A Comparison of the Situation of Mathematics Problem Solving and

Higher Order Thinking Skills Between Traditional and Lesson Study

Methods at Foundation Level

ABSTRACT

Although problem solving is the core of mathematics education, it is not integrated in the majority of
classrooms. This qualitative case study was conducted in a foundation center in a public university in
Selangor, Malaysia in 2018-19. In this center, seven mathematics lecturers, a physics lecturer and the
researcher formed a Lesson Study group and we developed five Research Lessons on the functions
collaboratively. During this study, thee researcher received all the materials taught by all lecturers about
five topics in their classes through traditional method. Also, the materials in textbook related to these
topics analyzed. The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare between traditional and Lesson
Study methods by considering the role of problem solving among students by analyzing the textbook
materials, Research Lessons and the lecturers’ lessons. Data were analyzed descriptively through the
document analysis technique. Initially, the Research Lessons and lecturers lessons were compared with
textbook to find the role of problem solving and higher order thinking skills. Then, Lesson Study and
traditional methods compared with respect to the problem solving and higher order thinking skills. The
results of this study represented that problem solving and higher order thinking are not frequently
integrated and applied in this foundation center and lecturers taught the same textbook exactly with much
emphasis on solving exercises in their classes. When the lecturers worked collaboratively to design some
Research Lessons; they realized applying suitable mathematics problem-solving activities and improved
their knowledge effectively. The findings shed light on application of Lesson Study method for
mathematics lecturers in foundation level to enhance problem solving and higher order thinking skills
among students.

KEYWORDS: Lesson Study, Research Lesson, Mathematics, Mathematics Problem, Practical problem,
Mathematics Exercise

INTRODUCTION

Mathematics educators consider that teaching of mathematics particularly at higher education is

challenging because problems and concepts are more complicated than those of mathematics problems in
secondary education. Malaysian higher education offers pre-university program through several
pathways; namely foundation, matriculation and A-level for all students who have completed secondary
schools. To be awarded a foundation qualification, students are required to complete 50 credit
hours during 12 months. Students’ performance in their Secondary School Examination and their grade
point average obtained in the pre-university program usually determine students’ selection to universities
and the programs. Pre-university programs generally offer main courses in English, mathematics,
sciences (Chemistry, Physics, Biology), and Information Communication Technology. Hence, students’
performance in pre-university program plays an important role in selecting their fields of study and their
university. In the context of pre-university level, the lecturers’ competency in the content knowledge and
pedagogical content knowledge play a major role in ensuring that students’ learning outcomes have
enormously improved to guarantee their placement in decent study programs at high ranking universities.
When it came to teaching qualification in pre-university programs, holding diploma in education was
necessary for teaching certification. Nevertheless, holding a diploma in education does not guarantee that
lecturers have sufficient knowledge on how to teach, lecturers are persuaded to pursue the postgraduate
diploma in education. Lecturers require different pedagogical approaches and techniques for delivering
each new topic, therefore, lecturers must constantly enhance and update their teaching knowledge. To
upgrade pedagogical content knowledge, teachers should learn from each other and share the best
practices on teaching a particular content to students. Fujii (2016) and Mon, Dali, and Sam (2016)
highlighted that cooperative and collective teamwork among mathematics educators tends to enhance
their knowledge on content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge and the best practices of
teaching.

The materials and lessons designed by lecturers play an important role in enhancing students’ interests in
learning mathematics. Doing suitable activities by students help them have higher confidence in
mathematics classes and improve their abilities in mathematics subject. Lomibao (2016) stated that lesson
planning has generally been a solitary task among mathematics teachers. Hence, individual educators’
ability determines the quality of materials which are used for students (Lomibao, 2016). Therefore,
mathematics educators should have appropriate content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge
about different topics in order to plan the lessons effectively. In secondary school curricula, the concept of
function considered as central and difficult area in mathematics ( Ponce, 2007; Akkus, Hand, & Seymour,
2008; Doorman, et al., 2012). For example, “the topics of inverse function and composite function are
more conceptual and challenging among educators in terms of teaching ” (Oehrtman, Carlson, &
Thompson, 2008, p. 39). Although teaching function deemed to be problematic and challenging for
educators and students, it would be a practical topic in each university program and human life. One of the
most widespread applications of the functions is related to modeling the real-world so as to organize the
physical world (Michelsen, 2006).

In traditional method of teaching, mathematics educators emphasize on giving lecture and solving
exercises among students. However, this method is a lecturer-centered and it cannot improve students’
abilities in problem solving and higher order thinking (Khalid, 2017; Mon, Dali, & Sam, 2016). Most
students simply memorize the solution methods and apply them in solving exercise or exams. Traditional
method of teaching mathematics is grounded on the behaviorism learning theory in education. This theory
is based on the premise that a learner must build habit formation based on stimulus-response process.
They claim that learning happens as there is a change in his/her behavior (Ormord, 1995). Lesson Study is
considered as a model for enhancing professional development of mathematics educators (Fujii, 2016).
This model is based on the cognitivism learning theory and puts plenty of emphasis on problem solving.
As a matter of fact, in mathematics, problem solving skill help students develop a range of complicated
mathematical structures and acquire the ability to solve a range of real life problems (Tarmizi & Bayat,
2012).

The aim of this research is to investigate the role of higher order thinking skills and problem solving in
mathematics textbook at foundation level and to compare the role of higher order thinking skills and
problem solving between traditional and Lesson Study groups.

Lesson Study approach, as a useful method for enhancing teachers’ professional development, has been
using by Japanese teachers since the 1950’s (Abiko, 2011), however, it has been most popular since 1999
among mathematic teachers and researchers (Kazemi, Zaman, & Ghafar, 2014). Yoshida (1999) proposed
the idea of lesson study “Jugyo Kenkyu” in Japanese and these two Japanese words: Jugyo and Kenkyu,
means lesson and study in turn and these terms were translated into Lesson Study. Lesson Study refers to
collaboratively working of a group of mathematics educators on some topics in order to plan a lesson,
teach, observe the lesson and to reflect and discuss on the taught lessons. The aim is to develop student’s
success in mathematics learning and problem solving by presenting effective teaching (Matanluk, Johari,
& Matanluk, 2013). These lessons in Japanese language are called gakushushido-an, and translated into
Research Lessons (Fujii, 2016) or Study Lessons (Fernandez & Yoshida, 2004). Lesson Study refers to a
sequence of pedagogical progress in which the Research Lesson plays a key role (Lewis, 2002).

LESSON STUDY
Three forms of Lesson Study namely School-based, District-based, and National-level Lesson Study are
very popular in Japan. The sequence of all forms of Lesson Study is essentially similar, however, the only
difference is associated with the range of students. For instance, school-based Lesson Study is merely
applicable for students in the school; District-based Lesson Study is more appropriate in the district; and
National-level Lesson Study is mostly focused on the students around the country (Fujii, 2016; Takahashi,
2006). Several Lesson Study models have been developed by Yoshida (1999), Takahashi (2001),
Richardson (2004), Fernandez-Yoshida (2004), Fuji (2014), and Khakbaz (2007). To implement Lesson
Study, Fujii (2014) considered the following five stages:
a. Goal Setting: mathematics teachers emphasize on the long-standing goals so as to increase
students’ learning, students’ achievement and problem solving.
b. Lesson Planning: Instructors plan cooperatively to develop appropriate mathematics materials to
enhance students’ higher order thinking and problem solving skills.
c. Research Lesson: Instructors develop a proper Research Lesson; one of the instructors in a team
teaches the Research Lesson and other fellows observe the delivery of the lesson and collect data
to enhance the Research Lesson.
d. Post-lesson Discussion: Mathematics educators have post-lesson discussion to reflect on
students’ misunderstanding, unit design, students’ learning, and disciplinary content to develop
high quality Research Lesson.
e. Reflection: In this stage, instructors collaboratively raise new questions on the Lesson Research
and they solve these problems in the subsequent Lesson Study. Furthermore, in this phase, they
compose a report on the Research Lesson.
Figure 1 illustrates all steps of Lesson Study model by Fujii at 2014.

1. Goal 2. Lesson Planning 3. Research

5. Ref 4. Post-lesson Discussion

Figure 1: The Process of Lesson Study (Fujii, 2014)

The aim of Lesson Study is to engage students with suitable problem solving skills based on their abilities
and skills. It seems School-based Lesson Study is the strongest type because educators in a special
educational center plan and design the Research Lessons based on students’ abilities in problem solving
(Takahashi, 2006).

MATHEMATICS PROBLEM SOLVING

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2000) defined problem solving task as engaging
and challenging task that students have not realized how to solve it before. However, mathematics
exercise refers to a known and challenging mathematics problem that students involve in it for the first
time. It is obvious that the boundary between mathematics exercise and mathematics problem is
dependent on many aspects for instance country, grade of students, education system, and time. For
example, the following mathematics problem turns into mathematics exercise after being discussed in the
class.

Problem: which one is suitable answer for the function f ( x )= √ x + √ −x ?

a. Even b. Odd c. Both even and odd d. Neither even nor odd

For this problem, the majority of students apply the condition of even function as
f (−x )= √−x + √ x=√ x+ √−x=f (x ) and explain that this is an even function because they only
memorize the process of checking the even function without understanding this concept meaningfully. The
domain of this function is D f = { 0 } so f = {( 0 , 0 ) } and this is both even and odd function. We can
consider many new examples related to the above mathematics exercise only by changing the rule of the
function such as g ( x )=√ x−1+ √ 1−x , h ( x )=√ 3 x+ √−3 x and k ( x )= x 3+ −x 3 . Although
√ √
these examples are different, all of them considered as mathematics exercises because the idea for
solutions is clear for students. If lecturers consider a little change in this mathematics exercise students
engage with another problem such as:

Problem: If f is a non-zero function which one is suitable answer for the function
y=f ( x )+ f (−x )?
a. Even b. Odd c. Both even and odd d. Neither even nor odd

Moreover, in this research each mathematics problem associated to other subjects such as physics,
biology, and chemistry and students’ everyday life are deemed as a real-world problem. For example, this
problem is regarded as a practical problem.

Problem: The number of bacteria in a culture is B(t ) after t minutes. The relationship between the
elapsed time t , in minutes, and the number of bacteria, B(t ) , in the petrol dish is modelled by the
t
( )
function B ( t )=10. 2 12 .

a. How many bacteria will make up the culture after 120 minutes?
b. After how many minutes the population will be5. 216?

Polya (1945) has proposed four stages problem solving in mathematics namely realizing problem,
planning, implement the plan, and verifying the solution . It is worth mentioning that educators and
researchers have introduced numerous models for problem solving including various steps and phases
since 1945. Generally all models illustrates four stages of understanding the problem, selecting a strategy,
solving the problem and confirming the answer, however, it is essential that mathematics teachers initially
encourage and involve students in solving mathematics problems which are based on their abilities and
skills. It has been reported that mathematics educators pedagogically found it challenging to use open-
ended problems, to encourage students to apply the strategies and to explain what problem-solving
strategies they have applied (Johnson & Cupitt, 2004; McDonald, 2009). Students can be improved in
problem-solving skills once teachers get them to involve in appropriate mathematics problem-solving
activities. Furthermore, in each learning context, mathematics educators should consider the levels of
difficulty in assigning open-ended problem solving tasks and assign them based on students’ abilities,
hence each would be able to solve the problems to some extent (Asami-Johansson, 2015 & Bergqvist,
2011). Figure 2 illustrates the mathematics’ problem solving model which is used in this study.

Understanding the Problem

Student Plan and Strategy Student
Motivation Solving the Problem Achievement
In Confirm the solution In
Mathematics Compare with other solutions Mathematics
 Figure 2: A Conceptual Model of Mathematics Problem Solving for this Study

Higher Order Thinking Skills

To improve problem solving skills, mathematics educators and materials play major
roles in improving students’ higher order thinking skills. Generally, mathematics
instructors lack content knowledge regarding developing and implementing questioning
techniques and teaching in higher order thinking which persuade teachers to employ
traditional method in their mathematics classes (Alhassora, Abu, & Abdullah, 2017).
Malaysian Ministry of Education (2014) have placed a lot of emphasis on integrating
higher order thinking skills among students as the main element to enable them to
compete internationally.
On the one hand, the researchers fail to agree on operational definition of ‘higher order
thinking’. Thomas and Thorne (2009) define it as thinking skill which is beyond the
level of memorization. On the other hand Bloom (1956) classified thinking skills
ranging from concrete and progressing to the abstract: knowledge, comprehension,
application, analysis, synthesis and creativity. The latter three levels of Bloom’s
Taxonomy: analysis, synthesis, and creative are considered higher order thinking skills
(McBain, 2011).

Ministry of Education (2014) defined higher order thinking skills as skill of applying
knowledge, skills reasoning and reflection to solve problems, make decisions, innovate
and to create something new. In this definition, four levels of applying, analysing,
evaluating and creating of revised Bloom’s taxonomy are considered as the skills of
higher order thinking which are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Dimensions of Higher Order Thinking Skills

Level Explanation

Applying Using the knowledge, skills and values in different situations to take matters

Analysing Break down the information to better understand the relationship between the

division

Evaluating Make judgments and decisions using the knowledge, experience, skills and

values and justify

Creating Produce a product or idea or create and innovative methods

(Source: Ministry of Education, 2014)

METHODOLOGY

This case study was conducted in a foundation center in a public university in Serdang, Malaysia, during
the first semester of 2018-19. This educational centre was selected to compare the role of problem solving
between Lesson Study and the traditional methods. Students pursuing foundation education are selected
into the programme based on their excellent high school results. The quality of mathematics textbooks in
foundation centers is approximately the same. Meanwhile in these centers excellent lecturers teach the
mathematics courses. Therefore, choosing one particular university would also reflect the lecturers of
other universities. As stated in the problem statement, in the existing literature, there is no study which
compares the situation of problem solving between Lesson Study and traditional methods in foundation
level.

In this educational center, nine mathematics lecturers (four males and five females) were teaching 20
classes with 952 students (326 males and 626 females). Eight mathematics lecturers and two physics
lecturers volunteered to participate in this study, however, later a mathematics lecturer and a physics
lecturer withdrew from the study because of their time limitations. Thus Lesson Study group consisted of
seven mathematics lecturers, a physics lecturer and the researcher. Physics lecturer assisted mathematics
lecturers to consider some practical problems in their Research Lessons and to know the students’ needs in
the area of functions which are applied in physics problems. Meanwhile, the researcher played several
roles such as coordinator, discussion leader, Lesson Study group member (discussion participant). After
obtaining permission from the principal of foundation center, all lecturers who were a part of this study
signed the disclosure letter.

There are two mathematics textbooks namely mathematics 1 and mathematics 2 are being taught by
lecturers over a one year period in foundation center. The head of mathematics lecturers explained that
these textbooks are designed by all mathematics lecturers in this center (each lecturer designed one
chapter). These books contain different chapters related to the algebra, calculus, trigonometry, geometry,
probability and statistics. In the first mathematics textbook approximately two fifths (92 out of 235 pages)
of the volume is allocated to the mathematics functions. In this study, the researcher chose the functions
topic because it is a problematic concept for lecturers to teach and for students to learn. Lesson Study
group members collaboratively planned, discussed and designed five Research Lessons. Table 2 illustrates
different topics related to the functions in this study.

Table 2: The Topics of Research Lessons

Research Lesson Topic
1 Relation and function concepts
2 Domain & range of the functions and algebraic combination
3 Composite function, inverse function and odd & even functions
4 Trigonometric functions
5 Exponential and logarithmic functions

Before teaching functions, the researcher coordinated with some students (two students in each group) to
copy down all the materials taught by lecturers in their classes. After having taught all these lessons by
lecturers, the researcher received all the lecturers’ lessons. Problem solving is the core of mathematics
learning among lecturers and students so that all materials related to these topics in mathematics 1
textbook, Research Lessons and lecturer’s lessons analyzed to compare problem solving between
traditional and Lesson Study methods. In fact, the data gathered by using the textbook of mathematics 1 ,
Research Lessons and lecturer’s lessons and all the data analyzed descriptively by using document
analysis technique. First, the textbook of mathematics 1 was analyzed to find the role of problem solving
and higher order thinking in the textbook. Consequently, Research Lessons and lecturer’s lessons
compared with textbook to analyze the role of problem solving and higher order thinking in Research
Lessons and lecturer’s lessons. Finally, Research Lessons and Lecturers lessons compared in order to find
the role of problem solving and higher order thinking in Lesson Study and traditional methods. Figure 3
represented the process of data analysis in this study.

Mathematics Problems and higher order thinking in Textbook

Mathematics Problems and higher order Mathematics Problems and higher order
thinking in the Research Lessons thinking in Lecturer’s Lessons
 Compare Mathematics Problems and higher order thinking in Traditional and Lesson Study Methods

Figure 3: The Process of Data Analyzing in this Study

FINDINGS

The role of mathematics problem solving in foundation level discussed in three parts; textbook, lecturers’
lessons and Research Lessons.

TEXTBOOK

The analysis of materials related to these five topics in the textbook of mathematics 1 revealed that it is so
poor in terms of mathematics problem solving. There are a few mathematics problems in this textbook
meanwhile there are not any practical problem solving tasks. In fact, the textbook emphasizes on
mathematics exercise solving among students. The materials in the textbook encourages students to
memorize some methods, formulas, theorems and shortcuts in order to apply them in some mathematics
exercises solving. These lessons cannot improve students’ abilities in problem solving. The result of
analyzing the textbook materials represented in Table 3.

Table 3: The Number of Mathematics Problems in the Textbook

No. Topic Exercise Problem Practical Problem
1 Relation and function concepts 16 1 0
2 Domain & range of the functions 19 1 0
and algebraic combination
3 Composite function, inverse function 26 2 0
and odd & even functions
4 Trigonometric functions 10 1 0
5 Exponential and logarithmic functions 18 1 0
Total 89 6 0

Table 3 shows that among these five topics, only 6.3% of tasks are mathematics problems and 93.7% of
tasks are mathematics exercises.

There are a lot of similar mathematics exercises about each subtopic, for example, in topic 3 (Composite
function, inverse function and odd & even functions) there are only 18 exercises related to the composite
function like the following exercise:
1
Exercise: If f ( x )=1−x and g ( x )= 2 find the function fog.
x +1
However, the number of problems is very limited in each subtopic, for instance, in topic 4 (trigonometric
function) one problem only was found on page 159 of the textbook as:
Problem: Find all angles (0 ≤ θ ≤ π ¿ which satisfy the equation4 sec 2 θ=3 tanθ +5.

The tasks in the textbook were categorized based on revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. Table 4 shows the
categories of tasks based on Bloom’s taxonomy.

Table 4: Bloom’s taxonomy for all Topics in the Textbook

Topic Tasks Remembering Understanding Applying Analysing Evaluating Creating
1 17 5 11 1 0 0 0
2 20 7 12 1 0 0 0
 3 28 14 13 1 1 0 0
4 11 4 5 - 1 0 0
5 19 6 12 1 0 0 0
Total 95 36 53 4 2 0 0

As can be seen in Table 4, 93.7% of tasks were related to the lower order thinking skills and 6.3% of tasks
are associated with higher order thinking skills. Therefore, the materials in the textbook are not
appropriate for foundation level students to improve their higher order thinking skills.

LECTURERS’ LESSONS

Researcher received all the lecturers’ lessons about the topics in Table 2 and compared the materials in
each lesson with the textbook mathematics 1 to find the quality of problem solving in each lesson. The
results showed that in this foundation centre mathematics lecturers teach exactly the same materials in the
textbook. With respect to the Table 3, the number of mathematics problems is not acceptable for
foundation level textbook. In general, problem solving is not integrated into the classes of this foundation
centre. Table 5 shows the quality of lecturers’ lessons with regard to the problem solving on the following
topics.

Table 5: The Number of Mathematics Problems for each Lecturer’s Lesson

Lecturer Highest Mathematics Problem (Practical Problem) Total
Degree Topic 1 Topic 2 Topic 3 Topic 4 Topic 5
A Master 1(0) 1(0) 3(0) 1(0) 1(0) 7(0)
B Master 1(0) 1(0) 2(0) 1(0) 1(0) 6(0)
C PhD 1(0) 2(0) 2(0) 2(0) 1(0) 8(0)
D Master 1(0) 1(0) 2(0) 1(0) 1(0) 6(0)
E PhD 1(0) 1(0) 2(0) 1(0) 1(0) 6(0)
F Master 1(0) 1(0) 2(0) 1(0) 1(0) 6(0)
G Master 1(0) 1(0) 2(0) 1(0) 1(0) 6(0)
H PhD 1(0) 1(0) 3(0) 1(0) 1(0) 7(0)
I PhD 1(0) 1(0) 2(0) 1(0) 1(0) 6(0)

Moreover, the levels of higher order thinking based on revised Blooms taxonomy for lecturers’ lessons are
approximately similar to the textbook. In other words, the quality of lecturers’ lessons with respect to
higher order thinking skills are similar to the textbook. Table 6 shows the levels of higher order thinking
based on revised Bloom’s Taxonomy in five lecturers’ lessons.

Table 6: The Levels of Higher Order Thinking in Lecturers’ Lessons

Lecturer A B C D E F G H I
Applying 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 4
Analysing 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2
Evaluating 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Creating 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 7 6 8 6 6 6 6 7 6

RESEARCH LESSONS 46707433888

Lesson Study group contains seven mathematics lecturers, a physics lecturer and researcher. They
collaboratively planned, discussed and designed five Research Lessons on different topics related to the
mathematics functions (see Table 2). Mathematics lecturers during Lesson Study programme improved
their content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. They considered integrating suitable
mathematics problems into each Research Lesson. Furthermore, they believed that integration of practical
problem into mathematics curricula play a major role in encouraging students in problem solving. In fact,
Lesson Study helped lecturers improve their content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge in
order to have better performance in enhancing students’ skills in problem solving. The results of analysis
of Research Lessons have been illustrated in Table 7.

Table 7: The Number of Mathematics Problems in the Research Lessons

No. Title of Research Lesson Exercise Problem Practical problem
1 Relation and function concepts 7 8 3
2 Domain & range of the functions and 14 5 2
Algebraic combination
3 Composite function, inverse function and 9 12 3
odd & even functions
4 Trigonometric functions 6 11 1
5 Exponential and logarithmic functions 11 5 2
Total 47 41 11

In Table 7, the percentage of mathematics exercises, mathematics problems and practical problems are
48%, 41% and 11% respectively. In other words, 52% of mathematics tasks in these topics are related to
the problem solving. When students are engaged in the process of problem solving, not only they learn
mathematics conceptually and interestingly but also lecturers improve their content knowledge and
pedagogical content knowledge since they face with different ideas, methods and solutions among
students.

The levels of tasks in five Research Lessons categorized based on the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. Table 8
shows the categories of tasks according to the revised Bloom’s taxonomy.

Table 8: Bloom’s taxonomy for all Topics in the Research Lessons

Topic Tasks Remembering Understanding Applying Analyzing Evaluating Creating
1 18 2 5 5 3 2 1
2 21 5 9 3 2 1 1
3 24 3 6 6 5 2 2
4 18 1 5 5 3 2 2
5 18 3 8 3 2 1 1
Total 99 14 33 22 15 8 7

Based on Table 8, 47.5% of tasks in all topics are related to the lower order thinking and 52.5% are related
to higher order thinking.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The results of this study confirmed that in this foundation centre, mathematics problem solving and higher
order thinking are not common among lecturers and students. The classes were lecturer-cantered and
lecturers transferred materials to students through traditional methods. Meanwhile, they emphasized on
mathematics exercise solving among students. Therefore, students cannot learn mathematics conceptually
and experience the beauty of mathematics. It is an important question “how students can learn
mathematics without mathematics problem solving?” They just memorise the mathematics materials such
as definitions, theorems and methods in order to apply them in mathematics exercise solving.

Mathematics lecturers taught exactly the same textbook materials and the quality of textbook for teaching
mathematics function is very low. Since mathematics function is one of most important topics that used in
all mathematics courses at the university level. So students in foundation level need to have suitable
knowledge about the functions in order to apply the function concepts in any field of study particularly in
real world (Michelsen, 2006).

Lesson Study as a professional development helped lecturers to improve their teaching knowledge
especially about their content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. They improved their
lessons in problem solving and higher order thinking abilities. In this centre, most lessons are being taught
through traditional method and only one sixteenth of students’ activities were related to the problem
solving. However, in Lesson Study model, approximately one second of students’ activities were allocated
to the problem solving. It has been found that collaborative work among lecturers is very beneficial to
improve the quality of mathematics teaching. Furthermore, collaborative work through Lesson Study
provides opportunity for lecturers to improve students’ skills in higher order thinking skills. Another
factor is to improve the quality of mathematics materials which help students to engage in suitable
problem solving with different levels of higher order thinking skills based on revised Bloom’s taxonomy.
For example, in this centre, if lecturers collaboratively design their textbooks, definitely they can design
and develop better textbooks for students especially about the problem solving skills. Therefore, Lesson
Study is a strong model for professional development and it is suitable for foundation centre in Malaysia.
The reason is that during one semester all lecturers teach only one subject (textbook) and for work days
usually they stay in this educational centre from 8 am to 5 pm. In fact, mathematics lecturers in Lesson
Study focused on problem solving and higher order thinking skills among students by considering suitable
problems related to all levels of revised Bloom’s taxonomy.

REFFERENCES

Abiko, T. (2011). A response from Japan to LRP’s ten principles for effective pedagogy.
Research Papers in Education, 26(3), 357–365.
Akkus, R., Hand, B., & Seymour, J. (2008). Understanding students’ understanding of functions.
Mathematics Teaching Incorporating Micromath, 207, 10–13.
Alhassora, N. S. A., Abu, M. S., & Abdullah, A. H. (2017). Inculcating higher-order thinking
skills in mathematics: Why is it so hard? Man in India, 97(13), 51–62.
Asami-Johansson, Y. (2015). Designing Mathematics Lessons Using Japanese Problem Solving
Oriented Lesson Structure : A Swedish case study. https://doi.org/10.3384/diss.diva-122240
Bergqvist, T. (2011). Learning Problem Solving And Learning Through Problem Solving. Umeå
Mathematics Education Research Centre, UMERC Faculty of Sciences and Technology,
Proceedings from the 13th ProMath Conference Umeå University, Sweden, 4–16.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational
goals. New York, NY: Longmans, Green.
Doorman, M., Drijvers, P., Gravemeijer, K., Boon, P., & Reed, H. (2012). Tool use and the
development of the function concept: From repeated calculations to functional thinking.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1243–1267.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9329-0
Fernandez, C., & Yoshida, M. (2004). A case of a Japanese approach to improving instruction
through school-based teacher development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fujii, T. (2016). Designing and adapting tasks in lesson planning: a critical process of Lesson
Study. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 48(4), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-
016-0770-3
Johnson, K., & Cupitt, G. (2004). Quality teaching in mathematics K-6: Perspectives on
classroom-based research and teacher professional learning in PSFP primary schools.
Paper Presented to the Annual Conference of Australian Association for Research in
Education, Melbourne.
Kazemi, F., Zaman, A., & Ghafar, A. (2014). Localizing Lesson Study for the Math Teachers ’
Professional Development , Necessities and Prohibitions. 4(9S), 504–508.
Khalid, M. (2017). Fostering Problem Solving and Performance Assessment among Malaysian
Mathematics Teachers. Sains Humanika, 9(1–2). https://doi.org/10.11113/sh.v9n1-2.1098
Lewis, C. (2002). Lesson study: A handbook of teacher-led instructional change. Philadelphia:
 Research for Better Schools.
Lomibao, L. S. (2016). Enhancing mathematics teachers’ quality through Lesson Study.
SpringerPlus, 5(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3215-0
Matanluk, K., Johari, K., & Matanluk, O. (2013). The Perception of Teachers and Students
toward Lesson Study Implementation at Rural School of Sabah: A Pilot Study. Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90(InCULT 2012), 245–250.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.088
McBain, R. (2011). How High Can Students Think? A Study of Students’ Cognitive Levels Using
Bloom’s Taxonomy in Social Studies.
https://doi.org/https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED524386.pdf
McDonald, S. E. (2009). A Model of Teacher Professional Development Based on the principles
of Lesson Study. Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Michelsen, C. (2006). Functions: a modelling tool in mathematics and science. ZDM. Int. J.
Math. Educ, 38(3), 269–280.
Ministry of Education. (2014). Annual Report of Malaysian Education Development Plan.
Putrajaya, Malaysia.
Mon, C. C., Dali, M. H., & Sam, L. C. (2016). Implementation of lesson study as an innovative
professional development model among Malaysian school teachers. Malaysian Journal of
Learning and Instruction, 13(1), 83–111.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Executive summary - Principals
and standards for school mathematics. 1–6. Retrieved from
http://www.nctm.org/uploadedFiles/Math_Standards/12752_exec_pssm.pdf
Oehrtman, M., Carlson, M., & Thompson, P. W. (2008). Foundational reasoning abilities that
promote coherence in students’ understandings of function. In M. P. Carlson & C.
Rasmussen (Eds.),. Making the Connection: Research and Practice in Undergraduate
Mathematics, 27–42.
Ormord, J. E. (1995). Human Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it; a new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton. NJ, US:
Princeton University Press.
Ponce, G. (2007). Critical juncture ahead: Proceed with caution to introduce the concept of
function. Mathematics Teacher, 101(2), 136–144.
Takahashi, A. (2006). Characteristics of Japanese Mathematics Lessons. Tsukuba Journal of
Educational Study in Mathematics, 25(1), 37–44.
Tarmizi, R. A., & Bayat, S. (2012). Collaborative problem-based learning in mathematics: A
cognitive load perspective. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 32, 344–350.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.051
Thomas, G., & Thorne, A. (2009). How To Increase Higher Level Thinking. Metarie, LA:
Center for Development and Learning. https://doi.org/http://www.cdl.org/resource-
library/articles /HOT.php?type=subject&id=18