Review of use of learning and observation in ITE lesson study
1. Lesson study and Initial Teacher Education
(ITE): Understanding Learning and
Meaningful Observation to Guide Beginning
Teachers
World Association of Lesson Study Symposium
Exeter
4th September 2016
Fay Baldry, Raymond Bjuland, Hans-Erik Bugge, Wasyl Cajkler, Janne Fauskanger, Nina Helgevold, Arne Jakobsen, Deborah
Larssen, Reidar Mosvold, Gro Naesheim-Bjorkvik, Julie Norton, Anita Tyskerud, and Phil Wood
2. Organisation of the Symposium
• How is learning defined and discussed within ITE lesson study literature?
• How effectively is observation used as a tool for capturing evidence within Lesson
studies?
• How can our understanding of learning and approaches to its observation be
developed for Lesson study in ITE programmes?
3. The literature review
• Structured search in databases
• Eric
• Academic Search Premiere
• PsycInfo
• Leicester library of Lesson Study in ITE
• Scopus
• Eric
4. Structured search, search criteria
• Peer-reviewed journal articles
• Published in English
• Search terms: “Lesson Study” AND “teacher education”
• This combination of search criteria in the three databases gave a total of 81
articles
5. Finding the most relevant articles
• Structured search: 81 articles
• Number of articles that appeared BOTH in the structured search and the
Leicester library: 34 articles
• From this selection of 34 articles, 10 were excluded by the following
criteria:
• Not empirical studies: 4 articles
• Not initial teacher education: 4 articles
• Not Lesson Study: 1 article
• Not retrievable: 1 article
• Final selection of articles for review: 24 articles
6. Coding of articles
• Every article coded by two researchers
• Coding categories:
• Confirming inclusion
• Genre of study
• Causal design
• Research problem or motivation
• Sample size
• Type of Lesson Study
• Level of teaching
• Stage of teachers (experience)
• Region(s)
• Topic
• Additional coding of observation and learning
9. Our review of the lesson study literature on initial teacher education focused
on two main questions:
1. How is learning defined in lesson study research papers?
2. How is it used to frame discussion of findings?
Review Questions
10. Extent of Review
When analysing the chosen papers, we considered:
• How learning is represented
• Whose learning experience is the main focus
• What is learned about learning from the study
11. Question 1: How is learning defined in lesson study research papers?
• Two theories of learning and professional practice are dominant:
- Communities of Practice (focus in 5 papers)
- Pedagogic Content Knowledge (focus in 5 papers) although often considered in
relation to collaborative context
• Other theoretical frameworks used include:
- Reflective practice (focus in 3 papers)
- Activity theory (focus in 2 papers)
- Inquiry-based work (focus in 2 papers)
- Situated learning
- Experiential learning
12. • However, there is far less consideration of individual cognitive aspects of learning.
One example of where this does occur is in Cavey and Berenson (2005) where they
use Dynamical Theory
‘It is assumed that a learner comes to a particular learning situation with Primitive
Knowledge (all other knowledge) as well as some knowledge of the particular topic
that is identified by some outer layer of thinking (Image Making, Image Having,
Property Noticing, Formalizing, Observing, Structuring, and Inventising.’ (p.174-175)
• These theoretical frameworks suggest a strong orientation towards the notion of social
and collaborative perspectives of learning together with personal development. For
example, Chassels and Melville (2009) state:
‘We examine lesson study as a means to encourage and sustain new teachers as
collaborative and reflective professionals committed to ongoing inquiry and learning.
(p.736)
13. Question 2: How is learning used to frame discussion of findings?
• The dominant reporting of learning within the initial teacher education literature on
lesson study is focused on the learning of student teachers rather than the learning of
pupils.
• The learning ‘gains’ reported fall into a number of areas as outlined in the table below
Area of discussion Number of occurrences
Student-teacher learning 15
Pedagogic growth 11
Collaborative work 9
Reflective practice 7
Learning of pupils 6
Personal/Professional Change 3
14. ‘The results in this study demonstrate evidence of what emergent reflective thinking skills
look like when prospective teachers initially engage in reflective thinking skills in a scaffolded
context. Whether and how these prospective teachers use these reflective thinking skills
autonomously during their busy lives in their own classrooms, with more constraints and
without prompting, is an open question. To improve upon these results, we believe that
sustained opportunities to engage multiple cycles of reflective thinking over time is essential
to support teachers’ learning so that they see value in the process as well as receive feedback
in their use of reflective thinking skills.’ (Jansen and Spitzer, 2009, p.147)
Student-teacher learning
‘Analysis of our challenging case indicates that the student teachers were not only struggling to
shift the focus from the organisation of teaching to pupil learning (Saito et al., 2006), but they
were also failing to direct attention to their own learning.’ (Bjuland and Mosvold, 2015, p.89)
15. Pedagogic Growth
‘Content knowledge difficulties, in the context of this study, were swiftly identified and
addressed by participants themselves during their efforts to prepare for Lesson Study and did
not pose an obstacle to teaching mathematics. In this sense, Lesson Study served as a vehicle to
uncover and in turn tackle content knowledge difficulties that arose.’ (Leavy, 2010, p.61)
Collaborative work
‘Participants in this study suggested that they benefited from participative discussion about
pedagogy and a collaborative approach to learning in ITE, in a supportive community in which
all were learners focused on the improvement of pedagogy, not just the training of a
prospective teacher.’ (Cajkler et al, 2013, p. 550)
16. • In many papers, whilst a theory of learning is proposed in the early part of reporting, it is often
not used as an explicit element of discussion.
• As a consequence, we have identified three possible levels of theoretical coherence and
integration into the wider discussion:
Level of
coherence/integration
No. of
papers
Characteristics
Coherent conceptual
framework concerning
learning
11 There is sustained discussion of learning through a coherent learning theoretical
perspective, and this discussion is integrated across the paper, including
discursive perspectives relating to evidence from the study
Some coherence in
consideration of learning
3 There is discussion of learning through a learning theoretical perspective,
although it is often not integrated across the paper, with little discursive use in
understanding the evidence captured
Lack of coherence in
consideration of learning
10 Little use of a theoretical framework, and is not integrated into the later
discursive elements of the paper – ‘theory in passing’
However…..
17. Initial thoughts on learning in lesson study
• There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that the use of lesson study in initial teacher education has a
beneficial impact on the pedagogic understanding and practice (pedagogic literacy, Cajkler and Wood,
2016) of student-teachers
• A variety of theoretical stances are taken, although there is a preponderance of socio-cultural
perspectives
• The ‘learning’ which is considered is that of the student-teachers, only rarely is the learning of pupils
discussed directly.
• Learning process is self-reported, and rarely from multiple-perspectives, hence a lack of triangulation.
• The level to which the use of learning theory frameworks is coherent and integrated into the discussions
of paper varies greatly
• Do we need to spend more time and effort considering the multiple facets of learning, including how we
explain and discuss the processes of learning, and also how we use this to reflect on the methods used to
collect evidence of the learning of both teachers and pupils?
19. Review Questions
1. How is the process of observation explained in the ITE papers?
2. How were the observations conducted?
3. Who was observing, who were they observing and what were they observing?
20. How is the process of observation explained in the papers?
• Few papers in the sample provide detailed explanation
• Prototypical explanation, integral to LS process:
‘teaching/learning/lesson was observed’
• Exceptions include papers by Sims and Walsh (2009), Amador and
Carter (2015)
• No appended protocol
• Replicability?
21. Idea units Totals (n. 24)
How is the
process of
observation
explained in the
papers?
Prototypical LS process explained (referenced)
in most cases
Exception = noticing
(regular) e.g.
2
Influence of Lewis, Tsuchida and Colleagues
(referenced)
Murata and Takahashi
4
1
Takahashi and Yoshida
Dudley (referenced)
2
1
Shimahara (2002);
Stigler and Hiebert 1999
1
2
22. How were observations conducted?
• Some refer to an observation protocol/Handbook, for instance:
‘Observation of pupil learning is decisive in lesson study, and the importance of planning how to
observe pupil learning – and what behaviour to anticipate in particular (Bekken & Mosvold,
2004) – was emphasised in the preparation of the mentor teachers. This was also described in
the lesson study handbook that student teachers were supposed to use’ (Bjuland & Mosvold,
2015, p. 88).
(see also Amador and Weiland Carter, 2015)
• Few provide detailed descriptions. An exception:
‘During each research lesson, observers were positioned around the room, watching silently,
constantly taking notes. Clear about their assigned duties, some observers attended to one
table, others, the entire classroom. All the group members had copies of the research-lesson
plan. Some observers wrote notes on the plan; most used additional paper to take notes. The
lead teachers referred to the plan throughout the lesson. Some had additional notes and
alternated between the plan and notes.’ Sims and Walsh (2009, 730)
23. Idea units Totals (n. 24)
How were the
observations
conducted?
Observation and field notes
Lesson observation form/protocol/handbook
Notes on lesson plan
Interviews with students/learners
Lesson study four column format
3
5
2
2
1
Focus clearly on students (student response
data/observed student learning) learning
Focus on observing student thinking
12
4
NOTICING (van Es and Sherin, 2008; van Es
2011; Star and Strickland, 2008)
Complexity of observation/learning to observe
Focused/systematic/intense/close/structured/
careful/specific
Unclear/vague about how conducted
2
5
9
7
24. Who was observing, who were they observing and what were they
observing?
• The majority of the focus is on the teaching of the lesson
• Microteaching to peers
• University + University/classroom
• Watching a video of the lesson together with mentors/university lecturers
• In the classroom (traditional LS)
• Some focus on pupil learning
• Video
• Classroom
25. Idea units Totals
Who is observing? Student-teachers 10
Student-teachers + university
researcher
6
Student-teachers + school mentors 6
University researcher 2
Whom are they observing?
Student-teachers 10
Pupils 4
Pupils and student-teachers 9
What are they observing? Teaching of a lesson in a classroom 7
Teaching of the classroom lesson
afterwards using video
5
Microteaching of peers 4
Pupils’ learning behaviours 11
Observation: Who, whom, what?
26. Conclusions
• Our understanding (influenced by Lewis, Dudley, Murata) of LS’s original aim was to
help support pupil learning by using close observation and possible interviews with
pupils, as they are working in the research lesson.
• From this literature review:
• Focus varies: sometimes, the teaching of the lesson, the student-teachers’
teaching rather than focusing sharply and clearly on the pupils
• Limited use of interviews with pupils, despite acknowledgement of complexity of
observation and some emerging acknowledgement of its limitations
• What should we think about this variation?
• Is it natural that ITE researchers are more focused on their student-teachers’
learning?
27. Implications from the observation group
Stigler and Hiebert (1999) note that introducing LS into a worldwide context inevitably results
in changes and adaptations: is flexibility a virtue?
Future research could:
• be more explicit about observation: explanation, conduct and who, whom and what
• show more awareness of the challenges of observing pupil learning e.g. studies focusing on
noticing (Leavy and Hourigan, 2016) offer some potential for development
• provide the reader with opportunities to access tools used with the student-teachers:
• Handbooks
• Observation protocols
• Assessment
28. Conclusions/ Ideas for final paper or discussion
• Teacher educators reading about LS in ITE in the 24 papers might be confused by the shifting
focus or layers of the observations: pupils’ learning; student-teachers’ teaching; observation of
the LS process; e.g. in the use of LS micro-teaching where student- teachers teach peers
• When it is stated or implied in the text that student-teachers carried out structured
observations – the way these were done is rarely described in any detail
• Should we focus more on the connections between the student-teachers’ development of a
better understanding of the connections between teaching and learning and how LS helps
student-teachers to develop this understanding? (in Leicester we use the idea of ‘pedagogic
literacy’)
• To what extent do these articles show a moving of student-teacher focus from self to an
understanding of the impact of their own teaching on pupil learning?
30. 1. Whose learning we are researching in lesson study and why
2. The nature of observation as a medium for ‘capturing’ learning
3. How our understanding of learning will impact on types of data we choose to collect
From our consideration of the 24 sampled ITE papers, three main issues
arise:
31. Whose learning we are researching in lesson study and why
• Lesson Study is an approach for helping us gain greater understanding of learning
and pedagogy in the classroom
• Through the learning challenge, the ultimate focus is on the learning of the pupils
• In the ITE literature this is far less pronounced, and is more focused on the
experiences and learning of student teachers
• The learning of pupils is mentioned/discussed on occasion, but rarely is it a
consistent and coherent element of a paper
32. • There is evidence that lesson study provides a positive vehicle for the development of
pedagogic understanding in ITE
• The literature does begin to help us understand what student-teachers gain from the
experience, but the breadth of evidence is weak
• However, the application of learning theory and science is biased towards a social-
cultural perspective. Do we need to understand and reflect the complexity of learning
more?
‘The concept of learning has many potential units of analysis, all the way from the
molecular level of neurochemistry, via other fields of neuroscience over to various
areas of psychology, education, organization studies, and many other social
sciences. These levels of inquiry, and their respective units of analysis, stand in very
complex relationships to each, and to bridge between them is often a complex
affair.’ (Saljö 2009: 206)
33. ‘One cannot begin to understand the true nature of human learning without embracing
its interactional complexity.’ (176)
1. Learning is change
2. Learning is inevitable, essential and ubiquitous
3. Learning can be resisted
4. Learning may be disadvantageous
5. Learning can be tacit and incidental
6. Learning is framed by our humanness
7. Learning is both process and product
8. Learning is different at different points in time
9. Learning is interactional
Alexander et al, 2009
34. The nature of observation as a medium for ‘capturing’ learning
• If the nature of learning is as complex as we suggest – can we ‘see’ it in any detail or to any great
extent?
Nuthall (2007) characterises as occurring in layers that become increasingly difficult to observe:
(1) a visible layer which is that which is public and teacher-led;
(2) a semi-visible layer which is the student-led culture, relationships and interaction; and
(3) an invisible layer which is that of the mental processes, such as prior learning and working
memory that are central to individual sense making.
(from Wood and Cajkler, 2016: 9)
• Observation in the 24 papers, as a tool, is often ‘assumed’ and methodological approaches
often remain quite implicit rather than being explicitly explained and discussed
• The relationship between how we view learning as a process, and how we observe it, is
sometimes imprecisely explained
35. Our understanding of learning and its impact on the types of data we choose
to collect
• The complexity of learning: Alexander et al (2009) recognise
several dimensions to learning, also suggested by Illeris (2007).
• If we focus on pupil learning in LS in ITE, can observation
actually give us a ‘full’ and coherent account of the processes of
their learning by itself?
• Related to this, many papers seek to observe student-teacher
learning so the use of classroom observation of pupils may be
primarily for contextual purposes – no longer the main focus.
• Complexity of observation is discussed in 5 papers only, but
there are many dimensions to observation and just two studies
in the sample are complemented by interviews with pupils. Illeris, 2007
36. • This suggests we need to be more open about our underlying beliefs about learning, and that these need to
be made explicit in our choice of data capture tools. A good example of where this does occur is Lewis et al
(2009)
• For example, if we are interested in the learning of student-teachers through lesson study do we need to
consider:
• Longitudinal data capture
• Mixed-methods approaches
• The capture of the visible, the semi-visible and the invisible?
If learning is truly complex then we will always have an incomplete picture of it, but
‘Just because a complex system is incompressible it does not follow that there are (incomplete)
representations of the system that cannot be useful – otherwise how would we have knowledge of
anything, however limited? Incompressibility is not an excuse for not bothering.’
Richardson and Tait (2010: 92-93)
• Perhaps this also demonstrates that we have to spend more time discussing, explaining and helping
student-teachers and ourselves understand and deal with the complexity of learning and its observation
– something lesson study is very much capable of achieving.
37. Some initial suggestions for developing lesson study in initial teacher education
• Develop a greater depth of knowledge and understanding in student-teachers and teacher
educators concerning the complex nature of learning and observation.
• Help student-teachers to develop an understanding of how learning and teaching relate to their
developing practice.
• Use understanding of learning to critically assess the research techniques needed in any particular
study – context, the type of learning and by whom.
• Consider the purpose of observation and what can and cannot be achieved in any given
context/focus
• Consider not only the tools for collection and analysis in lesson study, but also the interpretation of
the analysed data
• What is the place of theory and the process of observation in lesson study?
38. References
Alexander, P.A.; Schallert, D.L. & Reynolds, R.E. (2009) What is learning anyway? A topographical perspective considered.
Educational Psychologist, 44:3, 176-192.
Cajkler, W. & Wood, P. (2016) 'Lesson Study and Pedagogic Literacy in Initial Teacher Education: Challenging Reductive
Models.' British Journal of Educational Studies. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00071005.2016.1164295
Illeris, K. (2007) How We Learn: Learning and non-learning in school and beyond. Abingdon: Routledge.
Lewis, C.C.; Perry, R.R. & Hurd, J. (2009) ‘Improving mathematics instruction through lesson study: a theoretical model
and North American case.’ Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12:4, 285-304.
Nuthall, G. (2007) The Hidden Lives of Learners, NZCER Press, Wellington
Richardson, K.A. & Tait, A. (2010) ‘The Death of the Expert?’ E:CO, 12:2, 87-97.
Saljö R. (2009) Learning, theories of learning, and units of analysis in research. Educational Psychologist, 44:3, 202-208.
Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J., (1999) The teaching gap: Best Ideas from the World’s Teachers for Improving Education in
the Classroom. New York: The Free Press
Wood, P. & Cajkler, W. (2016) ‘A participatory approach to Lesson Study in higher education’ International Journal for
Lesson and Learning Studies, 5:1, 4-18.
39. Review Papers
• Amador, J., & Weiland, I. (2015). What Preservice Teachers and Knowledgeable Others Professionally Notice during Lesson Study.
Teacher Educator, 50(2), 109–126.
• Bjuland, R., & Mosvold, R. (2015). Lesson study in teacher education: Learning from a challenging case. Teaching & Teacher Education,
52, 83–90. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.09.005
• Cajkler, W., Wood, P., Norton, J., & Pedder, D. (2013). Lesson Study: Towards a Collaborative Approach to Learning in Initial Teacher
Education? Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(4), 537–554.
• Carrier, S. J. (2011). Implementing and Integrating Effective Teaching Strategies Including Features of Lesson Study in an Elementary
Science Methods Course. Teacher Educator, 46(2), 145–160.
• Cavey, L. O., & Berenson, S. B. (2005). Learning to Teach High School Mathematics: Patterns of Growth in Understanding Right Triangle
Trigonometry during Lesson Plan Study. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24(2), 171–190.
• Chassels, C., & Melville, W. (2009). Collaborative, Reflective, and Iterative Japanese Lesson Study in an Initial Teacher Education
Program: Benefits and Challenges. Canadian Journal of Education, 32(4), 734–763.
• Cohan, A., & Honigsfeld, A. (2006). Incorporating “Lesson Study” in Teacher Preparation. Educational Forum, 71(1), 81–92.
• Davies, P., & Dunnill, R. (2008). “Learning Study” as a Model of Collaborative Practice in Initial Teacher Education. Journal of Education
for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 34(1), 3–16.
• Fernandez, M. L. (2005). Learning through Microteaching Lesson Study in Teacher Preparation. Action in Teacher Education, 26(4), 36–
47.
• Fernandez, M. L. (2010). Investigating How and What Prospective Teachers Learn through Microteaching Lesson Study. Teaching and
Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 26(2), 351–362.
• Gurl, T. (2011). A Model for Incorporating Lesson Study into the Student Teaching Placement: What Worked and What Did Not?
Educational Studies, 37(5), 523–528.
• Helgevold, N., Næsheim-Bjørkvik, G., & Østrem, S. (2015). Key focus areas and use of tools in mentoring conversations during internship
in initial teacher education. Teaching & Teacher Education, 49, 128–137. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.03.005
• Jansen, A., & Spitzer, S. M. (2009). Prospective Middle School Mathematics Teachers’ Reflective Thinking Skills: Descriptions of Their
Students’ Thinking and Interpretations of Their Teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12(2), 133–151.
40. • Leavy, A. M. (2010). The Challenge of Preparing Preservice Teachers to Teach Informal Inferential Reasoning. Statistics Education Research
Journal, 9(1), 46–67.
• Marble, S. (2007). Inquiring into Teaching: Lesson Study in Elementary Science Methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(6),
935–953.
• Marble, S. T. (2006). Learning to Teach through Lesson Study. Action in Teacher Education, 28(3), 86–96.
• Parks, A.N. (2008). Messy learning: Preservice teachers’ lesson-study conversations about mathematics and students. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 24, 1200-1216.
• Parks, A. N. (2009). Collaborating about What?: An Instructor’s Look at Preservice Lesson Study. Teacher Education Quarterly, 36(4), 81–
97.
• Peterson, B. E. (2005). Student Teaching in Japan: The Lesson. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8(1), 61–74.
• Ricks, T. E. (2011). Process Reflection during Japanese Lesson Study Experiences by Prospective Secondary Mathematics Teachers. Journal
of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(4), 251–267.
• Sims, L., & Walsh, D. (2009). Lesson Study with Preservice Teachers: Lessons from Lessons. Teaching and Teacher Education: An
International Journal of Research and Studies, 25(5), 724–733.
• Suh, J. M., & Fulginiti, K. (2012). “Situating the Learning” of Teaching: Implementing Lesson Study at a Professional Development School.
School-University Partnerships, 5(2), 24–37.
• Tsui, A. B. M., & Law, D. Y. K. (2007). Learning as Boundary-Crossing in School-University Partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education: An
International Journal of Research and Studies, 23(8), 1289–1301.
