Educational psychology, neuro-science and Lesson Study: how
translating research knowledge into practice requires teacher research.
Brahm Norwich
Graduate School of Education, University of Exeter
Abstract:
This paper argues that the historical and current translation of psychological
and neuro-science research into teaching practice has not fulfilled its promise
because there has been insufficient focus on previous educational ideas
about developing a theory of teaching and on the classroom as a site for
teacher enquiry. The aim of this paper is to examine how the relationship
between psychology and teaching can be enhanced through a strategy in
which teachers and psychologists collaborate in the study and development of
teaching and learning in teaching settings. It is suggested that lesson study
with its principles of collaborative professional learning about teaching and
learning has the potential to enhance meaningful professional learning and
teaching developments. A model is proposed which reaffirms the central role
of teacher research through the reflective practices of lesson study in the
relationships between research, knowledge and practice.
Introduction
Educational Psychology has a history that formally goes back to the late 19 th
century in Europe and North America when psychology became an
independent academic and experimental discipline. However, a psychology
for teaching was taught in various forms to teachers in training in the UK and
elsewhere well before this period (Thomas, 1996). There is also evidence that
ideas and practices that would now be called psychological were developed
before and outside academic and scientific psychology in what has been
called the ‘practical tradition’ (Schonpflug, 1993). For example, Hearnshaw
(1987), the biographer of Cyril Burt, a leading originator in the field of
educational psychology in the UK, noted that applied psychology began in the
field of education. Educational psychology like health or clinical psychology
are areas of psychology that are characterised by their relevance to a
practical field, e.g. education, mental health or health, rather than in terms of
some process of aspect of psychological functioning, e.g. cognitive or
developmental psychology. In terms of this distinction, educational psychology
could be seen as an applied rather than a basic area of psychology. This has
been evident in how ideas from developmental and cognitive psychology, for
example, have been taken up and developed in educational psychology
(Tomlinson, 1981). But, educational psychology in this form is about
knowledge and understanding which has often been represented as a
foundation or contributory field required for the initial and continuing
professional development of teachers (Peterson et al.,1990). This educational
psychology is related but distinct from practical or professional educational
psychology. Practitioner educational psychology aims to promote child
development and learning through the application of psychology by working
with children and adults (DfEE, 2000). In some countries this is called
professional educational psychology, (e.g. the UK), while in others it might be
called school psychology (e.g. USA). Though the knowledge base of
1
professional educational or school psychologists involves educational
psychology, as described above, it can also include other areas of
psychology, e.g, clinical child psychology and psychologies developed in
therapeutic practice, e.g. solution focused therapy.
In the opening paragraph I have outlined some key background aspects of the
field of educational psychology in order to set the scene for the initial focus of
this paper, which is how educational psychology relates to the preparation
and practice of teaching. Though it is widely believed that educational
psychology is central to teaching and teacher preparation (Peterson et al.,
1990), much concern has been expressed over the decades about the
divergence between educational psychology and the study of teaching. More
than 30 years ago Stones (1978, 1979) lamented that the study of educational
psychology rarely engaged with classroom practice. Stones saw this as
crucial both for educational psychology and the study of teaching. From his
perspective, this divergence between educational psychology and the study of
teaching impoverished both studies. Stones argued that educational
psychology should be viewed as part of a theory of teaching and for this
reason he coined the phrase ‘psychopedagogy’ to integrate theoretical
psychological principles into teaching. Things have changed since Stones’
analysis and it could be argued that educational psychologists have
increasingly studied teaching and learning in school settings (Woolfolk Hoy et
al., 2008). But, the development of a knowledge base is one matter, another
is the question of how trainee and experienced teachers can come to
understand and use educational psychology in their practical teaching.
Since 1990s there has been the development of an education neuro-science
which promises to guide educational practice and reforms (Nature Neuroscience Editorial, 2006), much as educational psychology has done for about
a century. Some neuro-science researchers consider a translational
educational science would go straight into educational practice without being
mediated by educational psychology (Lipp & DeVelle, 2013). What neuroeducation promises can be seen in Biggs (2013) celebration of 25 years of
neuro-education by the listing of 25 of the most significant findings from this
‘monumental discipline’. These include, for instance, various principles about
brain functioning such as: the brain thrives on variety, the brain has
mechanisms for self-regulation and both nature and nurture affect the learning
brain. Important as these principles are there is still the gap between research
sites and the classroom. Lipp & Develle’s (2013) have responded to this
challenge by considering an ‘experimental classroom’ that would enable a
level of control needed to systematically study human learning. By contrast, a
more inter-disciplinary approach is suggested by the Nature Neuro-science
Editorial (2006) in calling for rigorous translational efforts that recognize that
neuro-scientists are not the ‘ultimate experts on education’. This editorial
recognizes that translation needs to be guided by teachers’ experiences of
teaching and learning problems and be evaluated partly in terms of teachers’
experience of what works. In a similar vein, Goswami (2006) has suggested
that there is a need for people with a knowledge of education to bridge the
gulf between neuroscience and education.
2
Despite the promise of neuro-education, the translational issues remain and in
some respects parallel those that have been experienced over a longer period
by educational psychology. My suggestion in this paper is that translation has
not been addressed successfully because there has been insufficient focus on
previous educational ideas about developing a theory of teaching and on the
classroom as a site for enquiry. Despite the developments of the last 30
years, the challenge of a psycho-pedagogy, as Stones conceived it, has
hardly progressed. So, the aim of this paper is to examine how the
relationship between psychology and teaching can be enhanced through a
strategy in which teachers and psychologists collaborate in the study and
development of teaching and learning in teaching settings. This paper will
continue with an account of Dewey’s (1904) laboratory model of theory and
practice developing together and a more recent account of reformulating how
educational psychology can be deployed to enhance teaching and learning.
This then leads to the main focus of this paper, an explanation of how lesson
study as a strategy for promoting teacher reflective practice offers a unique
approach to developing theories of teaching. This entails examining the part
that lesson study and learning studies can have as a way of developing a
science of teaching (Elliott, 2012). This provides the basis for a collaborative
partnership between teachers and psychologists, both professional and
research psychologists
Reflecting on teaching: reformulating educational psychology and a laboratory
model of teacher education
Peterson et al. (1990) recognize some inherent dilemmas for the teaching and
learning of educational psychology. These dilemmas underlie the challenge
for educational psychology of contributing to the preparation and further
professional development of teachers. For these authors the dilemmas
involve i. the problem of transfer or application of psychological knowledge, ii.
the problem of the balance between general and content specific knowledge
about school learning, iii. the need to consider the knowledge and beliefs of
prospective teachers, and iv. the challenge of applying knowledge about
teachers' learning to the teaching and learning of educational psychology.
Their argument is that however these dilemmas are resolved, there is a need
to have a thoughtful analysis of what knowledge educational psychology has
to offer. For example, in relation to the question of transferring psychological
knowledge to practical teaching, they suggest that student teachers need
opportunities to try out principles in actual teaching situations. Based on the
psychological principle that new information to be learned needs to be related
in a meaningful way to learners’ existing knowledge and information, they also
suggest the student teachers require more than just being introduced to
educational psychology as a foundation discipline.
These authors ground their position about how teachers can develop from
teacher education their knowledge about learning and learners on
contemporary constructivist ideas in educational psychology about how
children learn; with the focus on the importance of meaningful ‘ real world’
learning for learning factual knowledge, skills and problem solving. They give
as an example of this position a form of teacher education in which teachers
3
are given access to research knowledge about children’s learning. By seeing
professional learning as both a top down and bottom up process, they
advocate finding out what teachers already know about, for example, addition
and subtraction of arithmetic problems and children’s strategies to solve such
problems. Then through staff development workshops teachers were
encouraged to use their own and the research knowledge to plan and change
their first grade mathematics teaching (Carpenter et al., 1989). The key point
here is that teachers do not come to understand a constructivist perspective
by only being lectured about this perspective, but by engaging with the
perspective in specific activities and tasks. However, Peterson et al. (1990)
raise an interesting point that is relevant to the focus of this paper, which is
how can such an integration of knowledge and practice be provided. I will
return to this question later in this paper, as this is part of the rationale for the
paper’s focus on lesson study. They also highlight that an educational
psychology that is relevant to teachers will include knowledge of the
psychology of learning embedded in specific subject matter as well as more
general knowledge of theories of learning and development.
In addition, Peterson et al. (1990) suggest that a psychology of how teachers
learn is an important area of knowledge for educational psychology.
Extending educational psychology in this direction could be useful for teacher
education and professional development and may enhance teaching practice
and teacher preparation programmes. This point also relates to their previous
point about how to integrate knowledge with practice. They conclude their
paper by suggesting some possible ways of teaching and learning educational
psychology through the use of real-life teaching-learning problems or cases
(Shulman, 1987). In the context of the teaching of educational psychology, a
case might represent a realistic learning-teaching problem in a classroom.
Cases also provide a mechanism for shared thinking and construction of
knowledge in a group situation. This is where lesson study with its principles
of collaborative professional learning about teaching and learning, as I will
explain below, has the potential to advance the idea that the study of cases
may serve as a basis for meaningful learning and teaching in teacher
education. It is also relevant that Peterson et al. (1990) see that these
developments of educational psychology require the closer collaboration
between educational psychologists, teacher educators and subject matter
researchers.
It is interesting that Dewey (1904) foreshadowed some similar ideas more
than a century ago in the distinction he drew between the apprenticeship and
the laboratory models of teacher education. The apprenticeship model is
about giving student teachers efficient skills and knowledge in teaching. He
contrasted this with the laboratory model that goes beyond skill efficiency to
engender intellectual questions about the educational significance of teaching.
Dewey was interested in theory and practice growing together in teaching and
not being separated. However, he was careful not to present the
apprenticeship and laboratory models as opposites; because teaching
practice undertaken in terms of apprenticeship ideas could also serve
incidentally to enlighten about educational questions. But, he did see that the
apprenticeship model’s explicit focus on immediate skill could be at the cost of
4
professional growth. As he put it:
‘Such persons seem to know how to teach, but they are not students of
teaching. Even though they go on studying books of pedagogy, reading
teachers' journals, attending teachers' institutes, etc., yet the root of the
matter is not in them, unless they continue to be students of subject
matter, and students of mind-activity’ (page 10)
Becoming a ‘student of teaching’ for Dewey involved continuing to learn about
the content area of teaching as well as about ‘mind-activity’ or what we now
would call psychology. For Dewey the student of teaching will show
intellectual independence and vitality, be wary of immediate practical results
at any cost and break through administrative routines. The laboratory model is
also conceived in terms of a psychological analysis of teaching. For Dewey
the distinguishing feature of educational psychology was the framing of
psychological analyses in terms of the task of bringing about growth. So,
teaching practice was not just about observing and modeling how ‘good’
teachers teach and learning specific techniques. It was about ‘psychological
observation and reflection’ (page 25). The supervisor or expert tutor role is to
enable the student teacher to judge her or his teaching critically and to find
out in what ways it succeeded or failed and why. But, it is important to note
that Dewey also saw the student of teaching going beyond psychological
analysis to also consider wider social, philosophical and ethical issues of
educational significance.
Elliott (2012) suggests that Dewey’s distinction between apprenticeship and
laboratory models of learning to teach provide a basis for distinguishing
between teaching (as the deployment of skills and knowledge) and pedagogy
as a theory or science of teaching. Learning to become a ‘student of teaching’
therefore involves a form of research that Elliott portrays as a kind of action
research, in which pedagogical theories are tested in classrooms and further
developed; as an expression of the laboratory model. Elliott also links these
ideas to Stenhouse’s (1975) concept of the ‘teacher as researcher’, but
concludes that a science of teaching has not been supported by the dominant
model of teacher preparation in many countries with its isolation of theory
work in universities from practice work in schools. It is in this context that
Elliott suggests that lesson study as developed in Japan over the last century
provides a context for developing and testing pedagogical theories. I will now
discuss the potential of lesson study for bringing together a reformulated
educational psychology with a theory of teaching.
Lesson Study
Lesson Study is an approach for the collaborative study and development of
lessons that originated in Japan from the late 19th century. It reflects
Confucian traditions as well as imported Western values and ideas. Makinae,
(2010) identifies the Pestalozzian learner-centred theory of Swiss origin as
having an initial and continuing influence on the form and focus of lesson
study, in particular the principle of the ‘object lesson’. This principle involved
using direct concrete observation before abstract verbal teaching. As regards
teacher preparation the ‘object lesson’ principle became translated into
5
‘criticism lessons’ in which student teachers taught lessons while other
student teachers observed and then discussed and analysed them. In time
this extended beyond pre-service to in-service teacher education. Another
influence on lesson study has been Dewey’s ideas about reflective practice
(Fernandez and Yoshida, 2012) and as mentioned above, lesson study can
be seen to express Dewey’s laboratory model of student teacher learning
(Elliott, 2012).
What characterises lesson study is its collaboration (in and outside the
classroom), its procedures (cyclical and iterative process of reviewing,
planning and teaching), its ethos (enquiry, openness and parity between
participants) and distinctively, its focus on the lesson and the teachinglearning interactions. (See Figure 1 above).
The form and procedures of lesson study vary depending on the local
traditions and practices of the country of use. In this paper I will focus on the
UK version of lesson study that has developed over the last 7 years (Dudley,
2012). UK lesson study usually involves a team of 3-4 teachers who jointly
review and plan while one teacher teaches the planned research lessons. A
distinctive feature of the UK version of Lesson Study is its focus on the
learning of specific pupils (called case pupils) whose learning is jointly
reviewed and planned during research lessons (Dudley, 2012). Case pupils
also contribute their views about their learning to the lesson study process.
Much of UK lesson study has been for continuing professional development
(Dudley, 2012), though there is increasing interest in its use in initial teacher
education (Cajkler et al., 2013). I will discuss lesson study in more detail with
reference to a recent large-scale lesson study project that focussed on
secondary school subject teachers pupils. The Lesson Study – Moderate
learning difficulties (MLD) project involved secondary school teachers of key
stage 3 pupils (11-14 year olds) mainly in English, the arts and humanities
subjects. The central aims of the project were, i. to enhance the achievement
of MLD pupils at Key Stages 3 (ages 11-14 years) through the development of
pedagogic strategies, programmes and materials for wider national use in
6
secondary schools and ii. to evaluate the processes and outcomes of the
Lesson Study development work (Norwich & Ylonen, 2013). The project
adopted a Development and Research model (D&R), an approach to
innovation, knowledge creation and dissemination (Bentley & Gillinson, 2007)
allied to a design based approach to educational research (Brown, 1992).
As part of the design-based approach, lesson study was trialled in 2 phases
with the evaluation of the lesson study contexts, processes and outcomes in
each phase used to refine the lesson study approach. Overall the project
involved 29 schools and about 100 teachers in which the teams of 3-5
teachers each carried out about 60 lesson study cycles with a focus on pupils
with MLD to improve their teaching and learning mostly in regular classes.
The project’s evaluation research indicated that lesson study enabled the
teachers to develop a broad set of multi-faceted pedagogic strategies relevant
to pupils identified as having MLD. This included some well-known generic
pedagogic approaches, such as adaptations to cognitive demand, varied input
modes and the importance of motivational and learning relationships. Two key
points were drawn from these findings, first, that teaching relevant to pupils
with MLD is not just about cognitive demand, and second, that there were no
distinct or specific pedagogic approaches for pupils identified as having MLD
that are not also relevant to others not identified as having MLD (e.g. low
attainment or other SEN) (Ylonen & Norwich, 2012).
The evaluation research also examined a range of lesson study outcomes in
terms of the contexts and processes of using LS in both phases. This analysis
was based on a realist evaluation methodological approach, based on the
work of Pawson & Tilley (1997). Realist evaluation aims to link three distinct
broad aspects of a programme: its contexts, mechanisms and outcomes
(C-M-Os) by constructing a programme theory that explains under what
contexts particular mechanisms result in what outcomes. Overall it was found
that the teachers reported strongly positive outcomes of the lesson study
process for themselves, while the outcomes for the schools were less positive
- for more details see Norwich & Ylonen (2013). For example, by taking part in
the lesson study process teachers reported improvements in their planning of
teaching and more confidence to try new approaches. They had also gained
insights from lesson study observations and the collaborative planning and
reviewing of teaching, which had raised their awareness of the individual
needs of pupils. In short, the teachers had gained more knowledge and
awareness about the teaching and learning processes with regards to pupils
with identified MLD. However, it also emerged that the context in which lesson
study takes place in schools can support or hinder the lesson study process.
For example, the level of support and interest from senior leaders towards the
lesson study work emerged as an important context factor. In schools where
there was support for participating teachers, lesson study functioned more
smoothly. Figure 2 represents the final design of lesson study that came from
its refinement through 2 phases of evaluation. The importance of whole
school conditions and senior leadership support for the process is recognised
in this model of lesson study as an important condition for its effective use.
7
Figure 2: Model of Lesson Study: with focus on pedagogic improvement
Knowledge base – teachers use knowledge and understanding (professional and research
informed) about focus area and pedagogy
Review
previous
teaching
methods
and
pedagogic
planning
model
1st
research
lesson:
observation
and end of
lesson pupil
interviews
Review
and
planning
meeting
2nd
research
lesson:
observation
and end of
lesson pupil
interviews
Review
and
planning
meeting
3rd
research
lesson:
Create an
artefact
to
share
pedagogic
learning
observation
and end of
lesson
interviews
Whole school conditions / Senior Leadership support
What Figure 2 also shows is the contribution of a knowledge base to the
lesson study process. Based on previous lesson study literature this was
recognized at the start of this design-based project. Initially this was
considered to be about a research informed knowledge base relevant to
teaching students with identified MLD. So, at the initial lesson study
preparatory workshops teachers were introduced not only to lesson study
principles and practices, but were also encouraged to use some external
research informed knowledge sources in their lesson study planning about the
nature of moderate learning difficulties (MLD) as well as some current
knowledge about teaching and motivational approaches relevant to these
students. These sources included literature resources about higher order
thinking skills (Fisher, 2006), pedagogic strategies for pupils identified as
having moderate learning difficulties (Fletcher Campbell, 2004), motivational
approaches, such as the ARCS motivation model (Keller & Suzuki, 1988) and
research about working memory (Gathercole & Alloway, 2007).
The project research identified three modes of knowledge use by the lesson
study teachers in their planning. In Mode 1 the teachers relied on their current
professional knowledge (which might or might not have been informed by
research sources from the past); but there was no explicit reference to any
8
outside sources in their lesson study planning. Mode 1 knowledge was used
in 36% of lesson study cycles. In Mode 2 the teachers used their current
professional knowledge and some outside knowledge sources, such as the
principles of group work in teaching but, (not specifically related to MLD).
Mode 2 knowledge was used in 19% of lesson study cycles. Finally, in Mode
3 the teachers used their current professional knowledge and also made
explicit use of sources specifically related to students with identified MLD,
such as, about working memory and thinking skills. Mode 3 knowledge was
used in 45% of lesson study cycles. So, almost two-thirds of lesson studies
used external knowledge in the lesson study process. What was interesting
was that in interviews with teachers who only used their current professional
knowledge (Mode 1) some reported that this knowledge was adequate for
their lesson study planning and review. Some of these teachers also revealed
that they had used relevant knowledge from previous in-service courses,
which some said that they had not translated previously into teaching
practices (Ylonen & Norwich, 2013).
Learning studies
The importance of knowledge in the lesson study process described in the
above project has some parallels with another development of lesson study,
what has come to be called learning studies (Mun Ling & Marton, 2012). Elliott
(2012) has suggested that lesson study can be used in a way that challenges
teachers to make explicit their ‘folk pedagogies’ and expose them to testing
and development. He argues that for this to happen some explicit pedagogical
theory is required to enable teachers to theorise about their practice. One
notable example of this has been the fusing of lesson study with Marton’s
phonemonographic theory of learning, Variation theory (Marton & Booth,
1997). This development of lesson study into learning studies has come from
a collaboration between Ference Marton and researchers in Hong Kong
(Marton and Pang, 2006; Mun Ling & Marton, 2012).
The distinction between lesson and learning studies is important and often
misunderstood. Sometimes it is represented as a difference between using
Variation theory or not. This over-simplified difference misses the key
distinction; whether lesson study is being used primarily for the development
of practice or the development and testing of a pedagogic theory (Elliott,
2012). In aligning lesson study with the development of practice, it is
important to avoid seeing this aim as opposed to its use for the development
of theory. As shown in the MLD lesson study above, theory has a place in
informing lesson studies and the outcomes of lesson studies can lead to the
generation of local knowledge about some teaching practices. However,
learning study can go further than this use of lesson study; it can be used to
identify what are the necessary conditions for learning (Marton & Pang, 2006).
These authors claim that it is not only a concern for researchers but also for
teachers to distinguish in general terms between what must be done and what
might be done to achieve educational aims. These authors specify that a
learning study is a hybrid of Japanese lesson study and a design experiment.
Learning study is a design experiment in which the teachers are the
designers, while at the same time it is a lesson study that is ‘theoretically
based, systematically grounded, and systematically evaluated’ (page 218).
9
One of the key differences, however, between learning studies and design
experiments is that in learning studies the design is not under the control of
researchers but in the hands of the teachers. This has been put in another
way by Mun Ling & Marton (2012) who summarise the characteristics of a
learning study in these terms: i. students are expected to learn and
appropriate an object of learning, ii. teachers learn what variation theory
entails in practice and ii. academic and teacher researchers arrive at
enhanced understanding of variation theory as a set of pedagogic principles.
This summary brings out clearly the distinctive feature of learning study as
having theoretical development aims.
Some of the key terms in Variation theory include the following: i. objects of
learning – the ends towards which learning activities are directed, ii. critical
aspects – those features of the subject matter that students need to discern to
acquire the capability, iii. structure of awareness – a phenomenon can be
seen in different ways; learning is the discernment of critical aspects of
subject matter and iv. discernment and variation - to identify critical features,
requires discerning change compared to some invariance; to understand a
phenomenon requires discerning all critical features at the same time and in
terms of how they relate to each other.
So, Variation theory makes a contribution to learning studies by focussing on
the dynamic nature of the objects of learning and the necessary conditions of
learning. As regards the object of learning, the intended object of learning
may be different from the enacted object of learning embodied in the learning
activities. Similarly the enacted object of learning is different from lived object
of learning, what is actually learned. This distinction between intended,
enacted and lived objects of learning represents the gap between teaching
intentions, learning activities and learning outcomes. In variation theory the
condition of learning are not causes, in the sense that that the conditions
make learning possible, but do not cause learning. Based on these
assumptions, Marton & Pang (2006) specify four necessary conditions for
perceptual learning:
1. Contrast: A quality Q cannot be discerned without the simultaneous
experience of a mutually exclusive quality ~Q (not Q);
2. Separation: A dimension of variation, which can take on different values,
cannot be discerned without other dimensions of variation being invariant or
varying at a different rate;
3. Generalization: A certain value, Vi in one of the dimensions of variation V
cannot be discerned from other values in other dimensions of the variation
unless Vi remains invariant while the other dimensions vary.
4. Fusion: The simultaneity of two dimensions of variation cannot be
experienced without experiencing the two dimensions varying simultaneously.
It is not possible in a paper of this length to give an illustration of how this
theory is used to design learning studies in subjects as diverse as economics,
chemistry and dance. Nevertheless, the potential for developing variation
theory as a pedagogic theory can also be seen in work done in science
education (Bussey et al., 2013). These authors suggest that the lived object of
learning is influenced not only by the enacted object of learning through the
10
teachers designed learning activities, but also by the students’ prior
knowledge relevant to the object of learning. This means identifying the
student’s prior lived object before the teaching, something which is also
recognised by Marton & Pang (2006). Bussey et al. (2013) also suggest that
the design of the teaching materials might influence the enacted object of
learning. This can arise, they suggest, when the teacher uses materials and is
unaware of the aims designed into the materials being used.
In concluding this section, given the above account and analysis of learning
studies, it is worth reconsidering the relationship between lesson and learning
studies. In view of the importance of knowledge and understanding in the
lesson study model, is it possible that Variation theory could be used as a
knowledge base for a lesson study to develop some aspects of teaching
practice? And, if so, does this mean that there is no difference between a
lesson and a learning study? My answer to these questions is that it would be
possible to use variation theory in a lesson study, but this does not turn a
lesson into a learning study. This is because this kind of lesson study usually
does not involve a design experiment nor does it aim to develop Variation
theory, both of which are features of learning studies.
Using lesson study to connect educational psychology to the theory and
practice of teaching
I will distinguish in this section, as I did in the initial section, between
professional educational psychologists and educational psychology as a
contributory discipline to the initial and continuing professional development of
teachers. I will address how lesson study might contribute to both traditions of
educational psychology, starting with professional educational psychology.
Though professional educational psychologists in the UK and school
psychologists in other countries are seen as having an important
contemporary role in raising achievement and improving schools, this has not
been through specific lesson study approaches. Professional psychologists
have, however, worked with school staff to solve complex problems through
consultation and staff support approaches (Bennett & Monsen, 2011). These
authors have reviewed a range of related international approaches which
psychologists can use to enable staff to generate solutions to teaching
problems. These approaches also aim to build capacity in the school to
enable staff to further solve related problems.
Bennett & Monsen (2011) examined 4 such approaches and the research
related to their use in schools: Circles of Adults, Teacher Coaching;
Collaborative Problem-solving Groups and the Staff Sharing Scheme.
Teacher coaching is the only one used with individual teachers by contrast
with the other 3 that involve staff collaborative problem solving. Each
approach involves a staged model of procedures and is facilitated by an
outside professional, often an educational psychologist. The theoretical bases
of these approaches are psychological or related theory, rather than theory
about teaching, e.g. cognitive behavioural analysis, psychodynamic theory,
psychological coaching framework. Analysis of these approaches also shows
that most of them are directed at supporting collaborative problem solving
11
over challenging behaviour and understanding the social-emotional aspects of
their students’ behavior.
These collaborative problem solving approaches are different from lesson
study in certain key ways. First, though these approaches could focus on
academic curriculum subject teaching and learning, they focus on the
emotional and behavioural conditions for learning. In terms of the kinds of
knowledge relevant to teaching, these approaches focus on psychological
understanding that is relevant to, what can be called, teachers’ knowledge of
learners, sometimes seen as a form of teachers’ pedagogic knowledge.
However, these collaborative approaches do not address subject knowledge
or pedagogic subject knowledge and strategies. Secondly, these collaborative
approaches are facilitated and directed by professionals who are not teachers
and who are based in school support services. This contrasts with lesson
study in which teachers in a school organize and conduct the collaborative
examination and development of lessons.
However, despite these important differences, there are some key similarities
between lesson study and collaborative problem solving. One is the
collaborative interactive mode and the second is the importance of a staged
review and planning procedure. These similarities are relevant to the prospect
of professional educational psychologists becoming involved in lesson study
practices in schools. One way of thinking about this prospect is to consider
the role of the professional educational psychologist as someone who has a
psychological knowledge base to use in contributing to solving problems in
classroom teaching and learning. In the model of lesson study, outlined above
in Figure 1, knowledge relevant to the lesson study focus is a crucial part of
the effectiveness of the lesson study process. Lesson study has been used
with specialist SEN teachers involved in the lesson study teams (Bergenske,
2008 in the USA; Ylonen & Norwich, 2013 in the UK) as well as with therapy
specialists (Chia & Kee, 2010 in Singapore). These are examples of how
lesson study teams can access specialised knowledge and expertise. As
professionals with specialist knowledge professional educational
psychologists can similarly become involved in the lesson study process. This
would enable them to deploy their knowledge about the emotional and
behavioural conditions for learning and also become more involved in
curriculum subject teaching and learning.
There is another way in which professional educational psychologists can also
become involved in lesson study. This is in addition to the above use of
lesson study to improve teaching through professional learning. Lesson study
can also be used as a formative assessment strategy for pupils experiencing
learning difficulties. In the usual pattern of lesson study, the monitoring and
review of learning, through formative assessment, is used to adapt teaching,
with improved teaching knowledge and methods as the outcome. In the
assessment driven use of lesson study, variations in teaching are used to
produce ideas about the pupil’s learning characteristics and their teaching
needs. As Norwich et al. (2014) have suggested there are several features of
lesson study that are relevant to a novel classroom based assessment
procedure, i. the collaborative and iterative model of review and planning, ii.
12
the in-depth focus on the learning of specific pupils (case pupils) in response
to planned teaching, iii. a collaboration that can bring together and integrate
different assessment perspectives and knowledge bases and iv. a review and
planning process that can also take account of the pupil’s perspective.
This response to teaching approach to assessment has clear similarities to
the principles of what has come to be called dynamic assessment. In dynamic
assessment there is an attempt to change performance in an effort to
understand learning abilities and needs (Swanson, 2009). This involves
identifying what changes occur in response to variations in teaching that could
include feedback about previous task performance. Assessing
responsiveness to teaching (feedback, assistance etc.) has for a long time
been seen as an alternative to traditional (static) assessments in which
teachers or assessors give no assistance or feedback. Dynamic assessment
has also been seen to have direct use in the context of classroom teaching as
it can reveal various means to enhance learning and performance that may
not emerge from static approaches (Elliott, 2003).
Though speech and language therapists have used dynamic assessment with
a focus on speech and language functioning (Hasan and Joffe, 2007), much
dynamic assessment has tended to be conducted in a withdrawal context with
non-curriculum tasks. Probably the best known dynamic assessment
approach is based on a typology of psychological functioning; Feuerstein’s
Learning Potential Assessment Device (LPAD; Feuerstein, et al., 1987.
However, Elliott (2003) has argued against the conception of dynamic
assessment as little more than an enhanced form of cognitive abilities
assessment. His position is that dynamic approaches could be used to enable
psychologists and teachers to collaborate in devising classroom-based
educational interventions. This kind of dynamic assessment requires an
assessment scheme that takes place in a class context. But, despite the
appeal and interest in dynamic assessment models as a way of interactively
assessing learner needs in the context of classroom teaching, there have
been no models available for teachers to do. More recently Laughlan and
Carrington (2013) have developed a classroom resource for using dynamic
assessment to improve learning based on Feuerstein’s model, but this is to be
led and used by outside professionals like educational psychologists, not by
class teachers themselves. So, as an extension of the Lesson study–MLD
project, discussed above, lesson study is now being developed for
assessment purposes (Norwich et al., 2014).
As professional educational psychologists can become involved in lesson
studies in schools, so can academic educational psychologists who work in
university departments of education. Lesson studies can become part of initial
and continuing teacher education as they have in many East Asian countries
and in some parts of the USA. There is a role not only for curriculum subject
specialists (Cajkler et al., 2013), but also for educational psychologists to brief
and join lesson study teams about psychological principles and concepts that
are relevant to the reviewing and planning of lessons. As discussed above
lesson study with its principles of collaborative professional learning about
teaching and learning has the potential to advance the idea that the study of
13
cases may serve as a basis for meaningful learning and teaching in teacher
education (Peterson et al., 1990). Lesson study also embodies some of the
key features of what has come to be called reflective teaching as formulated
by Pollard (2008). These include teaching as a cyclical process of monitoring,
evaluating and revising, as competence in evidence based classroom enquiry
and as involving teacher judgement informed by research based evidence.
Reflective teaching also involves the dispositions of open-mindedness,
responsibility and whole heartedness, collaboration and dialogue with
colleagues and the creative interpretation and translation of external
frameworks of teaching and learning.
Lesson study provides the procedures, principles and ethos to establish
reflective spaces in schools and in school based training courses. In doing so
it can enable teachers to become students of teaching (Dewey, 1904) and so
learn about the content areas of teaching as well as be students of what
Dewey called ‘mind activity, what we would call educational psychology. So,
lesson study can underpin the laboratory model of learning to teach and so go
beyond the apprenticeship model. But, the reflective nature of lesson study
can also be used, as Elliot (2012) has suggested, to examine and develop
teachers’ folk pedagogies. One way of doing this, as discussed above, is by
the fusing of lesson study with an explicit theory of learning, such as Variation
theory, in what are called learning studies. Marton & Pang (2006) see learning
studies as a hybrid of lesson studies and design experiments. Academic
educational psychologists could also become involved in learning studies and
in this way collaborate in classroom ways of developing pedagogic theory.
Concluding points:
I have argued in this paper for more collaboration between psychologists,
teacher educators and teachers through the use of lesson study and its allied
approach learning studies. Lesson study as a form of teacher research
enables systematic reflective teaching and so opens up what goes on in
schools and classrooms to knowledge and understanding from various
disciplinary sources, including psychology in its various forms. In Figure 3
below I summarise how lesson study can be seen to sit with respect to the
relationship between theory, research and practice.
14
This model reaffirms the central role of teacher research through the reflective
practices of lesson study in the relationships between research, knowledge
and practice. It not only re-establishes the central role of educational
psychology in teacher professional learning and practice but indicates how the
emergence of a neuro-education perspectives needs to take account of
teacher knowledge and pedagogic theorizing. This is a challenge to
contemporary inter-disciplinary approaches that support an applied or
translational learning science approach. For example, Lipp and DeVelle
(2013) advocate a translational process by which experimental cognitiveneuro science knowledge can be translated into classroom practice through
small student group experimental classrooms. In contrast I have argued,
along the lines of the Nature Neuro-science Editorial (2006), that the
translation of neuro-science knowledge will need to be guided by teachers’
experiences of teaching and learning problems; and that this would be best
done through the principles and procedures of lesson and learning studies.
6625 words
References:
Bennett, S. & Monsen, J.J. (2011). A critical appraisal of four approaches
which support teachers’ problem‐ solving within educational settings,
Educational Psychology in Practice: theory, research and practice in
educational psychology, 27:1, 19-35
Bentley, T., & Gillinson, S. (2007), The D&R system for education. London,
England: Innovation Unit. Retrieved from http://www.innovationunit.co.uk/images/stories/files/pdf/d_and_r_system_for_education.pdf
(Accessed on 15.12.13)
Bergenske, L. (2008). Lesson study: implications of collaboration between
education specialists and general education teachers. Masters dissertation
Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2148/373 (Accessed on 15.12.13)
15
Biggs, S. (2013). Neuro-education: 25 Findings Over 25 Years. Retrieved
from:
http://www.opencolleges.edu.au/informed/features/neuroeducation-25findings-over-25-years/#ixzz2mRTStoWq (Accessed 15.12.13)
Brown, A. L. (1992), Design experiments: theoretical and methodological
challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of
the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.
Bussey, T.J., Orgill, M. and Crippers, K.J. (2013). Variation theory: a theory of
learning and a useful theoretical framework for chemical education research..
Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 14, 19-23.
Cajkler, W.; Wood, P.; Norton, J. & Pedder, D. (2013). Lesson Study: towards
a collaborative approach to learning in Initial Teacher Education? Cambridge
Journal of Education, vol. 43(4), pp. 537-554.
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C. & Loef, M.(1989).
Using knowledge of children's mathematics thinking in classroom teaching:
An experimental study. American Educational Research Journal 26, 499-531
Chia, N.K.W. & Kee, N.K.N. (2010). Teaching practicum for special education
teachers: a modified lesson study for trainee special education teachers,
Singapore, McGraw Hill East Asia.
Dewey, J. (1904). Relation of theory to practice, in Archambault, R.D. (ed.)
John Dewey on Education: selected writing. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
DFEE (2000). Educational psychology services (England) Current roles, good
practice and futures directions. Report of the working group. London: DFEE.
Dudley, P. (2012). Lesson Study development in England: from school
networks to national policy. International Journal for Lesson and Learning
Studies, 1 (1), 85-100.
Elliott, J. (2003). ‘Dynamic Assessment in Educational Settings: Realising
Potential’. Educational Review 55(1): 15-32.
Elliott, J. (2012). Developing a science of teaching. International Journal of
lesson and learning Study, 1,2, 108-125.
Fernandez, C. & Yoshida, M. (2012). Lesson Study: A Japanese Approach To
Improving Mathematics Teaching and Learning. London: Routledge.
Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y. Jensen, M. R., Kaniel, S. & Tzuriel, D. (1987),
Prerequisites for assessment of learning potential: The LPAD model.
16
in, Lidz, C.S. (Ed.) Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to
evaluating learning potential. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Fisher, R. (2006). Thinking Skills, in Arthur, J., Grainger, T. and Wray, D.
(Eds.) Learning to Teach in the Primary School : 226-238. London: Routledge.
Fletcher-Campbell, F. (2004). Pupils with moderate learning difficulties, in
Lewis, A., and B. Norwich (Eds.) Special pedagogy for special children? How
specialist is teaching children with difficulties and disabilities. (Buckingham:
Open University Press).
Gathercole, S.E. & Alloway, T.P. (2007). Understanding Working Memory: a
classroom guide. London: Harcourt Assessment.
Goswami, U. (2006). Neuroscience and education: from research to practice?
Nature Reviews Neuroscience 7, 406-413 (May 2006). DOI:10.1038/nrn1907
Hassan, N. & Joffe, V. (2007), ‘The case for dynamic assessment in speech
and language therapy’. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 23, 1, 9-25.
Hearnshaw, L.S. (1987). The shaping of modern psychology. London:
Methuen.
Keller, J. M. & Suzuki, K. (1988) Use of the ARCS Motivation Model in
Courseware Design. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Instructional Designs for
Microcomputer Courseware. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Laughlan, F. & Carrington, D. (2013), Improving learning through dynamic
assessment: a practical classroom resource. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Lipp, O. & DeVelle, S. (2013). From Experimental Psychology to a Science
of Learning. In S. Keogh (Ed) How the Brain Learns: What Lessons are
There for Teaching? ACER Research Conference 2013, 116-121, Melbourne:
Australian Council for Educational Research.
Makinae, N. (2010) The Origin of Lesson Study in Japan. Retrived from :
http://www.lessonstudygroup.net/lg/readings/TheOriginofLessonStudyinJapan
MakinaeN/TheOriginofLessonStudyinJapanMakinaeN.pdf (Accessed
18.12.13)
Marton, F.,& Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Marton, F. 7 Pang M.F. (2006). On Some Necessary Conditions of
Learning. The Journal of learning Sciences , 15(2) 193-220.
Mun Ling, L. & Marton, F. (2012). Towards a science of the art of teaching:
Using variation theory as a guiding principle of pedagogical design.
International Jounral of Lesson and learning Study, 1,1, 7 - 22
17
Nature Neuro science Editorial (2006) The science of education reform.
Nature Neuroscience - 9, 1345 (2006). DOI:10.1038/nn1106-1345.
Norwich, B. and 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.
Norwich, B., Dudley,P. & Ylonen, A. (2014). Using Lesson Study to assess
pupils’ learning difficulties. International Journal of Lesson and learning
Studies (submitted).
Pawson, R. & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic Evaluation. London: SAGE.
Peterson, P. L., Clark, C. M. & Dickson, W. P. (1990). Educational psychology
as a foundation in teacher education: Reforming an old notion. Teachers
College Record, 91(3), 322-346.
Pollard, A. (2008). Reflective teaching. 3rd edn. London: Continuum
Publishers.
Schonpflug, W. (1993). Applied psychology: newcomer with a long tradition.
International Journal of Applied Psychology, 42,1, 5-30.
Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of The New
Reform, Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1: 1-22.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and
development. London: Heinemann Educational Books.
Stones, E. (1978). Psychopedagogy: theory and practice in teaching. British
Educational Research Journal, 4,2,1-18.
Stones, E. (1979). Psychopedagogy: psychological theory and the practice of
teaching. London: Methuen.
Swanson, H. (2009), Dynamic assessment. The Gale group. Retrieved from:
http://www.education.com/reference/article/dynamic-assessment/ (Accessed
on 15.12.13).
Thomas, J.B. (1996). The beginnings of educational psychology in the
universities of England and Wales. Educational Psychology, 16(3), 229–244.
Tomlinson, P. (1981). Understanding teaching: Interactive educational
psychology. London: McGraw-Hill.
Woolfolk Hoy, A., Hughes, M. & Walkup, V. (2008) Psychology in Education.
London: Pearson.
Ylonen, A. & Norwich, B. (2012): Using Lesson Study to develop
18
teaching approaches for secondary school pupils with moderate learning
difficulties: teachers’ concepts, attitudes and pedagogic strategies, European
Journal of Special Needs Education, 27:3, 301-317
Ylonen, A. & Norwich, B. (2013). Professional learning of teachers through a
Lesson Study process in England: contexts, mechanisms and outcomes.
International Journal of Lesson and Learning Studies, 2, 2, 137-154.
19