01.Professional Learning and Development
Paper
Professional Learning of Individual Teachers in Lesson Study
Dayana Balgabekova
University of Glasgow, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Balgabekova, Dayana
Lesson Study (LS) is being utilised globally as a powerful model for teacher professional learning and development. This structured approach to teacher professional learning is based on collaborative group work of teachers researching their teaching practice through joint planning, teaching, observation and discussion of classroom lessons (Dudley, 2014). Having originated in Japan more than a century ago (e.g., Stigler & Hiebert, 1999; Dudley, 2014; Fujii, 2014), LS is becoming popular among teachers and teacher educators worldwide. Elliott (2014) forecasts that as LS is utilised in different contexts worldwide it will shape up in different ways. Though numerous studies report on the benefits of LS in relation to teacher learning, there is still a lack of understanding of how the learning of individual teachers is shaped in LS. More needs to be known about the factors that influence professional learning experiences of individual teachers in the context of LS. This study aims to explore how the learning of individual teachers is shaped in LS looking at multiple level factors, which include individual, group and school factors.
The theoretical framework for this study is based on Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory (1978), which emphasises human learning as a social process and looks at how the societal context contributes to an individual’s development, and on Valsiner’s Zone Theory (1997) that redefines Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD) by suggesting two additional zones, the zone of free movement (ZFM) and the zone of promoted actions (ZPA) that address the roles of context and the goals and actions of an individual. More specifically, Valsiner’s Zone Theory adaptation by Goos (2013) was applied in this study. Goos (2013) interpreted the ZPD as “a set of possibilities for development of new knowledge, beliefs, goals and practices created by the teacher’s interaction with the environment, the people in it, and the resources it offers” (p. 523), the ZFM as the possibilities and constraints within a teacher’s professional environment, and the ZPA as professional activities that a teacher can engage in to develop professionally (both formally and informally). In this study, with reference to Valsiner (1997) and Goos (2013), the ZPD was re-interpreted and defined as the set of personal characteristics of a teacher that can enable or hinder a teacher’s learning experience in LS. As LS is recognised as a collaborative learning approach and teachers work and interact in a group with their colleagues to improve their practices the ZPA was referred to as the LS group context and dynamic. While teachers work within their LS groups, they also function within the wider school context, which can either facilitate or constrain the learning experiences of teachers in their LS groups. Therefore, in this study, the ZFM was defined as the school professional environment. The proposed adaptation of Valsiner’s Zone Theory in the context of LS allowed to explore the individual and environmental factors that can shape individual teachers’ learning experiences in LS considering the collaborative aspect of LS with the focus on an individual teacher.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe study employed an interpretive case study approach exploring experiences and perspectives of twelve teachers involved in four LS groups in two secondary schools in Kazakhstan. The teachers participated in focus group discussions (FGD) and individual semi-structured interviews. Additionally, the participants were invited to share a video recording capturing their lesson planning and post-observation discussion within their LS groups. Based on these video recordings, indirect observation notes were taken. Some teachers also shared their LS artefacts (e.g., lesson plans, reflective reports). Both the video recording notes and the LS artefacts shared by the teachers contributed to the development of narrative descriptions of the teachers’ LS experiences and work processes within their LS groups and served as the sources of triangulation in relation to teachers responses obtained through FGDs and interviews. The data gathered via FGDs and interviews were coded and analysed through emerging themes relevant to individual, group and school factors facilitating or hindering individual teachers’ learning experiences in LS.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe findings demonstrate that the learning of individual teachers in LS appears to be shaped by three aspects: a teacher’s personal characteristics (e.g., a teacher’s background (educational and professional), perception of LS, LS experience, motivation to conduct LS, potential for change, professional goals), the LS group context and dynamic (e.g., the quality of interaction among the group members, the level of established trust, personal compatibility, group leader’s role, group learning atmosphere), and the school professional environment (e.g., school Lesson Study policy, teacher certification (attestation) and school leadership approach to LS). The findings show that teacher learning has a complex multicausal and multidimensional nature and to understand this complexity it is necessary to consider the interaction and interrelation between the teacher, the learning activity (LS in this study) and the school environment. Drawing on the personal and contextual factors within the individual characteristics of a teacher, LS group and school, identified from the learning experiences of twelve teachers from four LS groups at two secondary schools in Kazakhstan, this study proposes Individual Teacher’s Professional Learning in LS Model (developed based on Valsiner’s Zone Theory), which offers a framework for capturing and understanding these fragmented factors together.
The findings of this study will contribute to research in the field of LS, specifically in relation to a professional learning model for teachers within secondary education, by providing a better understanding of the factors that facilitate or constrain individual teacher learning within LS group process. Furthermore, the study gives a deeper insight into how interaction within a LS group influences individual teachers and their professional learning and development which will be of interest to teachers, teacher educators and educational scholars in Kazakhstan and internationally.
ReferencesDudley, P. (2014). How Lesson Study works and why it creates excellent learning and teaching. In P. Dudley (Ed.), Lesson Study: Professional learning for our time (pp. 1-28). Routledge.
Elliott, J. (2014). Lesson study, learning theory, and the cultural script of teaching. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 3(3).
Fujii, T. (2014). Implementing Japanese lesson study in foreign countries: misconceptions revealed. Mathematics Teacher Education and development, 16(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3316/aeipt.205654
Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Valsiner, J. (1997). Culture and the development of children's action: A theory of human development. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the development of children, 23(3), pp.34-41.
01.Professional Learning and Development
Paper
Lesson Study as a Teachers Learning
Aizhan Mansurova, Nursultan Japashov
Nazarbayev Intellectual School, Kazakhstan
Presenting Author: Mansurova, Aizhan
Lesson study (LS) is a pedagogical approach that characterizes a special form of research in action in the classroom, aimed at improving knowledge in the field of teaching practice (Dudley, 2015). Lesson studies involve teams of teachers collaborating in planning, teaching, observation, analysis of learning and teaching, and documenting their findings (Rock & Wilson, 2005).
Nowadays, in Kazakhstan, large educational reforms are taking place. The main purpose of these reforms is to improve teaching and learning by implementing the best educational practices of the world’s educational system. To expedite this process, since 2008, the Kazakhstan government has established new types of experimental schools, named Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools, to test the best foreign educational practices for the Kazakhstani population. Since then, Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools are successfully implementing Lesson Study and shared their experience with all secondary schools in the country (Wilson & Sharimova, 2019). A recent study by Khokhotva, (2018) shows that LS is gaining momentum in Kazakhstan and getting popular among secondary school teachers.
According to the rising tendency of Lesson Study in Kazakhstan, we considered it necessary to contribute to the development of this field and show teachers’ attitudes and beliefs toward the implementation of Lesson Study in their practice, by surveying them with the use of a validated tool for Kazakhstan population (Abdulbakioglu et al, 2022). For this purpose, we put the following research questions:
What are the beliefs and attitudes of teachers toward LS?
Do the teachers’ beliefs and attitudes differ toward LS according to gender?
Do the teachers’ beliefs and attitudes differ toward LS across discipline groups?
Do the teachers’ beliefs and attitudes differ toward LS according to their teaching experiences?
Do the teachers’ beliefs and attitudes differ toward LS according to the number of conducted and participated LS?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of LS for teaching and students’ learning?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedHere mixed methods were applied, through an online survey, to analyze the secondary school teachers’ attitudes and beliefs toward LS. Overall 76 teachers responded to the survey (24 were males, 52 were females). To analyze the differences between groups, we grouped our sample as follows: we separately investigated the responses of Social Science Teachers (24 teachers) and Science and Math Teachers (52 teachers). According to the work experience, we divided our sample into three groups: the first group of teachers who have 1-5 years of work experience, a second group with 6-15 years of work experience, and a third group of teachers with more than 15 years of work experience. According to the number of conducting LS and participating in LS, we also divided teachers into six sub-groups: in the first two sub-groups teachers who conducted or participated in LS less than three times; in the second two sub-groups teachers who conducted or participated in LS between 4 and 6 times; in the last two sub-groups teachers who conducted or participated in LS more than seven times.
In this study, we used an instrument that was originally developed by Abdulbakioglu et. al, (2022) to investigate the teachers’ and students’ perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs about Open Lessons. Open Lesson similar practice to LS, Open Lesson is widely known in Post Soviet Union Countries as a demonstrative lesson. We adopted this survey to LS with keeping the original meaning of its items.
The survey includes 25 items with quantitative responses, a set of 5‐point Likert scale scaled questions (1 = “Strongly Agree,” 5 = “Strongly Disagree”), with three dimensions: a) teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about LS and teaching (14 items), b) attitudes and beliefs about LS and students’ learning (6 items), c) and attitudes and beliefs about LS and professional collaboration with colleagues (5 items).
At the end of the survey open-ended questions such as: What is your favorite topic in your subject that you conduct the LS on?; What kind of preparations do you do before an LS?; What are the advantages of LS for your teaching and your student’s learning?; What are the disadvantages of LS for your teaching and your student’s learning? - were asked by teachers.
Depending on variable size, for the second and third research questions, we used an independent sample t-test, and for the fourth and fifth research questions, we applied the ANOVA test. The rest data were analyzed qualitatively.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsGenerally, according to descriptive statistics, teachers’ attitudes and beliefs toward LS for all dimensions of the survey (Teachers’ attitudes and beliefs toward teaching LS, Teachers’ attitudes and beliefs toward students learning during LS, and Teachers’ attitudes and beliefs toward professional collaboration with colleagues) is positive (Mean value > 2.5).
According to our second research question, the results showed that females have more positive attitudes than males regarding professional collaboration during LS.
For the third research question, we only found that Science subject teachers have a more positive attitude toward students learning during LS than non- Science subject teachers.
As a fourth research question, we searched the difference between teachers’ attitudes and beliefs toward LS according to their work experience. In this case, we did not find any significant differences between groups. It means that all teachers regardless of their work experience have positive attitudes toward LS.
According to the fifth research question data analysis showed that teachers who participated in LS more than seven times believe that they teach better at LS compared with those who participated in LS less than three times. For the other groups, we could not find any differences.
Analysis of the qualitative part of the research has shown that, generally, teachers have a positive attitude toward the implementation of LS in their practice. Most of them indicated that during LS they use different teaching methodologies and it helps to better represent the content of the subject and positively affects students’ understanding of the topic. Although, some teachers do not fully agree with the opinion of their colleagues and noted some negative sides of the Lesson Study in their qualitative response. In their opinion, preparation for Lesson study is time-consuming and does not reflect every day’s lesson context.
ReferencesAbdulbakioglu, M., Kolushpayeva, A., Balta, N., Japashov, N., & Bae, C. L. (2022). Open Lesson as a Means of Teachers’ Learning. Education Sciences, 12(10), 692.
Dudley, P. (2015). Lesson study. Professional learning for our time.
Khokhotva, O. (2018). Lesson Study in Kazakhstan: case study of benefits and barriers for teachers. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 7(4), 250-262.
NIS, 2023. Retrieved from web site: https://cep.nis.edu.kz/o-programme/?lang=en
Rock, T. C., & Wilson, C. (2005). Improving teaching through lesson study. Teacher education quarterly, 32(1), 77-92.
Wilson, E., & Sharimova, A. (2019). Conceptualizing the implementation of Lesson Study in Kazakhstan within a social theory framework. International journal for lesson and learning studies.
01.Professional Learning and Development
Paper
A Mixed-Methods Research Synthesis of Classroom Action Research on Teaching in Taiwan
Pi-Ju Wu
National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan
Presenting Author: Wu, Pi-Ju
Although teaching focuses on the activities teachers perform, its purposes and outcomes involve changes occurring on the part of students (Svensson & Doumas, 2013). The complexity and uncertainty involved in teaching generate innumerable problems occurring in the context of classroom environments. It gives the impetus to solve those problems through research, especially action research. Action research as a democratic and participative orientation to knowledge creation brings together action and reflection, theory and practice, in the pursuit of practical solutions to issues of pressing concerns (Bradbury, 2015).
Classroom action research (CAR) can be based on diverse research perspectives and take on different forms. The core feature of it is the idea that there should be an intimate, two-way relationship between research and some form of practical activity‒such that the focus of inquiry arises out of, and its results feed directly back into, the activity concerned, in a spiral of improvement (Hammersley, 2013, pp. 85-86). Therefore, CAR is practice- and reflection- oriented. It means that teachers engage in action research aiming to explore methods of solving real classroom problems in order to improve their pedagogical practice. As a result, CAR connects meaningfully with student learning and potentially becomes an effective strategy for school improvement.
CAR also closely relates to teacher professional development. Flynn and Bruce (2019) paralleled the characteristics of teacher professional learning with action research structure. They both emphasize evidence-informed practice, the need to balance teacher voice and the bigger context of school goals, and the need for supportive and engaged leadership. Therefore, CAR has been regarded as one of the most powerful strategies for teacher professional development. It can help teachers develop new knowledge directly related to their classrooms, promote reflective teaching and thinking, and expand teachers’ pedagogical repertoire (Johnson, 2019, pp. 258-259). It is becoming increasingly known as an approach that encourages teachers to be in control of their own lives and contexts (McNiff, 2010). An issue related to the connection between CAR and teacher professional development is concerned with what types of knowledge CAR constructs. CAR produces living knowledge or practical knowledge that is useful to people in the everyday conduct of their lives (Reason & Bradbury, 2001, pp. 1-2) and insider knowledge that is not accessible to traditional researchers coming from outside (Somekh, 2006).
Since 2022 the EU Academy has offered a self-study module “Improving Classroom Practice through Action Research” for classroom practitioners to reflect on and innovate their teaching practices and analyze the effects of their innovation (European Commission, 2022). In Taiwan, the government has launched a series of curricular and instructional reforms entering the 21st century. The Grade 1-9 Curriculum Guidelines had been gradually implemented since the academic year 2002 in order to meet national development needs and public expectations (Ministry of Education, 2008). Then, the Curriculum Guidelines of 12-Year Basic Education have been implemented since 2019 in response to the emerging social issues such as the low birth rate, population aging, diversified interactions between ethnic groups, growing awareness of social justice, and so on (Ministry of Education, 2014). Both guidelines encourage teachers to engage in diverse professional development activities such as action research and to conduct innovative teaching experiments or action research with funds and assistance provided by relevant competent authorities. Thus, the number of CAR on teaching is quite large in Taiwan. The rise in the number of CAR results in the need for knowledge synthesis in order to provide more convincing evidence for practitioners and policymakers. However, the findings of those studies produced as a whole have been less known so far. The purpose of this study was to synthesize the findings of CAR on teaching in Taiwan.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedA mixed-methods research synthesis (MMRS) is a type of systematic review aimed at the integration of results from both qualitative and quantitative studies in a shared domain of empirical research (Sandelowski et al., 2006). Since qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods research designs are appropriate for and all types of data can be used in action research (Mertler, 2022), the findings of classroom action research can be integrated through MMRS.
After formulating the research questions which focused on what findings of classroom action research on teaching were generated in Taiwan, searching for and retrieving action research studies focusing on topics including curriculum development, teaching strategies, subject matters, and instructional media in grades K-12 in Taiwan and published in academic journals in English or traditional Chinese between Jan. 1, 2002, and Dec. 31, 2020 were performed. Moreover, the author, or at least one of the authors, should be a teacher in grades K-12. A total of 188 classroom action research studies were retrieved and met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Among those CAR studies, 104 studies (55.5%) were conducted in elementary school; 41 studies (21.8%) were conducted in junior high school; 27 studies (14.4%) were conducted in kindergarten’ and only 16 studies (8.5%) were conducted in high school. The subjects/domains involved in the studies were diverse, such as integrative activities, mathematics, arts, Mandarin, and social studies. Moreover, 83 studies (44.1%) collected qualitative and quantitative data, 75 studies (39.9%) collected qualitative data, 11 studies (5.9%) collected quantitative data, and the data types of 19 studies (10.1%) were not identified. The duration of action plans was 5-8 weeks in 40 studies (21.2%) and 9-12 weeks in 30 studies (16.0%); however, 33 studies (17.6%) did not mention the duration of action projects. A large portion of the studies (77.7%) used innovative teaching as the action strategies, which included experiential learning, cooperative learning, picture book reading, and so on.
Joint displays are visual displays that are used to integrate quantitative and qualitative data during data collection, analysis, and interpretation. (McCrudden et al., 2021). Although there has been limited use of joint displays in mixed methods reviews, they exemplify an effective visual representation of integrated datasets (Younas et al., 2021). In this study, the side-by-side joint displays were used to represent merging by arraying findings of qualitative-, quantitative-, and mixed-methods-oriented CAR studies next to each other.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe reasons why teachers conducted CAR related to factors of teaching, teacher, student, and policy. That teachers tried solving problems in the classroom and increasing their teaching effectiveness through action research was found in 73 qualitative-, 11 quantitative-, and 83 mixed-methods-oriented studies. Additionally, that teachers’ needs for professional development, application of professional development knowledge, and self-identification, students’ psychological and physiological growth, adolescent subculture, and change in educational policies motivated teachers to conduct CAR was mainly presented in the qualitative- and mixed-methods-oriented action research.
The effects of action plans on students were presented in the qualitative results of 153 studies and the quantitative results of 98 studies. While the quantitative results provided more information related to effects on students’ academic achievement, cognitive competence, and physical health, the qualitative results provided more information related to effects on students’ affective competence, social competence, motor skills, and behavioral performance. The action plans also increased teachers’ general competence and behavioral, affective, cognitive, and social dimensions of pedagogical expertise in the qualitative results of 52 studies. A small portion of qualitative and quantitative results showed that action plans had positive impacts on parent-child relationships, classroom climate, and students’ peer relationships.
Teacher knowledge is mainly generated by mixed-methods- and qualitative- oriented studies. The major types of teacher knowledge included pedagogical content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, teacher personal knowledge, learner knowledge, context knowledge, curriculum knowledge, knowledge of teaching purposes, values, and beliefs, research knowledge, and content knowledge. The CAR studies produced more pedagogical content knowledge related to how to teach mathematics, arts, students with disabilities, picture books, and so on than other types of teacher knowledge did. The research knowledge found as a distinct type of teacher knowledge but not generally regarded as practical knowledge, came from teachers’ experience of participating in action research and showed the connection between academia and practice.
ReferencesBradbury, H. (2015). Introduction: How to situate and define action research. In H. Bradbury (Ed.), The Sage handbook of action research (pp. 1-11.). Sage.
European Commission. (2022). Teachers as Researchers – Improving classroom practice through action research. European Union. https://academy.europa.eu/courses/teachers-as-researchers-improving-classroom-practice-through-action-research-1658151350
Flynn, T., & Bruce, C. D. (2019). Action research as professional learning for educators. In C. A. Mertler (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of action research in education (pp. 273-294). Wiley Blackwell.
Hammersley, M. (2013). The myth of research-based policy & practice. Sage.
Johnson, A. (2019). Action research for teacher professional development. In C. A. Mertler (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of action research in education (pp. 253272). Wiley Blackwell.
McCrudden, M. T, Marchand, G., Schutz, P. A. (2021). Joint displays for mixed methods research in psychology. Methods in Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metip.2021.100067
McNiff, J. (2010). Action research for professional development: Concise advice for new (and experienced) action researchers. Author.
Mertler, C. A. (2022). Introduction to educational research. Sage.
Ministry of Education. (2008). General Guidelines of Grades 1-9 Curriculum for Elementary and Junior High School Education. Author.
Ministry of Education. (2008). Curriculum Guidelines of 12-Year Basic Education. Author.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Introduction: Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 1-14). Sage.
Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., & Barroso, J. (2006). Defining and Designing mixed research synthesis studies. Research in the Schools, 13, 29. Retrieve from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2809982/pdf/nihms151622.pdf
Somekh, B. (2006). Action research: A methodology for change and development. Open University Press.
Svensson, L., & Doumas, K. (2013). Contextual and analytic qualities of research methods exemplified in research on teaching. Qualitative Inquiry, 19, 441-450. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1077800413482097
Younas, A., Inayat, S., & Sundus, A. (2021). Joint displays for qualitative-quantitative synthesis in mixed method reviews. Research Method in Medicine & Health Sciences, 2(3), 91-101. https://doi.org/10.1177/2632084320984374
|
