From lesson study to action research: Possibilities and perils

Transcription

1 From lesson study to action research: Possibilities and perils Ann R. Taylor Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Box 1122, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, Edwardsville, Illinois , USA. Paper presented to 25 th Annual International Conference of the Collaborative Action Research Network, Low Wood Hotel, Windamere, Cumbria, England 4 November, 2001 Ann R. Taylor, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville 1

2 Who am I As a mathematics educator in the elementary education program at Southern Illinois University, I am responsible for teaching undergraduate and masters students about methods of teaching elementary mathematics. When I read about the Japanese process of lesson study nearly two years ago (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999), I was both intrigued and excited. It seemed instantly clear to me, in the way that Schon might characterize as knowing-in-action (1983), that lesson study would help my students to think differently about their teaching, and make changes in the directions recommended by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000). Now, two years on, as a teacher educator I am working with nine local teachers using lesson study as part of a significant sequence of educational experiences that culminates in an action research project. I believe using lesson study in this way is helping the teachers to improve their teaching of elementary mathematics. Two parts of this sequence are lesson study and action research. First, I will summarize the Japanese lesson study process assuming this is not familiar to you. Second, I will share a brief overview of the sequence of educational experiences I structured for the teachers. Third, I will raise some issues about the implementation of this Japanese professional development processes in the US. Ann R. Taylor, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville 2

3 I. What is lesson study? Lesson study has been introduced to a large US audience during the last 2-3 years largely through the work of a small group of scholars. Stigler and Hiebert s (1999) widely read account of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study s [TIMSS] video study being the chief source. Lewis and Tsuchida (Lewis, 2000; Lewis & Tsuchida, 1998) and Fernandez, Cannon, Chokshi and Yoshida s work (Fernandez, Cannon, & Chokshi, Draft; Fernandez & Chokshi, Draft; Fernandez, Chokshi, Cannon, & Yoshida, 2001; Yoshida, 1999) is less widely read, but these scholars have also engaged in independent research on lesson study. Both of these latter groups have web sites with links to research on lesson study (Lesson Study in Japan- U.S. Science Education ; Lesson Study Research Group, 2001). I shall use Stigler and Hiebert s work (1999) to summarize the main elements of the structure of the lesson study process. Lesson Study Process Stigler and Hiebert discuss the lesson study as one component of a system designed for continual professional development in Japan. They believe this process empowers individual teachers and leads to steady incremental improvement in teaching, rather than fast reform which is often the goal of US approaches to change. Lesson study is a process where teachers meet together to study an actual classroom lesson. They meet for up to a year to design, implement, test, and improve one research lesson. The topic for the lesson is chosen by the teachers but is linked to larger national, district, or school goals. For example, teachers choose a theme for professional development at school level, then grade level group meets and set grade level goals, and finally groups of 5-7 teachers develop the goal for a research lesson at Ann R. Taylor, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville 3

4 a particular grade level (e.g. subtraction with borrowing). They meet weekly for 3-4 hours. Stigler and Hiebert characterize the process in terms of eight steps of a problem-solving process. Handout 1. What is Lesson Study? Step 1: Defining the problem The problem can be written generally, to awaken student interest in mathematics or more specifically improve student s understanding of how to add fractions with unlike denominators.(p. 112) This goal is refined to become the focus for a lesson. The general goal can come from teachers practice or from administrative mandate. Step 2: Planning the lesson The goal is to produce an effective lesson and understand why and how the lesson works to promote understanding among students (p.113). Research will be done first, and then the plan may be presented at a faculty meeting for more criticism. Step 3: Teaching the lesson The lesson is group property, although one teacher teaches it. Teachers stay late at school the night before doing role play and making materials. Then when teaching, all the teachers come and watch, walk round, and take careful notes about what the students are learning. The lesson may be video-taped. Step 4: Evaluating the lesson and reflecting on its effects Teachers stay after school to debrief, with the actual teacher going first. The other teachers offer criticism about the parts of the lesson they saw as Ann R. Taylor, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville 4

5 problematic. The focus is on the lesson, not on the teacher who taught the lesson; the lesson, after all, is a group product, and all members of the group feel responsible for the outcome of their plan. They are, in effect, critiquing themselves. This is important, because it shifts the focus from a personal evaluation to a self-improvement activity (p.114). Step 5: Revising the lesson. They change materials, activities, plans, based on evidence they saw about specific student misunderstandings. Step 6: Teaching the revised lesson This is done with a different class, and perhaps a different teacher. This time all the school s faculty attend (more than students sometimes). Step 7: Evaluating and reflecting again All faculty are involved, and perhaps an outside expert. The discussion is long and wide ranging. Step 8: Sharing the results audience. Reports are written and shared, either in teacher s lounge or with wider Ann R. Taylor, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville 5

6 II. Lesson Study and Action Research in a Sequence of Experiences Handout 2: Sequence of Teaching Activities The fact that teaching methods are hard to change has been well documented. Larry Cuban (1993) has analyzed the constancy of teaching methods in k-12 schooling through the 20 th century, and others (Zeichner & Tabachnich, 1981) have reported on the challenges faced by, and ineffectiveness of, teacher education in reforming teaching methods. Thus, Stigler and Hiebert s assertion that it is teaching a cultural activity that makes it adapt to rebuff attempts at reform, was just one more explanation for a well-known phenomena. As a teacher educator, therefore, intent on helping my students to reform their teaching, my task is clearly not an easy one. My approach is to engage my students fundamental beliefs about teaching mathematics. I hold four basic assumptions about what my students beliefs are that prevent them from changing their teaching. First, I believe they have no vision of what a different way of teaching mathematics would look like. Second, I believe if they do have any sense of what that different way of teaching would be, then I do not believe they value this other way of teaching. Third, I believe my students lack the understanding of elementary mathematics that would enable them to see how inadequate they current teaching methods are. Fourth, I do not believe pre-service or practicing teachers are self-aware of many of their current teaching methods. Given these assumptions about my students, I then carefully orchestrated a sequence of classroom and homework experiences designed to engage my students Ann R. Taylor, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville 6

7 beliefs and assumptions about teaching. The Sequence of Teaching Activities chart summarizes the ways in which I structured this overlapping sequence of learning experiences in my graduate class in Spring The first five experiences were common to all the students, and the next one, lesson study, was only taken up by nine of the students. Many more were interested, but the constraints of the course framework led them to choose to repeat the audio-tape assignment a second time instead. Two teachers and I wrote about the impact of the audio-tape assignment elsewhere (Taylor, Bialas, & Braye, 2001). The final experience of writing an action research project about their lesson study experience was pursued by the same nine students after the end of their course. They completed this final action research study in fulfillment of masters degree requirement for a final study. The chart shows my purpose for each experience, as well as my characterization of the typical response these experiences evoked from students. Ann R. Taylor, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville 7

8 III. Thinking about using lesson study in the U.S. Now for the issues: The state of Illinois is very interested in the process of lesson study, which they hope will be a means of effective professional development for teachers. However, I find myself strongly favoring introducing lesson study as part of a sequence of experiences that leads to action research. I am suggesting, that lesson study is a more user-friendly vehicle than action research to enable most teachers to begin a process of thinking about their teaching. However, I am also suggesting that action research as the final step in a carefully sequenced and taught series experiences that includes lesson study develops more depth and reflection than does lesson study alone. As yet, I have very few specific reasons and little evidence to justify my practitioner knowledge that lesson study cannot be introduced on its own. Funding agencies respond to evidence and reason, as do journal editors. However, the Teachers College Columbia Lesson Study Research Group of Fernandez, Cannon, and Chokshi (Fernandez et al., Draft), are beginning to report in draft form some of the issues that I may have known about as a teacher. They suggest that engaging in the examination of practice is not enough for this examination to be productive.(p.8) In their study of Japanese teachers who collaborated with US teachers to introduce lesson study in Patterson, New Jersey, the research team noticed significant perspectives that the Japanese teachers brought to their work, and which the US teacher lacked. They are calling these: The lens of a researcher Ann R. Taylor, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville 8

9 The lens of a student The lens of a curriculum developer Extended participatory discussion I would like to explore these issues more. My central question is: As experienced action researchers, and teachers of action research, what do you believe would be the possibilities and the perils of introducing lesson study in isolation into schools you know? Handout 3: Thinking about lesson study The chart, thinking about lesson study identifies five features of lesson study used by Lewis and Tsuchida (1998). The key points from the ensuing discussion are summarized in italicized comments on Handout 3. Ann R. Taylor, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville 9

10 Handout 1: What is lesson study? Lesson study has been introduced to a large US audience during the last two or three years largely through the work of a small group of scholars. Stigler and Hiebert s (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999) widely read account of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study s [TIMSS] video study being the chief source. Lewis and Tsuchida (Lewis, 2000; Lewis & Tsuchida, 1998) and Fernandez, Cannon, Chokshi and Yoshida s work (Fernandez et al., Draft; Fernandez & Chokshi, Draft; Fernandez et al., 2001) is less widely read, but these scholars have also engaged in independent research on lesson study. Both of these latter groups have web sites with links to research on lesson study (Lesson Study in Japan- U.S. Science Education, ; Lesson Study Research Group, 2001). I shall use Stigler and Hiebert s work (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999) to summarize the main elements of the structure of the lesson study process. Lesson Study Process Stigler and Hiebert discuss the lesson study as one component of a system designed for continual professional development in Japan. They believe this process empowers individual teachers and leads to steady incremental improvement in teaching, rather than fast reform which is often the goal of US approaches to change. Lesson study is a process where teachers meet together to study an actual classroom lesson. They meet for up to a year to design, implement, test, and improve one research lesson. The topic for the lesson is chosen by the teachers but is linked to larger national, district, or school goals. For example, teachers choose a theme for professional development at school level, then grade level group meets and set grade level goals, and finally groups of 5-7 teachers develop the goal for a research lesson at a particular grade level (e.g. subtraction with borrowing). They meet weekly for 3-4 hours. Stigler and Hiebert characterize the process in terms of eight steps of a problem-solving process. Ann R. Taylor, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville 10

11 Step 1: Defining the problem The problem can be written generally, to awaken student interest in mathematics or more specifically improve student s understanding of how to add fractions with unlike denominators.(p. 112) This goal is refined to become the focus for a lesson. (General goal can come from teachers practice or from administrative mandate) Step 2: Planning the lesson The goal is to produce an effective lesson and understand why and how the lesson works to promote understanding among students (p.113). Research will be done first, and then the plan may be presented at a faculty meeting for more criticism. Step 3: Teaching the lesson The lesson is group property, although one teacher teaches it. Teachers stay late at school the night before doing role play and making materials. Then when teaching, all the teachers come and watch, walk round, and take careful notes about what the students are learning. The lesson may be video-taped. Step 4: Evaluating the lesson and reflecting on its effects Teachers stay after school to debrief, with the actual teacher going first. The other teachers offer criticism about the parts of the lesson they saw as problematic. The focus is on the lesson, not on the teacher who taught the lesson; the lesson, after all, is a group product, and all members of the group feel responsible for the outcome of their plan. They are, in effect, critiquing themselves. This is important, because it shifts the focus from a personal evaluation to a self-improvement activity (p.114). Step 5: Revising the lesson. They change materials, activities, plans, based on evidence they saw about specific student misunderstandings. Step 6: Teaching the revised lesson This is done with a different class, and perhaps a different teacher. This time all the school s faculty attend (more than students sometimes). Step 7: Evaluating and reflecting again All faculty are involved, and perhaps an outside expert. The discussion is long and wide ranging. Step 8: Sharing the results Reports are written and shared, either in teacher s lounge or with wider audience Ann R. Taylor, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville 11