Lesson study in initial and continuing professional development: an approach

for special needs and inclusive education

Brahm NorwichGraduate School of Education, University

of Exeter

Lesson Study logic

LS distinctiveness• study of lesson (pedagogic focus)

– For and by teachers• focus on learning / learners

– Case pupils (UK version)• research oriented (how improve learning of ?)

– Research lesson• collaborative

– team involved at each stage (lesson observation by team)– enables inter-disciplinary collaboration

• reflective practitioner– use of craft and research informed knowledge

Quote:‘The clear difference between peers just planning lessons together (as in the case in many schools) and peers planning, observing and discussing their observations with a view to improving was highlighted to us during these three lessons. LS method has distinct advantages – more developmental and reflective!’

Supporting teacher problem solving approaches

Teacher Support Teams (Creese, Norwich, Daniels)Collaborative groups (Hanko)

Circles of Adults; Teacher Coaching; Collaborative Problem-Solving Groups Staff Sharing Scheme.

Bennet and Monsen (2011) review EPIP

Development and evaluation projectPhase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4Development

Evaluation

Development

Evaluation

Dissemination Development

Sept 2010

Prepare

Jan – July 2011

1st group of Lesson Study schools

TDA materials about MLD

Oct 2011 toMarch 2012

2nd group of Lesson study schools

Journal papersBookconferences

March – Dec 2012Jane-July 2013

LS for assessment

Rationale for study (1)

• pupils with moderate learning difficulties (MLD) largest proportion identified as having special educational needs in the school system.  •neglected as a focus for educational initiatives–no advocacy groups, from disadvantaged families, between severe and non-SEN groups

•  25% of all pupils identified with SEN at School Action plus or with Statements in ordinary and special schools 

Definition of MLD

Pupils with MLD have attainments significantly below expected levels in most areas of the curriculum, despite appropriate interventions. Their needs will not be able to be met by normal differentiation and the flexibilities of the National Curriculum.

Pupils with MLD have much greater difficulty than their peers in acquiring basic literacy and numeracy skills and in understanding concepts. They may also have associated speech and language delay, low self-esteem, low levels of concentration and under-developed social skills. (DfES, 2005)

Rationale for study (2)Inclusive practices• First UK LS use in ordinary classes with regular

teachers• a few special schools

• Boundary between MLD and non-SEN low attainment unclear• Government plans to reduce number identified as SEN• project significance – relevance of LS to spectrum from

general learning difficulties to non-SEN low attainment.

• Phase 1: 14 sec. schools (29 teachers): more training /support: 2 terms 2-3 LS per school; 38 Lesson Studies

• Phase 2: 15 sec. schools (30 teachers) : less training and support: 1 term 2 LS per school; 28 Lesson Studies

Each pair recruited and brief 1-2 other teachers (including SENCos to form LS teams)

About 90 teachers involved overall Phase 3: LS for assessment - 6 schools (primary and

sec.): KS1-KS3 – English, maths and SENCo; 18 teachers

Pedagogic strategies in LS: Research questions

What pedagogic / teaching strategies do teachers report as having developed for pupils with MLD from using Lesson Study?How specialised are these pedagogic strategies: is there an MLD specialist pedagogy?

MethodsQuestionnaire after completion of 6 months use of LS about the teaching strategies used/developed during the project for pupils with MLD, July 2011 (n=22)Analysis of LS case reports for reported strategies used

Model of pedagogic strategiesBroad pedagogic approach:

Pedagogic methods/assumptionsActivity based learningAssessment for learning

Input (multi-modal/sensory approaches)Cognitive demand:

Level/style (differentiation)Memory/consolidation

Motivational approachesLearning relationships

Grouping and peer supportAdult-pupil communication

Working with additional adults

Generic intensified / SEN

Pedagogic approaches:Is there a specialist pedagogy for MLD?

Learning difficulties Lower attainment higher attainment

Generic pedagogyintensified adapted

SEN: learning difficulties Lower attainment - higher attainment

Generic pedagogySpecialist pedagogy

Process evaluation: aims and methods

Informed by ‘Realistic Evaluation’: examine links between contexts, mechanisms/processes and outcomes of LS

Why and how the LS works in schools/impact on teaching and teachers

Aim: to construct process theory of LS

Survey for participating teachers at the end of Phase 1 (July 2011) (n=16) and Phase 2 (June 2012) (n=15)Semi-structured interviews about LS process and outcomes (Phase1 n=9; Phase 2 n=6)

TEACHER LEVEL Means and SD Phase 1 (n=16)

Means and SD Phase 2 (n=15)

Less threatened to scrutinise own teaching by focusing on pupil learning

3.88 (.34) 3.73 (.46)

Teachers in LS team provide honest and constructive observations of lessons to each other

3.60 (.63) 4.00 (.00)

The LS group provides dedicated time to reflect, plan and problem solve in a supportive setting

3.43 (.65) 3.67 (.62)

SCHOOL LEVEL

Senior teachers appreciate the importance of CPD about teaching

3.64 (.63) 3.07 (1.00)

Teachers with CPD responsibilities introduce CPD that supports teaching and learning

3.57 (.76) 3.43 (.85)

Timetable flexibilities enable the LS teachers to meet regularly

2.73 (1.22) 2.71 (1.07)

Lesson Study mechanisms: highest and lowest rated statements (rating scale 1-4)

TEACHER LEVEL Means and SD Phase 1 (n=16)

Means and SD Phase 2 (n=15)

More confidence to try new teaching approaches 3.81 (.40) 3.60 (.63)

More theoretical and practical knowledge about LS 3.63 (.62) 3.80 (.56)

Deeper knowledge about your curriculum subject and pedagogy for MLD

3.07 (1.10) 3.07 (.80)

More knowledge about to overcome barriers to learning for pupils identified as having MLD

3.31 (.79) 3.00 (.76)

SCHOOL LEVEL

Attendance at LS meetings is regular and prioritised 2.88 (1.15) 3.07 (1.00)

Some teachers who are not in the LS team want to become involved

2.40 (1.12) 3.00 (1.18)

Lesson Study outcomes: highest and lowest rated statements (rating scale 1-4)

Key points from interviews (phase 1)

Context:Time to undertake LSDespite funds: cover hard to timetable; not want to disturb regular teachingSome lack of support from senior leaders

Process:Observation, risk taking, team-work, no blame environment Outcomes:Confidence to adjust teaching, more innovative strategiesEnhance lesson planning (tailor teaching to individual needs)Benefits beyond focus pupils with MLD; for others too

Issues arising from phase 1 and dealt with in phase 2

- Pupil outcomes were assessed by teachers in broad terms

• How best to assess outcomes on pupils as a result of LS?

• Introduced ‘Goal Monitoring and Evaluation’ in phase 2 design of LS

- Uncertainty about starting up LS process• How to start off the LS process? • Change LS protocol: hold pre-meeting of team

before Research Lesson 1 to review starting points, past methods used with focus pupils, LS aims in terms of focus pupils’ learning goals

GOAL 1 Be more frequently engaged in group activities when emphasis is on using key vocabulary Rating scale: Low High

Baseline X Expected X Achieved X Baseline descriptor

Is often disengaged in group activities when she needs to use vocabulary

Specific evidence for descriptor

Because of problems in written and verbal language tends to be disengaged and not participate

Expected descriptor

More frequent engagement in group activities

Specific evidence for descriptor

Increased participation, improved speech, increased confidence

Achieved descriptor

More frequent engagement in group activities

Specific evidence for descriptor

Participated more during question and answer sessions; vocabulary still limited but conversations contains more basic structure; more willing to write and less anxious about her work

Example of a GME goal and levels

Goal monitoring and evaluation

15 schools (21 Lesson Studies); 1-2 case pupils per LS. 69 Lesson Study goals set:

• 54% of goals: were met or exceeded • progress as expected = 24%; • progress more than expected = 31%

• 46% of goals: progress made but NOT met expected level

• 0% ‘No progress’ (i.e. stays at baseline level or declines)

Conclusions: MLD pedagogyBroad concept of pedagogy relevant to pupils identified as having MLD

• Covering pedagogic approaches, cognitive demand, motivation and learning relationships

• Not just about cognitive demand; nor simple idea of differentiation

• No specific pedagogic approaches: also useful for others without MLD, e.g. low attainment or other SEN (SpLD); recognised by some teachers themselves

• Consistent with idea of intensified general pedagogic strategies : continuum of pedagogic strategies (Lewis and Norwich, 2004; Fletcher Campbell, 2004)

Summary of theory of LS arising from project

Context:School interest in professional learning communitiesAdvance timetabling/ cover available, senior teacher support

Processes:Team work, no blame climate, consult case pupils as part research lesson review, team observation focus on learning, risk taking about lesson planning

Outcomes:Enhanced lesson planning; tailored pedagogic strategies, with wider benefits, broaden focus onto wider learning, not just external criteria; challenge conceptions about what pupils can do; wide range of pupils gains (cognitive, affective and learning approaches)

Typical lesson study

Lesson study for assessment

LS as response to teaching (dynamic assessment) approach‘We see lesson study as an infinitely flexible method of tracking student progress and engagement - we will recommend it as a general diagnostic tool as well as a specific way of addressing the needs of SEN pupils. We think that a long-term use of Lesson Study would result in significant long-term improvements in achievement’

• To assess the learning needs of pupils who have difficulties in their learning;

• LS team: class teacher, 2nd class teacher, SENCo, Ed psych/specialist teacher; teaching assistant

• Other uses of LS: Involving parent in LS team; Multi-professional involvement

How Lesson Study can be used for assessment purposes

• The key features of Lesson Study (LS) that enable a novel assessment approach are:

• its collaborative model of planning, doing and reviewing short sequence of specific lessons in terms of pupil learning (3 research lessons make up a LS cycle).

• Its focus on the learning of specific pupils (case pupils) that enables a depth of assessment and analysis of pupil and learning environment (pupil’s strengths and difficulties as well as contextual supports and barriers).

• a collaboration that can bring together and integrate different assessment perspectives and knowledge bases: from a class teacher, SEN teacher, such as a SEN coordinator, a teaching assistant as well as an outside professional, such as specialist teachers and educational psychologists.

• the review and planning can also take account of the pupil’s perspective.

Recent trial• 3 primary and 3 secondary schools;• LS teams

• primary – KS1 and KS 2 teachers and SENCo• secondary – KS English and Maths teacher and

SENCo• Focus on LS assessment for 2 pupils with difficulties in

learning: with identified SEN or in lowest quartile of achievement e.g. CIC

• Involve EP in one secondary LS team – tried to find other outside professionals to be involved

• Aim – to use the trial to refine assessment strategy and extend to larger funded project

LS FOR ASSESSMENT

These steps are organised into 3 phases:

• Preliminary phase – collecting data relevant to assessment questions about case pupil

• Lesson Study phase – conducting research lessons to address assessment questions (3 research lessons)

• Personalised plan phase – using the assessment derived from the LS to plan and evaluate a short term teaching programme.

Development aspects:• Cross school training conferences: start, interim and

end (one and half terms)• Guidance booklet – principles and templates for

recording of planning, observations, interviews and analyses for each research lesson.

• LS teams focus LSfA on 2 pupils with difficulties in learning: identified as SEN or in lowest quartile of achievement e.g. child in care

• Primary teams: 2 pupils 5-7 years: literacy LS + numeracy LS2 pupils 8-11 years: literacy LS + numeracy LS 2 pupils 12-14 years: Maths LS and English LS

Teach & observe RL;Consult pupil

Assessment questions to be addressed in using Lesson Study for Assessment approach

Is pupil engaged and progressing?

Teaching methods conditions appropriate?

Goals appropriate?

What else going on?

NO YES YES

YES

YES

YESNO NO

Extend goal for next RL

Keep RL goal, change methods

Change goal for next RL

Make other changes

Have 3 RL been completed?

NO Draw together findings: Complete assessment based on LS

Key aspects about LSfA; themes from qual. data

Pupils tell you what helps/ hinders learning

Impact on teaching and standards

Collaborate with colleagues and specialists

Understand / learn about child’s learning difficulties

Professional dialogue

Development of teaching

Beneficial CPD

Reflect on impact of teaching

Non-judgemental opportunity

Outcomes: Very much/some extent 100%The Lesson Study for Assessment process: enabled additional/new understanding of case pupils’ learning strengths, difficulties and learning needs - resulted in new approaches to teaching.

- renewed your interest in in-depth assessment of needs

You are: more capable to use a response to teaching approach to assess learning needs- more confident to try out novel teaching approaches in lessons- more understanding about the nature and complexity of the learning needs of pupils in your classes - more confident to assess children with difficulties in Learning- confident in using the Lesson Study for Assessment model IndependentlyYou will: continue using Lesson Study for Assessment procedure in future- try using Lesson Study for other purposes in your teaching

Context: Very much/some extent

The LS process provided dedicated time to reflect, plan and problem solve in a supportive setting

85%

he LS teachers felt supported by senior teachers in the project 64%

Senior teachers supported the LS work by enquiring about the project 64%

Timetable flexibilities enabled the Lesson Study teachers to meet regularly as required

50%

The LS group provided collaborative opportunities to share knowledge and skills with colleagues about the assessment process

50%

Evaluation:Context-process-outcome questionnaire

SENCO’s evaluation of LS for Assessment

• ….that's why its in my performance management because I'm passionate about it. And I think that in depth, just really focusing on a child's learning, …. it impacted on others as well, the approach of just unpicking it. And I suppose the dialogue with the children was very revealing about their learning and what they were understanding.

Cases study example: , FC, 10 year old boy, lower attaining but not identified as having SENStarting level• Slow progress in both reading and writing; struggled with phonics.• inability to grasp simple concepts.• Attendance issuesObservation during LS• Very reliant on other children to complete written work or when reading instructions.• Very fidgety and aware of everything going on around him.• Showed a confidence in Maths but more reluctant in English-lots of avoidance tactics.What helps learning: steps taken • Pencil gripper to aid hand position when writing.• Direct questioning during literacy activities.• Less written instructions.• Clear task instructions repeated when leaving the carpet.End result• Able to work with more independence.• Confidence in literacy grew and able to complete more work in given time

FC’s assessment summaries before and after LSfAPre LSfA Post LSfA

Enabling conditions 4 general specific some cross subject; some subject specific

Barriers none 2 conditions in lit 1 in numeracy – one be turned into dev. area.

Pupil strengths 4 general 3 specific cross subject – 1 each subject specific

Pupil difficulties 10 general

3 specific – some can be addressed

Some links between between pre and post areas

Future plans and prospects:- More detailed analysis of data- Revise and reduce paperwork/ materials- Seeking funding opportunities to use LSfA in

training of SEN coordinators (required in England)

- Involve professional educational psychologists in its use and development.

References:

Norwich, B and Jones J. (2013/4) Lesson Study: making a difference to teaching pupils with learning difficulties. London: Continuum Publishers.

Ylonen, A. and Norwich, B. (2012) ‘Using Lesson Study to develop teaching approaches for secondary school pupils with moderate learning difficulties: teachers’ concepts, attitudes and pedagogic strategies’, in European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 27 (3): 301-317

Norwich, B., Ylonen, A. and Gwernan-Jones, R. (2012) ‘Moderate Learning Difficulties: searching for clarity and understanding’, in Research Papers in Education DOI:10.1080/02671522.2012.729153

Norwich, B., Ylonen, A. (2013). Design-based research to develop the teaching of pupils with moderate learning difficulties (MLD): evaluating Lesson Study in terms of pupil, teacher and school outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 162-173.

Ylonen, A., Norwich, B. (2013). The Lesson Study process: how it works and what it offers. Lessons from a development and research project in England’. International Journal of Lesson and Learning Study, 2 (2).

Web sources:

LS for Assessment: http://elac.ex.ac.uk/lessonstudymld/page.php?id=171

Department for Education, Advanced training materials for SEN, Lesson Study, available at:

– http://www.education.gov.uk/lamb/module2/M02U09.html#