Lesson study to scale up research-based knowledge: A randomized, controlled trial of fractions learning

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education

Volumn 48, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 261-299

  Lewis, Catherine ^a   Perry, Rebecca ^b  

^a MILLS COLLEGE   (United States)

^b WestEd   (United States)

Author keywords

Fractions; Lesson study; Linear model; Professional development; Professional learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 85019902545     PISSN: 00218251     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5951/jresematheduc.48.3.0261     Document Type: Article

References (110)

1. Akiba, M., Chiu, Y.-F., Zhuang, Y.-L., & Mueller, H. E. (2008). Standards-based mathematics reforms and mathematics achievement of American Indian/Alaska Native eighth graders. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 16(20), 1-31. doi: 10.14507/epaa.v16n20.2008
2. Akiba, M., Wilkinson, B., Farfan, O., Howard, C, Kuleshova, A., Fryer, J.,⋯ Eichler, B. (2016). Lesson study in Florida: A longitudinal survey of district policy and practice from 2013 to 2015. Tallahassee: Florida State University.
3. Alston, A. S., Pedrick, L., Morris, K. P., & Basu, R. (2011). Lesson study as a tool for developing teachers' close attention to students' mathematical thinking. In L. C. Hart, A. Alston, & A. Murata (Eds.), Lesson study research and practice in mathematics education (pp. 135-151). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer, doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-9941-9-11
4. Beckmann, S. (2005). Mathematics for elementary teachers. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
5. Behr, M. X, & Post, T. R. (1992). Teaching rational number and decimal concepts. In T. R. Post (Ed), Teaching mathematics in grades K-8: Research-based methods (2nd ed., pp. 201-248). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
6. Bloom, H. S., Richburg-Hayes, L., & Black, A. R. (2007). Using covariates to improve precision for studies that randomize schools to evaluate educational interventions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(1), 30-59. doi: 10.3102/0162373707299550
7. Booth, J. L., & Newton, K. J. (2012). Fractions: Could they really be the gatekeeper's doorman? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37(4), 247-253. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.07.001
8. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments/or education (pp. 289-325). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Bryk, A. S., and Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America's schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
10. California Department of Education. (n.d.). CST released test questions: Released test questions for the California Standards Tests (CSTs). Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/css05rtq.asp
11. Center for Research in Mathematics and Science Teacher Development. (2005a). Diagnostic teacher assessment in mathematics and science: Elementary mathematics, rational numbers assessment (Version 1.2). Louisville, KY: Author.
12. Center for Research in Mathematics and Science Teacher Development. (2005b). Diagnostic teacher assessment in mathematics and science: Middle school mathematics, number and computation assessment (Version 2). Louisville, KY: Author.
13. Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947-967. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00053-7
14. Coburn, C. E., & Stein, M. K. (Eds.). (2010). Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
15. Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (2001). Making change: Instruction and its improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 73-77. doi: 10.1177/003172170108300115
16. Common Core State Standards Initiative, (n.d.). Standards in your state. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-state/
17. Cwikla, J. (2007). The trials of a poor middle school trying to catch up in mathematics: Teachers' multiple communities of practice and the boundary encounters. Education and Urban Society, 39(4), 554-583. doi: 10.1177/0013124507302464
18. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers' professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 58(3), 181-199. doi: 10.3102/0013189X08331140
19. Desimone, L. M., and Smith, T. M., & Ueno, K. (2006). Are teachers who need sustained, content-focused professional development getting it? An administrator's dilemma. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 179-215. doi: 10.1177/0013161X04273848
20. Doig, B., Groves, S., & Fujii, T. (2011). The critical role of task development in lesson study. In L. C. Hart, A. Alston, & A. Murata (Eds), Lesson study research and practice in mathematics education: Learning together (pp. 181-199). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-9941-9-15
21. Dougherty, B., & Fillingim, J. (2009, April). Fractions models and contexts: Impact on students' learning. Paper presented at the Research Presession of the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Washington, DC.
22. Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 1-26. doi: 10.17763/haer.66.1.g73266758j348t33
23. Ermeling, B. A., & Graff-Ermeling, G. (2014). Learning to learn from teaching: A first-hand account of lesson study in Japan. Internationaljournal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 3(2), 170-191. doi: 10.1108/IJLLS-07-2013-0041
24. Ermeling, B. A., & Graff-Ermeling, G. (2016). Teaching belter: Igniting and sustaining instructional improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
25. Fernandez, C, & Yoshida, M. (2004). Lesson study: A Japanese approach to improving mathematics teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Fishman, B., and Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2004). Creating a framework for research on systemic technology innovations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 43-76. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1301-3
27. Fullan, M. (2000). The three stories of educational reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(H), 581-584.
28. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
29. Gersten, R., and Taylor, M. J., Keys, T. D., Rolfhus, E., & Newman-Gonchar, R. (2014). Summary of research on the effectiveness of math professional development approaches (REL 2014-010). Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/projects/project.asp?projectID=391
30. Gill, A. (2005). For knowledgeable others: AFT's experience in Volusia County. In P. Wang-Iverson & M. Yoshida (Eds.), Building our understanding of lesson study (pp. 53-62). Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better Schools.
31. Grow-Maienza, I, & Beal, S. (2005, April). What we can learn from Asian mathematics textbooks. Paper presented at the Research Presession of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Anaheim, CA.
32. Gutierrez, K. D., & Penuel, W. R. (2014). Relevance to practice as a criterion for rigor. Educational Researcher, 43(1), 19-23. doi: 10.3102/0013189X13520289
33. Hackenberg, A., Norton, A., Wilkins, J., & Steffe, L. (2009, April). Testing hypotheses about students' operational development of fractions. Paper presented at the Research Presession of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Washington, DC.
34. Hart, L. C, & Carriere, J. (2011). Developing the habits of mind for a successful lesson study community. In L. C. Hart, A. Alston, & A. Murata (Eds), Lesson study research and practice in mathematics education: Learning together (pp. 27-38). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-9941-9-3
35. Hill, H. C. (2010). The nature and predictors of elementary teachers' mathematical knowledge for teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(5), 513-545.
36. Hill, H. C. (2011). The nature and effects of middle school mathematics teacher learning experiences. Teachers College Record, 113(1), 205-234.
37. Hill, H. C, Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers' mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371-406. doi: 10.3102/00028312042002371
38. Hironaka, H., & Sugiyama, Y. (2006). Mathematics for elementary school, Grades 1-6. Tokyo, Japan: Tokyo Shoseki.
39. HorizonResearch. (2000a). 2000national survey of science and mathematics education: Mathematics questionnaire. Retrieved from http://www.horizon-research.com/horizonresearclvwpAvpcontent/uploads/2013/04/math-teacher.pdf
40. Horizon Research. (2000b). 2005-06 local systemic change professional development observation protocol. Retrieved from http://www.horizon-research.com/horizonresearchwpAvp-content/uploads/2013/04/pdop.pdf
41. Horn, I. S. (2005). Learning on the job: A situated account of teacher learning in high school mathematics departments. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 207-236. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci2302-2
42. Iowa Department of Education. (2013). NAEP-Grade 5 tasks-Number & operations-Fractions. Retrieved from https://www.educateiowa.gov/documents/iowa-core-mathematics-support/2014/10/naep-grade-5-tasks-number-operations-fractions
43. Iowa Department of Education. (2015). Teachingfractions in Grades 3-6: Session 6 NAEP problems and results. Retrieved from https://www.educateiowa.gov/documents/iowa-core-mathematics-support/2015/01/teaching-fractions-grades-3-6-session-6-naep
44. Isoda, M., Stephens, M., Ohara, Y., & Miyakawa, T. (Eds.) (with Shimizu, S., Baba, T., Okubo, K., & Arcavi, A.). (2007). Japanese lesson study in mathematics: Its impact, diversity and potential for educational improvement. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. doi: 10.1142/6339
45. Knapp, A., Borner, M., & Moore, C. (2011). Lesson study as a learning environment for coaches of mathematics teachers. In L. C. Hart, A. Alston, & A. Murata (Eds.), Lesson study research and practice in mathematics education: Learning together (pp. 153-164). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-9941-9-12
46. Kullberg, A. (2010). What is taught and what is learned: Professional insights gained and shared by teachers of mathematics. Gothenburg, Sweden: University of Gothenburg.
47. Lamon, S. J. (2005). Teachingfractions and ratios for understanding: Essential content knowledge and instructional strategies for teachers (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
48. Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
49. Lee, C. K.-E. (2011, November). Crossing borders: The global spread of lesson study. Paper presented at the World Association of Lesson Study International Conference, Tokyo, Japan.
50. Lewis, C. C. (2014). How do Japanese teachers improve their instruction? Synergies of lesson study at the school, district and national levels (Paper commissioned for the Committee on Strengthening Science Education Through a Teacher Learning Continuum). Retrieved from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BOSE/DBASSE-084388
51. Lewis, C. C, & Hurd, J. (2011). Lesson study step by step: How teacher learning communities improve instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinneman.
52. Lewis, C, & Perry, R. (2014). Lesson study with mathematical resources: A sustainable model for locally-led teacher professional learning. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 16(1), 22-42.
53. Lewis, C. C, & Perry, R. R. (2015). A randomized trial of lesson study with mathematical resource kits: Analysis of impact on teachers' beliefs and learning community. In J. A. Middleton, J. Cai, & S. Hwang (Eds.), Large-scale studies in mathematics education (pp. 133-155). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-07716-1-7
54. Lewis, C. C, Perry, R. R., & Friedkin, S. (2011). Using Japanese curriculum materials to support lesson study outside Japan: Toward coherent curriculum. Educational Studies in Japan: International Yearbook, 6, 5-19.
55. Lewis, C. C, Perry, R. R., & Hurd, J. (2009). Improving mathematics instruction through lesson study: A theoretical model and North American case. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12(4), 285-304. doi: 10.1007/s10857-009-9102-7
56. Lewis, C, & Tsuchida, I. (1997). Planned educational change in Japan: The case of elementary science instruction. Journal of Educational Policy, 12(5), 313-331. doi: 10.1080/0268093970120502
57. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers' understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
58. Manouchehri, A., & Goodman, T. (2000). Implementing mathematics reform: The challenge within. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42(1), 1-34. doi: 10.1023/A:1004011522216
59. Miyakawa, T. (2011). Textbooks and teaching guides. In M. Isoda, M. Stephens, Y. Ohara, & T. Miyakawa (Eds.), Japanese lesson study in mathematics: Its impact, diversity and potential for educational improvement (pp. 48-51). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
60. Morris, A. K. (2000). A teaching experiment: Introducing fourth graders to fractions from the viewpoint of measuring quantities using Davydov's mathematics curriculum. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 22(2), 33-84.
61. Morris, A. K., & Hiebert, J. (2011). Creating shared instructional products: An alternative approach to improving teaching. Educational Researcher, 40(1), 5-14. doi: 10.3102/0013189X10393501
62. Murata, A. (2016). Learning by making connections in practice: A case of kindergarten lesson study. Manuscript submitted for publication.
63. National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Common Core of Data: Search for public schools. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/
64. National Education Policy Research Institute. (2011). Kyouin no shitsu no koujou ni kansuru chosa kenkyuu [Report of survey research on improvement of teacher quality]. Tokyo, Japan: Author.
65. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
66. National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded Ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. doi: 10.17226/9853
67. Newton, K. J. (2008). Anextensive analysis of preservice elementary teachers' knowledge of fractions. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 1080-1110. doi: 10.3102/0002831208320851
68. Nickerson, S. D., Fredenberg, M., & Druken, B. K. (2014). Hybrid lesson study: Extending lesson study on-line. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 3(2), 152-169. doi: 10.1108/IJLLS-06-2013-0037
69. Norton, A. H., & McCloskey, A. V. (2008). Modeling students' mathematics using Steffe's fraction schemes. Teaching Children Mathematics, 75(1), 48-54.
70. NYU Gateway Math Education Program. (2006, December 11). Rational number work group meeling (#1)-Summary. Retrieved from https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/steinhardt/gateway/pdfs/12-11MtgSummary.pdf
71. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). Aprofile of student performance in mathematics. In PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do. Student performance in mathematics, reading and science (Rev. ed., Vol. I, pp. 31-144). Paris, France: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264208780-6-en
72. Pang, M. F., & Marton, F. (2003). Beyond "lesson study": Comparing two ways of facilitating the grasp of some economic concepts. Instructional Science, 51(3), 175-194. doi: 10.1023/A:1023280619632
73. Penuel, W. R., & Fishman, B. J. (2012). Large-scale science education intervention research we can use. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(3), 281-304. doi: 10.1002/tea.21001
74. Post, T. R. (1981). Fractions: Results and implications from national assessment. The Arithmetic Teacher, 28(9), 26-31.
75. Post, T. R., Harel, G., Behr, M. J., & Lesh, R. A. (1988). Intermediate teachers' knowledge of rational number concepts. In E. Fennema, T. P. Carpenter, & S. J. Lamon (Eds.), Integrating research on teaching and learning mathematics: Papers from the first Wisconsin Symposium for Research on Teaching and Learning Mathematics (pp. 194-219). Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
76. Raudenbush, S. W, & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
77. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211-246. doi: 10.3102/00346543075002211
78. Remillard, J. T., & Bryans, M. B. (2004). Teachers' orientations toward mathematics curriculum materials: Implications for teacher learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5), 352-388. doi: 10.2307/30034820
79. Saxe, G. B., and Shaughnessy, M. M., Shannon, A., Langer-Osuna, J. M., Chinn, R., & Gearhart, M. (2007). Learning about fractions as points on a number line. In W. G. Martin, M. E. Strutchens, & P. C. Elliott (Eds), The learning of mathematics: 69th yearbook (pp. 221-237). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
80. Saxe, G. B., Diakow, R., & Gearhart, M. (2012). Towards curricular coherence in integers and fractions: A study of the efficacy of a lesson sequence that uses the number line as the principal representational context. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(3), 343-364. doi: 10.1007/s11858-012-0466-2
81. Saxe, G. B., Gearhart, M., & Nasir, N. S. (2001). Enhancing students' understanding of mathematics: A study of three contrasting approaches to professional support. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 4(1), 55-79. doi: 10.1023/A:1009935100676
82. Schifter, D. (1998). Learning mathematics for teaching: From a teachers' seminar to the classroom. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1(1), 55-87. doi: 10.1023/A:1009911200478
83. Schorr, R. Y., and Firestone, W. A., & Monfils, L. (2003). State testing and mathematics teaching in New Jersey: The effects of a test without other supports. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(5), 373-405. doi: 10.2307/30034793
84. Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2009). Effects of video club participation on teachers' professional vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 20-37. doi: 10.1177/0022487108328155
85. Siegler, R., Carpenter, T., Fennell, F., Geary, D., Lewis, J., Okamoto, Y.,⋯ Wray, J. (2010). Developing effective fractions instruction for kindergarten through 8th grade: A practice guide (NCEE #2010-4039). Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/15
86. Siegler, R. S., and Fazio, L. K., Bailey, D. H., & Zhou, X. (2013). Fractions: The new frontier for theories of numerical development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(1), 13-19. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2012.11.004
87. Siegler, R. S., and Thompson, C. A., & Schneider, M. (2011). An integrated theory of whole number and fractions development. Cognitive Psychology, 62(4), 273-296. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.03.001
88. Smith, T. M., & Desimone, L. M. (2003). Do changes in patterns of participation in teachers' professional development reflect the goals of standards-based reforms? Educational Horizons, 81(3), 119-129.
89. Southern Nevada Regional Professional Development Program. (2014). NAEP questions, prealgebra, Unit 05: Rational numbers and equations. Retrieved from http://rpdp.net/admin/images/uploads/2270PreAlgebraUnit05NAEPQuestions.pdf
90. Spillane, J. P. (2000). A fifth-grade teacher's reconstruction of mathematics and literacy teaching: Exploring interactions among identity, learning, and subject matter. The Elementary School Journal, 700(4), 307-330. doi: 10.1086/499644
91. Spillane, J. P., and Parise, L. M., & Sherer, J. Z. (2011). Organizational routines as coupling mechanisms: Policy, school administration, and the technical core. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 586-619. doi: 10.3102/0002831210385102
92. Stipek, D. (2010). Foreword. In C. E. Coburn & M. K. Stein (Eds), Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide (pp. xi-xiii). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
93. Takahashi, A. (2008, July). Beyond show and tell: Neriage for teaching through problem-solving: Ideas from Japanese problem-solving approaches for teaching mathematics. Paper presented at the 11th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Monterrey, Mexico.
94. Takahashi, A. (2014a). The role of the knowledgeable other in lesson study: Examining the final comments of experienced lesson study practitioners. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 16(1), 4-21.
95. Takahashi, A. (2014b). Supporting the effective implementation of a new mathematics curriculum: A case study of school-based lesson study at a Japanese public elementary school. In Y. Li & G. Lappan (Eds.), Mathematics curriculum in school education (pp. 417-441). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-7560-2-20
96. Takahashi, A., & McDougal, T. (2014). Implementing a new national curriculum: A Japanese school's two-year lesson-study project. In K. S. Karp (Ed.), Annual perspectives in mathematics education: Using research to improve instruction (pp. 13-21). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
97. Takahashi, A., & McDougal, T. (2015). Collaborative lesson research: Maximizing the impact of lesson study. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 48(4), 513-526. doi: 10.1007/s11858-015-0752-x
98. TeachingWorks. (n.d.). High-leverage content [Website]. Retrieved from http://www.teachingworks.org/work-of-teaching/high-leverage-content
99. Tepylo, D. H., & Moss, J. (2011). Examining change in teacher mathematical knowledge through lesson study. In L. C. Hart, A. Alston, & A. Murata (Eds.), Lesson study research and practice in mathematics education: Learning together (pp. 59-77). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-9941-9-5
100. Tokyo Shoseki. (2015). Sansu math: Grade 2 textbook. Tualatin, OR: Koyo Publishing.
101. U. S. Department of Education. (2009). State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Volume VIII - Teacher quality under NCLB: Final report. Washington, DC: Author.
102. Van de Walle, J. A. (2007). Developing fraction concepts. In Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally (6th ed., pp. 293-315). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
103. Ward, J., & Thomas, G. (2007). What do teachers know about fractions? In B. Annan, F. Ell, J. Fisher, N. Hawera, J. Higgins, K. C. Irwin,⋯ J. Young-Loveridge (Eds.), Findings from the New Zealand Numeracy Development Projects 2006 (pp. 128-138). Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
104. Watanabe, T. (2006). The teaching and learning of fractions: A Japanese perspective. Teaching Children Mathematics, 12(7), 368-374.
105. Watanabe, T. (2007). Initial treatment of fractions in Japanese textbooks. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 29(2), 41-60.
106. Watanabe, T., & Wang-Iverson, P. (2005). The role of knowledgeable others. In P. Wang-Iverson & M. Yoshida (Eds.), Building our understanding of lesson study (pp. 85-92). Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better Schools.
107. Wayne, A. J., and Yoon, K. S., Zhu, P., Cronen, S., & Garet, M. S. (2008). Experiementing with teacher professional development: Motives and methods. Educational Researcher, 37(8), 469-479. doi: 10.3102/0013189X08327154
108. Wu, H.-H. (2011). Understanding numbers in elementary school mathematics. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society. doi: 10.1090/mbk/079
109. Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007-No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest.
110. Zhou, Z., and Peverly, S. T., & Xin, T. (2006). Knowing and teaching fractions: A cross-cultural study of American and Chinese mathematics teachers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(4), 438-457. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.02.001