Lesson study in transnational space

Citation

Elliott, J. (2012), "Lesson study in transnational space", International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, Vol. 1 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlls.2012.57901baa.001

Lesson study in transnational space

Article Type: Editorial From: International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, Volume 1, Issue 2.

As lesson study positions itself in transnational space it will engage with ideas that flow from different cultural settings than those, which prevailed in the context of origin. Lesson study as an approach to the improvement of teaching in classrooms and schools evolved in Japan and China as a form of teacher research. Whereas in Europe and the USA the classroom tends to be seen as the preserve of the individual teacher with sole responsibility for the quality of his/her pupils learning, in Japan and China it is perhaps seen as a more public space, in which teachers are able to accept collective responsibility for the professional well-being of each other and for the well-being of their students as learners. This perhaps explains why those Japanese and Chinese teachers engaged in lesson study have little problem depicting it as “research”, for what characterises research is that it involves the creation of public knowledge. In western countries there is often a reluctance to portray teachers as “researchers”, preferring terms that render professional knowledge a private commodity created in private space by the “reflective practitioner”, who may engage “critical friends” in confidential conversations about their practice. Two notable exceptions are the American educational philosopher John Dewey and the British curriculum theorist Lawrence Stenhouse, who both viewed teaching as an experimental science and classrooms as laboratories in which pedagogical problems were identified and hypothetical solutions tested.

Elliott's paper in this issue is an attempt to explore the potential of lesson study for developing a science of teaching in transnational space along the lines depicted by Dewey and Stenhouse. He argues that a significant move in this respect took place in Hong Kong, where western and eastern ideas meet and interact freely, in the early part of this century. It involved the integration of the theory of variation developed by Marton and his colleagues in Sweden through a series of design experiments into the method of Japanese learning study. This move was led by Lo Mun Ling and sustained with her colleagues at the Centre for School Experience and Learning Study in the Hong Kong Institute of Education. Towards the end of his paper Elliott begins to explore the possibility of teachers playing a generative role in the development of a unified and comprehensive transnational theory of learning to inform lesson study.

Carlgren's paper further develops an argument for addressing the question of what sort of science learning study can contribute to in transnational space. She argues that conceived as a hybrid between design experiments aimed at the development of a general theory of learning and lesson study as an approach to the professional tasks of teachers it contains unresolved ambiguities between a form of research dominated by university academics, in which teachers play an important practicalising of theory role that is nevertheless subordinate, and a clinical model of research aimed at constructing knowledge, concerning the objects of learning as well as desirable modes of interaction between teachers and learners in relation to them, in response to particular events and situations that arise in classrooms. According to Carlgren lesson study needs to position itself as a science of particulars in the form of clinical subject matter research, which is freed from the universalistic paradigm that has dominated educational research in western societies. This implies she argues shedding the research methods of an objectivist social science, such as pre- and post-tests, for ways of transforming teachers’ private craft knowledge into professional knowledge that is “public, sharable, storable and verified as well as improved”. Hence lesson study, in positioning itself as a science of particulars in transnational space, would preserve its continuity as a community of practice. This is not to deny the importance of theory in clinical studies, Carlgren argues, but gives it a different role of deepening “the understanding of a particular and concrete situation which is characterised by uncertainty” as a basis for practical judgement (phronesis). In this context theory is built from observations in particular cases alongside the development of practice.

Yoshida's paper on “Mathematics lesson study” in the USA is a cautionary tale about what may happen to lesson study as it travels west. Rather than positioning itself in transnational space, which implies both continuity and change, Yoshida points out a prevailing tendency for lesson study to become modified in ways that comply with prevailing cultural norms in the USA. Lesson study moved to the USA in the late 1990s via the international comparisons in mathematical attainment levels (PISA and TIMMS), which positioned performance in Japan very highly in comparison with the USA. Yoshida notes a tendency to misunderstand lesson study as something groups of teachers may engage in as a form of product development aimed at producing ideal lesson templates, which teachers generally may have access to in preparing their lessons. This is very different he argues to a view of lesson study as participation in a professional learning community that is aimed at deepening teachers’ content, pedagogical content and curriculum knowledge. Without such participation he claims that teachers are unlikely to make effective use of lesson plans to improve student learning. In misunderstanding lesson study as a form of product development, engaged in by the few for the sake of the many, the individualism that underpins the professional culture of teachers is preserved. Yoshida identifies some of the modified practices which pass for lesson study in US schools, e.g. developing lesson plans together without observing or discussing student learning in lessons, or simply observing videotaped lessons that present a skewed and partial view of events. He argues that they are far removed from the authentic learning studies practised in Japan. Like Carlgren he emphasises the importance of lesson study as a means of teachers developing together the content and pedagogical knowledge needed for specific teaching purposes to improve student learning. An important part of this process in Japan is the practice of kyozaikenkyu – an investigation of relevant instructional materials such as textbooks, curriculum standards and guidelines, teachers’ manuals, research papers, etc. It maybe regarded as a form of professional scholarship to inform pedagogical designs that incorporate the content and pedagogical content knowledge of a particular subject-matter community. Yoshida claims that many of the ideas contained in Japanese textbooks are informed by lesson studies and kyozaikenkyu, and this is not yet the case in the USA. There is a need he argues for instructional materials that are grounded in strong mathematical content and pedagogical knowledge, and suggests that mathematics lesson studies could be strengthened in the USA by giving participating teachers more access to relevant instructional material used by Asian teachers.

Yoshida points to the problems at the systems level in the USA of organising lesson study networks within and across schools to sustain the practice of kyozaikenky. Lesson studies, he argues, tend to take place in isolation from one another. The good ideas developed through them might disappear if the boundaries that isolate studies from each other are not broken down, and time is not found across the school system to build sustainable networked professional communities that enable their members to deepen their content and pedagogical content knowledge. Yoshida's analysis of constraints on the development of authentic mathematical lesson studies in the USA might apply across the curriculum and in most western educational systems. How to strengthen lesson study in western school systems as a basis for systematically developing the professional knowledge base of teachers is a major challenge for educational administrators and school leaders to address.

One of the aspirations of the IJLLS is to help dissolve the boundaries that isolate lesson studies from each other by providing resources that are strong in content and pedagogical content knowledge, for the kind of professional scholarship that Yoshida depicts as kyozaikenky and which he regards as an essential ingredient of lesson study.

The papers by Holmqvist, Brante and Tullgren and Kullberg and the discussion of Andrew's paper in the first issue all explore the uses of variation theory in lesson studies, itself a growing feature of lesson study as it began to occupy the transnational space sustained by the formation of the World Association of Lesson Studies (WALS) network. WALS was founded in Hong Kong from the work Lo and colleagues had carried out in close association with Marton and his colleagues at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden. The paper by Holmqvist, Brante and Tullgren focuses on the use of variation theory to design learning about the difference between number and size in a pre-school setting, while Kullberg's paper reports a follow up to a lesson study with seventh and eighth grade pupils. The lesson study itself used variation theory to develop children's understanding of negative numbers. The follow up was designed to test the pedagogical significance of its findings more generally beyond the confines of the original study. The discussion between Andrew and Lo revolves around the use of variation theory in a learning study designed to develop cash budgeting capability in secondary school students studying accountancy.

What emerges from all three pieces is the insight that variation theory does not prescribe how to teach a particular object of learning but can be used to illuminate the context of learning in a way, which informs the pedagogical judgements of teachers. Hence Holmqvist, Brante and Tullgren demonstrate how the use of variation theory modifies teacher's expectations of what it is possible for students to learn. In doing so it prevents them from either oversimplifying or overcomplicating instructional material. This is because variation theory enables teachers to discern the critical features of the object of learning in relation to what it is possible for students to discern given their prior experience and understanding. It is only on the basis of such knowledge that teachers are in a position to judge which patterns of variation will enable students to deepen their understanding.

Kullberg analyses data from two lessons, where four critical features, previously identified through a lesson study as making a difference to students learning of subtraction and addition of negative numbers were used by a teacher in two different classes with new students. In one class the teacher intended to use just two of the critical features while in the other class the intention was to use all four. Surprisingly the lessons did not differ with respect to their impact on learning. This is because the lessons brought out the same critical features but in different ways. In the lesson where the teacher intended to use only two critical features it was found that the quality of student-teacher interaction played a significant role in enacting the use of the other two critical features through the questions the students asked about the object of learning and how the teacher discussed them with the students. It was through such a process that the other critical features were discerned and enacted in the lesson. In other words, discussion in classrooms based on student's questions makes a difference to what students are able to experience and discern about the object of learning. This is because such a process implicitly makes use of different patterns of variation to uncover critical features of an object of learning that are discernable by students.

Discussions of the content of particular papers published in this journal will be a regular feature of each general issue. Readers are invited to submit a critique of a paper (500 words minimum and 1,500 words maximum), which the editors may decide to publish with a response from the author. In this issue the focus of the discussion piece is the use of variation theory in an accountancy learning study. At issue is what can account for the sudden improvements in students’ learning outcomes in the third cycle of the study. Lo argues that the systematic use of patterns of variation in the PowerPoint presentation to teach cash budgeting cannot alone account for such improvement. This is because they focus on discerning the relation of parts to whole with respect to sales distribution, which is necessary but not sufficient for understanding the object of learning, and neglect this relation with respect to cash contribution. The patterns of variation that can be used to assist discernment of the part-whole relation in this latter respect remain implicit in the PowerPoint. This may explain, Lo suggests, why there was little improvement in student learning outcomes for the first two cycles. She maintains that a more explicit use of relevant patterns of variation with respect to cash contribution may have accelerated and improved students’ ability to discern the part-whole relationship. The explanation of improved learning outcomes for 70 per cent of the students, according to Lo, must be found in the way the third cycle teacher dealt with cash contribution to enable the students to experience relevant patterns of variation.

Learning studies informed by the theory of variation provide examples of the uses of the theory to predict and explain learning. This journal will hopefully provide a useful resource for those wanting to explore the theory-in-use and its value for the future development of lesson study in the context of globalisation.

John Elliott