Collaborative Practice Development: Using lesson study to explore learning challenges in the seminar room. Phil Wood, October 2019

Background and context Japanese Lesson Study (‘jugyou kenkyuu’ ) collaborative research-oriented learning activity (plan-teach-observe-evaluate) deeper understanding of students’ learning leads to continuously refined pedagogy contrast: top-down lesson dipping approaches to teacher development

Some core characteristics of Lesson Study collaborative, case-student specific, classroom-based, lesson specific, qualitative, Learning and pedagogy-focused. FLEXIBLE - Variation in application might occur due to purposes and contexts

A Dialogic Approach to Teacher Development The use of professional capital Professional Capital = Human Capital + Social Capital + Decisional Capital (Hargreaves and Fullan, 2012, 88) HC – development of knowledge and skills in teaching SC – interaction and social relationships – working in groups DC – discretionary judgement (a major characteristic of professionals) This requires space and time

Pedagogic Literacy

Introduction to Lesson Study 1. Teachers form LS groups to identify a specific challenge that students have with an aspect of learning 2. Having agreed the focus, the LS group meet together and plan a 'research lesson' in detail, focusing on the intended learning of the students 3. The research lesson is taught by one of the group. The other members each observe the learning of 3 'case' pupils and note how they are engaging. 4. The group evaluates the lesson, focusing on evidence for student learning and engagement during each phase of the lesson. 5. Evaluation of the research lesson leads to resolutions for future practice and to collaborative planning of another research lesson for teaching to the same or other group.

The Potential Role of LS in Curriculum Development Lesson study 2 Lesson study 3 Lesson study 4 Lesson study 1 Evaluation

‘A true glimpse of what it means to learn from teaching’ (Sims and Walsh, 2009, 732) Lesson Study allows teachers to see inside the pedagogical ‘Black Box’ of planning – teaching/learning – evaluation A form of ‘team pedagogy’, working to develop conceptualisation of learning as a process Difficult to gain explicit and consistent evidence of the processes involved. Much is ‘hidden’.

HE Variant of LS

Please begin by choosing a module or seminar that you believe students always struggle to understand. What is your evidence that they don’t understand well? What is the nature of their lack of understanding? Try to break down the nature of the idea/concept/content and identify the elements they struggle with.

Observation – considering what, who and how Observation will be the result of the way in which we understand learning How many people can we observe? What do we look for?

One possible view of learning - Using Knud Illeris 3 Dimensions of Learning

Burns and Knox 2011

Commognition Emerged out of the work of Anna Sfard in maths education – bringing together of communication and cognition. Idea that thinking is a communication with the self or/and others Learning as a permanent change in discourse (Sfard, 2008) Means changes in discourse can be seen as evidence of thinking and learning – which is observable Sfard (2008) describes development of word use in four stages: passive use, routine-driven use, phrase-driven use and object-driven use. Passive use - refers to hearing the word, without actively using it Routine-driven - using the word in a concrete situation Phrase-driven - being able to use the word in similar situations Object-driven - “the users’ awareness of the availability and contextual appropriateness of different realizations of the word” (Sfard, 2008, p. 182). Based on work by Anita Tyskerud

Planning for whom? Linking planning to observation Begin to plan a seminar

The importance of evaluation A case of creating the correct narratives and routines Needs to focus on the learning, not the ‘teacher’ Where possible, the inclusion of student reflections is important Use of stimulated recall interviews Emergence of new insights and questions

Making Time The time required for LS is difficult to find Wider issues of how time is understood in schools and universities linked to datafication and performativity Using variants of LS Success often a process of cultural shift – an ongoing process Reflective opportunities to embed new practice

Embedding LS as an Organisational Change From Wood, 2017

Ainley, J. and Luntley, M. (2007) Ainley, J. and Luntley, M. (2007). Towards an articulation of expert classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education 23(7), 1127–1138. Biesta, G. (2007). Why “What Works” Won’t Work: Evidence-based Practice and the Democratic Deficit in Educational Research. Educational Theory 57(1), 1–22. Biesta, G.J.J. (2010). Why ‘What Works’ Still Won’t Work: From Evidence-Based Education to Value-Based Education Studies in Philosophy and Education 29(5), 491-503. Biesta, G.J.J. (2014). The Beautiful Risk of Education. Boulder Co., Paradigm Publishers. Cajkler, W. and Wood, P. (2015). ‘Lesson Study in Initial Teacher Learning: Key to the Pedagogic Black Box.’ in Dudley, P. (ed.) Lesson Study: professional learning for our time. London, Routledge. Cajkler, W.; Wood, P.; Norton, J. and Pedder, D. (2013). Lesson Study: towards a collaborative approach to learning in Initial Teacher Education? Cambridge Journal of Education 43(4), 537-554. Cajkler, W. Wood, P. Norton, J. and Pedder, D. (2014a). Lesson study as a vehicle for collaborative teacher learning in a secondary school. Professional Development in Education 40(4), 511-529. Cajkler, W.; Wood, P.; Norton, J.; Pedder, D. and Xu, H. (2014b). Teacher perspectives about lesson study in secondary school departments: a collaborative vehicle for professional learning and practice development. Research Papers in Education (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2014.887139).

Edwards, A. and Protheroe, L. (2003) Edwards, A. and Protheroe, L. (2003). Learning to See in Classrooms: What Are Student Teachers Learning about Teaching and Learning While Learning to Teach in Schools? British Educational Research Journal 29(2), 227-242. Hargreaves, A. and Fullan, M. (2012). Professional Capital: Transforming Teaching in Every School. New York, Teachers’ College Press. Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals think in action. London, Temple Smith. Sfard, A. (2008) Thinking As Communication: Human development, the growth of discourses and mathematizing. New York: Cambridge Press Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review 57(1),1-22. Wilkins, C. and Wood, P. (2009). ITE in the Panopticon. Journal of Education for Teaching: International research and pedagogy 35(3), 283-297. Wood, P. (2017) Overcoming the problem of embedding change in educational organizations: A perspective from Normalization Process Theory, Management in Education, 31(1), 33-38. Wood, P. and Cajkler, W. (2013). Beyond Communities of Practice: investigating and developing the professional learning of trainee teachers through Lesson Study. Research Report to the Society for Educational Studies. Accessed 24 May 2014 http://www.soc-for-ed-studies.org.uk/documents/smallgrants/finalReports/wood-and-cajkler.pdf. Wood, P. and Cajkler, W. (2014). Pedagogic literacy – a framework for understanding the growth of teacher professionalism in a complex era, Paper presented at Association for Teacher Education in Europe Conference, University of Minho Braga, Portugal 25-27 August 2014.