Lesson Study as a Method for Developing Preservice Teachers' Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching

• In Event: 49.088 - Roundtable Session 17
  In Roundtable Session: 49.088-14 - Preservice Teacher Development Through Lesson Study in Two Cultures: Comparative Analysis

Abstract

What teacher needs to know and be able to do in order to teach school mathematics effectively to all students has been investigated by many researchers (Rowland, Huckstep, & Thwaites, 2005, Hill, Ball, & Schilling, 2008). Ball, Bass, Thames and Phelps (2008) place the focus on use of knowledge in and for teaching rather than on the teachers themselves. By using a bottom up approach and starting with the work of teaching they identified tasks that teacher need to do as they teach, and they call this mathematical knowledge for teaching (MKT).

How pre-service teachers best can develop such knowledge is still debated. Although we have some knowledge about how people learn and how teaching matters, we know less about pre-service teachers development processes and how they can learn to teach in ways that support the development and integration of knowledge, skills, values, and the attitudes needed in the twenty-first century (Lampert, 2010).

In this article we describe an attempt to develop pre-service teacher mathematical knowledge for teaching during their field practice using lesson study (Lewis, Perry, & Murata, 2006; Murata & Pothen, 2011). With a focus on tasks of teaching, we ask the questions:

Are there any differences in the tasks of teaching emphasized during field practice in the control group compared to the lesson study intervention group, and can lesson study facilitate learning for pre-service teachers mathematical knowledge for teaching?
We used a time-lagged design experiment, involving: 1) a study of field practice as it naturally occurs (the control group) in the spring of 2012, followed by, 2) an intervention designed on the basis of the results from the first study (spring of 2013).

Two practice groups consisting of four pre-service students were selected both for the control group (in 2012) and the intervention group (in 2013). Semi-structured focus group interviews were conducted both before (pre-) and after (post-) the field practice. Both the pre- and post-FGIs were audio and video recorded. The planning and tutoring—conducted by the field practice teacher—consisted of two classes of teaching by the students, and the debriefing and tutoring afterwards, all of which were also audio and video recorded. The control groups performed their preparation for practice and the field practice teaching as usual, with no intervention.

Video recorded data both for the control group and the intervention group, were analyzed and categorized after dominating task of teaching (Ball et al., 2008). We observed a dominance of activity oriented tasks and tasks focusing on content both in the control group and the intervention group. In the intervention group however, we observed more focus on tasks of teaching focusing on the teaching process and students learning, and it seems that lesson study as method during field practice foster to a higher focus on students learning.

Author

• Arne Jakobsen, University of Stavanger