‘Collaborative, thoughtful planning empowers teachers and enhances learning.’ In our latest reader submission, Dr Aylie Davidson, Lecturer in Mathematics Education at Deakin University, explains that planning for learning necessitates intellectual and collaborative effort, and outlines what an effective planning meeting for maths looks like in practice. Harnessing the principles of the Japanese model of Lesson Study, Davidson also discusses how we should view professional planning as a humanised, reflective practice.
Lesson planning is a complex, yet critical part of our work as educators. In mathematics specifically, it is never a simple linear process; it requires the careful alignment of context, knowledge of students, curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, and differentiation (Davidson, 2019).
To plan well, we must navigate both the horizontal curriculum (what is happening across the year level) and the vertical curriculum (how concepts build from year to year). Even if schools are using standardised scope and sequence documentation, we still have to plan for learning, rather than just compliance. To ensure this process remains a professional endeavour, we need to be intentional about what happens when teachers sit down to plan together.
What effective planning looks like
An optimal planning session for mathematics, ideally 60 to 90 minutes of focused time weekly, should involve:
- Doing the maths: Even when mandated to use specific slide decks, teachers need to determine the appropriateness of the featured tasks. Before delivering the lesson, teachers should sit down and actually complete the tasks they intend to set for students. It is not the number of tasks in a lesson that matters, but what those specific tasks enable students to learn and do. Working through the tasks allows teachers to anticipate a range of possible student solutions (both correct and incorrect) and helps teachers plan the specific prompts to use to move all students forward. The goal is to shift from ‘What am I doing?’ to ‘What are the students thinking?’
- Discussing the maths: Using high-quality textbooks or evidence-based initiatives like reSolve Maths as a foundation is smart, but these must be critically examined. Teachers should discuss the ‘big ideas’ behind the chapter or module to ensure they have a shared understanding of the important mathematical ideas and misconceptions, key vocabulary, representations, and associated pedagogies.
- Documenting the maths: Creating localised, shared documentation is more than an administrative hurdle; it establishes low-variance guidelines that ensures every student receives high-quality instruction regardless of their classroom. This living record serves as a vital springboard for the following year’s work and acts as a focal point for ongoing professional reflection.
What we can learn from kyozaikenkyu
Confident, responsive teaching in any discipline comes from a deep knowledge and understanding of the field. When teachers understand the mathematics inside-out, they can respond in real-time when a student asks a left-field question or hits a wall.
Japanese teachers are internationally recognised for their incisive approach to lesson planning (Melville, 2017). Inspired by the Japanese model of Lesson Study, we should view planning as a humanised, reflective practice. It is an opportunity to build shared expertise and refine our craft.
At the heart of the Lesson Study planning phase lies kyozaikenkyu that literally translates into the ‘study of instructional materials’. Far more than a quick review of a textbook or slide deck, kyozaikenkyu requires teachers to examine a range of instructional materials (kyozai) with scholarly rigour to clarify the relationship between various kyozai and learning goals (Watanabe et al., 2008).
As part of the kyozaikenkyu process, teachers determine the suitability of pre-developed materials for their students, or, conversely, are studying the subject matter to develop their own materials. Regardless, the process involves teachers investigating the kyozai deeply until they grasp its nature, explore student solutions and misconceptions, then plan the lesson from the student’s perspective – solving every problem themselves and selecting what mathematics to emphasise.
Wantanabe and colleagues (2008, p. 136) list essential questions teachers should ask during the kyozaikenku process regarding subject specific matter. These questions include, but are not limited to:
- What does this idea really mean?
- How does this idea relate to other ideas?
- What is/are the reason(s) for teaching this idea at this particular point in the curriculum?
- What ideas do students already understand that can be used as a starting point for this new idea?
- Why is this particular task/problem useful in helping students develop this new idea?
- How can students solve this problem using what they already know and how can their solution strategies be used to develop this new idea?
- What are common mistakes? Why do students make such mistakes? How should teachers respond to those mistakes?
- What new ideas are students expected to build using this idea in the future?
- What manipulatives and other materials should be provided to students? How do they influence students' learning?
By infusing principles of kyozaikenkyu, planning becomes genuinely humanised and reflective. Teachers shift from resource consumers to researchers of their own practice and students’ thinking. The process demands intellectual rigour, empathy for students’ perspectives, and collegiality. In turn, teachers collectively deepen their content knowledge and build pathways for ongoing improvement – restoring planning as an intellectual and relational endeavour, rather than an administrative chore of resource management.
A collective approach
When teachers plan together, they are pooling expertise to design their curriculum. This collective approach is particularly vital for mentoring beginning teachers and out-of-field colleagues, ensuring that subject-matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge (Ball et al., 2008) is shared rather than siloed. This approach works well in education and in other professions too – doctors and lawyers also plan in multidisciplinary teams.
Research into collective efficacy (Goddard et al., 2000) – the shared belief among teachers that they can positively impact student outcomes – suggests that top-down, centralised planning can actually weaken a teaching team. Many teachers now find their ‘planning’ time consumed by administrative tasks like quality controlling and editing mandated slides.
Collaborative, thoughtful planning empowers teachers and enhances learning. By reclaiming the planning meeting as a space for intellectual engagement and collective inquiry, we ensure that we aren't just following a script – we are teaching the students in front of us.
References
Ball, D. L., Thames, M., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching what makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.
Davidson, A. (2019). Conceptualising the critical factors that influence teachers’ mathematics planning decisions for student-centred learning. In G. Hine, S. Blackley, & A. Cooke (Eds.), Mathematics education research – Impacting practice: Proceedings of the 42nd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 212–219). MERGA.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479–507. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037002479
Melville, M.D. (2017). Kyozaikenkyu: An In-Depth Look into Japanese Educators’ Daily Planning Practices. Thesis dissertation. Brigham Young University. Retrieved from https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/6515/
Watanabe, T., Takahashi, A., & Yoshida, M. (2008). Kyozaikenkyu: A critical step for conducting effective lesson study and beyond. In Inquiry into Mathematics Teacher Education (AMTE Monograph 5, pp. 131–142).
Gather a group of colleagues in your year level teaching team or subject area if possible (you can also do this reflection on your own) to review the planning for an upcoming mathematics lesson or unit of work. Work through the list of questions from Wantanabe and colleagues shared in this article.
