Lessons learned from using "Lesson Study" with pre-service teachers Christopher S Hlas UW-Eau...

Lessons learned from using "Lesson Study" with pre-service teachers

Christopher S HlasUW-Eau Claire, Mathematics education

[email protected]

Preservice lesson study (WMC, 2010)

Overview

1. Lesson study background2. LS experiment #13. LS experiment #24. General conclusions, plans for #3


Background: Teaching Gap

• Circa 2005• Teaching Gap (1999), by Stigler &Hiebert– Comparisons of USA, Japan, Germany– Teaching is a cultural activity– Lesson study model of PD in Japan


Lesson study model

1. Research2. Plan3. Teach (w/ observers)4. Reflect5. Goto #1

Could this model work with preservice teachers?


LS experiment #1

• Preservice math methods at research university (n=23, practicum and/or methods)

• Colleague’s class, focused on reform methods• Adapted LS model for logistic constraints:– Read Teaching Gap for motivation– Three lessons in one semester (mini-cycles)– Peer teaching – 4-column lesson planning


4-column lesson template

Steps of lesson: Learning activities& Key questions

Student activities and expected responses

Teacher’s response to students&Key aspects

Goal &Methods evaluation

Adapted Lewis 2002

Key lesson features or other distinctive information

Title of lesson,Grade/content area

Course number & title; Standards

Student names

Objectives: Materials: References used: Time needed:Prior knowledge expected:


First lesson (5 wks)

1. Develop GSP lesson (in pairs)– Learn GSP– Draft reviewed by peers and instructor– Taught to peers– Peer/instructor feedback– Revise lesson for summative feedback


Second lesson (2 wks)

2. Problem-solving focus based on reform textbooks– 4-5 “teachers” in a group– Researched lesson, curriculum, assessment tools,

historical information regarding curriculum– 30 minutes peer instruction, 15 mins debrief– Revised plans submitted for summative feedback


Third lesson (methods, 2wks)

3. Problem-solving 2 related non-trivial problem– Random pairs– One person taught to small group, other recorded

observation– “Students” gave feedback– Week later, students switch roles to new small group– Student feedback– Revision then submitted for summative feedback

(practicum worked with cooperating teachers to teach one lesson in schools)


Survey sample questions (n=13)

1. Describe your strongest experience with the four-column lesson plan.

2. Which columns were most helpful, and in what way?3. Which columns were most difficult to construct? Why?4. What might be differences for your students between using the

four-column plan or a traditional single column plan?5. Did you collaborate with a peer or cooperating teacher on the

plan? What were the comments of that person on the four-column plan?

6. If you could repeat the lesson preparation and teaching you did, what hindsights would you find useful in writing a more complete four-column plan?


Example responses

• “The teacher will be more concerned w/ the student's understanding of the lesson w/ the 4 column plan, than finishing everything in the objective”

• “it really helps in the development of a lesson to get feedback and different viewpoints of how things might unfold in the classroom”

• “I find the 4-column plan clumsy and bothersome. I would only use it if I had to”


Takeaways

• Students focused on student thinking• Students found benefits in collaboration and

feedback• Students thought 4-col LP was recommended

for daily planning• 3 mini-cycles?


LS experiment #2

• Circa 2008• Preservice methods at teaching university• My class, 2nd time teaching methods• 4 groups of students, 3-4 in group• 10 weeks, meet twice a week


Planning

• Concept map big math ideas, choose concept• Research concepts– What are big ideas?– Find research articles on student thinking– Compare sample lessons (reform/trad)

• 3 weeks for completion, mostly outside class


Lesson one

• Create lesson– Topic w/ brief background research– Objectives– Using 4-column lesson plan

• 4 weeks to plan• Game lesson to another group while observed

(S/T ratio issues)• Reflections due next class with debrief


Lesson two

• Give revised lesson one week after last lesson• Reflection due next class along• Comparison of L1 and L2 also due


Anecdotal observations

• Students didn’t understand 4-column LP• Teaching to peers was limiting• Research component good, but difficulty

narrowing topic

• Logistic constraints


Future plans

• More scaffolding earlier (motivate LS using TG)• More scaffolding with 4-column lesson

planning (develop with students instead of give to students)

• Teach to actual students (first/second, logistics)

• More time for revision?


Conclusions?

• "single lesson contains many (if not all) of the critical components that teachers must consider to improve instruction"

(Sims, 2009, p. 725)


Q/A & Resources

• Matthews, M., Hlas, C.S., &Finken, T. (2009 March). Using four-column lesson planning and Lesson Study with pre-service teachers. Mathematics Teacher, 102, 504-508.

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

• Sims, L. & Walsh, D. (2009). Lesson study with preservice teachers: Lessons from lessons. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 724-733.

• Stiger, J.W. &Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world's teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press

Lessons learned from using "Lesson Study" with pre-service teachers Christopher S Hlas UW-Eau...

Documents

Transcript of Lessons learned from using "Lesson Study" with pre-service teachers Christopher S Hlas UW-Eau...