Advertisement

THE COMPLEXITIES OF A LESSON STUDY IN A DUTCH SITUATION: MATHEMATICS TEACHER LEARNING

  • Nellie Verhoef
  • David Tall
  • Fer Coenders
  • Daan van Smaalen
Article

Abstract

This study combines the Japanese lesson study approach and mathematics teachers’ professional development. The first year of a 4-year project in which 3 Dutch secondary school teachers worked cooperatively on introducing making sense of the calculus is reported. The analysis focusses on instrumental and relational student understanding of mathematical concepts and the transition between the conceptual embodiment and the operational symbolism of the calculus. This paper reports on 2 cycles of lesson studies that took place in the first project year, the first cycle focussing on the notion of the derivative (introduced for polynomials) and the second on trigonometry (as the concepts shift from ratios in a right-angled triangle to functions in the calculus). The lesson study cycles resulted in changes in the teachers’ educational goals and instructional strategies in relation to student understanding. However, the teachers’ desire to be good teachers, their perceived need to prepare students for standard examinations and their reluctance to use computers impeded their progress in developing a lesson study approach. The introduction of a Japanese lesson study approach into a Dutch context merits further reflection in the later years of the project.

Key words

lesson study making sense of the calculus student understanding teachers’ professional development 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Ambrose, R., Clement, L., Philipp, R. & Chauvot, J. (2004). Assessing prospective elementary school teachers’ beliefs about mathematics and mathematics learning: Rationale and development of a constructed-response-format beliefs survey. School Science and Mathematics, 104(2), 56–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball, D. L. (1990). The mathematical understanding that prospective teachers bring to teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 90, 499–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball, D. L. (1991). Teaching mathematics for understanding: What do teachers need to know about subject matter? In M. Kennedy (Ed.), Teaching academic subjects to diverse learners (pp. 63–83). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baumert, J. & Kunter, M. (2006). Stichwort: Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 9(4), 469–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blackett, N., & Tall, D. (1991). Gender and the versatile learning of trigonometry using computer software. Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 1, 144–151. Assisi, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  6. Borovik, A. & Gardiner, T. (2007). Mathematical abilities and mathematical skills. Manchester: The University of Manchester, MIMS.Google Scholar
  7. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L. & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  8. Borko, H., Eisenhart, M., Brown, C. A., Underhill, R. G., Jones, D. & Agard, P. C. (1992). Learning to teach hard mathematics: Do novice teachers and their instructors give up too easily? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(3), 194–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Towards a theory of instruction. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  10. Carpenter, T. & Lehrer, R. (1999). Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. In E. Fennema & T. Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding (pp. 19–32). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  11. Cerbin, W. & Kopp, B. (2006). Lesson study as a model for building pedagogical knowledge and improving teaching. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 18(3), 250–257.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, R. B. & Vinner, S. (1986). The notion of limit: Some seemingly unavoidable misconception stages. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 5(3), 281–303.Google Scholar
  13. Desimone, L. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Desimone, L. (2011). A primer on effective professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 92, 68–71.Google Scholar
  15. Fernandez, C. & Yoshida, M. (2004). Lesson study: A Japanese approach to improving mathematics teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Gravemeijer, K. (1994). Developing realistic mathematics education. Utrecht: CD–B Press/Freudenthal Institute.Google Scholar
  17. Hambleton, R. K. & Pitoniak, M. J. (2006). Setting performance standards. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed.). Westport, CT: American Council on Education and Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Hiebert, J. & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371–404). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B. & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L. & Schilling, S. G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 372–400.Google Scholar
  21. Hohenwarter, M., Hohenwarter, J., Kreis, Y. & Lavicza, Z. (2008). Teaching and learning calculus with free dynamic mathematics software GeoGebra. TSG 16: Research and development in the teaching and learning of calculus, ICME 11, Monterrey, Mexico.Google Scholar
  22. Ingaki, T., Terasaki, M. & Matsudaira, N. (Eds.). (1988). The life course of teachers. Tokyo: Tokaidaigaku Shuppankai.Google Scholar
  23. Inglis, M., Mejia-Ramos, J. P. & Simpson, A. (2007). Modelling mathematical argumentation: The importance of qualification. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jaffe, A. & Quinn, F. (1993). Theoretical mathematics: Toward a cultural synthesis of mathematics and theoretical physics. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 29(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson, J. D. & Walker, M. (2011). Trigonometry students’ knowing when to use hand-held CAS technology to make sense of mathematics. Journal of Mathematical Sciences and Mathematics Education, 6(2), 17–33.Google Scholar
  26. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J. & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  27. Krauss, S., Baumert, J. & Blum, W. (2008). Secondary mathematics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and content knowledge: Validation of the COACTIV constructs. ZDM, 40(5), 873–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levine, T. H. & Marcus, A. S. (2010). How the structure and focus of teachers’ collaborative activities facilitate and constrain teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 389–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lewis, C. C. (2002). Lesson study: A handbook of teacher-led instructional change. Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools.Google Scholar
  30. Lewis, C. C., Perry, R. & Murata, A. (2006). How should research contribute to instructional improvement? The case of lesson study. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lewis, C. C. (2009). What is the nature of knowledge development in lesson study? Educational Action Research, 17(1), 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lewis, C. C. & Hurd, J. (2011). Lesson study step by step: How teacher learning communities improve instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  33. Matoba, M., Shibata, Y., Reza, M. & Arani, S. (2007). School-university partnerships: A new recipe for creating professional knowledge in school. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 6(2), 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nakatome, T. (1984). Developing konaikenshu: A comprehensive study of management of Japanese konaikesnhu. Tokyo: Eidell Kenkyousho.Google Scholar
  35. Pérez, A. I., Soto, E. & Serván, M. J. (2010). Participatory action research and the reconstruction of teachers’ practical thinking: Lesson studies and core reflection. An experience in Spain. Educational Action Research, 18(1), 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Puchner, L. D. & Taylor, A. N. (2006). Lesson study, collaboration and teacher efficacy: Stories from two school-based math lesson study groups. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 922–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ross, J. A., Bruce, C. D. & Sibbald, T. (2011). Sequencing computer-assisted learning of transformations of trigonometric functions. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 30(3), 120–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Saito, E., Hawe, P., Hadiprawiroc, S. & Empedhe, S. (2008). Initiating education reform through lesson study at a university in Indonesia. Educational Action Research, 16(3), 391–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2006). What doesn’t work: The challenge and failure of the what works clearinghouse to conduct meaningful reviews of studies of mathematics curricula. Educational Researcher, 35(2), 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sims, L. & Walsh, D. (2009). Lesson study with preservice teachers: Lessons from lessons. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 724–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.Google Scholar
  42. Skemp, R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77, 20–26.Google Scholar
  43. Sowder, J. T. (2007). The mathematical education and development of teachers. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  44. Stepanek, J., Appel, G., Leong, M., Mangan, M. T. & Mitchell, M. (2007). Leading lesson study: A practical guide for teachers and facilitators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  45. Tall, D. O. (2008a). The transition to formal thinking in mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(2), 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tall, D. O. (2008b). Using Japanese lesson study in teaching mathematics. Scottish Mathematical Council Journal, 38, 45–50.Google Scholar
  47. Tall., D.O. (2010). A sensible approach to the calculus. Plenary at The National and International Meeting on the Teaching of Calculus, Puebla, Mexico.Google Scholar
  48. Thurston, W. P. (1990). On proof and progress in mathematics. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 30(2), 161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2000). Mathematics Education in The Netherlands: A guided tour. Freudenthal Institute CD-ROM for ICME9. Utrecht: Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  50. Verhoef, N. C., & Tall, D. O. (2011). Lesson study: The effect on teachers’ professional development. Proceedings of the 35th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 4, 297–304. Turkey: University of Ankara.Google Scholar
  51. Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S. & Richert, A. E. (1987). ‘150 different ways’ of knowing: Representation of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 104–124). London: Cassell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nellie Verhoef
    • 1
  • David Tall
    • 1
  • Fer Coenders
    • 1
  • Daan van Smaalen
    • 1
  1. 1.Warwick UniversityCoventryUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations