigrant
group
and to better grasp the unit’s big ideas. For the migration part of
the
schema, students were asked to determine how the immigrants’ ways
of life
gave impetus to the migration. For the conflict part of the schema,
students
compared and contrasted the immigrants’ and nativists’ ways
of life
to understand why these two groups were in competition. Students found
the schema
useful for comparing and contrasting differing viewpoints about
immigration.
Each lesson provided teachers and students with opportunities for
ongoing assessment.
One culminating assessment strategy was a debate about the desirability
of immigration
in this period of American history. Students were placed in cooperative
teams
to represent the immigrant or nativist viewpoint. To provide all students
with
access to the debate, the unit included a planning sheet that prompted
students
to generate reasons on both sides of the debate and to think of
supporting arguments.
Curriculum units based on this design were selected or developed for
REACH
investigations of inclusive instruction in mathematics, science, and
language
arts, as well as social studies. An essential element of this
curriculum/instructional
model is that teachers build individualized instruction and support for
individuals
and groups of learners into the unit design phase. Providing multiple
instructional
opportunities ensures that students can use a variety of approaches to
understanding
complex ideas. In addition to considering individual support practices
within
this unit design, teachers take into account district goals and align the
unit
to district and state standards.
Authentic and Inclusive Teaching and Learning
The view that active learning promotes understanding is shared by the
Research
Institute on Secondary Education Reform for Youth with Disabilities
(RISER),
which has published a set of criteria and indicators for identifying
schools
that are models of authentic and inclusive teaching and learning. These
criteria
and indicators are based on the work of Newmann, Secada, and Wehlage
(1995)
regarding successful school restructuring. The RISER indicators related
to learning
experiences can be seen as exemplars of the four research-based
principles described
by Morocco (Table 1).
Table 1. Relationship of Authentic and
Inclusive
Teaching and Learning to Principles of Teaching for
Understanding |
|
Principles of Teaching for Understanding (b)
|
Indicators for Authentic and Inclusive Teaching and Learning
(a)
|
Authentic Tasks |
Opportunities to Build
Cognitive
Strategies |
Learning That is Socially
Mediated |
Engagement in Constructive
Conversation |
Students organize, synthesize, interpret, explain, or
evaluate
information in addressing a concept, problem, or issue.
|
|
X |
|
|
Students consider alternative solutions, strategies,
perspectives,
or points of view in addressing a concept, problem, or
issue.
|
|
X |
X |
X |
Students manipulate information and ideas by
synthesizing,
generalizing, explaining, hypothesizing, or arriving at conclusions
that
result in new understandings.
|
|
X |
|
X |
Students show understanding built on ideas, theories,
or
perspectives considered the base knowledge of an academic or
professional
discipline.
|
|
X |
|
|
Students use methods of inquiry, research, or
communication
characteristic of an academic or professional discipline.
|
|
X |
|
|
Students elaborate on their understanding,
explanations,
or conclusions through extended writing, product, or
performance.
|
|
|
X |
X |
Instruction addresses each topic’s central
ideas with
enough thoroughness to explore connections and relationships and to
produce
complex understandings.
|
X |
|
|
|
Students engage in reflective conversation with
teachers
and/or peers in a way that builds a shared understanding of ideas or
topics.
|
|
|
X |
X |
Students address concepts, problems, or issues
similar
to ones they have encountered or are likely to encounter in
non-school settings.
|
X |
|
|
|
Students communicate their knowledge, present a
product
or performance, or take some action for an audience beyond the
teacher,
classroom, and school building.
|
X |
|
X |
|
| Students engage in structured, experiential learning
outside
the school setting, including job/career shadowing, community service
learning,
or formal work-based learning (e.g., cooperative education, youth
apprenticeship). |
X |
|
|
|
Students make connections between knowledge and
either public
problems or personal experiences.
|
X |
|
|
|
a Indicators are
adapted
from Research Institute on Secondary Education Reform (n.d.),
Learning
Experiences section.
b Principles of Teaching for
Understanding
are those developed by Morocco (2001).
|
A Framework for Teaching for Understanding
Researchers at Harvard’s Teaching for Understanding Project
developed
a framework that complements the approaches described above (Wiske,
1998b).
Within this framework, the first step is to identify generative topics
central
to the subject matter, and then to organize curriculum around those
topics.
Generative topics are those that are considered central or important to
understanding
the field; can be related to present-day experiences or events; can
provide
a basis for progressing to the next level of instruction or
understanding; are
intrinsically interesting to the students and teacher; represent
recurring themes
in the field; and can be approached at several levels of complexity.
Examples
of generative topics include:
- Literature (e.g., fantasy, humor, coming-of-age themes, multiple
perspectives);
- Science (e.g., global warming, endangered species, rocketry,
forensics);
and
- History (e.g., exploration, revolution, use of power, impact of
technology
on warfare).
The second step is to develop explicit understanding goals that relate
clearly
to the ideas and questions that form the basis of a content area.
Understanding
goals answer the question, “What do you most want your students to
understand
by the end of their term or their year in your class?” (Wiske, p.
69).
Explicit understanding goals are key to developing appropriate
assessments of
student learning. For example, one of the understanding goals for a
biology
unit with the generative topic “plants and animals” might be:
“Students
will understand how biologists distinguish between plants and
animals.”
Third, students are engaged in performances of understanding in which
they
demonstrate their ability to apply their knowledge and understanding in
new
settings or situations. For a mathematics unit on fractions that has the
understanding
goal, “Students will understand U.S. standard and metric units of
measurement,”
a performance of understanding might include preparing a recipe using
each system;
creating a visual display comparing U.S. standard and metric units of
measurement;
and explaining to the class the advantages and disadvantages of each
measurement
system.
Fourth, there is ongoing assessment of student performances in order to
measure
understanding and provide the information teachers and administrators
need to
improve planning and instruction. Such assessments are most helpful
educationally
when they are frequent, use clear and public criteria related to the
understanding
goals, involve both students and teachers as evaluators, and result in
constructive
suggestions for improvement.
Conclusion
Teaching for understanding promotes in-depth learning over covering a
broad
range of material, and applying knowledge to real-world problems over
performance
on short-answer quizzes. This is most likely to occur in schools that
view themselves
as communities of learners. It can be time consuming, and it requires
teachers
to present material in nontraditional ways that engage active
participation
from students with a wide range of learning styles and learning
abilities. It
requires teachers’ commitment to understanding the challenges
students
face in working with intellectually demanding material and to using or
designing
strategies that make the material accessible to a variety of learners.
Ultimately,
the result is well worth the effort: Students truly learn and are able to
take
that learning with them and use it as they make the transition into adult
life.
References
Baxter, J., Woodward, J., Voorhies, J., & Wong, J. (2002). We talk
about
it, but do they get it? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,
17(3),
173-185.
Blythe, T., & Perkins, D. (1998). Understanding understanding. In T.
Blythe
(Ed.), The teaching for understanding guide (pp. 9-16). San
Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Brandt, R. (1993). On teaching for understanding: A conversation with
Howard
Gardner [Electronic version]. Educational Leadership, 50(7).
Retrieved
June 5, 2002, from
http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/edlead/9304/brandt.html
Cutter, J., Palincsar, A. S., & Magnusson, S. J. (2002). Supporting
inclusion
through case-based vignette conversations. Learning Disabilities
Research
and Practice, 17(3), 186-200.
Feretti, R. P., MacArthur, C. D., & Okolo, C. M. (2001). Teaching
for historical
understanding in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly,
24,
59-71.
Hindin, A., Morocco, C. C., & Aguilar, C. M. (2001). This book lives
in
our school: Teaching middle school students to understand literature.
Remedial
and Special Education, 22, 204-213.
MacArthur, C. A., Ferretti, R. P., & Okolo, C. M. (2002). On
defending
controversial viewpoints: Debates of sixth graders about the desirability
of
early 20th century American immigration. Learning Disabilities
Research
and Practice, 17(3), 160-172.
Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary (2002). [Electronic version].
Retrieved
January 13, 2003, from http://www.m-w.com/home.htm
Morocco, C. C. (2001). Teaching for understanding with students with
disabilities:
New directions for research on access to the general education
curriculum. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 24, 5-13.
Morocco, C. C., Hindin, A., Mata-Aguilar, C., & Clark-Chiarelli, N.
(2001).
Building a deep understanding of literature with middle-grade students
with
learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24,
47-58.
Morocco, C. C., & Hindin, A. (2002). The role of conversation in a
thematic
understanding of literature. Learning Disabilities Research and
Practice,
17(3), 144-159.
Newmann, F. M., Secada, W. G., & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). A guide
to
authentic instruction and assessment: Vision, standards, and
scoring. Madison,
WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.
Nelson, G. D. (1999). Science literacy for all in the 21st century
[Electronic
version]. Educational Leadership, 57(2), 14-17. Retrieved
October 28,
2002 from http://www.project2061.org/newsinfo/research/articles/ascd.htm
Palincsar, A. S., Magnusson, S. J., Collins, K. M., & Cutter, J.
(2001).
Making science accessible to all: Results of a design experiment in
inclusive
classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 15-32.
Research Institute on Secondary Education Reform (n.d.). Criteria
for schools
of authentic and inclusive teaching and learning. Retrieved
September 17,
2002, from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu
/riser/criteria.htm
Wiske, M. S. (1998a). The importance of understanding. In M. S. Wiske
(Ed.),
Teaching for understanding (pp. 1-9). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Wiske, M. S. (1998b). What is teaching for understanding? In M. S. Wiske
(Ed.),
Teaching for understanding (pp. 61-86). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Woodward, J., Monroe, K., & Baxter, J. (2001). Enhancing student
achievement
on performance assessments in mathematics. Learning Disability
Quarterly,
24, 33-46.
Resources
ALPS Teaching for Understanding
Includes detailed information on teaching for understanding, projects
developed
by teachers (elementary through grade eight), curriculum design tools,
and opportunities
to communicate with other educators. Web: http://learnweb.harvard.edu/alp
s/tfu
Jasper Woodbury
Researchers at Vanderbilt University developed this mathematics program
as an
example of a curriculum using authentic tasks. While originally developed
for
upper elementary grades, the curriculum has been successfully used for
high
school students with disabilities. Web: http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/projects/funded/jasper/Jasperhome.html
Teaching for Understanding
David Perkins, co-director of Harvard’s Project Zero from 1972 to
2000,
explains why teaching for understanding is important and provides ideas
for
teachers. Web: http://www.pz.harvard.edu/Research/TfU.htm
WISE, the Web-based Inquiry Science Environment
WISE projects and curricula are designed to complement school coursework
and
meet National Science Education Standards. Each project includes
activities
that are divided into inquiry steps. WISE employs cooperative learning
and has
been used in inclusive settings. Authors Christine D. Bremer and
Catherine Cobb
Morocco are with NCSET and Education Development Center, Inc.,
respectively.
Web: http://wise-demo.berkeley.edu/
^ Top of Page ^
There are no copyright restrictions on this document. However, please cite and credit the source when copying all or part of this material.
This report was supported in whole or in part by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, (Cooperative Agreement No. H326J000005). The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, and no official endorsement by the Department should be inferred.
This publication is available in an alternate format upon request. To request an alternate format or additional copies, contact NCSET at 612.624.2097.
|
