Using Lesson Study to Prepare Preservice Special Educators

Abstract

Learning to teach students with disabilities is challenging. Preservice special educators must develop critical knowledge of content as well as skill for enacting evidence-based practices effectively. Preservice special educators need increased opportunities to learn core knowledge coupled with a mechanism to support them in situating their newly acquired knowledge and skills in classroom practice. This column describes lesson study (LS), a practice-based approach that can be integrated within a teacher preparation program preparing preservice special educators to teach students with high-incidence disabilities. The column includes (a) a description of steps that teacher educators can take to integrate the LS process into their teacher preparation program, (b) reproducible items needed to facilitate LS, and (c) recommendations for evaluating the effect of LS on preservice special educators’ knowledge and skills.

Keywords

education/training/preparation instruction methods preservice programs teacher(s)

Federal and state policy, such as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015) and Common Core State Standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010), encourage teachers to use scientifically proven practices in their classrooms (Odom, Brantlinger, Horner, Thompson, & Harris, 2005). These practices, referred to as evidence-based practices (EBPs), have been shown to reliably improve student achievement (Cook & Odom, 2013). However, despite a growing body of literature defining which EBPs are effective at teaching a wide variety of academic and functional skills to students with high-incidence disabilities, research suggests that many special education teachers still frequently engage in practices that lack an evidence base (Burns & Ysseldyke, 2009).

Learning to Teach Is Not Easy

To improve the academic achievement of students with high-incidence disabilities, beginning special education teachers must have knowledge of EBPs and subject matter pedagogy (Carlisle, Kelcey, Rowan, & Phelps, 2011; Phelps, 2009). In addition, they must also have the skills to interpret data and collaboratively plan and problem solve to coordinate instruction efforts with general education colleagues (Benedict, Park, Brownell, Lauterbach, & Kiely, 2013; Leko, Brownell, Sindelar, & Murphy, 2012). Cultivating this type of instructional expertise requires practice and develops over time. Even if the coursework for preservice special education teachers includes exposure to EBPs, once in the classroom they often struggle with transferring knowledge and skills learned from the coursework into practice while working with students with disabilities during field experiences (Leko & Brownell, 2011).

Practice-based teacher preparation is one approach that can help address the research-to-practice gap (Benedict, Holdheide, Brownell, & Foley, 2016). Practice-based teacher education provides multiple, scaffolded opportunities for preservice special education teachers to learn the pedagogical knowledge for teaching EBPs in coursework while supporting them in situating their newly acquired knowledge and skills into classroom practice (Benedict et al., 2016). When teacher education programs offer practice-based approaches to learning to teach, it can increase beginning teacher effectiveness and encourage them to stay in the profession (Boyd et al., 2009; Ronfeldt & Reininger, 2012). Lesson study (LS) is a promising practice-based approach that allows a focus on specific EBPs, extended opportunities for practice and feedback, and integration between university coursework and school-based field experiences (Stewart & Brendefur, 2005).

Lesson Study

Lesson study is a systematic and collaborative process that was first developed in Japan and is typically used with in-service teachers as a means of professional development (Stewart & Brendefur, 2005). It engages teachers in a cyclical process of collaborative planning, enactment and observation of instruction, and analysis and reflection within small peer groups (Sims & Walsh, 2009). In LS, preservice teachers are placed in small groups and engage in the LS process together as a collaborative team. The collaborative and iterative nature of LS provides teachers with the opportunity to engage in focused, critical discourse around teaching and learning. Research has shown that this process improves teachers’ skills for collaboration, improves their content knowledge for teaching, and enhances their abilities to enact effective instruction (Gersten, Dimino, Jayanthi, Kim, & Santoro, 2010; Rittle-Johnson & Jordan, 2016). Much of the research in this area has been qualitative in nature and has focused on teachers’ perceptions of the process and their own learning, specifically in mathematics instruction (Fernandez, 2002, 2005; Saito, 2012).

The LS approach is especially promising for preservice teachers. Previous research on the use of LS with preservice teachers provides evidence suggesting that using LS in preservice coursework can improve teacher candidates’ pedagogical content knowledge (Chassels & Melville, 2009), collaboration skills (e.g., Carrier, 2011), and ability to facilitate inclusion for students with disabilities in general education courses (e.g., Burroughs & Luebeck, 2010). Although many teacher education programs require preservice teachers to plan and teach lessons in their field placements, the collaborative planning, observation, and analysis process inherent to LS is what moves it beyond traditional fieldwork to an integrated, practice-based approach. Furthermore, LS has the capacity to support preservice special education teachers (SETs) in fostering skills for collaborative planning and analysis of student data (Benedict, 2014). These skills are critical for effective instruction for teachers of students with disabilities, who will need to work closely with general education colleagues to design and enact coordinated instruction (Benedict, 2014).

Embedding Lesson Study

With some thoughtful planning and coordination, the LS process can be embedded into preservice special education teachers’ education programs. The overarching goal of using LS in preservice education is to help facilitate the translation of EBP knowledge into enacted instruction in their field placement settings. The long-term aim is to institutionalize EBPs into beginning instructional repertoires so that they can draw on them in their future classrooms. After teacher educators have selected a content-focused course (e.g., traditionally a methods course; Roberts, Benedict, Walsh, Yang, & Mahoney, 2016) with an accompanying field experience, the five-step LS process can be embedded directly into the course schedule and assignments. The five steps of the process include (a) preparation, (b) collaborative planning, (c) teaching the lesson, (d) observation and data collection, and (e) debriefing and data analysis. Depending on the length of the university course, this cycle can be completed one or more times over the course of a quarter, semester, or academic year. The objectives, activities, tools, and materials used for each step in the LS process are described in the following sections. Teacher educators engage in consistent and ongoing communication regarding course expectations and the LS process with the cooperating teachers (CTs) at the field placement sites throughout the process. Preservice teachers are also encouraged to engage in frequent communication with their CT regarding the experience and associated field-based activities. This ongoing communication helps facilitate effective collaboration between the preservice teachers, the teacher educator, and the cooperating teachers at the field placements (Roberts, Benedict, & Thomas, 2014).

Step 1: Preparation

Step 1 establishes clear structures and norms to ensure that LS is fully integrated in both the course and field experiences. This will facilitate multiple, cohesive opportunities for preservice special education teachers to learn about and practice teaching EBPs. Teacher educators engage in extensive upfront planning and preparation to ensure that the LS experience is successful. First, teacher educators consider which knowledge and skills they want their preservice teachers to plan and teach. In addition, they take into consideration course objectives and field experience logistics to place individual preservice teachers into teams. Finally, teacher educators plan for what tools and materials (e.g., lesson planning frameworks, technology) will be necessary to support the teams in their collaborative work.

Developing critical knowledge

To use LS as a tool to close the gap between research and practice, preservice special education teachers first need to develop a solid foundational knowledge for teaching, including knowledge of EBPs. When teacher educators provide a strong knowledge base of EBPs, preservice teachers are able to draw on a common language of practice while collaboratively planning and analyzing instruction. The specific focus of the EBPs selected depends largely on the focus of the course and logistics of the field placement. For example, if the focus of the course is on mathematics methods for students with disabilities, then the field placement setting should provide opportunities to observe and teach mathematics. Teacher educators can choose content-specific EBPs (e.g., comprehension monitoring strategies) or more general strategies that can be applied to a variety of contexts (e.g., constant-time delay).

There are multiple approaches that teacher educators can take within coursework to cultivate preservice teachers’ knowledge for teaching. Outside of traditional readings (e.g., research articles and textbooks) and lectures, there are several resources that teacher educators can draw on to integrate within coursework to build candidates’ knowledge of EBPs. Table 1 provides multiple high-quality resources from which teacher educators can select content related to EBPs. These resources can be used in a variety of ways including assigning modules or case studies as homework; using activities and materials as the focus for in-class application activities; or embedding video exemplars, information, and scenarios into lectures.

Table 1.

Resources for Teacher Educators to Develop Critical Knowledge With Preservice SETs.

Resource	Description	Link
CEEDAR Center	The Collaboration for Effective Educator Development Accountability and Reform (CEEDAR) Center provides teacher educators access to research, course enhancement modules, and innovation configurations designed to increase access to high-quality, evidence-based instruction for students with disabilities.	http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/
IRIS Center	IRIS is a national center offering a wide variety of resources and materials (e.g., instructional modules and research summaries) designed to improve the outcomes of students with disabilities.	http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/
MAST	East Carolina University has made a series of Modules Addressing Special Education and Teacher Education. These modules are designed to focus on important topics to support teachers in meeting the needs of students with disabilities.	http://mast.ecu.edu/
TeachingWorks	TeachingWorks provides access to high-leverage content, a core set of high-leverage practices, and resources to assist teacher educators in supporting teachers in their development.	http://www.teachingworks.org/training/LaboratoryClasses

Establishing lesson study teams

Considering how to effectively place preservice SETs into teams is an important step in the LS process. Typical LS teams range in size from three to five teachers (e.g., Myers, 2012). In terms of grouping, teacher educators have different options depending on the course duration and field placement structure. For example, teacher educators may choose to group preservice special education teachers by content area (e.g., literacy, mathematics, science) or by grade level, depending on the variation of the field placements. The duration of the course and field experience will also affect the composition and size of the LS team. Courses that last only a quarter will include fewer LS cycles than courses that last a semester or entire academic year. If there is only enough time for a single cycle in the course, then all members of the group can teach and record the lesson and take data on their instruction as well as at least one peer’s instruction. If the length of the course allows for additional cycles, teacher educators can consider rotating teaching and video recording the lesson in each cycle so each preservice teacher gets an opportunity to teach and receive feedback over the duration of the course. The number of cycles and opportunities to teach the collaboratively planned lesson will affect the size of the group. Teacher educators can also choose to have preservice teachers group themselves to ensure positive collaboration (Chassels & Melville, 2009). Regardless of group composition, teacher educators should share the justification for the groups. Once groups are formed, teacher educators facilitate the establishment of group norms. These group norms are reviewed and reinforced during each step of the process.

Lesson study tools

Once preservice special education teachers have established some foundational knowledge for what and how to teach and have been placed in LS teams, then the actual cycle can begin. To support the teams in this process, many teacher educators use a series of tools or graphic organizers designed to lead the teams through the cycle (Roberts et al., 2016). The most critical tool is the LS planning framework, a lesson plan template (see Figure 1) that teams use to collaboratively plan their lessons (Benedict et al., 2013). This template includes sections to reflect on prior knowledge and information needed to plan instruction, opportunities for guided practice, and planning for assessment of student learning. As part of the preparation process, teacher educators teach preservice teachers how to use the planning framework and provide examples of the level of sufficient detail they expect in each section.

Figure 1.

Example of lesson planning framework.

Step 2: Collaborative Planning

The activities in Step 2 provide time for the learning study groups to collaboratively write a lesson plan that they will teach to target P–12 student(s) using the learned EBPs. The preservice SETs bring classroom data from their practicum classrooms to the methods course. During the class session, the teams meet to examine the data to inform their lesson planning. The data can be from formative or summative assessments specific to content areas (e.g., literacy, mathematics, science, social studies) or progress monitoring data from P–12 student Individualized Education Program goals and objectives. The data can be at the individual P–12 learner or whole class level. Teams should be provided with time in class to review and interpret their data and identify instruction priorities.

After the teams have reviewed the data for their P–12 students, they are given time in class to collaboratively plan an instructional lesson. The lesson should be based on the needs of the target P–12 student(s), incorporate specific EBPs learned in the course, and be planned using the LS planning framework. During class, the teacher educator provides real-time feedback and assistance to the teams as they are collaboratively planning. This includes answering questions, troubleshooting issues, and providing prompts throughout the class to keep the teams on track to complete planning in the allotted class session. It is important to note that the allotted class time may not be enough to complete the lesson plan, especially for the first LS cycle. The process will go more quickly as it is repeated, but it will be important to give feedback on the lesson plans to ensure that the quality of the plans and teams’ efficiency in collaborative planning improve over the duration of the course.

Step 3: Teach the Lesson to P–12 Learners

The purpose of Step 3 is to provide an opportunity for the preservice special education teachers to apply their knowledge of the learned EBPs and their collaborative planning skills directly to their instructional practice. Although the LS groups plan the lesson collaboratively, they implement it independently. After the in-class collaborative planning, the designated preservice teacher teaches the collaboratively planned lesson in a field placement setting. Team members should either be present during the lesson to observe instruction or have a recording device to allow them to watch the lesson later. The teacher educator needs to communicate expectations for video recorded lessons (e.g., appropriate length of time, camera angle, sound quality) as well as ensure that preservice special education teachers have secured appropriate permissions from P–12 students’ families prior to video recording. The video recorded lesson from this step establishes the content for the data collection, debriefing, and analysis in Steps 4 and 5.

As far in advance as possible, preservice teachers should remind their cooperating teacher of this requirement and schedule time to teach and record instruction. Prior to teaching the lesson in their field placement, preservice teachers review the feedback from the teacher educator on their lesson plan and revise as needed. It may be helpful for groups to meet again to discuss the feedback and make revisions together. When the lesson plan has been finalized, the target preservice teacher teaches the lesson in her or his field placement. Once the preservice teachers have taught their lesson, they upload the instructional video to their group platform and inform their group members that the video is available.

Step 4: Observation and Data Collection

The purpose of Step 4 is to provide an opportunity for preservice special education teachers to observe and analyze the implementation of the collaboratively planned lesson and to take targeted data on specific skills and students’ response to instruction. At the beginning of Step 4, teacher educators teach how to identify and discuss effective use of EBPs as well as how to document evidence of implementation and student learning during data collection. The LS observation and data collection guide can help facilitate this process. The collection guide supports students in collecting evidence related to the following topics: (a) student engagement using either interval or momentary time sampling recording, (b) student learning as evidence through student responses and written work, and (c) preservice instruction and use of target EBPs. Figure 2 displays a sample data collection guide. The data collection chart can be tailored to better align with the focus of the course objectives.

Figure 2.

Example of lesson study observation and data collection guide.

Once the observation and data collection procedures have been taught, all members of the team observe the lesson in person or view the video recording of the lesson to collect the data needed to inform debriefing and data analysis. If only one member of the group taught the lesson, all other group members should observe and record data on the instructional video. If all team members taught the lesson, members should observe and record data on their video and at least one peer’s video. The videos should be carefully viewed and target data recorded on each data collection guide. Once they have completed the data collection guide, they should upload it to the group platform.

Step 5: Debriefing and Data Analysis

Activities in Step 5 facilitate preservice teachers’ ability to analyze data in order to make instructional decisions. Teacher educators can use an additional chart to guide and structure the teams’ discussion of the data. Figure 3 provides an example chart for structuring the debriefing and analysis process. During the in-class debriefing and data analysis, the teacher educator provides deliberate structure to the debriefing and analysis portion by providing set time amounts for discussion of each focus area (e.g., engagement, student learning, use of EBP). This will help ensure that the preservice teachers’ talk is focused, meaningful, and grounded in the data collected in Step 4.

Figure 3.

Example of lesson study group debriefing and analysis chart.

During Step 5, preservice special education teachers draw on their data collection charts to debrief their observation of instruction with their team in class. The debriefing conversation is focused on the key elements of data collected through the observation. The team uses their data collection charts to guide their conversation and provide specific feedback to their peers on the implementation of the collaboratively planned lesson and the effect of the lesson on students’ learning and engagement. At the conclusion of the debriefing and analysis session, all preservice teachers are instructed to write an overall reflection that includes discussion of (a) success of the lesson supported with the data collected, (b) suggestions for the next steps in instruction based on the data and the group discussion, and (c) perceptions of the success of the experience.

Assessing the Effect of Lesson Study

When LS is embedded within preservice teacher education coursework, evaluating student participation and assigning grades are necessary. One way to measure growth and account for deeper understanding of the ways in which involvement in LS affected candidates’ knowledge of key practices is to give a preassessment at the beginning of the course over the specific EBPs taught in the class and conclude with a final exam where students will have to answer similar questions and complete application scenarios. Implementation of EBPs can also be assessed through evaluating lesson plans, teaching videos, planning and debriefing conversations, data collection forms, and reflective summaries that the preservice teachers complete.

Conclusion

The use of LS with preservice special education teachers provides a structured, intensive mechanism to translate content knowledge into practice. Considering that many teachers continually employ practices that lack an evidence base, there is a critical need for approaches to special education teacher education that address the gap in knowledge and practice (Burns & Ysseldyke, 2009). Lesson study may be one mechanism that can help bridge this gap. Teacher educators should consider its use in their courses to give more meaningful opportunities to practice applying content learned through methods courses within authentic education settings for students with high-incidence disabilities. Despite the logistical considerations that must be in place for LS to be successful, when planned in advance and coordinated by the teacher educator in collaboration with cooperating teachers in field placements, LS can be a beneficial mechanism to reinforce preservice teacher knowledge about EBPs. By helping to address the research-to-practice gap, LS can facilitate more effective teacher practices, which can improve the learning of students with high-incidence disabilities.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Benedict

(2014). Learning together: Teachers’ evolving understandings during ongoing collaborative professional development. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (10298917)

Benedict

A. E.

Holdheide

Brownell

Foley

A. M.

(2016). Learning to teach: Practice-based preparation. Washington, DC: Collaboration for Effective Educator Development Accountability and Reform and American Institutes for Research.

Benedict

A. E.

Park

Brownell

M. T.

Lauterbach

A. A.

Kiely

M. T.

(2013). Using lesson study to align elementary literacy instruction within the RTI framework. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(5), 22–31.

Boyd

Grossman

Lankford

Loeb

Wyckoff

Urban

. (2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416–440.

Burns

M. K.

Ysseldyke

J. E.

(2009). Reported prevalence of evidence-based instructional practices in special education. The Journal of Special Education, 43, 3–11.

Burroughs

E. A.

Luebeck

J. L.

(2010). Pre-service teachers in mathematics lesson study. Montana Council of Teachers of Mathematics & Information Age Publishing, 2(3), 391–400.

Carlisle

J. F.

Kelcey

Rowan

Phelps

(2011). Teachers’ knowledge about early reading: Effects on students’ gains in reading achievement. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4, 289–321.

Carrier

S. J.

(2011). Implementing and integrating effective teaching strategies including features of lesson study in an elementary science methods course. The Teacher Educator, 46, 145–160.

Chassels

Melville

(2009). Collaborative, reflective, and iterative Japanese lesson study in an initial teacher education program: Benefits and challenges. Canadian Journal of Education, 32, 734–763.

10.

Cook

B. G.

Odom

S. L.

(2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children, 79(2), 135–144.

11.

Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 (2015).

12.

Fernandez

(2002). Learning from Japanese approaches to professional development: The case of lesson study. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 393–405.

13.

Fernandez

(2005). Lesson study: A means for elementary teachers to develop the knowledge of mathematics needed for reform-minded teaching? Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7, 265–289.

14.

Gersten

Dimino

Jayanthi

Kim

J. S.

Santoro

L. E.

(2010). Teacher study group: Impact of the professional development model on reading instruction and student outcomes in first grade classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 694–739.

15.

Leko

M. M.

Brownell

M. T.

(2011). Special education preservice teachers’ appropriation of pedagogical tools for teaching reading. Exceptional Children, 77(2), 229–251.

16.

Leko

M. M.

Brownell

M. T.

Sindelar

P. T.

Murphy

(2012). Promoting special education preservice teacher expertise. Focus on Exceptional Children, 44(7), 1–16.

17.

Myers

(2012). Lesson study as a means for facilitating preservice teacher reflectivity. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 1–22.

18.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors.

19.

Odom

S. L.

Brantlinger

Horner

R. H.

Thompson

Harris

K. R.

(2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 137–148.

20.

Phelps

(2009). Just knowing how to read isn’t enough! Assessing knowledge for teaching reading. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 137–154.

21.

Rittle-Johnson

Jordan

N. C.

(2016). Synthesis of IES-funded research on mathematics: 2002–2013 (NCER 2016-2003). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from Institute of Education Sciences website: http://ies.ed.gov/

22.

Roberts

C. A.

Benedict

A. E.

Thomas

(2014). Cooperating teachers’ role in preparing preservice special education teachers: Moving beyond sink or swim. Intervention in School and Clinic, 49, 174–180.

23.

Roberts

C. A.

Benedict

A. E.

Walsh

Yang

Mahoney

(2016, November). Using lesson study to improve preservice teachers’ capability for implementing evidence-based practices for students with significant disabilities. Paper presented at the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children Conference, Lexington, KY.

24.

Ronfeldt

Reininger

(2012). More or better student teaching? Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(8), 1091–1106.

25.

Saito

(2012). Key issues of lesson study in Japan and the United States: A literature review. Professional Development in Education, 38, 777–789.

26.

Sims

Walsh

(2009). Lesson study with preservice teachers: Lessons from lessons. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 724–733.

27.

Stewart

R. A.

Brendefur

(2005). Fusing lesson study and authentic achievement: A model for teacher collaboration. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 681–687.