, Volume 47, Issue 3, pp 377–390 | Cite as

Adapting Japanese Lesson Study to enhance the teaching and learning of geometry and spatial reasoning in early years classrooms: a case study

  • Joan Moss
  • Zachary Hawes
  • Sarah Naqvi
  • Beverly Caswell
Original Article


Increased efforts are needed to meet the demand for high quality mathematics in early years classrooms. Despite the foundational role of geometry and spatial reasoning for later mathematics success, the strand receives inadequate instructional time and is limited to concepts of static geometry. Moreover, early years teachers typically lack both content knowledge and confidence in teaching geometry and spatial reasoning. We describe our attempt to deal with these issues through a research initiative known as the Math for Young Children project. The project integrates effective features of both design research and Japanese Lesson Study and is designed to support teachers in developing content knowledge and new approaches for teaching geometry and spatial reasoning. Central to our Professional Development model is the integration of four adaptations to the Japanese Lesson Study model: (1) teachers engaging in the mathematics, (2) teachers designing and conducting task-based clinical interviews, (3) teachers and researchers co-designing and carrying out exploratory lessons and activities, and (4) the creation of resources for other educators. We present our methods and the results of our adaptations through a case study of one Professional Learning Team. Our results suggest that the adaptations were effective in: (1) supporting teachers’ content knowledge of and comfort level with geometry and spatial reasoning, (2) increasing teachers’ perceptions of young children’s mathematical competencies, (3) increasing teachers’ awareness and commitment for the inclusion of high quality geometry and spatial reasoning as a critical component of early years mathematics, and (4) the creation of innovative resources for other educators. We conclude with theoretical considerations and implications of our results.


Teacher professional development Geometry Spatial reasoning Early years mathematics Lesson study 


  1. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: what makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bruce, C. D., & Ladky, M. S. (2011). What’s going on backstage? Revealing the work of Lesson Study with Mathematics Teachers. In Lesson Study Research and Practice in Mathematics Education (pp. 243–249). Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Bruce, C., Moss, J., & Ross, J. (2012). Survey of JK to Grade 2 teachers in Ontario, Canada: Report to the Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat of the Ministry of Education. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  4. Casey, B. M., Andrews, N., Schincler, H., Kersh, J. E., Samper, A., & Copley, J. (2008). The development of spatial skills through interventions involving block building activities. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 269–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarke, D., Clarke, B., & Roche, A. (2011). Building teachers’ expertise in understanding, assessing and developing children’s mathematical thinking: the power of task-based, one-to-one assessment interviews. ZDM–The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(6–7), 901–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clements, D. H. (2004). Geometric and spatial thinking in early childhood education. In D. Clements, J. Sarama, & M. A. DiBaise (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics: results of the conference on standards for pre-school and kindergarten mathematics education (pp. 83–90). New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2007). Effects of a preschool mathematics curriculum: summative research on the Building Blocks project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 136–163.Google Scholar
  8. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. A. (2009). Learning and teaching early math: the learning trajectories approach. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2011). Early childhood teacher education: the case of geometry. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(2), 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cobb, P., Jackson, K., & Munoz, C. (2015). Design research: a critical analysis. In L. English & D. Kirshner (Eds.), Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education (3rd Ed.). Manuscript submitted for publication. New York: Taylor & Francis (in press).Google Scholar
  11. Copley, J. V. (2004). The early childhood collaborative: a professional development model to communicate and implement the standards. In D. H. Clements & J. Sarama (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics: standards for early childhood (pp. 404–414). New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Cross, C. T., Woods, T. A., & Schweingruber, H. (Eds). (2009). Mathematics learning in early childhood: paths toward excellence and equity. Committee on Early Childhood Mathematics. National Research Council and National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  13. Darling-Hammond, L., Chung Wei, R., Andree, A., & Richardson, N. (2009). Status Report on Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad features of good professional development. United States of America: National Staff Development Council and The School Redesign Network at Stanford University.Google Scholar
  14. Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., & Japel, C. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1428–1446. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428.
  15. Freudenthal, H. (1981). Major problems of mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics Education., 12(2), 133–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ginsburg, H. P. (1997). Entering the child’s mind: the clinical interview in psychological research and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ginsburg, H. P., Cannon, J., Eisenband, J., & Pappas, S. (2006). Mathematical thinking and learning. In K. McCartney & D. Phillips (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of early childhood development (pp. 208–229). Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ginsburg, H. P., Lee, J. S., & Boyd, J. S. (2008). Mathematics education for young children: what it is and how to promote it. Social Policy Report of the Society for Research in Child Development, 22(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
  20. Hachey, A. C. (2013). The early childhood mathematics education revolution. Early Education and Development, 24(4), 419–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). The effects of teacher’s mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research, 42(2), 371–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huang, R., Li, Y., Zhang, J., & Li, X. (2011). Improving teachers’ expertise in mathematics instruction through exemplary lesson development. ZDM–The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43, 805–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. C., & Philipp, R. A. (2010). Professional noticing of children’s mathematical thinking. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 41(2), 169–202.Google Scholar
  24. Jones, K. (2000). Critical issues in the design of the geometry curriculum. In Bill Barton (Ed.), Readings in Mathematics Education (pp. 75–90). Auckland: University of Auckland.Google Scholar
  25. Lee, J. (2010). Exploring kindergarten teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of mathematics. International Journal of Early Childhood, 42(1), 27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lee, J. S., & Ginsburg, H. P. (2009). Early childhood teachers’ misconceptions about mathematics education for young children in the United States. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 33(4), 37–45.Google Scholar
  27. Levenson, E., Tirosh, D., & Tsamir, P. (2011). Preschool Geometry: Theory, Research and Practical Perspectives. Boston: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Murata, A. (2006). How should research contribute to instructional improvement? The case of Lesson Study. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. MacDonald, A., Davies, N., Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2012). Early childhood mathematics education. In B. Perry (Ed.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia 2008–2011 (pp. 169–192). Boston: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. Mix, K. S., & Cheng, Y. L. (2012). Space and math: The developmental and educational implications. In J. B. Benson (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (pp. 179–243). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  31. Moss, J., Messina, R., Morley, E., & Tepylo, D. (2012). Sustaining professional collaborations over 6 years: Using Japanese Lesson Study to improve the teaching and learning of mathematics. In J. Bay-Williams & W. R. Speer (Eds.), Professional collaborations in mathematics teaching and learning: Seeking success for all (pp. 297–309). Reston: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Inc.Google Scholar
  32. National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2010). Early childhood mathematics: Promoting good beginnings. Washington, DC: NAEYC. Retrieved 3 March 2014. http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/psmath.pdf.
  33. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Chapter 4: Standards for pre-K-2. In Principles and Standard for School Mathematics. Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  34. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through grade 8 mathematics. Reston: Author.Google Scholar
  35. National Research Council. (2006). Learning to think spatially: GIS as a support system in the K-12 curriculum. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  36. Newcombe, N., Uttal, D., & Sauter, M. (2013). Spatial development. Oxford handbook of developmental psychology, 1, 564–590.Google Scholar
  37. Sinclair, N. (2008). The history of the geometry curriculum in the United States. IAP—Information Age Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
  38. Uttal, D. H., Meadow, N. G., Tipton, E., Hand, L. L., Alden, A. R., Warren, C., & Newcombe, N. S. (2013). The malleability of spatial skills: a meta-analysis of training studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139(2), 352–402. doi: 10.1037/a002844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2008). Children learn mathematics: a learning-teaching trajectory with intermediate attainment targets for calculation with whole numbers in primary school. Utrecht: Freudenthal Institute.Google Scholar
  40. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Buijs, K. (2005). Young children learn measurement and geometry: a learning-teaching trajectory with intermediate attainment targets for the lower grades in primary school. Utrecht: Freudenthal Institute.Google Scholar
  41. Verdine, B. N., Golinkoff, R., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Newcombe, N., Filipowocz, A. T., & Chang, A. (2013). Deconstructing builidng blocks: Preschoolers’ spatial assembly performance relates to early mathematics skills. Child Development. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12165 (Advance online publication).
  42. Verdine, B. N., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Newcombe, N. S. (2014). Finding the missing piece: Blocks, puzzles, and shapes fuel school readiness. Trends in Neuroscience and Education. doi: 10.1016/j.tine.2014.02.005 (Advance online publication).
  43. Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: aligning over fifty years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 817–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. White, A. L., & Lim, C. S. (2008). Lesson study in Asia Pacific classrooms: Local responses to a global movement. ZDM–The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40(6), 915–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joan Moss
    • 1
  • Zachary Hawes
    • 1
  • Sarah Naqvi
    • 1
  • Beverly Caswell
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Applied Psychology and Human Development, Ontario Institute for Studies in EducationUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations