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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
LessonLab, now part of Pearson Achievement Solutions, is a company dedicated to the development of video and internet-based programs for teacher professional development.
In the Italian context an average score of 3.4 on a 5-point scale is considered satisfactory.
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.
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.
Allen, D. W., & Clark, R. J. (1967). Microteaching: Its rationale. The High School Journal, 51, 75–79.
Allen, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1969). Microteaching. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Ball, D. L. (2000). Bridging practices. Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach.Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 241–247.
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.
Berliner, D. C., & Tikunoff, W. J. (1976). The California beginning teacher study. Journal of Teacher Education, 27, 24–30.
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.
Burnaford, G., Fischer, J., & Hobson, D. (Eds.). (1996). Teachers doing research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
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.
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Loef Franke, M., Levi, L., & Empson, S. (1999). Children’s mathematics: cognitively guided instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (eds) (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 3–13.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future: New York
Feimam-Nemser, S., & Buchman, M. (1985). Pitfalls of experience in teacher preparation. Teachers College Record, 87(1), 53–65.
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.
Franke, M. L., & Kazemi, E. (2001). Learning to teach mathematics: Focus on student thinking. Theory into Practice, 40(2), 102–109.
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.
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.
Goodlad, J. I. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
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.
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.
Holmes Group (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers: A report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing, MI: Author.
Hoetker, J., & Ahlbrand, W. (1969). The persistence of recitation. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 145–167.
Huling, L. (1998). Early field experiences in teacher education. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education.
Lampert, M., & Ball, D. (1998). Teaching, multimedia, and mathematics. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
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.
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.
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.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at risk: The imperative for education reform. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
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/
National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Rice, J. M. (1893). The public school system of the United States. New York: Century.
Santagata, R. (2003). L’analisi di lezioni nella formazione iniziale dei docenti (Lesson Analysis in Pre-Service Teacher Education). Tecnologie Didattiche, 29, 32–29.
Santagata, R., & Barbieri, A. (2005). Mathematics teaching in Italy: A cross-cultural video analysis. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7(4), 291–312.
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.
Santagata, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2000). Teaching mathematics: Italian lessons from a cross-cultural perspective. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2(3), 191–208.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Stevens, R. (1912). Stenographic reports of high school lessons. Teachers College Record, 11(entire issue), 1–66.
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.
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.
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.
About this article
Cite this article
Santagata, R., Zannoni, C. & Stigler, J.W. The role of lesson analysis in pre-service teacher education: an empirical investigation of teacher learning from a virtual video-based field experience. J Math Teacher Educ 10, 123–140 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-007-9029-9
- Teacher education
- Lesson analysis
- Field experiences
- Pre-service teachers
- Teacher learning