Lesson Study logic

1. Lesson study in initial and continuing professional development: an approach for special needs and inclusive education Brahm Norwich Graduate School of Education, University of Exeter

2. Lesson Study logic

3. 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

7. 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!’

8. 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

9. Development and evaluation project

10. 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

11. 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)

12. 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.

13. 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

14. 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? Methods Questionnaire 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

15. Model of pedagogic strategies • Broad pedagogic approach: • Pedagogic methods/assumptions • Activity based learning • Assessment for learning • Input (multi-modal/sensory approaches) • Cognitive demand: • Level/style (differentiation) • Memory/consolidation • Motivational approaches • Learning relationships • Grouping and peer support • Adult-pupil communication • Working with additional adults

16. Pedagogic approaches: Is there a specialist pedagogy for MLD? Specialist pedagogy Generic pedagogy SEN: learning difficulties Lower attainment - higher attainment Generic pedagogy Generic intensified / SEN intensified adapted Learning difficulties Lower attainment higher attainment

17. 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 • Surveyfor 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)

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

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

20. Key points from interviews (phase 1) Context: Time to undertake LS Despite funds: cover hard to timetable; not want to disturb regular teaching Some lack of support from senior leaders Process: Observation, risk taking, team-work, no blame environment Outcomes: Confidence to adjust teaching, more innovative strategies Enhance lesson planning (tailor teaching to individual needs) Benefits beyond focus pupils with MLD; for others too

21. 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

22. Example of a GME goal and levels

23. 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)

24. Conclusions: MLD pedagogy • Broad 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)

25. Summary of theory of LS arising from project Context: School interest in professional learning communities Advance 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)

26. Typical lesson study Lesson study for assessment

27. 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

28. 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.

30. 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

31. 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.

33. 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 LS • 2 pupils 8-11 years: literacy LS + numeracy LS • 2 pupils 12-14 years: Maths LS and English LS

34. Assessment questions to be addressed in using Lesson Study for Assessment approach Teach & observe RL; Consult pupil NO Teaching methods conditions appropriate? YES YES Is pupil engaged and progressing? Goals appropriate? What else going on? YES NO NO YES Keep RL goal, change methods Change goal for next RL Extend goal for next RL Make other changes NO YES Have 3 RL been completed? Draw together findings: Complete assessment based on LS

37. Evaluation: Context-process-outcome questionnaire

38. 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.

39. Cases study example: , FC, 10 year old boy, lower attaining but not identified as having SEN Starting level • Slow progress in both reading and writing; struggled with phonics. • inability to grasp simple concepts. • Attendance issues Observation 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

41. 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.

42. 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).

43. 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#