Students’ opportunities to learn how to think are embedded in the instructional tasks with which they are invited to engage in the classroom. Prior research has revealed that the selection and use of cognitively demanding tasks does not guarantee high-level student thinking during their enactment. To address this challenge, we designed and implemented a professional development (PD) in which participants analyzed video clips of the enactment of cognitively demanding science tasks. Using transcripts of pre- and post-PD interviews during which participants were asked to respond to specially selected video clips, we analyzed what the participants attended to and how they made sense of what they saw. The findings suggested a change in terms of a growing tendency to attend to teaching as constituted in the interaction of the teacher, students, and task and to adopt an interpretive stance while talking about what was seen in the video clip.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
2.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
3.
BallD. L.CohenD. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In Darling-HammondL.SykesG. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession (pp. 3–32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
4.
BlumenfeldP. C.SolowayE.MarxR. W.KrajcikJ. S.GuzdialM.PalincsarA. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 369–398.
5.
BoalerJ.StaplesM. (2008). Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: The case of Railside School. Teachers’ College Record, 110(3), 608–645.
6.
BorkoH.JacobsJ.EiteljorgE.PittmanM. E. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive discussions in mathematics professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 417–436.
7.
BorkoH.KoellnerK. (2008). Situativity: A theoretical lens for designing and studying programs of professional development. Paper presented at the International Commission on Mathematical Instruction Symposium, Rome.
8.
ChoppinJ. (2011). The impact of professional noticing on teachers’ adaptations of challenging tasks. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 13(3), 175–197.
9.
CohenD. K. (1989). Teaching practice: Plus que ca change. In JacksonP. W. (Ed.), Contributing to educational change: Perspectives on research and practice (pp. 27–84). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
10.
CohenD. K.BallD. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement (CPRE Research Report No. RR-043). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
11.
CohenD. K.BallD. L. (2000). Instructional innovation: Reconsidering the story. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
12.
ColestockA.SherinM. G. (2009). Teachers’ sense-making strategies while watching video of mathematics instruction. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(1), 7–29.
13.
CopelandW. D.BirminghamC.DeMeulleL.D’Emidio-CastonM.NatalD. (1994). Making meaning in classrooms: An investigation of cognitive processes in aspiring teachers, experienced teachers, and their peers. American Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 166–196.
14.
CrespoS. (2000). Seeing more than right and wrong answers: Prospective teachers’ interpretations of students’ mathematical work. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3(2), 155–181.
15.
DoyleW. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53(2), 159.
16.
EricksonF. (2011). On noticing teacher noticing. In SherinM. G.JacobsV. R.PhilippR. A. (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. 17–34). New York, NY: Routledge.
17.
FishmanB.DavisE. (2006). Teacher learning research and the learning sciences. In SawyerR. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 535–550). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
18.
GlaserR.ChiM. T. H. (1988). Overview. In ChiM. T. H.GlaserR.FarrM. J. (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. xv–xxvii). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19.
GoodwinC. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.
20.
HenningsenM.SteinM. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(5), 524–549.
21.
HiebertJ.WearneD. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and students’ learning in second-grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 393–425.
22.
JacobsJ. K.YoshidaM.StiglerJ.FernandezC. (1997). Japanese and American teachers’ evaluations of mathematics lessons: A new technique for exploring beliefs. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 16(1), 7–24.
23.
JacobsV.LambL. C.PhilippR.SchappelleB.BurkeA. (2007). Professional noticing by elementary school teachers of mathematics. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/crmse/STEP/documents/Jacobsetal2007.pdf.
24.
JacobsV. R.LambL. L. C.PhilippR. A. (2010). Professional noticing of children’s mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(2) 169–202.
25.
JacobsV. R.LambL. L. C.PhilippR. A.SchappelleB. P. (2011). Deciding how to respond on the basis of children’s understandings. In SherinM. G.JacobsV. R.PhilippR. A. (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. 17–34). New York, NY: Routledge.
26.
KocY.PekerD.OsmanogluA. (2009). Supporting teacher professional development through online video case study discussions: An assemblage of preservice and inservice teachers and the case teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(8), 1158–1168.
27.
Le FevreD. (2003). Designing video-based multimedia curriculum for teacher learning. Paper presented at the AARE Conference, Auckland, New Zealand. Retrieved from http://www.aare.edu.au/03pap/lef03185.pdf.
28.
LevinD. M. (2008). What secondary science teachers pay attention to in the classroom: Situating teaching in institutional and social systems. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Maryland at College Park.
29.
LevinD.HammerD.ElbyA.CoffeyJ. (2013). Becoming a responsive science teacher: Focusing on student thinking in secondary science. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
30.
LevinD. M.GrantT.HammerD. (2012). Attending and responding to student thinking in science. The American Biology Teacher, 74(3), 158–162.
31.
LevinD. M.HammerD.CoffeyJ. E. (2009). Novice teachers’ attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 142–154.
32.
LevinD. M.RichardsJ. (2011). Learning to attend to the substance of students’ thinking in science. Science Educator, 20(2), 1–11.
33.
MarxR. W.BlumenfeldP. C.KrajcikJ.BlunkM.CrawfordB.KellyB.MeyerK. M. (1994). Enacting project-based science: Experiences of four middle grade teachers. Elementary School Journal, 94, 499–516.
34.
MarxR. W.BlumenfeldP. C.KrajcikJ. S.SolowayE. (1997). Enacting project-based science. The Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 341–358.
35.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
MillerK.ZhouX. (2007). Learning from classroom video: What makes it compelling and what makes it hard. In GoldmanR.PeaR.BarronB.DerryS. J. (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 321–334). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
37.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
38.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core state standards (mathematics). Washington, DC: Author.
39.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
40.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
41.
PutnamR. T.BorkoH. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning?Educational Researcher, 20(1), 4–15.
42.
RothK.GarnierH. (2006). What science teaching looks like: An international perspective. Educational Leadership, 64(4), 16.
43.
RothK. J.DrukerS. L.GarnierH. E.LemmensM.ChenC.KawanakaT. . . . GallimoreR. (2006). Teaching science in five countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study (NCES 2006-011). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
44.
RussR. S.CoffeyJ. E.HammerD.HutchisonP. (2009). Making classroom assessment more accountable to scientific reasoning: A case for attending to mechanistic thinking. Science Education, 93(5), 875–891.
45.
RussR. S.LunaM. J. (2013). Inferring teacher epistemological framing from local patterns in teacher noticing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 284–314.
46.
SanfordJ. P. (1987). Management of science classroom tasks and effects on students’ learning opportunities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(3), 249–265.
47.
SchoenfeldA. H. (2011). On noticing teacher noticing. In SherinM.JacobsV.PhilippR. (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. 223–237). New York, NY: Routledge.
48.
SherinM. G. (2001). Developing a professional vision of classroom events. In WoodT.NelsonB. S.WarfieldJ. (Eds.), Beyond classical pedagogy: Teaching elementary school mathematics (pp. 75–93). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
49.
SherinM. G. (2007). The development of teachers’ professional vision in video clubs. In GoldmanR.PeaR.BarronB.DerryS. J. (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 383–395). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
50.
SherinM. G.HanS. Y. (2004). Teacher learning in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 163–183.
51.
SherinM. G.JacobsV. R.PhilippR. A. (2011). Situating the study of teacher noticing. In SherinM. G.JacobsV. R.PhilippR. A. (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. 3–13). New York, NY: Routledge.
52.
SherinM.G.RussR. S.ColestockA. A. (2011). Accessing mathematics teachers’ in-the-moment noting. In SherinM. G.JacobsV. R.PhilippR. A. (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. 79–94). New York, NY: Routledge.
53.
SherinM. G.van EsE. (2005). Using video to support teachers’ ability to notice classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 475–491.
54.
SherinM. G.van EsE. A. (2009). Effects of video club participation on teachers’ professional vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 20–37.
55.
StarJ. R.LynchK.PerovaN. (2011). Using video to improve preservice mathematics teachers’ abilities to attend to classroom features. . In SherinM. G.JacobsV. R.PhilippR. A. (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. 117–133). New York, NY: Routledge.
56.
StarJ. R.StricklandS. K. (2008). Learning to observe: Using video to improve preservice mathematics teachers’ ability to notice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(2), 107–125.
57.
SteinM. K.GroverB. W.HenningsenM. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455–488.
58.
SteinM. K.KimG. (2009). The role of mathematics curriculum materials in large-scale urban reform: An analysis of demands and opportunities for teacher learning. In RemillardJ.Herbel-EisenmannB.LloydG. (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 37–55). New York, NY: Routledge.
59.
SteinM. K.LaneS. (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to think and reason: An analysis of the relationship between teaching and learning in a reform mathematics project. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2(1), 50–80.
60.
SteinM. K.SmithM. S.HenningsenM. A.SilverE. A. (2000). Implementing standards based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
61.
SteinM. K.SmithM. S.SilverE. A. (1999). The development of professional developers: Learning to assist teachers in new settings in new ways. Harvard Educational Review, 60(3), 237–269.
TalanquerV.TomanekD.NovodvorskyI. (2013). Assessing students’ understanding of inquiry: What do prospective science teachers notice?Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 189–208.
64.
TangX.CoffeyJ. E.ElbyA.LevinD. M. (2010). The scientific method and scientific inquiry: Tensions in teaching and learning. Science Education, 94(1), 29–47.
65.
TarrJ. E.ReysR. E.ReysB. J.ChavezO.ShihJ.OsterlindS. (2008). The impact of middle-grades mathematics curricula and the classroom learning environments on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 247–280.
66.
Tekkumru KisaM.SteinM. K.SchunnC. (2014). A framework for analyzing cognitive demand and content-practices integration: Tasks analysis guide in science. Manuscript submitted for publication.
67.
TharpR. G.GallimoreR. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
68.
TrippT. R.RichP. J. (2012). The influence of video analysis on the process of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(5), 728–739.
69.
van EsE. A. (2011). A framework for learning to notice student thinking. In SherinM. G.JacobsV. R.PhilippR. A. (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. 134–151). New York, NY: Routledge.
70.
van EsE. A.SherinM. G. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers’ interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 571–597.
71.
van EsE. A.SherinM. G. (2006). How different video club designs support teachers in “learning to notice.”Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 22(4), 125.
72.
van EsE.A.SherinM. G. (2008). Mathematics teachers’ “learning to notice” in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 244–276.
73.
van EsE. A.SherinM. G. (2009). The influence of video clubs on teachers’ thinking and practice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13(2), 155–176.
74.
WeissI. R.PasleyJ. D.SmithP. S.BanilowerE. R.HeckD. J. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K–12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.
