Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
A review of lesson study in mathematics education from 2015 to 2022: implementation and impact
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
A review of lesson study in mathematics education from 2015 to 2022: implementation and impact
Do you wish to request the book?
A review of lesson study in mathematics education from 2015 to 2022: implementation and impact
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
A review of lesson study in mathematics education from 2015 to 2022: implementation and impact
2024
Overview
Lesson study (LS), a teacher-oriented, student-focused professional development (PD) approach that originated in Japan, has spread globally. However, existing literature on the implementation of LS and its effectiveness provides inconsistent results, suggesting a need to review current research on LS. With a focus on LS in mathematics education, we examined 75 recent LS studies using Lewis’s (ZDM Mathematics Education 48:571–580, 2016.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0792-x
) framework to understand how LS is implemented and the pathways by which LS can impact teaching practice and student learning. We found that new developments have taken place in LS implementation, although challenges persist throughout its process. Regarding the implementation of LS, even though the examined LS studies generally contained four phases (study, plan, teach, and reflect), we found many LS lacked a research question, and the study of teaching materials was sometimes invisible. Across phases, studies shared a consensus that it is most critical to focus on students’ thinking and learning, yet reported challenges in maintaining this focus. In addition, the role of knowledgeable others (KOs) was recognized but inconsistently understood. Collaboration was also widely reported as a challenge. Finally, there were large variations in LS duration, with some LS implementing overly brief cycles. Regarding LS impact, the literature has more frequently reported changes in teachers’ knowledge and beliefs and less frequently in curriculum, learning community/professional norms, teaching practice, and student learning outcomes. The above challenges reflect a need for culturally relevant systemic support for developing sustainable and large-scale LS. We suggest future directions for continued research and practice improvement.
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Subject
