Advantages of Lesson Study

With schools returning this month following the summer break, it is a good time to be thinking about how to build on the great practice going on in our classrooms. Budgets remain tight and with that comes the pressure on school leaders to prioritise spending. Opportunities to attend courses and training can be limited and this can have a detrimental impact on the professional development of staff. Such barriers force us to think differently when looking for solutions and can bring about changes in the way we do things. By harnessing the experience and enthusiasm of teachers already in school we can build not only a more reflective approach to teaching and learning but also a more supportive and developmental culture. The use of Lesson Study is not new and I have written about it previously here and here reporting on the difference it can make to teachers’ practice and pupil outcomes. A move towards this collegiate and effective process is straightforward and won’t make a massive dent in already challenging school budgets. The benefits of Lesson Study are apparent to staff and classrooms very quickly and embedding this approach to teaching and learning development across a school or MAT will create an environment where all staff feel confident to openly and freely discuss practice with one another, working collectively to improve outcomes for children. When we introduced Lesson Study we witnessed increased dialogue around teaching and learning and more open conversations around professional development. We saw staff sharing new ideas and approaches, arranging times to support each other and observe thought out and mutually agreed solutions to specific aspects of classroom practice such as questioning, use of vocabulary, pre learning for key pupils and appropriate use of resources. An open culture of sharing and supporting gave rise to continuously improving teaching and learning, something that a more traditional observational (and judgemental) approach would struggle to secure.

In their book ‘The Teaching Gap’, Stigler and Hiebert describe the Lesson Study they witnessed in Japan as ‘the linchpin of the improvement process’ explaining that ‘if you want to improve teaching, the most effective place to do so is in the context of a classroom lesson.’ The collegiate nature of Lesson Study provides teachers with an opportunity to not only improve key aspects of their practice but also to research, discuss and share thoughts and ideas in order to improve outcomes for pupils. When reflecting on practice and looking at classroom goals for this academic year, the supportive and insightful nature of a Lesson Study approach can be a great way of meeting them.

Evidence Based School Improvement – Success for All

‘If we truly believed that every child could learn, we would be relentless in our pursuit of those circumstances.’

(2 Million Children – Slavin, Madden, Chambers and Haxby)

This first blogpost on Success for All, a consistent, structured, multi-dimensional approach to school improvement, provides a background to the charity and its work.

Success for All grew from a desire to see all children succeed, whatever their background.  It is an approach to school improvement based on over thirty years of evidence-based research which, if implemented with fidelity, provides a high level of consistency and classroom practice that is of huge benefit to schools.  It improves pupil outcomes, creates a positive school climate and provides professional development for all staff.

Focusing on literacy, Success for All comprises of a suite of different components expertly designed to meet the needs of children; Curiosity Corner, Kinder Corner, Roots, Wings and Quest.  Underpinning all these programmes and the central tenet of SfA is Cooperative Learning.  Cooperative Learning, if used effectively, results in children who feel safe, relaxed and happy at school.  These feelings and emotions are essential if children are to have a positive, fulfilling learning experience.  If Cooperative Learning is embedded and consistently applied across the school, children willingly work hard because they want to do well and make progress.  Many of the ideas found in Cooperative Learning will be evident in some form or other in many classrooms but what makes SfA unique is the step by step approach that ensures all strategies are implemented consistently in every classroom across the school.  This transparency enables schools to have a shared understanding of what constitutes best practice, to develop professionally by learning from each other and gives children stability due to a clear understanding of expectations.

In the most exemplary Success for All schools all components from Curiosity Corner in Nursery to Wings and Quest in Y6 are underpinned by a fully embedded Cooperative Learning framework that is applied with consistency and fidelity.  This is the approach that was fully researched and introduced in Baltimore, USA in 1987 to resounding success in the most deprived schools and continues to transform schools to this day.  As Cooperative Learning is an essential cornerstone to the strategy, schools who find themselves unable to introduce the SfA model in its entirety for whatever reason, still benefit hugely from prioritising its implementation.  It provides a clear framework that makes structures explicit to everyone and ensures a consistent approach to teaching and learning throughout the school.

Success for All was designed by Bob Slavin and Nancy Madden to put into practice the findings of research on effective school systems.  It was built around the assumption that every child can learn and was designed to anticipate the ways in which those at risk could fail and provide interventions in advance of this happening. Subsequent years of development and research have seen SfA grow and benefit schools globally, most notably in the USA and the UK.  As is noted in the book, 2 Million Children: ‘Success for All is by far the largest research based, whole school reform model ever to exist.  It is the first model to demonstrate that techniques shown to be effective in rigorous research can be replicated on a substantial scale with fidelity and continued effectiveness’.

Success for All is not an ‘off the shelf’ solution to a school’s problems, nor is it a silver bullet or snake oil to provide a quick fix remedy to identified difficulties.  It is driven by a belief that all children can learn and all deserve the best possible education and the best possible schools.   The aim of Success for All remains the same today as it did over thirty years ago, to relentlessly stick with every child until that child is succeeding.

The Power of Post Lesson Interviews

What is preventing the higher attaining children from taking on the chilli challenge in maths?  Why is Charlotte afraid to put her hand up in class? Why do pupils in Year Four believe Florence Nightingale came before the Ancient Egyptians?

It is easy to make assumptions in such situations.  The higher attainers do not want to get things wrong, Charlotte is shy, disengaged etc…

Post Lesson Pupil Interviews can shed light on what children really understand and help us to plan accordingly.  In the case of the higher attaining pupils in maths, the simple answer came down to the children’s lack of understanding of key mathematical vocabulary used in the chilli challenge.   The children could all answer the calculations but the use of such words as simplify, justify and explain threw them and prevented them from taking the challenges.  Lesson Study and subsequent Pupil Interviews clarified what the problem was and a focus on mathematical language meant this was easily resolved. It’s easy to assume the children understand the mathematical terms as they are used so regularly however, the interviews revealed otherwise.

In Charlotte’s case, a Post Lesson Study Interview highlighted the problem.   Charlotte’s father, with the best of intentions no doubt, had told his daughter that in class it was important to get things right.   For Charlotte this advice acted as a real barrier to her learning.   In a growth mindset classroom environment parental influence still held sway and it was fantastic to see the change in Charlotte once the teacher had taken the time to speak to dad who recognised the issue.  She changed from being a child afraid to contribute for fear of failure to one keen to engage and learn through discussion and collaboration.

The fact that Year Four pupils studied Florence Nightingale in Year Two led them to believe she came before the Ancient Egyptians they were now studying. It highlighted to us the importance of developing historical timelines and a clear understanding of chronology.  It is important to regularly question the children on their learning and their understanding of lessons.   Post Lesson Pupil Interviews are often very revealing and insightful, they can provide a platform for real pupil voice and lead to changes in curriculum delivery, for the better.

 

School to school lesson study 2

I recently blogged about our changing approach to Lesson Study.   Having operated in a number of different ways, we have moved to a school to school model that we hope will be sustainable in the face of cuts to school budgets.   Our existing model requires a lot of release time for staff, and although every cycle of lesson study has proved to be extremely valuable, such as model is operationally challenging as we move forward.  The school to school model requires less release time and has other benefits that we are beginning to see from our early forays into this CPD research field.

As blogged previously, we have tried out different approaches and engaged in some school to school research but are now planning more strategically to build on our previous work.  We recently completed a first round of school to school lesson study with three Y4 classes.   One class acted as host and the research lessons took place in this class over a two week period.  The three teachers involved followed the same approach as we had successfully employed in our own setting with joint planning time and post lesson pupil interviews and review built in to the process.   As is often the case with such things, staff gave their own time over and above the release each school allocated, simply because the research findings and conversations enthused them.

The research in this round focussed on the language used in maths.   The findings suggested that children in the class were put off tougher problems if they didn’t understand the words being used in the problems. Some children didn’t have a clear understanding of the word ‘explain’ and therefore avoided any problems using this word, even though they could solve the actual calculations.   In response to this the teachers decided to create a bank of words often used in maths, and find simple explanations and meanings to display in classes next to them.   From the post lesson pupil interviews it was felt this would help the children access the questions.   The research shows that we may assume children’s understanding of some of the words we regularly use in maths and that it is worth spending time unpicking meanings carefully with children in order to give them the best chance of answering the word problems.

The staff involved in this latest round of research have now planned a presentation to deliver in staff meetings in the schools after the Easter break.   This opportunity to share their findings in more than one school is also a great CPD opportunity and I am sure, it will open up further rich dialogue around this area.   Following this successful trial, we plan to extend the model to other year groups during the summer term.

 

 

Lesson Study – School to school

We embraced lesson study wholeheartedly a couple of years ago.   The developmental approach to teaching and learning sits more comfortably than the judgemental.   It encourages research and innovation and enables staff to improve their practice in a supportive and collaborative environment.

The problem with the Lesson Study model we adopted is that to run it successfully there’s a lot of release time required.   We have worked in triads thus needing three teachers out of class to plan and review with two out of class for each research lesson (we work with a cycle of three research lessons).  To sustain this model of LS is a challenge and we have therefore thought carefully about how we can continue to reap the benefits  but without the financial costs and potential disruption to timetables.

Earlier this year we trialled a school to school Lesson Study with a partner school in Birmingham.   Two Y6 staff worked together on a small research project and this gave us the incentive to take the idea further.  We have decided this time around to work with two partner schools closer to home.   This means each of us releasing just one teacher for each round of Lesson Study rather than three.  In January we will begin a Y4 maths Lesson Study which we are all very excited about.  It will build on the successful approach we have employed in school but with the added benefit of insights and ideas from beyond our own community.  It further develops our school to school work and gives staff a great opportunity to learn and research with other practitioners.   We still aim to continue with the distance LS using technology as much as possible to enable us to successfully work beyond local confines.  Staff will still present their findings to their peers and the opportunity to deliver staff PD meetings with colleagues in other schools provides yet another opportunity to share research and learn from each other.

In this era of austerity with educational funding decreasing, it is important to continue to move forward as a profession and school to school Lesson Study provides a great opportunity for us to work together, share research and learn from each other.

Lesson Study – school research findings to date

As the end of the spring term approaches we have set aside time as a school to reflect on the first cycle of lesson study.   The research within school can be broadly divided into four key areas: learning partners, resources, use of praise/feedback and questioning.  We have chosen to present the findings as a booklet for staff to take away and consider.

We have kept the findings deliberately brief and hope that further dialogue will be generated after the Easter holidays. The four areas are outlined below in terms of findings, questions arising from the findings, actions and resources.

1. Learning partners

Findings– very much established as part of the school culture.  Clearly embedded and used throughout the school at different stages of development. Not all children clear about the role of a learning partner.  When best used the length of time was appropriate for the outcome and made clear to children e.g. 20 seconds to generate answer, 1 minute for discussion etc…  Some children were very passive when working with a learning partner, while others dominated.  Roles were not always equally shared.  Learning partners were seen to give lower ability children more confidence. “When you have ideas and your friend has ideas you can mix them up and get a better idea.” Y5 pupil.  Learning partners clarify learning and understanding for children. “I didn’t know what they meant (AFs) until my partner told me.” Y5 pupil.

Questions arising – how are learning partners chosen? How often are they changed?

Actions – clear guidance and clear success for learning partners needed.  Agreed protocols around successful learners and how to be an effective learning partner to be shared and displayed in classes.  Reward systems to include recognition of good learning partners.

Resources– AfL inset and staff meetings.  Bill Thompson’s work with staff and pupils, materials on server.  Ideas for turn taking shared.

2. Resourcing

Findings – resources available but not always used to maximise learning.  Resources generally out but children not always clear how to use them and what to use them for e.g. number squares, multi link.  Evidence of gap between stages of a child’s learning and resources given to support them causing confusion e.g. children still trying to understand cardinal numbers had been given number squares.  Evidence of pre learning being an effective resource to support lower ability children in accessing learning during lesson. This was most effective where the strategy to be employed in the lesson was made clear and addressed gaps in the children’s learning. AfL cups were used to good effect in one class.  Working walls, where used, were seen to have a positive impact and children were able to access this to support learning.

Questions arising – are tangible resources taken away from the children too soon?  Is training needed for teaching and support staff in effective use of appropriate resources and developmental stages of resources e.g. subitising

Actions – staff training on use of key resources

Resources – spelling booklet to support working memory.  AfL cups for each class

3. Use of praise/feedback

Findings – positive climate in all classes involved in research to date. All children displayed positive attitudes towards learning. Very little use of empty praise (orally).  Children understood why they were being praised due to teacher/adult’s clear explanation of the reason.  Clarification of praise was a strong feature of the research.  Quality learning and discussion with peers sometimes limited by constraints of the lesson which could hinder learning.

Questions – do all adults have a clear understanding of the purpose of praise and the impact this can have? How do we incorporate response time into children’s lessons and learning? How does this impact on lesson planning and timetabling?

Actions – develop further the language of praise (minimise ‘well done’, ‘good work’ comments and replace with comments related to effort and specifics). Further training based on growth mindset.  Amend marking and feedback policy.

Resources – Barry Hymer materials from Inset on server.  Feedback and marking policy (to be amended following work with Bill Thompson and Barry Hymer)

4. Questioning

Findings – questioning was seen to be most effective;

• When children were given clear wait/thinking time either on their own or with a learning partner.
• When children were given a leading role during discussions (e.g. basketball not ping pong)
• When differentiated questioning was targeted towards individuals. (Differentiation to aid understanding through use of appropriate language and blank level questioning)
• Where strategies were actively employed to promote whole class engagement rather than limiting questions to a number of enthusiastic respondents (e.g. lolly sticks, name generator rather than hands up).
• Where pre prepared questions gave children time to think before responding (e.g. asking questions before a video clip)

A good range of open and closed questions were evidenced to reinforce, clarify, challenge misconceptions and to lead discussions.

Questions – is there any purpose to a ‘hands up’ approach? Do we need a whole school approach to effective use of questioning, e.g. lolly sticks, wait time?  Are all staff clear about children’s understanding of language?

Actions – school to further explore a ‘no hands up’ approach to encourage full participation and sustained engagement.  Training for support staff.

Resources– blank level questions posters, lolly sticks, Barry Hymer and Bill Thompson’s materials on Growth Mindset and AfL and information on server, question stems.

As stated previously, the above information will hopefully provoke further discussion as we move forward with lesson study.   Next term we will follow up the actions and fine tune our approach to LS in light of our findings.   It would be great to hear from anyone who is using LS or wrestling with the development of these key areas.

Lesson Study – the story so far

We have just completed our first cycle of Lesson Study and the response has been extremely positive.   A more explicit focus on pupil learning and a deeper understanding of how they learn has been a prominant feature of this first round of research. The shift from teacher at the centre of an observation to learner at the centre of the research is significant.  Where traditional observations tend to warrant a quick post lesson chat before the handing over of a judgemental, evaluative A4 sheet, Lesson Study has encouraged us to look in fine detail at the process, to develop practice and collectively reflect on findings.   The high level of professional dialogue, both in the joint planning stage and during the post lesson discussions has reflected the interest and enthusiasm of those involved.  I am sure not all were completely sold on the idea of four adults and a video camera invading their classroom, followed by a thorough dissection of what had occurred, but once through the process all recognised the power of such an approach and believe it is worth developing across the school.

As with any new initiative in school, the Lesson Study model still needs work for it to be successfully embedded.   There are potential issues around cover and creating the time and space needed to run Lesson Study properly.  We are probably still too kind to each other when it comes to professional discussion and I am sure the gloves will come off given time.   We placed great importance on the protocol and everyone signed up to this but we will revisit it in the next round and ensure everyone really does feel safe to disagree, to challenge assumptions and beliefs and to share ideas and approaches, however outlandish they may sound.  The level of dialogue generated following each research lesson has been staggering and I believe that will only grow over time.  The protocol is important in clarifying to all involved that there is no hierarchy rather equal research partners co creating lessons and reflecting on the findings.   This takes away the notion of one teacher and their work being the focus and encourages a sense of collaboration and joint professional development.

In the next cycle we are keen to involve support staff more as they have such a crucial role to play when it comes to learner response.  We have not yet settled on the right way to collate and share the research findings.   For this first round it will be disseminated through staff meetings and electronically via the school server but in the future this could take the form of teacher demonstrations, presentations, handouts, booklets or videos.   As our overarching focus for this first round has been questioning, we have begun to run a series of staff meetings to share the research and open up ways to move practice forward as a result.  The use of praise, learning partners and resourcing also featured significantly in this cycle and sharing the findings of these areas is planned over the next term.  For us to develop teaching and learning it is important that we move away from simply evaluating lessons and their effectiveness to a system that promotes professional development by allowing staff to experiment with new ideas and strategies in a safe and supportive environment.   I believe Lesson Study gives us that opportunity.

Ping Pong or Basketball? Effective use of questioning

One of the key areas of AfL development in school is questioning.   We have been looking at effective use of questioning for some time and staff have embraced the work of Dylan William, Shirley Clarke and, more recently Bill Thompson, who has been in school working with our AfL group.   The introduction of Lesson Study this term has enabled us to really progress this work.

We made questioning the overarching area of Lesson Study.   In addition to the focus on three pupils representative of different learner groups we decided to look closely at questioning.   This enabled us to observe Bill’s recent input at close quarters and also gave us an area that would allow for repeated research regardless of subject or theme.  With each Lesson Study we have been able to learn from the questioning observed in the previous one.   We began by looking carefully at wait time.  Many teachers were surprised by how little time they left after asking a question.  Following Lesson Study, staff are consciously making an effort to pause for longer, to give children more time to consider their response rather than rushing for an answer.   We have also looked carefully at the ping pong v basketball argument, questions and answers that bounce back and forth between pupil and teacher as opposed to being passed around the room by the children to their peers for a range of responses.   As with the ‘no hands up’ sessions this approach ensures all learners are alert and ready to respond rather than only the confident few.  Through Lesson Study we have been able to observe learner response and have noticed that in some cases, if children put their hand up and are not chosen, they become more passive in their learning.   We have also observed that many will not put their hand up and simply ‘opt out’ seeing this selective process as optional participation.   Where ‘no hands up’ has worked best staff have been explicit about the session, explaining to the children that for this particular session they will be using lolly sticks or a name generator.   Where this has not been clearly stated some children will continue to put their hand up as a kind of default for each question asked, regardless of whether they will be asked or not.

A recent research lesson gave us the opportunity to look at pre questioning.   The teacher told certain children that after a film clip he would be asking them specific things about what they had seen.   The questions were targeted to key children and differentiated accordingly.   This gave the children a focus and time to consider their responses.   The class were also told that those answering would be able to chose peers to help them, using the basketball technique thus engaging the rest of the class.    Asking a question and giving the children time to discuss responses with talk partners before answering has also enabled pupils to give more thoughtful and considered responses and again, the opportunity to observe this process through Lesson Study has furthered our understanding of how such an approach to questioning can have a positive impact on learning.  As with all aspects of Lesson Study, the conversation and professional dialogue generated around the use of open and closed questions, wait time, learner response, talk partners and more has been powerful and positive, leading to changes in approach that we hope with have a lasting impact.   None of the techniques and approaches are new, some have been used to good effect in school already, but Lesson Study has enabled us to really get beneath the surface of questioning and support each other in developing and furthering classroom practice in a way that no other form of professional development has been able to.

Pre Lesson Learning

One of the early successes of our Lesson Study has been the use of ‘pre learning’ sessions with key pupils. This simple idea came from one of our vice principals @glynnlee who suggested rather than supporting key pupils to catch up with learning after the lesson, they are given a pre lesson session that introduces them to the key concept about to be taught. This short session enables staff to look at resources and strategies that will help them access the learning in class and ultimately give them a greater chance to succeed with their peers.

These sessions have been delivered by teaching assistants who work closely with the class teacher and go through their planning to ensure a common approach is adopted that benefits  key individuals who might normally struggle in the lesson. Interviews with pupils post research lesson have revealed just how powerful this technique can be. One Y4 pupil commented that he had just had his best lesson in school ever! He was able to access the learning and contribute more fully to the lesson due to a sharp, focussed pre lesson session that prepared him for the learning ahead.

Cameras in the Classroom

Cameras in the Classroom.