Teaching Versus Teachers as a Lever for Change: Comparing a Japanese and a U.S. Perspective on Improving Instruction

Abstract

We examine the distinction between teaching and teachers as it relates to instructional improvement. Drawing from work outside of education on improvement systems and from analyzing the Japanese system of lesson study, we contend that a focus on teaching can shape a coordinated system for improvement whereas a focus on teachers, common in the United States, leads to elements that are uncoordinated and often work against the continuous, steady improvement of classroom teaching. We propose that the concept of systems for improvement and its instantiation in Japanese K–8 education offer opportunities to reexamine U.S. efforts to improve teaching and shift these efforts toward a more promising direction.

Keywords

Asian education classroom research comparative education cross-cultural studies cultural analysis educational reform historical analysis policy analysis teacher education/development

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arani

M. R. S.

Keisuke

Lassegard

J. P.

(2010). “Lesson study” as professional culture in Japanese schools: An historical perspective on elementary classroom practices. Japan Review, 22, 171–200.

Bell

C. A.

Gitomer

D. H.

McCaffrey

D. F.

Hamre

B. K.

Pianta

R. C.

(2012). An argument approach to observation protocol validity. Educational Assessment, 17, 62–87.

Berwick

D. M.

(1996). A primer on leading the improvement of systems. British Medical Journal, 312, 619–622.

Borko

(2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.

Branson

R. K.

Grow

(1987). Instructional systems development. In Gagne

R. M.

(Ed.), Instructional technology: Foundations (pp. 397–428). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bryk

A. S.

Gomez

L. M.

Grunow

(2011). Getting ideas into action: Building networked improvement communities in education. In Hallinan

M. T.

(Ed.), Frontiers in sociology of education (pp. 127–162). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

Bryk

A. S.

Gomez

L. M.

Grunow

LeMahieu

P. G.

(2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Committee on Conceptual Framework for the New K–12 Science Education Standards. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Cohen

D. K.

(2010). Teacher quality: An American educational dilemma. In Kennedy

(Ed.), Teacher assessment and the quest for quality (pp. 375–401). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

10.

Cohen

D. K.

Hill

H. C.

(2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

11.

Cuban

(1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890–1990 (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

12.

Darling-Hammond

Sykes

(Eds.). (1999). Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

13.

Desimone

L. M.

(2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38, 181–199.

14.

Dewey

(1929). The sources of a science of education. New York, NY: Horace Liveright.

15.

Elmore

R. F.

(1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 1–26.

16.

Fernandez

(2002). Learning from Japanese approaches to professional development: The case of lesson study. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 393–405.

17.

Fernandez

Yoshida

(2004). Lesson study: A Japanese approach to improving mathematics teaching and learning. New York, NY: Routledge.

18.

Fey

(1979). Mathematics teaching today: Perspectives from three national surveys. Mathematics Teacher, 72, 490–504.

19.

Gabor

(1990). The man who discovered quality: How W. Edwards Deming brought the quality revolution to America. New York, NY: Times Books.

20.

Gallimore

R. G.

Ermeling

B. A.

(2010). Five keys to effective teacher learning teams. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/04/13/29gallimore.h29.html/html

21.

Gallimore

Ermeling

B. A.

Saunders

W. M.

Goldenberg

(2009). Moving the learning of teaching closer to practice: Teacher education implications of school-based inquiry teams. Elementary School Journal, 109, 537–553.

22.

Garet

M. S.

Porter

A. C.

Desimone

Birman

B. F.

Yoon

K. S.

(2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945.

23.

Guthrie

J. W.

(Ed.). (1990). [Special issue] Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3).

24.

Hanushek

E. A.

Rivkin

S. G.

(2010). Generalizations about using value-added measure of teacher quality. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 100, 267–271.

25.

Hiebert

Grouws

D. A.

(2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In Lester

F. K.

Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371–404). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

26.

Hiebert

Morris

A. K.

(2012). Teaching, rather than teachers, as a path toward improving classroom instruction. Journal of Teacher Education, 63, 92–102.

27.

Hiebert

Stigler

J. W.

Jacobs

J. K.

Givvin

K. B.

Garnier

Smith

. . . Gallimore

(2005). Mathematics teaching in the United States today (and tomorrow): Results from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27, 111–132.

28.

Hoetker

Ahlbrand

W. P.

Jr. (1969). The persistence of the recitation. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 145–167.

29.

Huang

Bao

(2006). Towards a model for teacher professional development in China: Introducing Keli. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9, 279–298.

30.

International Reading Association & the National Council of Teachers of English. (1996). Standards for the English language arts. Newark, DE and Urbana, IL: Author.

31.

Ishii

Rivkin

S. G.

(2009). Impediments to the estimation of teacher value added. Education Finance and Policy, 4, 520–536.

32.

Kennedy

M. M.

(2006). From teacher quality to quality teaching. Educational Leadership, 63(6), 14–19.

33.

Kennedy

M. M.

(2010). Attribution error and the quest for teacher quality. Educational Researcher, 39, 591–598.

34.

Kuno

(2014). Evolving the curriculum through lesson study in Japan. In Dudley

(Ed.), Lesson study: Professional development for our time (pp. 129–144) London: Routledge.

35.

Lampert

Graziani

(2009). Instructional activities as a tool for teachers’ and teacher educators’ learning. Elementary School Journal, 109, 491–509.

36.

Langley

G. J.

Moen

Nolan

K. M.

Nolan

T. W.

Norman

C. L.

Provost

L. P.

(2009). The improvement guide: A practical approach to enhancing organizational performance (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

37.

Lewis

C. C.

(2002). Lesson study: A handbook of teacher-led instructional change. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better Schools, Inc.

38.

Lewis

C. C.

Hurd

(2011). Lesson study step by step: How teacher learning communities improve instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinneman.

39.

Lewis

C. C.

Perry

Murata

(2006). How should research contribute to instructional improvement? The case of lesson study. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 3–14.

40.

Lewis

C. C.

Takahashi

(2003). Facilitating curriculum reforms through lesson study. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 2, 207–217.

41.

Lewis

C. C.

Tsuchida

(1997). Planned educational change in Japan: The case of elementary science instruction. Journal of Education Policy, 12(5), 313–331.

42.

Lewis

Tsuchida

(1998). A lesson is like a swiftly flowing river. American Educator, 22(4), 12–17.

43.

Y. P.

Huang

R. J.

(2013). How Chinese teach mathematics and improve teaching. New York, NY: Routledge.

44.

Morris

A. K.

Hiebert

(2011). Creating shared instructional products: An alternative approach to improving teaching. Educational Researcher, 40, 5–14.

45.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

46.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

47.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.

48.

National Research Council. (2003). Strategic education research partnership. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

49.

Nuthall

(2005). The cultural myths and realities of classroom teaching and learning: A personal journey. Teachers College Record, 107, 895–934.

50.

Nye

Konstantopoulos

Hedges

L. V.

(2004). How large are teacher effects. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 237–257.

51.

Oser

F. K.

Baeriswyl

F. J.

(2001). Choreographies of teaching: Bridging instruction to learning. In Richardson

(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 1031–1065). New York, NY: Macmillan.

52.

Paine

L. W.

(1992). Teaching and modernization in contemporary China. In Hayhoe

(Ed.), Education and modernization: The Chinese experience (pp. 183–210). London: Pergamon Press.

53.

Rother

(2009). Toyota Kata: Managing people for improvement, adaptiveness, and superior results. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

54.

Rubin

D. B.

Stuart

E. A.

Zanutto

E. L.

(2004). A potential outcomes view of value-added assessment in education. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29, 103–116.

55.

Sanders

W. L.

Rivers

J. C.

(1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.

56.

Sanders

W. L.

Saxton

A. M.

Horn

S. P.

(1997). The Tennessee value-added assessment system: A quantitative outcomes-based approach to educational assessment. In Millman

(Ed.), Grading teachers, grading schools: Is student achievement a valid evaluation measure? Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

57.

Saunders

Goldenberg

Gallimore

(2009). Increasing achievement by focusing grade level teams on improving classroom learning: A prospective quasi-experimental study of Title I schools. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 1006–1033.

58.

Schmidt

W. H.

McKnight

C. C.

Raizen

S. A.

(1996). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

59.

Shimahara

N. K.

Sakai

(1995). Learning to teach in two cultures: Japan and the United States. New York, NY: Garland.

60.

Sirotnik

K. A.

(1983). What you see is what you get—Consistency, persistency, and mediocrity in classrooms. Harvard Educational Review, 53, 16–31.

61.

Stigler

(2010). Needed: Fresh thinking on teacher accountability. Education Week, 29(33), 30, 36.

62.

Stigler

J. W.

Hiebert

(2009). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the worlds’ teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York, NY: Free Press.

63.

Takahashi

Lewis

Perry

(2013). Facilitating curriculum reforms through lesson study. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 2, 207–217.

64.

Takahashi

McDougal

(2014). Implementing a new national curriculum: Case study of a Japanese school’s 2-year lesson study project. In Karp

(Ed.), Annual perspectives in mathematics education: Using research to improve instruction (pp. 13–22). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.