{"title":"2015 - 2022年数学教育课堂研究述评:实施与影响","authors":"Meixia Ding, Rongjin Huang, Catherine Pressimone Beckowski, Xiaobao Li, Yeping Li","doi":"10.1007/s11858-023-01538-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":501335,"journal":{"name":"ZDM","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A review of lesson study in mathematics education from 2015 to 2022: implementation and impact\",\"authors\":\"Meixia Ding, Rongjin Huang, Catherine Pressimone Beckowski, Xiaobao Li, Yeping Li\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11858-023-01538-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":501335,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ZDM\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ZDM\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01538-8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ZDM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01538-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
A review of lesson study in mathematics education from 2015 to 2022: implementation and impact
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.