Characteristic of Effective Instruction
Teaching for Understanding
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to provide Iowa educators with a clearer
understanding of what is meant by Teaching for Understanding as a
Characteristic of Effective Instruction within the Iowa Core Curriculum.
Definition
Teaching for Understanding is leading students to engage in a variety of
thought-provoking activities such as explaining, finding evidence and
examples, generalizing, applying, making analogies, and representing the
topic in new ways. Teachers assist students in making connections between
prior knowledge and new knowledge to develop understanding of a concept.
Teachers who teach for understanding 1) make learning a long-term, thinkingcentered process, 2) engage students in assessment for learning processes,
3) support learning with representations conceptual models, 4) teach for
learner differences 5) induct students into the discipline, and 6) teach for
transfer (Perkins, 1993).
Teaching for Understanding is a Characteristic of Effective Instruction and is an
essential component of the Iowa Core Curriculum. According to Wiske (1998), it
shifts instruction from a paradigm of memorizing and practicing to one of
understanding and applying. It is through Teaching for Understanding that students
develop the ability to think and act flexibly with their deep conceptual and procedural
knowledge. It is best accomplished through addressing classroom practices and
supporting teachers as the primary change agent. Teaching for Understanding is
neither a prescriptive nor a linear process, but requires the interweaving of specific
teacher and student actions outlined in this brief.
Attributes of Teaching for Understanding
Critical attributes of Teaching for Understanding include:
 making learning a long term, thinking centered process
 providing for rich ongoing assessment
 supporting learning with powerful representations
 paying heed to developmental factors
 inducting students into the discipline
 teaching for transfer.
9/17/09 TFU 2
Make learning a long-term, thinking-centered process.
In Teaching for Understanding, teaching is less about what the teacher does,
and more about how the teacher engages students in thinking and
demonstrating understanding. Teachers must arrange the environment so
that students can think about ideas they are learning for an extended period of
time and use the knowledge. According to Pellegrino (2006), "[The] key to
expertise is a deep understanding of subject matter that transforms factual
information into 'usable knowledge.'" This performance view focuses on the
ways in which students use what they know to demonstrate their
understanding and operate in the real world. In other words, we know that
students understand when they can carry out a variety of “performances”
concerning a topic, such as explaining, interpreting, analyzing, relating,
comparing, and making analogies (Perkins, 1993, Wiske, 1998).
Engage students in Assessment for Learning processes
In a Teaching for Understanding context, assessment serves to both evaluate
and enhance learning. Assessments are associated with essential concepts
and skill sets and are used to provide feedback to students. They gauge
progress and inform planning (Wiske, 1998). Effective ongoing assessment:
 is a PLANNED process
 is used by both teachers and students
 takes place DURING instruction
 provides assessment-based feedback to both teachers and students.
 helps teachers and students make adjustments that will improve
student achievement
Support learning with representations and conceptual models
Students must develop extensive mental frameworks to organize facts,
concepts, and principles into knowledge and understanding. Representing
information in “conceptual models” that help students apply new ideas and
solve problems can support these frameworks. Technology-assisted learning
tools can provide models of key concepts and simulations to confront
misconceptions. For example, software that helps learners brainstorm,
organize, plan, and create is valuable in helping students to construct their
own representations of key concepts (Sherman & Kurshan, 2004).
Pay heed to developmental factors
Teachers who pay heed to development factors possess a high level of
understanding of the needs of each student and plan purposefully to meet
those needs (McCormick, 1979; and King & Torgeson, 2006). They are not
tied to inflexible notions of what students can and cannot learn at certain ages.
They engage in purposeful planning with regard to goals and analysis of
content that is vital to
student success (Eggen & Kouchak, 1988; Stiggins & DuFour, 2009). New
concepts are delivered to students through multiple means of presentation and
students are allowed to demonstrate understandings and learning in ways that
9/17/09 TFU 3
build on their individual strengths as learners
(Mastropieri, Scruggs, Norland, Berkeley, McDuffie, and Tornquiest, 2006).
Induct students into the discipline
According to Pellegrino (2006), "... curriculum and instruction [should] be
focused on the conceptual organization of knowledge and the teasing out of
'big ideas' in a discipline from the earliest stages of learning onward rather
than an undue emphasis on rote knowledge of facts and procedures."
Grasping what a concept or principle means depends a considerable part on
recognizing how it functions within the discipline. This, in turn, requires
students to develop a sense of how the discipline works as a system of
thought – how to justify, explain, solve problems, and manage inquiry within
the discipline. Teachers must help students learn to master the discourse,
forms of evidence, argument, and proof – to study the discipline as scientists,
historians, or mathematicians know it. Wallace and Louden contend, “the
structure of the discipline should be a powerful consideration when making
decisions about how to teach for understanding” (2003).
Teach for transfer
Our goal for students is to acquire deep conceptual and procedural knowledge
that can be applied in diverse settings. To this end, teachers must explicitly
teach for transfer by helping students make the connections they might not
otherwise make and develop the mental habits of connection-making.
Teachers who are Teaching for Understanding ensure students’ performances
of understanding reach well beyond the obvious and conventional boundaries
of a topic. Students who experience Teaching for Understanding develop deep
conceptual and procedural knowledge that allows them to think and act flexibly
in new and unpredictable situations.
Evidence Base:
Teaching for Understanding evidence base may be derived from a variety of
sources. Grouws and Cebulla (2000) reviewed research around the importance of
teaching for meaning and understanding. Harvard’s Project Zero engaged in a five
year research project designed for researchers and practitioners to collaboratively
develop, test, and refine a pedagogy of understanding. Additional support can also
be found in the research around project-based learning, teaching through problem
solving, and teaching through inquiry since these instructional models include many
of the attributes of Teaching for Understanding
In a review of relevant research by Grouws and Cebulla (2000), they cite a
long history of research, going back to the work of William Brownell in the 1940s, on
the effects of teaching for meaning and understanding in mathematics. Investigations
have consistently shown that an emphasis on teaching for meaning has positive
effects on student learning, including better initial learning, greater retention, and an
increased likelihood that the ideas will be used in new situations. These results have
also been found in studies conducted in high-poverty areas. They also cited research
that suggests that students who develop conceptual understanding early perform
best on procedural knowledge later.
9/17/09 TFU 4
Harvard researchers have also investigated the
results of Teaching for Understanding. The questions that guided their research
included:
 How well did students achieve the understanding goals their teachers set out?
 Did students in some classes develop deeper understandings than others? If
so, how do the classes compare?
 What might account for any differences in student performances within and
across classrooms? (Wiske, 1998)
While the researches did not claim a cause-and-effect relationship between Teaching
for Understanding and student performances, the results from the study suggests
that a number of students in Teaching for Understanding classrooms achieved a
mastery level of understanding.
Three examples of instructional models which incorporate elements of Teaching for
Understanding include project based learning, teaching through problem solving and
inquiry based learning.
 Project based learning. This is an instructional model that incorporates many
of the attributes of teaching for understanding. It involves asking students to
engage in complex tasks that are based on challenging questions or problems
central to the discipline. Students are involved in designing, problem-solving,
decision making, and investigating. They make connections between their
knowledge and skills and the task or project. Projects are designed to
resemble experiences that students could encounter outside of the classroom
or school.
Several studies support the implementation of the project-based learning
model. Barron et al. (1998) developed projects and evaluated students’
performances on tasks linked to these projects for the past several years.
According to the researcher, the significance of the study was that it
demonstrated that a brief Project Based Learning experience can have a
significant impact on students’ problem-solving skills, metacognitive strategies,
and attitudes towards learning.
In a study by Boaler, it describes a longitudinal study of mathematics
instruction conducted in two British secondary schools. The study examined a
closely-matched (not randomly assigned) control population over three years.
On the national examination, three times as many students from the
heterogeneous groups in the project school as those in the tracked groups in
the textbook school attained the highest possible grade (Thomas, 2000).

Teaching through problem solving. This instructional method infuses many of
the attributes of Teaching for Understanding. It asks students to engage in
contextualized, relevant, ill-structured problems and to look for meaningful
solutions. Teaching through problem solving helps students to extend their
thinking and use reasoning skills that are essential if they are to develop a
deep and conceptual understanding of concepts. This instructional method
also stresses the importance of organized thinking and promotes multiple
9/17/09 TFU 5
approaches for finding solutions. As students are
instructed through problem solving, they become confident and learn to work
cooperatively (O’Connell, p. 2). In addition, teaching through problem solving
provides educators with an instructional tool that will engage students and
assist them in making meaningful connections. Educators are empowered to
teach based on the research that fewer concepts should be the focus of
instruction enabling students to learn at greater depth (Moulds, p. 78).
Furthermore, “students can learn new skills and concepts while they are
working out solutions to problems” (Grouws and Cebulla, 2000, p. 15).
Studies have shown that students taught using this approach “generally
exhibited greater conceptual understanding and performed at considerably
higher levels with respect to problem solving” (Stein, Boaler, and Silver, 2003).

Inquiry based learning. Teaching for Understanding attributes can also be
found in teaching through inquiry. A growing pool of research supports the use
of Inquiry-Based Learning with students. In Powerful Learning: What We
Know about Teaching for Understanding, Linda Darling-Hammond (2008)
outlines several principles for supporting inquiry-based instruction. When
students engage problems, they encounter learning goals that are linked to
disciplinary concepts or processes. Projects/problems are complex, openended, and realistic. Often the problems have multiple solutions and ways of
reaching those solutions. Students should receive peer and teacher feedback
and be provided with time to revise their work. These experiences are should
be collaborative in nature and result in presenting solutions to authentic
audiences.
Darling-Hammond cites research that spans K-12 years, college, and graduate
education across disciplines. Two major conclusions emerge. First, small
group inquiry approaches can be extremely powerful learning. In a
comparison of four types of problems presented to individuals or cooperative
teams, researchers found that teams outperformed individuals on all types of
problems and across all ages (Quin, Johnson, and Johnson, 1995). Individual
experimental studies have shown that groups outperform individuals on
learning tasks and further that individuals who work in groups do better on
later individual assessments as well (Barron, 2000b, 2003; O’Donnell &
Dansereau, 1992). Second, the benefits of inquiry become apparent when
assessments require application of knowledge and measure quality of
reasoning. Darling-Hammond advocates for using content to draw students
into situations that demand higher order meaning making in inquiry models.
There is strong research evidence that suggests that Teaching for Understanding has
positive effects on student learning and that there are specific instructional models
that facilitate that learning. The three instructional strategies addressed next are
critical steps in planning the content, designing instruction and embedding the
assessments in instruction.
9/17/09 TFU 6
Planning - The planning stage of instruction is critically important in
Teaching for Understanding.
Teachers:
 Articulate what it means to engage authentically in a discipline. This includes
examining the concepts, methods, and modes of thinking in a discipline and
connecting it to the subject matter content.
 Examine the curriculum (in Iowa this means examining the Essential Concepts
and Skill Sets in the Iowa Core Curriculum), their own priorities, beliefs, and
understandings of the subject matter.
 Determine what is central to the domain or discipline and accessible to
students through a range of entry points. Consider the cultural points of view,
prior knowledge, and personal interests of the students.
 Design tasks that “ramp up” to increasingly sophisticated performances of
understanding and gradually allow for greater student autonomy.
 Design tasks so that over time students ultimately become responsible for
their own learning.
 Incorporate students’ ideas and interests into instruction.
Instructing – Instruction is designed to ensure that students reach
understanding around concepts and skill sets of the Iowa Core Curriculum.
Teachers:
 Engage students in conversations about the meaning of the learning goals.
 Communicate continuously with students about the overarching goals of their
classroom experiences.
 Build on students’ initial explorations by assigning problems or projects that
direct students toward central issues, questions, and understandings.
 Focus students’ attention and support their performances through structured
assignments and ongoing assessments that are often conducted in small
groups.
 Engage students actively in the process of setting standards.
 Provide students with a great deal of choice and responsibility in selecting
project topics and designing their inquiries.
 Exhibit openness to alternative paths to the learning goals.
 Engage students in rich instructional tasks and provide guidance and support
as they develop their own solutions and strategies.
 Promote discourse among students to share their solution strategies and
justify their reasoning.
 Summarize targeted concepts and skills and highlight effective representations
and strategies.
 Extend students' thinking by challenging them to apply their knowledge in new
situations, especially in real-world situations.
 Scaffold instructional tasks so that responsibility for learning is gradually
released to students.
9/17/09 TFU 7
Students:
 Perceive connections between the topic and their own interests and
knowledge.
 Learn from one another’s examples and comments when they work together.
 Engage in work that becomes increasingly complex, open-ended, and selfdirected.
 Extend their thinking by applying their knowledge in new situations.
 Gradually take on more responsibility for their learning and become less
dependent on the teacher.
 Engage in coherent conversations that rely on higher order thinking to promote
collective understanding around essential concepts and skill sets.
Assessment and Evaluation – Assessments are embedded in instruction to
inform teaching, as well as monitor and evaluate student progress.
Teachers:
 Articulate learner progressions to reach learning targets.
 Provide students with clear targets for learning.
 Provide students with models of both high and low quality work.
 Provide descriptive feedback to help student progress toward learning targets.
 Engage students in self and peer assessments to develop metacognitive
thinking and understanding of effective learning tactics.
 Create a classroom climate of collaboration and establish the learning process
as a partnership between teachers and students.
Students:
 Use descriptive feedback to monitor their own learning and make adjustments
to learning tactics.
 Engage in ongoing reflection on the learning process through journals, log
books, small group or whole class discussions, and other activities.
Sources for Teaching for Understanding
Barron, B., Schwartz, J., Vye, D., Moore, Petrosino, A., Zech, L., et al., (1998). Doing with
understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. The Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 7, 271-311.
Boaler, J. (1999). Mathematics for the moment, or the millennium? Education Week, 18(29), 30-31.
Darling-Hammond, L. et al., (2008). Powerful learning: Teaching for understanding. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Eggen, P. & Kauchak, D. (1988). Strategies for teachers: Teaching consent end thinking skills.
Englewood Cliffs, NH: Prentice-Hall.
Grouws, D., & Cebulla, K. (2000) Improving Student Achievement in Mathematics. Geneva,
Switzerland: International Academy of Education.
King, R. & Torgeson, J. (2006). Improving the effectiveness of reading instruction in one elementary
school: A description of the process. In Blaunstein, P. & Lyon, R. (Eds.) (2006). It Doesn’t Have to
be This Way. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, Inc.
Mastropieri, M., Scruggs, T. Norland, J., Berkeley, S., McDuffie, K., Tornquist, E., et al., (2006).
Differentiated curriculum enhancement in inclusive middle school science: Effects on classroom
and high-stakes rests. Journal of Special Education, Fall 2006, 40 (3), 130-137.
McCormick, W. (1979). Teachers can learn more effectively. Educational Leadership, 59-60.
Moulds, Phillip. (Dec. 2003). Rich Tasks; Open-ended Tasks Involve Students in Connecting Their
Learning to the Real World. Instructional Leadership, 75-78.
O’Connell, Susan. (2005). Now I get it: Strategies for building confident and competent
mathematicians, K-6. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
O’Donnell, A. & Dansereau, D. (1992). Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for analyzing
and enhancing academic learning and performance. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.),
Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning. (pp.120-141). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Pellegrino, J. (2006). Commissioned paper on Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment. New Commission
on the Skills of the American Workforce.
Perkins, D., (1993). Teaching for Understanding. American Educator: The Professional Journal of the
American Federation of Teachers; 17(3), 8, 28-35.
Quin, A., Johnson, D., &Johnson, R. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem
solving. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 129-143.
Sherman, T. & Kurshan, B. (2004). Teaching for Understanding. Learning & Leading with
Technology; 32(4), 6-11.
9/17/09 TFU
9
Stein, M., Boaler J., Silver, Edward, A. (2003). Teaching
Mathematics through Problem-Solving: Research Perspectives. In Shoen, H., (Ed.), Teaching
Mathematics, Grades 6-12. pp. 245-256. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Stiggins, R. & DuFour, R. (2009). Maximizing the power of formative assessments. Phi Delta
Kappan, May 2009. 90(9), pp. 640-644.
Thomas, J. (2000). A review of the research on project-based learning. Retrieved June 15, 2009,
from http://www.ri.net/middletown/mef/linksresources/documents/researchreviewPBL_070226.pdf
Wallace, J. & Louden, W. (2003). What we don’t understand about teaching for understanding:
Questions from science education. Journal of Curriculum Studies; 35(5), 545-566.
Wiske, M. (Ed.), (1998). Teaching for Understanding: Linking Research with Practice. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.