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 (rperry@mllls.edu) 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.