Desirable Mindsets in Lesson Study

 By Rolando M. Tan

Lesson study provides a collaborative atmosphere where teachers reflect on their practices in the pursuit of instituting pedagogical reforms in their lessons (Gutierez, 2015). While improvements of research lessons through implementation and post-lesson reflection and discussion are important outcomes in lesson study, it is also vital that teachers develop desirable mindsets in every aspect of the lesson study cycle. 

Desirable mindsets of teachers were evident in a school-based lesson study program conducted in an exclusive private school for boys, where three research lessons were implemented in the teachers’ respective classes. One of the three lesson study teams developed a research lesson on weathering, a Grade 5 Earth Science topic. The research lesson aimed to make students identify the agents of weathering in the environment: wind, water, plants’ roots and changing temperature from situations taking place in the natural environment. The research lesson made use of learning stations. At each station, students were asked to identify a particular agent of weathering in a given situation. The post-lesson reflection and discussion became an important venue where pertinent issues were raised and deliberated upon. Arising from these discussions were desirable mindsets that were instrumental in identifying gaps or oversights in the research lesson. 

1. Identifying problematic areas based on students’ responses 

One of the learning stations aimed to make students identify that wind is an agent of weathering. A video animation showed the wind “rubbing” against the surface of a rock as the rock decreases in size while particles of it are carried by the wind. One of the Knowledgeable Others (KO) in the lesson study team heard students say that the rock looked like a potato, causing confusion among the students. 

Another problem in the animated video was that it did not show that the particles carried by the wind collided with the surface of the rock causing the rock’s surface to get scratched and weathered. The use of the animated video failed to make the students understand the natural process of how wind can weather rocks. Selection of the appropriate learning material in science is crucial to the teaching-learning process. Thus, teachers must always position themselves from a critical standpoint when selecting video materials especially when an animated video simulates a natural phenomenon like weathering. 

The use of animated video to simulate another phenomenon called frost wedging became a major talking point during the post-lesson reflection and discussion. The teacher-implementer realized that there was a problem in processing the answers in the video simulation of frost wedging as the video failed to demonstrate how frost wedging could weather rocks. He realized that the video watched by the students made them answer that water softens the rocks, which may be a possible source of misconception. This is an important realization because it will help the lesson study team decide whether they will continue to use the same video or find a better material that will not lead to a misconception. Cheng and Yee (2012) stated that listening to what students say gives teachers a better understanding of how students learn. 

2. Foreseeing possible problems in future lesson implementations 

One of the learning stations focused on the role of plants’ roots in the weathering of rocks. A sequence of pictures showed how a seed dropped by a bird on the ground grew and became a tree while the roots continued to grow downward thereby breaking the rocks underneath. While the processing of this activity made the students conclude that the roots of the plants is an agent of weathering, one of the teachers opined that the pictorial story might make the students conclude that the bird is the agent of weathering. This kind of observation is commendable as it prevents possible errors in future implementations not encountered in the initial implementation. Such proactive inputs must be taken into consideration in the revision of instructional materials to prevent the occurrence of misconceptions. 

3. Raising unrelated but important comments 

In the processing of answers concerning plant roots as agent of weathering, one member of the lesson study team corrected the teacher-implementer regarding the function of plant roots. He heard the teacher-implementer mentioned that the roots grow into cracks to acquire nutrients. Actually, not only do roots acquire nutrients from the ground but water as well. Thus, plants send their roots into cracks in search of water. Although this issue is not related to the objectives of the research lesson, citing oversights, not related to the main objectives must be taken into account as these corrections are valuable for other lessons and therefore must not be ignored. 

4. Planning the research lesson considering the allotted time 

 Realizing that the time was not enough to cover the four agents of weathering, one of the lesson study members suggested that each group focus on one station and for them to share their observations during the processing of the answers. One of the KO suggested that they focus on two agents in one meeting and the other two in the next so that all students would get the chance to get engaged in the learning stations. Time management is just as important as the content of the lesson itself as time constraints can affect the execution of lesson as well as the processing of students’ responses. 

5. Appreciating the importance of post-lesson deliberation 

One of the members of the lesson study team gave a positive impression about the conduct of the whole process of lesson study. For him, it provided opportunities to see the strengths and weaknesses of the research lesson, especially when the lesson was implemented with observers present. Such appreciation is vital to the sustainability of the program. Lewis (2002) mentioned that one of the supporting conditions for lesson study to succeed is the belief that improvement can be achieved through a collective effort. When teachers stop believing that nothing will be achieved from the inputs gathered in post-lesson reflection and discussion, the sustainability of the lesson study process will definitely be undermined. 

References: 

Cheng, L.P. & Yee, L.P. (2012). A Singapore case of lesson study. The Mathematics Educator, 21(2), 34-57. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ961515.pdf 

Gutierez, S.B. (2015). Teachers’ reflective practice in lesson study: A tool for improving instructional practice. Alberta Journal of Education Research, 61 (3), 314-328. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301633235_ Teachers%27_reflective_practice_in_lesson_study_A_tool_for_improving_ Instructional practice 

Lewis, C. (2002). Does lesson study have a future in the United States? Nagoya Journal of Education and Human Development, 1, 1-23. doi: 10.4119/UNIBI/jsse-v3-i1-967

Read More

Using models as part of the instructional process: What teachers need to know

 Rolando M. Tan

Using three-dimensional models in teaching has become part of the instructional practices of science teachers. Using models in teaching has shown marked improvements in students’ understanding especially of complex subject matters in science (Mclaurin, Halverson and Boyce, 2014). Models, which serve as a representation of the abstract concepts, help students construct ideas (Krontiris-Litowitz, 2003; Orgill and Thomas, 2006). Glynn (1991) states that using models that facilitate analogical reasoning is an effective way to foster understanding by relating their existing knowledge with text knowledge. This is an important consideration because effective analogies do not only motivate students but also help them clarify their thinking and avoid misconceptions (Orgill and Thomas, 2006). Moreover, analogies also “enhance student learning through a constructivist pathway” (Harrison and Treagust, 1993, p. 1292). If the research lesson would use such physical manipulatives or any other instructional models as part of the instructional process, lesson study practitioners and the so-called knowledgeable other must bear in mind the theoretical foundations of using teaching materials that foster analogical reasoning.

 

So what makes a model an effective teaching material to foster analogical reasoning? Gentner (1998) enumerates the processes in analogical reasoning: (1)retrieval – an individual tries to recover a previous analogous example from long term memory (2) mapping – examining the commonalities from two working memories and making inferences from one working memory to another (3) evaluation - where the inferences and their analogies are assessed and (4) abstraction – examining the common structure between two analogies. Gentner, focuses more on mapping as he proposes the Structure mapping theory for analogy. In structure-mapping theory, analogy is “a  mapping of knowledge from one domain (base) to another (target) which conveys that a system of relations known to hold in the base also holds in the target.”(Falkenhainer, Forbus, Gentner, 1989, p. 2).

Gentner (1983) stressed that mapping commonalities between the target domain (the object to be compared) and the base domain (the object which the target is compared to) would involve two aspects: object attributes and relational predicates. For example when the atom is compared to a solar system, the atom is the target domain while the solar system is the base domain.

Object attributes are the physical features that can be visibly seen on the base and on the target while relational predicates pertain to the interaction of the objects in a domain.  Structure-mapping theory  states that when several overlaps are found in the object attributes and in relational predicates between the target and the base, literal similarity is attained and if overlaps are strongly seen on relational predicates, analogy therefore has been achieved (Gentner, 1983). One example of an analogy is the lung chest model which was constructed using simple household materials such as  plastic bottle, plastic sheet, small plastic bags and flexed straws. Looking closely, overlaps between the object attributes of the model and the human respiratory system are very weak but in terms of relational predicates a strong overlap can be observed. When the plastic sheet goes down the small plastic bags inside the plastic bottle inflate. This  indicates that air rushes inside these plastic bags. In the human respiratory system the diaphragm situated below the lungs also demonstrates a downward movement when it contracts causing the lungs to inflate.  If this model would have object attributes almost similar to the anatomical structure of the human respiratory system, literal similarity would have been attained.

The use of analogical models in the teaching learning process has become a pertinent issue when teachers collaboratively develop research lessons involving three dimensional models as a teaching tool. A lesson study group composed of Grade 5 teachers intended to use a three dimensional model to teach a science concept by analogy. The lesson study group intended to use a hard-boiled egg as their model to represent the interior of the Sun. In light of Gentner’s structure-mapping theory - the hard-boiled egg which serves as an analogical model of the interior of the Sun has been found to be problematic. Object attributes between the target and the base domain do not have several overlaps. If the yolk would correspond to the central core, what will be the counterpart of the Sun’s radiative zone and the convective zone? The egg shell itself may not have a counterpart with the Sun as the Sun’s surface does not have a covering that can correspond to the egg shell. The softness of the yolk and egg white does not have any similarity with the Sun’s interior as the Sun is made up of hot gases. Another consideration is the shape of the egg as the Sun is nearly spherical in shape.   With regards to relational predicates, there is totally no relational overlap observable between the Sun and the hard-boiled egg. The hard-boiled egg’s interior cannot be made to give heat and light as how the core and radiative zones  produce heat and light. When few or no relational overlaps are observed between the target and the base, what can be attained is an anomaly instead (Gentner, 1983).

A snapshot of the research lesson to be implemented is shown below:

Prepared Questions on the Research Lesson 

From the part titled Analysis and Discussion, the teacher tried to narrow down on the fact that the cross–section of a hard-boiled egg has similarities with the Sun which is more prescriptive rather than constructivist in approach. What the implementing teacher failed to see is that the hard-boiled egg cannot be used as an analogical model to make them infer the interior parts of the Sun.

After the first lesson implementation data from the post lesson discussion revealed interesting results from two NISMED staff. NISMED staff 1 gave a firsthand account on some critical areas seen during the lesson implementation while NISMED staff 2 focused more on the shared ideas and comments of the implementing teacher, his co-teachers as well as the general impressions about the implementation.

From NISMED staff 1:

A preliminary activity aimed at unlocking the terms “inner” and “outer” was done.

The Teacher started with eliciting prior knowledge by asking them to draw the inner parts of the sun but he actually just said draw the sun instead of saying draw the inner parts of the Sun.

He conducted another activity by asking the students to draw the cross section of a hardboiled egg and then made them compare the egg and the Sun. The egg model elicited responses that are not related to the parts of the Sun. One student even mentioned the presence of Salmonella in eggs.

When he asked if there is any difference between the sun and the egg most of the students were silent as they do not seem to know how to answer the question. The hard-boiled egg failed to represent fully the interior parts of the Sun as the Sun’s radiative and convective zone have no counterparts that can be found in the hard-boiled egg.

Students were asked to put together the puzzle pieces to show the parts of the Sun. Afterwards, a reading activity about the parts of the Sun was given to the students. They were asked to label the parts of the Sun. The teacher, however, did not give time for the students to label properly the parts of the Sun as the teacher already named one of the parts. 

During the group activity, only a few students were actually engaged in the task assigned to them. 

From NISMED staff 2:

·         After Mr.  ________shared his observations about the activity and his implementation:

o     He found that the activity was time consuming despite giving a time limit for the task;

o     He liked the activity because it gave the students opportunity to relate their previous lessons (from the earlier grades) to the current lesson, and allowed them to observe something concrete (egg model) to anchor the development of their ideas on the current lesson; and

o     He expressed that the objectives he set for the lesson were met to a certain extent since they were not able to finish the lesson.

·         The impressions and observations of the rest of the team (co-teachers and NISMED staff 1) were similar to his observations with regard to the length of time spent in doing all the activities. Several suggestions were cited by different members of the group to address this (see the decisions in the next section). The discussion on time management has implications on the number of tasks for the students and the choice of which tasks to retain in the revised lesson plan.

·         Other aspects of the lesson and lesson plan that were brought to light were:

o   Use of the egg as a model of the Sun – Since the responses of the students showed that they could not easily connect the egg model to the parts of the Sun (only one group made an effort/attempt to make the connection) and was limited to inner and outer parts only;

o   Extent of participation of the members in the group -Only two to three  members were really engaged in the activity due to the big size of the group (10 members ); and

o   Assessment/Quiz – The group was advised by the NISMED staff to review the items based on the revisions that will be made on the lesson plan.

Instead of inferring the parts of the Sun from the egg model, students started to describe the egg as one pupil even mentioned the presence of Salmonella that can also be found in eggs.  The teacher had not realized his role as a facilitator of learning when he immediately named one of the parts of the Sun’s interior. By the teacher’s behavior and the students’ responses, the egg model was not really instrumental in making the students infer the parts of the Sun from the cross section of the egg since the reading activity was the only source that could make the students understand more about the parts of the Sun’s interior.    

NISMED staff gave the following recommendations:

·         Sir ____ will finish the lesson on the following day with the same section (including the quiz), but will no longer be observed by the NISMED staff.

·         Retain the preliminary activity using the pictures of the inner and outer parts of the house for the unlocking of the terms, but only for the low-ability sections. For the high-ability sections, this can be omitted or asked directly to the pupils (What do you think is the meaning of inner/outer?).

·         For the main focus question, stress the interior parts but rephrase it “What do you think is inside the Sun?/What do you think are the inner parts of the Sun?”. The teacher is encouraged to ask this in Filipino especially in the lower-ability sections.

·         To save time, the egg model and the puzzle will be removed. The activities that will be retained are the drawing of the Sun to answer the question, “What do you think is inside the Sun/What do you think are the inner parts of the Sun?” and to elicit prior knowledge. This task will be done individually and drawn in their notebook. Second, the article will be retained, but instead of a group activity, it will be done in pairs (think-pair-share). Moreover, the next task involving the article is for the students to draw and label the parts of the Sun based on what they understood or learned from reading the article.

·         For the presentation of output/drawings, the teacher will tell the students to post their drawings on the board. The teacher will also give them time to view the other pairs’ work and then call volunteers to group similar drawings together. He will then ask for volunteers who will describe their drawings further using their own words.

·         After the selected pairs have presented, this is the time that the teacher shows the image of the Sun (showing the interior parts) with proper labels (labels should be bigger). This time, the teacher will tell the class (pairs) to compare their drawings with the illustration of the Sun that the teacher posted. The students can evaluate for themselves (no need to score) on how close their drawings are to the illustration.

·         Review the assessment items if the tasks and skills required are aligned with the tasks and skills of the revised lesson plan. Include a diagram of the Sun and its parts in the assessment task since the revised lesson will have more visuals.

·         The second implementation will be done by Ms. ______.

For the lesson study practitioner and knowledgeable others who serve as consultants to the lesson study group, it is important to bear in mind the conceptual framework for using models as tools for analogical reasoning. Every time a manipulative model or any three-dimensional model is being used to teach a science concept, the knowledgeable others must be able to analyze the object attributes and relational predicates that overlap between the target and base domain. This is important because “uncritical use of analogies may generate misconceptions and this is especially so when unshared attributes are treated as valid.” (Harrison and Treagust, 1993 p. 1292).       

REFERENCES

Falkenhainer B., Forbus K. D. & Gentner D. (1989). The Structure-mapping engine:

Algorithm and Examples. Artificial Intelligence, 41, 1-63. Retrieved from

http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/PDF/falkenhainer89structuremapping.pdf

Gentner,  D. (1983). Structure mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive

                Science, 7(2), 155-170. doi: 10.1016/S0364-0213(83)80009-3.

Glynn S.H. (1991). Explaining Science Concepts: A Teaching-with-analogies model. In

S.M. Glynn, R.H. Yeany & B.K. Britton (Eds.) The psychology of learning science. Lawrence  ErlbaumAssociates, Inc.: New Jersey.

Harrison, A.G. & Treagust D.F. ( 1993). Teaching with Analogies: A case study in grade

10 optics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 30, 1291-1307. Retrieved from  https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Treagust2/publication/

227763859_Teaching_with_analogies_A_case_study_in_grade10_optics/links/00b49521bf923c2973000000.pdf 

Krontiris-Litowitz, J. (2003), “Using manipulatives to improve learning in the

Undergraduate neurophysiology curriculum”, Advances in PhysiologyEducation, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 109-119. doi: 101152/advan.00042.2002.

McLaurin, D.C., Halverson, K.L. and Boyce, C.J. (2014), “Using manipulative models to

develop tree thinking”, Biology International, Vol. 54, pp. 108-121, available at:

http://biologyinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/

11Halverson-Vol-54.pdf (accessed September 12, 2014).

Orgill, M. & Thomas, M. (30 December 2005). Analogies and the 5E model. National

 Science Teachers Association. Available at http://www.nsta.org/publications/

news/story.aspx?id=53146

Read More

Learning the Nature of Inquiry-based Teaching through Lesson Study

by Ivy Mejia

ipmejia@up.edu.ph

A number of reform-based initiatives in science education are focusing on inquiry as an approach to science teaching. A case in point is the K to 12 Science Curriculum of the Department of Education (DepEd, 2016). The general standard for this curriculum is for students to acquire an “understanding of basic science concepts and application of science inquiry-skills” (DepEd, 2016, p. 4). However, there are varied conceptions of inquiry both in preservice and in-service education (Akerson, Abd-El-Khalick, & Lederman, 2000). To regulate accurate understanding of inquiry in science instruction, teachers needed support in this area. To reconcile the need for the development of inquiry and support, the University of the Philippines National Institute for Science and Mathematics Education Development (UP NISMED) initiated a collaboration with five science teachers at a typical public school in the National Capital Region. It was a three-year project whose main goal was to enhance the capacity of science teachers to strengthen the inquiry skills of the students. This article will not describe the entire project but only the results of the first year of implementation of a professional development model, which is referred to as lesson study. 

The study employed a case study design where the case is a group of five teachers and two UP NISMED staff. The data collected were drawn from the several stages of lesson study: planning, implementation, and post-lesson discussion. The research lesson is on “evidence of chemical change.” Two classes of first-year students were selected to gather data on teaching and learning with a focus on inquiry skills. The transcript of the group discussions and lesson implementations were subjected to content analysis. These were coded and categorized to draw patterns on science inquiry skills gained both by the teachers and students. 

Figure 1. Students synthesizing their observations drawn from the activity on evidences of chemical change (Photo credit:  High School Earth Science Workgroup).

The entire process of lesson study brought realizations to teachers that unpolished process skills of students served as barriers to the development of inquiry skills. During the first lesson implementation, students had an alternative conception on initial and final observations. For example, they had to describe a piece of bread before and after it was burned. Their initial observation was that the bread looks brown while their final observation was that the bread became toasted. Another instance was ignoring the changes on the surface of a sliced eggplant once it was exposed to air. For them, they have been used to this appearance and did not consider it as a change. The group had to revise the lesson by revisiting observation as basic process skill. Students were taught what is meant by initial and final observations. On the second implementation, students were able to describe the physical and chemical changes. They provided explanations based on evidence brought by employing careful observations on changes as drawn from the activity. 

On the first year of lesson study, the members concluded that enhancement of inquiry skills of students was dependent on prior process skills of students. The group focused on the inclusion of inquiry but it overlooked the prior readiness of students to engage in inquiry. The planning, implementation, and lesson study discussion, as part of lesson study cycle, served as a way for the group to understand the factors affecting the acquisition of inquiry skills both to teachers and students. Although students were observed to have been discussing their explanations based on evidence, this does not guarantee that they have understood this feature of inquiry. The students should not only undergo the process of inquiry but also demonstrate an understanding of the process of inquiry. This is achieved when teachers are both competent in knowledge and skills about inquiry. 

The full version of this article is published in UP NISMED’s Lesson Study Book 2: Learning more together, growing in practice together.

Read More

World Association of Lesson Studies (WALS) International Conference 2016

On September 3-5, 2016, four NISMED staff presented their papers* in the 10th World Association of Lesson Studies International Conference at the University of Exeter, the United Kingdom. The theme of the conference was on the role of lesson study in transforming teaching and teacher learning in professional learning communities.  The entire conference highlighted the benefits of collaboration which is built on lesson study.  When teachers collaborate with their colleagues they start to build self-efficacy, gain new idea on how students learn which results in deep learning, receive moral support, and predict future success as an effect of working together.  During the conference, there was also a presentation on countries that managed to sustain lesson study, such as Cambodia and Indonesia.  It was also suggested that lesson study has to be the culture of school even if the principal leaves the school.  The relationship between the principal and the faculty is far more important than the top-down approach to sustain lesson study. Investing in social relationship such as principal-to-teacher and teacher-to-teacher is what Andy Hargreaves, the keynote speaker, referred to as Social Capital.  

*Title of papers presented in WALS 2016

Sustaining the culture of collaboration in lesson study through fostering a collegial atmosphere:  A practice-based case study

Ms. Jacquieline Rose Gutierrez

Students’ answering their own question:  Voices from high school chemistry classroom Ms. Arlene dela Cruz

Influence of culture in adapting lesson study

Ms. Ivy Mejia and Mr. Eligio Obille

Read More

How Fair Testing was Brought to Light from Pupils’ Responses in a Science Lesson through Lesson Study

by Rolando M. Tan
rmtan67@gmail.com

Experimental investigations such as those used in science classroom activities entail the need to control certain variables to validate changes observed from a single variable being investigated. This practice follows the fair test principle. Conducting fair test in experimental investigations eliminates the chance of making inconsistent conclusions; instead, it provides opportunity to draw out conclusions based on verifiable and reproducible evidence (Mclleland, 2006). This principle is an important issue in the field of elementary science education as most elementary school teachers have inadequate training and exposure to inquiry-based instruction as a pedagogical model for teaching science (Newman, 2004). This issue was brought out in a Lesson Study on a seed germination activity for fourth grade pupils as a means to foster evidence-based learning through the inquiry approach. The research lesson, prepared by Grade 4 science teachers, was implemented twice with post-lesson discussions that follow after each implementation. 

The first implementation of the research lesson was designed to make pupils infer which variable was able to initiate seed germination of mung beans. The experiment consisted of three setups: Setup A used dry soil, Setup B used wet soil, and Setup C used wet cotton. The pupils were asked to make these setups and to record their observations for four days. On the fifth day, the pupils posted their data on the blackboard and explained their findings including their answers to the questions in the activity. The implementing teacher was not able to see that the setups had two variables that were changed (type of medium and presence of moisture). As a result, the experiment had not been helpful to the pupils as they were only able to answer that water initiated the process of germination from a previous experience. One of them explained that the unexpected germination of the beans in the dry soil setup was caused by the rain that made the setup wet. Some pupils, however, answered that air and sunlight are the factors that initiated seed germination. From the post lesson discussion, the implementing teacher had not realized that the experimental setups in the seed germination activity was flawed and had overlooked how the pupils arrived at their conclusions. The flaw in the experimental setup was discussed during the first post lesson discussion. The lesson study team decided to include an additional setup containing seeds embedded in dry cotton, which will serve as the control for the other setup (seeds embedded in wet cotton). The revised research lesson used a pair of setups which had a wet soil setup and a dry soil setup as the control and another pair of setups which had a wet cotton setup and a dry cotton setup as the control. The lesson study team decided that half of the class will use the dry soil and wet soil setups while the other half will use the wet cotton and dry cotton setups. 

The second lesson implementation of the revised research lesson was implemented by another member of the lesson study team. A four-day observation period was carried out. On the fifth day, the class reported their observations. A discussion on the activity was conducted by the teacher. The teacher asked in vernacular (Tagalog): What is common and what is not in the pair of setups? The pupils responded better as the teacher emphasized the presence or absence of the independent variable by asking questions to make the pupils infer that water initiates seed germination regardless of the kind of medium (cotton or soil) used for germinating mung beans. During the post-lesson discussion, the team saw the need to put Tagalog translations on the research lesson especially on questions where discussion and concept development are constructed by the pupils. 

In summary, the pupils’ responses provided teachers helpful insights on their lesson development. First, the use of the vernacular language facilitated better student engagement in the discussion of the results of the experiment. Second, the experience from the two lesson implementations stressed the importance of how pupils arrive at an answer instead of just focusing only on the answer given by the pupils. This is aligned with the inquiry-based approach of making pupils construct evidence-based statements (BSCS, 2006; NRC, 2000).

The full version of this article is published in UP NISMED’s Lesson Study Book 2: Learning more together, growing in practice together.

Read More

Lesson study: A tool for building teachers’ culture of reflective practice

by Sally B. Gutierez

Researchers claim that personal reflection on one’s practice is one of the methods of capability building among teachers (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009); Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, 2009; Reeves, 2010). Moreover, by blending reflective practice into continuing professional development, teachers develop self-knowledge and self-challenge on their professional learning journey (Leitch & Day, 2000; Klein, 2008; Ng & Tan, 2009). Based on these claims, effective professional development for teachers goes beyond enhancing their knowledge and skills to providing them with opportunities of self-reflection within a support group that establishes sustainability and collaboration. In education, a growing interest to move away from one-shot workshops has attracted education specialists to instigate a life-long learning community among in-service teachers. Teacher inquiry groups (Crockett, 2002), peer coaching, collaborative teacher consultation, teacher mentoring (Brownwell, Adams, Sindelar, Waldron & Vanhover, 2006), lesson study (Lieberman, 2009), and collaborative professional learning (Gutierez, 2015) are just few of the promising teacher professional development models at the present. According to Shriki and Movshovitz-Hadar (2011), through these professional development activities, teachers are able to acquire new knowledge and skills by participating in a learning community that focuses on teaching practices as learning objects. 

Reflective practice in education is said to scaffold critical thinking (Conway, 2001) and promote self-regulation (Singh, 2008; Boud, 2007) as the teaching process is believed to be a process that is open to examination and deliberation (Van Manen, 1995; Schön, 1983; Elliot, 2001) for significant improvement in the teachers’ instructional practices (Kemmis  & McTaggart 1988). Engaging in a reflective practice provides rigor in the shared repertoire of knowledge development through constructive sharing of opinions and feedbacks. Constant interaction draws collegial and critical examination of their actual teaching practices (Daniel, Auhl, & Hastings, 2013). In this method, feedback forms the basis of critical analysis which provides sustainable evaluation of existing practices (Han, 1995; Hatton & Smith, 1995). On-going feedback thus becomes a crucial component in a community of reflective practitioners in response to the changing paradigms of professional engagement. Through feedback, Loughran (2002) stressed the importance of establishing meaning to actual experiences so that these may be valued ‘in ways that minimize the possibility establishing a routine on a faulty teaching practice’ (pp. 34). In light of the foregoing literature, reflective practice brings implicit knowledge based on actual practice so that it can be recognized, questioned, and perfected (Parra, Gutierrez, & Aldana, 2015). Classroom practices serve as the objects of learning and not from the theoretical knowledge from formal education settings (Schön, 1983).

Lesson study captures the idea of enhanced learning and intellectual functioning when a group collaboratively work together which eventually leads to the development of personal expertise as a product of the constant interaction and deep reflection (Hadar & Brody, 2010). This means that constant interaction is vital to the optimum development of instructional practices. Moreover, the sustainable collaborative reflection to evaluate teaching routines not only examines the alignment of teaching practices to new and existing paradigms but builds a community of practice where teachers become more critical and constructive with each other (Achinstein, 2002; Grossman, Wineburg, & Woolworth, 2001; Little, 1990, 1999; Witziers, Sleegers, & Imants, 1999).

In a qualitative study which documented and categorized the reflective practices of three (3) groups of public elementary school science teachers from their year-long professional development through lesson study, findings reveal that there exist three types of reflection exemplified by the teachers across the stages of the lesson study process but these were hardly noticed during normal conversations. In-depth analyses of the transcripts show that the team mostly used descriptive reflection and this occurred mostly during the planning and goal setting stage (47.37%) and in the post-lesson reflection and discussion ([PRD], 41.78%]) between the teachers and the “knowledgeable others.” The presence of the knowledgeable others prompted the teachers to engage in a critical dialogue and make attempts to evaluate their lessons. In this study, critical reflection is considered as the highest form of reflective practice thus, as beginning reflective practitioners, teachers showed less skill on this method of reflection. However, the 26.24% attempts to use this reflection is indicative of teachers’ potential to become reflective practitioners among themselves which increases in the presence of the knowledgeable others in the planning and goal setting and PRD stages given a sustainable and enough opportunities.

Analyses show that the participatory, collegial, and collaborative nature of lesson study were the enabling factors in the open sharing of information and establishment of consensual and mutual understanding (Cooper, 2014) between and among the teachers and the knowledgeable others. This supports the claims of Healy (2009) who said that collective and reflective approaches to evaluate professional practice supports the development of understanding leading to a shared professional identity. This adapts the claim of Marcos, Sanchez, and Tillema (2011) that reflective practice among teachers helps them to deliberate and solve instructional problems critically. Findings also indicate that a professional development activity tailored to the direct experiences of teachers result to significant outcomes. 

Read More

Bridging the challenges of inquiry-based teaching: Commonwealth Elementary School teachers’ insights on lesson study

Teaching science is often equated to preparing students to cope with the changes and challenges of their lives (Shamsudin, Abdullah, & Yaamat, 2013). In fact, the Next Generation Science Standards (NRC, 2000) stress that “science is the pursuit of explanations of the natural world, and technology and engineering are means of accommodating human needs, intellectual curiosity, and aspirations” (p. 2). Lesson study captures the essence of social constructivism which emphasizes the importance of social interaction through negotiation, discourse, reflection, and explanation in the construction of knowledge. This supports its effectiveness as an inquiry professional development model in increasing teacher subject-matter knowledge and pedagogical skills (Rock & Wilson, 2005). Aside from transforming conventional classrooms into inquiry-based classrooms, teachers are empowered to build a constructivist and self-regulated professional learning community where they undergo the processes of collaborative goal setting, lesson planning, observing and monitoring outcomes, reflecting, and revising lessons to achieve meaningful results in terms of student achievement.

Researchers attributed the importance of learning of historical experiences of social groups from visualizing the object of their learning. In lesson study, teachers examine their teaching practices to identify the critical lenses for students’ learning (Cheung & Wong, 2014). In the processes of lesson study, it is the understanding of the connection between teaching and learning that builds the relationship between how the intended content is “made possible to learn in a lesson and what the students are supposed to learn” (Cheung, 2011; Lo, Chik, & Pang, 2006; Marton & Pang, 2006; Pang & Marton, 2005) which makes it an effective professional development activity.

According to Supovitz and Turner (2000), the ultimate aim of professional development is to produce quality instructions in classrooms that bring about significant improvement in student learning. Lesson study takes into account the gathering of exemplary teaching practices directly from teachers in the field that provide sustained application of inquiry for both students and teachers. As the team reflects together with the knowledgeable others, they were able to identify the barriers of inquiry-based lesson implementation. Each of the members served as a support in the adaptation of new and effective teaching practices. Because of the constant interaction of the teachers, they were able to build connections between their classroom dynamics to specific curriculum standards. This supports the call of early education reformers to establish a professional development effort that is intensive, sustained, and where teachers are engaged in concrete teaching tasks so that changes are directly obtained from pieces of evidence from teachers’ experiences and student responses.

In this study, the lesson study framework was used to identify and bridge the three challenges in implementing inquiry-based teaching in elementary school science education in the Philippines, namely, a lack of support, training, and availability of inquiry-based materials; an overemphasis on assessing content learning rather than learning through inquiry; and the difficulty and time consuming nature of inquiry approaches. Because of the robust number of collaborative discussions in the process of lesson study, the data of this paper were obtained from audio recordings, field notes, and video recordings gathered from each cycle of lesson study conducted by the author and the team. These were supplemented by a formal interview from the six (6) in-service teachers. Analysis of data took place in two phases. First, all transcripts related to challenges in implementing inquiry-based teaching were selected. Patterns were noted, coded, and categorized using the constant comparison method (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

Recognizing the challenges of inquiry-based teaching, the teachers valued the importance of their professional development through lesson study in bridging the current challenges of their instructional practices. Teachers’ insights revealed that lesson study became an opportunity for them to discuss about the common issues they face during instruction, clarify their misconceptions on inquiry-based teaching, and address their lack of learning resources to develop an effective lesson. Their constant collaboration helped them clarify their doubts and built their confidence, thus enabling them to be more comfortable in teaching. Moreover, the participative nature of lesson study helped them in analyzing, reflecting, and revising their research lessons which reduced their individual time to do lesson planning and preparation.

In this study, results indicated a strong need for today’s elementary school science teachers to engage in sustainable professional development as they struggle towards the proper implementation of inquiry-based teaching. After characterizing the teachers’ insights, it was understood that the teachers’ analyses of their instructional practices deepen as they continuously engage in collaborative and constructive self-assessment and discussions through lesson study. While committed to adapt inquiry as a teaching strategy, it became clear that in-service teachers need collegial and collaborative support in implementing inquiry inside their classrooms. They became very vocal concerning whom to approach when they have questions in both content and pedagogy and wanted opportunities to learn more on how to align inquiry to the diverse nature of pupils. Thus, based on the results, this study hopes to provide a benchmark of information on how teachers learn as they become engaged in collaborative inquiry wherein their own classrooms become an object of their learning.

Complete and en-depth analysis of this article can be obtained from the following:

Gutierez, S. B. (2015). Collaborative professional learning: Discovering the challenges of implementing inquiry-based teaching through lesson study. Issues in Educational Research, 25(2), xx-xx. (In press, to appear at http://www.iier.org.au/iier25/gutierez.html)

Gutierez, S. B. (2014). Identifying and addressing the challenges of inquiry-based elementary science teaching and learning through lesson study. In Ulep, S. A., Ferido, M. B., Reyes, R. L., & Punzalan, A. E. (Eds.), Lesson Study: Learning Together, Growing More in Practice Together. (pp. 115- 146). Quezon City: University of the Philippines, National Institute for Science and Mathematics Development.

Read More

Starting Lesson Study in Elementary School Science

In mid-May 2013, a seminar-workshop on “Development of Inquiry-Based Science Activities” was conducted by the NISMED Elementary School Science Group for 15 Grade III science teachers from three schools in the Division of Taguig-Pateros (5 teachers per school).  This was in response to results of a survey conducted the previous year in an elementary school in another division indicating that (1) teachers need more inquiry-based science activities they can use in class, and (2) they do not work with fellow teachers in preparing such activities/lessons; the common practice is to just use available ones in textbooks and other ready-made resources.

The seminar-workshop facilitators first allowed the participants to relate how they conducted science classes, then led them in reviewing different kinds of science activities, eliciting from the teachers what they thought were the inquiry features of each, before summarizing observed characteristic features of an inquiry-based activity. The participants also experienced for themselves a series of inquiry-based activities on a science topic where they took the role of pupils performing hands-on, minds-on, and hearts-on science activities. Just before the workshop proper, they compared the features they drew up with inputs on inquiry as culled from the literature on the inquiry approach to science teaching.

During the workshop, the teams of teachers worked collaboratively on a first quarter topic, The Sense Organs, with each school choosing one sense organ to focus on. The three choices were: The Sense of Sight (Eyes), The Sense of Smell (Nose), and The Sense of Touch (Skin).  Each team presented its output consisting of at least two sequential activities to develop the skills and ideas/concepts involved. Their peers critiqued the activities each team developed followed by suggestions from their Education Program Supervisor, SEI staff, and finally NISMED staff.  Revisions based on the feedback from the latter were made prior to submission.

The workshop ended with instructions for the teams to incorporate the activities they made into lessons they would implement twice by different teachers in different sections. Each implementation was observed by other members of the team, the principal, the Education Program Supervisor who attended the training, SEI staff, and NISMED staff. After each implementation, a post-lesson discussion was conducted during which the implementing teacher first reflected on the effectiveness of the lesson based on student responses and suggested changes that could be made. Then the feedback from the observers were elicited and revisions subsequently made on the lesson. The second lesson implementation and post-lesson discussion proceeded the same way, producing a lesson that has undergone tryouts with actual students.

The procedure followed is an adaptation of lesson study as practiced by the Japanese schoolteachers. The adaptation enables teachers to develop inquiry-based science activities collaboratively and improve on these for use in the future. It enables them to reflect on their own teaching and empowers them to direct student learning, honing the latter’s inquiry skills in the process.

The seminar-workshop and school implementation were sponsored by the Department of Science and Technology - Science Education Institute (DOST-SEI) through Project HOTS (Hands-On Teaching and Learning of Science Through Inquiry).

The teachers shared their experiences in doing this adaptation of lesson study at the NISMED National Conference held on 22-24 October 2013. Their registration was also funded by SEI.

In a related development, science and mathematics teachers in Commonwealth Elementary School in Quezon City attended a similar seminar-workshop on “Assessment and Collaborative Lesson Planning” at the end of May 2013. The adapted lesson study procedure was also followed with the participants from this school with the additional workshop on assessment inasmuch as assessment is considered part and parcel of instruction and learning.  The mathematics teachers from this school have actually begun lesson study in previous years but this seminar-workshop revived their enthusiasm for resuming the collaborative lesson planning activity.

Lesson implementations and post-lesson discussions have been done in Grades 3 and 4 to date. Two mathematics teams and one science team from this school presented papers during the same NISMED National Conference in October 2013 based on their experiences in collaborative lesson planning and improvement of the research lesson they made. Teams for other grade levels are still due for lesson implementations until the end of SY 2013-2014. The seminar-workshop was sponsored by Marikina Shoe Exchange (MSE) including the registration of selected teachers at the conference. MSE is also committed to support lesson implementation until the end of the current school year.

The science participants brainstorm during the workshop

      on inquiry-based science activities.

Read More

“PLANNING TOGETHER” IS NOT THAT EASY

[This article presents the challenges faced by practicing teachers in the course of developing lessons in Physics from the point of view of a member of the study group.]

“Ma’am, baka pwedeng bigyan n’yo na lang kami ng lesson plan at iexecute na lang namin?” (Ma’am, can you just give us a prepared lesson plan and then we will just execute it?) One teacher of our lesson study group in Physics asked during the initial planning of the lesson. What made the teacher to ask this question?

Lesson study is about planning together to develop, implement, and improve a research lesson. “Planning together” is not something new to teachers. They plan on activities in school such as Science Fairs and school foundation day celebration but “planning together to come up with a lesson” is something unusual to them. Teachers are used to prepare their own lesson plans and implement them as they see fit. In a school, where there may be five or more physics teachers, it is possible that these teachers differ in the way they teach the same topic. Hence, asking teachers to plan a lesson together faces a lot of challenges.

Finding time for planning the lesson was a challenge. In our lesson study group, the teachers had to meet around lunchtime to plan the lesson because they have classes in the afternoon. Requesting them to come at this time was sometimes inconvenient for them because they had personal matters to attend to. That was the reason why a teacher asked for a prepared lesson plan to execute instead of planning together to prepare a new one.

Finding the right activity for the lesson was a challenge. Teachers acknowledge that letting the students do an activity is a good practice. During the planning of the lesson, the teachers brought activities they used in the previous school year. As they presented the activities, they were asked some questions: 1) Will the activities help your students to discover the concept/s you want them to know? 2) Will the students be able to discover the concept on their own? 3) What skills will be developed through the activity? 4) Do you have the materials (or enough materials) needed for the activity? These questions were asked for teachers to realize that it was not enough that students perform an activity for the sake of doing an activity. Teachers had to evaluate the activity they were using. If the activity does not meet the objectives of the lesson, they have to select a more appropriate one or make some revisions. Moreover, the teachers were asked to tryout the activity. There were situations during the planning that they had to replace the activity or some materials because the activity or material itself was not working. As a result, it took several meetings just to come up with an activity. Thus, teachers would say, “Hindi pala ganito kadali gumawa ng activity (It is not so easy to come up with an activity).”

Finding the appropriate strategy for a lesson was a challenge. The usual sequence followed by the teacher in teaching a science lesson is as follows: motivation, presentation of the concept (including equation), performing the activity (if there is an activity), guided solving of a sample problem, individual or group problem solving, assessment, and homework. However, the formulated goal for the lesson study was “To develop and nurture self-directed learners who have enduring understanding of science concepts that can be applied in real-life situations.” Their usual way of teaching would not work to attain this goal because if the teachers would simply give the concepts and equations, then the students would become passive learners. Thus, there is a need for the teacher to shift from being the source of information to a facilitator of learning. They should guide their students to discover the concepts on their own. To do this, the teachers have to think of the questions they would ask to elicit thinking among the students as well as the possible answers the students might give. Writing these in their lesson plan would allow the teachers to anticipate different scenarios that might happen during the class discussion. Planning the lesson this way involves detailed and focused discussion and by itself a challenge to a teacher who is used to deciding by herself or himself on how to go about the lesson.

Indeed, planning together is not that easy. Yes, it takes time to plan, choose an activity, and find an appropriate teaching strategy. But to see the students enjoying the activity, asking questions, and participating in class discussions are enough rewards for the challenges faced. Going back to the teacher who asked for a prepared lesson plan to execute, she no longer asked this question in the succeeding cycles of planning. She became more participative in the discussions and even implemented two lessons made by the study group. Clearly, by embracing the challenges of doing a lesson study paved the way for her professional development. The experience with lesson study embodies this quote by Henry Ford: “Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success.”

By May R. Chavez

Read More