Advertisement

Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 207–230 | Cite as

Demonstration lessons in mathematics education: teachers’ observation foci and intended changes in practice

  • Doug Clarke
  • Anne Roche
  • Karina Wilkie
  • Vince Wright
  • Jill Brown
  • Ann Downton
  • Marj Horne
  • Rose Knight
  • Andrea McDonough
  • Matthew Sexton
  • Chris Worrall
Original Article

Abstract

As part of a teacher professional learning project in mathematics education, university mathematics educators taught demonstration lessons in project primary schools. These lessons were part of a “pre-brief, teaching, and debrief” process, in which up to eight teachers observed each lesson. Using brief questionnaires completed in advance of the lesson, during the lesson, following the debrief, and several weeks later, data were collected on teachers’ intended and actual observation foci and any anticipated changes in their beliefs and practices arising from the experience. There were several common themes in teachers’ intended observations, including a focus on questioning, catering for individual differences, and building student engagement. As evident in other research, teachers’ intended and actual observations gave greater attention to teacher actions and decision making than to student learning and thinking. In this paper, we situate demonstration lessons within teacher professional learning models, describe the features of our model, summarise teacher data, and discuss issues arising from our work.

Keywords

Teacher professional learning Demonstration lessons Observations Teacher change Pedagogical content knowledge Student learning 

References

  1. Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach: knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on learning and teaching (pp. 83–104). Westport: Ablex.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: what makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bazeley, P. (2007). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Eiteljorg, E., & Pittman, M. E. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive discussions in mathematics professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 417–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyle, B., Lamprianou, I., & Boyle, T. (2005). A longitudinal study of teacher change: what makes professional development effective? Report of the second year of the study. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruce, C. D., Ross. J., Flynn, T., & McPherson, R. (2009). Lesson study and demonstration classrooms: Examining the effects of two models of teacher professional development. http://www.tmerc.ca/digitalpapers/samples/WholeResearchStory.pdf. Accessed: 26 August 2011
  7. Butler, D. L., Lauscher, H. N., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Beckingham, B. (2004). Collaboration and self regulation in teachers’ professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 435–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke, D. M. (1994). Ten key principles from research for the professional development of mathematics teachers. In D. B. Aichele & A. F. Croxford (Eds.), Professional development for teachers of mathematics (56th yearbook of the national council of teachers of mathematics) (pp. 37–48). Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  9. Clarke, D. M., & Clarke, B. A. (2004). Mathematics teaching in grades k-2: painting a picture of challenging, supportive, and effective classrooms. In R. N. Rubenstein & G. W. Bright (Eds.), Perspectives on the teaching of mathematics (66th yearbook of the national council of teachers of mathematics) (pp. 67–81). Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  10. Clarke, D., & Hollingworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 947–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Davis, N., & Walker, K. (2005). Learning to notice: one aspect of teachers’ content knowledge in the numeracy classroom. In P. Clarkson, A. Downton, D. Gronn, M. Horne, A. McDonough, R. Pierce, & A. Roche (Eds.), Building connections: theory, research and practice (Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, vol. 1) (pp. 273–280). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar
  14. Feuerstein, A. (2000). School characteristics and parent involvement: influences on participation in children’s schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(1), 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fernandez, C. (2005). Lesson study: a means for elementary teachers to develop the knowledge of mathematics needed for reform-minded teaching? Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7(4), 265–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fernandez, C., Cannon, J., & Chokshi, S. (2003). A US–Japan lesson study collaboration reveals critical lenses for examining practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ghousseni, H., & Sleep, L. (2011). Making practice studyable. ZDM Mathematics Education, 42(1), 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldsmith, L. T., Doerr, H., & Lewis, C. (2009). Opening the black box of teacher learning: Shifts in attention. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & H. Sakonidis (Eds.), In search of theories in mathematics education (Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the International Group of Psychology of Mathematics Education, vol. 1) (pp. 97–104). Thessaloniki: PME.Google Scholar
  19. Goldin, G. A., & Shteingold, N. (2001). Systems of representations and the development of mathematical concepts. In A. Cuoco & F. Curcio (Eds.), The roles of representation in school mathematics (pp. 1–23). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  20. Grierson, A. L., & Gallagher, T. L. (2009). Seeing is believing: creating a catalyst for teacher change through a demonstration classroom professional development initiative. Professional Development in Education, 35(4), 567–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Higgins, J., & Parsons, R. (2009). A successful professional development model in mathematics. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 231–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1980). Improving inservice training: the messages of research. Educational Leadership, 37(5), 379–385.Google Scholar
  24. Lewis, C. (2002). Lesson study: a handbook of teacher-led instructional change. Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools.Google Scholar
  25. Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Hurd, J. (2004). A deeper look at lesson study. Educational Leadership, 62(5), 18–23.Google Scholar
  26. Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. W. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. McDonough, A., & Clarke, D. M. (2003). Describing the practice of effective teachers of mathematics in the early years. In N. A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty, & J. T. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2003 joints meeting of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education and the psychology of mathematics education group North America (vol. 3) (pp. 261–268). Hawaii: University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
  28. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Putman, J. (1985). Perceived benefits and limitations of teacher educator demonstration lessons. Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 36–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rowe, M. B. (1974). Wait-time and rewards as instructional variables, their influence on language, logic, and fate control: part one—wait time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11(2), 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Saphier, J., & West, L. (2010). How coaches can maximise student learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(4), 46–50.Google Scholar
  32. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sullivan, P. (2011). Teaching mathematics: using research-informed strategies (Australian Education Review, 59). Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  34. Takashashi, A., & Yoshida, M. (2004). Ideas for establishing lesson-study communities. Teaching Children Mathematics, 10(9), 436–443.Google Scholar
  35. Tytler, R., Smith, R., Grover, P., & Brown, S. (2006). A comparison of professional development models for teachers of primary mathematics and science. Journal of Teacher Education, 27(3), 193–214.Google Scholar
  36. Van Driel, J. H., & Berry, A. (2012). Teacher professional development focusing on pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Researcher, 41(1), 26–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2008). Mathematics teachers’ “learning to notice” in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 244–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. West, L., & Curcio, F. R. (2004). Collaboration sites: teacher-centred professional development in mathematics. Teaching Children Mathematics, 10(5), 268–273.Google Scholar
  39. White, A. L., & Southwell, B. (2003). Lesson study: a model of professional development for teachers of mathematics in years 7 to 12. In L. Bragg, C. Campbell, G. Herbert, & J. Mousley (Eds.), Mathematics education research: Innovation, networking, opportunity (Proceedings of the 26th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Vol. 2) (pp. 744–751). Pymble: MERGA.Google Scholar
  40. Yan, W., & Lin, Q. (2005). Parent involvement and mathematics achievement: contrast across racial and ethnic groups. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(2), 116–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Doug Clarke
    • 1
  • Anne Roche
    • 1
  • Karina Wilkie
    • 1
  • Vince Wright
    • 1
  • Jill Brown
    • 1
  • Ann Downton
    • 1
  • Marj Horne
    • 1
  • Rose Knight
    • 1
  • Andrea McDonough
    • 1
  • Matthew Sexton
    • 1
  • Chris Worrall
    • 1
  1. 1.Australian Catholic UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations