Given the publication of the EEF's evaluation report on Lesson Study, it seems sensible to take a slightly broader perspective on Lesson Study, so this week's post is by Sarah Selezynov - Programme Leader - Bespoke Leadership Programmes; IOE - Learning & Leadership; UCL Institute of Education. Sarah has extensive knowledge of Lesson Study and is currently organising two lesson study events in December - with Professor Akihiko Takahashi - to explore the Japanese approach to problem solving in mathematics, lesson study as a tool to improve teaching and learning, and the role of the koshi.
As a school leader who is interested in Japanese lesson study
(JLS), you are probably reading the debate on this blog with interest – Should
I or shouldn’t I? Will it make a
difference to my pupils in my school?
How can I be sure that the time and effort my school invests in this
will pay dividends for pupil learning?
And you are right to be cautious.
And yet, I qualify this warning by saying that I believe that JLS
has great potential for teachers and pupils.
JLS aligns with the wider research base on effective teacher
professional development: it focuses on learning and not performance, begins
with an end goal, engages teachers in and with research over an extended time
frame, in collaborative groups. And our
research has shown strong evidence of improved teacher practice and student
learning (Godfrey et al, forthcoming).
So why the warning? Because
borrowing an education policy from another country and expecting it to simply
work here as it does there, doesn’t really work – it rarely has. Pasi Sahlberg (who is not against global
borrowing per se) describes how a ‘network of interrelated factors –
educational, political and cultural - …function differently in different
situations’ (2011: 6) meaning that we cannot be sure that any one educational
approach will function in the same way when it is translated from one country
to the next.
So what do we need to
consider when attempting to use JLS as an approach to teacher professional
development in Britain?
First and foremost, we need to understand the cultural differences
between Japan and Great Britain and how this might affect teachers’ responses
to JLS.
Hofstede (2010) categorises
cultural differences along five dimensions, using a 0-100 ranking. And on three of these rankings, Great Britain
has a very different score to Japan:
- Uncertainty
avoidance (Gap:
Japan 11, Great Britain 68.5)
‘The
extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or
unknown situations' (2010: 191).
The lengthy, meticulous and
detailed planning of JLS, including exploring known evidence through kyozai kenkyu, and the significant time spent predicting
student responses, are all attempts to avoid any unanticipated events in the
research lesson. British teachers are very likely to be much less averse
to taking risks in lessons and to therefore plan in less detail and not see the
need for kyozai kenkyu.
Uncertainty avoidance
cultures also feel a greater need for protocols and rules, which may explain
the formal and rigid processes of JLS. It is highly likely that English
teachers would not see the need for this level of formality and would want to
deviate from LS protocols.
Uncertainty avoidance leads
to a greater tendency to believe in and revere expertise: hence the valued role
of the koshi or ‘expert other’ in JLS. British teachers
engaged in LS are likely to value practice expertise as much as academic
expertise, and less likely to see the need for a koshi.
- Individualism
versus collectivism (Gap:
Japan 36, Great Britain 3)
Individualistic
societies are those where 'ties between individuals are loose: everyone is
expected to look after him- or herself and his or her immediate family' (2010:
92). In collectivist societies, 'people …. are integrated into strong,
cohesive in-groups, which throughout people's lifetime continue to protect them
in exchange for unquestioning loyalty' (2010: 92).
Great Britain is a highly individualistic society: occupational
mobility is higher, teachers are managed as individuals and feedback on
performance is given directly.
This difference is reflected in the English performance management
system for teachers, the hiring and firing based on performance judgements, and
performance feedback being given directly to the teacher after a lesson
observation. Japan is a collectivist society: occupational mobility is
lower, teachers are managed collectively and it would not be productive to the
group to give direct feedback to an individual. JLS has evolved as a way of giving feedback
on performance through the group, with the lesson plan as a collaborative
product. We might predict that teachers
in Great Britain would shy away from the live observation element of JLS,
fearing a judgement on their individual professional performance, which may
affect job security. Other collaborative aspects may also be challenging to implement in
Great Britain, such as committing extended amounts of time to collaborative
lesson planning process and working towards a whole school shared research
theme.
- Long term
orientation (Gap:
Japan 3, Great Britain 40.5)
‘The
fostering of virtues oriented toward future rewards - in particular
perseverance' (2010: 239).
The importance of
perseverance and effort is clearly seen in JLS, where a research theme will be
pursued by a school for two or three years. This contrasts with the
British short-termist attitude which is likely to influence policy decisions
about the time teachers are asked to commit to investigating a research
theme.
In summary, some key cultural differences
between Great Britain and Japan are likely to mean teachers struggle with
several distinguishing features of lesson study as a research process, namely:
- Focusing on a shared research
theme over a longer period of time;
- Spending time on collaborative lesson
planning, including exploring relevant material around their research
theme;
- Being observed by colleagues as
they gather evidence in the research lesson;
- Seeking outside expertise to develop
and enhance their research ideas.
In our work with schools, we have managed to support
teachers to engage with models of JLS that feature all of the above elements
and these teachers and leaders have spoken highly of lesson study. However, we have also encountered schools who
say they are doing ‘lesson study’ but do not work on a shared research theme,
nor plan collaboratively, nor act as silent observers in the lesson
observation, and do not look to outside expertise to enhance their
learning.
What
does this mean for you as a school leader?
If you are already using JLS, make sure that teachers are not just
paying lip service to its features but adhering strictly to the features that
distinguish lesson study as a research process.
If you are seeking to introduce JLS, anticipate the above cultural
resistance. Make sure teachers really
understand why JLS is designed in the way it is and what you will lose if you
leave out any of its critical research features.
References
Godfrey, D., Seleznyov, S., Wollaston, N., and Barrera-Pedamonte, F. (forthcoming). Target oriented lesson study (TOLS) Combining lesson study with an integrated impact evaluation model.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. and Minkov, M., 2010. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (Vol. 3). London: McGraw-Hill.
Sahlberg, P., 2011. Finnish lessons. Teachers College Press.
References
Godfrey, D., Seleznyov, S., Wollaston, N., and Barrera-Pedamonte, F. (forthcoming). Target oriented lesson study (TOLS) Combining lesson study with an integrated impact evaluation model.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. and Minkov, M., 2010. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (Vol. 3). London: McGraw-Hill.
Sahlberg, P., 2011. Finnish lessons. Teachers College Press.