Corey, Peterson, Lewis, and Bukarau

447

Mathematics:
Appropriateness

2. Mathematics that is appropriate for this lesson vs. inappropriate mathematics. (G2)

Mathematics: Context

3. Mathematics and context. (Only put this code if they are

discussing both the mathematics and the role/use o the
contextnot just talking in the language of the context.
like the units, for example).
r

Lesson and unit goals

Goals: Wording and
appropriateness

1. Discussion about the wording and appropriateness of

goal statements. This code is restricted to explicit work
on the wording of goal statements, the learning objective,
or the appropriateness of the goal statement/objective.
(M2)

Goals: Guiding lesson

development

2. Explicitly refer to the goal when discussing or crafting

the lesson. For example, to show or justify how an
activity does not fit or how it should be modified to
better fit the goal.
Place of lesson in unit/larger context

Unit-year: Unit
placement

1. Discussing the placement o the lesson in the unit.

Unit-year: Unit mathematical connections

2. Discussion of the relationship of the mathematics to other

adjoi.ling lessons or other lessons m the unit.

Unit-year: Between
units/years

3. Discussion of how this lesson builds toward larger goals

(such as unit goals or year goals, etc.) or of connect ons
across units/years

Adapting instruction for students

Adapting instruction
for students

1. Discussion of adapting instruction or making choices

about how to adapt instruction to different kinds of
students.

A n important question is not answered by the results in Table 2: To what extent

are these categories the focal topics o f the conversations? It is possible that these
ideas are raised in conversations, but as a whole, they capture very little o f the
student teacher and cooperating teacher dialogue. We performed a detailed analysis
o f four o f the conversations wherein we selected a l l passages from the four conversations that fell into one o f these categories. The passages were selected only i f
they were candidate passages for illustrating the topics in a report o f the results.
The number o f words in the selected passages constituted 5 9 % o f all words in the
transcripts o f the four conversations. This provides evidence that the seven categories o f codes capture a substantial portion o f the topics discussed in these prelesson
conversations.
We have organized and summarized the conception o f high-quality instruction
o f these Japanese teachers in the form o f s i x principles. These six principles correspond to the seven categories o f cooes, except for one principle that combines two
categories o f codes: student intellectual engagement and student thinking is