Lesson study is not just about hnproving a single lesson. It's about building
pathways for 012going inzprovenzent of instruction.
Catherine Lewis, Rebecca Perry, and Jacqueline Hurd
S U. elementary school reachers uncover an imerc.1>ting par.Wox in rbe data that the) have jusr collected during a ~th grJde mathematics lesson on pauem
growth. MoM srude::m correcrl) filled out a table that related the number of tiles in a panem to the pauem·~
perimeter, but many ~tudt.>nb were unable to el.:pn:ss thii> inf()mtation m wordl> or a~ an equation 1l1csc data 'illggcst that the table wl>pOOD·fcd~ the sruuents. "lbe teachcn.-the one teach· ing the lesson and the five observing ll- rcdesign the lesson. eliminating the worbhcet that conclincd the table. rwo d.l)" later, another of the sLx lc~n .,rut!} team members presentl> the rede~igncd lesson tO a diJTcrent cl~ of 4th graucrs while her colleague!> once again ohscrve he tlli.covcrs that ~rudcnts grasp the paltem a:. they work at organ.izing the c11L1 themselves 1nstt.>ad of just filling in a wble that organiz~ the data for them One team member reflects on the experience of planning. teaching, observing, revil>ing, and rctt.':lching the lcs...,on: •J leamed that a worksheet can be a dangerous thing.~
These teachers are practicing lesson stud) , a prof~iooal development approach that originated in japan. Educatt)N have credjtcd lc:s~n tudr with bringing :•bout japans evolution of cffecrh•e muthematks and science ,
.'l teaching O.ewb, 2002a 2002b; Lewb & ! T~.tuch.ida. 199-, 1998; National "
18 Eo • <: .\ T IO:" AL u \tHR ~IIII'/F£n Rl ~ R'
Research Council, 2002, Tak:tha!>hi.
2000; Yoshida, 1999a. L999h). rn 1999. Tbe Teacblng Gap brought Yoshida s accoum of lesson study LO a broad
public audience (Stigler & Hkbcn,
1999. Yol>h.ida. L999a, L999b). Le!>SOo srudr has subsequently &>vept acros:, t11e United mtcs, springing up in at lc:1!>1 2SO schoob in 29 !.tate::!> (www .tc columbia.edu/le sonstudy).
\\'ill k!>son ~nJd)' become an important tool for instrucrio oal impron~ment, or is it J. short-Lived fad? Man) promhing innovation!. die becaul>e tllt!lr ' i iblc featurelo arc implemented ritualistically ,
without a clear gta!>p of how they rdate to in.,tructlonal improvcmem. Ttti!>
poinll> to the importance of under~tandin~ not just an inno\'':ttion's \'iJ.ible ft:aLUrcs-such ~ planninA. obscning, and rethinking a l~on, in the ca~>e: of le.,son tud} -but also the underlying pathwars that link the innovation to instmctlonal impr<nremcm.
Key Pathways to Instructional Improvement Interviews with teacher.. in Japan over the pa..~t ten yea~ (lxWi!>, 2002:1, 2002b; Lewis & Tsuchida, 199'7, 1998) as well as recent :.tudies ofU.~. educator!~
engaged in lesson tudy (Lewis, l002b; PerT) . Lewis, & t\kiba. 2002) indicate
se' en key pathways to lmpro\cment d~tt umlerlic succcS&ful le~on study. increased knowledge of l>Ubjecr matter, incrt"'a..'>t:d knowledge of ins~n~ction. incre~ed ability to obsen·c <,tudcnll>,
stronAer collegial nerworks, stronger connection of daily pructk:~ U> longtertn AO<LI~. !ltrongcr moth ation and ~ense of cfficaC) . and tmproved quail£) of available Je.,•;on plans. Lnder..tanding tht•..,e pathways-in adcliLion ttl les..<>On MUd}'' .., Yisible feaLures-may enable
U.S. educatOrs to build lasting. successful le~son study. The San Mmco- Foster
City School Ois'trlct in California is a case in point. A tL--acher-led le~n stud)'
effon initiated in 2000 ha ~rown from mcluding 28 teachers to '8 during the
p~t three ) ears.
l na·ec1sed K uowledge
of Subject M atter Lesson study begins by ex:tmining existing textbooks and standanls (Lewis, 2002b; Yoshida, 1999b). Teachers dbcuss the ~ntial concepts and ~kills that their students need to
team, compare the concept~· tre:ttment in cxbting curricuJum.s, and coru.ider wh:n the srudents cmrently know and how the) will respond to the planned lesson. A.o; teachers engage in these
acLivitics, the) oru:ur:ll.l} generate many quorioru. about the subjecr maner The group can often ans-wer such qucsrioru.; if not, the te:tchers look to ou~ide resource~.
For example. when a group of element:ll) chool reacher!~ in the an Mateo-foster City • chool Obtrkt planned a r<:.,earcb lesson des1gned to help student distinguish between different kinds of triangles. one teacher
initially \iSu:tlized all scalene triangles as obtuse. " \Ve get locked into the pictures in the textbook:.," noted one teacher. ·~md we think llutt's the triangle in qucsuon." The group· di'iCU!><.ion and check of reference material d:uiiled t.h:u !>calenc trl:tngles could be obmse. .tcutc, or righr.
Middle school teachers in another C:tlUomia lesson studr group had a !lUdden rea lization about the connection between :t line's slope and it!. \' i Wtl appeai'.lnce when the) changed the y-aXiS unit~ (but 00[ the X·axb uni~) in their lc wn redesign and -;aw the line's stcepoes!> change although the !>lope remainetlthc same. ~~ had ulways thought of ~lope and steepness !holds
up arm to illustrate tilt] as the ~arne thing, • said one team member.
Likewise, when Japanese teacher.. di cus ed a lesson in which 4th graders tried w peed up a solar·powered tor by intcn~lfying tlle light on rhe solar ceU. a
teacher posed the following quc~>Lion to the group:
I wnnt 10 know whetht:"r the three condiLions the dillclren de!-tCJ'ibedputting the b:me::rv closer ro the light source. mJking the light stronger, and gathering the light-would all be con~idered the "arne d1ing b)' o,cicotisrs 111C) don't 1oeem the same to me. But I want ro a!>k the teachers ~ ho kno\\ ~denct: whether sdenliSL!> would reg.11·d t.hem as the same thing
lltis question sparked a productive dlscu sian \\ id1 vi!oiting high school and univcr!lh} faculty.
lncrea.<u!d Knowledge of lllsl n l ctioTI Much of whm teachers learn during les....on srud) applies to area:. beyond the particular l<·sson and subJect matter. Take, for example, the preY!Ot.i~l> mentioned lc on tudJ on paut.m growth, in which teachers eliminated the worksheet. One team member ~ummarizcd what !>he teamed from
A '-'Ut i A1 10 N ftlll .,, PfRVISIO'i .\'il) (UKKICl.LL\1 DE\ F I OP\Il'IT 19
Observers may focus on one student who struggles with math concepts, one who quickly
finds the correct answer and becomes bored, or one who is an English language learner.
planning, observing. and revising the re carcl1 kss(Jn: "The student.'> must do the work. not us! " Rellecting on the two-week mathematic and lesson tudy workshop that took place during the :.ummcr, San M:neo-Fostcr ity
teachers de crihc many effective ~trategk: they leU'Ocd that have broad in:.tructionaJ implication!>, :,uch as carefully wording the main problem to
propel swdcm intcrc 1. ma!Ung Sllldcnt'i "hungry" for new mathematics temunolOf,')'. and seeing how student:. u ·c: their prior knowledge.
I ncreased A bility to Obser ve Studeuts During the re:.earch It: on. one 1 · son tudy lt:am member teaches while the
remaining team member~ collect .;pecifk data, whlch generally iHdude detailed narra1 ive record of 1 he learning of sen .. >ral stu<.lems-wh:n d1e :.wdent:> saki and wrote. how the: swdents u:.c:d the m:tterlaJ!>, what !>pecific supports encouraged understanding, ami what obl>taclcs to karning aro:.e during the lesson. Tc;lm members might observe either :1 '>ingle stu<.lent or several g:Lthcred at a table. ·n1e teacher usually inform!> the cl:ll>!> beforehand that a group of t~-a~hen. will ob~erve the le~>.'>on and study sutdem thinking about the topic to le:trn ho\' 10 be better teachers.
For example, a ~:m .\t:tteo-FoMer Cit} tt'llCher documenting student work during rhc pmtem growth lc. .. -;on noticed that SIU(k."llt:. coumed in different ways and that the-.e mcthcKI ' provided a glimpse imo hm., studems tJ1ougLu nbout the problem. Spurre<.l on by this ob. erYntion. tJ1c: teacher a.')kt:d tudents during the ne.xt rc~carch le')son
to hare different counting methods with rhe das:.. Looking hack at the re~earch lt::.son~ at a later meeting, one
teacher remarked that l>he ha<.l not initial!) understOod whr they focmed on tudent couming metlmd ·. Learning that
those metJ1oilii revealed stuucnt tJ1inking about a problem, however. incrensed her awaren~~ of the different thought proce ·~t:!> involved in pmblem :.olving.
Collecting comph:te na.rrali\'C: data on seJc:cted tudenr:. who typify particular challenges that tJ1e school face~ i~ a common data collection stnlteg) during resea.rch le 'MH'IS. Observer-. ~I)' focu~ on one tudem who truggles with math concepts. one who quit:kl} 11nd · the correct answer and b~::come!. bored, or one who is nn English language learner. Knowing that ob~cn·ers wiiJ
studr t:ac h of tJH:·sc students in deptJ1 encour:tge~ the teacher to <.le:.lgn the lesson in a way that effective!)' rea hes
lt'ltmers of all background:. and abilities . After observing the re. earch lesson, teacher:. can compare tht:ir prediction:. about student thinking with Mudenu.· actual tJ1inking during the lesson . thereby gaining direct feedback on thdr own knowledge of how ::.tudent.., d1ink. Likewise, a..~ they .-..hare their daw collection with colleagues. teacher · learn about diffcrcm facet..., of student hch:1vior-counting s trategit:::., for example-that m:t} reveal .. tudcnt thinking. At a time when teachers feel pressured to teach particular standards <tnd curriculum~. infnmmtlon about what Mudenth are acwally Learning i~ c. M.:ntialto in!>tntc tion;tJ improvement (Darling-l lammond, 199..,; l.c\vb. 2002a: ~~ iglcr & II icben, 1999).
St rouger Collegitll Net wm·k s Les:.oo study can ht:lp hulld a conununiry of p111ctice in which 1c:~cher. routinely :.ha.re resource~ and idea.-; \Vhcrcm; the avemge teacher in )ap:tn p;trticip:ucs in about J 0 rocarch les ons :t year. I J.S. reacher!> h:wc few opponu-
20 f: U I ' \ I tn '> \ I U \ IH K \II II'/ F I ll R I \ R \ l U 0 I
nides to ohsen•e le!>son · that othefl> teach (Darung-Hammond, 1997; Darling! Iammond & Rail, 1998. Yo hida. L999h).
As a_lapane c tc;tcher commented after a research lesson,
TI1e research lesson i.., not over )'Ct.
I t '~ not a one-rime le!>!>On; rather. it gh·c:; me a cll:mcc 10 continue con!.ulting with otht:r tt:acher!>. For example. I may c;a) to other tt.-achcfl>, " I want to ll!>k you :tbom mr last lesson you :.a w ... Then 1 he other tcachcrs ctn pro,·ide me with C'oncrctc :.ugge ·uon!> and advice becalll>c tJ1ey hare ~en at lea L one: lcS~>on I conductcc.l '.: ' e teacher can berter conm:c t with each olllt:r in thb way.
!deal!)', the interpersonal bridge · built during le:;~on studr enable collalnr ration well beyond the research le ·~on .
increasing the coherence and cont.istency of the lcarmng etwironment. A a J:tpanc c elementary teacher explained, teachefl> can greatJr improve students· li\'CS by working together a:. a whole f-acuJt) . The habiu. of mind and heart fundan1cntalto uccel'ts in choolincluding persbncncc, cooperalion. respon:.ibiliry. and willingneo;s to work hard-tlcvdop over manr years and in m;tn)' Cia!>~>roolll:> ( Lewh, 199'5) . What':,
the usc of .. tudents kaming 10 "t.hink like scientists" in one classroom if next year's tead1cr devaJucs tJ1i quaJit) (Lewis. 2002b)?
Stronger Connectiou of Da i{)' .Pract ice to Long-Term Goals U.S. educawrs arc often urprl ·ed to
find that lesson stud~- in Jap:m uMtaJI} begins with an overarching question. MJ<.:h :t~ What lUnd of people do we hope our :;tudenr. will become? Lc!>~On studr a<.ldrcs.-.es student:,' long-te:.:rm dcvc!opmcnt-tJ1eir eagerness w learn. for c..xampJe. o r their C.:()ncern for olher~-a~ "ell a.., the content nf :1
particular k'>MJO or umt. rn a 5th grade
rt:!'>ean:h k~>..,on em illcd • 'an You Uft
100 Kilogram<,?" ( \1ilh CoUt•ge Lt:::.!.on
'tutl} Group. 20(}(1), Komac teachers
gatheretl a wide :trray of data, nOt just
on how Mudcnt thinking about lever!.
progrc::.~ed during the lt:5.son, but :tl~
o.n whet her student.-, had ··~runing
ercs," "cxdaimcd under Lht:ir breath,"
and inclutled the quietest students in
their di!>CU ion.,.
Thi!. dual focu~ of les~>on stud} ~orne
time punJe~> U.S. educator:,. Focubing
bimultant:<lu~l) on long-term goal and
the immediate lc~>.o.,on recognit.cs that
Mudcnt moti\·ation, da:-.~m:ne Mtppon,
and otht:r qualitit: of hean and mind
grc:uly !>hapc in~tntction, and, coo
veN::Iy, that the daily experience of
lc~Mm~> olidilie~ tho:.e qualitil:s of mori
v:ltion and cullabor:nion To m:tny U.S.
cducawr~>, the conncc:tion of dajJ} practice to Jong-tt·rrn goal feci:. like rhe
e:.).ential mb:.ing piece of instmt:tion:tl
improvement. A' one ll .~ . teacher
commcmed,
A lot of (l .S I '>Chool' dc\'Ciop mi::.:.ion '>tatem~·m:. . hut \\1.' don't do :Ill) thing with them. 'J11e mission Matemem.., get put in :1 tlr:m <:rand then teacher\ h<:come C) nical bet..':ILL'C the mi~~ion st.uemem:. don' t go anrwherc. Lt:. ~on '>tud)' gin· gllls to a mi'>.,ion ~t:ncnu:m. makes it real, and bring'> it w life
I rmtge r M ot i 11a tlcm
tmd ense q{ E.[{lctiCJ' Elmore ( 1999-1000) argue~ tim tJ.S. educat ion .,uffer-.. not from a lack l)f good pmgr.tm-. but from a lack of
demand for 1 h<:nt ~ucce~,fuJ 1<: :.on
... tudy effort:. build gr:t~~root:. dcm:md
among tc::td1cf\ lor tmprO\·ement. For
example, in the coUJ'M: of analyzing
rt:).t':trch lt:'>~on~ Lhat their cullcague
taught, San )1atco-Fo..,ter Ci t) teacher~
nmcd that '>tudcnL'> .utcmion :.pan~
lengthcncd when the t<:acher.. g:we the
:.tudent~ challenging and motiv:uing
prohlem~. "What ""ill motivate ~>tttdcm~ to :-ol \'<.' this pmblcm?- became a que:.·
lion teacher.- routine!} a~kcd thcm
·elve.., a., 1 her plannnl fut urc lessons.
Members of a lesson study team o bserve a class and collect data.
Information about what
students are actually
learning is essential to
instructional improvement.
Lt:!>,on :.tlld} can abo :.trengthcn the
bdicf that imprm ement in teaching is
possible. One tcachcr commemcd that
h.:.-.son :-tudy put:. a profl'!>.'>ional comp<>
nent back in teadting that h g<:nerallr
mls~ing and 1 reats tc:tt'hinf{ Oil> :t 'cit:ncc
that tt.":tchcr:, can analyze and improve.
A ~an Mateo-f'oMer City kintkrg:mc:n
tcacher dcscribl.., ho\\ her vic'' of her
own n: pon~ibilitie'> !>hil'ted:
A'> a kindergarten teacher. l ".IS alw:t)., \ Cf} f<>cu~cd on the kindergarten '>tate <,tandard-.. And l .IIW.I)"' thought, " I likl' tea hing kmdcrgartcn hccau::.l" I kno'' enough I don' t need w lc:trn .tn} m:nh." But \\ hen I ' :1\\ Lh:u l<,t gr:tdc exam pit: (a lc:...,on pl;mnc:d b) Jap:Ull''>C tl·achcrsl . thc} \\t:ren 'tthinking 1M gr..tdc math. The.:) knl'\\ the !itandards all tlw w:t} up J feel like I've: hecn
leaching lrom '>Uch a narrow perspective. I rcotll) didn' t umlt:rst:.tnd the flr~t week f of a l \"\'C)'WCCk ummer work ~hop 1 "h~ wt· k.ept ~pending .u1 hour (If ~'' o on gcomt"lf} I Lhought. \'( ho t.-arc~. I m not going to teach thb in kindcrganc:n.-And then I realtt.ed n. I nc:cc..l to know the'' hole picturl'. -
Man) .tucmptcd in">tntcttonal
imprO\ cmcnh fail 10 t.tkc hold h<:cau'ic
educ.:aiiJr:, pcrceh e them to be inc.:om
patihlc with their hdicf~. \':tluc~. or
priori tic~. B}' c.: larif) ing and incorpo
rating teaeher~ tndividual bdtcl'>,
value . .,, and priorlt ic~ during the plan
ning ph:t~l'. lc~~on SIUd) c.:ircttnWC::Jll:-. a
common roadhlnck ttl imprm emcm. For example to reach .t dt:ci'>ion about
eliminating the work.,hcet in the lc:-...,on
on pattern grcl\\ th. the '~ tt":tchct'\ ncetlcd to di~u~~ th<. '>ttuation at length.
Ther cxprc,...ctlthdr ll"::Th that ... tudent:.
would flounder. Aftcr M:dng the re-;ult!>, huwe\ cr. tt..":tc.:he~ un.tnitnou-.ly agrcetl
on the \':lluc olthe change
1111/JI'OII(!d Quality of ANti/able Lesson Plmts The panern grtl\\ th lc:.'><>n tl1at - j){Jon
fed" :.tudent!.. b) giving them a chart w
\ "0 I I \ I I 0 " J' O il '> I I' I ~ \ I ' I 0 " .\ " I) \.I R 1111 I I I \I () I \ J I II P \I r " 1 21
arrJnge thc:ir d:tta became: much more
challenging af1cr teacher~~ eliminated
the chan. ' tudenu. learnt:tl how to orga
nit.e d:ua and gid!>p the geometric
re.tM>n behind a numcrkal panern rather than !limply idcntit) the numer
ical pattcm from a table. Although thil;
revi!>cd les<;on plan undoubted!)
provide'> a better ~t:tning point for future teaching :~bout pattern-.. it
caprurc-. on I} a mode t lice of what the
te-Jcher.. on the ream learned during the
k~on !>lUd) . which abo illuminmcd
ho" ·tu<Jcms· countmg mar re' cal their
thinking and how e:t ') it i!l to unwit-
prom bing innovation'> are currentJr
buried. then L .. educator11 must under-
tand that lesson stud} mean:. far more
than just walking throufth a et of
!>pccific activities. It means building a
~et of pathway!> tl1at enable continual
growth of rhe kno" ledge, interpersonal
resource:., and motiv.u ion rcquireu w impro\e in tntction in the da~sroom
and bt:)ond. •
References Darlin~Hiammond. L. ( 199- ) . me rigbt to
IMnr rl IJiueprlw for crealiug scbouls lballt'ork. San Fnmci:.co . .Jo!>l!C) -l:l:t s.
[),trling-llammond. L . & Ball. 0 . L (1998).
What's the use of students learning to .. think like scientists"
in one classroom if next year's teacher devalues this quality?
tinglr provid~.: student~ \\itl1 an~wers
For thi!> reason. the San \latco-Fo~ter
City tt:achef!> harl' their learning- not
juM their lesson plan:.-\\ hen they
~hare c\ idence about the ~ucccss of
their lesson stuuy " ork . The \i ibk feature..., of k:-.~on Mudy
wcll-de!>igned proce e~ of goal ~ctting,
rc.~earch leo;son planning, uata collec
tion, d1sc~ion. and re\'i,ion-.ue
e~~entialto le · on tud) . Careful :.tud}
ol anilable protocol!! (Lt:v.i , .!002b; .,ec abo www.tc.columbia.eclu/le:.son
.,tud} and w\V\v.globalcdrc~ources.com)
will help lJ s. cducawrs understand that
tl1e~e IC!>!>On tudy acti\'itic., differ funda
memall} from lesson planning and
ob~crvalion a we communly know it.
ln ~enings w here the foundaHon for
collabonttion and content :-.tud} i!>
alrcad)' well e:.t:thlbhed. careful imple
ment:ttion of the visible fcall.1re!. of
le. son tlld) Dl:t} graduall) and muurall)
build IL'arning patlnva) . But where tl1e
foundation b not o;ct, educatOrs ... houJd
make a point of creating those learning
pathway · tltelll!!dvt:~ .
If lcs..,on smdy i!. to avoid the grave
yard in which so man) other onn:-
Teac/Jingfor IJigiJ stmularrts: \r1){11 fJoliCJ'IIWkers 11eed to /.!/IOU' r/1/d /)e llfJ!e to do. New York: :--'ari01ul Commhsion on Tcaching :tnd America ' Futurt: and Com,onium for l'oli<..'\ lh:~>carch in Education.
Elmon:. R. ( 1999-1000). Building :t new ~tntctun: for 1oehoollcauer~h1p. rlmerlmn Hdumtor. 23( 1). 12
Lew 1~. < . ( 199i) Educallug bearts and ml11ds: Rejlectitms on Japmwse prescbool nnd elementliiJ' education.
C\\ Yurk. C'amhridgt: llmn:r..ir) Press. Lt:wi-,, < . (2002.a). Doc!. k.,son ~tudy have
a ftnurt: in the United !lt;llc~? joumal of tbe Vagoya Unit•ersi~J' 1-ducatlon Defwrtment. 1- 11
Lewis, <... (2002b). Lesson stuf~J'-'. I IJanrtbook of leacber-led fnstruclicmal chrmRl'. Philadelphia· ltc~c-Jrch for lkucr !x:hool:.
l..e\\ 1s, C., & Tsuchida. I. ( 19tr>. Planned educational change in )Jpan· The :.hift to ~tudcnt-<:cmcrcd elcmcntary ..cic::ncc. joumal of Educutlon f>ollq, /2(5) ,
3 13-:B 1. Lt:wi:., <. .. 8. T~uchida. I. ( l 99H, Winter). A
lelt!>Oil IS like :1 wiftl) flo\ving ri\'er: Rc:.earc.:h l~ons and tht: imprmement of Jap:Lile!>e educauon American l:tluculor, 1-l-1'. ')0-Sl
Milb C'.(lllt'l:W Le.~n tud) Group (2000) Can youlifl!OO klloRrmn~? !Vidcotapcl . Available: MV\\ . le~nrc~~trch .nct
ational Rt:~trch CounciL (2002> 5/1/{~J 'ing classroom teachfug as n medium for professt'onal tlel'elop11WIII. Proceedings of a C ~ -japan ll'Orks/}(lp. H. B.ts , Z. Ul>bkin. & G . Dunill (Ed!>.). ~1athematical Sc1cnces Education Bo:trd. \\'J..~hington. DC:
ational Acadcm} Pres~.
Perf) , It, l.ewi!>, C .. & Akiba, M . (2002). I es.smt sllll~J' in I be ~WI \fa/eo-Foster ~~~~ · k!Jool Dtstrlct Paper prc~nrcd at the 2002 Annual !\leeting of the Amcric-.Lil Educational Rese:trdl ~'Ociation. • t..'\\ Orleans. LA.
Stigler, J. \'\ .. & Hicbcn.]. (1999) nJe teac/Jing gnp: Bestlrteas(rom tbe ll'orld's fcwcbers for lmpmnin~ edf/C(Iflon in 1/Je clriS.'>I'OOm . • C\\ York: . umm i 1 Jk)()k.:,.
Takaha~hi , A. (2000). Current trend~ and i-.~uc in k:.son srudy u1 Jap.tn .tnd tlle l nited , tatcs.]ouma/ rif]apan . ociety of Jlflt!Jematical Etlucal/on. 81( 12). 15-21
Yo~hida. M. 0999a). Lesson Sfllf(J' ljugyokenkyuj In clemelllary sc/J()o/ matbemallcs In japan A case stud1•. Paper prc!.t'ntt:d at the 1999 ,\nnual Meeting ol the Amencan Educauonal Rc~1rch A.<il>OCiation. \1ontrcal. Canada.
Yoc;hid:t, ~I ( 1999h). lesson stii({J'' ..t case study of a Japanese npproaciJ Ia lmpm1'111f!, lllslrucllon through schoolbased teacber de1 •elopment Doctoml di~sertation, Univc~it} of Chicago.
AuiiJOrs' uole: TI1i" material b b:t!>ed on work :.upponed by the '\auonal Science Founuation under (,mm l\o 020-1';<). An) opmionll, finding:., .md eonclu~ions or recommendation~ cxpre<;.,<.cd in thi~ m:nerial arc tlm~c of tl1c:: authOr!> and uo not nccc~s:uily reflect the 'icw~ or the National Scit:ncc Foundation.
Copyright rf 200-l Catherine Lewis.
Rebecca Perry. and jacqueline Hurd.
Catherine Lewis (clewls@mJIIs edu) is a sen1or research sc1ent1st and Rebecca Perry ([email protected]) IS a sen10r research assooate 1n the Department of Educat1on. Mills College, Oakland, Cahforn1a. Jacqueline Hurd Uhurd@smfc k 12 .ca us) 1s a cofounder of the lesson
study effort m the San Matecr-Foster City School D1stnct, Cahforn1a. where she serves as a 3rd grade teacher and lesson study faol1tator
Copyright of Educational Leadership is the property of Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.