Where were you in 1999? This year was significant in the education world. The practice of Japanese Lesson Study came to international attention through the 1999 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), and we learned the power that teachers hold. In 1999, I was teaching 25 first graders labeled as “struggling students.” As the saying goes, “I’ve come a long way, baby!” particularly in my study of educational research. At the time, I did not know about the TIMMS study nor the implications and promise that it offered for instructional practice for students labeled as strugglers. Regretting my ignorance of the TIMMS report is an understatement, for this report held powerful information to support the very children I called my students. When the TIMSS report highlighted the exemplary mathematics instruction in Japan, it was noted that the manner in which Japanese teachers study, research, and reflect upon their instruction was unique among countries involved in the study. Could students’ in-depth understanding of mathematics link to the teachers’ approach to studying their instruction? TIMSS researchers discovered the phenomenon of Lesson Study and the value that is placed upon teachers’ expertise, knowledge, and autonomy by digging into the practices of the teachers and studying video of students at work. While Cornerstone does not have schools in Japan, we do have schools in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Connecticut, and Massachusetts that are borrowing the technique of Lesson Study. Cornerstone is a change initiative using best literacy instruction and a research-based Continuous Professional Development Model (CPD) for embedded staff development. Lesson Study and the CPD model combined to strengthen professional development in the following manner:
As our organization continues the process of studying, researching, and trying Lesson Study, we are certain it is not a “quick fix” for everything; yet participants in the Lesson Study process throughout the Cornerstone network have been overwhelmingly positive about their learning and the improvement of their teaching practice. Cornerstone coaches find that Lesson Study is useful in daily work with colleagues. This is not a deficit model to fix bad teachers. The process is particularly helpful as literacy coaches frame adult learning experiences. Lesson Study allows teachers to utilize their higher order thinking and knowledge of best practices as they move through the Continuous Professional Development cycle. The ultimate goal is the improvement of classrooms for children. I travel to many schools both within and outside the Cornerstone network. One of my most troubling observations is the evidence of scripted programs in settings with large Title 1 student populations. It appears many have given up on schools, teachers, and children. At times, I watch lessons taught from a script and wonder what it would be like day after day working in a setting that requires such instruction. Staff development that mirrors the quality experiences provided by Lesson Study is nonexistent in these places that I call “Schools in a Box.” The analogy to the fable the Emperor’s New Clothes pops into my mind when I think about the process of convincing “Schools in a Box” of the merits in Lesson Study. This current fad for scripted programs reminds me of the vain Emperor who loved clothes---fancy, fussy, and not very practical. Just as the Emperor was seduced by scalawags into thinking they owned a magic loom to weave wonderful cloth, many American schools are under the same influence and pressure to buy this, that or the other latest “magic bullet or cure for readers.” The most vulnerable schools are located in high poverty communities where the standardized test scores lag behind. Often told that “the magic program” is based upon research, teachers soon realize, like the Emperor’s loyal subjects, that there is really nothing much there in the box even though it cost three times the price of the leveled texts they need for their children. To add insult to injury, the “magic box” requires highly paid consultants to oversee teachers’ instruction to make sure they are reading the manual exactly as it is scripted. Of course, we all know that this is just a fairy tale, right? Don’t bet on it. Take a look around and see what struggling
readers are getting in the name of research-based instruction. Recently,
I happened upon one of these lessons quite by accident. As I stepped
into the professional development room, this is what greeted me: With
a bright red fingernail, the program staff developer clicked her
suede heels, pointing to each word in the manual and read: All of the teachers said /c/! I did too. I was afraid of the red nail. The teachers looked uneasy. Yes, they had just heard one of the Emperor’s magic weavers say to use a black and white Xeroxed booklet for all the children in the class. Some children would hear this three times. A woman who had participated in Lesson Study a year before said, “I am sure the research does not support the use of this text for extensive instruction. If we do this, it will take all of our time, and children will not have reading workshop. I know the components of exemplary reading instruction, but a Xeroxed black and white book! Please! I attended the district meeting about this. I understood this program was to be used minimally as a tool of support for struggling readers. How will my students think deeply and use comprehension strategies? My strugglers need the instruction I can provide to meet them where they are in their thinking. ” In my mind, I was turning back flips and screaming, YES! The other teachers nodded, some with greater conviction than others. I marveled at the honesty of the young speaker quoted above and wondered how long she could withstand the flood of scripted materials that were about to inundate her school. As I listened carefully, I heard three things in her reply that are marks of teachers who collaborate in Lesson Study and staff development:
The red nail did not budge from the page. Her eyes were fixed on me! The nail followed the hand, the hand followed the arm, and the arm continued to hold up the scripted teacher’s book just as though there was something there that could be called reading. As I was about to scream “the Emperor is naked!” she said, “About the comprehension….now if you really want to make sure your students comprehend, ask them to repeat the sentence they read. Count the number of words recalled. If they repeat 50 percent of the words, they comprehend!” At this point, I left the room. Needless to say, these teachers would not need the Lesson Study process because someone in Texas had made all the decisions for them, written all the lessons, sent “the red nail to enforce” uniformity, and xeroxed (yes, that’s right) all the reading material for the children who were unknown to them! All of this make-believe reading cost hundreds of dollars per child. It was a sad day! I often solve my personal dilemmas through writing. I composed a massive rambling email about the virtues of Lesson Study, teacher research, and the evils of programs to my Cornerstone writing partner, Elaine Y. Olive, in Springfield. Shortly after my email hit cyberspace, a reply appeared: I can see where Lesson Studies help new teachers especially, and tweak the skills of veterans like me. I guess in a way I always felt like I was blessed with a God-given gift to teach, and go with my gut, change my plans in a split second, or two now that I'm older, to adjust to the needs of my kiddos or the questions they raise. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel if it's important to them, and we’re talking about the subject I'm teaching or supposed to be teaching, then they will listen better and learn more if they are interested. Finally, I do see the importance of Lesson Study and even a Module, but for some could it also become a "red nail" strategy, just as your example of following the manual exactly? Just wondering.......peace, Elaine As I read Elaine’s honest response, I immediately connected her reply to a book I was reading and the concept of binary thinking explained by Peter Elbow in Everyone Can Write: Essays Toward a Hopeful Theory of Writing and Teaching Writing (2000). Binary thinking rests in an ancient tradition according to Elbow and is a type of dichotomous thinking that frames issues in terms of total opposites such as sun/moon or reason/passion. In my case, the total opposites were “School in a Box”/Lesson Study. The phrase, I do see the importance of Lesson Study and even a Module, but for some could it also become a "red nail" strategy, just as your example of following the manual exactly? were Elaine’s exact words and these words caused a double-take in my thinking. I wondered if my present agitated state was a sort of binary thinking whereby I was seeing the education world through the lens of good and bad. Peter Elbow cautions against binary judgment in much the same vein expressed in Elaine’s thinking. Could Lesson Study and teacher research become a rote and scripted set of strategies? We can guard against the misuse of Lesson Study by continually surveying the best thinkers in the world of reading. For example, Gerald Duffy (1997) postulates the need in literacy instruction to teachers who study their own work carefully, use a variety of tools and materials, and fit instruction to children. He calls for teachers as entrepreneurs who are savvy in their knowledge of reading and how they use this knowledge to help all children achieve reading success. Scott Paris (2000) favors providing teachers with feedback about their instruction when they are involved in good professional development with awareness toward surveying teachers on how the feedback affects their instruction. The Literacy Fellows are writing and designing staff development materials to empower teachers as they research, collaborate, and use best literacy practices. It is our hope that the Lesson Study Module will help schools fight all “the red nails” of the world, but more importantly to study best instructional practices for our youngest readers who struggle! Finally, I offer a list of sorts influenced by Edna Varner and Janet Cumbee’s articles in the Cornerstone Newsletters entitled Eye on Leadership, Vol..6-4; Vol. 6.5, and the research of Wiburg and Brown, 2006. We must constantly question ourselves about strengthening the Lesson Study process.
Checklist for Strengthening Lesson Study Comments
*From 204 studies, findings show in classrooms where teachers set clear learning goals, achievement test scores were 0.55 standard deviations higher.
References and Resources Cumbee,
J. (2006). From Standards
to Success and Lesson Study --- A LINK!. Cornerstone Newsletter. Duffy, G. (1997). “Powerful
models or powerful teachers? An argument for teacher- Francescani, K. & Synder, J. (2004). A Lesson Study: Bringing it all Together. Cornerstone Newsletter. [online:http://www.cornerstoneliteracy.org/NEWSLETTER/volume_4_6/lessonstudy.html] Paris, S. (2000). Trojan horse in the schoolyard: The hidden threats in high stakes testing. Issues in Education, 6, 1-16. Tankersley,
J. (2006). Lesson Study: A Team Effort in Instructional Revolution.
Cornerstone Newsletter. The
Task Force on Teaching and Student Achievement, (1999). Teaching
and Varner,
E. (2006). Stating the Obvious. Cornerstone Newsletter. Wiburg, S. & Brown, S. (2006-2007). Lesson Study communities: Increasing achievement with diverse students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
|
