International Journal for Lesson and Learning StudiesEmerald Article: Teachers' Professional Discourse in a Japanese Lesson StudyYuta Suzuki

Article information:

This is an EarlyCite pre-publication article: Yuta Suzuki, (2012),"Teachers' Professional Discourse in a Japanese Lesson Study", International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, Vol. 1 Iss: 3 (Date online 31/7/2012)

Downloaded on: 27-06-2012

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Lesson and Learning Studies community

For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comWith over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Article Title Page

[Article title]

Teachers’ Professional Discourse in a Japanese Lesson Study Author Details:

Yuta Suzuki

Graduate School of Education, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan NOTE: affiliations should appear as the following: Department (if applicable); Institution; City; State (US only); Country. No further information or detail should be included Acknowledgments (if applicable):

This research was supported in part by a grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (No. 21-

10374, 2009-2011).

Pseudonyms have been in this paper to protect the privacy of individuals. Biographical Details (if applicable): Structured Abstract:

Purpose - This paper reports on a case study that was conducted in a Japanese elementary school in order to

examine what kinds of teachers’ discourse support the professional development of teachers in lesson study.

Design/methodology/approach - This research employed an intensive case study design that primarily

focused on teachers’ discourse in post-lesson conferences held at the school. In addition, it relied on a variety

of ethnographic data obtained over a two-year period. To scrutinise teachers’ professional development, we

selected two cases where the research lessons were conducted by the same teacher.

Findings - The teachers’ discourse in the lesson study can be classified into the following six discursive

modes: (A) Simple question and answer (B) Is the alternative teaching approach better? (C) What is the best

way of teaching X? (D) Did the children learn what the teacher intended them to? (E) Did the teacher teach

what the children actually learned? and (F) What did the teacher learn from watching the children learn?

The research teacher’s tasks for developing as a teaching professional were elicited from her colleagues’

discourse, which was characterised by the discursive modes (E) and (F).

Originality/value – This study illuminated the nature of teachers’ professional discourse from the viewpoint

of discursive modes in a Japanese lesson study. The discursive modes (B), (C) and (D) were classified as

problem-solving discourse in the context of given problems; the discursive modes (E) and (F) were classified

as problem-setting discourse. Keywords:

Lesson Study, Professional Development of Teachers, Teachers’ Discourse, Japanese School Article Classification:

Research Paper

For internal production use only Running Heads:

Type footer information here

Type header information here

1

Teachers’ Professional Discourse in a Japanese Lesson Study

Abstract

Purpose - This paper reports on a case study that was conducted in a Japanese elementary

school in order to examine what kinds of teachers’ discourse support the professional

development of teachers in lesson study.

Design/methodology/approach - This research employed an intensive case study design that

primarily focused on teachers’ discourse in post-lesson conferences held at the school. In

addition, it relied on a variety of ethnographic data obtained over a two-year period. To

scrutinise teachers’ professional development, we selected two cases where the research

lessons were conducted by the same teacher.

Findings - The teachers’ discourse in the lesson study can be classified into the following six

discursive modes: (A) Simple question and answer (B) Is the alternative teaching approach

better? (C) What is the best way of teaching X? (D) Did the children learn what the teacher

intended them to? (E) Did the teacher teach what the children actually learned? and (F)

What did the teacher learn from watching the children learn? The research teacher’s tasks for

developing as a teaching professional were elicited from her colleagues’ discourse, which

was characterised by the discursive modes (E) and (F).

Originality/value – This study illuminated the nature of teachers’ professional discourse

from the viewpoint of discursive modes in a Japanese lesson study. The discursive modes (B),

(C) and (D) were classified as problem-solving discourse in the context of given problems;

the discursive modes (E) and (F) were classified as problem-setting discourse.

Keywords

Lesson study, Professional development of teachers, Teachers’ discourse, Japanese school

Paper type

Research paper

2

1. Purpose

This paper reports on a case study that was conducted in a Japanese elementary

school in order to examine what kinds of teachers’ discourse support the professional

development of teachers in lesson study.

Japanese lesson study has a long history, and there are significant variations in both

agency and type (NASEM, 2009a, 2009b, 2011; Sato, 2008, 2011). Japanese educational

historian Tadahiko Inagaki (Inagaki, 1995) has identified two types of lesson study in Japan

since the Meiji era (1868–1912). One type is lesson study for ‘stylised’ teaching. This is

intended to help teachers master teaching procedures, where the educational ends, contents,

teaching objects, materials and textbooks are restricted and given; moreover, the educational

methods are standardised in order to make it possible for any teacher to use them effectively.

The other is lesson study for professional development. This is intended to educate teachers

to improve their capability to make judgments and choices in concrete practical situations

focusing on children’s learning (Inagaki, 1995).

While the former type of lesson study has been influential, the latter type has also

been sustained by teachers’ conscious endeavours. The rise of the latter type was evident in

the Taisho (1912–1926) and Showa (1926–1989) eras, especially in the context of the

worldwide progressive education movement that focused more on children as learners

(Inagaki, 1995). In this regard, we may say that the aim of the professional development of

teachers is to understand and support children’s learning, and Japanese teachers have devoted

their endeavours to reconstructing lesson study so that it goes beyond ‘stylised’ teaching and

focuses on teachers’ professional development.

Since the late 1990s, Japanese lesson study has received international attention as a

means of enabling teachers’ professional development, enhancing children’s learning and

facilitating school reform (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999; Lewis & Tsuchida, 1997). Although

practice by Japanese teachers aimed at reconstructing lesson study has accumulated,

empirical research on lesson study has only been superficial (Akita & Lewis, 2008). In this

study, we focus on the discourse of teachers, especially in regard to the reconstruction of

lesson study to recover the substance of teachers’ professional development. We refer to this

discourse as teachers’ professional discourse in lesson study.

2. Theoretical Framework

In recent years, researchers in teacher education have begun to investigate the nature

of professional development inside teacher communities within schools (Little, 2002, 2003,

2007; Little & Horn, 2007; Little & Curry, 2008; Achinstein, 2002; Grossman, Wineburg, &

Woolworth, 2001; Stoll & Louis, 2007; Westheimer, 2008). These studies basically raise the

following question: How does teachers’ interaction with their colleagues open up or limit

their learning opportunities in professional development activities? For example, Horn and

3

Little suggested that groups differed in the extent to which conversational routines as

‘organizational routine’ supported the linking of frameworks for teaching to specific

instances of practice (Horn & Little, 2010). To develop such an investigation of professional

development inside teacher communities, we need to deepen our understanding of what kinds

of teachers’ discourse support the professional development of teachers in Japanese lesson

study.

What kind of discourse is produced through conducting lesson study? Donald

Schön’s work is relevant to this question (Schön, 1983). Schön presents two models of the

profession: ‘technical experts’ who engage in solving well-defined and given problems and

‘reflective practitioners’ who engage in setting and reframing problems (Schön, 1983). Based

on Schön’s perspective, in the present study we divide teachers’ discourse in lesson study

into two modes: problem-solving discourse and problem-setting discourse (see Figure 1).

In problem-solving discourse, the problem of choice or decision is solved through

the selection, from available means, of the one best suited to established ends. On the other

hand, problem-setting discourse engages in the process by which we define the decision to be

made, the ends to be achieved and the means that may be chosen. This point is also

illuminated by Inagaki’s focus on the second type of lesson study, which is intended to

educate teachers to improve their judgements and choices in the teaching situation (Inagaki,

1995).

Figure 1. Teachers’ Discourse

3. Research Design and Methods

3.1. Research Strategy

This research employs an intensive case study design that focuses primarily on

teachers’ discourse in lesson study at a Japanese elementary school. We selected an

elementary school that has engaged in school reform centering on the reconstruction of

teachers’ discourse in lesson study for more than 10 years as the location for our study.

In this school, the innovation of teachers’ discourse is intended to move from

criticizing colleagues’ lessons (ex. What is the best way of teaching X? – implying that the

research lesson is not the best) and suggesting an alternative way of teaching (ex. Is the

alternative teaching approach better? – implying that there is an alternative teaching

4

approach that is better), to describing the children’s learning processes in the lessons. It is for

this reason that the teachers aim to focus on reflecting on the research lesson itself before

exploring alternative teaching approaches and to supersede the existing Japanese lesson study

for ‘stylised’ teaching (Inagaki, 1995).

3.2. Data Collection Procedures

We used a sequence of lesson study discourse that was collected during our intensive

fieldwork at the school. Due to the focus on in situ teacher professional development, the

research relies on a variety of ethnographic data. These data were collected over a two-year

period and include observational data of the research lessons, the lesson study itself, ordinary

activities, interviews with individual teachers and a variety of relevant school and classroom

documents for ‘within-method triangulation’ (Mathison, 1988; Merriam, 1998).

These participant observations were conducted from April 2007 to March 2009

(more than 50 days in total, and the pilot survey in the 2005–2006 academic year as well as

the participant observations have continued). The author of this paper acted as a conventional

participant observer in both the research lessons and lesson studies that occurred during the

2007–2009 academic year (approximately 50 lesson studies), taking field notes and making

audio recordings. The teachers’ discourse in lesson study was recorded and transcribed.

3.3. Data Analysis Focus

To closely scrutinise the teachers’ professional development process, we selected

two cases of lesson study where the research lessons were conducted by the same teacher,

hereafter referred to as Ms. Nagashima (pseudonym). In 2007, Ms. Nagashima was in her

fourth teaching year. In addition, the school was the first school at which she had worked.

She had investigated arithmetic teaching. As can be seen in Table 3.1., her two arithmetic

research lessons were conducted in October 2007 and May 2008, respectively.

We also examined Ms. Nagashima’s description of her lesson plan (for a research

lesson in November 2008), which was written in November 2008 as a self-reflective

statement. Her description covers the entire two-year period:

‘In the past, I have often intentionally created original units that went against the

textbooks. In the 2nd grade introductory multiplication unit, I deal with

multiplication of the number 12 [in October 2007], and in the 3rd grade introductory

division unit I took up division with remainders [in May 2008]’.

‘[However] I had so self-righteously constructed teaching units based on adult

thinking that I did not consider the children’s thinking and learning. My new

challenge [after May 2008] is to conquer this problem by “designing my teaching [in

line with the children’s thinking and learning]”. This challenges me to conduct

teaching where I examine the various thinking processes of children and get close to

each thought. This way, all children will understand the mathematical value

5

Table 3.1. Outline of Ms. Nagashima’s Research Lesson and Post-lesson Conference

[mathematical authentic learning]’.

‘Each child has his or her own learning process. Although some children might

not understand the new learning content, through the next learning content, one of

them might understand the previous learning content. That’s OK, I think. […] This is,

I think, “mathematical learning with actual feelings” for each child.’ [italics added

by author].

Ms. Nagashima’s original teaching units went against the textbooks to enhance the

children’s mathematical learning. However, upon reflection, she realized that her original

construction of teaching units was ‘self-righteously’ based on ‘adult thinking’ and she herself

‘did not consider the children’s thinking and learning’. Through the previous two research

lessons and two lesson studies, she discovered several tasks for developing as a teaching

professional. What kind of discourse was produced in these lesson studies in October 2007

and May 2008? What discursive modes are they characterised by?

Although this analysis aims to reveal the dimensions and consequences of

professional development through lesson study discourse, it is limited in its access to the full

complexity of the social process under examination.

The profiles of the focal research participants are listed in Table 3.2. Pseudonyms

have been used to protect their privacy.

4. Findings

4.1. Case 1: October 2007

4.1.1. Lesson: October 2007

The Case 1 lesson study in October 2007 was a discussion about Ms. Nagashima’s

Case 1: October 2007 Case 2: May 2008

Subject Matter Arithmetic Arithmetic

Grade 2nd

3rd

Children 34 34

Teaching Unit Introductory multiplication unit Introductory division unit

Content: Main Theme

Main Question

Main Activity

12 × □

(using 12 blocks)

How many blocks do we need to

make five figures that are made of 12

blocks?

Mainly pair learning

50 ÷ ∆

(using 50 blocks)

How many same-shaped figures can

we make from 50 blocks?

Mainly collaborative learning

Teacher Voices in the

Post-lesson Conference

20 26

Duration Approximately an hour and a half Approximately an hour and a half

6

Table 3.2. Profiles of the Focal Research Participants in this Study

Name (Pseudonym) Years

Teaching*

Years at School* Individual

Inquiry Theme**

Remarks*

Nagashima*** 4 4 Arithmetic First school

Kojima 15+ 10 Arithmetic Head of year

Mori 6 6 Art First school

Shimizu 6 6 Science Professional

development leader,

first school

Kawai 7 7 Moral Education First school

*The information in this table reflects the situation as of 1 April 2007.

**While the teachers actually teach most of the subjects, they have individual inquiry themes that focus on

one subject.

***The research lesson teacher.

challenging 2nd grade arithmetic lesson where she attempted to teach her original

construction of multiplication units (see also Table 3.1.).

In this case, her lesson consisted of teaching ‘12 × □’, instead of the textbook’s plan

of ‘2 × □’ or ‘3 × □’. Her original approach was inspired by the belief that it would help the

children to better understand the meaning of multiplication. The meaning that she proposed

was that ‘∆ × □’ means ‘unit quantity × multiplier’. She then focused on the children’s

understanding of the concept of a unit quantity.

More specifically, the main question she proposed was ‘how many blocks do we

need to make five figures that are each made of 12 blocks?’ The children worked on the

problem in pairs. After observing her lesson, what did the other teachers discuss with

colleagues in the lesson study? (see Table 4.1.)

4.1.2. Post-lesson Conference: October 2007

We may say that the teachers’ discourse in the first case was characterised by two

different discursive mode sequences. The starting point of the first discursive mode sequence

is Did the children learn what the teacher intended them to? The following four discourses

(by different teachers) can be classified as this first type: Mr. Kojima (see Table 4.1. and Line

No. 0101-0113, hereinafter the same), Ms. Inoue (0201-0205), Mr. Shimizu (1201-1211) and

Mr. Kinoshita (1701-1714). It is also important to note the sequence of these four discourses

which refer to Mr. Kojima’s initial discourse.

As stated above, the first colleague who spoke was Mr. Kojima (0101-0113), the

head of the 2nd grade. His question prompted the following sequence. At first, he described a

girl’s (Kyouko’s) learning process (0101-0107). The discursive mode here can be classified

as Did the children learn what the teacher intended them to? His answer was no. He was also

7

Table 4.1. Teachers’ Discourse in the Post-lesson Conference: October 2007

Line

No.*

Teacher Excerpt Discursive Mode Refere

nce

0101

0102

0103

0104

0105

0106

0107

0108

0109

0110

0111

0112

0113

Kojima

[head of

the year]

‘At the end of the lesson, ... Ms. Nagashima continued to

teach Kyouko [girl] one on one. ... ‘There’s one lot of 12,

so that’s 12 × 1. 12 × 2 means there are 2 lots of 12,

right? There are 2 units of 12, so that’s 12 × 2’. Though

Ms. Nagashima carefully explained the meaning of

multiplication to Kyouko, Kyouko looked at her in a

confused way. ...

Honestly, I couldn’t think of any other words she could

have used to explain it. ...

If anybody knows a better way of explaining

multiplication to the children than Ms. Nagashima’s

explanation, ‘there are 2 lots of 12 blocks, so this is 12 ×

2, and 3 lots of 12, so it’s 12 × 3, please say so’.

Did the children

learn what the

teacher intended

them to?

↓

No.

↓

What is the best

way of teaching

X?

0201

0202

0203

0204

0205

Inoue

[head of

the year]

‘I’d like to say something connected to what Mr. Kojima

said, ... I would like to know why you selected 12 as the

unit quantity for [an introductory multiplication unit]? …

Based on my experience last year, the children [2nd

grade] have difficulties in handling two-digit numbers ...’

Question

↑

Did the children

learn what the

teacher intended

them to? = No. [in

her last

experience]

Is the alternative

teaching approach

better?

Kojima

[respon

se to

Kojima

’s

questio

n]

0301

0302

0303

0304

0305

0306

0307

0308

Nagashi

ma

[research

teacher]

‘… The primary aim of today’s lesson was to get the

children to be able to construct the calculation formula

for multiplication. …

I wanted to take up the unit quantity beyond the times

table [kuku, 9 × 9], so I took it up to 12. …

You can write 12 + 12, you can write 12 × 2, I wanted to

show them this new way of representing it, like this [12 ×

2] ... ’.

Answer

0701

0702

0703

0704

0705

0706

0707

0708

0709

Mori

‘... Did you want the children to be able to figure out the

answer [in the lesson] [X]? Or did you just want them to

be able to construct the calculating formula [in the

lesson] [Y]? ... I think Kyouko might understand that this

[12 × 5] is multiplication [Y], but she failed to understand

how to get the answer [X]….

Like Ms. Inoue’s comment [in a 2nd grade introductory

multiplication lesson], I wonder why you decided to use

12…’.

Question

Did the teacher

teach what the

children actually

learned?

↓

Yes or no.

↓

Question

Inoue

0801

0802

0803

0804

0805

0806

0807

0808

0809

Nagashi

ma

‘… the idea of multiplication was not autonomously

produced by the children. But I think I had to present the

idea in the lesson. …

In the end, they did addition today. I think, if the children

attempt double-digit multiplication [□□ × □□], they will

obtain substantial sense of doing multiplication…

The primary aim of today’s class was [to get the children

to understand that] you can also write 12 + 12 + 12 + 12

+ 12 as 12 × 5. ….

Answer

Did the children

learn what the

teacher intended

them to? = No.

1201

1202

Shimizu

[professi

‘... About Mr. Kojima’s question, in fact we would like

someone to tell us. The problem [that arose] in today’s

Did the children

learn what the

Kojima

[respon

8

1203

1204

1205

1206

1207

1208

1209

1210

1211

onal

develop

ment

leader]

lesson that we need to think about is how to teach

multiplication. Even if the teacher carefully explains that

‘there are 2 lots …’, the children cannot understand the

meaning of multiplication….

I understand that you wanted to go beyond the children

only memorising the times tables. ... The pictures in the

arithmetic textbook, the coffee cup vehicle in the

amusement park [where 3 or 4 people can ride in each

vehicle], would have been easier to understand….’

teacher intended

them to?

↓

No

↓

Is the alternative

teaching approach

better?

se to

Kojima

’s

questio

n]

1301

1302

1303

1304

1305

1306

1307

1308

1309

1310

1311

1312

Kawai

‘... As Ms. Mori also mentioned, it was impossible for the

children to figure out multiplication [X] at the present

time. But while the teacher only wants the children to

construct the calculation formula [Y], the children want

to figure out the calculation using the formula [in the

lesson] [X]. This is because the children might have the

sense that the calculation formula was for figuring out the

calculation [X]. ...

There might be a gap between constructing the

calculation formula by 12 [the teacher’s intention = Y]

and figuring out the calculation [the children’s sense of

learning = X]...’.

Did the teacher

teach what the

children actually

learned?

↓

No.

↓

Why ?

↓

The gap between

teacher and

children

Mori

1701

1702

1703

1704

1705

1706

1707

1708

1709

1710

1711

1712

1713

1714

Kinoshit

a

[principa

l]

‘... [in Koutaro [boy] and Sachi’s [girl] interaction after

the lesson], Sachi said, ‘I partially understood the

calculation formula from what Koutaro said, but I have

no idea why the consequence of the calculation was 60

[12 × 5]’. ...

So, the children recognised what they understood and

what they did not by comparison. ...

I think it is the next challenge for the children is to learn

what they failed to understand. …

Although Mr. Kojima asked us a question at the

beginning, … I have no idea [about the best way of

explaning to the children]. … We didn’t have a better

move…. So we must investigate it again. ... I’m

sorry….’.

Did the children

learn what the

teacher intended

them to?

↓

Yes.

↓

What is the best

way of teaching

X?

Kojima

[respon

se to

Kojima

’s

questio

n]

Note. * The first two digits indicate the order in which the person first spoke; the second two digits

indicate the line number.

concerned that a better or the best explanation of multiplication would be difficult to find

(0108-0109). Therefore, in the lesson study, Mr. Kojima wanted someone to offer the best

way of teaching multiplication (0110-0113).

The discursive mode of Mr. Kojima’s question (0110-0113) can be classified as

What is the best way of teaching X? This question was directed at his colleagues and

prompted the following discourse sequence in the lesson study: Ms. Inoue (0201-0205), Mr.

Shimizu (1201-1211), and Mr. Kinoshita (1701-1714). We can say that Mr. Kojima’s

discourse represents problem-solving discourse, in other words dealing with a given problem,

in this case teaching the children the meaning of multiplication. In addition, we recognise the

fact that the school has innovative norms of lesson study. Nevertheless, Mr. Kojima’s

problem-solving discourse generated and influenced the following discourse.

In the middle of the lesson study, Mr. Shimizu, the professional development leader,

9

referred to Mr. Kojima’s initial statement (1201-1202). The mode of his discourse

(1202-1206) can be classified as Did the children learn what the teacher intended them to?

His answer was no. Responding to Mr. Kojima’s initial question, Mr. Shimizu suggested

using the textbook picture for an alternative and possibly better teaching method (1207-1211).

This discursive mode can be classified as Is the alternative teaching approach better in the

context of the given problem?

At the end of the lesson study, Mr. Kinoshita, the school principal, also responded to

Mr. Kojima’s initial question. He described the children’s learning process (1701-1709). His

discursive mode can be classified as Did the children learn what the teacher intended them

to? His answer was yes. Mr. Kinoshita then answered Mr. Kojima’s question. The mode of

his latter discourse (1710-1714) can be classified as What is the best way of teaching X in the

context of the given problem?

This first discourse sequence was completed spectacularly in a question–answer

form in the lesson study. The final response by Mr. Kinoshita suggested what the main issue

was in this lesson study, namely: What is the best way to explain the meaning of

multiplication? We note that this discursive mode explores a given problem of teaching, in

this case teaching the children the meaning of multiplication.

The second discursive mode sequence was Did the teacher teach what the children

actually learned? The starting point of this discursive mode sequence was the statement by

Ms. Mori in the first half of the lesson study (0701-0709). Ms. Mori described the learning

process of the same children who Mr. Kojima mentioned (0101-0107), but from a different

viewpoint (0704-0706). Ms. Mori did not state that Kyouko did not understand multiplication

at all like Mr. Kojima, but stated instead that Kyouko might understand what multiplication is

but she was worried about the computation procedure (0704-0706). Ms. Mori made

assumptions that divided what Kyouko learned = [Y] from what Kyouko did not learn = [X]

in the lesson. This discourse focuses on the child’s learning process itself and investigates the

child’s learning in itself. This discursive mode can be classified as Did the teacher teach what

the children actually learned? Unlike the first discourse sequence, this discourse involves an

effort to reframe the problem in the situation.

Referring to Ms. Mori’s statement, Mr. Kawai also described the children’s learning

process and referred to the problem that Ms. Mori had presented (1301-1312). He believed

that the children had their unique sense of learning and could recognise that the math

formulas were only used for calculation purposes (1304-1308). In addition, Mr. Kawai

investigated the children’s learning processes and suggested that Ms. Nagashima might not

be able to understand them (1301-1308). He also mentioned the ‘gap’ between the teacher’s

original intention = [B] and the children’s sense of learning = [A] in the lesson (1309-1312).

We note that this second discursive mode can be classified as Did the teacher teach what the

children actually learned? This discourse involves reframing the problem in the situation.

10

We also note that this school was the first school that Ms. Mori and Mr. Kawai had

taught at (see Table 3.2.). In this regard, they might naturally describe the children’s learning

process and inquire into learning based on the discursive mode of Did the teacher teach what

the children actually learned? On the other hand, the inquiry into teaching mode of Did the

children learn what the teacher intended them to? is most likely linked to problem-solving

discourse in the context of a given problem (by Mr. Kojima, Ms. Inoue, Mr. Shimizu and Mr.

Kinoshita). In the context of the reconstruction of the lesson study discourse, some attempts

revert to the problem-solving discourse, while others do not. This nuance suggests the

difficulties of reconstructing lesson study discourse.

4.2. Case 2: May 2008

4.2.1. Lesson: May 2008

The Case 2 lesson study in May 2008 was a discussion about Ms. Nagashima’s

arithmetic lesson for the 3rd grade where she continued to teach her original arithmetic

teaching unit (see Table 3.1.).

In this case, her teaching involved an introductory division unit. Although teachers

usually begin to teach division without remainders as dictated by textbooks, she again

constructed an original teaching unit, which dealt with division with remainders in order to

make the children understand the meaning of division. The meaning that she proposed was

that ‘∆ ÷ □ = ○ with the remainder’ meaning the ‘total quantity (dividend) ÷ unit quantity

(divisor) = quotient with the remainder’. She then focused on the children’s understanding of

the concept of a unit quantity.

More specifically, the main question she proposed was ‘how many same-shaped

figures can we make from 50 blocks?’ The children were to engage in the question through

collaborative learning.

However, the children’s learning in this case diminished during the actual lesson.

What did the teachers discuss with their colleagues in regard to the observed lesson? (see

Table 4.2.).

4.2.2. Post-lesson Conference: May 2008

In this case, we may think that the more diminished the children’s learning became

during the lesson, the more critical and blameful Ms. Nagashima’s colleagues would have

become when discussing her lesson. However, in this lesson study, we can say that her

colleagues primarily reflected on her teaching in terms of inquiry into the children’s learning

(see Table 4.2.). This orientation of the teachers’ discourse was marked in the following three

discourses: Ms. Mori (0101-0107) Ms. Fujii (0301-0307) and Ms. Kanayama’s discourse

(0401-0404).

Ms. Mori offered her feedback first (0101-0107). She carefully described one child’s

learning process. The mode of her discourse (0101-0104) can be classified as Did the

children learn what the teacher intended them to? Her answer was no. She continued talking,

11

Table 4.2. Teachers’ Discourse in Post-lesson Conference: May 2008

Line

No.*

Teacher Excerption Discursive Mode Refere

nce

0101

0102

0103

0104

0105

0106

0107

Mori ‘... [Ms. Nagashima asked the children to make the same

figure with 50 blocks.] Kensuke [boy] couldn’t make the

figure with the 50 blocks he was given. He failed to

understand what a figure was. …

I think that the children had difficulty in understanding

what a figure was. I can see that it was difficult for the

children to understand it’.

Did the children

learn what the

teacher intended

them to?

↓

No.

↓

Did the teacher

teach what the

children actually

learned?

↓

No.

0301

0302

0303

0304

0305

0306

0307

Fujii ‘... as Ms. Mori mentioned, I am also very concerned

about the extent to which the children understood the

concept of a figure….

[Describing Kensuke’s group learning in the lesson] I am

concerned about the extent to which the children could

understand the concept of a figure, at the 3rd grade

level…’.

Did the teacher

teach what the

children actually

learned?

↓

No.

Mori

0401

0402

0403

0404

Kanaya

ma

‘... I also observed Kensuke’s group, and I have the

feeling that when they were thinking about what a figure

[which Ms. Mori and Fujii mentioned] was, they were

trying to make something very beautiful. …’

Did the teacher

teach what the

children actually

learned?

↓

No.

Mori

and

Fujii

0901

0902

0903

0904

0905

0906

0907

0908

0909

0910

0911

0912

0913

0914

0915

0916

0917

Kojima

[head of

year]

‘... What do we think about the appropriate degree of

children’s freedom in the lesson? … I think that the

problem of the appropriate degree of freedom is related,

as Ms. Mori and Fujii have also mentioned, to the figure

[the fact that the children had difficulty in understanding

what it was]. …

Ms. Nagashima intended to make the children take on

this task freely. It was attractive and interesting, but …

As you all know, Ms. Nagashima jumped straight to

teaching 12 in the introductory multiplication unit [last

year, in October 2007]. I think that it would have been

better to deal with 12 today, too….

I think it would have been better to restrict the children to

some extent. Or you could have told them to make a

figure with 12 blocks or make ribbons with 12 blocks,

asked ‘How many ribbons can you make?’ I think this

approach would have been better….’.

Did the children

learn what the

teacher intended

them to?

↓

No.

↓

Is the alternative

teaching approach

better?

Mori

and

Fujii

1201

1202

1203

1204

1205

1206

1207

1208

1209

Kojima

[head of

year]

‘[describing the process of the other children’s interesting

utterances in the lesson]

Ms. Nagashima, you felt very challenged by how to find

the mathematical value [mathematical authentic learning]

in the children’s utterances in the lesson, didn’t you? The

children used various numbers during group learning as

well...

The children were expressing many different

mathematical values, and I think that working out how

Did the teacher

teach what the

children actually

learned?

↓

No.

↓

Why ?

↓

Kojima

himself

12

Note. * The first two digits indicate the order in which the person first spoke; the second two digits

indicate the line number.

and the mode of this discourse (0105-0107), unlike her previous discourse, focused on the

child’s learning in itself. The discursive mode here can be classified as Did the teacher teach

what the children actually learned?

Ms. Mori’s latter discourse focused on the children’s learning process, which might

have prompted the subsequent teachers’ discourses. In fact, the discourses demonstrated the

reference to Ms. Mori’s discourse. Next Ms. Fujii’s discourse also described Kensuke’s

learning process from her original viewpoint that focused on the developmental stage

(0301-0307). Then Ms. Kanayama’s description located Kensuke’s learning process in his

group learning and illuminated the children’s will to make beautiful figures (0401-0404). We

should note that although Ms. Mori, Ms. Fujii and Ms. Kanayama’s discourse showed that

Ms. Nagashima did not teach what the children actually learned, they are less interested in

criticising the teacher than they are in inquiring into the children’s learning. It is important to

note that these discursive modes can be classified as Did the teacher teach what the children

actually learned? They imply, unlike a given problem, a new practical problem which Ms.

Nagashima needs to consider for enhancing the children’s learning.

We may say that in the middle of the lesson study a further dimension of discussion

1210

1211

1212

the teacher could pick them up is a very difficult thing, an

important thing. What is the better move, does anyone

know?’

What did the

teacher learn from

watching the

children learn?

↓

Is the alternative

teaching approach

better?

2101

2102

2103

2104

2105

2106

2107

2108

2109

2110

2111

2112

2113

2114

2115

2116

2117

Shimizu

[professi

onal

develop

ment

leader]

‘…I don’t know to what extent I can understand Ms.

Nagashima’s feelings in this lesson, but I think that you

also felt that the children could not engage in

collaborative learning with other children. What was the

reason for that? This is a problem that we and you have

put a lot of thought into...

Although the children murmured various things, making

the various figures with blocks, I think that you felt that

overall dynamic learning had not occurred in your class

today….

To borrow Mr. Kojima’s phrase, when the children

encountered mathematical ... value [authentic learning],

they could learn collaboratively with other children using

mathematical ... concepts and words. If our teaching is

ambiguous [how to take up teaching materials], the

children won’t know how to collaborate with and support

other children. This might be in your feelings as well. ...’.

Did the teacher

teach what the

children actually

learned?

↓

No.

↓

Why?

↓

What did the

teacher learn from

watching the

children learn?

↓

Why?

↓

Did the teacher

teach what the

children actually

learned?

Kojima

13

began to take shape (Mr. Kojima [0901-0917], Mr. Kojima [1201-1212] and Mr. Shimizu’s

discourse [2101-2117]). Referring to the previous discourse (Ms. Mori and Fujii’s discourse),

Mr. Kojima’s discourse was characterised by suggesting an alternative way of teaching which

could meet Ms. Nagashima’s needs (0901-0917). The mode of this discourse (0901-0906)

can be classified as Did the children learn what the teacher intended them to? His answer

was no. He then continued talking (0907-0917). Mr. Kojima’s discourse incorporated much

of the previous discourse and tentatively offered an alternative teaching approach.

Interestingly, after a moment, Mr. Kojima spoke again (1201-1212). We may say

that his second discourse started to describe the children’s learning process (1201-1202) as if

he was not satisfied with his first discourse (0901-0917). His second discourse not only

suggested, again, an alternative and better way of teaching but also presented the reason why

an alternative method of teaching was necessary for the lesson. The mode of his discourse

(1203-1212) can be classified as What did the teacher learn from watching the children

learn? In this case, his discourse means Reflecting on the teacher’s reflection-in-action. As

mentioned above in Section 3, the term ‘mathematical value’ became the key term for Ms.

Nagashima’s challenge for the subsequent research lesson and the term was elicited from this

discourse by Mr. Kojima as well.

Moreover, at the end of the lesson study, Mr. Shimizu’s discourse referring to Mr.

Kojima’s discourse is also notable (2101-2117). His discourse (2101-2117) did not suggest a

better alternative teaching method. His discursive mode can also be classified as What did the

teacher learn from watching the children learn? Through this discursive mode, his discourse

explored the problem that Ms. Nagashima should consider for her future professional

development. We may say that his discourse also means empathetically Reflecting on the

teacher’s reflection-in-action.

It is important to note that Mr. Kojima’s and Shimizu’s discursive mode is What did

the teacher learn from watching the children learn? Through these discourses, Ms.

Nagashima’s tasks for developing as a teaching professional were discovered. As mentioned

above in Section 3, she then recognised and decided to take on these tasks in the next

research lesson.

5. Discussion

In order to examine the kinds of teachers’ discourse that support professional

development in lesson study, we conducted a case study in an elementary school in Japan. In

line with our theoretical perspective described above in Section 2, we consider the following

two points.

5.1. Discursive Modes in the Lesson Study

Guided by our question and based on our theoretical framework, the teachers’

discourse in the lesson study can be classified into one of the following six discursive modes:

14

(A) Simple question and answer (B) Is the alternative teaching approach better? (C) What is

the best way of teaching X? (D) Did the children learn what the teacher intended them to?

(E) Did the teacher teach what the children actually learned? and (F) What did the teacher

learn from watching the children learn? These categories of teachers’ discursive modes are

grounded in the two cases, and the categories are exhaustive, mutually exclusive, sensitizing

and conceptually congruent (Merriam, 1998).

The important point to note is that we recognise the difference between (D) Did the

children learn what the teacher intended them to? and (E) Did the teacher teach what the

children actually learned? Although both discursive modes refer to the children’s learning

and teacher’s teaching in the actual lesson, they differ in the following accentuation. The

discursive mode (D) highlights the teacher’s teaching; the discursive mode (E) focuses on the

children’s learning. We may say that in the former mode, the children are the object of

teaching; in the latter mode, the children are the subject of teaching. In other words, the latter

mode is the teachers’ inquiry into the children as learners (Inagaki, 1995).

Moreover, the discursive mode (D) is likely to inquire how to teach in the context of

given problems; the discursive mode (E) is likely to inquire into the children’s learning itself

and propose a starting point for questioning related practical problems. In this regard, we may

say that, by amplifying Schön’s perspective (Schön, 1983), the discursive mode (D)

represents problem-solving discourse; the discursive mode (E) represents problem-setting

discourse. Moreover, the discursive modes (B) and (C) are inquiries into a given problem and

are classified as problem-solving discourse. The discursive mode (F) is an inquiry that

reframes the problems by focusing on the children’s learning and is classified as

problem-setting discourse. The classification of the discursive modes in the lesson study is

illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Discursive Modes in the Lesson Study

15

5.2. Nature of Professional Discourse in the Lesson Study

By conducting our case study, we examined the kinds of teachers’ discourse that

support professional development in lesson study. Through the two research lessons and

lesson studies, Ms. Nagashima discovered her problems for future professional development.

In her self-reflective description, as mentioned in Section 3, she pointed out that she

originally intended to construct her unit based on ‘adult thinking’ and she ‘did not consider

the children’s thinking and learning’. This reflective process challenged her to conduct a

lesson where she examined the various thinking processes of the children in line with their

thinking and learning so that all of them could ‘understand the mathematical value’

[mathematical authentic learning].

These tasks for developing as a teaching professional for Ms. Nagashima were

elicited from her colleagues’ discourse in the post-lesson conferences. More specifically, the

discourse that explored her problems was characterised by the following discursive modes:

(E) Did the teacher teach what the children actually learned? (or inquiry into children’s

learning) and (F) What did the teacher learn from watching the children learn? (or reflection

on reflection-in-action).

In this study, we focused on the teachers’ discourse with regard to supporting

professional development. We referred to this discourse as teachers’ professional discourse.

The results of our analysis show that teachers’ professional discourse is characterised by the

discursive modes (E) and (F). Moreover, our results corroborate the historical perspective on

Japanese lesson study, which shows that this type of lesson study for professional

development, beyond ‘stylised’ teaching, aims to educate teachers to improve their capability

to make judgements and choices in the practical situations focusing on children’s learning

(Inagaki, 1995).

It must be pointed out, however, that the cases and theoretical framework in this

study are limited, and the school at which we conducted our research has undertaken reform

for more than 10 years. In Japan, where there are various styles of lesson study, we need to

conduct more investigations into lesson study for professional development and continue

building various operative theoretical frameworks to support the teaching profession.

References

Achinstein, B. (2002), Community, Diversity and Conflict among Schoolteachers: The Ties

That Blind, Teachers College Press, New York, NY.

Akita, K. and Lewis, C. (2008), Learning from Lessons: Teacher Inquiry and Lesson Study

(jyugyou no kenkyuu kyoushi no gakusyuu lesson study he no izanai), Akashi Shoten,

Tokyo. (in Japanese)

Grossman, P., Wineburg, S. & Woolworth, S. (2001), “Toward a Theory of Teacher

16

Community”, Teachers College Record, Vol. 103 No. 6, pp. 942-1012.

Horn, I. S. and Little, J. W. (2010), “Attending to Problems of Practice: Routines and

Resources for Professional Learning in Teachers’ Workplace Interactions”, American

Educational Research Journal, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 181-217.

Inagaki, T. (1995), The Steps of Lesson Study: 1960-1995 (jyugyou kenkyuu no ayumi

1960-1995), Hyouron Sya, Tokyo. (in Japanese)

Lewis, C. and Tsuchida, I. (1997), “Planned Educational Change in Japan: The Case of

Elementary Science Instruction”, Journal of Education Policy, Vol.12 No.5, pp. 313-331.

Little, J. W. (2007), “Teachers’ Accounts of Classroom Experience as a Resource for

Professional Learning and Instructional Decision Making”, in Moss, P. (Ed.) Evidence And

Decision Making 106th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education,

Blackwell Publishing Malden, Massachusetts, MA, pp. 217-240.

Little, J. W. (2003), “Inside Teacher Community: Representations of Classroom Practice”,

Teachers College Record, Vol. 105 No. 6, pp. 913-945.

Little, J. W. (2002), “Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice: opening up

problems of analysis in records of everyday work”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol.

18 No. 8, pp. 917-946.

Little, J. W. (1990), “The Persistence of Privacy: Autonomy and Initiative in Teachers’

Professional Relations”, Teachers College Record, Vol. 91 No. 4, pp. 509-536.

Little, J. W. (1982), “Norms of Collegiality and Experimentation: Workplace Conditions of

School Success”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 325-340.

Little, J. W. and Curry, M. W. (2008), “Structuring Talk About Teaching and Learning: The

Use of Evidence in Protocol-Based Conversation”, in Earl, L. M. and Timperley, H. (Ed.)

Professional Learning Conversations: Challenges in Using Evidence for Improvement.

Springer, Netherlands, pp. 29-42.

Little, J.W. and Horn, I.S. (2007), “‘Normalizing’ problems of practice: converting routine

conversation into a resource for learning in professional communities”, in Stoll, L. and

Louis, K.S. (Ed.) Professional Learning Communities: Divergence, Depth and Dilemmas,

Open University Press, Maidenhead, England, pp. 79-92.

Mathinson, S. (1988), “Why Triangulate ?”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp.

13-17.

Merriam, S. (1998), Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education: Revised

and Expanded, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

National Association for the Study of Educational Methods (NASEM) (Ed.) (2011), Lesson

Study in Japan, Keisuisha, Hiroshima, Japan.

National Association for the Study of Educational Methods (NASEM) (Ed.) (2009a), Lesson

Study in Japan: History of Lesson Study and Teacher Education, (Nihon no jyugyo-kenkyu:

Jyugyo-kenkyu no rekishi to kyoushi kyouiku), Gakubunsya, Tokyo. (in Japanese)

17

National Association for the Study of Educational Methods (NASEM) (Ed.) (2009b), Lesson

Study in Japan: Methods and Forms of Lesson Study, (Nihon no jyugyo-kenkyu:

Jyugyo-kenkyu no houhou to keitai), Gakubunsya, Tokyo. (in Japanese)

Sato, M. (2011), “Trend of Reform: Contemporary Innovation of Lesson Study” In National

Association for the Study of Educational Methods (NASEM) (ed.) Lesson Study in Japan,

Keisuisha, Hiroshima, Japan. pp. 142-150.

Sato, M. (2008), “Japanese Lesson Studies, Looking Back and Thinking Forward.” Keynote

Speech, The World Association of Lesson Studies International Conference 2008, Hong

Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong.

Sato, M. (1997), Teachers as Aporia (Kyoushi to iu aporia), Yokohama, Seori-syobou. (in

Japanese)

Schön, D. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think In Action, Basic

Books, New York, NY.

Stigler, J. W. and Hiebert, J. (1999), The Teaching Gap: Best Idea from the World’s Teachers

for Improving Education in the Classroom, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Stoll, L. and Louis, K.S. (Ed.) (2007), Professional Learning Communities: Divergence,

Depth and Dilemmas, Open University Press, Maidenhead, England.

Westheimer, J. (2008), “Learning among Colleagues: Teacher Community and the Shared

Enterprise of Education”. in Cochran-Smith, M., Feiman-Nemser, S., McIntyre, D., and

Demers, K. (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teacher Education: Enduring Questions in

Changing Contexts 3rd edition, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 756-783.