Mathematics

classroom environment or not be very informative. Private film companies
were not able to provide quality ad hoc solutions for this problem.
Reviews from practicing teachers were required on two occasions during the
module work, when drafts of two blocks of module material parts 1-4 and 5-8
were produced. As a rule, the teachers’ feedback concerned mainly forms of
presentation and estimation of time required for readings and discussions. It
provided a very rough indication of the didactical quality of the material as
expected by the future participants of the professional development program.
The teachers also asked for easy to use material, such as banks of problems
with given solutions. They wanted to have resources that would facilitate their
daily professional life. However, they provided few content related comments
that could contribute to the improvement of the drafted material.
Two open peer review meeting were organized by the project leadership to
discuss the material produced with four selected reviewers, experts in the
corresponding field. Their feedback was valuable but was given on the same
occasions and frequently appeared to be repetitive and sometimes
contradictory. Possibly, feedback could be more productive if developers had
the opportunity for discussion with experts on a ‘just-in-time’ basis, when the
need for a third opinion arose.
2.3 Challenges and tensions
In each module the common didactical perspectives, such as competencies,
classroom norms, formative assessment, interactions in the classroom, etc.,
that should penetrate the material content were decided centrally. Their role
and weight varied in the different modules and sometimes even changed
during work on the same module. The reasons for this remained often obscure
as also grounded justification for the introduction of new perspectives (e.g.
mathematical cultures, language and mathematics) was not provided for
developers. Contradictory messages during the process of module
development, from a representative of the central project leadership,
concerning style of writing or form of reference presentation were not unusual
during the work process.
The idea of “lesson study” was implemented without teachers attending
colleagues’ lessons and became a debilitated version of the Japanese model.
Lesson without peer auscultation is a half-blind activity. To compensate for the
absence of a colleague’s feedback teachers had to rely on personal reflection
and self-monitoring, which is a particularly demanding activity needing special
development. An attempt to substitute “auscultation of a colleague’s lessons”
by the practice of “noticing” (Mason, 2002) was centrally promoted but not
eagerly accepted by practicing teachers. Teachers had difficulty in impartially
sketching notes of the events attracting their attention during the teaching for
further reflection afterwards. Therefore, in the common follow up and
reflections after a lesson teachers could immerse in a culture of discussion,
237