Advertisement

Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 123–140 | Cite as

The role of lesson analysis in pre-service teacher education: an empirical investigation of teacher learning from a virtual video-based field experience

  • Rossella SantagataEmail author
  • Claudia Zannoni
  • James W. Stigler
Article

Abstract

A video-based program on lesson analysis for pre-service mathematics teachers was implemented for two consecutive years as part of a teacher education program at the University of Lazio, Italy. Two questions were addressed: What can preservice teachers learn from the analysis of videotaped lessons? How can preservice teachers’ analysis ability, and its improvement, be measured? Two groups of preservice teachers (approximately 140 in total) participated in the program. A three-step lesson analysis framework was applied to three lesson videos: (1) goal(s) and parts of the lesson; (2) student learning; and, (3) teaching alternatives. Preservice teachers’ ability to analyze lessons was measured through an open-ended pre- and post-assessment. In the assessment, preservice teachers were asked to mark and comment on events (in a lesson not included in the program) that they found interesting for: teachers’ actions/decisions; students’ behavior/learning; and, mathematical content. A coding system was developed based on five criteria: elaboration, mathematics content, student learning, critical approach, and alternative strategies. In both studies, the ability to analyze instruction improved significantly on all five criteria. These data suggest promising directions for the development of both an instrument to measure lesson analysis abilities and a model for teacher learning.

Keywords

Teacher education Lesson analysis Video Mathematics Field experiences Pre-service teachers Teacher learning Video 

References

  1. Acheson, K.A., & Zigler, C.J. (1971). A comparison of two teacher training programs in higher cognitive questioning. Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, Teacher Education Division Publication Series.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, D. W. (1966). A new design for teacher education: The teacher intern program at Standford University. The Journal of Teacher Education, 17(3), 296–300.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, D. W., & Clark, R. J. (1967). Microteaching: Its rationale. The High School Journal, 51, 75–79.Google Scholar
  4. Allen, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1969). Microteaching. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  5. Ball, D. L. (2000). Bridging practices. Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach.Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 241–247.Google Scholar
  6. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional development. In G. Sykes and L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Berliner, D. C., & Tikunoff, W. J. (1976). The California beginning teacher study. Journal of Teacher Education, 27, 24–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berthoff, A. E. (1987). The teacher as researcher. In D. Goswami & P. Stillman (Eds.), Reclaiming the classroom: Teacher research as an agency for change (pp. 28–39). Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton Cook.Google Scholar
  9. Burnaford, G., Fischer, J., & Hobson, D. (Eds.). (1996). Teachers doing research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century. New York: Carnegie Corporation.Google Scholar
  11. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Loef Franke, M., Levi, L., & Empson, S. (1999). Children’s mathematics: cognitively guided instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  12. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (eds) (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 3–13.Google Scholar
  14. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future: New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Feimam-Nemser, S., & Buchman, M. (1985). Pitfalls of experience in teacher preparation. Teachers College Record, 87(1), 53–65.Google 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. Franke, M. L., & Kazemi, E. (2001). Learning to teach mathematics: Focus on student thinking. Theory into Practice, 40(2), 102–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fuller, F. F., & Manning, B. A. (1973). Self-confrontation reviewed: A conceptualization for video playback in teacher education. Review of Educational Research, 43(4), 469–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goffree, F., & Oonk, W. (1999). Educating primary school mathematics teachers in the Netherlands: Back to the classroom. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2, 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goodlad, J. I. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  21. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., Chui, A.M., Wearne, D., Smith, M., Kersting, N., Manaster, A., Tseng, E. A., Etterbeek, W., Manaster, C., & Stigler, J. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study. NCES 2003–013. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  23. Holmes Group (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers: A report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing, MI: Author.Google Scholar
  24. Hoetker, J., & Ahlbrand, W. (1969). The persistence of recitation. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 145–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huling, L. (1998). Early field experiences in teacher education. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education.Google Scholar
  26. Lampert, M., & Ball, D. (1998). Teaching, multimedia, and mathematics. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  27. Limbacher, P. C. (1971). A study of the effects of microteaching experiences upon the classroom behavior of social studies student teachers. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association, New York, February.Google Scholar
  28. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  29. Mumme, J., & Seago, N. (2003). Examining teachers’ development in representing and conceptualizing linear relationships within teaching practice. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, April.Google Scholar
  30. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at risk: The imperative for education reform. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  31. National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. (2000). Before it’s too late: A report to the nation from the national commission on mathematics and science teaching in the 21 st century. U.S. Department of Education. Available online at http://www.ed.gov/americacounts/glenn/Google Scholar
  32. National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York: Author.Google Scholar
  33. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  34. National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  35. Rice, J. M. (1893). The public school system of the United States. New York: Century.Google Scholar
  36. Santagata, R. (2003). L’analisi di lezioni nella formazione iniziale dei docenti (Lesson Analysis in Pre-Service Teacher Education). Tecnologie Didattiche, 29, 32–29.Google Scholar
  37. Santagata, R., & Barbieri, A. (2005). Mathematics teaching in Italy: A cross-cultural video analysis. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7(4), 291–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Santagata, R., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2005). The use of videos for teacher education and professional development: past experiences and future directions. In Vrasidas, C. & Glass G. V. (eds.) Current perspectives on applied information technologies (Volume 2): Preparing teachers to teach with technology, pp. 151–167. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  39. Santagata, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2000). Teaching mathematics: Italian lessons from a cross-cultural perspective. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2(3), 191–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  41. Stevens, R. (1912). Stenographic reports of high school lessons. Teachers College Record, 11(entire issue), 1–66.Google Scholar
  42. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  43. Sullivan, P., & Mousley, J. (1996). Learning about teaching: The potential of specific mathematics teaching examples presented on interactive media. In Puig L., & Gutierrez A. (eds), Proceedings of the 20 th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 283–290). Valencia, Spain: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  44. Ward, B.E. (1970). A survey of microteaching in NCATE-accredited secondary education programs. Research and Development Memorandum, Stanford Center for Research and Development in Teaching, Standford University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rossella Santagata
    • 1
    Email author
  • Claudia Zannoni
    • 2
  • James W. Stigler
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.University of CaliforniaIrvineUSA
  2. 2.Università di BolognaBolognaItaly
  3. 3.University of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  4. 4.LessonLab Research InstituteSanta MonicaUSA

Personalised recommendations