**Schoenfeld, A. H., & Teaching for Robust Understanding Project. (2016). An introduction to the Teaching for Robust Understanding (TRU) framework. University of California, Berkeley, Graduate School of Education. https://truframework.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Introduction-to-TRU-2018-version.pdf
The Teaching for Robust Understanding (TRU) Framework aims to answer the question, “What are the attributes of equitable and robust learning environments in which all students develop into knowledgeable, flexible, and resourceful disciplinary thinkers?” The framework has five dimensions: the content; cognitive demand; equitable access to content; agency, ownership, and identity; and formative assessment. As the authors describe each of these dimensions, they provide a structured approach to designing equitable and effective learning environments that support deep understanding and student engagement.
We recommend you read pages 1-12 to gain an understanding of what Santa Clara Unified School District is striving for in their math classrooms.
**California Department of Education. (2024). Chapter 2: Teaching for equity and engagement. In Mathematics framework for California public schools kindergarten through grade twelve. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/documents/mathfwchapter2.pdf
This chapter from California’s recently adopted mathematics framework outlines five key components of equitable and engaging instruction and connects them to the state standards. The first component highlights the importance of teaching big ideas, which involves focusing on and continually returning to core mathematical concepts. Second, the use of open tasks encourages students to engage in diverse problem-solving approaches. Third, it stresses the need for teaching toward social justice, meaning that all students have equal and equitable opportunities to gain content mastery. Fourth, classrooms should support student talk, questions, and conjectures, which promote curiosity and inquiry. Finally, teachers and students alike should provide reasoning and justification to the math work they do, encouraging logical thinking and shared understanding.
During Session I of our meeting, participants will be assigned one of the five components to read and reflect on. There will be time during the meeting to read your assigned component, but we are recommending the whole chapter as a priority reading so you can gain some familiarity with it prior to the meeting (even if only a quick skim of the five components).
If you would like more information on how the math framework has been revised over time, we recommend this episode from EdSource’s podcast, Education Beat: https://edsource.org/podcast/a-new-way-to-teach-math-in-california
Zwiers, J., Dieckmann, J., Rutherford-Quach, S., Daro, V., Skarin, R., Weiss, S., & Malamut, J. (2017). Principles for the design of mathematics curricula: Promoting language and content development. Understanding Language/Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity. https://ul.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/resource/2021-11/Principles%20for%20the%20Design%20of%20Mathematics%20Curricula_1.pdf.
This reading provides a framework for designing mathematics curricula that support both language and content development, primarily but not exclusively for linguistically diverse students. The authors emphasize the interdependence of building students’ mathematical understanding and language competence, and they challenge traditional assumptions about language learning in mathematics. The authors also introduce Mathematical Language Routines —structured strategies that integrate language development into mathematics instruction. These routines include activities designed to enhance student engagement, understanding, and communication in mathematics.
We recommend reading pages 1-9 for the purposes of our meeting, but you are welcome to read the piece in full.
**This document is a priority reading.