Rating: 
Summary: Insightful Analysis of Effective Elem. Math Teaching
Review: From several cross-national comparisons of math achievement, we've learned that elementary school students from the worst Japanese schools routinely outperform students from the best American schools. Why? According to Stigler and Hiebert, the cause is a difference--not in teachers--but in teaching. In Japan, mathematics teaching is a method that aims to develop students' understanding of mathematical relationships and properties. This system of mathematical knowledge is taught to children in lessons that are highly coherent, hierarchically linear, and based on teachers' own research of what lessons promote student learning. Further, these lessons typically involve "structured problem-solving," where math concepts are induced from challenging problems, where these concepts are concretized through well-considered examples, and where mathematical relationships are proven as following necessarily from given premises. In contrast, mathematics teaching in the U.S. seeks to train students in mathematical procedures. These procedures are taught to students by demonstrating one correct procedure for solving an easy problem, and then students are asked to imitate that procedure for many highly similar problems. More often than not, the lessons for imparting these skills are incoherent--with many non-mathematical discursions and interruptions. Further, lessons almost never involve math inductions and proofs; rather, teachers state math relationships explicitly and immediately tell students how the relationship should be used to solve simple problems. Last, lessons are developed by education researchers not only without the collaboration of teachers, but specifically so that the lessons are "teacher-proof". Discovering the difference between Japanese and U.S. teachers alone is well-worth the price of this short book. All of the differences outlined above are well-explained and illustrated (though frequently not so well defined). And many important suggestions are made about how the Japanese culture of teaching can be recreated in the U.S. within the American context. However, what isn't discussed are many non-teaching differences between the U.S. and Japan that also account for the "learning gap." For example, Japanese students, teachers, and parents believe that the key to mathematics success lies within the students' control--that is, his hard work, whereas Americans believe that such success comes from outside the students' control--that is, from his genes, parents, and teachers. Changing teaching methods will not itself allow children to see themselves as in control of their own learning. Further, as S&H's own analysis shows, American teachers believe that they can't allow American students to struggle and err--apparently on the premise that errors will show students that they are stupid, a belief which follows from teachers' and students' view that math success comes from innate math-smarts. Moreover, although S&H are surely right that even the most mathematically competent teachers in the U.S. cannot impart their knowledge using their current methods, S&H are wrong to think that American teachers possess the mathematical knowledge to teach as the Japanese do (on this, see Liping Ma). These issues raise an important qualification for S&H's otherwise correct thesis--that differences in math achievement are the product of differences in the culture of math teaching.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting for a Education Student
Review: I am in a program to become a High School math teacher. Our professor recommended this book. I found it to be pretty interesting. The authors do a detailed analysis of a video study from the TIMSS study. Their analysis compares how math is taught in the US, Germany and Japan. Their conclusion is that the US approach focuses on teaching terms and procedures where as the other countries emphasize understanding concepts. They go onto to propose a system of "lesson planning" to improve teaching in the US. Lesson planning calls for teachers to work in teams and develop a single lesson plan (maybe one per semester). The process of developing the lesson plan and refining it imparts to the teachers involved a kind of "best practices" that they can then use in their everyday planning. I am not sure if this is practical, but it sure sounds reasonable to me.
Rating: 
Summary: Inaccurate
Review: I read the part of this book regarding Japan. I've taught in a Japanese public junior high school and found lots of inaccuracies in the text. The conclusions they came to are outdated and in places in accurate. For example, the authors state that there is no widespread reforms in Japanese education, that teachers constantly strive for improvement. This year the Ministry of Education has instituted widespread reform and there has been a lot in the Japanese media about the preparations for this. Japanese people are very dissatisfied with the schools and some wish they'd adopt a few Western style practices. However, there is little or no accountability in Japanese instruction. Teachers can blythely ignore any required changes and a few have told me that they've been teaching their way for years and don't want to change. None of this is in the book. While there are a lot of teachers' meetings in Japan, improving one's performance is optional. Often the teachers who do strive for excellence are ostrasized.The book didn't mention this. Japanese schools are in crisis. There's rampant absenteeism and classroom violence and breakdown. It's not a system we should emulate. Buy another book.
Rating: 
Summary: Lots of information here!
Review: The amount of research that went into this book is staggering, and teachers can benefit greatly from it. This book is an important read for teachers and administrators.
Rating:
Summary: Lots of information here!
Review: The amount of research that went into this book is staggering, and teachers can benefit greatly from it. This book is an important read for teachers and administrators.
Rating:
Summary: obstacles to the recommended reform
Review: The Teaching Gap is an easy read about an important educational issue. The insights that come from the cross-cultural studies in this book should become part of the understanding of all U.S. educators and supporters of education. If I could establish Japanese-style lesson study in every school in the country I would do it, because I believe it will improve educational practice in just the way the authors say it will. But, The Teaching Gap has hard messages for those who hope to reform American education. One is that improvements cannot be expected to take hold quickly. Even a ten-year time frame would be too short. The arguments that support this proposition are compelling-that the superior system of the Japanese has taken 50 years to develop; that the history of short-term reform in the U.S. is replete with failures. Another hard message is that improvements have to be realized by ordinary classroom teachers--who essentially have to fix their own work--rather than be fixed by the vast army of experts who currently claim dibs on school reform. The authors argue that Americans have to shift their thinking from fixing teachers, to fixing teaching. They ground this view on their belief that teaching is a cultural activity, based on the norms and expectations of the society in which it is found. Their cross-cultural research shows that differences in teaching between cultures are much greater than differences in teaching within a given culture. Such a finding might, for example, lead one to conclude that the controversies that rage back and forth within American education should be likened to arguing about the arrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic. The education reform industry is not likely to appreciate these conclusions. Stigler and Heibert's message is not going to be easy for politicians and the public to accept, either. It will have to triumph over the xenophobia in American culture that makes it hard for us to look honestly at the achievements of other countries, and the chauvinism in society that makes people all too ready to denigrate the efforts of a workforce that is 75% female. Twenty-five years of trash-talk about teachers will not be easily forgotten. However, if the authors are correct in their assessment of what it will take to improve instruction, (and I think they are, based on 33 years of teaching and administrative experience), some means will have to be found to put teachers in charge of their own destinies. The authors feel that the education establishment can make the changes that are needed. Maybe so, but I would take another course and get outside of the establishment through some of the proposals that are coming out of the school choice movement, like charter schools. In that direction lies the freedom teachers need to improve their instruction--to march, for a change, to the sound of their own drums.
Rating:
Summary: obstacles to the recommended reform
Review: The Teaching Gap is an easy read about an important educational issue. The insights that come from the cross-cultural studies in this book should become part of the understanding of all U.S. educators and supporters of education. If I could establish Japanese-style lesson study in every school in the country I would do it, because I believe it will improve educational practice in just the way the authors say it will. But, The Teaching Gap has hard messages for those who hope to reform American education. One is that improvements cannot be expected to take hold quickly. Even a ten-year time frame would be too short. The arguments that support this proposition are compelling-that the superior system of the Japanese has taken 50 years to develop; that the history of short-term reform in the U.S. is replete with failures. Another hard message is that improvements have to be realized by ordinary classroom teachers--who essentially have to fix their own work--rather than be fixed by the vast army of experts who currently claim dibs on school reform. The authors argue that Americans have to shift their thinking from fixing teachers, to fixing teaching. They ground this view on their belief that teaching is a cultural activity, based on the norms and expectations of the society in which it is found. Their cross-cultural research shows that differences in teaching between cultures are much greater than differences in teaching within a given culture. Such a finding might, for example, lead one to conclude that the controversies that rage back and forth within American education should be likened to arguing about the arrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic. The education reform industry is not likely to appreciate these conclusions. Stigler and Heibert's message is not going to be easy for politicians and the public to accept, either. It will have to triumph over the xenophobia in American culture that makes it hard for us to look honestly at the achievements of other countries, and the chauvinism in society that makes people all too ready to denigrate the efforts of a workforce that is 75% female. Twenty-five years of trash-talk about teachers will not be easily forgotten. However, if the authors are correct in their assessment of what it will take to improve instruction, (and I think they are, based on 33 years of teaching and administrative experience), some means will have to be found to put teachers in charge of their own destinies. The authors feel that the education establishment can make the changes that are needed. Maybe so, but I would take another course and get outside of the establishment through some of the proposals that are coming out of the school choice movement, like charter schools. In that direction lies the freedom teachers need to improve their instruction--to march, for a change, to the sound of their own drums.
Rating:
Summary: The culture of teaching and change
Review: This book can be broken up into 3 major parts, the Introduction/Data, the findings/results, and a solution & its implications to improve student learning. Stigler & Hiebert compare teaching 8th grade math between Japan, Germany and the United States. The findings were extremely helpful in clarifying the role of the teachers, teaching, teaching as a culture and change. The solution that Stigler & Hiebert came up with is hard to imagine being implemented in the United States because the time commitment is in years, not months. In the "quick fix" mentality of Americans, this solution, "lesson study", may find takers few and far between but its validity is unquestionable. (Note: not part of book but may be of interest. Discussion with James Stiegler in a 28 minute interview on his book and the implementation of his lesson study program in Nashville TN. I will be very interested to see if his solution has any impact on the quality of teaching in Nashville.) The last chapters are excellent as a summary of the findings and laying down a foundation for change.
Rating:
Summary: The culture of teaching and change
Review: This book can be broken up into 3 major parts, the Introduction/Data, the findings/results, and a solution & its implications to improve student learning. Stigler & Hiebert compare teaching 8th grade math between Japan, Germany and the United States. The findings were extremely helpful in clarifying the role of the teachers, teaching, teaching as a culture and change. The solution that Stigler & Hiebert came up with is hard to imagine being implemented in the United States because the time commitment is in years, not months. In the "quick fix" mentality of Americans, this solution, "lesson study", may find takers few and far between but its validity is unquestionable. (Note: not part of book but may be of interest. Discussion with James Stiegler in a 28 minute interview on his book and the implementation of his lesson study program in Nashville TN. I will be very interested to see if his solution has any impact on the quality of teaching in Nashville.) The last chapters are excellent as a summary of the findings and laying down a foundation for change.
Rating:
Summary: Correct, but be careful.
Review: This book is informative and hits the point insofar as it highlights the need for teachers and school management to empower themselves with enough skills to change their school model so that it leads to school development, not just school efficiency. This books points out the positives of the Japanese model (for 8th grade math), but it would not draw the same conclusions it it had addressed other parts of the Japanese education system. I have worked in the Japanese school system for 4 years and recently finished a master's degree comparing Japan's junior high system with Australia's. My analysis is that while the Japanese do a good job with math, they do an average job with science and a poor job with languages and the social sciences. Environmental education is not even addressed, while technology studies are just starting to be taught in schools. Essentially, while math students might be encouraged to think around the concepts, this does not apply to other areas of learning. Further, the term collaboration is often used to describe Japanese teacher interaction, but be careful. It is a one directional application of the term. Debate rarely exists in Japanese learning or teaching situations. The system is overwhelmingly hierarchical. Like most things when we compare culture, we should be careful not to elevate other cultural practices too high without addressing the benefits and weaknesses of comparing approaches. The book is interesting and important, but I have become very skeptical of authors who see only strength in Japan's model. It is not at all perfect....in some ways it may even be dangerous.
| 
