2014
DOI: 10.1007/s10857-014-9282-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Examining teachers’ understanding of the mathematical learning progression through vertical articulation during Lesson Study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
18
0
5

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
1
18
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…Several studies revealed teachers' development of their competence (including knowledge, skills, beliefs, self-efficacy, and disposition) (Björk and Petttersson 2015;Cajkler et al 2014;Huang et al 2011Han and Paine 2010;Lewis et al 2009;Murata et al 2012;Suh and Seshaiyer 2015). With the evidence from various data resources including teacher interviews and teachers' collaborative talk, researchers documented teachers' changes in their mathematics knowledge and skills (e.g., Björk and Pettersson 2015;Dudley 2013;Fernandez 2005;Hunter and Back 2011;Lewis and Perry 2014;Moss et al 2015;Shu and Seshaiyer 2015), pedagogical knowledge (e.g., Cajkler et al 2014;Han and Paine 2010;Lewis et al 2009;, understanding of student learning (e.g., Bocala 2015; Lewis et al 2009;Murata et al 2012), and pedagogical content knowledge (e.g., Dudley 2013; Lewis et al 2009;Shuilleabhain 2015).…”
Section: Teacher Learning Through Lsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several studies revealed teachers' development of their competence (including knowledge, skills, beliefs, self-efficacy, and disposition) (Björk and Petttersson 2015;Cajkler et al 2014;Huang et al 2011Han and Paine 2010;Lewis et al 2009;Murata et al 2012;Suh and Seshaiyer 2015). With the evidence from various data resources including teacher interviews and teachers' collaborative talk, researchers documented teachers' changes in their mathematics knowledge and skills (e.g., Björk and Pettersson 2015;Dudley 2013;Fernandez 2005;Hunter and Back 2011;Lewis and Perry 2014;Moss et al 2015;Shu and Seshaiyer 2015), pedagogical knowledge (e.g., Cajkler et al 2014;Han and Paine 2010;Lewis et al 2009;, understanding of student learning (e.g., Bocala 2015; Lewis et al 2009;Murata et al 2012), and pedagogical content knowledge (e.g., Dudley 2013; Lewis et al 2009;Shuilleabhain 2015).…”
Section: Teacher Learning Through Lsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Phase 3 of analysis demonstrated that as teachers' participation in lesson study continued, they not only sequenced content for instruction within a research lesson, but also began to sequence content for instruction across a series of lessons (Suh, 2015). This additional aspect of sequencing was therefore incorporated as a modified feature of KCT.…”
Section: Phasementioning
confidence: 99%
“…This was an important learning event for these teachers in structuring a sequence of student learning over a series of lessons (Suh, 2015). This learning event was also important since teachers realised that the content they taught did not have to be strictly guided or sequenced by the textbook (which introduced all applications of the theorem at once), but rather they could decide to return and develop the content at a later point in students' learning.…”
Section: Developing Kcs and Kct: Qualitative Excerptsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…El pensamiento vertical es aquel comprendido como la capacidad para aplicar habilidades desde la información escrita, genera análisis basados en los significados literales del texto, lo provoca en el sujeto el uso de información sin relacionarla: conocida como la capacidad de utilizar información cerrada y convencional (Budiarto et al, 2017;Butto Zarzar y Delgado, 2019;Caviedes-Barrera et al, 2019;Sosa Moguel et al, 2020;Suh y Seshaiyer, 2015), sobre todo, en la búsqueda de soluciones. Shulman (1986en Caviedes-Barrera et al, 2019 permite aducir que este tipo de conocimiento se sitúa en una condición de conocimiento del contenido (Subject Matter Content Knowledge, SMCK), por cuanto es el nivel que implicaría menor recarga en la memoria operativa y en el trabajo de las funciones cognitivas relacionales (comprensión e interpretación textual).…”
Section: Problemática Del Estudiounclassified