Japaneseprinciplesmathinstruction Studentteachersjrme v41n5 2010

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education
2010, Vol. 41, No. 5, 438478
Are There Any Places That

Students Use Their Heads?
Principles of High-Quality
Japanese Mathematics Instruction
Douglas L. Corey
Blake E. Peterson
Benjamin Merrill Lewis
Jared Bukarau
Brigham Young University
Previous research gives evidence that Japanese mathematics teachers may have a
more detailed and widely shared theory about how to teach effectively when
compared to their U.S. counterparts (Jacobs & Morita, 2002). This study explores the
conceptions and cultural scripts of a group of Japanese mathematics teachers by
analyzing the conversations between cooperating teachers and student teachers. It
describes 6 principles of high-quality instruction that arose in at least half the conversations we analyzed. Each of these principles is examined in detail. Finally, some
advantages of having a strong, shared conception of high-quality instruction and
focusing on widely applicable instructional principles are presented.
Key words: Cross-cultural studies, Pedagogical knowledge, Preservice teacher education, Teacher education, Teaching practice
In recent decades, Japanese mathematics instruction has been a topic of interest

among mathematics educators. This has largely been due to Japanese students high
scores on international comparative assessments. Researchers have explored both
Japanese teachers instruction and their opportunities for professional development
in an effort to determine what it is about Japanese instruction that results in these
high scores. Researchers have argued that Japanese mathematics instruction is
superior to modal U.S. instruction in quality and that Japanese teachers engagement
in lesson study provides ongoing opportunity to improve their practice and to build
institutional knowledge about effective instruction (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999).
In reporting the TIMSS video study, Stigler and Hiebert (1999) explored what
happens in Japanese junior high school mathematics classrooms and showed that
the Japanese mathematics lessons tended to be higher quality than those of U.S.
and German junior high teachers. Recent research suggests that there is at least one
key cultural component of the Japanese educational system that is fundamental to
their ability to craft and implement high-quality mathematics lessons: a detailed,
widely-shared conception of what constitutes effective mathematics pedagogy
Corey, Peterson, Lewis, and Bukarau
439
(Jacobs & Morita, 2002). In this article we explore the possibility of a Japanese
conception of high-quality instruction by analyzing conversations between 3 cooperating teachers and 3 student teachers in a Japanese junior high school.
BACKGROUND
We view instruction as a system of interacting featureswith the core interactions happening between teachers and students around content (Cohen, Raudenbush,
& Ball, 2003)guided by cultural scripts (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999) and directed
through purposeful choices (Walter & Gerson, 2007). It is not only individual
elements of a classroom or of teaching that determine the learning conditions that
students experience. The interaction of these elements also matters. The core
elements of teaching are the students, the teacher, and the content, which we refer
to as the instructional triangle. The interaction of these core elements is formed by
the knowledge of students and teachers, the culture, the classroom norms, the
societal expectations, the learning materials, and so on.
Human interactions in classrooms are largely performed within cultural scripts
(Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). Within a culture, people have common mental pictures
of what teaching is like, what teachers in a classroom do, and what students do.
These mental pictures are scripts. These cultural scripts, which are often implicit,
guide students and teachers to know what role each is to play in a classroom. But
cultural scripts are social constraints or affordances and only guide, not determine,
actions on the parts of individuals. A variety of actions can be taken within the
realm of established scripts, and an individual may choose to take an action for
which there is no script or which is outside established scripts (Stigler & Hiebert,
1999). One such example occurs when a teacher, who typically models several
examples before giving students an assignment of similar problems, asks students
to solve a problem for which they have not been shown a solution method. Students
may struggle, not only with their mathematical understanding but also with their
understanding of the classroom expectations in this new situation.
Teachers use cultural scripts both when creating lessons and when evaluating the
quality of a lesson. Evaluation of teaching practice does not lie completely within
the realm of cultural scripts because some knowledge, skills, and techniques of
teaching are talked about explicitly, whereas many cultural scripts are implicit and
may be largely hidden from those sharing the same teaching culture. We hypothesize that cultural scripts will have a large influence on a teachers view of effective
instruction and, in turn, will influence what experienced teachers emphasize when
working with novice teachers to prepare lessons.
LITERATURE REVIEW
In the last decade, a few researchers have explored the idea of effective, good, or
high-quality instruction (for this study we use these three adjectives as equivalents)
not based on learning theories or the direct examination of classroom practice but
440
Principles of Japanese Mathematics Instruction
based on examining the points of view of practitioners. These studies have not been
confined to teachers in the United States, but have involved teachers in Australia
(Perry, 2007), Hong Kong (Wong, 2007), mainland China (Wang & Cai, 2007a),
Japan (Whitman & Lai, 1990), and Korea (Pang, 2009). A summary finding of
these studies is that teachers from Hong Kong and mainland China emphasized
coherence, clarity, and mathematical integrity as the basis for effective teaching
(Bryan, Wang, Perry, Wong, & Cai, 2007), whereas U.S. teachers emphasized
student physical engagement, physical materials, student-to-student interaction,
and classroom management (Wilson, Cooney, & Stinson, 2005; Whitman & Lai,
1990).
Three studies have looked specifically at Japanese teachers conceptions of effective mathematics instruction (Jacobs & Morita, 2002; Jacobs, Yoshida, Stigler, &
Fernandez, 1997; Whitman & Lai, 1990). Each of these studies compared Japanese
teachers conceptions of effective mathematics instruction to U.S. teachers conceptions. Whitman and Lai (1990) used a 4-point-scale survey of seventh-, eighth-,
and ninth-grade teachers and found differences in conceptions between U.S. and
Japanese teachers similar to those found by Bryan (2007) and his colleagues
between U.S. teachers and teachers from Hong Kong and mainland China. Although
there were many similarities in the conceptions of the U.S. and Japanese teachers,
U.S. teachers emphasized classroom management and being sensitive to students
needs, whereas Japanese teachers emphasized coherence and clarity in an interesting and lively lesson.
Two studies led by Jacobs used a novel way of exploring teachers ideas about
what constitutes effective mathematics instruction. In Jacobs and Morita (2002),
after teachers independently viewed a videotape of a mathematics class, they were
asked to comment about the instruction and characterize their comments as
strengths or weaknesses. Two mathematics classroom videos were useda U.S.
lesson and a Japanese lesson. Half the teachers from each country watched each
lesson. The comments were coded, categorized, and then organized to show the
common ideal scripts that teachers have for mathematics lessons. Jacobs and
Morita use the idea of scripts as the mental image or schema teachers have for an
ideal lesson. Jacobs and her colleagues had strong evidence that Japanese teachers
have a different script from that of U.S. teachers for an effective lesson. U.S.
teachers showed evidence of two scripts, one for each of the videotaped lessons.
Jacobs and Morita (2002) summarize their findings this way: The findings
suggest that U.S. teachers may have more culturally sanctioned options for teaching
mathematics; however, Japanese teachers may have a more detailed and widely
shared theory about how to teach effectively (p. 154). Although it may be true that
U.S. teachers have a wider variety of accepted mathematics teaching practices or
culturally sanctioned options, the results of the study can also be interpreted as
evidence that U.S. teachers do not have a widely accepted single theory about how
to teach effectively. It could be that the reason for U.S. teachers accepting a variety
of options for teaching mathematics is that their conceptions of effective instruction allow for a higher tolerance for what is good or effective teaching.
441
In addition to showing differences in ideal scripts, Jacobs and Morita (2002)

show other differences between Japanese and U.S. teachers. There was significant
evidence that the conceptions of effective mathematics instruction that the Japanese
teachers in their study have are more refined and more widely shared than the
conceptions of their U.S. counterparts. The Japanese teachers in their study were
more critical than U.S. teachers of both videotaped lessons. The evaluative
comments of these Japanese teachers more strongly agreed with each other than
did the evaluative comments of the U.S. teachers in the study. The results of Jacobs
and Morita (2002) suggest that Japanese teachers may be better able to evaluate
whether a lesson is consistent with the culturally accepted scripts and that their
evaluations may be largely shared by their colleagues.
Although there may be many factors that contribute to Japanese teachers ability
to critically evaluate instruction, the results by Jacobs and Morita suggest that at
least one factor may be a refined, shared conception of what constitutes effective
teaching. What knowledge or principles of instruction are included in Japanese
teachers conception of high-quality instruction? This is the focal question of this
article. We explore Japanese teachers conceptions of high-quality instruction by
analyzing 19 conversations between Japanese student teachers and their cooperating teachers. The conversations are focused on helping the student teacher
improve the lesson plan for the lesson that they soon will be teaching. We believe
that by analyzing these explicit conversations about the quality of a specific lesson,
we can gain insights into the refined, shared conception that Japanese teachers seem
to have about high-quality instruction.
Our interest in understanding Japanese teachers conceptions of instruction is
straightforward: If, as suggested in the literature, Japanese teachers use a particular
script to evaluate teaching (Jacobs & Morita, 2002) and to create high-quality
mathematics lessons (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999) and if we can understand the characteristics of these scripts, then the same scripts may serve as a foundation for
improving mathematics instruction in other countries. The characteristics of the
Japanese teaching scripts might provide valuable insight into what constitutes highquality instruction and how we can better help preservice and in-service teachers
understand how to implement high-quality instruction.
METHOD
This study follows a different methodology from recent explorations of conceptions of good instruction. To study this topic, some researchers have interviewed
teachers (Wilson et al., 2005; Cai, 2007) whereas others have had teachers complete
surveys (Whitman & Lai, 1990) and still others have had teachers analyze videos
of mathematics instruction (Jacobs & Morita, 2002). In this study we chose a
method that we believe provides a different type of insight into teachers conceptions of good instruction and the implicit cultural scripts that they may share. We
analyzed conversations between cooperating teachers and student teachers in Japan.
We explored the conversations for the most prevalent ideas and issues raised by the
442
cooperating teachers and student teachers and refined a coding scheme to identify
the most frequently used and important topics.
Analyzing conversations between cooperating teachers and student teachers has
advantages over interviewing, surveys, and video analysis. First, the open-ended
and unstructured nature of the data allows researchers to explore aspects of instruction that teachers may not make explicit when conveying their conceptions of
high-quality instruction. Second, conversations are about a particular lesson, and
the specifics may provide insights about instruction that are not captured in general
comments or responses. Third, these conversations are a natural part of student
teaching and mentoring, so they provide a venue for seeing not only what conceptions teachers hold but also how they talk about them in their work of teaching and
teacher education.
Data Collection
The structure of student teaching in Japan is different from the typical structure
for student teaching in the United States (Peterson, 2005). In Japan, there is typically a student teaching experience of 3 to 4 weeks at the end of a preservice
teachers junior year, and at many universities there is another student teaching
experience at the beginning of the senior year. In all, preservice teachers spend
about 7 weeks student teaching in these two experiences toward the end of their
program. Because student teaching is not a culminating experience for the teacher
education programs, it can become a context for conversation when students take
other university courses in the final semesters of the program. Japanese teachers
also have a carefully mentored first year of teaching, during which they continue
to learn and grow. This is why the duration of Japanese student teaching is shorter
than what is typical in the United States. Our study focused on the student teaching
that took place at a junior high school affiliated with a university in Southern Japan.
There were 7 mathematics student teachers who worked with 3 mathematics cooperating teachers for 4 weeks in the month of September. They spent their time
planning, observing, and teaching lessons at the school of 480 students (160
students in each of grades 7 through 9).
Each of the 7 student teachers at the school taught a total of three lessons during
his or her 4-week student teaching experience. Each student teacher taught one
lesson at each grade level7, 8, and 9and one lesson with each of the 3 cooperating teachers. At the beginning of student teaching, all 7 student teachers were
given the teaching schedules of the cooperating teachers and negotiated among
themselves when they would teach with each of the 3 cooperating teachers.
Because the student teachers teach relatively few lessons compared to their U.S.
counterparts, they spend more time preparing each lesson. They met with their
cooperating teacher three or four times to review the lesson plan and discuss the
upcoming lesson. These meetings usually lasted approximately 30 minutes.
Between meetings, the student teacher would revise the lesson plan to address the
concerns of the cooperating teacher.
443
The three cooperating teachers are named1 Kimura Sensei (41-year-old male),
Ueno Sensei (38-year-old male), and Sasaki Sensei (33-year-old female). Each had
been teaching junior high school mathematics for 9 to 18 years. Sasaki Sensei had
a masters degree and Ueno Sensei and Kimura Sensei had bachelors degrees. The
cooperating teachers will be referred to as CT Kimura, CT Ueno, and CT Sasaki.
Because there was only one researcher gathering data and because of the possibility that two student teachers could be meeting with two different cooperating
teachers at the same time, the student teachers had to be chosen to eliminate this
potential conflict so that all conversations and lessons could be recorded. This was
done by selecting the 3 student teachers who were all scheduled to teach their first
lesson with CT Sasaki, their second lesson with CT Kimura, and their last lesson
with CT Ueno. These 3 student teachers, ST Akihiko, ST Tomoko, and ST Motori,
were in the middle of their junior year of college and were about 20 years old. ST
Akihiko and ST Motori are male, and ST Tomoko is female.
The student teaching experience is centered on carefully planning, teaching, and
reflecting upon these three lessons, in addition to observing and reflecting upon
the lessons taught by their peers. This means that each lesson taught by a student
teacher is observed by 36 other student teachers. At the end of the day, the student
teacher who taught the lesson, the peers who observed the lesson, and the cooperating teacher whose class was taught participated in a debriefing about the lesson
called a hanseikai, or reflection meeting.
Our data include four main components: videotapes of the prelesson conversations between student teacher and cooperating teacher, videotapes of each lesson
taught by a student teacher, videotapes of the postlesson debriefing meetings, and
documents that were part of this process (lesson plans, worksheets, etc.). Videotaped
conversations were transcribed in Japanese and then translated into English. For
this study the main data source consisted of the transcripts of the prelesson conversations. The remaining data were viewed as a context to understand the data that
were analyzed in detail. Sometimes the lesson or the reflection meetings were
viewed to better understand comments made in the prelesson discussions.
Data Analysis
Initial data analysis entailed reading transcripts of the lessons and noting ideas
and themes about high-quality mathematics instruction. To help us decide whether
comments from STs or CTs were instructional in nature, we used the following
criterion, which stems from the instructional triangle that is part of our theoretical
framework: comments focused on issues related to the interaction of students and
teachers around content. To make inferences about the quality of instruction we
used the following sources of evidence:

1. Statements or suggestions from the CTs about what STs should or should not
do during the lesson.
1 All
participants names are pseudonyms.
444
2. Frequent topics or similar questions raised within or across conversations.

3. P
atterns of questioning by the CT that could be used to infer how a certain
aspect of the lesson would improve or distract from the quality of the lesson.
4. Concluding statements by CTs to end the conversation on a particular topic
or issue. These were often explicit statements that fell into the first category,
in which CTs would give counsel on what should or should not be done.
Many of the quotes that we share come from categories 1 and 4. The nature of
the conversations generally involved a substantial amount of questioning and
comments by both the CTs and the STs as the CT sought to understand the goals
of the lessons and purposes of the tasks. When a CT seemed to understand an issue
with the lesson, such as how the task was going to be used to accomplish a goal of
the lesson or exactly how students were going to be working on the task, he or she
would often make statements that, to us, seemed strong and insightful. For brevity,
in this article we do not report back-and-forth conversation but rather focus on the
culminating statements that captured the focus of the conversations.
The analysis of our data included the use of the process of open coding (Strauss
& Corbin, 1998), in which we developed seven categories of codes, each with a set
of subcodes. Names of the seven codes and 20 subcodes and their descriptions
appear in Table 1 (pp. 446447). Illustrative examples of the codes drawn from the
data are found in Appendix A. The final coding scheme was the result of three major
revisions using a constant comparative method. Axial coding was used to classify
subcodes into seven categories. All coding was done by two research assistants that
had undergone more than 1 year of training on the project to develop their coding
skills as well as their background in research methodology and international
comparisons of mathematics instruction. One of the research assistants speaks
fluent Japanese and lived in Japan for 2 years. The coding and coding process was
carefully overseen by the lead author through weekly meetings for almost 2 years.
The coding scheme was revised until adequate inter-rater reliability (80%) for
subcodes was achieved. Each subcode was marked as present or not-present in a
conversation. Because of this binary coding, we used the percentage of agreement
between coders as the measure of inter-rater reliability. Once the two research
assistants were coding the same conversation with inter-rater reliability above 80%
(the actual reliability was 83%) the remaining conversations were coded by one of
the two research assistants.
For this article, we determined that a conversation makes a natural unit of analysis. These conversations enabled the CTs and the STs to discuss and come to some
resolution about any aspect of the lesson. These extensive conversations typically
included the CTs complete analysis of the student teachers lesson plan. We
assumed that the most important aspects of instruction for the Japanese teachers in
our study would be raised somewhere in these conversations.
A conversation is a larger unit of analysis than what is used in many qualitative
studies that analyze dialogue. Because the purpose of our study is to understand
the general nature or characteristics of Japanese teachers conceptions of high-
445
quality mathematics instruction, we chose a unit of analysis that allowed us to

identify the general principles that were characterized in an entire conversation.
This unit size also permitted us to see how prevalent topics arose across lessons
and conversations.
The larger the unit of analysis, the greater the chance of one of our subcodes
appearing therein. This could produce deceiving results if a high tolerance were
used for indicating the presence of a subcode. In coding these conversations,
marking a code as present indicated an explicit statement about the code topic or
that the code topic was central to the discussion. As explained in the Results section,
an analysis of four prelesson conversations showed that 59% of the transcript text,
as measured by word count, focused on at least one of the topics represented in our
coding protocol.
There were a total of 27 one-on-one conversations between cooperating teachers
and student teachers in preparation for eight lessons. For each lesson, the ST usually
met with the CT about three times to review and discuss the lesson plan. Although
each of the three student teachers taught three lessons, one of the lessons was
organized in lesson study style, in which all 7 student teachers participated in the
planning. We did not code the conversations for this lesson because of the substantial difference in format.
Most of these conversations lasted about 30 minutes, but several of them were
extremely short. These often included short follow-ups from the cooperating
teacher just before the student teacher taught the lesson to make sure that the issues
raised in the previous meeting had been addressed. Because of the nature of these
smaller meetings, we have omitted them from the analysis. The eight omitted
conversations only comprise about 9% of the transcribed data as measured by the
percentage of transcribed pages, leaving 19 conversations for analysis.
When we share examples from our data we generally have selected examples
from conversations about one particular lesson. This provides a common context
a lesson on introducing the idea of variablefor understanding the principles we
describe. Some of the illustrative examples were excerpted from conversations with
other cooperating teachers as well.
RESULTS
We begin illustrating our results by showing the distribution of categories across
the 19 conversations. Our open-coding process produced seven categories of codes
with 20 subcodes. The seven categories of codes and their occurrence across the
19 conversations are found in Table 2. A table entry of 1 indicates that at least one
subcode in the category was present and a 0 indicates that no subcodes were present.
The table shows the prevalence of these codes, particularly the first three codes,
but each of the categories was represented in at least half of all prelesson conversations. The table also shows that each student teacher had at least two opportunities
to discuss the ideas represented by these categories and that they discussed each of
these ideas with at least two different cooperating teachers.
446
Table 1
Names and Descriptions of Codes
Code: Subcode
Description
Lesson preparation
Preparation: Tasks/
questions
1. Preparing specific questions about mathematics problems

or tasks for students. This might include discussing exact
wording, particular numbers to use in an example, which
types of problems to use, or modifications to the question/task/activity.
Preparation: Handling
student responses
2. Any discussion or planning on how to handle student

responses to questions, alternative solution methods or
strategies raised by students, or potential points where the
students may struggle.
Preparation:
Conjecturing student
responses
3. Specific occurrence where the cooperating teacher or

student teacher talked about how students may respond to
a question/task or how students may think about a question/task.
Preparation: Lesson
plans
4. Any explicit discussion or comments about the use and

purpose of lesson plans.
Lesson flow
Lesson flow: Mention
1. Any explicit mention of flow.
Lesson flow: Lesson

logic
2. Teachers summarizing the flow of the mathematical ideas

of the lesson or justifying the logic of the lesson structure.
Lesson flow: Crucial

moments
3. Discussion of when and how to ask important questions

(like a launch question or a thinking question) or when
and how to set up crucial mathematical moments.
Lesson flow:
Transitions
4. When to transition from different parts of the lesson or

how to perform these transitions (such as launch to
explore or sharing solutions to summary).
Lesson flow:
Mathematical need
5. Creating an intellectual need in the students for the mathematics or making the mathematics lively and/or motivating. (M1)
Lesson flow: Time

allocation
6. Discussions about time allocation. How many minutes or

for how long should certain activities be held?
Student intellectual engagement and student thinking

Student intellectual
engagement
1. Discussion about getting students to think about, to

struggle with, or to engage in the mathematics during the
lesson.
Important mathematics
Mathematics:
Not just fun
1. Discussion of activities that focus on the mathematics as

opposed to just being fun or entertaining (explicit
mention or obvious use only). (F5)
447
Mathematics:
Appropriateness
2. Mathematics that is appropriate for this lesson vs. inappropriate mathematics. (G2)
Mathematics: Context
3. Mathematics and context. (Only put this code if they are

discussing both the mathematics and the role/use of the
contextnot just talking in the language of the context,
like the units, for example).
Lesson and unit goals
Goals: Wording and

appropriateness
1. Discussion about the wording and appropriateness of

goal statements. This code is restricted to explicit work
on the wording of goal statements, the learning objective,
or the appropriateness of the goal statement/objective.
(M2)
Goals: Guiding lesson

development
2. Explicitly refer to the goal when discussing or crafting

the lesson. For example, to show or justify how an
activity does not fit or how it should be modified to
better fit the goal.
Place of lesson in unit/larger context
Unityear: Unit
placement
1. Discussing the placement of the lesson in the unit.
Unityear: Unit mathematical connections
2. Discussion of the relationship of the mathematics to other

adjoining lessons or other lessons in the unit.
Unityear: Between
units/years
3. Discussion of how this lesson builds toward larger goals

(such as unit goals or year goals, etc.) or of connections
across units/years
Adapting instruction for students
Adapting instruction
for students
1. Discussion of adapting instruction or making choices

about how to adapt instruction to different kinds of
students.
An important question is not answered by the results in Table 2: To what extent

are these categories the focal topics of the conversations? It is possible that these
ideas are raised in conversations, but as a whole, they capture very little of the
student teacher and cooperating teacher dialogue. We performed a detailed analysis
of four of the conversations wherein we selected all passages from the four conversations that fell into one of these categories. The passages were selected only if
they were candidate passages for illustrating the topics in a report of the results.
The number of words in the selected passages constituted 59% of all words in the
transcripts of the four conversations. This provides evidence that the seven categories of codes capture a substantial portion of the topics discussed in these prelesson
conversations.
We have organized and summarized the conception of high-quality instruction
of these Japanese teachers in the form of six principles. These six principles correspond to the seven categories of codes, except for one principle that combines two
categories of codes: student intellectual engagement and student thinking is
ST A & CT S,
Day 1
ST A & CT S,
Day 2
ST A & CT S,
Day 3
ST A & CT S,
Day 5
ST A & CT K,
Day 1
ST M & CT S,
Day 1
ST M & CT S,
Day 2
ST M & CT S,
Day 3
Conversation
Student
intellectual
engagement
and student
thinking
Lesson flow
Lesson
preparation
Important
mathematics
Code categories
Table 2
Distribution of Code Categories Across 19 Prelesson Conversations
Lesson and unit

goals
Place of lesson
in unit/larger
context
Adapting
instruction for
students
448
19
ST T & CT U,
Day 1
TOTAL
ST T & CT S,
Day 3
ST T & CT S,
Day 2
ST T & CT K,
Day 1
ST T & CT S,
Day 1
ST M & CT
U, Day 1
ST M & CT
U, Day 3
ST M & CT
K, Day 3
ST M & CT
K, Day 2
ST M & CT
U, Day 2
ST M & CT S,
Day 4
19
18
Table 2 (continued)
Distribution of Code Categories Across 19 Prelesson Conversations
14
14
10
10
449
450
combined with important mathematics. One of the principles refers to lesson plans
and is different in nature from the other five principles. Lesson plans are admittedly
less about instruction and more about what teachers need to prepare to teach a
lesson well, but because of their importance in teaching a good lesson we have
included the principle related to lesson plans.
We address the six principles in separate sections, each of which begins with a
one- or two-sentence statement of the principle. We explain each principle with
highlights from our data as well as summaries of particular codes when we considered them to be relevant. Instead of reserving our discussion of the results until the
end of the article, we discuss several points after elaborating each principle. The
final discussion section is reserved for overarching issues.
The Intellectual Engagement Principle: High-quality mathematics instruction
intellectually engages students with important mathematics. This principle appears
to be the most important feature of a high-quality mathematics lesson. This was a
topic in every one of the 19 major conversations between CTs and STs. Only one
other principle was addressed this frequently. The five other principles of highquality mathematics instruction are all closely tied to this central principle of
intellectual engagement.
It was clear from the data that engaging students intellectually was a primary
goal. An excerpt from a conversation between ST Motori and CT Ueno illustrates
this. This is their first conversation about the lesson, so the CT is examining the
lesson plan for the first time. The goal of this lesson is to help students understand
the meaning of variables and notice the usefulness of variables for writing general
expressions. ST Motori was planning to use several questions related to prices of
items at a Japanese noodle restaurant. For example, the first question was If each
egg costs 30 yen, then how much will one egg cost? How much will two eggs cost?
How much will three eggs cost? Eventually ST Motori will ask the question How
much will x number of eggs cost? The purpose of this question was to help the
students realize that they could use a variable, in this case, x, to represent the
unknown number of eggs.
Another question was If a tempura shrimp costs 100 yen, how much will it be
if you buy three tempura shrimp? If a tempura shrimp costs 120 yen, how much
will it be if you buy three tempura shrimp? Again, ST Motori will lead the students
into using variables by asking If a tempura shrimp costs a yen, how much will
it be if you buy three tempura shrimp? The purpose of this question was to help
students realize that they could use a variable, in this case, a, to represent the
unknown price of a tempura shrimp.
The goal of the lesson was that, by its conclusion, students would write expressions using different letters as variables and interpret expressions with variables.
CT Uenos reference to different parts of the lesson refers to the different questions
that ST Motori was planning to use through the lesson.
Near the beginning of the conversation, ST Motori is concerned about having
too much time at the end of the lesson. CT Ueno changes the topic by responding:
451
CT Ueno: I want you to think about this. Are there any places that students use their heads?
ST Motori: (after a short pause) There is no such place. Nothing at all.
CT Ueno: You are going to get to this point in the lesson, right? Students wont use their
head at all. I dont know what your plan in this part of the lesson is, but they
wont use their heads here either. This part only requires them to fill in the blank.
I dont know if you really want to do that yet. You didnt plan to stimulate
students thinking process. So it will become a shallow lesson. Do you think
this [problem] will make students think?
ST Motori: No, I dont think this will make them think.
CT Ueno: What you are planning is just to kill the time. If the students were told to mark
the corrections as a group, they wont know what to do because the only difference is that variables are replaced by different characters. Some students may
use a or m, and others may use x. I think it is meaningless.
The CT asks a simple question Are there any places that students use their
heads? This one question summarizes this first principle well, because if the
answer is no, then it is highly unlikely that it would be a good lesson. The candid
question and comments by the CT may be a teaching strategy to teach the importance of getting students to think about the mathematics during every lesson.
Along with emphasizing the intellectual engagement of the students, the conversations focused on engaging the students with important mathematics. This point
is also raised in the preceding dialogue. Not only are students not using their heads
in the activity, the CT views the activity as meaningless. One of the subcodes for
this principle also illustrates the point that the mathematics of the lesson must meet
a high standard. This particular subcode marked instances in which the teachers
discussed the issue of fun, entertaining, or interesting activities compared to important mathematical activities. This topic arose in 6 of the 19 conversations. The
examples seemed to emphasize that the mathematics must never be sacrificed for
a fun or interesting activity. This is not to say that these 3 Japanese teachers do not
try to make their lesson fun and interesting, in fact, later we will establish that they
work very hard to do just that. However, it was clear that high-quality mathematics
requires mathematical work of a certain standard, even if it was not as fun or interesting as other possible activities.
One particular example in which this issue arose occurred in the interaction
between ST Motori and CT Sasaki. ST Motori wanted to use playing cards in the
lesson he was going to teach because he saw them used in another class, and the
students had fun with them. The lesson was for a ninth-grade class on setting up
and solving second-degree equations. Because he saw a seventh-grade class use
playing cards to set up linear equations, he thought he could use them for his lesson.
ST Motori was planning to begin the lesson using a game in which he holds up
a card that he can see but the students cannot see. He would then give hints, in the
form of equations, about what the value of the card is. For example, with a number
9 card, he might give the hint, Two is left if the number is subtracted by seven.
He then would hold up another card and give another hint that would require the
students to solve a first-degree equation. Then, he would hold up another card and
452
give the hint, It becomes eight if the squared number is subtracted by one. This
hint requires students to solve a second-degree equation. ST Motori would then
hold up another card and give a hint that would require students to solve a seconddegree equation. After ST Motori explains this to CT Sasaki, the following episode
takes place:
CT Sasaki: You said the seventh-grade kids had fun. How would you explain why the
seventh-grade students had fun with playing cards?
ST Motori: Because they like the sense of win or lose, just like a game?
CT Sasaki: Okay, so they felt they could play with the sense of game just like playing with
friends. Meanwhile, they can learn math principles from it, and it requires
students to develop their thoughts. For instance, students draw black and red
cards and they can add or subtract. If they are studying in the unit of positive
and negative numbers, they will have fun with it because they use their brain,
and playing cards will stimulate their intellectual curiosity. But I doubt that
using playing cards in your lesson would stimulate intellectual curiosity.
ST Motori: Probably not . . .
CT Sasaki: Absolutely not. In addition, kids would probably think, I already understand
that, and why in the world is this teacher teaching it?
ST Motori: Yes, you are right. They will think like that.
Our data offer clear evidence that these 3 Japanese mathematics teachers want
students to be engaged in the lesson. Research on U.S. teachers conceptions of good
instruction suggests the same thing: Teachers believe that good teaching engages
students (Wilson et al., 2005; Wang & Cai, 2007b). The emphasis by these 3 Japanese
teachers seems to focus on intellectual engagement as opposed to just physical
engagement or on-task behavior. This emphasis on intellectual engagement may be
an important element in establishing the quality of Japanese mathematics instruction.
The Goal Principle: An ideal lesson is guided by an explicit and specific set of
goals that address student motivation, student performance, and student understanding. There are two aspects of goal statements that we saw emerge from the
data. First, each lesson has a set of goals, not just a single goal, and the set of goals
focuses on similar aspects of learning. The second is the use of goal statements in
guiding decisions made by teachers.
Each Japanese lesson plan in our study contains goals for both the unit and the
lesson. In our data set there were a total of 29 unit goals and 18 lesson goals. These
47 goal statements contained some striking similarities across lesson plans. We
later found that these similarities were not coincidental but were aligned with four
areas of learning recommended by the Japanese Ministry of Education. The
Japanese national course of study recommended tracking student progress in four
areas of learning: (a) interest, motives and attitudes, (b) students thinking, (c)
knowledge and understanding, and (d) skills and procedures (Schmidt et al., 1996,
p. 151). All 47 goal statements contained elements of one or more of these types.
Each lesson usually contained goal statements that could be connected to at least
three of these goal types.
453
One interesting aspect of the lesson goals in these Japanese lesson plans is that
in almost every lesson there was at least one goal focused on what students should
understand and another focused on what students should be able to do. What
students understand and what students do (skills and procedures) are often dichotomized in U.S. discussions about the direction or problems of mathematics education (Star, 2005). Recent thinking in the United States emphasizes that both procedural skills and conceptual understanding, as well as other capacities, are needed
for students to learn mathematics successfully (e.g., National Research Council,
2001). In fact, the four areas of learning put forth by the Japanese Ministry of
Education and the strands of mathematical proficiency from the NRC report have
substantial overlap.
Goal statements functioned as guides for a teachers decisions about the lesson.
In the conversations in the data set, we found that 14 of the 19 conversations explicitly referred to the goal statement when making decisions about the lesson.
Although each example sheds light on how fundamental goals are to these Japanese
teachers perspective on teaching, we are limited here to showing a few examples
from the conversation between ST Motori and CT Ueno.
In the first example, they are discussing the task that ST Motori has created about
a group of friends placing an order at a noodle shop. CT Ueno helps ST Motori
realize there are other problems that would better align his lesson with his goal.
CT Ueno: If your aim is to understand the meanings of terms and expressions, and you
have already planned to do that as a goal, you should start teaching from a
different direction. I think there is another way of doing it. Okay, I will give you
a problem to express with variables. For example, suppose there is a rectangle.
How can you express the area of a rectangle with variables? How can you
express the perimeter of a rectangle? Your purpose is to make it so students can
express with variables, right?
ST Motori: Right.
As a result of this conversation, ST Motori adjusted this question so it would fit

his goal. In the end, he abandoned this question and used a problem context
different from the restaurant and perimeterthat would help students understand
the meanings of terms and expressions with variables.
Another example from this lesson shows the role of the goal statements in decisions regarding time allocation. ST Motori was planning to begin the lesson on the
introduction of variable by having students answer specific questions such as If
each egg is 30 yen, how much would three eggs cost? or If a tempura shrimp
costs 120 yen how much would three tempura shrimp cost? ST Motori was planning to spend 25 minutes of the lesson asking questions such as these that did not
require students to use variables. CT Ueno helps him realize that maybe this is not
the best use of class time.
CT Ueno: So your goal is to teach the necessity of thinking about and using variables.
Students are interested in variables so they can set up expressions by using
variables.
454
ST Motori: Yes.
CT Ueno: If these are your goals, is it important to do this [task] and spend 25 minutes
on [it]?
ST Motori: No, its not.
As a result of this conversation, ST Motori changed this activity so it would not

only take less time but also be more focused on his stated goals.
In summary, our analysis of 47 goal statements showed that there are several
different types of goals that are written in the lesson plans of these 3 Japanese
teachers. As they teach, there are goals that focus on the needs of the students as
well as on the specified curriculum. Other goals focus on procedures and skill as
well as understanding mathematical ideas, often in the same lesson. We found that
all these goal statements become an integral part of the teachers instructional decision making.
The Flow Principle: The flow of an ideal lesson is built from a question or a
problem that students view as being problematic. As students intellectually engage
in the problem, building on their previous knowledge, the students are supported
in learning the lessons big mathematical idea. In our analysis of the data, we found
frequent references (13 of the 19 conversations) to a concept that the Japanese call
the flow of a lesson. Of our six principles, flow is probably the most difficult to
understand, primarily because it involves so many aspects of the lesson. At one
level, the flow deals with time allotment to different segments of the lesson and
transitions between these sections. But flow is much more than keeping a lesson
on pace and transitioning smoothly. A deeper level of flow deals with the growth
or development of the mathematical idea(s) from closely related ideas students
already know and understand. Usually, this growth is facilitated by the careful
selection of a problem or question for the students to solve or think about. This is
the level of flow typically discussed in the prelesson conversations.
The selection of an appropriate problem, task, or activity is critical to good
pedagogical and mathematical flow. The question should build on students
previous knowledge. This is why the cooperating teachers frequently encouraged
the student teachers to review the previous years curriculum to help them create
questions that would build on their students previous knowledge (ST Motori & CT
Ueno, preconversation). Another essential attribute of the question is that it should
naturally lead students to the big idea of the lesson. For example, a cooperating
teacher, CT Ueno, is helping a student teacher, ST Motori, recognize that the
problem he has created will not naturally lead to the intended mathematical concept.
In the lesson plan that ST Motori has written, he refers to an abstract use of variables, a 3 b, and then poses a concreteand yet complicateduse of a 3 b. Once
again, the problem is about a group of four friends each buying a different type of
noodle bowl with different toppings (shrimp or egg). Each topping costs a different
amount per item and each person gets a different number of each topping. Thus, b
was assigned as the number of pieces of a certain topping and a was the cost of
455
each topping. The students were to determine the overall price for all four friends.
CT Ueno questioned the flow of ideas in the lesson.
CT Ueno: O
ne thing you should do is to think about the flow of the human thinking
process. If you want to find how much the price will be, you should follow
this path and develop it. . . .
ST Motori: Well, the reason why I decided to do this is because I wanted them to understand
a good attribute of variables. Because this part [of the lesson] uses expressions
in words, its difficult to understand. . . .
CT Ueno: I think this is hard. You go there and come back and go there and come back.
[CT Ueno is pointing to the lesson plan and referring to the place where ST
Motori has an abstract use of variables, a 3 b, and then moves to the problem
described above and then back to the abstract discussion again.] If you want to
do that [the problem] in your mind, you should start there.
The Japanese CTs in our study use a phrase that is translated as natural path or
natural way in reference to the way the lesson would help students think about the
mathematics. The naturalness has to do with what seems natural to the student, not
necessarily the logical way that mathematics is structured in textbooks or organized
by the discipline of mathematics.
Another characteristic of the flow of a lesson is using student ideas and student
thinking. Not only should the problem lend itself to the current mathematical
thinking of the student, the teacher must be prepared and willing to use students
ideas in the progression of the unit. This is one reason that 17 of the 19 conversations included anticipating student thinking.
In the conversations between cooperating teachers and student teachers, many
times one of the teachers summarized the flow of the lesson in a brief statement of
a few sentences, similar to how mathematicians summarize the logic of proofs or
researchers summarize arguments in research papers. We call these statements the
logic of the lesson. For example, in the conversation between ST Motori and CT
Ueno, ST Motori describes the logic of the lesson in the following manner.
If I talk about x, a, or other variables all of sudden, most students would not understand
what I meant unless they go to a juku [after-school private tutoring]. Therefore, I
initially use specific values. In other words, I will talk about multiplication problems
first. For example, I will say that I want eggs but dont know how many I want. Then
set a general expression to find a number of eggs. I will write like this: 30 3 ( ). And
explain this expression in words. And say its very troublesome if I explain every
expression in words. And then, I will talk about variable.
The lesson logic often embodies the problem or question and why it is problematic. The lesson logic also talks generally about how the students will solve the
problem and how they will be led to discover the intended concepts. Based on the
comments of these 3 CTs, it is evident in the lesson logic statements that a wellarticulated, big mathematical idea is central to a high-quality lesson. In the
preceding example, the logic of the lesson brings out a need for a simple method
of representing a variable, because it is troublesome to explain every expression
456
in words. Crafting a task or activity that naturally brings up a need for a new
mathematical concept or method is a common characteristic of the lessons in our
data set.
The concept of pedagogical flow is what these cooperating teachers use to craft
their mathematics lessons. It builds on students current knowledge and ideas and
leads them in a natural way to the learning objectives. Other researchers have
pointed out that Japanese teachers view lessons as a story with a beginning, middle,
and end (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). The logic of the lesson (that briefly captures the
flow of mathematical ideas) could be viewed as a summary of the lesson plot.
The Unit Principle: A lesson is created in the framework of past and future
lessons, particularly between lessons in a unit but also between units and grade
levels. The lessons in a unit help students progress to ways of thinking, writing, and
representing mathematics evident in the discipline of mathematics. It is clear from
the conversations we analyzed that a high-quality lesson is best understood in the
context of past and future lessons. This context can be as specific as adjacent lessons
or be broad enough to span grade levels. Our research has shown two important
facets about a lessons relationship to surrounding lessons: First, the unit is fundamental to how these Japanese educators view a lesson, and second, the placement
of the lesson in the unit influences how that lesson should be taught.
To demonstrate how fundamental it is to connect a lesson to surrounding lessons,
we begin by analyzing the lesson plan templates that these student teachers university required them to use. Although we have not done an analysis of lesson plan
templates across Japan, the lesson plan template used by these student teachers is
very similar to that described by Lewis (2002). After some initial information about
the teachers class, the next items listed are goal statements for the unit. These goals
are followed by other information about the unit, for example, a list of the lessons
that will be taught. It is not until after this information about the unit that information about the lesson is presented (Lewis, 2002). This sequence of items in these
Japanese lesson plans demonstrates that it is essential to understand the unit before
one can understand an individual lesson.
The importance of connecting a lesson to surrounding lessons can also be seen
in the number of times this topic was addressed in the conversations in our data set.
Half the conversations in the data set included something about the unit or the
relationships between lessons. The topic of how the lesson connects to other lessons
was raised somewhere in six of the eight lessons, evidence that, in most lessons,
this principle was invoked to add perspective. For example, in the conversations
between CT Ueno and ST Motori before ST Motoris lesson to a seventh-grade class
on introducing variables, CT Ueno began to sense that ST Motori was losing sight
of how his lesson related to the surrounding lessons.
CT Ueno: When you become a real teacher, what would you teach next? Which path would
you follow in your lesson?
ST Motori: In the next lesson?
457
CT Ueno: When you become a real teacher, you wont teach only this lesson, right? You
have 365 days in one year from seventh grade to ninth grade. If you are going
to teach math classes well, you have to have an image of what you would do
next in your mind. What would you do?
ST Motori then outlined what was going to happen in the next few lessons in the
unit. The idea of connecting a lesson to the surrounding lessons is a fundamental
characteristic of that lesson, as is connecting ideas between grades. Notice that CT
Ueno emphasized that ST Motori needed to consider seventh to ninth grade when
preparing a lesson. It is common that junior high school teachers in Japan cycle
through Grades 7 through 9 to have a clear mastery of the curriculum across the
three grades.
From our research about lessons connecting with surrounding lessons, we also
found that the placement in the unit affected how the lesson should be approached.
In our data set, most of the lessons that were taught by student teachers were taught
at the beginning of the unit. This was the case for ST Akihikos first lesson. In the
conversation between ST Akihiko and CT Sasaki, the cooperating teacher alludes
to differences in how lessons should be approached.
CT Sasaki: What do you think is needed for the introduction?
ST Akihiko: What is needed?
CT Sasaki: Yes, what is needed for the introduction, for example, arent there things needed
in the middle of a unit and things needed at the end?
The differences between what is needed is later elaborated in the conversations

between ST Akihiko and his cooperating teacher, CT Kimura. ST Akihikos second
lesson was in the middle of the unit and therefore needed to be approached differently. CT Kimura recommended some ways to make this midunit lesson more
effective. The conversation between ST Akihiko and CT Kimura follows:
CT Kimura: Where did you teach the first time? What lesson was it?
ST Akihiko: It was the introduction of simultaneous equations.
CT Kimura: The introduction, if thats the case, you could still be creative about how to make
the teaching materials effective. But this time you are teaching a normal,
straightforward lesson.
ST Akihiko: Thats right. I should do it [referring to a suggestion from CT Kimura].
CT Kimura: You should. At the end, you will teach a focused lesson.
What is clear from these conversations is that these three Japanese teachers have
a different view of lessons depending on their position in the unit. What is not clear
from the conversations, and what we are not able to address with this data set, is
exactly how lessons evolve from the beginning to the end of the unit. However, at
least one other researcher is exploring the trajectory of lessons through a unit. Aki
Murata (2010) explains that there are four common phases in a unit and that each
phase has a name. The four phases, in order, are guided instruction (do-nyu),
458
learning unfolding (ten-kai), kneading knowledge (neri-age), and integration

(katsu-yo). These phases fit what we have seen in our data and add insight into what
the Japanese teachers mean by be creative, a normal, straightforward lesson,
and focused lesson. It appears that teachers need to focus on their students at the
beginning of each unit and help them recognize the value of the mathematics that
will be taught. Then, throughout the unit, teachers slowly guide themthrough
increasingly focused lessonsto ways of thinking, writing, and representing
mathematics that are evident in the discipline of mathematics. Japanese teachers
are supported in this process by the ministry-approved curriculum and textbooks
that largely structure units to flow in this way. The findings from Murata (2010)
and materials from the ministry of education suggest that the unit, like the lesson,
is a venue in which Japanese teachers balance the needs of students and the desired
outcomes of the discipline.
Adaptive Instruction Principle: High-quality instruction adapts so that all
students are engaged in mathematical work that appropriately challenges their
current understanding. There was evidence in the prelesson conversations that
differentiating instruction is important to these Japanese mathematics teachers.
More than half the conversations10 of 19discussed adapting instruction for
different kinds of students. Our cooperating teachers adaptations appear to be
based on three characteristics: (a) Consider two groups of studentsthose who
understand and those who do not; (b) focus on commonalities rather than differences; and (c) challenge all students, even those who appear to understand the
material easily. We next discuss, in more detail, each of the characteristics that
emerged from the analysis.
First, these cooperating teachers initially consider two groups of students in
differentiating instruction: those who understand and those who do not understand.
Teachers are expected to be able to adapt their instruction to both of these groups
so that each group is challenged at its level. Although this view of understanding
may not address all students needs, the simplistic approach seems to increase the
likelihood that the needs of diverse learners will be addressed. CT Ueno makes this
explicit to ST Motori in the following prelesson conversation, which we quote
subsequently. Understanding the context of the quote depends on understanding
parts of the lesson plan. On the lesson plan after the goals for the unit, the student
teacher writes a description about how this unit connects with the years curriculum.
This includes relating the unit to the previous unit and future units. Another paragraph is written about the students and any challenges that may arise as they study
this unit. A final paragraph addresses the teaching methods that should be used to
help students understand the material. In this quote CT Ueno is pointing to the third
part, about the teaching methods that should be used in this unit.
CT Ueno: For instance, if you have many students who are having difficulty in understanding, you should prepare instruction for them. For students who understand
well, you should also prepare different types of instruction. This part [pointing
459
to a section of the lesson plan] is about instruction, so you should write both
teaching material and what would be appropriate instruction by considering
each students circumstance.
Classifying students into these two groups (not necessarily physically forming
the groups) seems to be a strategy that these Japanese teachers use to adapt instruction. It allows them during their preparation to plan adaptations that they can use
during implementation. A portion of the lesson plan template has a section in which
adaptations can be explained. This is what CT Ueno is referencing in the previous
quote.
Second, the cooperating teachers focus on commonalities among students rather
than differences. Their approach seems to be to assume that students are similar
until they obtain evidence that they need to adapt instruction for some students or
a group of students. Because all classes have students with varying levels of understanding, these CTs were suggesting that the student teachers first look for the
commonalities across all their students and center their instruction there. Once
these commonalities had been identified, they could then think about adaptations
that could be made for the two different groups: students with apparently stronger
understanding of the content of the days lesson and students with apparently
weaker understanding of that content.
Third, even students who understand should be challenged. These Japanese
teachers focused not only on adapting instruction for those who did not understand
but also on addressing the needs of students who easily understood the mathematics. Recall that the central principle of high-quality mathematics instruction is
student intellectual engagement with important mathematics. For all students to
be intellectually involved, or challenged, teachers also had to adapt instruction for
students who could easily perform the initial task or answer the initial question. If
students could easily answer the question and were not challenged in doing so,
these Japanese teachers concluded that the lesson did not satisfy the goal of all
students doing intellectual work with important mathematics.
Following is an illustration in which ST Tomoko is debriefing about a lesson that
she just taught about different methods to solve a system of equations. She is telling
CT Sasaki her limits in challenging both those who could easily solve the problem
and those who struggled. The four solutions to which ST Tomoko alludes are
described in Appendix B.
There were some that solved the problem very quickly, and there were others who
couldnt do anything at all. I wasnt able to follow up on those two groups. Now I can,
but at that time I wasnt sure what should have been said. Nobody was able to come
up with all four methods, but there were groups that used two or three methods. To
those groups, I said, Are there any other ways? or How would elementary school
students solve this problem? But, there was little reaction to those questions, and I
wonder if my questions werent appropriate.
ST Tomoko saw this as a critical shortcoming of her lesson. This was the
first specific point she mentioned in relating her thoughts about the lesson to her
460
cooperating teacher. She went on to emphasize that she could have overcome this
shortcoming with better preparation.
The adaptive instruction principle first emerged as a disconnect from watching
the student teachers lessons and analyzing the prelesson conversations. The CTs
and STs would talk about adapting instruction and teaching different groups of
students, but during the lesson there was little of what we first considered differentiation in the way that we have heard it discussed in the United States. We did
not see practices such as cooperative learning in ability groups or any form of
individualized instruction. We realized that these Japanese teachers had ways to
adapt instruction to different students, or different groups, as they evaluated student
work, asked questions, and offered suggestions in the form of scaffolds or challenges to keep all students learning at an appropriate and aggressive pace.
The Preparation Principle: High-quality instruction requires a well-thought-out,
detailed lesson plan that addresses the previous five principles and interconnects
them in a coherent lesson. Our data provide strong evidence of the importance of
the aforementioned principles in guiding these Japanese teachers in preparing and
implementing engaging, coherent lessons. Because the principles are general,
teachers must adapt these principles to each of their lessons as they prepare to teach
them. The desire to create a lesson that satisfies all six principles is what guides their
preparation. The time spent by these student teachers in preparing the lessons was
significant, and the preparation was not complete until the CT had literally given
the stamp of approval by stamping his or her name on the final lesson plan. Perhaps
altering the wording of a question or considering how to handle a possible student
question may not make a distinct difference, but through preparing many seemingly
insignificant details, these 3 Japanese educators and their student teachers prepare
to teach coherent lessons founded upon the aforementioned principles.
In preparing lessons guided by these principles, these Japanese educators
frequently (17 of 19 conversations) anticipated comments and questions their
students would have. This not only allowed them to know what to do in these situations but also helped them maintain a good lesson flow and to reach the learning
goal for that lesson. For example, in the first meeting between CT Ueno and ST
Motori, ST Motori was planning to start the lesson with the question One egg is
30 yen. If there are 1, 2, 3 eggs . . . How much will it be if you want x number of
eggs? CT Ueno, through anticipating students thinking, does not think the expression will be as easy to create as ST Motori thinks it will. While CT Ueno is
explaining, he draws the diagram displayed in Figure 1.
CT Ueno: Do you think kids will know that they have to set up an expression? I am not
sure it will go smoothly. However, its possible that our students will use a variable on this step. They may use the variable a or x for the number of eggs. It is
possible that kids will skip those steps. Do you think kids will set up an expression like 30 3 x?
ST Motori: If it happened that would be good.
CT Ueno: In that case, what would you do then? [15-second pause] Of course, because
461
this is a lesson, you will begin with some activities, and you will give a problem.
It is good if the correct answer is given, but you have to prepare if the students
will say this [incorrect] answer, right? You also have to prepare what you will
say in this [incorrect] situation. In the first situation you need to make this
response, then if they understand, then they return here. But if students still
dont understand, you need to think of something else to do. This means the
more alternatives there are for students the more you have to prepare.
Through anticipating students thinking, CT Ueno was able to help ST Motori

become aware of a place in his lesson that could reduce the flow of the lesson and
make it more difficult for him to accomplish his goals of students being able to
write expressions with variables and understand the meaning of variables.
Preparation facilitates all the other principles in the lesson, and the level of detail
of the preparation affects the quality of the lesson.
Attention to detail benefits more than teaching. The presence of sufficient detail
allows other teachers to evaluate the lesson based solely on the lesson plan
without seeing the lesson implemented. The Japanese treat the lesson itself (jugyo)
as more than what happens during the class period. In Japanese, the meaning of
the word jugyo includes more than the implementation of the lessonit also
includes all the materials and planning that surround the lesson. Because the lesson
plans have sufficient detail, Japanese teachers, such as cooperating teachers, often
evaluate the effectiveness of lessons from the lesson plan. The difference between
the lesson and implementing the lesson is noticeable in the difference between the
pre- and postlesson conversations. The issues discussed in the postlesson conversations, at least in our data, were largely related to implementing the lesson effectively, or following the lesson plan. The prelesson conversations focused mainly
on developing a good lesson plan that embodied the five previous principles and
attempting to anticipate how the lesson might unfold.
The importance and role of preparation for these Japanese teachers is illustrated
during the discussions that occurred after each lesson. Many of the problems of
implementing the lesson plan most effectively were attributed to lack of proper
preparation. The attitude that nearly all problems during the lesson can be addressed
with proper planning was very salient in the discussions. One cooperating teacher
emphasized to the student teacher that if a teacher did not prepare beforehand, he
or she would not be able to handle every situation that arose during the lesson.
An important part of preparation for Japanese teachers is research through
studying teaching materials (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). This involves in-depth study
of the content to be taught in the lesson. We found that problems that arose during
a lesson that could be tied to a teachers lack of mathematical knowledge for
teaching (MKT) (Hill, Rowan, & Ball, 2005) were often attributed to lack of proper
research before the lesson. We found this very intriguing, partially because their
research seems to allow them to improve their MKT on a need-to-know basis. They
know the topic they will be teaching, so they explore how it might be taught,
students difficulties with the topic, common student strategies, and so on.
Different Comment
Different Comment
Figure 1. Illustration drawn by CT Ueno as part of an explanation to ST Motori.
Students Understand
The Question
of the Day
Introduction
Activities
Think of
Another Way
Students Dont
Understand
462
463
DISCUSSION
A major purpose of this study was to explore more deeply the idea of Japanese
teachers refined, shared conception of high-quality mathematics instruction. We
have summarized our findings as a set of six instructional principles. We do not
claim that these principles are the only basis that these Japanese teachers use for
evaluating instruction, but we do claim that these principles capture important
elements of these Japanese teachers conceptions of high-quality mathematics
instruction.
Our study has limitations. First, this is an analysis of conversations of only 3
student teachers and 3 cooperating teachers. Although we found strong evidence
for common conceptions or cultural scripts across these 3 teachers, we cannot make
strong statements about the conceptions of Japanese mathematics teachers as a
whole. Second, the statements that cooperating teachers made about instruction
were to novice teachers. Conversations with another experienced colleague about
the quality of a lesson may have focused on other aspects of the lesson. Thus, our
results may be limited to elementary ideas of instruction because the conversations
were with novice teachers.
When we asked Japanese mathematics educators for feedback on drafts of this
article, they all said that, from their experience, these six principles capture rather
well the Japanese conceptions, or cultural scripts, of high-quality instruction.
However, one warning from a Japanese mathematics educator is worth noting. The
warning captures something that we have come to believe about Japanese teachers
but have hesitated to articulate because of a lack of evidence. The Japanese mathematics educator emphasized that if we made a list of characteristics of a lesson
(such as these six principles), and a teachers lesson received a hundred-percent
result according to the checklist, it would not necessarily constitute high-quality
instruction, unless the teacher continued to work toward improving the lesson. He
added,
The teacher may find many points which can be improved, and most of such points are
not realized by other participants. The capable teacher [will] never be satisfied with
the lesson, and we can say, he is a capable teacher because he is always seeking for [a]
better lesson. (H. Ninomiya, personal communication, June 22, 2009)
Thus, Japanese teachers may tend to have an attitude that there is always something to improve about a lesson, the knowledge of being able to point to things that
could make the lesson better, and the determination to develop a better lesson or to
teach better next time.
To the extent that the cultural script of mathematics teaching shared by teachers
in our sample is representative of Japanese teachers, it seems to us that the Japanese
teachers may exhibit several advantages because of their refined, shared conception
of high-quality instruction. These advantages illustrate how such an understanding
of high-quality instruction can serve as a resource for instructional improvement.
We explain two such advantages.
464
First, a refined, shared conception of instruction can guide teachers, even in new
situations. This point becomes particularly acute when considering teacher education programs or professional development activities that cannot provide instruction on all the content teachers are required to teach. We strongly suggest that it is
the understanding of what good instruction is, what it looks like, and what important characteristics should be present, among other things, that may allow Japanese
teachers to craft well-designed lessons. When asked what Japanese teachers are
taught in mathematics methods classes, a Japanese mathematics educator simply
responded they are taught what good mathematics teaching is (T. Miyakawa,
personal communication, October 26, 2007). This illustrates the importance for
the Japanese of developing a strong conception of high-quality mathematics
instruction.
Second, a refined, shared conception of effective instruction combined with
detailed lesson plans allows Japanese teachers to evaluate lessons from the lesson
plan; they need not watch the lesson take place. This is illustrated extensively in
our data, in which a large majority of the STCT interaction was in prelesson
conversations. Of course, observing a lesson also allows for feedback, but the
feedback in postlesson conversations is usually on implementation of the wellcrafted lesson plan and not on the content, tasks, questions, and so on, of the lesson.
Those important elements already had been discussed extensively beforehand.
Being able to evaluate instruction from a written lesson plan is used as a vital
resource in improving instruction in Japan. Consider the student teaching process,
during which student teachers typically are given feedback three or four times on
an entire lesson but only teach it once. Many mistakespoor tasks, oddly-worded
questions, and so oncan be addressed by cooperating teachers when reading the
detailed lesson plans. There is no reason to have the student teacher teach the poor
lesson to know what could greatly improve the intellectual work, mathematics,
flow, goals, and clarity of the lesson.
The results from Jacobs and Morita (2002) support the claim that Japanese
teachers seem to have a singular vision of what constitutes good instruction as
compared to their U.S. counterparts. Our analysis of the data has provided a more
detailed picture of the conception of good mathematics instruction held by a small
sample of Japanese teachers. The literature about good instruction in the United
States largely formulates good instruction using definitions or criteria tied to
certain instructional methods (e.g., interactive lecture, extended exploration by
small groups of students, discovery approach) or criteria defined by any form of
instruction that produces certain outcomes. Examples of the latter include the
processproduct studies by Good, Grouws, and Ebmeier (1983), in which good
instruction was instruction that produced high or improved scores on the Iowa Test
of Basic Skills or the more recent National Research Council report (2001) in
which the definition of effective teaching is given as teaching that fosters the
development of mathematical proficiency over time (p. 315). Methods-based
criteria provide strong guidance for teachers about what to do in class, but unfortunately, instructional methods are, at best, only loosely tied to learning outcomes
465
(Hiebert & Grouws, 2007). Outcome-based criteria, by definition, are closely tied
to instructional quality, but may come at the expense of providing guidance to
teachers on what should be done in classrooms to achieve those outcomes. If the
sample of teachers in our study is any indication, then Japanese teachers conception of high-quality instruction may provide both guidance for teachers and some
basis for evaluating instructional quality. Japanese teachers conception of highquality instruction is not tied to particular instructional methods, but rather is a set
of foundational principles or scripts of ideal lessons that helps teachers craft effective instruction.
We have not argued that the six principles developed in this study characterize
elements of mathematics lessons that are necessary for students to learn mathematics with conceptual understanding. However, there is evidence that some of the
principles (or aspects of these principles) may greatly facilitate students learning
with understanding. In their synthesis of research, Hiebert and Grouws (2007)
characterize two elements that facilitate students learning mathematics with understanding that were present in all reviewed documented cases of instruction that
successfully developed students conceptual understanding. The two elements that
facilitated students learning mathematics with understanding were: (a) explicit
attention to connections among ideas, facts, and procedures and (b) engagement
of students in struggling with important mathematics (p. 391). The second element
corresponds well to the intellectual engagement principle, whereas the first seems
to be captured, at least partially, in the goal and flow principles. Although it may
be difficult to make an argument that these principles are necessary for effective
instruction, it has been difficult for the authors to conceive of an effective mathematics lesson that developed students conceptual understanding that did not
embody all, or nearly all, of these principles.
CONCLUSION
These 3 Japanese mathematics teachers stress common aspects of high-quality
instruction that continually arise in conversations with student teachers. We have
characterized six of these common aspects as principles of high-quality instruction.
We strongly suggest that the conception, or cultural script, of high-quality instruction portrayed by these principles is an important part of the knowledge that allows
Japanese teachers to design and teach well-crafted lessons, as documented in the
literature (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). We claim that this refined, shared conception
of instruction may provide a valuable resource for these Japanese teachers in
improving classroom instruction. We believe that teachers around the world could
benefit from reflecting upon their own conception of high-quality instruction in
light of these principles.
466

REFERENCES
Bryan, C. A., Wang, T., Perry, B., Wong, N.-Y., & Cai, J. (2007). Comparison and contrast: Similarities and differences of teachers views of effective mathematics teaching and learning from four
regions. ZDM Mathematics Education, 39, 329340.
Cai, J. (2007). What is effective mathematics teaching? A study of teaching from Australia, Mainland
China, Hong Kong SAR, and the United States. ZDM Mathematics Education, 39, 265270.
Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 124.
Good, T. L., Grouws, D. A., & Ebmeier, H. (1983). Active mathematics teaching. New York: Longman.
Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students learning. In F. K. Lester, Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning
(pp. 371404). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers mathematical knowledge for teaching
on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 371406.
Jacobs, J. K., & Morita, E. (2002). Japanese and American teachers evaluations of videotaped mathematics lessons. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33, 154175.
Jacobs, J. K., Yoshida, M., Stigler, J. W., & Fernandez, C. (1997). Japanese and American teachers
evaluations of mathematics lessons: A new technique for exploring beliefs. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 16, 724.
Lewis, C. C. (2002). Lesson study: A handbook of teacher-led instructional change. Philadelphia:
Research for Better Schools.
Murata, A. (2010). Moving to the balanced middle: Mathematics teaching phases that support understanding and fluency development. Manuscript submitted for publication.
National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. (J. Kilpatrick,
J. Swafford, & B. Findell, Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Pang, J. S. (2009). Good mathematics instruction in South Korea. ZDM Mathematics Education, 41,
349362.
Perry, B. (2007). Australian teachers views of effective mathematics teaching and learning. ZDM
Mathematics Education, 39, 271286.
Peterson, B. E. (2005). Student teaching in Japan: The lesson. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8, 6174.
Schmidt, W. H., Jorde, D., Cogan, L. S., Barrier, E., Gonzalo, I., Moser, U., et al. (1996). Characterizing pedagogical flow: An investigation of mathematics and science teaching in six countries.
Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
Star, J. R. (2005). Reconceptualizing procedural knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 36, 404411.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the worlds teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basis of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Walter, J. G., & Gerson, H. (2007). Teachers personal agency: Making sense of slope through additive
structures. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 65, 203233.
Wang, T., & Cai, J. (2007a). Chinese (mainland) teachers views of effective mathematics teaching and
learning. ZDM Mathematics Education, 39, 287300.
Wang, T., & Cai, J. (2007b). United States teachers views of effective mathematics teaching and learning. ZDM Mathematics Education, 39, 315327.
Whitman, N. C., & Lai, M. K. (1990). Similarities and differences in teachers beliefs about effective
teaching of mathematics: Japan and Hawaii. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, 7181.
Wilson, P. S., Cooney, T. J., & Stinson, D. W. (2005). What constitutes good mathematics teaching and
how it develops: Nine high school teachers perspectives. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8, 83111.
Wong, N.-Y. (2007). Hong Kong teachers views of effective mathematics teaching and learning. ZDM
Mathematics Education, 39, 301314.
467
Authors
Douglas L. Corey, Brigham Young University, Department of Mathematics Education, TMCB 163,
Provo, UT, 84602; corey@mathed.byu.edu
Blake E Peterson, Brigham Young University, Department of Mathematics Education, TMCB 193B,
Provo, UT 84602; peterson@mathed.byu.edu
Benjamin Merrill Lewis, Brigham Young University, Department of Mathematics Education, TMCB
163, Provo, UT 84602; ben.merrill.lewis@gmail.com
Jared Bukarau, Brigham Young University, Department of Mathematics Education, TMCB 167,
Provo, UT 84602; jbukarau@gmail.com
Accepted June 30, 2010
468
APPENDIX A
The table below contains a description of the codes used in the qualitative analysis
of this study. Each code is illustrated by a quote or dialogue from the prelesson
conversations.
Code
Example
Lesson preparation
Preparation: Tasks/Questions
1. Preparing specific questions about math
problems or tasks for students. This
might include discussing exact wording,
particular numbers to use in an example,
which types of problems to use, or
modifications to the question/task/
activity.
ST M: What can you know from a variable

expression of a 3 b and write down as
many as you can. What would you write?
What can you know from a 3 b?
CT U: Will you say that students will put a
number in the expression? Dont you
imagine substitution if you say the word
to put?
Preparation: Handling student responses

2. Any discussion or planning on how to
handle student responses to questions,
alternative solution methods or strategies
raised by students, or potential points
where the students may struggle
ST M: For the introduction part, the class

will play guess the number game. In this
game, our aim is that students can find
specific numbers in the given condition
from playing cards.
CT S: Whats your image [feel] of the
introduction part?
ST M: My image of the class is, first of all,
Ill show one playing card. Second, Ill ask
kids if they can guess the number and their
answer will probably be no, we cant.
Some of the students might randomly say
numbers. When they do so, Ill ask
students why they think in that way.
Students probably will not be able to guess
correct number, so Ill give them a hint.
Say this number is, when you divide by 7,
the remainder is 2. The next hint will be
this number is, when you multiply by 2
and subtract 3, the value will be 7.
CT S: What if students say 5 [the answer
to the question], how would you respond?
Will you just say correct and thats it? . . .
Preparation:
Conjecturing student responses
3. Specific occurrence where the cooperating teacher or student teacher talked
about how students may respond to a
question/task or how students may think
about a question/task
CT K: But when this is 4x, the kids will

make more mistakes. The reason is when
this is 4x, after transposing it, 4x 5x
becomes x. When it is 2x, they can
divide up by 2 but you know what will
happen when a coefficient is 1. Some
kids might say x = so-and-so [as a final
answer]. Its marvelous that kids have
various ideas. Some think if this [side] is
2x, they believe they can transpose it. But
469
Code
Example
Lesson preparation (continued)
if this [side] is 2x, they believe they cannot

transpose it. Some students think that way.
Its interesting. Some kids do this and do
this but in this case, do this.
Preparation: Lesson plans
4. Any explicit discussion or comments
about the use and purpose of lesson
plans
CT U: It is good. I think you should write a

definite plan rather than an abstract plan. I
have already given you this paper, havent
I? Basically things related to a unit should
be written on the left side of the lesson
plan. Only the things related to a unit, ok?
And something related to todays lesson
should be written on the right side of the
lesson plan. Basically we should use the
whole paper to write about the unit, and
another paper is about todays lesson. That
means we should write two full papers.
However writing two pages is very time
consuming, so we only write a one-page
lesson plan, which half is about the unit
and the other half is about todays lesson.
The important thing is that you dont write
this lesson plan only to fill up space. A
good lesson plan should let others feel
your goal or intention toward the lesson.
Therefore, it is okay to write a definite
plan.
Lesson flow
Lesson flow: Mention
1. Any explicit mention of flow
CT K: When ST K taught her lesson, she

took too much time here and did not have
enough time to practice questions later,
although she did her best. Actually the flow
of her lesson plan was quite similar to
yours. So one suggestion is you should
create some different patterns here. For
example, this is the pattern that has x on
both sides.
Lesson flow: Lesson logic

2. Teachers summarizing the flow of
the mathematical ideas of the lesson
of justifying the logic of the lesson
structure
ST A: Connect these lines on triangles. And

then ask, When there are six triangles,
how many matches are being used? After
asking this question, some students may
count like this. They might focus on this
one match and think the rest of two
matches are increasing. Some may say
there are six perfect triangles and because
the five matches are being used, they might
focus on these five matches. You see, there
470
Code
Example
Lesson flow (continued)
is a perfect triangle right here, and some

might think two matches are increasing.
Then, I wont ask, How many perfect
triangles are there? but will ask this way:
When there are 55 matches to make perfect
triangles, how many perfect triangles are
there? The number of triangles can be
replaced for x and then let them solve this
question. Some students might start
thinking from expression and diagram.
Because of that, I set a big number. In this
case, it will be 2x + 1 = 55, right? So the
answer to this problem becomes 27. I want
to explain this process when we learn about
transposition.
Lesson flow: Crucial moments
3. Discussion of when and how to ask
important questions (like a launch question or a thinking question) or when and
how to set up crucial mathematical
moments
CT K: Dont just ask them to graph. In

order to find out which plan is the best,
they are asked to draw graphs, find linear
functions, and write tables to compare. If
you just tell them that the objective is to
graph, then students will wonder why they
have to do so. We dont want that to
happen. Almost all students at our school
have a cellular phone. Im sure that when
you buy a new cell phone, you learn about
their features, fees, or in my case, family
plan. My daughter is now in ninth grade.
When she starts going to high school and
has a cell phone of her own, she will probably look for the one with a student
discount. So, the natural thing to ask
students at first is to determine which plan
is the best plan rather than to draw a graph.
After they choose the best plan, you can
motivate them to draw a graph, compare
each plan by its linear function, and figure
out the cheapest plan according to minutes
they want to use. If the first question is to
graph, I feel the lesson will be boring. By
the way, you should have domain for this
problem, right?
Lesson flow: Transitions

4. When to transition from different parts
of the lesson or how to perform these
transitions (such as launch to explore or
sharing solutions to summary)
ST T: I am wondering if I should introduce

the idea of Sonzu at the beginning of the
lesson or I should ask students if they have
learned the idea of Sonzu before. But I
think I would introduce the idea by writing
it down on a big piece of paper and show
students. But I would use the idea of
471
Code
Example
pheasant and rabbit, instead of crane and

turtle when solving problems. Some
students will know the idea if they have
learned it before.
CT S: Why [do] you want to use this idea?
What is [it] for? . . .
Lesson flow: Mathematical need
5. Creating an intellectual need in the
students for the mathematics or
making the mathematics lively and/or
motivating. (M1)
CT U: Well, you already have a basic idea

for this lesson, and you just simply keep
doing what you are doing up to this part.
You might also do this as another option.
For example, there are questions like this
in elementary school. The Goishi* are
lined up. How many goishis are there?
[Goishi* is checker of go. Go is a Japanese
chess-type game. The 8 goishis are set up
in a square (a 3 3 3 with no piece in the
middle).]
ST M: There are eight checkers.
CT U: Really?
ST M: Yes, there are eight checkers.
CT U: Really? Eight checkers?
ST M: Really?
CT U: Are you sure? Didnt you make a
mistake? How did you think that?
ST M: Well, are you asking how I can find
the answer?
CT U: How did you find it? Did you count
one by one?
ST M: Yes, thats one way. The other way is
like this . . .
CT U: Oh, like the way that a snake is
biting his tail. Do you think kids will solve
like that? Other students may think in
different ways.
ST M: 3 times 3 minus 1.
CT U: Right. Some may think from 2 3 4.
But this is coming from this way of
thinking. Others may think 3 3 4 4.
ST M: 3 3 4 4.
CT U: How does this child think? Can you
draw the diagram?
ST M: 3 3 4 2.
CT U: What is this 3?
ST M: Well, I am still imagining. This 3?
CT U: Right. This is the only 3 I can think
472
Code
Example
of from this diagram. Then, what is this 4?

ST M: I am also imagining . . . adding 1
with it?
CT U: No, [it means its a wrong answer]
because there are four sides.
ST M: You mean taking two sides?
CT U: Right, and you can solve in this way.
There are also many other ways for solution. For example, you can solve like this
way: 1 3 4 + 4.
ST M: 1 3 4 . . .
CT U: This 1 is this. You can solve like this
way. This is a solution which students
learned from algebra. I think they studied
in the fourth grade in elementary school.
They solved a problem of go that there are
five goes on one side. The next question is
extremely difficult because it gives a sense
of idea for students to use variable so the
number becomes suddenly big. For
example from 100 to 1,000. If you skip
number enormously, it is impossible for
kids to count one by one. The pattern of
counting from 1, 2, and 3 is definitely
impossible. For this reason, they definitely
have to use an expression.
ST M: Thats right.
CT U: Then, you can move on to the next.
You can say, Lets find an expression.
Once they can find an expression, you
should lead them to find an expression in
words.
Lesson flow: Time allocation
6. Discussions about time allocation. How
many minutes or for how long should
certain activities be held?
ST M: I will motivate students to come up

with the idea of letters.
CT S: Okay. Otherwise they can only do
something teachers instruct them to do, but
they dont remember this kind of thing later
on. They will remember the things [that]
bother them though. They will not be
thankful for the things that come up quickly.
For this reason, this 5 minutes is too short, I
think. You will probably need 10 min.
Seems like you solve this problem very
easily, but other ways can be used to solve
this problem at this point, dont you think?
473
Code
Example
Student intellectual engagement and student thinking
Student intellectual engagement

1. Discussion about getting students to
think about, to struggle with, or to
engage in the mathematics during the
lesson.
CT S: Math can be very automatic if it only

requires us to learn how to solve problems.
For example, as you practice how to ride a
regular bicycle, the beginning may be very
hard since you fall down many times. But
once you master it, it is more convenient to
ride it than bicycle with training wheels. It
is important for students to know the
reasons for using simultaneous equation so
that they will response [use] it although the
way of calculation tends to be automatic.
What I was thinking as I taught todays
lesson was that the calculation method
should be simplified in order not to take a
long time to solve problems. Students
always dont give me answers I want. A few
students mentioned in the class that they
dont know where to place letters of simultaneous equation. There are many kinds of
letters such as variable and constant. Some
numbers change, some are stable. You need
to let them think why they have to solve it
rather than teaching them how to solve it
like a machine. When you explain this kind
of problem to elementary school students,
you dont use the way of simultaneous equation. Rather you explain to them by using
easier explanation. There are many ways to
solve this kind of problem and our job here
is to let them feel using simultaneous equation is the fastest and most convenient way.
So these 50 minutes should be full of new
discovery such as the advantage of using a
table, simultaneous equation, and the calculation method of using crane and turtle. It
makes students happy. I dont think you
should explain everything to them in the
introduction. You should insert this introduction for the purpose of checking
students preknowledge.
Important mathematics
Mathematics: Not just fun
1. Discussion of activities that focus on the
mathematics as opposed to just being
fun or entertaining (explicit mention or
obvious use only). (F5)
CT U: If you are thinking, If I did this it

would be interesting, there is a difference
between interesting and fun. For example,
watching comedy may or may not be interesting, but its fun, isnt it. For this reason,
if I am from the Kagawa prefecture, and
474
Code
Example
Important mathematics (continued)
when we think of the Kagawa prefecture

we think of udon, because its famous for
its udon. So if I have a problem about
udon, then the students will be interested
and enjoy the lesson. Do you think that that
lesson would really be fun? Would it be
clever and interesting? Would be it a good
lesson? I dont think so. Are you with me?
ST M: Yes.
CT U: If that is the case, you should do
comedic lesson. It will be funnier. But if
you do it, it wont be math. When I think
about those things, I am not certain if
this problem, the second problem, is
appropriate.
Mathematics: Appropriateness
2. Mathematics that is appropriate for this
lesson vs. inappropriate mathematics.
(G2)
CT S: If your focus is on the desirability of

interest and attitude, using playing cards in
the second-degree equation question will
develop their interests with the sense of
game. But it doesnt necessarily mean that
they will develop their mathematical view,
right?
ST M: Okay.
Mathematics: Context
3. Mathematics and context. (Only put this
code if they are discussing both the
mathematics and the role/use of the
contextnot just talking in the language
of the context, like the units, for
example.)
CT U: Can I ask you one more? This is a

simple question. This is an expression you
made: 200 3 5 + . . . I will revise it as 3a.
Then, 3a + 3b, right? This is the first
expression. The next was 1000 + 2a + 2b +
a + 2, was it right?
ST M: Right.
CT U: These are the same value. For those
who dont know the rule of variable and
those who havent studied about addition
and subtraction of variable, okay? The kids
miraculously answer that this and this have
the same value? This and this, right? What
would you do? 3a + 2b and 2a + 2b + b + b.
What would you do? These are the same
expression. Then, think 100 yen 1000 yen
like this. They conclude that this and these
are the same. If students would think that
way, its lucky. However, about doing this
for the two? a is an unknown price and b is
also an unknown price but the total is the
same. Cant you think that way?
475
Code
Example
Lessons and unit goals

Goals: Wording and appropriateness
1. Discussion about the wording and
appropriateness of goal statements. This
code is restricted to explicit work on the
wording of goal statements, the learning
objective, or the appropriateness of the
goal statement/objective. (M2)
CT K: I think this paragraph is too long to

understand. The meaning if . . . specifically
. . . [its difficult to listen to their conversation] . . . by doing it, students will learn
about equation. By focusing on relations in
amount, students learn about equation.
Also, with integer of equality and change
sign formally, I want students to solve . . .
Well, it may sound fine, but dont you
think it does not make sense as Japanese?
ST A: When I am asked about this question,
it may sound strange to me.
CT K: By using equations to solve problems . . . students can realize . . . I understand this part. I understand this part too.
Through specific problems . . . You put too
many ands and it makes me feel confused.
ST A: Oh, I see. . . .
CT K: Through specific problems . . . by
doing it . . . learn about this . . . and . . . by
doing it . . . I want students to solve
through these. . . . the conjunction is bad
and it makes it difficult to understand.
ST A: Should I say learn about equation
and end the sentence?
CT K: In . . . What does through specific
problems and focus on relationship in
amount, students will learn about equation mean?
ST A: In equation problem, x is unknown
value and two relationships in amount . . .
two . . . the relationship with x . . .
Goals: Guiding lesson development

2. Explicitly refer to the goal when
discussing or crafting the lesson. For
example, to show or justify an activity
doesnt fit or how it should be modified
to better fit the goal.
CT U: Good lesson plan should let others

feel your goal or intention toward the
lesson. Therefore, it is OK to write a definite plan. You are going to teach about
second degree proportional function, so it
is important to relate function itself to
daily life. I feel it is easier to relate proportion and first degree function to daily life
than to relate daily life events to functions.
Place of lesson in unit/larger context

Unityear: Unit placement
1. Discussing the placement of the lesson
in the unit.
CT U: This lesson is unit one, isnt it? Your

aim is to seek this as a lesson one, of this
unit? a 3 2 + a 3 1 = a 3 3 and this is a
476
Code
Example
Place of lesson in unit/larger context (continued)
same value. Are you teaching a lesson to

pursue this?
ST M: Yes.
CT U: If you say you are trying to pursue
this, where does it say [it] in the textbook?
Which part are you talking about?
ST M: Uh . . . There is no such place.
Unityear: Unit mathematical connections
2. Discussion of the relationship of the
mathematics to other adjoining lessons
or other lessons in the unit
CT K: How do you explain transposition?

ST A: I will explain it by using characteristics of equality. When an equality is a = b,
this equation becomes like this: a c = b
c. Because I want to use this rule, I am
planning to teach the characteristics of
equality [equation] two lessons before this
class.
Unityear: Between units/years

3. Discussion of how this lesson builds
towards larger goals (like unit goals or
year goals, etc) or of connections across
units/years
CT S: So you tried to read by yourself.

Probably students will do the same thing.
The more they dont understand, the more
they try to read by themselves. So I guess
it would be the motivation for them to be
interested in this topic. If you tell students
how interesting it is, they may try to read
and solve it by themselves since it is
related to Japanese language and math that
even elementary school students know
ways to solve. They can also use a table.
Students who have learned the problem of
crane and turtle will talk about it to others
and some may use expression of simultaneous equation learned at seventh grade.
Furthermore if they use two of the expressions learn at seventh grade, it will lead to
the unit they will learn in eighth grade. So
it will be good if you use this to motivate
students interest. Did you say you were
going to explain all?

1. Discussion of adapting instruction or
making choices about how to adapt
instruction to different kinds of students.
ST T: Suppose there are two kinds of

students. One is who can solve the question without any problem. Another [is] one
is who uses a different method. In this
case, is it OK for the students who can
solve the question to explain to other
students his/her way and then introduce
this way to everybody in the class?
477
Code
Example
Adapting instruction for students (continued)
CT S: What do you mean by that?

ST T: I feel it is better if a classmate
explains to the other classmates his/her
ideas rather than I explain to them everything. Since I saw in your lesson today
each student presented opinions, I think it
is better to have their classmates explain
the way to others, rather than I explain to
them.
478
Appendix B
ST Tomoko mentions four solutions for a problem that could be solved using a
system of equations. What follows is the problem given to the students as well as
the four solutions she expected to see. The table solution is one that the students
typically learn in elementary school in Japan.
The problem: If there are 35 pheasants and rabbits and there are a total of 94 legs,
how many pheasants and how many rabbits are there?
Method 1: Solving with one variable
Let x be the number of pheasants and (35 x) be the number of rabbits.
2x + 4*(35 x) = 94
Method 2: Using a table
Pheasant
Rabbit
Legs
23
34
33
12
138
136
94
The number of pheasants and the number of rabbits are tested in a table until the
correct number of legs is found.
Method 3: Using the difference between the number of rabbit legs and pheasant
legs
Begin with assuming that all 35 animals are rabbits. There would be 140 legs.
This is too many legs, specifically, it is 46 too many legs. Because the difference
between the number of rabbit legs and pheasant legs is two and 46 2 = 23, there
are 23 pheasants.
Method 4: Two variables and a system of equations
Let x be the number of pheasants and y be the number of rabbits.
x + y = 35
2x + 4y = 94
This system of equations is then solved using elimination.

Japaneseprinciplesmathinstruction Studentteachersjrme v41n5 2010

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Japaneseprinciplesmathinstruction Studentteachersjrme v41n5 2010

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education

2010, Vol. 41, No. 5, 438478

Are There Any Places That

In recent decades, Japanese mathematics instruction has been a topic of interest

Corey, Peterson, Lewis, and Bukarau

Principles of Japanese Mathematics Instruction

Corey, Peterson, Lewis, and Bukarau

In addition to showing differences in ideal scripts, Jacobs and Morita (2002)

Principles of Japanese Mathematics Instruction

Corey, Peterson, Lewis, and Bukarau

participants names are pseudonyms.

Principles of Japanese Mathematics Instruction

2. Frequent topics or similar questions raised within or across conversations.

Corey, Peterson, Lewis, and Bukarau

quality mathematics instruction, we chose a unit of analysis that allowed us to

Principles of Japanese Mathematics Instruction

1. Preparing specific questions about mathematics problems

2. Any discussion or planning on how to handle student

3. Specific occurrence where the cooperating teacher or

4. Any explicit discussion or comments about the use and

Lesson flow: Mention

1. Any explicit mention of flow.

Lesson flow: Lesson

2. Teachers summarizing the flow of the mathematical ideas

Lesson flow: Crucial

3. Discussion of when and how to ask important questions

4. When to transition from different parts of the lesson or

Lesson flow: Time

6. Discussions about time allocation. How many minutes or

Student intellectual engagement and student thinking

1. Discussion about getting students to think about, to

1. Discussion of activities that focus on the mathematics as

Corey, Peterson, Lewis, and Bukarau

3. Mathematics and context. (Only put this code if they are

Goals: Wording and

1. Discussion about the wording and appropriateness of

Goals: Guiding lesson

2. Explicitly refer to the goal when discussing or crafting

1. Discussing the placement of the lesson in the unit.

Unityear: Unit mathematical connections

2. Discussion of the relationship of the mathematics to other

3. Discussion of how this lesson builds toward larger goals

1. Discussion of adapting instruction or making choices

An important question is not answered by the results in Table 2: To what extent

Lesson and unit

Corey, Peterson, Lewis, and Bukarau

Principles of Japanese Mathematics Instruction

Corey, Peterson, Lewis, and Bukarau

Principles of Japanese Mathematics Instruction

Corey, Peterson, Lewis, and Bukarau

As a result of this conversation, ST Motori adjusted this question so it would fit

Principles of Japanese Mathematics Instruction

As a result of this conversation, ST Motori changed this activity so it would not

Corey, Peterson, Lewis, and Bukarau

Principles of Japanese Mathematics Instruction

Corey, Peterson, Lewis, and Bukarau

The differences between what is needed is later elaborated in the conversations

Principles of Japanese Mathematics Instruction

learning unfolding (ten-kai), kneading knowledge (neri-age), and integration

Corey, Peterson, Lewis, and Bukarau

Principles of Japanese Mathematics Instruction

Corey, Peterson, Lewis, and Bukarau

Through anticipating students thinking, CT Ueno was able to help ST Motori

1. Preparing specific questions about mathematics problems

2. Any discussion or planning on how to handle student

3. Specific occurrence where the cooperating teacher or

4. Any explicit discussion or comments about the use and

2. Teachers summarizing the flow of the mathematical ideas

3. Discussion of when and how to ask important questions

4. When to transition from different parts of the lesson or

6. Discussions about time allocation. How many minutes or

1. Discussion about getting students to think about, to

1. Discussion of activities that focus on the mathematics as

3. Mathematics and context. (Only put this code if they are

1. Discussion about the wording and appropriateness of

2. Explicitly refer to the goal when discussing or crafting

2. Discussion of the relationship of the mathematics to other

3. Discussion of how this lesson builds toward larger goals

1. Discussion of adapting instruction or making choices