Reflection on Lesson Study Process

Maggie Gearns

Michigan State University

TE 857

April 30, 2021

 1

Throughout the lesson study process, my understanding of teaching through problem

solving has evolved. At the beginning of the semester, I defined teaching through problem

solving as “a mathematical inquiry where students work through problems to help build

knowledge and understanding of why things work.” I knew that problem solving had to do with

developing a conceptual understanding of mathematics, but I have learned so much more about

how to select tasks that are groupworthy and problematic and how to create classroom norms and

routines that lead to effective and rich discussions.

Our group first worked together to select our task. We worked together to design the task

around data that students would collect from a game, creating questions and extensions that

would help students to move from noticing parts of a box-and-whisker plot to understanding the

meaning of each part and being able to find a five number summary. We realized that the task

needed to be “groupworthy” in order to elicit participation from all students. We added in

discussion elements and created a nearpod to make sure that each student was accountable for

sharing their ideas. During our reflection, we reflected on how we could have created more

accountability by asking one student to “speak” for the group but not telling them who that

student would be. We also knew that the task needed to be problematic. We started the task by

asking students to determine which team was better at the game of snake by examining two

box-and-whisker plots. We used questioning to create controversy over who was the better team,

to get kids interested in figuring out the solution. Overall these strategies worked to create

engagement in our lesson.

The lesson study process also emphasized that it is very important to be reflective about

teaching practice, so that I can improve upon the lessons that I implement in my classroom.

Through meeting with Elena and Will, I was able to get a different perspective on some of my
 2

students' questions and responses during the lesson. For example, there was one question in the

extension part of the lesson that I had advocated for changing, because the open-endedness left

students confused and taking more guesses than actually thinking through the question. Elena

stated that she liked the open-endedness of the problem, and that the responses she heard were

useful in highlighting student thinking, even if the thinking was incorrect. Together we were

able to tweak the question so that it was more clear to students, but retained the open-ended

nature that allowed students to explore. Having group members to reflect and think through the

efficacy of the questioning as well as the task itself allowed me to see multiple perspectives that I

may not have considered in reflecting on my own.

After working through the lesson study process and completing the readings, I define

mathematical problem solving as “An engaging and problematic task that requires all students to

use their understanding of mathematics to analyze the task, solve using one or more solution

strategies and communicate their findings.” Mathematical problem solving goes beyond

traditional instructional methods where teachers walk students through a particular procedure or

solution strategy. It allows students to take the lead in developing their understanding of

mathematics, leading to rich discussion, deeper understanding and increased confidence in their

own mathematical competence.

A classroom engaged in mathematical problem solving is collaborative. Students

typically sit in small groups so that they can work through problems together. All students have

a voice in the classroom, and in their groups. The teacher takes on the role of a “guide on the

side” or as described in Teaching Mathematics Through Problem Solving, a “manager of

investigation teams” (Copes & Shager, 2006). The teacher circulates as students work to solve

problems, uses effective questioning, and provides encouragement and praise while trusting
 3

students to think through the mathematics. Students are taught classroom and group norms.

Horn (2012) suggested setting the following norms: no talking outside your group, you have the

right to ask anyone in your group for help, you have the duty to help anyone who asks, and

helping is not the same as telling (p. 48). These norms help create an effective classroom

environment where students can stay engaged in problem solving and move forward in their

learning.

To advocate for a problem solving approach to teaching and learning, I would argue that

we want our students to understand and apply mathematical concepts, as opposed to being able

to memorize and apply procedures that don’t make sense to them. In Chapter 1 of Teaching

Mathematics Through Problem Solving, the authors state “Being able to use what one knows in a

flexible way is the hallmark of successful citizens and professionals in the twenty-first century”

(Heibert & Wearne, 2006). Knowing how to solve a quadratic equation is only useful if a student

knows when to solve a quadratic equation and how the solution applies to a particular context.

Students should do mathematics, not just learn about mathematics. Doing mathematics requires

authentic tasks, and helps students to see the value in what they are learning.

In order to teach mathematics through problem solving successfully, teachers, students

and parents need to understand the approach. While not all parties need to agree on weather

learning through problem solving is the best approach, students who are used to more traditional

mathematics instruction need to understand why they are not being given all of the information

that leads to the solution of the problem. They need to know that their teacher is still there for

support, even though he or she may be taking on more of a guiding role than the students are

used to.
 4

I would also suggest that teachers be provided with training on establishing group roles

and norms and the use of effective questioning. These were two components of the lesson study

process that really allowed our group to be successful with a problem solving approach. Group

and classroom norms help ensure that all students are accountable for their participation. It is

important to set the expectation that everyone is capable of contributing something of value to

their group and that every student can work with every other student. This helps to diminish the

issue of status in the classroom and require participation. Participation and engagement are

essential to a problem solving classroom, because it is easy for students to get left behind with

this type of instruction if they are not engaged.

The use of effective questioning is what drives the lesson when students become stuck or

need help moving forward. Herbel-Eisenmann and Breyfogle (2005) gave examples of how to

use productive questioning patterns. They encouraged teachers to move away from the

Initiation-Response-Feedback pattern to “focusing”, which requires the teacher to guide students

based on their thinking. They also described a type of questioning pattern called “funneling”

where the teacher scaffolds the questions to guide students through a particular solution or

procedure. Funneling is not ideal, because it directs students to a particular strategy, without

allowing them to derive their own solutions. It’s easy to fall into a pattern of funneling questions

as a way to help students get to the solution. Teachers need specific training to understand the

types of questions that move students forward with their own strategies.

I would suggest that colleagues interested in teaching through problem solving start with

the steps outlined in Chapter 13 of Teaching Mathematics Through Problem Solving. They can

begin with articulating the particular mathematical ideas that students need to learn from their

current curriculum. Teachers can then begin to structure their classroom in a way that supports
 5

problem solving by phasing in group work, new classroom routines, and expectations for

participation (Copes & Shager, 2006). Teachers then can begin to choose tasks that are

groupworthy and problematic and allow students to begin problem solving. Administrators can

support this process by providing teachers with resources and training on group worthy tasks, the

teacher’s role and classroom routines. They can select curriculum materials that lend themselves

to teaching through problem-solving. They can also provide time for teachers to collaborate with

colleagues or engage in lesson study to critically examine and improve their problem solving

practice. Eventually, schools can move towards a problem solving philosophy that allows

students to learn mathematics with understanding..

Teaching Memo

Lesson: Analyzing box and whisker plots Date: 4/16/21

Lesson Goals:

● Mathematical Objective: I can interpret and compare box plots and defend my

conclusions about them using the data and vocabulary.

● Group work objective: I can form an opinion about which team is better and

defend/explain my thinking to my group mates.

Overall, I would say that the goal of the lesson was achieved. Students were able to

interpret and compare box plots and use the vocabulary words that we discussed to explain why

they felt one team was better than the other. Students were clear in their opinions about which

team was better and were able to express their thinking to their group mates. Some of the
 6

students still need to work on explaining why and keeping the discussion focused around the

math in their groups, but overall students followed the group norms and used reasoning to

support their claims.

Overall I think the lesson went well. The biggest challenge was getting students to work

together while staying 6ft apart. Often, when I tell students to “discuss with your partner” or

“check in with the person next to you” I hear one or two kids whispering and everyone else is

silent. Today, we talked about ways to be helpful to our groups before starting the discussions,

and students were much more willing to participate and talk with each other. I was actually

surprised what a difference laying out the expectations made. I was very pleased with the

amount of discussion that I heard in the classroom, compared to a typical lesson.

Student Learning: Students responded individually to prompts on our nearpod slideshow, and I

was also able to listen to their ideas during our small group and whole class discussions. I

observed some of the thoughts that our group had anticipated in designing the task- students

talked about adding up the scores for each team, using the average, the median of one team

being higher, the highest score being and outlier, and the fact that team one had a bigger range.

In looking at their work on the independent extension, it looks like the majority of students were

able to correctly find the five number summary for Team 3 and create the box plot. A few

students included the median in the upper and lower half of the data when finding quartiles 1

and 3, so their quartiles were slightly off. I will clarify with them next class period that the

median is not included when finding the quartiles. The extension question about adding three

scores to the data was a little unclear to students. Many of them interpreted the question as

taking scores from Team 1 and Team 2 to add to Team 3, instead of coming up with new data

points for Team 1 or Team 2. Still, some were able to explain that you would want to add higher

scores to make a team better. Students were also able to explain which team they thought was

best and defend their answer with the data from the box plot.
 7

Surprises/Unanticipated Decisions: I was surprised that most students had the same initial

gut reaction that Team 2 was the better Team 1. I had anticipated that some students would say

team one, because of the outlier included in the data. This didn’t seem to faze many students,

and they argued right away that Team 2 was better because they were “more consistent” or had

a “higher middle”. An unanticipated decision was whether or not to push the idea that 25% of

the data falls within each quartile of the box plot. This idea was introduced in the video part of

the lesson, and I had hoped that students would bring this up as part of their reasoning.

Students kept mentioning the box for team two was “further to the right” while the box for team

one was “closer to the beginning”. They knew the box was important, but couldn’t articulate

exactly what the position of the box told them about the scores for each team. I questioned

them to think about what percent of the students’ scores were contained in each part of the box

plot. Some of the students eventually realized with some prompting, that half of the students on

the team scored within that box. I decided to push this and use a more direct approach,

because it didn’t seem like students were going to get to this idea during the class period, and I

felt like it was important to their understanding. If we had more time, I would have probably left

that idea until the following class and had them examine another set of data where we could

scaffold the idea in using a more conceptual approach.

Possible Changes: If I were to teach this lesson again, I would change the extension question

about adding scores to the data to change their mind about which team was best. This question

didn’t seem quite clear to students. I might change the question to, ‘If you could take three team

members from Team 1 and allow them to join Team 2, which three would you pick to make

Team 2 the strongest it can be?” Some students seemed to get the idea that you would want to

add the highest possible scores. Other students said to try and make the range bigger by

adding a high, middle and low score. This surprised me and showed they didn’t really
 8

understand that they wanted the team’s average or median score to be higher. I think changing

the wording of the question would help them to realize that if you can only choose three players

to join your team, you would want to choose the three strongest.
 9

References

Copes, L., & Shager, K. (2006) Phasing Problem-Based Teaching into a Traditional Educational

Environment. In Schoen (3rd Ed.), Teaching Mathematics Through Problem Solving (pp.

195-205) National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Heibert, J., & Wearne, D. (2006) Developing Understanding through Problem Solving. In

Schoen (3rd Ed.), Teaching Mathematics Through Problem Solving (pp. 3-13) National

Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Herbal-Eisenmann, B., & Breyfogle, M. (2005). Questioning Our "Patterns" of Questioning.

Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 10(9), 484-489. Retrieved April 21, 2021,

from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41182145

Horn, I. (2016). Strength in Numbers Collaborative Learning in Secondary Mathematics

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.