Scripted lesson plans and/or professional development alone may not be sufficient to encourage teachers to reflect on the quality of their teaching and improve their teaching. One learning tool that teachers may use to improve their teaching is Lesson Study (LS). LS is a collaborative process involving educators, based on concepts of iteration and revision, to improve instruction. The initial use of an adapted version of LS referred to as a microteaching lesson study (MLS) is described in this article. Our purpose is to illustrate the process of MLS used by a group of researchers when developing lesson plans for teaching students with learning disabilities. We describe MLS, and then (1) share an application of MLS used by a research team in developing a writing intervention, and (2) discuss how the MLS format was mirrored with K–12 teachers during professional development training.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AkibaM. & WilkinsonB. (2016). Adopting an international teacher professional development: State and district approaches to lesson study in Florida. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(1), 74–93.
2.
BarabS. A., & LuehmannA. L. (2003). Building sustainable science curriculum: Acknowledging and accommodating local adaptation. Science Education, 87, 454–467. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.10083.
3.
BenedictA. E., YujeongP., BrownellM. T., LauterbachA. A., & KielyM. T. (2013). Using lesson study to align elementary literacy instruction within the RTI framework. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 45(5), 22–30.
4.
BeyerC. J. & DavisE. A. (2012). Learning to critique and adapt science curriculum materials: Examining the development of preservice elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 96, 130–157. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20466.
5.
BlumH. T., YocomD. J., TrentA., & McLaughlinM. (2005). Professional development: When teachers plan and deliver their own. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(2), 18–21.
6.
BocalaC. (2015). From experience to expertise: The development of teachers’ learning in lesson study. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(4), 349–362.
7.
BoykinA. (2015). The impact of computer–based graphic organizers with embedded self–regulated learning strategies on the content area argumentative writing of typical and struggling writers. (Doctoral Dissertation) Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (Order No. 3720658).
8.
BransfordJ., DerryS., BerlinerD., & HammernessK. (2005). Theories of learning and their roles in teaching. In Darling–HammondL. & BransfordJ. (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 40–87). San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.
9.
BrownM. W., & EdelsonD. (2003). Teaching as design: Can we better understand the ways in which teachers use materials so we can better design materials to support their changes in practice? Evanston, IL: Center for Learning & Technology in Urban Schools, Northwestern University.
10.
CaveyL. O., & BerensonS. B. (2005). Learning to teach high school mathematics: Patterns of growth in understanding right triangle trigonometry during lesson plan study. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24, 171–190. doi: 10.1016/j.jmathb.2005.03.001
11.
Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (CBSSE). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
12.
CurcioF. R. (2002). A user's guide to Japanese lesson study: Ideas for improving mathematics teaching. Reston, VA: NCTM.
13.
DoigB. & GrovesS. (2011). Japanese lesson study: Teacher professional development through communities of inquiry. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 13, 77–93.
14.
EvmenovaA. S., ReganK., BoykinA., GoodK., HughesM., MacVittieN., SaccoD., AhnS. Y., & ChirinosD. (2016). Emphasizing planning for essay writing with a computer–based graphic organizer. Exceptional Children, 82(2), 144–169.
15.
EvmenovaA. S., & ReganK. (2012). Project WeGotIT! Writing Efficiently With Graphic Organizers: Teachers Integrating Technology. Technology and Media Services for Individuals With Disabilities Stepping–Up Technology Implementation Grant, Office of Special Education, Washington, DC.
16.
FernandezM. L. (2005). Learning through microteaching lesson study in teacher preparation. Action in Teacher Education, 26, 37–47.
17.
FernandezM. L. (2008). Developing knowledge of teaching mathematics through cooperation and inquiry. Mathematics Teacher, 101, 534–538.
18.
GarrettT. (2008). Student–centered and teacher–centered classroom management: A case study of three elementary teachers. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 43, 34–47.
19.
GerstenR., ChardD., & BakerS. (2000). Factors enhancing sustained use of research–based instructional practices. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(5), 445.
20.
GerstenR., DiminoJ., JayanthiM., KimJ. S., & SantoroL. E. (2010). Teacher study group: Impact of the professional development model on reading instruction and student outcomes in first grade classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 694–739. doi: 10.3102/0002831209361208
21.
KlingnerJ. K., AhweeS., PilonietaP., & MenendezR. (2003). Barriers and facilitators in scaling up research–based practices. Exceptional Children, 69, 411–429.
22.
LewisC. & PerryR. (2014). Lesson study with mathematical resources: A sustainable model for locally–led teacher professional learning. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 16(1), 22–42.
LewisC., PerryR., & HurdJ. (2004). A deeper look at lesson study. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 18–23.
25.
LewisC., PerryR., & MurataA. (2006). How should research contribute to instructional improvement? The case of lesson study. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 3–14.
26.
LiebermanJ. (2009). Reinventing teacher professional norms and identities: The role of lesson study and learning communities. Professional Development in Education, 35, 83–99, doi: 10.1080/13674580802264688.
27.
LienemannT. O., & ReidR. (2006). Self–regulated strategy development for students with learning disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29(1), 3–11.
28.
PerryR. R., & LewisC. C. (2009). What is successful adaptation of Lesson Study in the U.S.?Journal of Educational Change, 10, 365–391. doi: 10.1007/s10833–008–9069–7.
29.
PerlmanC. L. & ReddingS. (Eds.) (2011). Handbook on effective implementation of school improvement grants. Lincoln, IL: Academic Development Institute, Center on Innovation & Improvement.
30.
PollyD., & HannafinM. (2010). Reexamining technology's role in learner–centered professional development. Educational Technology Research & Development, 58(5), 557–571. doi:10.1007/s11423–009–9146–5.
31.
PintoR. (2004). Introducing curriculum innovations in science: Identifying teachers’ transformations and the design of related teacher education. Science Education, 89, 1–12, Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20039.
32.
ReganK., EvmenovaA. S., GoodK., & AhnS. Y. (2015, October). The relationship between student writing outcomes and quality of implementation. Presentation at the 37th International Conference on Learning Disabilities by the Council for Learning Disabilities (CLD), Las Vegas, Nevada.
33.
SaundersW. M., GoldenbergC. N., & GallimoreR. (2009). Increasing achievement by focusing grade–level teams on improving classroom learning: A prospective, quasi–experimental study of title 1 schools. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 1006–1033, Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831209333185.
34.
SchwarzC. V., GunckelK. L., SmithE. L., CovittB. A., BaeM., EnfieldM., & TsurusakiB. K. (2008). Helping elementary preservice teachers learn to use curriculum materials for effective science teaching. Science Education, 92, 345–377, Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20243.
35.
SquireK. D., MaKinsterJ. G., BarnettM., LuehmannA. L., & BarabS. L. (2003). Designed curriculum and local culture: Acknowledging the primacy of classroom culture. Science Education, 87, 468–489, Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.10084.
36.
StiglerJ. W., & HeibertJ. (1999). The teaching gap. New York: Free Press.
37.
TakahashiA. (2000). Current trends and issues in lesson study in Japan and the United States. Journal of Japan Society of Mathematical Education, 82(12), 15–21.
38.
TsaiC., ShenP., & LinR. (2015). Exploring the effects of student–centered project–based learning with initiation on students’ computing skills: A quasi–experimental study of digital storytelling. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE), 1, 27–43. doi:10.4018/ijicte.2015010102.
39.
YinR. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40.
YlonenA., & NorwichB. (2012). Using Lesson Study to develop teaching approaches for secondary school pupils with moderate learning difficulties: Teachers’ concepts, attitudes and pedagogic strategies. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 27(3), 301–317.
