Lesson study papers x 3
ARTICULATING THE CCM APPROACH AND LESSON STUDY: a promising teacher professional development towards inclusive education
Fluminhan, C. S. L., Castro, P. T. de, Schlünzen, E. T. M., & Schlünzen, K, Jr. (2022). Articulating the CCM approach and lesson study: a promising teacher professional development towards inclusive education. Video Journal of Social and Human Research, 1(1). 84-96. http//doi.org/10.18817/vjshr. v1i1.17
Fluminhan et al (2022)
Even considering the intense complex relations and structures inherent to teaching and learning through inclusive lenses, and the innumerable elements that can influence its practice, there is a substantial consensus in the literature that points to the practice of the teacher as the factor of greatest impact upon student learning outcomes (Leithwood et al., 2008; Kirkpatrick & Johnson, 2014; Antoniou & Griaznova, 2018).
Constructionist, Contextualized and Meaningful (CCM) approach by Schlünzen et al. (2020),
It has been acknowledged that teachers cannot rely on their initial education and knowledge of learning to provide sufficient instruction and support to all students, especially in terms of promoting inclusion for students with special educational needs (Björn et al., 2018; Leifler, 2020). This argument is highlighted to underpin the importance of Teachers receiving professional development support during and after finishing their education (Nilvius, 2020).
LS, in turn, is a highly-specified form of Collaborative Classroom Research, Holding the potential to bring about real instructional change in the classroom (Dudley, 2019). LS consists of a bottom-up approach to educational innovation, originated in Japan over a hundred years ago, and since then it has been their central method for teacher development and systematic curriculum reform.
The approach reached the West in the 1990s with the seminal work of Stiegler and Hiebert (1999) in the US. By 2020 it had spread to over 80 countries, being adapted to local needs and different cultural settings (Dudley, 2019).
In LS practices, a small group of teachers jointly plan, teach, observe, reflect, revise and share the results of a single or a sequence of research lessons (Cerbin & Hutchings, 2011; Dudley, 2013). It is a design of close-to-practice research that allows for building Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) and improving Teaching practices as teachers are challenged to (un)learn more about their own pedagogical practices, to better understand how pupils think, and to recognise how instruction impacts the process of student learning (Cerbin & Kopp, 2006).
Thus, as pointed out by Norwich et al. (2014), "LS basic principles involve (1) collaborative design of lessons or units of study, (2) execution of the design with observation, (3) reflection on the product with a view to its improvement" (p. 314).
Distinguished researchers conducted experiential studies using LS for improving the provision of inclusive education, like Peter Dudley, Brahm Norwich, and Annamari Ylonen in the UK, and Sui Lin Goei and colleagues in the Netherlands, amongst other few research initiatives in other countries (Goi et al., 2021). In their studies, the authors competently connected the nature of LS to the need for teacher development approaches that would bring about the much-needed change in the teaching practices for enhancing the learning outcomes in inclusion settings. Note that, in These experimental studies showed results that LS structural components were key to transforming teaching for inclusion and Overcoming Challenges Concerning Teachers' long-held educational beliefs and attitudes.
The collaborative nature of LS supports teachers learning from each other, whilst observing learning taking place in real students, in real classrooms, and also how other teachers deliver instruction. Also, when teachers are encouraged to share their teaching experience and expertise, they ultimately unearth their tacit pedagogical knowledge, facilitating processes of knowledge share amongst the teachers in LS groups, challenging deep-rooted educational beliefs and fixed pedagogical practices (Dudley, 2013).
In LS contexts, research highlights that changes in teachers' knowledge and beliefs are to be expected (Lewis, 2009).
The study consisted of three cycles of LS at three different schools during four months Leifler (2020).
Through the use of pre- and post-tests – related to lesson study
##
INSIGHTS TOWARDS CULTURAL ASPECTS AND RELATED IMPACTS OF LESSON STUDY PRACTICES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Fluminhan et al (2024)
EDUR 2019 35.1 183939 PERCURSO Mariana.indd (scielo.br)
Lesson Study (LS) is a professional development model that Japanese teachers have been utilizing for over a century.
This investigation provides multiple evidence of the fast global spread of LS and reveals that some key adaptations or redesigns are conducted so that LS meets local needs and conditions. It argues that time constraints, financial support, search for quick results, and inclusion of knowledgeable others are critical aspects that should be considered when introducing LS to a new context.
Lesson study is a form of collaborative and active research that is used for accomplishing pre-defined teaching and learning goals (TAKAHASHI; McDOUGAL, 2016) and continuous improvement of teaching practice (NORWICH, 2018). Through such an approach, teachers jointly study teaching contents and instructions by observing lessons and reflecting on them (NI SHUILLEABHAIN; BJULAND, 2019).
Lesson Study was first introduced outside Japan in the late 1990s (LEWIS, 2000; TAKAHASHI; McDOUGAL, 2016). It refers to a professional teacher development model that centers around a theme or goal (YOSHIDA, 1999) “of which the research lesson is the core piece” (LEWIS, 2000, p. 4). Further, Lewis, Perry and Murata (2006) explain that the term in Japanese indicates that LS is featured by the “observation of live classroom lessons by a group of teachers who collect data on teaching and learning and collaboratively analyze it” (p. 3).
LS shares some characteristics with other professional development approaches..
Cajkler et al. (2015) add that LS distinguishes from other forms of professional development as the planning of research lessons is designed jointly to address specific learning problems, “rather than focusing on the performance of an individual teacher” (p. 192)
LS is commonly implemented in four phases: (1) study curriculum and formulate goals; (2) plan, which refers to selecting and revising the research lesson in detail; (3) teach, when one member of the team teaches the research lesson and the others observe and collect data; and (4) reflect on one´s practice and beliefs with a view to its improvement (LEWIS, 2002; LEWIS; PERRY; MURATA, 2006; DUDLEY et al., 2019, CARDOSO; PONTE; QUARESMA, 2023).
In his guide on how to use LS “to develop and refine teaching, learning and teacher practice knowledge”, Dudley (2011, p. 4) advises that the LS team should identify around three ‘case pupils’ who will represent the wider group of learners in the class. These pupils will be observed and monitored as case studies representing the impact of LS on the larger group.
The author suggests that a post-research lesson discussion should be held not only to analyse how the ‘case pupils’ responded to the LS approach and how they developed learning during the process but also to inform the team about the aspects that favoured or hindered learning and how the team should overcome them in future classes.
The findings show that the primary use of LS was to support teacher professional development (n=29) aiming to promote those professionals´ motivation, knowledge, and skills. As far as student learning (n=5) and the examination of teaching material (n=1) are concerned, fewer studies pointed to those purposes as the reasons for using the LS approach.
Since LS was brought to public attention in the late 1990s (LEWIS; PERRY; MURATA, 2006; TAKAHASHI; McDOUGAL, 2016), this approach has reached various countries and all continents, such as Asia, Africa (FUJII, 2014), Europe, in particular (DUDLEY et al., 2019), and it has been increasingly investigated in the United States (LEWIS; PERRY; HURD, 2004).
Lack of shared time, workload, and rigid schedules are some of the constraints identified in this review that could result in weak collaboration between the LS team members and, consequently, follow poorer results (see, for example, HART, 2009; MON; DALI; SAM, 2016; ALAMRI, 2020).
Although the goal of traditional Konaikenshu (school-based teacher training program), of which LS is a masterpiece, does not “exclusively focus on the development of students´ academic skills” (YOSHIDA, 1999, p. 52) all the articles selected for this study pursued their goal in the context of investigating specific subject matters.
LS is acknowledged for being a powerful professional development model that can foster teacher learning by bringing teaching close to practice (SUH; FULGINITI, 2012; KOTELAWALA, 2012; CAJKLER et al., 2013, DUDLEY et al., 2019).
In this same direction, data in this study reveal that most research, 12 of the 28 (42.85%), took place in elementary and middle school settings.
The literature confirms that, successfully integrated, LS is central for prospective teacher learning (SOTO et al., 2019, HANDAYANI; TRYANTO, 2022) as it “encourages team members to bridge the gap between theory and practice” (SCHIPPER et al., 2020, p. 362).
Correspondingly, Danday and Monterola (2019), reported that an experimental group of pre-service teachers benefited from experiencing microteaching multiple-representation LS and demonstrated better effects on the enhancement of critical thinking.
Therefore, we argue that LS is a prominent vehicle that should be introduced to teacher candidates beyond their preparation program to instill in them the lifelong commitment to reflective and collaborative practice necessary for their engagement in professional development.
It’s much more than the “final product”, what matters is the process.
trying to obtain a perfect lesson is to deviate from its main purpose (TAKAHASHI; McDOUGAL, 2016; ELLIOTT, 2019).
Regarding the inclusion of facilitators or knowledgeable others, 19 of the selected studies (67,86%) reported having had such a professional during the process of implementing LS.
As discussed in Bocala (2015), both novices and experts should work together in teacher learning models, since more experienced teachers and knowledgeable others can encourage and give support to novice participants and provide essential expertise to the whole process. Knowledgeable others have been defined as someone, usually outside of the planning team, who plays an important role in contributing during the planning process and the post-lesson discussion (DUDLEY, 2014; FUJII, 2016; TAKAHASHI; McDOUGAL, 2016).
According to Takahashi (2014, p. 10), knowledgeable others are responsible for “(1) bringing new knowledge from research and the curriculum; (2) showing the connection between the theory and the practice; and (3) helping others learn how to reflect on teaching and learning.” In this respect, Yoshida (1999) informed that all the surveyed schools reported in his ethnographic study in Japan included an outside-of-school adviser as part of their organizational chart. Especially in countries where LS is still not embedded in their culture, these professionals are considered of high relevance (SEINO; FOSTER, 2020), for “without them, knowledge and skills would remain empty concepts devoid of real application and use” (MEWALD; MÜRWALD-SHEIFINGER, 2019, p. 229).
Being often acknowledged as a “teacher-led” collaborative research designed to develop teaching (LEWIS, 2002; TAMURA; UESUGI, 2020).
Wood and Cajkler (2016) argue that when learning challenges and approaches to learning are identified only through the teachers´ perspective, potential barriers remain between teachers and students. The authors found that listening to their students´ perceptions of what was difficult in the lesson and what they would change about it reflected on their learning outcomes.
. In the study conducted by Khokhotva and Albizuri (2020), teachers are also informed on how and what students need to learn through the voice of students, which brings significant implications to teachers´ transformative learning, educational beliefs change, and improvements in the lesson design. These studies provide new perspectives on having students participate in the LS process and reveal that significant impacts are recognized due to the student´s active involvement.
what has unanimously agreed is that LS has the high potential to produce a long[1]term impact on teachers’ practice and substantial positive outcomes on their student´s academic success if sustained appropriately. (p.16).
Among the pedagogical practices identified in the selected publications, professional collaborative practice is the one most used by the investigators (50%).
Experts unanimously agree that, as teaching is a complex social activity, adaptations to LS procedures will be necessary to fit local needs and contexts (STIGLER; HIEBERT, 2016; SCHIPPER et al., 2019; ADLER; MWADZAANGATI; TAKKER, 2023).
Lack of shared time for the team to collaboratively conduct all the necessary activities to develop the LS model properly may simply refrain the implementation of this approach from the start. LS demands teachers´ involvement (LIM-RATNAM et al., 2019) and, not surprisingly, more time for lesson planning than ordinary class preparation (CERBIN; KOPP, 2006)… The factor of time seems to be a key component to be discussed and overcome if LS is to be sustained.
Takahashi and McDougal (2016) confirm that the provision of adequate time for teachers to participate in the LS model through the use of funds is an important catalyst for LS implementation. Even when funding is not allocated officially, it is raised through other avenues to guarantee this approach is developed and spread (see, for example, LEWIS; PERRY; HURD, 2009).
The inclusion of knowledgeable others in the LS model has been acknowledged as beneficial to all contexts, particularly the ones new to this process.
Takahashi and McDougal (2016) considered that knowledgeable others’ contributions are essential to effective LS development not only during the post-lesson discussion but also during the planning process.
This study provides evidence that LS has been implemented around the globe and produced many positive results.
Thirdly, while implementing the LS model, researchers should center their investigation on what students have to say about their learning path through a constructionist, contextualized, and meaningful environment, as discussed by Schlünzen et al. (2020), who defend the engagement of every member of the teaching community toward a more deeply, reflective, and inclusive school.
teaching is a complex and socially-situated activity
the pressure of time, lack of financial support, and demands of quick results are shown as the most crucial factors that impacted the development of LS in all its phases.
##
Teacher learning in Lesson Study: What interaction-level discourse analysis revealed about how teachers utilised imagination, tacit knowledge of teaching and fresh evidence of pupils learning, to develop practice knowledge and so enhance their pupils’ learning. (Dudley, 2013)
Iterative, collaborative LS processes enabled teachers to access tacit knowledge resources and remove filters (developed to cope with classroom complexity), unmasking hidden characteristics of pupils. This both challenged and informed teacher beliefs, motivating joint development of enhanced practices.
. It can be a formal demonstration-based practice transfer approach, but also exists as classroom action enquiry developing new practice knowledge (Chichibu & Kihara, 2013; Lo & Marton, 2012; Matoba, 2011; Tamura, Nakadome, Kuramoto, & Soga, 2011).
e LS is asso[1]ciated with high performance (McKinsey, 2007; Mourshed, Chijioke, & Barber, 2010; Stigler & Hiebert, 1999; Perry, Lewis, Friedkin, & Baker, under review) and is currently enjoying global growth.
Elements of LS developed through this work are now informing international practice. These include two features reported here: ‘case pupils’, (Lee, 2011) and the use of teacher discourse as a window on teacher learning (Akita, 2012). This research is the first to use interaction-level discourse analysis of teacher talk in LS to explore the patterns and modes of teacher learning that are revealed.
After a cycle of three or so RLs the group clarifies what was learned that can inform their own practice and that of others.
F ig. 1 below sets out the LS process followed in this study developed by trialling and adapting models from international literature during my earlier pilot. (DUDLEYS DIAGRAM).
Teachers in my LS pilot reported experiencing profound, new learning experiences e commenting particularly on: (i) the safe context LS provides for teachers to experiment with teaching while also being highly accountable to improving pupils’ learning; (ii) the value and benefits teachers derived from learning collaboratively; and (iii) on how LS processes enabled them to see their pupils in new ways based on detailed insights developed through focused classroom observation. These themes recurred constantly.
Classrooms have been found to provide powerful, practice-based contexts inwhich teachers learn to improve the ways they support enhanced pupil leaning (Cordingley, Bell, Rundell, Evans, & Curtis, 2004; Elmore, 2004; Guskey, 2002; Kazemi & Hubbard, 2008; Opfer & Pedder, 2011).
Learning is increasingly acknowledged to be both social and situated (Sfard, 1998). Sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1986) con[1]strues a learner as oriented to an object of learning, something which strongly motivates the learner, while learning is understood as a collaborative, social process in which new knowledge is socially constructed in shared contexts prior to any process of internal[1]isation (Kleine Staarman & Mercer, 2010; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wells, 1999). Socioculturalists have thus focused on the role of talk in the learning process e learning’s tool of tools e deeming thought and language as inseparable, claiming that it is through social interaction, and especially social interaction through talk, that we are enabled to develop new knowledge. This reinforced my decision to study teachers’ talk.
For teachers engaged in LS the object of their learning is new knowledge about how to improve the learning of their pupils in specific classroom contexts. I therefore determined to study not only the nature of the collaborative discourse of teachers engaged in LS, but also the knowledge and cultural histories they drew upon in doing so. Teacher talk in LS contexts promised to reveal something about teacher learning and about how teachers utilise and develop knowledge.
Teacher knowledge and learning are both distinctive. For example, teaching requires not only procedural and propositional knowledge of the content to be taught, but also Shulman’s (1986) ‘pedagogical content knowledge’; (PCK) which comprises: knowl[1]edge of how content relates to the subject and curriculum; knowledge of common errors or misconceptions that learners are prone to form as a result of a particular teaching approach; and also knowledge about the particular learners themselves (Ball, Hoover[1]Thames, & Phelps, 2008; Hill, Ball, & Schilling, 2008).
One factor which strongly influences teachers’ practice knowl[1]edge is their knowledge of their pupils. This can be seen in the way that teachers’ knowledge of specific practices that they observe changing their pupils’ learning, influences their subsequent prac[1]tice (Guskey, 2002; Webb & Vulliamy, 2006).
S tudies of effective teacher learning models and conditions (Cordingley et al., 2004; Kazemi & Hubbard, 2008; Opfer & Pedder, 2010; Pedder, 2006) suggest that teacher learning that strongly promotes improved pupil learning occurs when: Teacher learning takes place over weeks (not days); The classroom is the central location of professional learning activity; Experimental enquiry into pupil learning features in the teacher learning process; There is collaboration with one or more other professionals in that process (Dudley, 2011).
As all four of these conditions exist in LS, I decided not only to study teacher talk in the professional learning process, but also to examine social conditions within the LS groups, that promote teacher learning, and the forms of knowledge they draw upon in this process.
2.3. Research questions The literature and the outcomes of my pilot study led me to identify the following research questions in relation to how and what teachers learn in LS: 1. What kinds of things do LS group members learn? How does this new knowledge help them to improve their support for pupils’ learning e and how is it realised and made available to others? 2. What forms of knowledge and motivations do LS group members draw upon and use in order to influence and inform this learning most successfully? 3. What do features of interaction and collaboration in the work of LS groups reveal about the nature of teacher learning and the generation of new practice knowledge amongst members?
USEFUL TO KNOW
Because of the centrality of talk to teacher learning I analysed video recordings made by groups of teachers of themselves jointly planning and analysing RLs in order to throw light upon how and what they were learning. My pilot study had suggested that it was through these discussions that teachers revealed most evidence of:
a. Their knowledge of pupils, classes, content and pedagogy; b. Opportunities created for ‘risk-taking’; c. How they designed RLs to facilitate the learning of specific pupils; d. How LS group members collaborated; e. How they used observation evidence to analyse pupil learning; f. How they developed this analysis into ideas for change and revised teaching approaches to improve pupil learning; g. Pupils’ agency in these processes; h. How knowledge that their LS would later be made public affected LS group decisions and behaviours. I hoped to capture detailed evidence of these through discourse analysis.
Case pupils are chosen to represent or typify learner groups whom it is important to observe and understand in the RLs.
There are usually three or four case pupils. During a RL, teacher and observers focus on the whole class and the lesson as a whole, but also on the case pupils e especially at key points in the lesson when their anticipated or intended behaviours were specified in the plan.
The post-lesson discussion convention (Dudley, 2011, 2012) was introduced to help the post-lesson discussion concentrate on what was observed and to steer initial discussions away from an imme[1]diate focus on teaching or the teacher. The convention requires the LS group members to discuss: 1. Firstly, their observations of the case pupils’ learning compared with what they had predicted; 2. Secondly, the way other pupils had learned; 3. Thirdly, the effects of the teaching on the pupils’ learning and what teachers might do differently in the next RL, or in future teaching.
It (i) created a discipline whereby participants used and referred to evidence gathered from their observations and (ii) prevented this session from feeling judgemental, thus allowing all the teachers equal access to any learning gained from the discussion.
Two LS groups participated in two schools (CS1 and CS2) working with 9 year olds.
##These two groups audio visually recorded themselves planning and analysing their RLs, then planning their subsequent RLs. Two months later each teacher participated in a semi-structured inter[1]view reflecting on what had been learned during the LS and on any lasting changes in pupil learning and teaching that resulted.
A discourse analysis was then applied at the level of interaction in order to explore and re[1]explore the discussion. The interviews were also transcribed, and a content analysis was carried out in the light of the discourse analysis of the discussions. These analyses generated the following outputs.
n exploratory talk knowledge is made more publicly account[1]able and reasoning is made more visible in the talk. Progress then emerges from eventual joint agreement reached. (Mercer, 1995, p. 104).
Teachers gained important new knowledge about their pupils: how they learn and how their learning could be improved in the future e and this was particularly evident and clear with respect to the case pupils.
The LS teachers developed other forms of PCK.
Teacher learning is the primary subject both of this study and its most important finding. Pupil learning is reported as an outcome of teacher learning.
The forms of knowledge and motivations that LS group mem[1]bers drew upon and used in order to influence and inform this learning were: new knowledge of their pupils’ learning encoun[1]tered in RLs, combined with finely grained and shared un[1]derstandings of aspects of curriculum or pedagogy e particularly pedagogical knowledge (such as that related to formative assess[1]ment practices and collaborative learning approaches) and PCK. In relation to this, case pupils played an important role in sharpening the focus of the groups on the learning of specific pupils who typify learner groups.
Firstly, it was clear from comparing time that elapsed between RLs and post-lesson discussions that the sooner a post-lesson dis[1]cussion happens after a RL, the more rewarding and effective it is
LS then acts as a locus for co-construction of new knowledge between the LS group members and the imagining, observing, analysing and re-imagining of practice, and the effects of that practice help to distribute that cognition amongst the individual members.
. This is probably the second most important finding of this study because it suggests that LS can help teachers to comprehend their pupils learning in deeper, more complex ways.
. Warford (2011) postulates a Zone of Proximal Teacher Development (ZPTD) and how it could be optimised in designing teacher professional learning. In ZPTDs the object of pupil learning will change from lesson to lesson, but the object of teacher learning is always the same: it is the improved learning of pupils (see Fig. 5 below).
This study has trained a spotlight onto teacher learning co[1]constructed by groups of teachers through a process that gener[1]ates co-constructed teacher knowledge and enables it to be distributed to, and fixed in, the practice knowledge and theoretical knowledge of individuals.
It has shown how LS’s deliberate, collaborative processes allow teachers to summon up and utilise otherwise invisible tacit knowledge.
But many school leaders are put off using LS by the disruption they perceive will be created to the school timetable, staff cover system and supply teacher budget.
Comments
Post a Comment