Lesson study how many seats

While the history of Lesson Study in Japan spans more than a century Makinae, , for Japanese educators, Lesson Study is like air, part of everyday school life. This situation possibly explains why Lesson Study is regarded as being under-theorised e.

Elliott, Educators outside Japan however, having had to learn about Lesson Study less naturally, may sometimes lose some important aspects of Lesson Study. Independently, some educators such as Lewis also noticed the significance of Japanese Lesson Study Lewis and Tsuchida, Since then many mathematics teachers and teacher educators around the world have been involved in Lesson Study, and many books and research papers have been written on various aspects of Lesson Study Lewis, ; Lewis et al.

However, some aspects of Lesson Study, that may be taken for granted by Japanese teachers, seem not to be well understood outside Japan. This paper aims to clarify the role and function of lesson planning in the Lesson Study process, based on case studies conducted in three schools in Tokyo. Lesson Study is an approach to teacher professional development that differs sharply from the professional development practices common in other countries.

Liptak cited in Lewis, , p. Lesson Study begins with a question , not with an answer prepared by someone else. Identifying this question, which becomes the research theme for Lesson Study, is the first step in the process see Fig. The process of Lesson Study Fujii, a , p. The second step of Lesson Study is to develop a plan to address the research theme through lessons.

This means making an instructional plan for a selected unit and a detailed plan for one of the lessons in that unit in which the planning team puts forth their ideas about how to address the research theme while teaching specific academic content. That lesson is called the research lesson. The third and fourth steps in Fig. Typically, it is done in a half day; one class of students stays for the research lesson while the other classes are dismissed so that every teacher can come to observe the research lesson even the school nurse and school nutritionist usually attend.

The fifth step is to reflect on the process and consolidate and carry forward the learnings from it. Teachers will usually write their reflections and publish records of Lesson Study activities in the school bulletin. However, these are just two of the five components of Lesson Study. The Lesson Study cycle, with its five steps as illustrated in Fig. Lewis, ; Lewis and Hurd, Goal setting Consider long-term goals for student learning and development.

Identify gaps between these long-term goals and current reality. Formulate the research theme. Research lesson One team member teaches the research lesson while the other members of the planning team, staff members from across the school, and, usually, an outside knowledgeable other observe and collect data.

Post - lesson discussion In a formal lesson colloquium, observers share data from the lesson to illuminate student learning, disciplinary content, lesson and unit design, and broader issues in teaching and learning. Reflection Document the cycle to consolidate and carry forward learnings, as well as new questions for the next cycle of Lesson Study. Write a report or bulletin that includes the original research lesson proposal, student data from the research lesson, and reflections on what was learned.

The difference is in the range, or scope, of students to be considered: school-based Lesson Study is concerned with students in the school; District-based Lesson Study is concerned with students in the district; and National-level Lesson Study is concerned with the reality of students across the country, and has a research theme with a nationwide view. This kind of Lesson Study exists in Japan and in this case the collaboration among teachers is not a critical part of Lesson Study. In any case, each step in the Lesson Study cycle is closely related to the others, with the third and fourth steps particularly related to the first and second.

In school-based Lesson Study, which is the focus of this paper, the typical Lesson Study cycle begins at the end of an academic year—i. Several research lessons are scheduled from, say, May to November. Each research lesson and its post-lesson discussion occupy only one day, but the teachers reflect on what they learned at the research lessons and usually write a booklet or long summary report by the end of school year.

While the importance of a lesson plan as a product of Lesson Study is certainly understood, compared to the research lesson, of which there are many public examples, the collaborative work of Japanese teachers in creating a lesson plan is generally mysterious, because it is difficult to observe. Japanese teachers spend a lot of energy and time crafting a lesson plan.

Although the details vary from school to school and even from teacher to teacher, Lewis , pp. As Lee andTakahashi argue, researchers have taken for granted that using lesson plans, no matter how well devised, always involves judgment and interpretation, as teachers and their students face the contingencies of the lesson in the classoom.

However, Lee and Takahashi did not describe details of planning the lesson, including how teachers adapted or designed the task for the lesson, or how many hours they spent on planning. In the context of Lesson Study, Lewis, Perry and Hurd focussed on one US lesson study group, of six teachers from five different schools, that conducted a research lesson in a 2-week summer workshop.

This is an experimental situation, which is different from the Japanese traditional school-based Lesson Study setting. However it is worth considering in terms of the lesson planning activity. However they have not offered descriptions of how they designed or adapted the task for the lesson.

On the other hand, Fernandez and Yoshida described in detail the process of planning lessons in the context of Lesson Study. However, the Lesson Study described there has the rather unique feature in that, following the research lesson being taught by a young inexperienced teacher, observed by the whole school and discussed by only the lower grade group of teachers and the principal, the lesson was revised by these teachers and then re-taught by a veteran teacher, with the whole school and an ouside advisor observing the lesson and taking part in the post-lesson discussion.

The notion of Re - Teaching is extremely problematic and sensitive. In fact, the need to revise and re-teach a lesson is one of the misconceptions identified in foreign countries implementing Japanese Lesson Study Fujii, b.

Whether Re - Teaching exists or not in the Lesson Study process affects the nature of the planning and the discussion of the lesson. The structure of Japanese mathematics lessons is often regarded as unique by non-Japanese eyes, with researchers from outside Japan having noted patterns in Japanese mathematics lessons. For example, Becker et al. But their points of view are those of observers, while Japanese teachers usually do not think about the structure of their lessons in the same way.

Instead Japanese teachers typically consider a mathematics lesson as problem solving in terms of the four phases shown in Table 2 see, for example, Shimizu, This type of lesson imposes certain demands on how to interpret the lesson plan.

Phase 1, presenting the problem , means helping students understand the context of the problem or task and what it will mean to solve the task—but it specifically excludes any exposition by the teacher about how to solve the task.

Instead, students are expected to work independently on the task for 10—20 min phase 2. Therefore teachers need to discuss the appropriateness of the task described in the lesson plan. The third phase, called neriage in Japanese, assumes that students will arrive at different solution methods and focusses on a comparison and discussion of those different solution methods. Therefore teachers need to discuss the plausibilty of the anticipated student solutions listed in the lesson plan.

In the fourth phase, matome , the teacher may say something about which strategy may be the most sophisticated and why, but it should go beyond that to include comments by the teacher concerning the mathematical and educational values of the task and lesson Fujii et al. Therefore teachers need to discuss the resonableness of the matome by the teacher as foreshadowed in the lesson plan. For a lesson to work in this way, the task should be understandable by the students with minimal teacher intervention; it should be solvable by at least some students but not too quickly , and it should lend itself to multiple strategies.

This paper focusses on the second, planning step in the Lesson Study cycle, and aims to illuminate the nature of the collaborative work among teachers, based on three case studies where re-teaching was not part of the Lesson Study process, with particular emphasis on planning for these four phases of the research lessons. This research took place in three local public elementary schools in Tokyo, which will be referred to as schools M, S and T.

The purpose of this project is two-fold. First, as an international centre of Lesson Study in mathematics, Tokyo Gakugei University and its network of laboratory schools help teacher professionals learn about authentic Japanese Lesson Study, and thereby prepare them to create Lesson Study systems in their own countries for long-term, independent, educational improvement in mathematics teaching.

Second, the project conducts research projects examining the mechanism of Japanese Lesson Study in order to maximize its impact on schools in Japan.

Although several research lessons were scheduled for each year, this study focusses on just one research lesson at each of these schools, and the planning meetings for those research lessons—that is, just one lesson study cycle in each school. The author observed each lesson-planning meeting and took fieldnotes. In addition, each lesson-planning meeting was video-recorded and later transcribed; and all lesson plans and revised versions were collected and analyzed with respect to their evolution.

This paper provides a descriptive analysis of the planning process undertaken by these groups of teachers in preparation for the research lessons. In a similar vein to the research carried out by Lee and Takahashi , discourse-in-interaction analysis Sacks et al.

The analysis began with unmotivated looking Sacks, during the observations of the planning meetings in order to identify key discussions that eventually led to consensus regarding the lesson plans. Through this overview of the lesson planning processes, the author came to realize that the discussions were based on the flow of the lesson.

In particular, it seemed that teachers could imagine or visualize clearly what would happen at the research lesson through reading the lesson plan. Therefore it was clear that this study could focus on analyzing the planning of the flow of the research lesson.

Based on the flow of Japanese problem-solving lessons, thematic content analysis see, for example, Fereday and Muir-Cochrane, ; Braun and Clarke, was carried out on transcripts of the lesson planning discussions. These comments were examined with respect to the role of the lesson plan and planning meetings, in order to make visible an important part of Lesson Study—namely the planning process.

The following section is organized according to the main results obtained through the inductive process of examining the trajectory of revising lesson plans, transcribed records of planning meetings, research lesson, and post-lesson discussion, and field notes. The results of this study are presented in three sections. First, we report on the lesson planning meetings overall—e.

Second, we examine the major component of the meetings. Finally, we identify major concerns at the meetings, such as the appropreateness of the task for the lesson, anticipated student solutions, and how to organize the comparison and discussion phase in the lesson. The dates of the research lessons held at school M, S and T, together with the dates of the planning meetings are shown in Table 3. The planning meetings began between 4 and 6 weeks before the research lessons. Two schools, M and S, had four planning meetings and school T had just two meetings.

It should be noted that there was no rehearsal or trial implementation of a tentative lesson plan between planning meetings. It should be noted also that this schedule fails to reveal the amount of time that the teachers may have spent thinking about their research lesson beforehand, since the grade, unit, and lesson may have been selected at the end of the previous academic year in March.

Table 4 shows the number of participants at each of the planning meetings. In the case of school M, the regular members of planning meetings were: the leader of the research steering committee, who also chaired the meeting and was the lead teacher for mathematics in the school; three Grade 3 teachers, one of whom taught the research lesson; and four Grade 4 teachers—a total of eight participants.

Beside these two participants, three Grade 3 teachers and two Grade 4 teachers attended. But at later meetings, in the school conference room, the only participants were the eight regular members.

At school S, which is a small school with only one class at each grade, the first meeting included five regular members: two classroom teachers for Grades 5 and 6, the music teacher, the art teacher, and the teacher for mathematics. The Grade 6 teacher was the leader of the school research steering committee and taught the research lesson. In Tokyo, in the case of mathematics only, if a school wants to divide classes into two or three groups for teaching mathematics, in order to help cater for individual differences, the school gets an extra teacher—in this case this teacher.

The music teacher and the art teacher were teaching Grade 5 and 6 students, therefor the regular members were the upper year level team. At the second meeting, the principal joined them; at the third meeting, the knowledgeable other also joined; but the fourth meeting included only the Grade 1 teacher and the Grade 6 teacher, the music teacher, and a special needs teacher—these four constituted the school research steering committee.

The venue was always a meeting room in the school. At school T, regular members were the leader of the research steering committee, three Grade 3 teachers and three Grade 4 teachers, and the principal of the school, who attended the planning meetings—so the total number was 8.

One of the Grade 4 teachers taught the research lesson. School M, S, and T each organized a research steering committee. According to Takahashi and McDougal , a research steering committee in Japan consists of representatives of each grade level and, in the case of the Lesson Study focussing on mathematics, the lead teacher for mathematics.

In addition, representatives of special subject teams, such as music, science and home economics may join. Takahashi and McDougal , p. Publishing a monthly not always the case internal newsletter to record the findings from each research lesson;.

Planning, editing, and publishing the school research reports, including those for the research open house; and. Arranging for knowledgeable others to present lectures, teach demonstration lessons not always the case , and give final comments at research lessons. As shown in Table 5 , the duration of the planning meetings ranged from a minimum of 30 min to a maximum of min.

The chairperson of the school research steering committee led most of the meetings at schools M, S, and T. As these schools were conducting Lesson Study focussing on mathematics, the lead teacher for mathematics tended to also be in charge of the school research steering committee. Besides regular members from the school, the knowledgeable other, who had given comments on a research lesson that day, attended the first meeting at school M and the third meeting at school S.

Involving a knowledgeable other in this way is common; after a research lesson and discussion ends, the team responsible for the next research lesson will meet with the knowledgeable other for further discussion and to get advice for their lesson. As both of the min meetings were with the knowledgeable other, these could be regarded as atypical. The average duration was 72 min, with the average duration excluding the min meetings being 83 min.

One reason that may account for the differences in the duration of planning meetings between schools could be that the principals of schools S and T attended and participated actively in these meetings, with teachers in both schools appearing to have great confidence in them. When teachers asked, these principals gave suggestions to help break deadlocks. As a result, the duration could become shorter. In the case of school M, some of the regular members of planning meetings were young and inexperienced.

Therefore, the leader of the research steering committee, who was also the lead teacher for mathematics, sometimes needed to explain the position of the lesson in the scope and sequence of the Japanese course of study, and the mathematical value of the task for use in the lesson. These factors may have had an effect on the longer duration of the meetings.

The first meetings held at school M and S were unusual in that the teachers discussed ideas about the research lesson in depth without a written lesson plan. At all other meetings, the discussion was based on a draft lesson plan, which had been written, either with or without the support of colleagues, by the teacher who would be teaching the lesson.

Furthermore, the flow of the planning meetings followed the flow of the lesson plan. Other issues, such as the logistics of the research lesson or post-lesson discussion, were not discussed.

At school T, the draft lesson plan had already been prepared for the first meeting, written by the teacher who was to teach the research lesson.

The items discussed at the first meeting were as follows:. The goal of the unit; evaluation points for learning i. Interest, Eagerness, and Attitude; ii. Mathematical Way of Thinking; iii. Mathematical Skills; and iv. At school S, the first meeting was held without a written lesson plan. At this stage, teachers had not yet decided exactly which unit or content to teach for the research lesson and how.

The knowledgeable other attended the third meeting. At school M, the first meeting was also held without the written lesson plan.

From the second meeting onwards, the discussion was based on the draft lesson plan which had been written mainly by the teacher who was to teach the research lesson, but as a team, with support from the third grade teachers.

Thus we have two findings: one, that the planning meetings followed the structure of the lesson plan; and two, that the discussion among teachers was particularly focussed on planning the flow of the research lesson. The discussions specific to the flow of the research lesson during the planning meetings at the three schools could be aligned with the four phases of a problem-solving lesson see Table 2.

For example, at the second meeting at school S, a discussion on how students might grasp the given task 15 min was related to phase 1, Presenting the problem for the day ; discussion about likely student responses 14 min was related to phase 2, Problem solving by the students ; discussion about how to organize the comparison and discussion period 15 min was obviously related to phase 3, Comparing and discussing ; and discussion about how to conclude the lesson 5 min was related to phase 4, Summing up by the teacher.

The other two schools showed a similar pattern. In the next section we will present, in more detail, what the teachers talked about regarding each phase of their lessons. Discussions by the teachers, while planning the flow of the research lesson, were classified into three key categories: Appropriateness of the task, Plausibility of the anticipated student solutions, and Quality of the comparison and discussion neriage phase.

Discussions about the task for the research lesson can be classified into two types. Both are learners. Examples from the Field. The Chicago Lesson Study Group provides an online forum for its community of teachers to learn about and practice lesson study as a way to steadily improve student learning. Catherine Lewis, a researcher at Mills College in California, is currently the director of lesson study research projects funded by the U.

Department of Education. The Lesson Study Group at Mills College is a great resource for teachers new to lesson study and for those who are seeking additional research on prospective programs. Share Lesson Study with Your Colleagues.

How Many Seats? Excerpts from a Lesson Study Cycle Video. Can't find a resource you need? Get in touch. Contact Us. Oakland, CA info lessonresearch. The Lesson Study Group. Prepare 1. Study 2. Plan 3. Teach 4.