Call for Specialists from APEC Economies

First Announcement
Third APEC-Tsukuba International Conference
Innovation of Classroom Teaching and Learning through Lesson Study-Focusing on Mathematical CommunicationDec. 9-14 (15), 2007
Tokyo and Kanazawa (and Kyoto), JapanAt the third APEC Education Ministerial Meeting held on 29-30 April 2004 in Santiago,
the ministers defined the four priority areas for future network activities. “Stimulating
Learning in Mathematics and Science” is one of the four priority area. Based on thispriority, APEC HRDWG approved this project, ‘Innovation of Classroom Teaching andLeaning through Lesson Study’.
Lesson Study is a world known school based action research for both professional
development and curriculum development, and an essential strategy to improve thequality of education in economies. As well as previous projects APEC HRD 03/2006,
02/2007, FY 2008 project has four phases: First phase is aimed to share the ideas andthe planning of Lesson Study for each economy in Japan. Second phase is aimed toengage in Lesson Study for developing models in each economy. Third phase is aimed
to report the results of Lesson Study and share the models in Thailand. Fourth phase is
aimed to adapt the model in each economy.
As for FY 2008 APEC project, first phase is planed as APEC-Tsukuba International
Conference (III) at December 9-14 (15), 2007. This announcement includes the call for
specialists from economies, the discussion documents of the conference in order to pushchallenges for the improvements of education in APEC economies, and conference
schedule and venue.
Call for Specialists from member economies
The project and the meetings are planned for improving the quality of education in
APEC economies. The project itself has been carried out by the specialists frommember economies who participated in the past meetings: Tokyo in January 2006 andKhon Kaen in June 2006 for APEC HRD 03/2006 project, and Tokyo-Sapporo in
December 2006 and Khon Kaen in August 2007 for APEC HRD 02/2007 project. The
project is still ongoing in each economy at this moment by each specialist (Please lookat Appendix B).
1

Call for Specialists from APEC Economies

In past meetings, it also opens for new delegates who are recommended by eacheconomy. In the case of economies recommending new specialists, please consider thefollowing specialist’s criteria for developing the products of the project.
Specialist;
・ is working in the Ministry of Education for curriculum development orcollaboratively working with the Ministry of Education in academic
institutions including universities for teacher education,・ has experience of research in mathematics classroom at compulsory
education level,・ will engage in Lesson Study for FY 2008 project and develop teacher
education program in each economy in the project, and,・ will present his/her reports at both meetings in Japan in December, 2007
and Thailand in August, 2008.
Please inform us the specialists who are recommended by the economies using theformat (Appendix A) attached on the last pages of this document not later than October
26, 2007.
For sharing the welfare to improve the quality of education through the Lesson Study, it
is very welcome the member economies will support travel grants for a number ofdelegates. Based on the APEC policy, the travel cost of one specialist from each APEC
eligible member economy (Chile, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Papua New
Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Russia, Thailand, and Vietnam) should be supported by
APEC grant. Economies which can dispatch by the self-grant is recommended to use
self-grants for their participations however the organizing committee will consider theways to support if possible. The ways of support will be estimated after the specialist
nomination in October 26, 2007 (See page 5). If the number of delegates is larger thanthe limitation of the grant, the priority will be decided by the APEC policy.
Contribution, Report and Publication
Specialists are required to submit their paper not later than November 30, 2007 on the
PME format. For specialists, you are expecting to write paper with respect to thefollowing key questions using examples to illustrate your ideas (Further explanation
will be seen Appendix C). Keynote Speakers are required to submit their paper and ppt
file not later than November 26, 2007 for preparing simultaneous translation.
As well as past meetings in Japan, the purpose of this session is to share key ideas andthe planning of Lesson Study project in each economy. Before the meeting, specialists
will have to read each other’s papers. All the papers will be compiled into the progress
report of the APEC HRD project with CD or DVD and distributed through the project
website and APEC Knowledge Bank by US government. APEC Knowledge Bank also2Call for Specialists from APEC Economies

supports the Wiki pilot study for this Lesson Study project. Based on our outcome of theyear 2008 project, next year, we will ask the contributors to rewrite the papers for the
publication of the teacher education book.
Key Questions for Focusing on Mathematical Communication
1. Why do we focus on mathematical communication?
On your national curriculum document (including the general document of wholecurriculum), how does it enhance communication or mathematical communication
for students?
2. What are your components of mathematical communication to develop?
When you consider the classroom communication, what kinds of components you
want to integrate on the words of communication for developing mathematicalthinking?
3.

What kinds of approach will you prefer to develop the communication inclassroom?
What is your model teaching approach (or your teaching strategy) to enhanceclassroom communication in mathematics?
Further explanation will be seen on Appendix C

Program of the Conference in JapanAs well as our past years, we will share the key ideas through keynote lectures andpanel discussion, and share the key methods of Lesson Study at the open symposium.
Further elaborate and develop challenging plan for the Lesson Study for Phase II will beheld during the specialists’ session.
Dec. 8. 2007 Arrival (Tokyo)
15:00- Program meeting: Discussion about Wiki project.
18:00- Meeting in Japan Side
20:00- Explanation of the whole schedule for all specialists and keynote speakers

Dec. 9. First day: Open Symposium. -Representation and Communication9:00 Opening Ceremony
9:20 Explanation about the APEC Project
9:30 Tadao Nakahara
President, Japan Society of Mathematical Education/Pan-Pacific University
Constructing mathematical ideas through representation-Significance of communication3

Call for Specialists from APEC Economies

10:20 Kozo Tsubota
Elementary School attached to the University of Tsukuba
Developing the comprehensive classroom with Problematic Situation
11:30 Koeno Gravemeijer
Freudenthal Institute, Netherland
Designing mathematical activities by representation: Emergent modeling
12:50 Lunch Break
13:50 Lesson Study:

Kozo Tsubota, 6th grade

14:50 Panel Discussion and Group Discussion about the lesson
17:30 Resume
18:00 Reception

Dec. 10. Second day: Open symposium. –Communication, Argumentation and Reflection
9:00 Wiki Project Report
9:10 Hiroshi Nemoto
Former Chief Inspector/ Ibaraki University
Developing mathematical thinking through reflective experience
10:00 Hiroshi Tanaka
Elementary School attached to the University of Tsukuba
Developing children’s communication and representation
11:00 Guershon Harel
University of California, USA

Explanation, Argumentation and Proof
12:20 Lunch Break
13:30 Lesson Study: Kozo Tsubota
14:30 Panel Discussion and Working Group
17:00 Resume(17:30 Book Project session)

Dec. 11. Move to Kanazawa: Short excursion of Kenroku-en (Park)
Dec. 12. Specialist session at Kanazawa University about Representation
Morning session: Lesson Study meeting
Mayumi Hashimoto / Elementary School Attached to Kanazawa University
Afternoon session: Teaching strategies to develop the ability of representation(Night session for Book Project)Dec. 13. Specialist session at Kanazawa University about Argumentation
Morning session: Lesson Study meeting
Toshiharu Matsubara

4

Call for Specialists from APEC Economies

Junior Secondary School Attached to Kanazawa University
Afternoon session: Teaching strategies to develop the ability of discussion
Night session: developing the plan of Lesson Study in each economy

Dec. 14. Specialist session: Planning to challenge
Morning session: Planning to challenge for Phase II
Closing Session at noon

Additional Session of the Conference (Kyoto Excursion)
Dec. 14 Afternoon: move to Kyoto
Dec. 15. Excursion in Kyoto and additional planning (at night move to Narita if necessary)
Dec. 16. Departure (from Kansai airport or Narita airport)

Important Information for Participants at APEC-Tsukuba ConferenceFirst Announcement will be sent:
October 5, 2007
Contact URL: http://www.criced.tsukuba.ac.jp/math/apec
Deadline of the nomination of specialists from member economies:
October 26, 2007
Contact address: apec@criced.tsukuba.ac.jp
Invitation letter, Information of Trip and Second Announcement will be sent from
October 31, 2007
Contact address: apec@criced.tsukuba.ac.jp
Contact URL: http://www.criced.tsukuba.ac.jp/math/apec
Deadline of the submission of paper:
Keynote Speakers: November 26, 2007
Specialists: November 30, 2007
Contact address: apec@criced.tsukuba.ac.jp
All Papers for Discussion and Final Announcement will be on the website:
December 3, 2007
Contact URL (to be announced to specialists)
Arrival day of Participants
December 8
References:
APEC:
http://www.apec.org/
Knowledge Bank for APEC HRDWG Education Network:
http://www.apecknowledgebank.org/knowledgebank/index.cfm?action=dsp_body
APEC HRDWG Lesson Study Project official site (will be renewal in November):
http://www.criced.tsukuba.ac.jp/math/apec
Latest information of the Lesson Study project in FY 2007:
http://ednet.kku.ac.th/dataheadnewsdetail.php?headnews_ID=55

Call for Specialists from APEC Economies

List of Correspondence of the Conference
Conference Host:
Organized by
Supported by

University of Tsukuba
Kanazawa University
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology (MEXT), Japan
Khon Kaen University (Thailand)
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)
Japan Society of Mathematical Education (JSME)Japan Society of Science Education (JSSE)

Organizing Committee
General Chair of the Conference: ISODA, Masami
Associate Professor of Mathematics Education,
Center for Research on International Cooperation in Educational Development
University of Tsukuba, 305-8572 Japan
isoda@criced.tsukuba.ac.jp, Tel: +81-29-853-7286, Fax: +81-29-853-7288
Tokyo session organizer:
SHIMIZU, Shizumi
Associate Professor of Mathematics Education,
Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Science
University of Tsukuba, Japan
Kanazawa session organizer:
OHTANI, Minoru
Professor of Mathematics Education
Kanazawa University, Japan
Organizing Committee:
BABA, Takuya, Associate Professor, Hiroshima University
SAITO, Noboru, Professor, Naruto University of Education
HATTORI, Katunori, Professor, Naruto University of Education
OHARA, Yutaka, Associate Professor, Ritsumaikan University
KISHIMOTO, Tadayuki, Associate Professor, Toyama University
YOSHIDA, Minoru, Professor, Shinshu University
NISHITANI, Izumi, Associate Professor, Gunma University.
NINOMIYA, Hiroyuki, Associate Professor, Saitama University
OKUBO, Kazuyoshi, Professor, Hokkaido University of Education
Supporting Staff:
YUZAWA, Yasuo Ph.D (Mathematics)
Center for Research on International Cooperation in Educational Development
University of Tsukuba
General Secretariat / Contact Address
Center for Research on International Cooperation in Educational Development
University of Tsukuba, 305-8572 Japan
apec@criced.tsukuba.ac.jp, Tel & Fax: +81-29-853-6573
APEC Project Overseers
Suladda LOIPHA, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
Maitree INPRASITHA, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
Masami ISODA, University of Tsukuba, Japan
Shizumi SHIMIZU, University of Tsukuba, Japan6

Call for Specialists from APEC Economies

Appendix A
Specialists from the Economy
Please fill and sent it back from the economy to ‘apec@criced.tsukuba.ac.jp’* Specialists will be already worked at past meeting (see Appendix 2), or new
persons who are recommended by the economy.
**The specialist written on 1) will be recommended to use the APEC project
grant or the Japanese grant from the economy side and will be expected as adelegate from economy.
***There is no limitation of the number of specialists who are recommended byeach economy.
1)
Names(First Middle Last)

Title

EconomyAffiliation(Institution)e-mailTel/Fax
2)
Names(First Middle Last)

Title

EconomyAffiliation(Institution)e-mailTel/Fax
3)
Names(First Middle Last)

Title

EconomyAffiliation(Institution)e-mailTel/Fax7

Call for Specialists from APEC Economies

Appendix B
Specialists (Experts) working in the project
A number of specialists from the following economies have been participating andgiving much contribution for developing product of this project in each year:
Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, China, Hong Kong, Chinese Taipei,
Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Philippines, Singapore,
Thailand, United States, Vietnam
The project is making efforts of getting more participation from all economies using
grant from APEC, Japan and Thailand and we welcome more new participants from
economies preferably with self-funding for each economy’s welfare on the policy of
APEC.
The project has been ongoing in each economy by the participated specialists. Major
working on this project is going through the Lesson Study activity for developing model
teaching approach with teachers by specialists in each economy. The meeting at
Tokyo-Kanazawa is just aimed for the Lesson Study planning in each economy. And themeeting at Thailand is aimed for the reflection of the Lesson Study product in eacheconomy. Thus, the specialists nominated from each economy are the key persons foracquiring fruitful product for each economy and they are working for improvement of
the quality of education in each economy and developing the model approaches for
economies.
The following specialists expressed to work in their Lesson Study for preparing the FY
2008 project and currently developing products.
Australia

Peter Gould , Max Stephens,

MexicoMarcela Santillan

Brunei
Darussalam
Chile

Madihah Khalid

Peru

Monica Miyagui

Mag. Francisco Cerda
BonomoCheng Chun Chor Litwin
Marsigit

Philippines

Soledad Ulep

Singapore
Thailand

Yeap Ban Har
Inprasitha, Maitree
Loipha, Suladda
Akihiko Takahashi, Patsy
Wang-Iverson, Makoto Yoshida
Tran Vui

Hong Kong
Indonesia
Japan
Korea
Malaysia

Masami Isoda, Shizumi
Shizumi, Kazuyoshi Okubo.
Inchul Jung
Lim Chap Sam

United States
Vietnam

All keynote speakers, Catherine Lewis (US), Alan Bishop (Australia), Kaye Stacey(Australia), Fou Lai Lin (Chinese Taipei), Frederick Leung (Hong Kong), Kyungmee
Park (Korea) and so on, have been supporting the project. From the world, David Tall(UK), Abraham Arcavi (Israel) and others supporting the project by self-grants.
8

Call for Specialists from APEC Economies

Appendix C
Key Questions for Focusing on Mathematical Communication

Lesson study is a well known method to improve quality of education and has beenfunctioning for professional development and curriculum development. Through theConference in Japan, specialists share the ideas and the plan of Lesson Study for
Second Phase in each economy. The following key questions are posed for developing
model of teaching approaches in each economy for APEC welfare.

Why do we focus on mathematical communication?
In this knowledge based society, a kind of knowledge could be shared on the website.
Plenty of useful information and resources that allow interactions within society could
be uploaded if necessary from the web. Nevertheless once information is introduced
onto the internet, nobody has control over it anymore. Computer technology isembedded in the environment and innovation is a current key word for sustainable
development of globalization.
In making use of information, the competency of thinking symbolized by the keywords
such as critical, collaborative, developmental, creative, and mathematical, and the senseof values such as innovative and sustainable, is essential to be developed by teachers. It
induces that we should change our teaching from product-based teaching approach suchas lecturing skills and knowledge to process-based teaching approach represented by thecommunication in the classroom.
In the society, higher order mathematical concept itself is embodied in the thinkable
representation (Tall, 2006) on the computer but it is still necessary to thinkmathematically (Stacy, 2006) on the situation with mathematical concept. Thus, we
focused on the development of mathematical thinking in the project year 2007. When
we think about these keywords as well as mathematical thinking, we know that todevelop classroom communication is important because to develop thinking ability is
explained by internalizing communication from inter subjective communication to innersubjective one. Based on this principle, critical thinkers will be developed through thereflective experiences of critical discussion. As a kind of competency, critical thinkers
could be developed in other subjects or fields, not only in mathematics. Math educators
recognize that such kind of narrow meaning of mathematics is the result of ready made,product based, or chalk and talk approach of school mathematics. Here, we, math9Call for Specialists from APEC Economies

educators, let people know that if we know the essential meaning of mathematics,
mathematics is the most necessary subject to develop the essential way ofcommunication. Mathematics is the most appropriate subject to develop thecommunications because both mathematical way of communication and mathematicalthinking is a necessary for tomorrow’s better life.
One could view mathematics as a kind of second language which will not be acquired
without studying it in school. For the sustainable development on various meaning of
globalization, the ability to challenge the problem which does not have only one answer
and trying to find best solutions through collaboration beyond each economy isimportant. This is the problem solving approach itself in mathematics education(Takahashi, 2006; Okubo, 2006.). Mathematical communication is an important key
idea not only for improving mathematics but also for developing necessary ability forsustainable development on the knowledge based society. From these views, we focus
on mathematical communication.
On your national curriculum document (including the general document of wholecurriculum beyond mathematics), how does it enhance communication or mathematicalcommunication for students? Even if the word of communication is not mentioned, it isimportant to consider why it is not mentioned.
What are your components of mathematical communication to develop?
Mathematical communication is a kind of communication. Greek origin of the word‘communication’ is related with community. Communication is based on community andit development is deeply related with cultural development or enculturation (Bishop, A.,1988) in community. The usage of word ‘communication’ is not only restricted to use
within human community. The word includes the meaning of interactive process anduses metaphorically such as scientists communicate with nature through observationand experimentations. Mathematical communication is the communication onmathematics. When we consider the meaning of mathematical communication, historyof mathematics gives us essential features of it. Followings are some features ofmathematical communication from history.
Firstly, mathematical communication has the dialectic feature in mathematicaldevelopment. Dialectic feature of mathematical communication is now known ashistorically most important feature of mathematics itself. As Savor described, the originof indirect proof is the dialectic which is known by Pythagoreans or school of Plato. The
condition to enter the Academia of Plato School was mathematics. Indeed, many
examples of dialectics given by Plato or Socrates are mathematics and those are10Call for Specialists from APEC Economies

currently an important historical text which we can know what Pythagorean’s school
was. Hegel’s dialectic, thesis, antithesis and synthesis, as known as the logic ofheuristics was clearly referred Ancients Greek. Imre Lakatos proposed a feature ofmathematics by proof and refutation was recognized as a Hegelian.
Secondly, mathematical communication has the features of mathematical way of
explanation for sharing ideas and understanding. In the upper grades, this is formalized
to proof, as a special way of explanation and rhetoric, but even if we learned proof wekeep using various ways of explanation as well as proof in mathematicalcommunication. Depending on Szabo, A. (1978), the indirect proof in mathematics isinternalized communication of dialectic between people such as ‘if your saying is true,then…’. For sharing ideas, we use various ways of explanation such as inductive,
analogical and didactical. In any case, it is necessary to understand other ideas to sharethe communication ground. For understanding the content, we use examples to support
those reasoning.
Thirdly, mathematical communication has the feature to use mathematicalrepresentation which is developed for mathematics. At the area of ancient Greek,
mathematical representation is geometric representation and Greek language itself.
Geometric representation has the restriction of dimensions and Descartes overcame therestriction through developing the translation rule between geometry and algebra.
Analytic geometry and calculus developed functional representation on the coordinatesand statistical graphs have developed through the data representation. At the area ofcomputer, knowledge based society is supported by these representation. Indeed, binary
notation system represents the electric functioning of computer and Boolean algebra isnecessary for logic circuit.
Fourthly, mathematical communication has the feature of both competitive andsympathetic attitudes. These attitudes are well known on historical communication
between mathematicians such as between Archimedes and Eratosthenes, Pascal andother mathematicians, and so on. For sharing and refutation of other’s ideas, we should
know others perspectives and let others understand our own ideas clearly. There isfantasy that everyone can solve the problem if we can teach heuristics. The history tells
us that even if the problems are posed to each other in the process of competition andmany people are exploring, they were solved by one or few. The others were trying tofollow with exultation and enjoining to engage in going beyond. Understanding other’sideas with sympathetic attitude and trying to go beyond others with competitive
attitudes are both essential for mathematical activity. We can easily observe both
attitudes in the process of communication (Isoda, M., McCrae, B., Stacey, K., 2006).

11

Call for Specialists from APEC Economies

Lastly, mathematical communication has influenced by language and it is deeply
depending on culture. There are economies where mathematics is taught by second
language or in multi-language classroom (Lim, C., 2007). In these economies, there ismuch difficulty to study mathematics and to engage in mathematical communication. At
the same time, mathematics itself is a language for sharing mathematical ideas.
Mathematics is a possible language enabling us to share ideas beyond different culturesand languages. On the other hands, mathematical communication is deeply related toclassroom culture. Mathematics classroom culture is the base of communication andimprovement of mathematical communication cultivate culture of classroom for themutual understanding of mathematics and classroom community.
When we consider communication from these features, we easily understand that we
can not focus on only communication in our reference. For example, in PISA (2003),
there is the competency about communication but at the same time, the argumentation is
also related.
• Argumentation: this involves knowing what mathematical proofs are and how theydiffer from other kinds of mathematical reasoning; following and assessing chains ofmathematical arguments of different types; possessing a feel for heuristics (“What canor cannot happen, and why?”); and creating and expressing mathematical arguments.
• Communication: this involves expressing oneself, in a variety of ways, on matterswith a mathematical content, in oral as well as in written form, and understanding
others’ written or oral statements about such matters.
In Standards by NCTM, ‘Representation’ and ‘Proof and Reasoning’ are also process
standards as well as ‘communication’.
When we consider these features of communication, we recognize that if we focus on
the word ‘communication’, we also focus on all processes of mathematics thinking.
Thus, when you consider the classroom communication, what kinds of components you
want to integrate on the words of communication for developing the mathematicalthinking?
What kinds of approach will you prefer to develop the communication inclassroom?
The above-mentioned features of communication are also the nature of mathematicalactivity. If we focus on the communication, we can improve the process of teachingwith mathematical activity for developing mathematical thinking. There are a number of
researches analyzing or surveying classroom but there are a limited number of
researches which propose the challenges of improvement itself. As Wiliam, D. (2003)

12

Call for Specialists from APEC Economies

proposed, we prefer hermeneutic-practical approach against analyzing approach of
lesson. The Lesson Study is hermeneutic-practical approach and it is managed byteachers. Normally, a teacher poses the problem and conducts communication inclassroom. From teachers’ perspective for challenging to improve their lesson, we will
focus on communication from the view point of planning the lesson and managing thelesson.
On our APEC project, there are several model approaches for the challenges inclassroom through the Lesson Study for developing classroom mathematicalcommunication. One of the model approaches for improving classroom communication
was proposed by Lin, F. (2006). He illustrated his approach as follows.

In other models, the problem solving approaches are illustrated by Takahashi, A. (2007),
Okubo, K. (2007) and so on. Following picture in the next page is one of problem
solving approach by Isoda, M. (2006, 2007).
Through the approach, he proposed sequential problem posing (task sequence) withteaching strategies for dialectic discussion to construct mathematics in classroom asfollows.

13

Call for Specialists from APEC Economies

What if A’s idea is correct?
Facilitating awareness through application of tasks in different situations
and examples
Both strategies also could be seen on the approach by Lin.
A p p r e cia tio n
a n d se n se o f
a ch iev e m e n t

C o n fir m in g a n d u n d e r sta n d in g th ee x te n d e d m e a n in g a n d p r o c e d u r e .

R e fle c tio n / S u m m a r y
F a c ilita te d ia le c tic d isc u ssio n b a se d o n m e a n in g s a n d
p r o c e d u r e s p r e v io u sly le a r n e d , a n d e lim in a te d g a p s.

A im in g toe lim in a te g a p s
a n d c o n flic t

R e p r o d u c in g a n dr e c o n s id e rin g
p ro ced u res
H o w d id y o u d oth a t?

R e p r o d u c in g a n dr e c o n sid e rin g
m e a n in g s
W h y d id y o u th in k
th a t w a y?

E m o tio n a l A s p e c ts
W h a t is c o n fu sin g o r tro u b lin g y o u ?
“ W h a t? ” a n d “ W h y ? ”
In r e la tio n to h o w , a s k in gth e m s e lv e s a n d o th e r s a g a in

C o n flic t
N o m e a n in g a n d p ro c e d u re ty p e
E x posure of g a psin p r o c e d u r e a n d
P rio ritiz e m e a n in g w ith o u t p ro c e d u re (o r c o n fu se d ) ty p e
m e a n in g a m o n g S e c u re p ro c e d u re a n d m e a n in g ty p e
d iffe r e n c e
P rio ritiz e p ro c e d u re w ith c o n fu se d o r a m b ig u o u s m e a n in g ty p e

P rio ritiz e p ro c ed u re w ith o u t m e a n in g ty p e

T a r g e t (e x te n d in g ) T a sk

C o m p a r iso n
to p re v io u s ly
le a rn ed
k n o w led g e“ h m m m m ,”“ w h a t? ”

S tu d e n ts b e c o m e a w a r e o f th e g a p s a n d d iffe r e n c e s w ith k n o w le d g e
p r e v io u s ly le a r n e d .: C o n c e r n , u n e a s in e s s a n d c o n flic t

P r e v io u sly le a r n e d
P r o c e d u r e s a n d M e a n in g s
R e c a ll, C o n firm a tio n a n d U n d e rsta n d in g .

It g o e s w e ll!!
S e n se o f
e ffic a c y .

P r e v io u s ly le a r n e d (K n o w n T a s k )Problem solving approach is also illustrated by Inprasitha, M. (2006) as Open Approach.
He introduced Open Approach by incorporating in Lesson Study. In developing lesson
plan, he suggests using open-ended problem for putting mathematical activity into thelesson. He also suggests changing the classroom culture through open approach. In theapproach, communication among students in classroom is richly generated. The
results revealed a new classroom culture which is contrasted to the traditional
mathematics classroom where drilling computational skills were emphasized.
Additionally, He explained the effect of Open Approach lesson study that it is not only
cultivating classroom culture but also gradually changing traditional school culture
among teachers and students.
We believe that there are a number of model approaches to improve the way ofcommunication in mathematics classroom. Indeed, those approaches are just examples
from the past APEC conferences. The feature of those models is that the model is used14

Call for Specialists from APEC Economies

for developing teaching practice including ways of communication, and not developed
for analytic survey itself. And as for APEC Human Resource Development project, we
will develop model approaches for the teaching to improve classroom communication.
What is your model for teaching approach (or your teaching strategy) to enhanceclassroom communication in mathematics?
For the Lesson Study at Second Phase
The plan of FY2008 project is followings: First phase is aimed to share the ideas andthe planning of Lesson Study for each economy at this conference in December 9-14,
2007. Second phase from January, 2008 to August, 2008 is aimed to engage in Lesson
Study for developing models in each economy. Third phase in August 2008 is aimed toreport the results of Lesson Study and share the models in Thailand. Fourth phase inAugust 2008 to December 2008 is aimed to adapt the model in each economy.
The plan of Lesson Study will be set in this conference. Tentatively, we are considering
following activities in each economy based on experience and current activities on the
project.
1) Working with teachers to develop lesson plans for lesson study,2) Conducting the cycle of lesson study including research lessons and post-lesson
discussions with a group of teachers,3) Documenting the entire process by video taping, and
4) Developing a report for Thailand meeting with an edited video of the researchlesson and the post-lesson discussion with English subtitle.
The products from economies will be sited on the APEC knowledge bank and used for
the Wiki project as a branch of this project for influencing the model for improving
quality of education with the support of US government.
Specialists and keynote speakers will also discuss these points and develop their plan inthis conference.

15