the ebe journal - economics and business educators … ebe journal journal of the economics and...

The EBE Journal JOURNAL OF THE ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS EUCATORS NEW SOUTH WALES

2008, No 2

BY SUBSCRIPTION REGISTRATION NBY AUSTRALIAN POST PUBLICATION NUMBER NBP 1944

the ebe journal

JOURNAL OF THE ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS EDUCATORS NEW SOUTH WALES

2008, Journal 2 Contents

Editorial notes

5

Professional Teaching Standards: Beyond Standard Bearing

6

An investigation of pedagogy – lesson study as applies to Quality

Teaching

11

Listening to students

18

Deeds not Words: Learning from the Lesson Study Project

21

Master classes – building on the ‘Lesson study’ approach in a Sydney school

31

please note

Contributors are reminded that papers submitted to the Editor should be supplied as hard copy as well as on disk or by email. Hard copies must be laser quality print‐outs, double spaced and preferably on A4 paper. Please ensure that all graphics (tables, diagrams, illustrations, etc.) included in the paper are of suitable quality for reproduction. The disk copy should be provided, preferably in Word format, or saved as a text file. If the file includes graphics (tables, diagrams, illustrations, etc.) created in another application, please also supply disk copies of the original graphics files.

Lesson Study as formative assessment in secondary schools

37

Learning to Manage: Managing to Learn. Taking professional standards into practice – AGQTP

44

Receipts will be FAXed to conFiRm RegistRAtions

** EBE has a privacy policy that endorses the National Privacy Principles set out in the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Act 2000. A copy of the privacy policy can be found on our

website ~ www.ebe.nsw.edu.au

EBE NSW PO Box 67, Leichhardt, NSW, 2040ABN 29 002 677 750

UPON COMPLETION & PAYMENT THIS FORM BECOMES A TAX INVOICE

cRedit cARd Payment can also be made by Credit Card by mail to EBE P.O. Box 67 Leichhardt, NSW 2040, or fax (9564 5309)Please complete the details below for this option.**

Name of Cardholder

Mastercard Visa (please indicate)

Expiry Date:

Signature

Credit Card Amount

ebe 2008 "Teaching The hSc courSe (Year 12) For The FirST Time in 2009" conFerence

monday 8 September, 2008 westFields spoRts HigH , Hamilton Rd, FAiRField west

(4.00 to 7.15 pm)

Program

registration Form/Tax invoice Cost is $33 per person (GST included)

ATTENTION: HEAD TEACHER, HSIE

3.45 pm Registration & welcome Afternoon tea - refreshments and networking.

4.00 pm introduction - "setting the scene" Gae York, EBE Company Secretary, HSC Marker.

Gae will provide an overview including advice on assessment and plagiarism, illness and misadventure, BOS, and school policies.

4.15 pm learning styles - "getting the best from your students"

Mr. Brett Clements, HT Teaching and Learning, Westfields Sports, HSC Marker.

An interactive, informative and entertaining session designed to re-invigorate your love of teaching and learning.

5.00 pm subject sessions - 45 minutes each. Choose from the following :

- business studies Ms. Rhonda Thompson, EBE Director, HSIE Coordinator - St John Bosco College, HSC Marker. - legal studies Mr. Keith Thomas, HoD Social Science, Fairvale High, HSC Marker. - economics Mr. Andrew Skehan, Social Science, Granville South High School, HSC Marker.

5.50 pm subject sessions - 45 minutes each. Choose from the following :

- business studies Ms. Rhonda Thompson, EBE Director, & HSIE Coordinator - St John Bosco College, HSC Marker. - legal studies Mr. Keith Thomas, HoD Social Science, Fairvale High, HSC Marker. - economics Mr. Andrew Skehan, Social Science, Granville South High School, HSC Marker. 6.30 pm Assessments and blooms explained - How to incorporate everything Mr. Brett Clements, HT Teaching and Learning, Westfields Sports High, HSC Marker.7.15 pm plenary - networking and close

registration Form / Tax invoice

Name:

Department:

School/University:

Address:

Town/Suburb: State: Postcode:

Phone: Fax:

Email:

[ ] TICKETS REQUIRED @ $33 per person $

(Closing Date : Monday 1 September, 2008) Order # : ________________________

Enclosed is a cheque/money order for $__________ payable to EBE.

Fax registration Form to ebe on (02) 9564 5309 and

mail payment to ebe p.o. box 67 leichhardt, nsw 2040

o o

registration form / tax invoiceEconomics & Business Educators NSW Inc. ABN 29 002 677 750

Are you teaching the HSC course in: w Business Studies w Legal Studies w Economics for the first time? This information evening will be presented by experienced teachers and HSC examiners

who will share their experience, strategies and resources with you.

PRESIDENT:

Ms Bronwyn Hession

VICE PRESIDENTS: Ms Lyn Kirkby

Mr Andrew Skehan

TREASURER: Mr John Nairn

COMPANY SECRETARY:

Ms Gae York

DIRECTORS: Mr Joe Alvaro

Ms Betsy Harvey Mr Gavin Russell

Mr Andrew Skehan Ms Rhonda Thompson Ms Pauline Sheppard

EDITOR:

Ms Anne Layman

DESKTOP PUBLISHING: Ms Gay-Louise Purchase

PUBLISHED BY:

Economics & Business Educators NSW ABN 29 002 677 750

ISSN 1488-3696

PO Box 67 Leichhardt NSW 2040

Phone: (02) 9564 5007 Fax: (02) 9564 5309 Mobile: 0411 118284

Email: [email protected] Website: www.ebe.nsw.edu.au

“THE EBE JOURNAL” / “ECONOMICS” is indexed APAIS: Australian Public Affairs Information Service produced by the National Library of Australia in both online and CD-ROM format.

Access to APAIS is now available via database subscription from: RMIT Publishing / INFORMIT – PO Box 12058 A ‘Beckett Street, Melbourne 8006; Tel. (03) 99258100; http://www,rmitpublishing.com.au; email: [email protected].

The phone for APAIS information is (02) 626 1650; the phone for printed APAIS is (02) 626 1560,

Information about APAIS is also available via the National Library web site at: http//www.nia.gov.a/apais/index.html.

The ISSN assigned to EBE Journal is 1834-1780.

The views expressed in these articles are not necessarily those of the editor or the association. All articles published are done so in good faith and without prejudice.

All contributions are received in good faith by the editor as original contributions of authors, and to the knowledge of the editor there has been no breach of copyright by the publication of any articles, diagrams or figures in the magazine. If due to the failure of an author to correctly inform that his/her work is not an original work and there is a breach of copyright, the editors, having no prior knowledge, cannot accept responsibility.

Any books recommended by any authors of articles and Internet sites in this Journal are not the recommendations of the Economics & Business Educators NSW.

Editorial notes

Editorial notesvery so often we need to step outside our comfort zones and find new challenges and ‘new ways of doing’ that will help us do what we do better. Professional learning and

meaningful teacher reflection on professional practice present such an opportunity. With this in mind, EBE NSW provides a journal with a very different flavour. In this journal we share with you a journey undertaken by several of our colleagues as they seek to engage in professional learning of a different kind.

This edition of the professional journal of Economics and Business Educators is primarily concerned with examining the concept of “Lesson Study” as it applies to meeting professional standards within that field of practice.

It grew initially out of a project funded by the Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training under the Australian Government Quality Teacher Programme, published as Deeds not Words, June, 2007. Much of the material was originally published as part of that project and permission has been given to include and amplify it in this form. Furthermore several other pieces of work, which have adopted a lesson study approach, have been included in order to demonstrate the scope of the practice and ways it can be adapted to meet different professional needs including supporting early career teachers and re-thinking assessment for learning.

A particular stance that has been adopted, in relation to the various papers, is one that is inclusive of the students’ perspectives regarding their learning experiences. This makes the approach taken here somewhat unusual in that much of the literature in the field, while focusing upon student learning, does so through the eyes of the observant teacher rather than the receptive learner.

An important addendum is also the attention that is paid to professional teaching standards in a new environment in which both State and Commonwealth bodies are active agents. Because the projects that contribute to this discussion were all conducted in New South Wales the Professional Teaching Standards of the NSW Institute of

Teachers and the context in which they have been developed will be used as a touchstone. While different States and Territories have evolved slightly varying ways and means of expressing standards’ frameworks they have, in common, a concern to develop a structure that will account for ongoing teacher professional learning across the career span.

Thus this edition has been organised as a series of papers, some quite short, others in their entirety. It is anticipated that these papers could form the basis for collegial discussions both within Economics and Business faculties, and more broadly across school communities.

The papers have been ordered as a developmental sequence, but each is able to be read separately. The early papers set the scene in relation to: professional teaching standards; lesson study as it applies to quality teaching and learning; and, listening to student voice. Later papers take the form of case studies: Learning from the Lesson Study Project Deeds not Words; “Master Classes: Building on the ‘Lesson Study’ Approach in a Sydney School”; “Lesson Study as Formative Assessment” and, “Learning to Manage: Managing to Learn, Taking Professional Standards into Practice”.

I wish to acknowledge the significant role of Susan Groundwater-Smith, our academic partner for the project who assembled the contents and notes contained in this journal. Anne Layman, Director of Studies, MLC School Burwood is a dedicated educator and EBE Director. Anne managed this AGQTP Lesson Study project, keeping the many diverse threads together and keeping all parties on track and on task. The success of the project is largely due to the work of Anne and Susan and also of all teacher participants.

We hope you enjoy the Lesson Study journey with us and find something you can apply to your own learning and context.

Bronwyn Hession

President.

E

report Professional Teaching Standards

Professional Teaching Standards: Beyond Standard Bearing By Susan Groundwater-Smith

Setting the Scene

ecent years have seen an increased recognition that teachers’ work is complex and demanding and that the professional

learning of teachers to undertake that work should be continuous and developmental. Furthermore, it is now well understood that teacher quality correlates significantly with student attainments. Seminal studies conducted by Linda Darling-Hammond (2000, 2006) using data from a 50-state survey of policies, state case study analyses, staffing surveys and information regarding student achievement, demonstrated clearly that investment in the quality of teachers had direct impact upon improvements in student performance in the United States. Darling Hammond’s studies are further substantiated by Borko (2004) who confirmed that the links between effective teacher professional learning and improvement of professional practice and student learning outcomes are clear and can be readily mapped. Similar results were obtained by an Australian researcher, Hattie, who found that “what teachers know, do and care about” (Hattie, 2003: 2) is responsible for approximately 30% of variance in student achievement, representing the greatest source of variance after students themselves.

As a result of studies such as these it has been recognised that there should be some means of documenting and verifying ongoing professional growth and development via a standards framework. It is important to note here that a distinction is made between that which is complex and issues that are complicated. The former is, as Black & Wiliam put it, messy, contingent and fragile (2003: 635). The latter is finite and capable

of being unravelled and tidied up. In effect, schooling can never be “tidied up”. We must learn to live with its dynamic and organic nature. However, it is not sufficient to put aside complexity as though it is too difficult a matter for professional attention and therefore that developing a standards framework is a futile exercise. After all, as demonstrated in the Ramsey Report, (2000) other professions dealing with equally complex and untidy environments, have long attended to these matters.

Teachers who are substantively engaged in their professional practice and use a range of opportunities to be involved in professional learning are seen to be better able to employ a range of pedagogical strategies that respond to various student needs and learning styles and nurture higher order learning. They are more effective in their capacity to differentiate learning and provide their students with challenging tasks that provoke a capacity for creativity and innovation, both of which are so essential in our increasingly knowledge-worker focused economies.

Clearly, there is a prevailing international and national discourse on standards for teachers and leaders in schools that argue for them as a means of documenting and understanding teaching and leading as an intellectually rigorous and ethical set of practices. Professional associations, including those concerned with the industrial conditions for teaching, have seen that the generation of professional teaching standards are an opportunity for ongoing reform and improvement. For example, the Australian Education Union, in a proposal for professional pay and quality teaching for Australia’s future,

R

indicated a support for the development of standards and their applicability to teachers in all states and territories, making it an essential requirement that teachers’ experience and professional development is contributing to the improvement of educational outcomes for all students.

The Committee for the Review of Teaching and Teacher Education in its examination of advanced innovation in Science, Technology and Mathematics (DEEWR: 2003) argued for innovation in the knowledge economy not to be confined to a small group of specialists, but supported by a highly educated work force and citizenry. The committee proposed that teachers are “the key to mobilising schools for innovation” (p.1) While the report recognised that teaching in Australia is now virtually an all-graduate profession it also made the case for the generation of teaching standards that would not only allow for teacher mobility across systems and employing authorities but would also improve the public profile and standing of the profession itself. Furthermore the development of standards would provide for a more consistent approach to teacher progression based upon merit and teaching performance rather than length of service.

In addressing the professional learning continuum the committee’s report emphasised the need for attention to be paid to both content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. The former is particularly salient in the field of economics and business, knowledge that is growing and burgeoning on a daily basis. We need only to look at the impact of fluctuations in oil prices, the resources ‘boom’, carbon trading and the effects of climate change to justify this claim. The currency and credibility of teacher content knowledge is vital if they are to engage with their students in a meaningful and productive manner. Equally it is essential that teachers are well acquainted with growing knowledge of what constitutes good pedagogy that embodies understanding of the nature of student learning.

While the arguments for developing standards frameworks are defensible and persuasive it will be important in the practice of education to adopt an appropriate discourse. It is necessary to be

cautious of some of the language of standards that has been adapted from a manufacturing regime and that may not, at times, sufficiently recognise the intricacy and variability of the work of teachers and leaders in schools in highly specific contexts (Mayer, Luke & Luke 2008). At the same time neither is it a matter of simply trusting teachers to take care of their own professional development (Hoy & Tschannen-Moran 2003; Daly & Chrispeels 2008). They are accountable to their students, their communities and the profession as Darling-Hammond concludes: “Substantial evidence from (prior) reform efforts indicate that changes in course taking, curriculum content, testing or textbooks make little difference if teachers do not know how to use these tools well and how to diagnose their students’ learning needs” (2000:38).

Some of the most rigorous work undertaken in an attempt to define standards for teaching has been in the US with the National Board Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) established in 1987, leading to the development of National Board Certification (NBC) that required the completion of performance-based assessment consisting of portfolio entries and assessment centre exercises. The portfolio provides evidence that candidate teachers have met the standards in practice; the assessment centre demonstrates understanding of subject matter and content knowledge. Meeting the NBC requirements is likely to involve a total of 200 – 400 hours of work (NBPTS, 2004). Even after so much work success is not assured. In some states the pass rate, first time around, is as low as 30%.

In Australia, various States and Territories have been working towards developing a range of standards for different points in a teaching career. Among these is the nationally established body, Teaching Australia, an institute for teaching and school leadership. In a sponsored discussion paper Ingvarson, Anderson, Gronn & Jackson (2006) perceived standards to be tools by which the required degree of quality might be measured. Clearly our profession needs to be able to demonstrate that teachers will grow and develop in their expertise. The Ramsey Report Quality Matters was scathing in its concern for the lack of regulation of standards of practice (Ramsey, 2000). Among its recommendations it indicated

that the NSW Government should establish an Institute of Teachers who would be responsible for the development of professional teaching standards. The now established Institute is currently undertaking such a task. It has commenced by recognising four key stages: The Graduate Teacher; The Professionally Competent Teacher; The Professionally Accomplished Teacher and those engaged in Professional Leadership. The emerging professional standards in NSW are categorised under three domains: professional knowledge; professional practice and professional commitment. Each of these, in turn, is divided into a number of elements.

1. Teachers know their subject/content and how to teach that content to their students

2. Teachers know their students and how students learn

3. Teachers plan, assess and report for effective learning

4. Teachers communicate effectively with their students

5. Teachers create and maintain safe and challenging learning environments through the use of classroom management skills

6. Teachers continually improve their professional knowledge and practice

7. Teachers are actively engaged members of their profession and the wider community.

Each element contains descriptors of practice at key stages, the final one being professional leadership. Similar frameworks have been developed by the Queensland College of Teachers and the Victorian Institute of Teachers. Other States and Territories are also well advanced along this route.

Developing Evidence

When we consider the matter of professional standards for teachers and leaders in schools there are two trajectories that we can take regarding the kinds of evidence that are required to substantiate claims that a particular standard has been attained. In some cases it would seem that evidence of course completion is sufficient, for example undertaking a post-graduate program in a University. Although, as Ingvarson et al argue, evidence such as this should not be regarded as a valid indicator in that it is not possible to see ways in which the attainment of

the credential translates into performance (Ingvarson, Anderson, Gronn & Jackson 2006:39). Unfortunately, taking a credential as sufficient evidence of the attainment of a standard is the path of least resistance; easy and inexpensive to administer, it will satisfy matters of compliance and accountability, rather than operating at the more difficult and ‘messy end’ of the continuum of complexity. If professional standards in education are to hold real promise for strengthening pedagogy then it will be through their capacity to be genuinely transformational.

In her focus on the complexity of teachers’ work and the ways in which evidence may be obtained through sustained inquiry Marilyn Cochran Smith states:

“Teaching is unforgivingly complex. It is not simply good or bad, right or wrong, working or failing. Although absolutes and dichotomies such as these are popular in the headlines and in campaign slogans, they are limited in their usefulness…They ignore almost completely the nuances of “good” (or “bad”) teaching of real students collected in actual classrooms in the context of particular times and places. They mistake reductionism for clarity, myopia for insight.” (Cochran-Smith 2003: 4)

Clearly, evidence is a slippery and elusive term (Elliott, 2004). What counts as evidence is a matter that has exercised the educational imagination for some time now. We need first and foremost to be cautious about the term itself; which are the rules of evidence that we are going to chose to observe. For what may at first glance appear transparent, following close and careful analysis may prove to be opaque. Certainly, the concept “evidence based practice” is a powerful and useful one; however, it is also the case that we need to make some important distinctions both in terms of the context in which the phrase might apply, and in terms of the purposes to which it is to be put. As it has been argued elsewhere (Groundwater-Smith & Dadds, 2004) we can characterize evidence as being used for adversarial purposes, in an attempt to “prove” the

viability of a particular social practice, or to attack or defend a practice; or we can conceive of it being of a forensic kind, where the purpose is to understand a particular phenomenon with an intention to “improve” the practice.

Improving practice through the administration of professional teaching standards certainly requires evidence of one kind or another. Ingvarson et al (2006) advocate the adoption of a portfolio as a form of valid documentation and suggest that there be principles to guide the development of valid tasks or undertakings that can be employed for the purpose of gathering evidence of attainment, these being1:

• Tasks should be authentic and therefore complex;

• Tasks should allow for the variety of forms that the salient practice can take;

• Tasks should be open ended; • Tasks should be fair, that is designed to

give a fair chance to demonstrate the quality of the undertaking;

• Tasks should provide ample opportunity and encouragement for analysis and reflection;

• Tasks should encourage the modelling of good practice;

• Each task should provide evidence relevant to a cluster of standards; and

• Each standard should be assessed by more than one task. (pp. 39 – 40)

Whether the work is gathered in a portfolio or by other means what is essential is that it recognises the context in which the enterprise has been undertaken. Standards that are acontextual, that is devoid of context, will be too generic to be of much value.

In the later papers in this journal a number of different examples have been assembled. What binds them together is the possibility of using Lesson Study as the vehicle for gathering evidence of professional learning that can be employed to both directly improve practice, but also be sufficient to demonstrate the achievement of a suite of professional standards.

1 This list is not a direct quote and has been slightly adapted to go beyond the leadership context in which the tasks were generated.

Finally, each of the purposes nominated thus far has an instrumental goal. Equally important is that the use of well-chosen and articulated standards can act to assist in personal reflection about practice and produce enlightened understanding beyond the practical implications. The subtitle to this paper is “Beyond Standard Bearing”; it has been argued here that waving the flag of standards is not sufficient. What is required is the authentic and deep scholarly work that is required to ensure that teaching is accorded the respect that it deserves.

References

Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). "The Unforgiving Complexity of Teaching: Avoiding Simplicity in the Age of Accountability." Journal of Teacher Education 54(1): 3-5.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000) Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review of State Policy Evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8 (1) pp 1 – 49 http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/ accessed 22nd May, 2008.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006) Securing the Right to Learn: Policy and Practice for Powerful Teaching and Learning. Educational Researcher, 35 (7) pp 13 - 24

DEEWR (2003) Australia’s Teachers: Australia’s Future – Advancing Innovation, Science, Technology and Mathematics. http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/policy_initiatives_reviews/reviews/teaching_teacher_education/#top accessed 22nd May, 2008

Groundwater-Smith, S. & Dadds, M. (2004) Critical Practitioner Inquiry: Towards Responsible Professional Communities of Practice. In C. Day & J. Sachs (Eds.) International Handbook on the Continuing Professional Development of Teachers. Maidenhead: Open University Press, pp. 238 – 263

Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (2003) In Praise of Educational Research: Formative Assessment. In British Educational Research Journal, 29 (5) pp. 623 – 638.

Daly, A. & Chrispeels, J. (2008) A Question of Trust: Predictive Conditions for Adaptive and Technical Leadership in Educational Contexts.

Leadership and Policy in Schools. 7 (1) pp. 30 – 63.

Davies, P. (1999). What is Evidence Based Education? The British Journal of Education Studies, 47 (2) pp. 108 - 121.

Elliott, J. (2004) Using research to improve practice: the notion of evidence based practice. In C. Day & J. Sachs (Eds.) International Handbook on the Continuing Professional Development of Teachers. Maidenhead: Open University Press, pp, 264 – 290

Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers Make a Difference: What is the Research Evidence? Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research. Available from http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/RC2003_Hattie_TeachersMakeADifference.pdf, Accessed 20 April 2008.

Hoy, W. & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003) The conceptualisation and measurement of faculty trust in schools. In W. Hoy & C. Miskel (Eds.) Studies in Leading and Organising Schools. Greenwich CT: Information Age Publishing.

Ingvarson, L., Anderson, M., Gronn P. & Jackson, A. (2006) Standards for School Leadership: A

Critical Review of Literature. Canberra: Teaching Australia.

Mayer, D., Luke, C. & Luke, A. (2008) Teachers, National Regulation and Cosmopolitanism. In A. Phelan & J. Sumsion (Eds.) Critical Readings in Teacher Education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers pp. 79 – 98.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) 2004. Event, Calendar and Resources. Retrieved September 2, 2007 from http://www.nbpts.org/events/qabrochure.cfm

NSW Institute of Teachers (undated) Professional Teaching Standards. Sydney: NSW Institute of Teachers.

Ramsey, G. (2000) Quality Matters. Sydney: New South Wales Department of Education and Training.

An investigation of pedagogy

An investigation of Pedagogy ‐ Lesson Study as applies to Quality Teaching

Based upon a discussion paper prepared for the EBE Lesson Study Project Deeds Not Words

By Susan Groundwater-Smith

Introduction – Lesson Study as Ways of Seeing

ow can busy teachers both design and deliver quality learning experiences for their students and at the same time

systematically observe what is taking place in their classrooms? How can they simultaneously keep up with both theories of practice and changing content knowledge in their field? As it was argued in the previous paper Economics and Business Education is at the cutting edge of social change, locally, nationally and globally. Clearly teachers have in mind the goals and outcomes that they wish their students to achieve, these may be in the form of short sequenced steps or founded on the development of generic skills. They may have in mind immediate goals, but these will be related to longer term syllabus outcomes. They may wish to consider the needs of specific students and move towards differentiating teaching and learning. All of these are challenging processes and demand a high level of professionality. However, too often, these complex tasks are undertaken in isolation and as a result do little to contribute to teacher professional learning. As Fullan (2007) so succinctly put it:

Teachers of today and tomorrow need to do much more learning on the job, or in parallel with it – where they constantly can test out, refine, and get feedback on the improvements they make. They need access to other colleagues in order to learn from them. Schools are poorly designed for integrating learning and teaching on the job. The teaching profession must become a better learning profession.(Fullan 2007: 297)

As well, it may be argued that within these constraining parameters the focus becomes necessarily upon what is planned and undertaken by the teacher rather than what is experienced by the students. Wang-Iverson (2002) sees lesson study as a means of making teacher professional collaboration concrete by focusing on specific goals that examine not just students’ work, but students’ working. The process allows teachers to work collaboratively to systematically both plan for teaching and learning and observe the consequences in the classroom through close observation of students at work.

What then is the lesson study concept? In essence it can be characterised as ways of seeing; that is observing how learners respond to a teaching episode that has been prepared collaboratively by a group of teachers with the intention of developing, refining and improving the lesson in the light of such feedback. It is essentially a cyclical process with the intention that each iteration will be based upon the data that is gathered as a result of careful observation. This should not be taken as a process that does not recognise contextual features that may vary greatly from site to site. In the study, for which a version of this discussion paper was prepared2, the four participating schools were very different in character and location. Two were in the government sector, one being a comprehensive high school for girls, the other a co-educational sports’ high school both to the west of Sydney; two were in the independent sector, one a faith based girls school in Sydney’s inner-west, the

2 An abbreviated account appears later in this article, for a full and detailed account of the project see the paper “Learning from the Lesson Study Project, ‘Deeds not Words’ in this journal.

H

remaining school a faith based co-educational school in the east of the city. Clearly each had evolved a particular culture and ethos.

The process of lesson study positions participating teachers as researchers of practice who both investigate what is taking place in a given instance and reflect on the meaning of their observations. A useful definition of teacher research provided by Marilyn Cochran-Smith and Susan Lytle (1993) is “systematic and intentional inquiry carried out by teachers” (1993: 7). It is a form of inquiry that assumes that participants are willing to take an insightful and critical stance towards the evidence that is collected. As was argued in the previous paper in this journal, in relation to professional teaching standards and ways in which evidence of their attainment can be assembled, the nature of evidence that is being discussed here is of a forensic kind, that is the sort of evidence that can lead to greater understanding, rather than the kind of evidence that proves that one particular strategy is better than another.

Lesson study, then, is based upon the foundation of teachers as researchers – where the classroom practitioners are engaged in systematic inquiry regarding what it is that takes place during the teaching episode.

Rock & Wilson (2005) see these ‘research lessons’ as being:

• Focused on specific teacher-generated problems, goals or vision of pedagogical practice;

• Carefully planned, in collaboration; • Observed by other teachers; • Recorded for analysis and reflection; and • Discussed by lesson study group

members. (2005: 78) They argue that lesson study is based upon principles of constructivism. As such it is based upon a theory of learning and knowledge formation rather than a theory of teaching and knowledge reproduction. It is a learner-centred, social process that recognises learner agency and encourages dialogue both with the teacher and other students. This position is one that accords strongly with current pedagogical practices in Australia, including the Queensland

Productive Pedagogies and NSW Quality Teaching Framework.

Understandably teacher are concerned that they are being handed yet another nostrum for the improvement of practice. However, It is clear from the literature that there is no one formula for lesson study. As Lewis, Pirry & Murata (2004) have noted: “Japanese lesson study is an extremely variable practice that has evolved over a century in tens of thousands of Japanese sites.” (2004: 3 – 4). What does hold each variation together is the understanding of how important it is for the learning to be more visible. Student thinking has to be externalised, as Cerbin and Kopp (2006) have argued “It is challenging to design ways to make student thinking visible that are also pedagogically purposeful” (2006:255). In a later paper in this journal we shall discuss some processes that allow student voice to be heard, not only in the lesson study context, but more generally in relation to decisions made within the school.

Lesson study, then, becomes a potent vehicle for teachers to systematically explore practice, on the basis of evidence, with an intention of improving it. It is a process that is described by Lewis (2002) as ‘developing the eyes to see children.’ In this way, teaching can become professional learning when the activity is collegial and where the learning arises, principally from the students’ engagement and behaviours (Lewis, Perry, Hurd & O’Connell, 2006). In their advocacy for the study of teaching and learning through the study of lessons Fernandez & Yoshida (2004) place their greatest emphasis upon the culture of collegiality that brings teachers together to deeply consider their practice in the context of the classroom and the diverse needs of students therein. In a similar vein Chokshi & Fernandez (2004) argue for sustained lesson study work as a vehicle for helping teachers build a shared body of professional knowledge. We would further indicate that lesson study can be a potent means for providing the kind of evidence that can be taken into account when formulating professional standards for teachers.

Lesson Study as an Investigation of Pedagogy:

It is important here to make the distinction between pedagogy, that essential interface between teaching and learning in context, and curriculum, important as the latter may be. There is a temptation in thinking about lesson study to assign to it, as a major purpose, curriculum development. As Fernandez et al pointed out in relation to the introduction of lesson study in a US context, the teachers’ instinct was to focus on the lessons per se, rather than upon the lessons as an opportunity to research learning (2003: 174). Such a focus necessarily leads to somewhat narrower discussions about the design of the curriculum rather than upon the actual pedagogy that embodies the curriculum. Indeed, as Chockshi & Fernandez argue, for some advocates lesson study is about producing a library of tried-and-tested lessons for others to use (2004:522). Whereas they see the process as primarily an intellectual process that fuels critical thinking by the collegial group about pedagogy more generally.

As Alexander has indicated in Culture and Pedagogy the term is a fundamental concept for teachers in that it goes to the heart of what happens in classrooms: “pedagogy encompasses both the performance of teaching together with the theories, beliefs, policies and controversies that inform and shape it” (2000:540).

New South Wales teachers have had significant experience in considering pedagogy within the terms of the Quality Teaching Framework discussion paper (NSW DET, 2003)3. The three dimensions of pedagogy that have been associated with improved student learning have been characterised as:

• Pedagogy that is fundamentally based on promoting high levels of intellectual quality;

• Pedagogy that is soundly based on promoting a quality learning environment;

3 While the paper was developed for NSW public schools it has been widely circulated in the non-government sector and would be well known to teachers across the state.

• Pedagogy that develops and makes explicit to students the significance of their work. (p.5)

Employing lesson study as a means for investigating pedagogical practices would seem to be a powerful opportunity to not only improve student learning but also teacher professional learning, including learning to be researchers of practice. Furthermore, through the learning conversations that the study team conduct there are opportunities to also consider pedagogical content knowledge, that is the kind of knowledge that is specific to a given subject or discipline. Shulman (1987) defines pedagogical content knowledge as “the most useful forms of representation of [topics], the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations – in a word, the ways of representing and formulating the subject that makes it comprehensible to others” (1987: 9). Through their interaction with colleagues, teachers in a given discipline are provided opportunities to discuss such representations and formulations.

Teachers as Researchers:

Much of the current discussion regarding lesson study in contexts other than Japan, where it originated, is located in various parts of the United States where there has not been a strong tradition of teachers as researchers (Rock & Wilson, 2005). The educational research agenda in that country is strongly influenced by summative studies conducted by professional and academic researchers intent upon producing generalisable proofs (Lewis, Perry & Murata, 2006). Indeed, Fernandez (2002) has seen the lack of teacher research skills as a “roadblock to powerful lesson study practice” (p.401). However, this is not the case in Australia where there have been many initiatives in relation to action learning and action research (Groundwater-Smith & Mockler, 2005). Whether through such programs as Innovative Links between Schools and Universities for Teacher Professional Development or the current spate of initiatives under the Australian Government Quality Teaching Program many Australian teachers have become skilled at designing data collection methodologies that allow them to inquire into and reflect upon their practices. In their publication Learning to Listen: Listening to Learn Groundwater-Smith & Mockler (2003)

outline a number of different strategies that can assist the teacher researcher. Each of these has been used by members of The Coalition of Knowledge Building Schools and includes strategies for observation, construction of questionnaires and the development of student voice (see, for example, Appendix A for an observation schedule developed by Taronga Zoo Education Centre as part of an AGQTP project4). As well, the publication draws attention to the value of a discussion paper such as this one as a medium for drawing together the evidence from published research in the field. When teachers become the researchers of practice then questions that are of authentic concern to them are likely to emerge: Who is more or less engaged and why? What kinds of explanations appear to be most helpful for which learners? How do group dynamics contribute to or inhibit the learning processes? In what ways are students’ questions addressed? Who gets to ask which kinds of questions in the classroom? And so on. Each step of the lesson study process is a step in research design. Fernandez (2002) outlines the lesson study steps in the following manner5:

• Selecting a Lesson Study Goal – This is analogous to identifying the research question, which itself must be researchable in terms of the skills and capacities of the team;

• Working on Study Lessons – This equates with planning the research and the field based stage where observations and data are collected;

• Writing a Lesson Study Report – This is the stage where the inquiry is made public and available for scrutiny and critique.

The last of these points is a critical one. If research is as the late Lawrence Stenhouse suggested, “systematic inquiry made public” then the means of sharing the work must be carefully considered. In the lesson study project undertaken in Deeds not Words by Economics and Business Educators it was intended that a contribution will be made not only to the professional learning of members of the group, but also to the wider professional community via academic and professional articles and presentations. 4 The Zoo Education Centre is a member of the Coalition. 5 The italicised text is that of the author who draws the parallels between Fernandez steps and the design of the research project.

The Deeds not Words Study:

As Fernandez & Yoshida (2004) have observed while lesson study processes have been widely adopted in Japan, “very few Japanese high schools carry out this activity today or have ever engaged in it in the past” (p.16); although they also footnote this statement by suggesting that in principle there is nothing about lesson study that would make it less suitable for teachers at the high school level. Thus the proposed study broke new ground in developing insight into teaching and learning in a specific key learning area, that of Economics and Business Studies.

As indicated earlier, four schools participated in the project: One government girls’ high school; one independent girls school (K-12); one government co-educational sports’ high school; and one independent coeducational college (K-12). Three year groups were formed: Year 12 Business Studies (four teachers); Year 11 Economics (three teachers); and, Year 9 Commerce Studies (3 teachers). All subjects were elective.

Two cycles of lessons, that were collaboratively designed, were taught and observed by other cross-school team members. Groups conducted post-lesson conferences to discuss data that had been collected during the lesson and to refine the next iteration in terms of that feedback and the known qualities of the students. There was ongoing documentation of teacher learning as an outcome of their reflection.

An absolute key to the successful conduct of lesson study inquiry was the participants’ capacity to reflect upon what has been observed through the sharing of data from the lesson. Some of the key elements that were considered being:

• Evidence of student learning, motivation and engagement;

• Evidence of pedagogical content knowledge of the teacher; and

• Evidence of the efficacy of the lesson and unit design.

As well as support from within and between the participating schools there was the involvement of an academic partner (the author of this paper). In company with a number of other writers on

Lesson Study Watanabe & Wang-Iverson (2002) recommend that projects engage the services of a ‘knowledgeable other’. Clearly the role can be satisfied by a number of people such as content coaches, peer coaches and staff development officers and the like. However, in this case, because the process has an emphasis upon the collection and interpretation of data it was conceived that the ‘knowledgeable other’ for the project should be an academic partner who has had wide experience in working in practice based settings such as schools. Her role was to:

• Prepare a discussion paper arguing for Lesson Study as an investigation of pedagogy (upon which this paper has been based and updated);

• Develop strategies for the collection and interpretation of data;

• Act as a critical friend in Lesson Study discussions; and

• Assist practitioners in writing papers for professional associations.

Lewis et al (2006) recommended that practitioners engaged in lesson study work both with ‘knowledgeable others’ (as above) and the published evidence that is available in the research and professional literature. As observed earlier in this discussion paper, The Coalition of Knowledge Building Schools, which has among its members one of the participating schools in this project, has a long history of collecting, analysing and interpreting data, including that from published sources. As well, the Coalition has emphasised the role of student voice in the process. It has been noted in the review of the existing literature that remarkably little attention has been paid to the students’ own perceptions of learning during lesson study sequences. It was anticipated that this was to be a significant contribution from the Deeds not Words study and justifies a further paper on this matter in this edition of the journal.

It was not seen as the function of this discussion paper to set out protocols for the design of lessons or the collection of data. They would be designed as the project developed as a work in progress.

Conclusion – Scaling up Innovation:

That lesson study is seen as a powerful innovation that enhances teacher professional learning, which impacts in turn upon student learning outcomes, has been strongly asserted by a number of advocates. However, like many innovations that have been successful in local environments, under specific conditions, the issue of scaling them up to become a more widely understood and adopted strategy is always problematic. Lewis et al (2006) provide the following caution:

Remarkably, some US trainers seem to believe that participation in one or two lesson study cycles qualifies them as experts who can provide definitive blue-prints to others. Premature expertise may pose a substantial threat to lesson study. The appropriate attitude for those who would help others adopt lesson study is captured in the proverb ‘The road is made by walking’. (p.277)

They see part of the solution to lie in developing cross-site learning about lesson study. In the study latterly referred to in this discussion paper it is clear that a strength lies in the ways in which the teams have been constructed, not only across sites, but across specific subjects and year groups within the key learning area.

Lesson study in Australia is in its infancy. It has been argued, throughout this discussion paper that it has great potential in enhancing teacher professional learning leading to greater insight regarding pedagogy. Furthermore, it has been argued that documenting lesson study may be a powerful form of evidence in relation to demonstrating classroom performance within a standards framework. If ‘the road is made by walking’ it is an aspiration of this project that at least the pathway will become visible.

References:

Alexander, R. (2000) Culture and Pedagogy. Oxford: Blackwell.

Cerbin, W. & Kopp, B. (2006) Lesson Study as a Model for Building Pedagogical Knowledge and Improving Teaching. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 18 (3) pp. 250 – 257.

Cochran-Smith, M. and Lytle, S. (1993). Inside/Outside: Teacher Research and

Knowledge. New York: Columbia University Teachers' College.

Chokshi, S. & Fernandez, C. (2004) Challenges to importing Japanese Lesson Study: concerns, misconceptions and nuances. Phi Delta Kappan 85 (7) pp. 520 – 525.

Fernandez, C. (2002) Learning from Japanese approaches to professional development. The case of lesson study. Journal of Teacher Education, 53 (5) pp. 393 – 405.

Fernandez, C., Cannon, J. & Chokshi, S. (2003) A US-Japan lesson study collaboration reveals critical lenses for examining practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19 pp. 171 – 185.

Fernandez, C. & Yoshida, M. (2004) Lesson Study: A Japanese Approach to Improving Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Fullan, M. (2007). The New Meaning of Educational Change (4th Edition). New York: Teachers' College, Columbia University. 4th Edition.

Groundwater-Smith, S. & Mockler, N. (2003) Learning to Listen: Listening to Learn. Sydney: Centre for Practitioner Research, University of Sydney & MLC School.

Groundwater-Smith, S. & Mockler, N. (2006) Research that Counts: Practitioner Research and the Academy. In J. Blackmore, J. Wright & V. Harwood (Eds.) Counterpoints on the Quality and Impact of Educational Research. Review of Australian Research in Education (RARE) 6. pp. 105 – 118.

Lewis, C. (2002) Lesson Study: A Handbook of Teacher-led Instructional Change. Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools.

Lewis, C., Perry, R., Hurd, J. & O’Connell, M. (2006) Lesson Study Comes of Age in North America. Phi Delta Kappan, December. Pp. 273 - 281

Lewis, C., Perry, R. & Murata, A. (2004) What Constitutes Evidence of Teachers’ Learning from Lesson Study. Paper presented to the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) April 16th.

Lewis, C., Perry, R. & Murata, A. (2006) How Should Research Contribute to Instructional Improvement? The Case of Lesson Study. Educatinal Researcher, 35 (3) pp. 3 – 14.

New South Wales Department of Education & Training (2003) Quality Teaching in NSW Public Schools. Sydney: Professional Support and Curriculum Directorate.

Rock, T. & Wilson, C. (2005) Improving teaching through Lesson Study. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32 (1) pp 77 – 92.

Shulman, L. (1987) Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, pp 1 – 22.

Stigler, J. & Hiebert, J. (1999) The Teaching Gap: Best Ideas from the World’s Teachers for Improving Education in the Classroom. New York: Summit Books.

Wang-Iverson, P. (2002) Why Lesson Study? Paper Presented at the Lesson Study Conference. [email protected]

Watanabe, T. & Wang-Iverson, P. (2002) The Role of Knowledgeable Others. Paper presented at the Lesson Study Conference. [email protected]

Appendix A.

Observation notes developed for Taronga Zoo Education Centre as part of an AGQTP project:

Taronga Zoo AGQT Project

Some strategies for documenting and analysing a teaching/learning episode

At our last meeting we discussed the possibility of video-recording a teaching/learning episode and using a number of strategies for documenting and analysing what has taken place. Below are some suggestions for ways in which you might undertake this process.

Group 1 – Flanders’ Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC)6:

FIAC has been around for a long time now but it continues to be an important and widely used observation instrument for the analysis of talk during a teaching episode. Its value lies in the ability to document how much time is given

6 Flanders, N. (1970) Analysing Teacher Behaviour. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley

proportionately to teachers and students and the kind of talk that is taking place. It will not give you an indication of the quality of the talk, its substance or its complexity, but it will give you an insight into the patterning of the talk. I have modified and re-ordered the categories slightly to take account of the ways in which your classes normally operate. Whoever is using this strategy, and I suggest at least two of you do, so that you can compare results, has to decide first of all who is talking, teacher or student, then whether he or she is initiating, or responding, and then what kind of initiation or response is being employed. This is done every three seconds, so you probably should do some practising first.

Teacher initiation: is it lecturing (telling, describing, explaining), giving directions, asking questions, or managing classroom behaviour?

Teacher response: is it accepting student feelings, praising or encouraging, accepting student ideas, asking questions in response to a student’s ideas?

Student initiation: is it expressing ideas, bringing up a new topic, asking a question?

Student response: is it responding to teacher initiative?

Silence: is it a pause in the lesson for reflection or is it confusion?

You might want to discuss these categories and even amend them to fit your purpose – we are not trying to use this strategy to compare with other studies so it is fine to do some tinkering. Once you have agreed, organise some tally sheets to cover twenty data entries (one minute) with the categories listed down the side.

Group 2 Distribution of talk:

Make a plan of the seating pattern and number the order of interactions and who is speaking: so it may be that the teacher begins, so that means a (1) is placed beside the teacher, a student fourth on the left replies, so a number (2) is

placed beside him or her, another student chips in and becomes number (3), the teacher takes up the point (4) and so on. This is will give a sense of the distribution of the interactions, but again not of the quality of the talk.

Group 3 Quality of questioning:

Meet together beforehand and develop a number of ways of categorising questions. Are they simple recall questions, are they ones that are provocative and invite speculation, are they of high cognitive demand, and so on. Throughout the teaching/learning episode write down each question that is asked and discuss what kind of question it was and how many fell into the various categories.

Group 4 Close observation:

Select one learner and watch his/her behaviour throughout. What evidence can you collect of that student’s engagement. If you had been able to interview the student afterwards, what questions would you have liked to ask him or her about what you had observed?

Teacher’s perspective:

While others are responding to the video the teacher whose work is being recorded should also use this opportunity to reflect on his/her teaching behaviours. He/she could prepare a brief list of things to look out for: e.g. questioning strategies, engaging the range of students, pacing, providing thinking time ….

After watching the video and meeting in small groups to discuss observations, meet as a whole group, discuss then select a part of the video to closely watch two or three times. Is there other information that you pick up?

Finally, return to the Quality Teaching Framework and the identified areas of interest to you. What have you learned, what would you now change?

Listening to Students

Listening to Students

Susan Groundwater-Smith

Making the Case

his paper has evolved from the final bulletin in the Deeds not Words project and is a complement to the lesson study work

that was undertaken. It is founded on the argument that if we are to understand student learning then it is important to be in dialogue with students about their learning. Such a dialogue will necessarily also include discussions about the conditions for their learning both within the classroom and the school. In an earlier paper in this journal “Lesson Study as it Applies to Quality Teaching” it was claimed that gaining access to student thinking is an essential component of lesson study. Students analysing and explaining their learning both during and after a teaching/learning episode is critical to the process of developing and refining the lessons that are being studied.

Mitra (2005) writing of the school context, has argued that where students have agency, a sense of belonging and are recognised as competent they gain a stronger sense of their own abilities and build awareness that they can make changes in their schools, not only for themselves, but also for others. In the past, in the school sector where after all attendance is compulsory, the young people themselves are either not consulted at all, or are, at best, treated only as a data source. Raymond (2001) has noted that there are three further steps that can be taken: discussion, where young people are active respondents; dialogue, where they are co-researchers; and, significant voice where they are researchers, initiating, inquiring, interpreting and developing actions; which brings us to the matter of consulting young people when designing for learning. In effect what is important is that the purpose of the consultation is to make a shift from institution-centric decision-making to one that is learner focused.

Burke & Grosvenor, 2003 have noted: “There is a history of not attending to the expressed experience of children within schools; everyday neglect in this sense has become institutional” (p.1). While, in the main, it is true that schools rarely consult their students and take them seriously it is the case that there are schools in Australia where there have been systematic policies and practices that have enabled students’ voices to be heard and have even given students agency in designing, investigating, analysing and interpreting learning (Needham & Groundwater-Smith, 2003; Groundwater-Smith & Mockler, 2003a; 2003b). Similarly, and in a different context The Australian Museum, is developing an ethos where consulting young visitors to the Museum is considered an integral part of its audience research practice (Groundwater-Smith & Kelly, 2003)7.

A large British project, Consulting Pupils about Teaching and Learning, has run over the past three years and is currently due for publication (Rudduck & McIntyre 2007). It is argued that the present climate is one where there is unprecedented support for the idea of listening to young people. Importantly, they make the case for the place where this should start is in the classroom itself, where teachers take seriously the views of their students and find ways of meeting their concerns. They argue that consulting with young people has the following results:

7 I mention this study because it is a demonstration that other educational agencies such as museums take student voice seriously and regularly seek their views.

T

PUPIL CONSULTATION tends to

ENHANCE PUPIL COMMITMENT

AND CAPACITY FOR LEARNING

IMPROVE TEACHERS’ TEACHING

through through strengthening self-

esteem teachers’ greater

awareness of pupils’ capacity

+ + enhancing attitudes to

school and learning gaining new perspectives

on their teaching + +

developing stronger sense of membership

renewed excitement about teaching

+ + developing new skills for

learning transformed pedagogic

practices + +

and to TRANSFORM TEACHER-PUPIL RELATIONSHIPS from passive and oppositional to more active and

collaborative

and so is very likely to IMPROVE PUPILS’ LEARNING

Creating the Conditions

Bragg & Fielding (2005) who have undertaken extensive work in relation to student voice in the UK ask a series of questions that allow us to evaluate the ways in which schools provide for student voice8:

1. Speaking: Who is allowed to speak, to whom are they allowed to speak, what are they allowed to speak about?

2. Listening: Who is listening, why are they listening, how are they listening?

3. Skills: Are the skills of dialogue encouraged and supported, understood, developed and practised?

4. Attitudes and dispositions: How is mutual regard and respect developed and demonstrated?

5. Systems: How do school systems accommodate and regulate opportunities for students to express themselves?

6. Organisational culture: Are the school norms and values consistent with the centrality of student voice?

8 These have been paraphrased; they are not direct quotes but do arise directly from Bragg & Fielding’s work, p. 130

7. Spaces and the making of meaning: Where are the spaces where encounters can occur, who controls them?

8. Action: What action is taken, who is responsible, what happens as a result?

9. The future: Does the school need new structures and new ways of relating to all participating within it?

This is a helpful checklist both for those who have already embarked upon gaining access to student perspectives and opinions and for those who have that intention.

Some Useful Strategies In their publication Learning to Listen: Listening to Learn Groundwater-Smith & Mockler (2003a) outline a number of useful strategies whereby student voice can be employed in the ways outlined by Raymond (2001).

Discussion: Eliciting student voice where they are enabled to be active respondents can be undertaken in a number of ways. In the publication, cited above, strategies used by the Coalition of Knowledge Building Schools (CKBS) are based upon focus group discussion, leading to questionnaire construction with analysis being undertaken by students in their computer classes. In the questionnaires themselves students are encouraged to both respond to closed questions and more openly to scenarios that have been spelled out by their peers.

Dialogue: This is where students are co-researchers assisting in the research design and implementation. Several schools in the CKBS have established research advisory groups where students meet with teacher researchers to formulate questions and processes for investigation.

Significant voice: This stage is where students are not only active researchers, initiating, inquiring, and interpreting, but also they are informing and developing policy. Again several schools in the CKBS have investigated bullying and worked with staff to develop explicit policies that can contribute to student academic care and wellbeing. Importantly, it is seen that such activity should not be confined only to the student leaders in the school, but should include students whose voice is not normally heard.

Applying to Economics and Business Education

In the Deeds not Words study an important tool was the opportunity for students to complete a ‘minute paper’ at the conclusion to the given lesson. Designed to be quickly completed

students were able to anonymously provide feedback on what went well for them in this lesson; what were the main points that they learned; what puzzled or confused them; and, what would they like to change. As well, they were able, during the structured observations, to have conversations with the observers regarding their concerns and level of engagement.

A more ambitious project might have been to include a small group of students in the subsequent discussions that were designed to both evaluate the given lesson and provide opportunities to fine tune it for the next iteration. For example, a number of the lessons were video-recorded for further analysis by the lesson study team, these could well also form the basis for a discussion with the class about the different ways in which learning can occur, who benefits and who struggles. An important component of the NSW Quality Teaching Framework is that of meta-cognition. Watching themselves learning and armed with the linguistic tools with which to talk about their learning can contribute significantly not only to that learning but also the professional learning of their teachers.

In a later paper in this journal we shall examine the ways in which photo-elicitation allowed students to be able to contribute to a discussion with their early career teachers with respect to behaviour management in the classroom. Employing strategies such as these are of immense value. However, there is always a danger of “drowning in data”. Using the more modest procedure of the minute paper opened the door, it is hoped that as other innovative procedures emerge they too will become incorporated within the repertoire of practices associated with lesson study.

Conclusion

This bulletin can only touch the edges of what is possible in terms of consulting students about learning and the conditions for learning. It would indeed be an exciting development of the lesson study project if schools began to work towards policies and practices associated with attending to student voice.

References Bragg, S. & Fielding, M. (2005) It’s an equal thing …

It’s about achieving together. In H. Street & J. Temperley (Eds.) Improving Schools through Collaborative Inquiry. London: Continuum, pp. 105 - 135

Burke, C. & Grosvenor, I. (2003) The School I’d Like:

Children and Young People’s Reflections on an Education in the 21st Century. London: Routledge Falmer.

Groundwater-Smith, S. & Mockler, N. (2003a)

Learning to Listen: Listening to Learn. Sydney: MLC School & Faculty of Education, University of Sydney. http:www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/profdev/learnlisten.html

Groundwater-Smith, S. & Mockler, N. (2003b)

Holding a Mirror to Professional Learning. Paper presented to the joint Australian Association for Research in Education/New Zealand Association for Research in Education Conference, Auckland, New Zealand, 29th November – 3rd December. (All AARE Conference papers can be found on the WWW).

Groundwater-Smith, S. & Kelly, L. (2003) As we see

it: Improving learning in the Museum. Paper presented to the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Edinburgh.

Needham, K. & Groundwater-Smith, S. (2003) Using

Student Voice to Inform School Improvement Paper presented to International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement Sydney, January 2003.

Rudduck, J. & McIntyre, D. (2007) Consulting Pupils

about Teaching and Learning at the manuscript stage.

Deeds not Words

Deeds not Words - Learning from the Lesson Study Project

by Christina Brun, Brett Clements, Manuel Condoleon, Kate Dally, Lynne Kirkby, Anne Layman, James Kozlowski, Phil Manocchi, Allison McCulloch and Gae York. With Susan Groundwater-Smith Context

he Project, Deeds not Words, involved four schools and ten experienced teachers who taught two rounds of lessons in semester

1, 2007. The schools involved were diverse in socio-economic terms, gender, secular nature and location.

School A was a comprehensive co-educational, government secondary school with a selective component to cater for students with exceptional ability in sport and was located in Sydney’s West;

School B was a faith-based co-educational

independent school K-12 to be found in the Eastern Suburbs;

School C was a faith-based school providing

an education for girls, K-12 in the Inner-West;

School D was a comprehensive girls government secondary school located in Sydney’s Western suburbs.

The ten participants self-elected themselves into three teams determined mainly on the basis of what they taught and the need for a mix across the Schools. The Year 9 Commerce had three representatives from Schools A, B and C. Their focus was on the core topic Consumer Choice, in particular, contracts (lesson 1) and methods of payment (lesson 2). The Year 11 Economics team had four representatives from all four Schools. Their focus was on the Law of Demand for the first lesson and the critical skill of reading an Economics’ article was the focus for the second lesson. The third team came from schools A, C and D and were teaching Year 12 Business Studies. The first round of lessons focused on

Financial Options, in particular, the types of finance available, while the second round of lessons targeted Employment Relations.

The role of the academic partner was to assist in observing, provide advice regarding action learning resources, act as a documenter of the work in progress and be a ‘critical friend’ – or what has been characterised as “the knowledgeable other” in an earlier paper in this journal.

Planning

In each case the team met and discussed the framework of the lesson to be taught.

Planning was based upon the principles of constructivism. This meant that the emphasis in planning was upon designing for learning; that is focussing upon what the students would do and why. There were a number of elements that had to be considered when designing for learning, these were: problem setting; context; resources; connecting; questioning and explaining; demonstrating learning; and, reflection.

Each of these elements needed to be considered in developing an overall unit plan and subsequent lesson plans. They were briefly discussed as a series of questions.

The problem setting:

What was the problem that the teachers wished for their students to understand? How did it fit into the overall curriculum in the key learning area?

T

The context:

What was the nature of the context in which the students are learning? The school, the class, the dynamics of the group?

Resources:

Along with the teacher, the most significant resource in the classroom was seen to be located in the students themselves: what had been their experiences, how much did they already know, how could they best share their knowledge, how would they evaluate each other’s knowledge and understanding?

Teachers would also be concerned with the kinds of material resources that could be used to support learning, such as models, graphics, narratives and the like. What media would they employ? What would be the impact of such tools as electronic whiteboards, computers and video?

Connecting:

How could the teachers take account of ways to elicit students’ prior knowledge and experience and how would they build a bridge between what they already know and what they need to do to achieve the learning goal?

Questioning and Explaining:

What kind of guiding questions would they formulate to stimulate student thinking and to maintain active learning? How would they accommodate to student questions and provide the kinds of explanations that would support learning development?

Demonstration of Learning:

What processes would they employ that would enable students to demonstrate what they had learned; to what extent did they wish the learning to be individual or group based; how would these demonstrations be authentically assessed?

Reflection:

How would they provide opportunities for students to reflect on their learning? What they learned from their teachers? What they learned from their peers? What they learned about themselves and their capabilities?

Observing learning in progress

In most cases in the Deeds Not Words study there were to be two observers in the classroom. It was seen as important that they have a specific brief that would be negotiated between them and the teacher of the day. A number of steps needed to be taken:

• Who is to be observed? • What will be the focus? • How will the data be collected? and • How will the data be interpreted?

Additionally, it was argued that the learners themselves should be reflecting upon their learning experience.

Who is to be observed?

Being able to closely observe all learners in a dynamic and busy classroom is a difficult task. One way to overcome this would be to video-tape lessons so that the episode may be returned to at a later point and collectively analysed. Another way to deal with the challenge would be to deliberately select a small number of learners on the basis of contrasts. One might take three learners: one of whom is notably quiet; one who tends to be noisy and highly visible and one somewhere in the middle. Or one might contrast the learners in terms of the teacher’s perception of their motivation and engagement with the subject, or their level of achievement in the subject. A third strategy could be to closely observe only one learner using Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s notion that:

merely looking at an object cannot be of any use to us. All looking goes over into observing; all observing into reflecting; all reflecting into connecting; and so one can say that with every attentive look we cast into the world we are already theorising.9

Such observation was seen to require a delicacy and willingness to note even the most obscure of detail – fidgeting, gossiping, turning in the seat, body language and the like; as well, obvious signs of engagement with the lesson. The greater

9 Goethe W. (1982) Preface to The Theory of Colours. (Translated Charles Lock Eastlake) Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.

the detail the more that the account could be used in a subsequent interview with the student, offering him or her a stimulus for recalling the lesson and its impact.

What will be the focus?

Of course the focus of the observations was seen to relate to who is being observed and the purpose of the given lesson. It may be that the focus would be upon turning points in the lesson – when did it become more or less engaging? When did teacher explanations appear to overcome a particular ‘roadblock’ to learning? When did the insight of a student assist in the development of the lesson? As well, the observer needed to be responsive to unintended moments in the lesson and their consequence – what happened when a student introduces a digression or has clearly lost their way and what was the impact upon other students?

How will the data be collected?

Again, the processes for collecting data would be determined by the overall purpose of the observations. It may be that the observer would maintain a running record, using a time frame that accounted for the introduction to the session, its presentation and its closure. The observer might have some pre-determined categories such as:

• Affiliation and rapport with teacher (smiling, nodding, how was attention secured etc.);

• Attitude (engagement – procedural or substantive, indifference, disengagement and distraction);

• Approach to problem solving (seeking assistance, independence);

• Connecting to prior learning; • Curiosity and creativity (dealing with the

unexpected); • Monitoring both formal and informal

aspects of the classroom; and so on.

The observer(s) could consider taking digital photographs at agreed intervals and use these to create a timeline of the lesson’s development that could be discussed with the target students and later with the class teacher.

Student Interviews:

It was suggested that a powerful way to supplement observations would be to interview target students, perhaps starting with a general question regarding how they saw themselves as learners in this particular key learning area, what they found to be challenging and puzzling and how they coped with the pacing and sequencing of learning before turning to the specific lesson under observation. In terms of the latter it could be useful to start with some key observations, taking care not to be judgemental but rather prepared to hear from the student how they constructed the event. For example “I noticed that when the teacher indicated …..(trying to use direct speech here) you turned to your neighbour and asked them to explain …..(again, using an actual quote if that was possible). What was happening for you at this point in the lesson?” Of course, if a digital photographic sequence was being used the pictures themselves could act as a stimulus for recall.

Student Reflections:

A simple process for gathering student reflections would be for all students in the particular class to complete a minute paper where they could note:

• What went well for you in this lesson? • What were the main points that you

learned during this lesson? • What puzzled or confused you? • What would you like to change about this

lesson if it could be taught again?

If participating teacher chose to use the minute paper it was seen as important that it be kept brief and that students had the opportunity to respond anonymously.

Interpreting the Data:

Teachers saw that as they went about interpreting the data their main purpose would be to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the lesson and the ways in which it could be improved for the next cycle of teaching; always remembering of course that they were attempting to look at the lesson through the lens of the learners’ experiences. They considered ways of clustering questions together. For example:

• How effective was the initial orientation? How clear were expectations?

• To what extent was attention paid to what the learners brought to the lesson?

• How were learners motivated? How was praise handled?

• How well was the lesson paced? How were digressions handled? Was there information overload?

• How were roadblocks to learning cleared? • Who seemed to benefit most? Who

seemed to benefit least? • Was learning tailored to individual student

needs? • How helpful were the resources? How

accessible were the resources? • What features of the physical environment

supported or impeded learning? • Were there any specific contextual

constraints – are they likely to arise during the next cycle?

An example

This example is the result of the academic partner being present at two of four lessons in Year 11 economics classes – one of which took place at an eastern suburbs independent coeducational school (School B) and one at an inner west independent girls’ school (School C ). It was not the intention of this portrayal to spell out the details of the lesson other than to indicate that its purpose was to assist students in the critical reading of a newspaper article ‘A radical idea: work less, live more’ by Ross Gittins published in the Sydney Morning Herald, March 14th 200710. It was expected that students would be able to connect the contents of the article to a range of economic ideas that have already been studied in Themes 1 and 2 in their course. The syllabus outcomes were listed as:

P1 Demonstrates understanding of the economic terms, concepts and relationships

P2 Explains the economic role of consumers and firms

P6 Explain the role of government in the Australian economy

10 Can be found at http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/a-radical-idea-work-less-live-more/2007/03/13/1

P9 Selects and organises information from a variety of sources for relevance and reliability

P12 Works independently and in groups to achieve appropriate goals in set timelines.

An important variation in the structure of the lesson lay in the scaffolds which were provided to the students. Before turning to these it is helpful to think about the purposes of developing scaffolds for learning. Essential to the idea of the scaffold is making learning visible, the learning tool should create conditions that allow the learner to make his or her learning explicit and available to others, such as peers and teachers, so that they may support and challenge that learning; this is of particular significance in the context of lesson study. The scaffold can provide assistance in delineating the problem, in reflecting upon the problem, in selecting good tools and resources and enabling alternative explanations and actions to be uncovered. It has been argued that scaffolding is critical to the facilitation of student learning and that its absence can lead to poor conceptual understanding (Azevedo, Cromley & Seibert, 2004).

The characteristics of a good scaffold can be summarised as that which:

• Has clear directions; • Clarifies the purposes to which it is to be

put; • Is well centred; • Keeps students on task; • Is goal directed; • Reduces uncertainty and frustration; • Creates a learning momentum; • Draws on previous knowledge; and • Signals the prospect of developing new

knowledge and understanding.

The two scaffolds that were selected clearly met these requirements. The first of these, used in School B was based upon a word, phrase and sentence identification followed by a summarising of the main themes in the text and the implications of the issues and questions that arose. Having read the newspaper article students individually selected key words, phrases and sentences, themes and implications. They then had an opportunity to explore the findings of

their peers and complete the final section of the worksheet i.e. what had they missed in their own analysis? The subsequent discussion then took the substantive issues and related them to economic theory.

It was suggested that the benefit of the process was that it allowed the students to first commit to their own ideas and understandings to paper before, then, examining those of others. The teacher’s own role was one of monitoring rather than coaching – she wanted students to “puzzle things out for themselves”. It was clear that the students were familiar with the process.

Themes were subsequently collected on the board as were their implications and the links to economic theory. One such example of the latter was a discussion of opportunity costs – paid work versus time with the family. Other discussions centred around the circular flow of income (illustrated by a two sector flow diagram), labour scarcity and the business cycle. The lesson was closed with some questions for students to reflect upon, e.g. “How many of you think our hours of work will fall?” “Is it up to the individual to decide to work less?” “Is it a matter of meeting rising living costs or wanting more ‘stuff’?”

The second iteration of the lesson at School C employed a three level reading guide. Prior to employing the scaffold a quick survey of paid working hours of friends and relatives was conducted as a means of bringing home to the students the current trends towards the intensification of work. Students then took each level of the reading guide, one at a time. In the first case they read the text in order to determine the accuracy (true or false) of four statements. They needed to be able to demonstrate where in the text was there data to support their findings. The discussion at the end of this phase was vigorous with some debate regarding statement 3 Australia has a relatively small casual or temporary workforce. While most students believed this statement to be false one or two saw that it was true in that they were drawn to the absolute nature of the statement rather than reading it in a relative context.

At the second level of reading students addressed some conclusions, again finding evidence in the text. This was an individual task,

but students did not fail to consult one another if they were uncertain, particularly with respect to statement 3 The increase in working hours of the average Australian worker is an irreversible trend. This final statement required a much greater level of inference than the ones that preceded it.

Finally, in relation to the third level students were requested to work in pairs (or threes) to arrive at a point of view regarding one of the two statements. They were encouraged to find both negative and positive arguments and develop the point of view in the form of a debate. It was clear that these students were comfortable with ambiguity.

The observed lesson did not provide opportunities to see the connections that could be made with economic ideas.

In the subsequent discussion it was agreed that the next iteration of the lesson planned for School A, a sports’ high school and School D (a girls’ comprehensive government secondary school), would use the second scaffold but with some modifications. It was agreed that the article was a powerful one and covered a relevant topic (although, interestingly, the students did not themselves make explicit connections to the matter of working hours being one that is currently much discussed). Time was seen as a factor that would require some modifications to be made11. It was decided that the first two reading levels would be undertaken in an earlier lesson and that the study lesson would address level 3 and introduce the notion of economic ideas as a fourth level – also that there might be a summary of economic theories that the students could use as a touchstone (another form of scaffolding). It was thought that the article’s paragraphs could be numbered for easier reference and that in School D where there were a number of students using English as a second language there would need to be a greater explanation of some of the article’s language.

11 It is worth observing that the varying amounts of time available for the lessons across the participating schools in all three areas: commerce, business studies and economics, has been a significant variable affecting what could be accomplished in terms of depth, elaboration and communication.

Overall, the lesson study approach both provided for an examination of the relative merits of the two scaffolds and the ways in which they could be best adapted to meet the differing needs of the students. Azevedo & Hadwin (2005) have indicated that scaffolding may support a range of outcomes including: learning concepts and procedures; metacognition (learning about one’s own learning); learning about using a given tool or environment; and, learning to adapt to a particular context. The attributes of the scaffolds that were provided particularly applied to the first two of these.

This example has served to demonstrate that lesson study brings forth broader questions in relation to pedagogical planning. In the busy life of teaching there are few moments that allow for the kind of reflection that this team of teachers engaged in as they considered the attributes of the scaffolds that they would adopt and the ways in which they contributed to their students’ learning.

Learning from the Project

This paper now addresses the following research questions arising from the above Economics and Business Educators’ Australian Government Quality Teaching Project study Deeds not Words in which teachers of senior classes from four different schools, came together to apply a lesson study approach to their practices.

1. How suitable is lesson study as a process to inform the development of a teacher learning framework and a framework for accomplished teaching standards?

2. Can a performance driven set of accomplished teacher standards be identified?

3. Can an approach such as Japanese Lesson Study support collegial professional development?

4. What support is required to observe and analyse student learning in-situ?

5. What processes can be employed for teachers to work collegially in planning, implementing and analysing teaching episodes with particular reference to student engagement?

6. Can a Japanese Lesson Study approach be seen as an opportunity for action learning?

How suitable is lesson study as a process to inform the development of a teacher learning framework and a framework for accomplished teaching standards?

In its consultation paper National Profession Standards for Advanced Teaching and School Leadership, Teaching Australia (2007) sees national professional standards as serving three important purposes:

• Provide inspiration to aspiring teachers and principals, clarifying the expectations about accomplished practice;

• Offer guidance to members of the profession seeking to improve their practice through self-reflection and professional learning; and

• Increase public understanding of the complexity and rigour of the work of teachers. (2007:2)

It argues that the motivation for the generation of standards is related to the affirmation of the professional status of teachers through public accountability and is manifest through an articulation of the distinctive knowledge and attributes of the members of the teaching profession. It proposes that the publication of standards will act as a focus for professional learning and enhance teacher self-esteem.

Importantly, the consultation paper raises questions about the development of descriptors that could apply to designated specialisations and are useful and relevant for teachers and school leaders, and we would also argue for ongoing teacher professional learning.

The Lesson Study approach that has been trialled in this EBE project has provided ample evidence that it would be possible to inform a framework for teacher learning and for accomplished teacher standards. In effect, what the project has done has illuminated what professional accomplishment looks like in terms of the various elements outlined in documents such as the NSW

Institute of Teachers Professional Teaching Standards (undated)12 and Education Queensland’s Professional Standards for Teachers: Guidelines for Professional Practice (2005) . The word ‘inform’ is used in preference to ‘develop’. Lesson study is but one of a number of ways in which such standards can and should be developed.

The processes of Lesson Study, as adopted in this project, required deep professional knowledge (as demonstrated in the quality of the lesson planning and implementation) and a capacity to contribute to the professional learning of others (through debriefing and reflection). Both of these capabilities are highly valued as examples of accomplishment by such employment authorities as the Department of Education and Children’s Services in South Australia (DECS, 2006). In addition the processes have provided conditions where practitioners have been engaged in dialogue and reflection that takes account of the diversity of contexts in which the lessons were enacted. As Emmett (2002) has noted in his critique of the American standards movement that there was a failure “to recognise professional engagement is about the complexity and diversity of teaching and learning and needs to be situated in a collegiate context of dialogue, reflection and professional learning” (2002:4). This brings us to our second research question.

Can a performance driven set of accomplished teacher standards be identified?

Our first observation in relation to this question is that the performance of teachers is always in concert with the performance of students. What is required is to look at both performance and what it produces. This is why Lesson Study is so powerful. For it takes account of not only what it is that teachers do; but what their students do in the context of the classroom and beyond. The process recognises that there are always antecedents to what has taken place, including

12 It will be noted that no one State/Territory or Commonwealth document on professional standards for teachers has been privileged. We see that the Lesson Study project has the capacity to inform development in a number of different jurisdictions.

the dispositions of both students and teachers to the subject matter, their prior knowledge and experiences and trends over time.

The act of teaching becomes an object open to analysis and critique through the responses of learners. The process has allowed the link to be made between the planning and the action. Thus through the enactment of the planned lesson it has been possible to identify both its strengths and its weaknesses. In order for participating teachers to identify these at an accomplished level13 and in context they needed to have a range of skills and capacities, that is an ability to engage in: higher order thinking; problem solving; communication, working effectively with colleagues and developing pedagogical content knowledge.

The processes are multi-layered and require a sensitivity beyond an observation of overt interactions in the classroom to a reading that goes below the surface and takes account of complexity and uncertainty.

We would argue that a performance driven set of accomplished teacher standards can be identified and amplified through the application of a Lesson Study approach. In effect, by looking at planning, enactment and refinement across a cycle of lessons participants were able to identify variables that can influence both teacher and student performance such as: class dynamics, student and teacher capabilities, classroom organization, school structures and external factors. They were able to name and support what amounted to sound performance by looking at goals, strategies and policies.

In order to make this claim more concrete let us apply it to the NSW aspects 3.3.1 – 3.3.4 within element 3, “Teachers Plan, Assess and Report for Effective Learning14” Take “teachers clearly set and articulated challenging goals for their students”. In a teaching and learning cycle, covering contracts, the goal was: to introduce students to the concept of contracts, the criteria 13 It has been noted that a number of the participants saw merit in the Lesson Study approach to supporting early career teachers. The point to be made here is that it is possible to imagine how the standard could evolve at each of the key stages. 14 Aspect 3.3.5 was not directly addressed.

for an effective and enforceable contract and the distinction between a contract and a verbal agreement”. Goals are critical to student learning – they want to know where they are going, why they are heading in that direction and how might they get there. After all to paraphrase Alice as she meanders through Wonderland, “if you don’t know where you are going any place will do.”

Following on from that particular cycle teachers advised and assisted each other in designing and implementing teaching and learning by continuing to develop innovative engaging learning opportunities by engaging in continuous improvement upon the original model. The final lesson in the cycle was able to draw upon both the earlier experiences and bring into play greater information and communication technology applications.

In all cases teachers were able to draw upon theoretical and practical knowledge of their teaching and their students’ learning; they were familiar with the content knowledge and could enliven it with practical examples from daily life and they could explain student responses on the basis of their understandings of individual student experiences and attributes. Finally they were sufficiently familiar with a wide range of resources such that they could advise one another of materials that had proved to be useful.

Can an approach such as Japanese Lesson Study support collegial professional development?

Turning again to Emmett’s study (2002) he makes the point that “professional standards of practice and professional learning are interdependent” (2002:4). this view was endorsed by all participants in the Lesson Study Project. In spite of the logistical difficulties there was a strongly held view that the processes opened up the classroom doors. The planning, observing and professional conversation following given lessons formed a powerful process of experiential learning. Teachers found themselves in discussions that were related, among other things, to matters of:

• precision and accuracy (how well have we defined the questions that we want the students to pursue? )

• connectedness (how do we use examples from our own and our students’ lives such that the content is relevant for them?)

• metacognition (how will we familiarise our students with complex terms and their application?)

• managing impulsivity (how do we acknowledge a student’s contribution, but create conditions whereby they are more reflective in providing answers?)

All of these matters and more besides were the basis of discussion and debate.

What support is required to observe and analyse student learning in-situ?

In spite of its many successes this project drew attention to the difficulties experienced in closely observing student learning. The pressures that senior teachers face in meeting school requirements for results in a competitive educational market place mean that teachers have to closely attend to what is a demanding and crowded syllabus in economics, business, and commerce classrooms. Finding the time that is required to fully investigate student learning is difficult. If this project were to be repeated in some form or another some time would need to be devoted to examining a range of observation strategies, their costs and benefits. As well, more time is required to further gain insight into the students’ perspectives (see earlier paper in this journal for a discussion devoted to obtaining student voice). While a brief feedback sheet was used in the conclusion to the lessons and provided helpful data it could have been amplified if more time had been available to consult with students regarding the ways in which they might have analysed the lesson (perhaps by jointly discussing the video recordings, or using digital photographs.

What processes can be employed for teachers to work collegially in planning, implementing and analysing teaching episodes with particular reference to student engagement?

The Lesson Study project modelled excellent processes for collegial planning, implementing and analysing teaching episodes with some attention paid to student engagement. However, there were logistical difficulties and it may be

better to conceive of future studies as a series of in-school projects with some opportunities for cross-school interactions at given points. It was clear that choosing senior classes also presented difficulties as teachers were reluctant to take too much time out of the classroom. While some of these difficulties might be addressed by using electronic facilities15, face-to-face meetings are also essential. It was suggested that where there was a team of four the problems were exacerbated; the classroom was overcrowded and the travelling between such distributed sites difficult. More time could also be spent on the analysis of the products that students created beyond those that were generated in the classroom.

Can a Japanese Lesson Study approach be seen as an opportunity for action learning?

In the context of the Lesson Study project, action learning is the approach that links the world of professional learning with the world of classroom action through reflective and dynamic processes across collegial groups.

In their investigation of the sustainability of professional learning through school based inquiry Hoban et al (2006) cited five conditions that can support action learning, these being:

• Drawing on local resources and capacities;

• Recognising the knowledge and wisdom of teachers;

• Demonstrating that teachers are creative and knowledgeable about their environment;

• Ensuring that all members of the inquiry team are part of the decision making process; and

• Using academic team members, who act as catalysts and who assist the school inquiry team(s) in asking key questions. (2006:15)

It is clear from the data that has been collected that each of these elements were present in the 15 Indeed participants were in constant electronic touch with each other; however, some kind of dedicated website could have facilitated matters.

Lesson Study Project. Additionally, the adoption of Lesson Study itself as a vehicle provided a framework for the investigation that gave it force and direction.

In spite of a number of challenges and difficulties and the short time that was available for the project it can be argued that it not only contributed significantly to the discussion regarding professional standards and the performance of experienced teacher but also to the notions of action learning in general and lesson study in particular.

Conclusion

Finally, if as Sachs has argued (2003) standards should always be made problematic by asking such questions as ‘can they apply under new and changing conditions?’ whose interests do they serve? and ‘what will be the impact on the relevant profession, its values and aspirations?’ Then it is clear that this project has made a contribution to those discussions. She concludes “Dealing with these challenges will require resolve, courage, political and professional care” (2003:185) This project has been one that has been mounted as a demonstration of the capacity of a professional group, in this case teachers of economics, commerce and business, to contribute meaningfully to the debate. It is but one modest step along a complex and difficult path towards improving the quality of teaching and learning in the nation’s schools.

References:

Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. & Seibert D. (2004) Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, pp. 33- 370.

Azevedo, R. & Hadwin, A. (2005) Scaffolding self-regulated learning and meta-cognition – Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science 33 (5/6) 367 - 379

Department of Education and Children’s Services (2006) Professional Standards for Teachers in South Australia. Adelaide: DECS

Education Queensland (2005) Professional Standards for Teachers: Guidelines for Professional Practice. Brisbane: Education Queensland.

Emmett, G. (2002) The Victorian Institute of Teaching. Paper presented to the Australian Association for Research in Education Annual Conference, Brisbane, University of Queensland, 1 – 5 December.

Hoban, G., Ewing, R., Herrington, T., Smith, D., Kervin, L. & Anderson, J. (2005) Evaluative Inquiry into Sustainability of Professional Learning through School Based Action Learning. Report to the Australian Government Quality Teaching Program. (Further publication details not available).

New South Wales Institute of Teachers (undated) Professional Teaching Standards. Sydney: NSW Institute of Teachers

Sachs, J. (2003) Teacher professional standards: controlling or developing teaching. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice. 9 (2) pp. 175 – 185.

Teaching Australia (2007) National Professional Standards for Advanced Teaching and School Leadership. Canberra: Teaching Australia

Master classes: ‘lesson study’ approach

Master Classes: Building on the ‘Lesson study’ approach in a Sydney school

By Greg Elliott St Mary Star of the Sea College, Wollongong, Australia

Greg Elliott is a Deputy Principal at St Mary Star of the Sea College in Sydney, Australia. The school participates in the Coalition of Knowledge Building Schools that supports enquiry-based professional learning. In this article Greg tells us about a project which built on the ‘lesson study’ tradition to engage teachers in collegial professional learning

y role as Deputy Principal has been to facilitate the change and development processes in the College. In doing so, I have gained some very critical insights into my profession and into the way in

which notions of that profession are constructed and challenged in a dynamic and changing environment. For some time I have struggled with what might be argued is the down side of professional autonomy (McCormick, 2000). At its worst, professional autonomy is a belief in the inalienable right of the teacher to conduct his or her lessons free from any scrutiny or accountability. A teacher who places high value on this type of professional autonomy would be characterised by their resistance to resource sharing, a resentment of intrusions into the classroom, a suspicion of imposed change and a certain lack of reflective or critical practice. To people outside of the profession, this may appear to be professional arrogance and is poorly aligned with most other professions, where systems of accountability and supervision are built in. Quite often these systems are managed and contributed to by peers or fellow professionals, which feeds into collegiate or system learning. In these professional contexts, the belief that practice occurs in private and beyond scrutiny would be anathema.

A great deal of the investment made by schools in professional development and professional learning grows out of a desire to build teacher capacity and enhance professional knowledge. This is very often provided for in a setting outside of the classroom. In Australia, as in all developed countries, there is a thriving industry of consultants, agencies and bureaucracies that attempt to cater to the professional development needs of schools. This training, though of high quality, is usually ‘just in case’ learning. Typically, teachers and directors of professional development will choose courses from a catalogue as one would select whitegoods for the kitchen. This is not to say that none of these experiences are motivating or do not create change in the classroom. What is missing is quality enquiry, conversation and a cycle of implementation, reflection and improvement. Even quality professional development, tightly focused on improving student and teacher learning, remains theoretical until it is applied, tested and evaluated over time within the classroom. Researchers such as Wang and Odell (2002) have questioned the effectiveness of any type of professional learning which leaves untouched the hallowed ground of the individual teacher’s classroom. They offer four principles to inform quality, sustainable teacher learning:

M

• active construction and reconstruction of beliefs, content knowledge and pedagogical practices

• professional learning that is situated in the

practice of teaching, relevant to the particular school-based context

• individual reflection and collaborative

inquiry that develops an understanding of what constitutes good teaching practice

• substantial and sustained time to practice

and experiment with a variety of approaches and resources.

In this article I reflect on an attempt in my school to challenge the notion of professional autonomy in a way which focuses on the relationship between teacher behaviour and student learning in the classroom. The context This self-sustaining experiment took place in a long established girls’ high school on the beach south of Sydney, Australia: St Mary Star of the Sea College (http://www.stmarys.nsw.edu.au). The school has a history and reputation based on excellence and a deep commitment to learning on the part of the staff. Over time, the school has reinvented itself to meet the changing needs of learners and learning. The student population represents a broad range of background and ability with students capable of acceleration in a range of subjects and others with special learning needs. The school has developed a system to support the mainstreaming of students with special needs. This policy of inclusion has brought to light a need for further development of teachers’ skills in differentiation and inclusive teaching practices. This has emerged as an area of focus for professional learning and has been supported by the Coalition of Knowledge Building Schools (Groundwater-Smith, Mockler and Normanhurst, 2002).

The Coalition of Knowledge Building Schools Developed as an agency of the Centre for Practitioner Research at Sydney University, the Coalition has grown to include schools from across the three sectors of secondary education in Australia: the public, Catholic and independent sectors. The diversity of this movement is exceptional when you also consider that the schools involved in the Coalition range from economically and culturally challenged city schools to more wealthy, independent, mono-cultural regional schools. The aim of the coalition is to share and cooperate on projects that enhance learning for students and teachers. This collaboration has seen such valuable ventures as a cross-sectoral enquiry into the environmental impediments to learning and a ‘Kids’ College’ wherein students from around New South Wales cooperated with the Australian Museum and architects to redesign the learning spaces in the museum. Two of the central values of our Coalition are the primacy of student voice and the imperative to reflect together. In recent years, my college has collaborated with the Coalition of Knowledge Building Schools. We have undertaken a review of professional learning and have established a process whereby professional learning must be aligned with the strategic intent of the school. Rather than outsource teacher training to a range of institutional and commercial service providers, we have established standing and ad-hoc professional learning teams. The professional learning needs are addressed through practitioner enquiry. The master class project was a deliberate attempt to push the boundaries of professional autonomy and to stimulate questions and conversations about ‘our’ teaching, ‘their’ learning and ‘our’ learning. The project builds on the tradition of ‘lesson study’, an approach to collegial professional learning we had explored within the Coalition. In their advocacy for the study of teaching and learning through the study of lessons Fernandez & Yoshida (2004) place their greatest emphasis upon the culture of collegiality that brings teachers together to deeply consider their

practice in the context of the classroom and the diverse needs of students therein. (Groundwater-Smith, 2007:1) I also found useful an article entitled ‘Improving teaching through Lesson Study’ (Rock and Wilson, 2005) which presents a number of key features of ‘research lessons’. They should be: • focused on specific teacher-generated

problems, goals or vision of pedagogical practice;

• carefully planned, in collaboration; • observed by other teachers; • recorded for analysis and reflection and

discussed by lesson study group members. (Rock and Wilson, 2005:78)

Will Richardson, in his blog ‘The Pulse’ (07/02/2007), provides a thought-provoking list of ten things we need to unlearn in the current educational environment including the following. • We need to unlearn the idea that learning

itself is an event. In this day and age, it is a continual process...

• We need to unlearn the notion that our students don't need to see and understand how we ourselves learn

The master classes were as much an opportunity to unlearn as to learn. We borrowed the term ‘master class’ from the musical tradition, where, in an orchestral context, collaboration is the most vital force. A skilled musician, or visiting ‘master’ may offer to bring others into their practice in order to share talent and wisdom about music and performance. This analogy in our context translates into sharing talent and wisdom about learning and teaching. We did not see the term in elitist or gendered terms - we do not have two 'classes' of teacher, master and novice - but as an affirmation of our professionalism which we are developing together. A 'master teacher' may open her or his class to observers in one session and be an observer / student in the next.

The plan Stage 1 – Enlistment I approached our heads of departments and sought ‘kindred spirits’ for the project. It was necessary to ensure that the leaders within the departments understood the challenges that the project would entail, and that they could identify people within their teams who would become the pioneers, opening the frontier of the classroom to this experiment. In most cases, it was the head of department who blazed the trail. As it happened, it was my colleagues in the mathematics department who first accepted the invitation to be involved. This enlistment has been an ongoing task for the heads of departments, as many of our colleagues expressed terror at the idea of being observed by a group of their peers. As we proceeded, we developed processes to make this enlistment less threatening, as well as self-sustaining. Nevertheless, our first volunteers were certainly generous and bold in accepting our invitation. Stage 2 – Planning In preparation, we met and discussed the areas of practice, and of student learning, that seemed to suggest themselves as a good foundation for enquiry. Through our work with the Coalition of Knowledge Building Schools, we have compiled over time a significant portfolio of evidence about our practice and about the college’s operation more generally. We were able to draw on this data to illuminate our discussions about a way forward. The portfolio had dealt, in some detail, with the notion of student engagement in an all-girl context, and we were aware that engagement is as much a product of the dynamic between an individual teacher and student as it is a cultural or organisational phenomenon. This assertion was derived from a series of focus groups, interviews, learning logs and parent interviews over a period of years. Through action research, we established factors for engagement and disengagement, summarised in the table below.

Factors for engagement Factors for disengagement

T+ A quality, active relationship between teacher and student

T- A poor, passive relationship, or none at all between teacher and student

L+ A strategy for teaching broad literacy in a student centred-mode

L- Traditional view of adult-centric literacy

E+ A focus on emotional intelligence, exercised through reflective learning experiences

E- A focus on subject content without building connections to the inner world of the student

P+ Participation by students in planning for learning and assessment, through negotiation and choice

P- Little or no participation or choice by students in the learning process

V+ A forum for listening to authentic student voices

V- Student voices not heard or valued

R+ Students given active responsibility and status

R- Students passive. Contributions not valued or promoted

The conversations in preparation for the launch of master classes in mathematics considered how these factors for engagement could be observed and measured by participants in the master class. A series of observation tasks were developed which sought to capture these factors in action.

Under the leadership of the head of mathematics the areas for enquiry were framed as questions for our very first master class session:

1. If we were to track the visible signs of student engagement through the lesson, what would be the high and low points? What were the actions and strategies responsible for this?

2. Who learned the most this lesson? Who learned the least? How can you tell?

3. What is the proportion of teacher talk to student talk? Teacher questions to teacher questions? Teacher / student talk? Student / student talk?

4. How does the teacher relate to the class using the physical space of the room?

We did not know if these were the right questions but as a group we knew what we wanted to learn. As with any case of action research, knowing what we don’t know is often a critical stage of enquiry. The framing of the questions was a ‘teachable moment’ wherein my colleagues and I were able to have a valuable conversation about what happens when students are learning; what is observable; what is measurable; what are the important indicators of engagement; what measures will yield valuable data and eventually wisdom. These questions were loosely based on

the Flanders’ Interaction Analysis Categories (Lewis, 2002).

In the many master classes since this one, we have met, reflected and shaped questions to both illuminate our broad educational concerns, as well as developing questions to address more individual professional concerns. One teacher, for example, wanted specific feedback on the effectiveness of their voice. Another wanted feedback on the authenticity of her affirmation of student achievement in the class. I am impressed with the depth of reflection and professional self-awareness that generates the questions in the first place.

Stage 3 – Implementation

Students are informed that a group of teachers will be joining their class to learn something about teaching. Despite initial concerns that the presence of four or five teachers may create a false or artificial dynamic in the classroom, our results have not borne this out.

In the early phase of the project, we tried various sizes of observer groups: between two and five. It became apparent that three or four observers were sufficient to report on a range of research questions. More than this began to crowd out the classroom and fewer seemed to restrict the depth and breadth of data yielded in the reflection session. The observers are arranged along the back of the classroom or learning space. All take notes, and some use stopwatches to accurately time cumulative totals for data on questions, student talk, activity balance and so on.

Since the first master class, it has become custom and practice for the master teacher to make no reference to the observers during the lesson. This is for the comfort and confidence of the teacher rather than for any reasons of scientific validity. There is still sufficient trepidation about opening our classrooms that to simply pretend the observers are not there is probably an understandable strategy.

Stage 4 – Reflection

We ensure that time is made available for the people involved in the master class to meet for a

structured reflection session. This is where the learning takes place.

Good teachers have always been reflective teachers professionals who have asked themselves questions directed to the improvement of their craft. What have been missing in my experiences have been the time, structures and forums within which collegial reflection can take place. The master class reflection has developed as a deeply respectful environment for critical questioning and sharing. It is precisely this process that turns the observation data into pedagogical wisdom.

The reflection session is led by a nominated leader who is not the master teacher. The structure of the session is tailored to the area under investigation, and very often, the questions established in the planning phase will become the scaffold for the reflection. The discussion that ensues is based on a combination of observation data and critical reflection. The discussion is recorded and moderated by the session leader, and, after each person has shared their observations and reactions, the master teacher is given a right of reply. It is especially interesting when the master teacher ‘pushes back’ against the observers’ impressions. It is the job of the leader / moderator to ensure that the master teacher is not put in a position where they feel they must defend themselves. We have been fortunate that the climate and culture of these sessions have been good humoured, and more of a meeting of generous spirits than an opportunity for undue criticism.

I have been fortunate to attend these sessions as an observer, thus adding another lens to the enquiry. For my part, I see teachers, including the master teacher for the session, working through their perceptions to understand the distance between teacher intention and student experience. In a way, this is the most critical metric: the gap between the educational intention, generated by curriculum and professional practice (the teaching), and the change that actually takes place within the student (the learning). Our aim is to use these tools to narrow the gap.

After a process of structured sharing and responding, the moderator guides the group to collate a list of explicit ‘learnings’ from the master

class and reflection. These are expressed as brief, practical and tested ways of improving our practice. Below is a list of learnings generated from the observation and reflection on an advanced calculus class by four colleagues. They do not represent deficits in the master teacher’s lesson, but are the product of collegial reflection:

• Explore a range of possible mathematical solutions, to allow paths into learning for different students.

• Balance general class questions with questions to students by name.

• Ask powerful open ended questions like “You are right, but why?” and “Look at what we have done. What am I going to ask you to do next?”

• Challenge patches of disengagement by insisting on particular students answering a question.

• Position your body when you write on the board so you can engage the students at the same time.

• Investigate why students aren’t confident enough to challenge errors the teacher may make in the lesson.

Stage 5 – ‘Conscription’

We have been challenged by the notion of sustainability in professional learning. Communities of practice do not develop automatically. They require stimulation, distributed leadership and systems for regeneration. We have adopted a practice whereby participants in the master classes feed back into the action learning cycle. Each of the observers chooses one of the master class learnings that he or she will grow in his or her own classrooms. This is how the conclusion to the reflection session is managed. Participants, in turn, nominate the learning they will focus on in their own practice and their reasons for choosing this skill, or idea to develop. Finally, one of the observers nominates themselves as the subject of the next master class. Thus, we have built a life-cycle into the master class project and are assured that, without explicit management by the school administration, teachers will continue to open the doors of their classrooms to their colleagues and thus contribute to our shared wisdom about how students learn.

Outcomes

The project is almost twelve months old and has already borne rich fruit. Many of the positive outcomes relate directly to measuring the gap between teaching and learning. Yet, it is the other unplanned-for outcomes that make this approach to professional learning so valuable. The teachers who have been involved in the master classes as observers are very likely to open their own classrooms to their peers. Beyond the actual lesson studies, our teachers are finding other ways to include their colleagues in their professional reflection, either as visitors to the classroom, or through informal mentoring.

The teachers who have made their lessons and students available for master classes have reported a sense of professional pride, and have received significant affirmation from the colleagues for their skill and care for their students. It is outcomes such as these that flow from the development of a professional learning culture that are unlikely to result from the traditional, outsourced professional development experience.

Caveats and conclusions

As we grow through this project, we are once again learning what we do not know. Most significantly, we do not know what our students think and believe about the master class project, about the validity of the measures we are using and about the effectiveness of the changes in pedagogy that result from the action research. The absence of student voice in this experience challenges us to look for opportunities to draw the consequential stakeholders into the reflection cycle.

A second caveat is that we must resist seeing master classes as reinforcing a teacher-centric paradigm. It may be tempting to allow this process to give power to the view that the teacher is the subject of any lesson. Our professional community will be looking for ways to use these powerful reflective tools to encourage a student-centred paradigm of learning.

In conclusion it must be said that master classes are really for teacher-learners, not for master-teachers. If anything, master classes are about

mastering our own learning about ourselves and our craft.

It is said that the most powerful part of lesson study is that you develop eyes to see the children learn (Stepanek, 2001).

I think we can say with some confidence that our adaptation of the lesson study approach has made a major contribution to the enhancement of our ability to see children learning and to evaluate our teaching in the light of this.

References Fernandez, C. & Yoshida, M. (2004) Lesson Study: A

Japanese Approach to Improving Mathematics Teaching and Learning (Studies in Mathematical Thinking and Learning) (Studies in Mathematical Thinking and Learning). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Groundwater-Smith, S. (2007) Lesson Study as an Investigation of Pedagogy – Discussion Paper prepared for the EBE Lesson Study Project Deeds Not Word. University of Sydney, Centre for Practitioner Research.

Groundwater-Smith, S., Mockler, N. & Normanhurst, L.

(2002) Building Knowledge, Building Professionalism: The Coalition of Knowledge Building Schools and Teacher Professionalism, Paper presented to the Australian Association for Educational Research Annual Conference, University of Queensland, 1-5 December 2002.

Lewis, C. (2002) Lesson Study: A Handbook of

Teacher-led Instructional Change. Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools.

McCormick, J. (2000) Systems thinking, professional

autonomy and collegiality, Practising Administrator, 8(44), 22(4).

Richardson, W. (2007) Retrieved August 10, 2007,

from http://www.districtadministration.com/ Rock, T. & Wilson, C. (2005) Improving teaching

through Lesson Study. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(1), 77-92.

Stepanek, J. (2001) A new view of professional

development. Northwest Teacher, 2(2), 2-5. Wang & Odell (2002) Mentored Learning to Teach

According to Standards-Based Reform: A Critical Review. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 481-546.

Lesson study as formative assessment

Lesson Study as Formative Assessment in Secondary Schools

By Susan Groundwater-Smith Published in the Proceedings of the Authentic Assessment Practices for Student Learning Conference, Division of Professional Learning, Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney August 16 – 17, 2007 All proceedings available at http://www.proflearn.edsw.usyd.edu.au/proceedings_resources/index.shtml

esson study has become an important tool in teachers’ repertoires of practice; it is a means for studying learning in situ. Usually

several teachers are involved and watch each other teaching various iterations of a lesson where there may be a possibility of student misunderstanding and then seek to address the difficulty. While much assessment in classrooms is summative in nature; with little opportunity for feedback as the learning occurs, it is possible through lesson study to assess the learning as it happens. Of course this does not mean giving the learning some kind of mark; but is an occasion to authentically judge how effective it is.

Lesson Study as Learning Study16

It is a norm of professional practice that when we teach we have goals and outcomes that we want our students to achieve (Fernandez, Cannon & Chockshi, 2003). These may be directed to them acquiring a specific skill or becoming familiar with a more general learning process that we consider to be desirable. Some may be long term, others embedded in larger frameworks but immediate in nature. Too often it is the case that teachers design and evaluate teaching episodes, designed to fulfil such goals and outcomes in isolation from one another (Fullan, 2001); more so in secondary 16 These early observations form part of a discussion paper prepared by Susan Groundwater-Smith for the Economics and Business Educators who had an AGQTP to examine aspects of lesson study.

than in primary schools. Furthermore, teachers’ concerns seem to generally explore what it is that they as teachers are doing, rather than upon what it is that their students are experiencing. Wang-Iverson (2002) sees lesson study as a means of making teacher professional collaboration concrete by focusing on specific goals that examine not just students’ work, but students at work, in other words the learning that is going on.

Teaching can itself become professional learning when the activity is collegial and where the learning arises, principally from the students’ engagement and behaviours (Lewis, Perry, Hurd & O’Connell, 2006). In their advocacy for the study of teaching and learning through the study of lessons Fernandez & Yoshida (2004) place their greatest emphasis upon the culture of collegiality that brings teachers together to deeply consider their practice in the context of the classroom and the diverse needs of students therein. In a similar vein Chokshi & Fernandez (2004) argue for sustained lesson study work as a vehicle for helping teachers build a shared body of professional knowledge.

What then is the lesson study concept? In essence it could be characterised as ways of seeing; that is observing how learners respond to a teaching episode that has been prepared collaboratively by a group of teachers with the intention of developing, refining and improving the lesson in the light of such feedback. It is a

L

particularly powerful process when the concepts to be taught are problematic for the students and where there is much scope for misunderstanding. It is based upon the foundation of teachers as researchers – where the classroom practitioners are engaged in systematic inquiry regarding what it is that take place during the teaching episode, which can be characterised as a natural experiment17.

Rock & Wilson ((2005) see these ‘research lessons’ as being:

• Focused on specific teacher-generated problems, goals or vision of pedagogical practice;

• Carefully planned, in collaboration; • Observed by other teachers; • Recorded for analysis and reflection; and • Discussed by lesson study group

members. (p.78)

They argue that lesson study is based upon principles of constructivism: that knowledge is constructed through social interaction rather than as a result of individual experience; that knowledge is acquired as an adaptive experience; and that knowledge is the result of active mental processing by the individual in a social environment. Much of this takes place in the classroom as the lesson itself is progressing. In effect the classroom is a learning laboratory for the students as they come into contact with new ideas, principles and practices.

It is clear from the literature that there is no one formula for lesson study. As Lewis, Perry & Murata (2004) have noted: “Japanese lesson study is an extremely variable practice that has evolved over a century in tens of thousands of Japanese sites.” (pp. 3 – 4). However, there are some overarching procedures among them the close observation of students as they engage in learning. Thus lesson study becomes a potent vehicle for teachers to systematically explore learning, on the basis of evidence, with an intention of improving it. It is a process that is described by Lewis (2002) as ‘developing the eyes to see children.’

17 Experiment in the sense that a hypothesis is formed and evidence collected that test the hypothesis; but not an experiment in the sense of a scientific, randomised controlled trial.

Employing lesson study as a means for investigating classroom practices would seem to be a powerful opportunity to not only improve student learning but also teacher professional learning, including learning to be researchers of practice. There is little doubt that authentic assessment of learning is a major challenge for teachers and students alike; and that ,‘how are concepts being formed, understood and applied?’ is a major formative assessment question for each.

Authentic Assessment

Paris and Ayres (1994, pp. 7–8) drawing upon the work of Valencia, Hiebert and Afflerbach (1994) suggested authentic assessment has four features, which can synthesised thus:

- It is consistent with classroom practices. Students are asked questions about meaningful information and asked to solve problems that are relevant to their educational experiences.

- Authentic assessment collects diverse evidence of students’ learning from multiple sources rather than relying exclusively upon single tests or single modes.

- Authentic assessment is designed to promote improved student learning, based upon the premise that all students are capable of ongoing improvement in their learning.

- Authentic assessment is contextualised and takes account of local culture and experience.

To these four features I would further add:

- Authentic assessment recognises student agency in the process; it assumes that students are able and capable in understanding and evaluating their own learning.

- Authentic assessment values error-making and misunderstanding as cues about learning, rather than as a means of labelling learners.

- Authentic assessment is ethical assessment. It is designed to support and assist learning in ways that are not harmful to the learner.

Teachers who utilise authentic assessment are necessarily engaged in a change process. They are helping students to become more effective learners, seeking to change their learning; and they are helping themselves to become more effective teachers, seeking to change their teaching practices. We know from much recent research, particularly in relation to The Queensland School Reform Longitudinal Study (QSRLS) that teacher practices are the most significant factor in student learning outcomes (Hayes, Mills, Christie & Lingard, 2006) and that doing assessment well, is one of the most demanding tasks facing teachers. Authentic assessment is learner-focused and requires a learner-focused classroom. Furthermore, authentic assessment is mainly formative as it seeks to explore learning as it is occurring with the intention of assisting the learners in developing their insights, understandings, concepts and applications.

Formative assessment and its relation to learning

The power of formative assessment has been demonstrated by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) who reported in its 2005 bulletin (OECD 2005) that the achievement gains arising from formative assessment are “among the largest ever reported for an educational intervention” (p.2). In particular under-achieving students were identified as gaining the most.

Formative assessment is the regular, relevant and specific feedback students receive as they engage in their learning. It enables them to apprehend what they know, understand and believe at a particular moment and what directions their learning needs to take. Formative assessment takes both verbal and written forms. Teachers regularly occupy themselves in evaluating student responses in classroom interaction and providing their students with feedback to written tasks, both large and small. As well, students self-assess when they reflect upon their learning, what has been achieved and what is desired. The student is not a passive receiver of assessment, he or she is an active agent. For formative assessment to be at all useful to the learner it must be predicated upon an understanding that there is a gap between what he or she currently knows and can do and

what he or she can potentially know or do. Learning is seen as incremental and socially constructed. It is also understood that learning can result from misunderstanding.

However, and importantly, misunderstanding cannot be identified if students have not been able to discuss and explain their ideas with their teachers and demonstrate to them the gap between teaching and learning (Wiggins, 1998). Learning conversations in the classroom are essential to the development of good formative assessment practices. As Black, Harrison, Lee, Marsh & Wiliam (2004) argue “many teachers do not plan and conduct classroom dialogue in ways that might help students to learn” (p.10). Too often the rapid-fire questioning that characterizes much of what happens in classrooms interrupt student thinking rather than support it. Increasing wait-time and having a greater openness to ‘the wrong answer’ can enhance the learning of all. After all, it is unlikely that students will risk a wrong answer if the result is humiliation in front of their peers.

Of course, teachers themselves are caught into regimes of practice, often determined by others. The tyranny of the timetable, the bell and the overcrowded curriculum make for conditions that are inimicable to having sustained learning conversations in the classroom. However, the opportunity to engage in lesson study as set out above can provide for teachers to more closely observe and formatively assess learning.

In effect, by working with colleagues to observe learning as it is happening, is a rare opportunity to engage in learning conversations with students. While in most lesson study literature the emphasis is upon improving teaching through improving student learning outcomes, little of it has focused thus far on the practice being a time when the formative assessment of learning might occur. It can provide not only feedback but also feedforward; in that subsequent de-briefings with the teacher can suggest ways in which the learning needs of the students can be better addressed. The information can be used to determine the next steps in learning, not only for individual students but for the class as a whole. Teaching is adjusted to take account of the formative assessment of the learning of the students.

Black and Wiliam (1998) in their seminal report Inside the Black Box identified a number of inhibiting factors that make formative assessment difficult. Among them has been the tendency to assess the quantity of work and presentation

rather than the quality of learning with a tendency to mark and grade the work rather than analyse it alongside the learner. Another is the ways in which feedback that is given when a lesson progresses is more often for social and managerial purposes instead of to help the students learn more effectively.

Formative assessment for learning involves a number of desirable characteristics, among them: that the processes of learning are explicit and explained in the context of the class activity; and, that students understand what they are aiming to achieve and can discuss this with their peers and others. Where teachers are involved with their colleagues in forms of lesson study there are significant opportunities for this to occur. As it has already been suggested, it is a way of not only assisting the learners, but also the teachers in enabling them to identify areas where, for example, more explanation and practice are required.

Colleague teachers engaged in lesson study are able to:

Observe the students, listening to how they describe what it is that they are doing and uncovering their reasoning;

Question the students, using open ended questions that encourage exploration and which are not judgemental of the learning;

Ask students to express their ideas in several forms (drawings, diagrams, concept maps and the like);

Introduce students to metalanguage that will enable them to be more reflective about their learning as it happens.

The class teacher, with multiple responsibilities during a given lesson would find it very difficult to undertake such detailed formative assessment of learning. Indeed, it can be argued that rather than undertaking professional learning through attendance at course work, and the like, schools should consider setting up collegial lesson study as a means of improving formative assessment practices. Black & Wiliam (1998) point out that teachers can feel overwhelmed by the sheer enormity of the task that they face when attempting to authentically assess student learning.

In order to make these claims for lesson study as a means of formative assessment of learning this paper now turns to an example which was

derived from the Deeds not Words study reported earlier in this journal.

The Case of the Failing Business:

Context

Three Year 12 classes in a variety of schools participated in a sequence of lessons concerned with employment relations. It was imagined that the students would need to know something of the current context of work choices legislation and the ways in which it impacts upon employment conditions and would need some exposure to the metalanguage associated with the area; this would be available through the text books to which the students had access.

The plan was to use three very different scenarios that groups of students would address in the role of a management consultant team. The scenarios would be constructed on the basis of developing more effective employment relations in a context where things are going awry. They would assess the effectiveness of the current employment relations at the organisation; identify possible reasons for the problems that exist; and, suggest solutions to the problems that exist. Two different groups of students would deal with a given scenario.

Lessons in Action

The first iteration of the lesson conducted at School A commenced with a brief recall of the volatility of the current industrial climate. A list was collected from the students of areas that would require attention for harmonious relations to exist, these were listed in no particular order as: Occupational Health and Safety Issues, Discrimination, Motivation, Recruitment, Participation in Management, Trust, Training and Development, Human Resource Training, Opportunities and Communication.

It was indicated that people would be working on different scenarios and the task was described. The students were encouraged to use the collective intelligence of the group and were advised to think and talk things through prior to answering the questions. It was pointed out that dealing with scenarios is a common HSC question. The teacher’s role was as coach as he posed new questions to the students, for

example, “do you think that Ian (a small business manager) has planned for the future?”18 These questions acted a provocations and not as solutions.

I (as an academic partner to the project) was able to closely observe one group of two students, working on a particular scenario where a business was failing. It was clear that they were highly engaged by the activity. They chose to develop a mind map with two major elements: problems and solutions to demonstrate to me how and what they were seeking to illuminate. They spent time searching for the exact wording that they wanted to employ to capture their ideas – they were mindful of the needs of their audience in this respect. As well as considering short term solutions they also considered the longer term implications of the impact of the loss of confidence among the firm’s clients and the ways in which the firm’s reputation could and should be rebuilt. It was possible to argue that the girls were not merely reiterating what they had encountered in their various text books and class discussions but were justifying their ideas, using them effectively and evaluating their impact. I asked the girls whether they enjoyed working this way and they responded that it was an “underestimated strategy” as it was important to have times when they could listen to each other’s ideas and apply them in concrete situations. During the post-lesson discussion by the team it was resolved that all students should have a copy of each scenario that they could refer to when presentations were being made. It was also important to model this as a case study is a central feature of learning in business studies where the concepts have to be applied in “real-life” situations. It could be seen as a form of problem based learning. It was thought that having two presentations for each scenario had its merits, but it might be helpful if the second presentation recognised the points made earlier and foregrounded new or different insights. Although it was recognised that this would require a high level of skill.

18 In earlier discussions where the lesson was being prepared it was anticipated that taking account of future planning could be an area where the students encountered some difficulties and may require some assistance. This is an example of predicting misunderstanding and making provisions for it.

Students in their self assessment noted that they learned more about reasons for business failure by engaging in analysis of the scenarios and the ways in which employment relations could be improved and made more effective.

Working in teams was overwhelmingly a positive response. As well, a number of respondents pointed to the value of applying theory to the case studies and how this illuminated the various issues. “I learnt something new. Like the way we did things like applying knowledge to a scenario made it better than when we do worksheets with questions about theory.” “… I was forced to think rather than rattle off information”.

One observation was the benefit of having to listen to other students and their ideas. Most students referred to their enhanced knowledge of employment relations and how poor relations can have a negative impact. For example, “how employment relations can affect the business in both negative and positive ways”. “What are the problems businesses face, with regards to employment relations and the various strategies a business can implement to benefit its productivity and achieve its goals.” Several also indicated that they had learned that there was no ‘one size fits all solution’ as one put it “The solutions should be tailored to the business, not just stated generally”. A number also looked at the skills they were learning such as “analysis of problems” and “developing solutions”.

Importantly, the other teachers in the study, who like myself, were intensively interacting with the students could see that they themselves were engaged in formative assessment of learning. They could identify the strengths and weaknesses of the lesson itself, but also the ways in which individual students and groups of students became involved and where the pitfalls lay.

Some Constraining Factors

Earlier in this discussion it was suggested that teachers may be caught up in regimes of practice that may not necessarily be of their own making. This point deserves some elaboration. Of course practice is not a single act but a bundle of activities that take place in a well established social field such as education. It is the practitioner’s actual, daily embodied activity,

including skills, tacit knowledge and presuppositions, as well as her social and professional interaction with others and with material and other resources. What takes place in the practitioner’s head is also moderated by each individual’s professional, social and political history. Professional practice is a many layered and complex phenomenon it is both purpose oriented and norm oriented; it encompasses mental, social and physical activity and codes and is governed by both internal and external factors. Teachers are by no means autonomous agents they are expected to conform to the policies that are laid down, within systems and within schools. Nonetheless, we cannot disregard an understanding that they are guided by the key question “how can I behave in an educated, well-informed moral and ethical manner?” Kemmis and Smith (2007) argue that praxis is shaped and formed by what they have named as practice architectures that are formations that determine how practice will be carried out, these being cultural and discursive preconditions; material and economic preconditions; and social and political preconditions. All these form the building blocks of practice. Schatzki (2005) calls these ‘site ontologies’. He explains that sites can be seen as arenas, as a part of something that exists or occurs. It is a kind of context “that surrounds or immerses something and enjoys powers of determination with respect to it” (p.468). These sites, in both Schatzki’s and Kemmis and Smith’s terms are sites of the social governed by the dispositions and habits of those who both occupy them in the present and in the past, such that the practice in perpetuated, even in some cases solidified.

All this is to point out that to make changes, not only in ways in which formative assessment occurs, but also in teachers’ capacities and willingness to make their practice more public through such strategies as lesson-study is no easy undertaking. It is indeed ironic that the classroom, inhabited as it is by so many people, is nonetheless a very private place. Once the classroom door is closed there is little surveillance on what happens therein. Not only are there the logistic challenges of bringing teachers together to observe teaching and learning in progress there is also a need to consider the strangeness of being watched and

even having one’s strategies questioned. This takes real courage.

That teachers’ professional work has changed over the years is unarguable. Those changing conditions have been neatly summed up by Ballet, Kelchtermans and Loughran (2006) as a form of intensification. They argue that teachers are working harder and smarter, and are being driven by more and more demanding community expectations. They strive to comply with the rules and regulations determined by policy makers and various governing bodies, as well as by the high norms that they commit to themselves. Connell (2007) also reports that teachers are working longer and harder as they take on additional roles and responsibilities in line with changing social conditions. Furthermore, in common with many other workplaces, information and communication technologies with their ongoing convergences are also contributing to intensification. In being truly professional in their practice in general and when undertaking lesson study in particular educators are taking on a formidable role, all the more so when they have an aspiration to challenge a prevailing educational climate that is trending to conservativism.

Conclusion

Notwithstanding these difficulties, if our long term goals, as teachers, are associated with assisting young people to use the knowledge that they are acquiring effectively, then it is important that we have opportunities to observe learning in action. We need to know, not only who has or has not understood, but what has assisted or impeded them. As Wiggins (1998 pp. 86 - 88) asks among others things: Can the students provide complex, credible and insightful theories about the phenomenon they are examining? Can they provide stories, analogies, metaphors or models to explain themselves? Can they overcome common misunderstandings and avoid simplistic, hackneyed or disconnected theorising? Can they explain themselves to others? Do they know the limits of their ideas? These questions cannot fully be addressed outside a major context for learning – the classroom itself. Lesson study can provide us with just such a window into that intense and busy world.

References

Ballet, K., Kelchtermans, G. & Loughran, J. (2006) Beyond intensification towards a scholarship of practice: analyzing changes in teachers’ work lives. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice. 12 (2) pp. 209 229

Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998) Inside the Black Box. London: King’s College School of Education.

Black, P. Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B. & Wiliam, D. (2004) Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the Classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86 (1) pp. 9 – 22.

Chokshi, S. & Fernandez, C. (2004) Challenges to importing Japanese Lesson Study: concerns, misconceptions and nuances. Phi Delta Kappan 85 (7) pp. 520 – 525.

Connell, R. (2007) Teachers. In R. Connell, C. Campbell, M. Vickers, A. Welch, D. Foley & N. Bagnall. Education, Change and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 262 – 278

Fernandez, C. (2002) Learning from Japanese approaches to professional development. The case of lesson study. Journal of Teacher Education, 53 (5) pp. 393 – 405.

Fernandez, C., Cannon, J. & Chokshi, S. (2003) A US-Japan lesson study collaboration reveals critical lenses for examining practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19 pp. 171 – 185.

Fernandez, C. & Yoshida, M. (2004) Lesson Study: A Japanese Approach to Improving Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Fullan, M. (2001) The New Meaning of Educational Change (3rd edition). New York: Teachers College Press.

Groundwater-Smith, S. & Mockler, N. (2003) Learning to Listen: Listening to Learn. Sydney: Centre for Practitioner Research, University of Sydney & MLC School.

Hayes, D., Mills, M., Christie, P. & Lingard, B. (2006) Teachers and Schooling Making a Difference. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Kemmis, S. & Smith, T. (Eds.) (2007) Enabling Praxis: Challenges for Education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Lewis, C. (2002) Lesson Study: A Handbook of Teacher-led Instructional Change. Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools.

Lewis, C., Perry, R., Hurd, J. & O’Connell, M. (2006) Lesson Study Comes of Age in North America. Phi Delta Kappan, December. Pp. 273 - 281

Lewis, C., Perry, R. & Murata, A. (2004) What Constitutes Evidence of Teachers’ Learning from Lesson Study. Paper presented to the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) April 16th.

Lewis, C., Perry, R. & Murata, A. (2006) How Should Research Contribute to Instructional Improvement? The Case of Lesson Study. Educatinal Researcher, 35 (3) pp. 3 – 14.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2005) Formative Assessment: Improving Learning in Secondary Classrooms. OECD Observer November

Paris, S. & Ayres, L. (1994). Becoming Reflective Students and Teachers with Portfolios and Authentic Assessment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Rock, T. & Wilson, C. (2005) Improving teaching through Lesson Study. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32 (1) pp 77 – 92.

Schatzki, T. (2005) Peripheral Vision: The Sites of Organisations. Organisation Studies 26 (3) pp. 465 – 484.

Stigler, J. & Hiebert, J. (1999) The Teaching Gap: Best Ideas from the World’s Teachers for Improving Education in the Classroom. New York: Summit Books.

Valencia, S., Hiebert, E. & Afflerbach, P. (1994). Authentic Reading Assessment: Practices and Possibilities. Newark DE: International Reading Association.

Wang-Iverson, P. (2002) Why Lesson Study? Paper Presented at the Lesson Study Conference. [email protected]

Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative Assessment. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Learning to Manage: Managing to Learn

Learning to Manage: Managing to Learn Taking Professional Standards into Practice ‐ Australian Government Quality Teaching Program (AGQTP) By Sue Grimwood, Shanti Furumurti, Kathy Klados, Alice Leung & Clemma Vendeich. With Susan Groundwater‐Smith

his final paper in relation to lesson study practices is one that provides a demonstration of the ways in which the

process can be adapted to support the professional learning of early career teachers. While not conducted in the context of Economics and Business Education it can furnish us with some insights into the adoption of a lesson study framework as a means of more closely observing students engaged in learning.

Context

The government girls high school in which the action learning project was conducted is a comprehensive secondary school catering to the needs of students, mainly from the Auburn-Granville district of Sydney. The majority of these students come from language backgrounds other than English, these principally being of Lebanese or Turkish origin. The school is a member of the Coalition of Knowledge Building Schools (CKBS)and has been one that has valued and enacted evidence based practice as it continually seeks to investigate student and teacher professional learning (Groundwater-Smith & Mockler 2003; Groundwater-Smith 2006) It has conducted inquiries both through funded programs such as the Priority Schools Program and through employing its own teacher professional learning resources.

As a member of the Coalition of Knowledge Building Schools (CKBS) it is committed to:

• develop and enhance the notion of evidence based practice19;

• develop an interactive community of practice using appropriate technologies;

• make a contribution to a broader professional knowledge base with respect to educational practice;

• build research capability within their own and each other’s schools by engaging both teachers and students in the research processes; and

• share methodologies which are appropriate to practitioner inquiry as a means of transforming teacher professional learning. (Groundwater-Smith & Mockler, 2003, p. 1)

The Coalition is comprised of thirteen schools representing all sectors: Government, Catholic Systemic and Independent and includes a rural and remote school, several regional schools, with the remainder located in Metropolitan Sydney.

While teaching and learning is, of course, a concern for all members of the teaching staff at the school it is of particular importance for early career teachers (ECTs). The project that was undertaken, Learning to Manage: Managing to Learn, served two purposes: the first of these was to meet the requirement of Element 5, Teachers Create and Maintain Safe and Challenging Learning Environments through the Use of 19 This term is one that the Coalition has embraced in its broadest sense, believing it to mean evidence that is gathered in a forsensic rather than adversarial sense (Groundwater-Smith & Dadds, 2004)

T

Classroom Management Skills, as a set of key professional standards in terms of professional competence; these being:

5.2.1 Maintain consistent, fair and equitable interactions with students to establish rapport and lead them to display these same characteristics in their interactions with one another.

5.2.2 Ensure equitable student participation in classroom activities by establishing safe and supportive learning environments.

5.2.3 Implement strategies to establish a positive environment supporting student effort and learning.

5.2.4 Establish orderly and workable learning routines that ensure substantial student time on learning tasks.

5.2.5 Manage student behaviour through engaging students in purposeful and worthwhile learning activities.

5.2.6 Handle classroom discipline problems quickly, fairly and respectfully.

5.2.7 Apply specific requirement to ensure student safety in classrooms.

Particular attention was to be paid to aspect 5.2.5

The second purpose was to familiarise mentors regarding Element 5 of the teaching standards framework, given the recency of its development. It was important that it was recognised that matching expectations and dealing with the complex exigencies of the classroom is a process that requires significant effort and professionalism.

The process

The focus was to be upon the classroom practices of two early career teachers (ECTs) in the key learning areas of Science and PDH&PE. They were to be supported by two mentor teachers who themselves were not members of those KLAs and thus positioned to be able to ask the unexpected question and also observe students that they taught in unfamiliar circumstances. Also the project was supported by the project coordinator and team leader, the Head Teacher Social Science and an academic partner

who had worked with the school in a number of projects. The major vehicle that was employed was a lesson study model (Fernandez & Yoshida, 2004; Lewis, Perry & Hurd, 2004; Rock & Wilson, 2005). The process was seen to offer to participants, both ECTs and their mentors, means of constructing and reconstructing their perceptions of practices that contribute to a supportive learning environment where students engage in purposeful learning activities. Lesson study was seen to create conditions for reflection and collaborative investigation in that it requires time to practice, experiment and analyse teaching episodes.

Following the admonition by Lewis, Perry & Hurd (2004) it was seen as important that lesson study means “far more than just walking through a set of specific activities” (2004:18). The process was to be one where individual ECTs worked in supportive environments with their mentors. Also, significantly, they would meet together to discuss emerging issues in relation to both planning and implementation. Mentors would further assist in providing additional contextual detail, given that the setting was a challenging and unfamiliar one.

Because the proposal recognised the reciprocal nature of the professional learning of the ECTs and the mentors themselves, the initial meeting, where focussing and goal setting would take place, was crucial. A series of lessons that fitted into the normal classroom practices were planned; and a concept map of aspect 5.2.5 developed in terms of what it might look like, feel like and sound like. The process was primarily facilitated by the Head Teacher Social Science with the academic partner to the project, acting as a critical friend.

Six lessons formed the core of the lesson study. In some cases, using the study processes, lessons were repeated. However, the intention here was to build on the more generic learnings that arise from each lesson in relation to Element 5 (in particular aspect 5.2.5) taking the learning forward then to the next lesson. In other words the curriculum content of the lesson was not necessarily repeated. This is consistent with a focus upon managing the classroom.

A number of interesting issues arose as a result of the reflections of the ECT in the area of PDH&PE and her mentor. For example, during a Year 11 basketball lesson several students were non-participants; they were out of uniform, had no uniform, were feeling sick, it was too cold. A discussion ensued regarding their avoidance of the activity. Partly it was seen as cultural but also because they were embarrassed at their lack of skill. The ECT believed that they may have initially joined the elective because they believed it would not be too demanding. She indicated that her initial teacher education had presented an idealised version of student engagement with sport and recreation and that her own background as a swimmer and water polo player made it difficult for her to reconcile with such reluctance and resistance.

An important tool that was employed in the study was that of systematically photographing classroom practices (Banks, 2007). As Thomson asserts “ Researchers who are interested in the lives and experiences of children and young people have been drawn to visual research in part because many children and young people themselves are interested in images. They like working with visual tools and media: photography, drawing, cartooning, multi-media productions and film-making are already part of their image-saturated everyday lives” (2008:11). Consequently, digital photographs were taken at regular intervals during the lessons to be studied and were discussed both with the students, and with the mentors and study group. A particular interpretive template was used: I have observed (describe what is happening in the classroom) I think (interpret what you saw) and I wonder (list questions that are implied by your thinking) supplemented by the responder writing about a critical moment that was identified during the lesson. This strategy was one that was developed from an earlier technique adopted by the Deeds not Words project reported upon earlier in this journal. It is an example of the cross fertilisation of ideas, project to project.

The Learning to Manage, Managing to Learn project was designed to build capacity in a number of different directions including: ongoing support for ECTs; developing mentoring skills within the school; and, continuing to pay attention

to student feedback regarding their experiences in and beyond the classroom. To this end the academic partner conducted focus group inquiries with students from the classes of the two ECTs. Focus group discussions are a powerful means not only through which individual responses can be collected, but also the interactions can act as a stimulus to thinking and reflecting upon questions (Barbour 2007). Students spoke of the actual ambience of the school with its hard surfaces and institutional appearances. Among other things they also referred to overall behaviour management policies within the school that appeared to vary department to department. This observation led to a very fruitful discussion in the lesson study team regarding strategies such as Glaser steps – learning, respect and safety.

When returning to their mind maps at the close of the project it was clear that much professional learning had ensued not only in relation to developing a productive and safe learning environment but in ways that it can be sustained and enriched. The mentor teachers, in their mind maps also indicated that they have learned further strategies in differentiating learning in the classroom and employing digital technologies.

Outcomes

The project was reported upon and offered as a case study at the sharing days of the AGQTP. At this conference attention was paid to the value of ongoing professional conversation that recognised that it is not possible to “get it right the first time” but offers to ECTs and their mentors a time and space to analyse the strengths as well as the weaknesses of specific practices. The conference recognised, just as the school has, that each individual teacher will have different needs and that “one size” certainly does not fit all. It was clearly indicated that the professional teaching standards, and in particular Element 5, are the responsibility for the whole school.

In many ways this project can be seen to be ongoing. The school has a committed and dedicated staff; however, it continues to also draw in teachers new to the profession who will require support in working in quite challenging circumstances. The school is now included in the Priority Action Schools Program (PASP) which

will provide it with specific resources to address some of these challenges.

For this reason it was thought worthwhile to have a final debriefing, although the project itself had been completed to the satisfaction of the AGQTP20. An unexpected outcome was seen to be the continuing development of the teacher mentors; one of whom reported upon the extent to which the project reminded her of the need to structure teaching episodes carefully, allowing for the development of a sound introduction, substance of the lesson and a carefully constructed closure such that the teaching and learning were clear and explicit for all. Another welcomed working with an ECT in Science who was particularly skilled in the use of information and communication technologies and employed the merits of the interactive whiteboard in a creative and productive fashion. It was also indicated that, unlike in the experience of supervision in the practicum in initial teacher education, the mentors actually were more directly engaged in the teaching and learning.

An unexpected and unintended outcome was the attention that needed to be paid to the use of teaching assistants (TAs) in the classroom. It became clear that using the skills of the TAs was itself a skill that needed to be learned. There are many issues here, including negotiating the status relationships between new and young teachers and older and more experienced adults in the classroom. The lesson study format allowed the mentor teachers to identify this as a challenge and discuss it on subsequent occasions, taking into consideration ways in which the TAs might be included in the planning in more profitable ways.

Some of the tools that were used were also examined, in particular the use of photography. What proved interesting was not only what the photographs revealed (there are examples in the report to the AGQTP) but the impact that they made upon the dynamic of the class. For example, some students could not be photographed because permission had not been granted, this contributed to the experience of an “in-group” and an “out-group”; alerting staff to the 20 “Completed” in this sense means that the terms and conditions of the project had been satisfied; although the engagement of the ECTs and their mentors did not stop here.

effect of inquiry methods upon student interaction. Nonetheless, the photographs did act as a catalyst for discussion about the room arrangements, student engagement and teacher mobility in the classroom.

The ECTs believed the project and its resources, in particular the use of lesson study, provided them with significant material that they would be able to present as evidence of attaining professional competence standards.

Looking to the future it was felt that the work should clearly continue, and that the funding and timeframes had allowed for planning and debriefing, especially as a team, rather than just as the ECT/Mentor dyad. It had assisted in identifying some of the very real challenges faced in an environment where language competency and schooling experience can be so varied.21

In conclusion giving more attention to the needs of ECTs has benefits for the whole school as an intelligent organization that goes beyond survival and moves towards being a thriving and resilient place for learning among teachers and their students alike.

References:

Banks, M. (2007) Using Visual Data in Qualitative Research. London: Sage

Barbour, R. (2007) Doing Focus Groups. London: Sage

Fernandez, C. & Yoshida, M. (2004) Lesson Study: A Japanese Approach to Improving Mathematic Teaching and Learning. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Groundwater-Smith, S., & Mockler, N. with Vecchiett, S. (2003) Holding a Mirror to Professional Learning. Report presented to the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education and the New Zealand Association for Research in Education, Auckland, 29th November – 3rd December

Groundwater-Smith, S. & Dadds, M. (2004) Critical Practitioner Inquiry: Towards Responsible Professional Communities of Practice. In C. Day & J.

21 While it has not been detailed advice was given to the academic partner regarding the number of students who have come to the school from troubling refugee situations where both trauma and interrupted schooling have played their part.

Sachs International Handbook on the Continuing Professional Development of Teachers. Maidenhead: Open University Press, pp. 238 – 263.

Groundwater-Smith, S. (2006) The Coalition of Knowledge Building Schools: A market place for developing and sharing education practice. Report presented to the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Warwick University, September.

Lewis, C., Perry, R. & Hurd, J. (2004) A deeper look at lesson study. Educational Leadership, February, 61 (5) pp. 18 – 22.

Rock, T. & Wilson, C. (2005) Improving teaching through lesson study. Teacher Education Quarterly, Winter, 32 (1) pp. 77 – 92.

the ebe journal - economics and business educators … ebe journal journal of the economics and...

Documents