Japanese Lesson Study Summary
Friday, July 5, 2002
What we did:
- Discussed our reactions and thoughts from the Cross-Cultural Discussion on Lesson Study (that we attended on Wednesday at the Marriot)
- Listed our aspirations for our students and the gaps we see in student development relative to this list. We also narrowed this list to 4 that we all thought were important:
- Students communicate their thinking.
- Students collaborate and seek and share information with each other in meaningful ways.
- Students develop a toolbox of operations and procedures.
- Students become more effective problem solvers.
- We will come on Monday with lesson ideas for concepts students struggle within Algebra.
Highlights of Discussion
- Japanese recently cut math content and time by 30% nationally. They already cover "less" but this may be because concepts are covered more thoroughly the first time through (and do not recur as objectives in later grades).
- Cultural misconception: Japanese students with "nose to grindstone," never laughing, etc. just not true after viewing classes on videos.
- Use of "constructivism" in their conversations: indicates the shift in thinking from "rote" learning.
- Emphasis on the whole-child: art, real-life applications
- Lesson study used as a way to address/introduce new approaches into the curriculum.
- Use lesson study to develop applications
Currents newletter online, Vol 5, No 2, Spring 2002
Northwest Teacher Magazine issue on Lesson Study
Back to Journal Index
PCMI@MathForum Home || IAS/PCMI Home
© 2001 - 2018 Park City Mathematics Institute
IAS/Park City Mathematics Institute is an outreach program of the Institute for Advanced Study, 1 Einstein Drive, Princeton, NJ 08540
Send questions or comments to: Suzanne Alejandre and Jim King
With program support provided by Math for America
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under DMS-0940733 and DMS-1441467. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.