Lessons learned from using "Lesson Study" with pre-service t eachers

1. Lessons learned from using "Lesson Study" with pre-service teachers Christopher S Hlas UW-Eau Claire, Mathematics education hlascs@uwec.edu

2. Overview • Lesson study background • LS experiment #1 • LS experiment #2 • General conclusions, plans for #3 Preservice lesson study (WMC, 2010)

3. Background: Teaching Gap • Circa 2005 • Teaching Gap (1999), by Stigler &Hiebert • Comparisons of USA, Japan, Germany • Teaching is a cultural activity • Lesson study model of PD in Japan Preservice lesson study (WMC, 2010)

4. Lesson study model • Research • Plan • Teach (w/ observers) • Reflect • Goto #1 Could this model work with preservice teachers? Preservice lesson study (WMC, 2010)

5. LS experiment #1 • Preservice math methods at research university (n=23, practicum and/or methods) • Colleague’s class, focused on reform methods • Adapted LS model for logistic constraints: • Read Teaching Gap for motivation • Three lessons in one semester (mini-cycles) • Peer teaching • 4-column lesson planning Preservice lesson study (WMC, 2010)

6. 4-column lesson template Adapted Lewis 2002 Preservice lesson study (WMC, 2010)

7. First lesson (5 wks) • Develop GSP lesson (in pairs) • Learn GSP • Draft reviewed by peers and instructor • Taught to peers • Peer/instructor feedback • Revise lesson for summative feedback Preservice lesson study (WMC, 2010)

8. Second lesson (2 wks) • Problem-solving focus based on reform textbooks • 4-5 “teachers” in a group • Researched lesson, curriculum, assessment tools, historical information regarding curriculum • 30 minutes peer instruction, 15 mins debrief • Revised plans submitted for summative feedback Preservice lesson study (WMC, 2010)

9. Third lesson (methods, 2wks) • Problem-solving 2 related non-trivial problem • Random pairs • One person taught to small group, other recorded observation • “Students” gave feedback • Week later, students switch roles to new small group • Student feedback • Revision then submitted for summative feedback (practicum worked with cooperating teachers to teach one lesson in schools) Preservice lesson study (WMC, 2010)

10. Survey sample questions (n=13) • Describe your strongest experience with the four-column lesson plan. • Which columns were most helpful, and in what way? • Which columns were most difficult to construct? Why? • What might be differences for your students between using the four-column plan or a traditional single column plan? • Did you collaborate with a peer or cooperating teacher on the plan? What were the comments of that person on the four-column plan? • If you could repeat the lesson preparation and teaching you did, what hindsights would you find useful in writing a more complete four-column plan? Preservice lesson study (WMC, 2010)

11. Example responses • “The teacher will be more concerned w/ the student's understanding of the lesson w/ the 4 column plan, than finishing everything in the objective” • “it really helps in the development of a lesson to get feedback and different viewpoints of how things might unfold in the classroom” • “I find the 4-column plan clumsy and bothersome. I would only use it if I had to” Preservice lesson study (WMC, 2010)

12. Takeaways • Students focused on student thinking • Students found benefits in collaboration and feedback • Students thought 4-col LP was recommended for daily planning • 3 mini-cycles? Preservice lesson study (WMC, 2010)

13. LS experiment #2 • Circa 2008 • Preservice methods at teaching university • My class, 2nd time teaching methods • 4 groups of students, 3-4 in group • 10 weeks, meet twice a week Preservice lesson study (WMC, 2010)

14. Planning • Concept map big math ideas, choose concept • Research concepts • What are big ideas? • Find research articles on student thinking • Compare sample lessons (reform/trad) • 3 weeks for completion, mostly outside class Preservice lesson study (WMC, 2010)

15. Lesson one • Create lesson • Topic w/ brief background research • Objectives • Using 4-column lesson plan • 4 weeks to plan • Game lesson to another group while observed (S/T ratio issues) • Reflections due next class with debrief Preservice lesson study (WMC, 2010)

16. Lesson two • Give revised lesson one week after last lesson • Reflection due next class along • Comparison of L1 and L2 also due Preservice lesson study (WMC, 2010)

17. Anecdotal observations • Students didn’t understand 4-column LP • Teaching to peers was limiting • Research component good, but difficulty narrowing topic • Logistic constraints Preservice lesson study (WMC, 2010)

18. Future plans • More scaffolding earlier (motivate LS using TG) • More scaffolding with 4-column lesson planning (develop with students instead of give to students) • Teach to actual students (first/second, logistics) • More time for revision? Preservice lesson study (WMC, 2010)

19. Conclusions? • "single lesson contains many (if not all) of the  critical components that teachers must consider to improve instruction" (Sims,  2009, p. 725) Preservice lesson study (WMC, 2010)

20. Q/A & Resources • Matthews, M., Hlas, C.S., &Finken, T. (2009 March). Using  four-column lesson planning and Lesson Study with pre-service teachers. Mathematics Teacher, 102, 504-508. • Lewis, C. (2002). Lesson Study: A Handbook of Teacher-Led Instructional Improvement. Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools. • Sims, L. & Walsh, D. (2009). Lesson study with preservice teachers: Lessons from lessons. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 724-733. • Stiger, J.W. &Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world's teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press Preservice lesson study (WMC, 2010)