Action Research STUDY REPORT - Analyze & Write

Improving instruction in the mathematics methods classroom through action research

Jameel Mostofoa* and Ron Zambob

aCollege of Education, Grand Canyon University, Phoenix, AZ, USA; bElementary Education, Arizona State University, Glendale, AZ, USA

(Received 13 August 2014; accepted 12 February 2015)

There is a continuing emphasis in the United States on improving students’ mathematical abilities, and one approach is to better prepare teachers. To investi- gate the potential usefulness of Lesson Study to better prepare teachers, one author set out to conduct action research on his classroom practice. Specifically, he sought to determine whether using Lesson Study with preservice secondary mathematics teachers might better prepare students to be teachers. The partici- pants were preservice teachers who were enrolled in a mathematics methods course in an undergraduate teacher preparation program at a private university. The researcher served as a participant observer who implemented an innovation, Lesson Study, in his classroom and observed the effect on students. Lesson Study engaged the preservice teachers in collaboratively creating, field testing, revising, and re-teaching lessons in their field placement classroom. Data were weekly reflections and summative interviews of the preservice teachers. The researcher found that Lesson Study was an effective strategy for enhancing the efficacy of preservice teachers. Action research showed the importance of collab- orative lesson preparation, practice teaching, and observations of other teachers. The preservice teachers successfully transitioned from teaching in the methods classroom to their field-experience classroom, which enhanced their confidence as they entered student-teaching.

Keywords: action research; Lesson Study; mathematics; preservice teachers

Introduction

Preparing effective teachers of mathematics is one of the most urgent problems fac- ing those in teacher education because teaching is very complex (Hiebert et al. 2007; Morris, Hiebert, and Spitzer 2009). However, despite its complexity, some novices presume it to be easy (Grossman et al. 2009). In fact, many preservice teachers believe that teaching is simply common sense and professional study is not needed (Ball and Cohen 1999; Kennedy 1999; Munby, Russell, and Martin 2001). The challenge for teacher educators is to provide preservice teachers with opportuni- ties to develop habits of continued professional learning and, through action research, investigate what they try (Chassels and Melville 2009; Ganesh and Matteson 2010; Hiebert et al. 2007).

Planning and teaching lessons can be overwhelming for preservice teachers in the early stages of their development (Carrier 2011). Therefore, providing opportunities

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

© 2015 Educational Action Research

Educational Action Research, 2015 Vol. 23, No. 4, 497–513, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2015.1019903

to learn by doing with careful coaching by experts in low-risk settings is critical for preservice teachers to begin learning their practice (Schon 1987). The university education classroom can provide these low-risk settings through role-playing and prac- tice teaching in an environment of support, feedback, and investigation (Fernandez 2005; Ganesh and Matteson 2010; Grossman et al. 2009).

Unfortunately, methods courses (courses focused on the methodology of teach- ing) often seem far removed from the reality of an actual classroom (Cohan and Honigsfeld 2006; Grossman et al. 2009). Methods courses are typically taught through lectures and discussion of theory and research, and are often not focused on the actual on-your-feet practice of teaching (Fernandez 2005). Much of the knowl- edge needed to teach effectively ‘is situated in practice, [and] it must be learned in practice’ (Ball and Cohen 1999, 3–4).

Jim, the first author, teaches in the College of Education in a private university in the southwestern region of the United States. Ron, the second author, was his dis- sertation chair. All first-person references in this article refer back to Jim as he was the practitioner for this study. The participants in this study (preservice teachers) were undergraduates who were studying secondary education and majoring in mathematics. The study came about after frustration in the way students perceived one of Jim’s courses. Being in a doctoral program where students did action research and wrote an action research dissertation brought this group together. This study examined Jim’s secondary mathematics methods course, which had a curriculum that consisted primarily of planning and teaching mathematics lessons. Coupled with the face-to-face class meetings, each preservice teacher was required to participate in 15 hours of field experience in a secondary mathematics classroom (field experience consists of observing secondary mathematics teachers in actual classrooms). Jim’s goal for this project was to examine the impact of using Japanese Lesson Study in his class to see whether these preservice teachers could learn more by ‘doing’ rather than observing mathematics teaching. Jim’s goal for doing action research was to make him a better practitioner-researcher.

Theoretical foundation

This study was based on the Vygotsky Space as the theoretical framework. The Vygotsky Space has four phases that are cyclical rather than linear; a learner can be functioning at any given time in any of the quadrants (Gallucci et al. 2010). This theory represents learning in terms of relationships between collective and individual actions and between public and private settings. The individual internalizes the social practice, transforms the practice in their context, and eventually externalizes (shares) the practice with others (Gallucci et al. 2010).

The iterative stages of the learning process as proposed by Vygotsky and depicted by Gallucci et al. (2010) include the following:

• Individual appropriation of particular ways of thinking through interaction with others.

• Individual transformation and ownership of that thinking in the context of one’s own work.

• Publication of new learning through talk or action. • Process whereby those public acts become conventionalized in the practice of that individual and/or in the work of others.

498 J. Mostofo and R. Zambo

Background

Action research is any systematic inquiry by teacher-researchers for educational reform that gathers information about how well their students learn based on an innovation (Mills 2007; Somekh and Zeichner 2009). For this study, Jim imple- mented an action research model and collected qualitative data as the study pro- gressed. From past experience, Jim realized that his students’ transition from the college classroom to the public school classroom was not seamless. To help alleviate this problem, he chose to engage his students – six preservice secondary mathemat- ics teachers – in Lesson Study as part of their methods course. The primary purpose of the research was to determine the impact of using Lesson Study with preservice secondary mathematics teachers as they moved from teaching in a methods class- room to their field-experience classroom before they entered their student-teaching experience. The secondary purpose was to improve Jim’s own practice through innovation and systematic inquiry into it.

One purpose of action research is to better understand and improve one’s practice (McTaggart 1994; Somekh and Zeichner 2009) and ‘engage in a process of continuous improvement’ (Patthey and Thomas-Spiegel 2013, 482). As a teacher, Jim realized that his secondary mathematics class needed to improve for various rea- sons. First, there was little practice teaching in his class and none out in the field. He typically had allowed his students (preservice teachers) to plan and teach only one or two mini-lessons in class for the entire semester, which, on reflection, did not seem like enough practice to prepare them for student-teaching. Most of the class was centered on his teaching and modeling pedagogical-content strategies for mathe- matics instruction. Second, he did not have control over what his preservice teachers were asked to do in their field-experience (practicum) classrooms. They were required to observe a secondary mathematics classroom of their choice for a total of 15 hours during the semester. They would choose the school and teacher to observe, so there was no connection to his methods classroom. The preservice teachers would typically sit in the back of these secondary mathematics classrooms, observe the tea- cher and take notes. This did not provide any actual practice for the preservice teachers in a classroom setting that could serve as a bridge to their student-teaching.

Jim’s goal was to create an innovation that allowed preservice teachers the opportunity to teach more in the methods classroom before teaching in the field-ex- perience classroom and to systematically investigate the effect of this. He also wanted to connect his methods classroom to the field-experience classroom so the preservice teachers would be able to practice-teach the exact lessons in his class before teaching them in their field-experience classroom. He used Lesson Study as the vehicle for this innovation and set up a partnership with a local high school mathematics department. Overall, he wanted to use action research to become more ‘effective’ and ‘empowered’ as a methods instructor and researcher (Leitch and Day 2000, 183).

In many action research studies, the researcher and the practitioner are not the same person so their relationship is crucial (Postholm and Skrovset 2013). However, Jim’s role in this project was significant because he acted both as the practitioner and as the researcher throughout this action research study (Gay, Mills, and Airasian 2009). Some recent research argues that the role of a practitioner-researcher can serve many different purposes: individual professional development, school develop- ment, and knowledge generalized to other contexts (Oolbekkink-Marchand, van der

Educational Action Research 499

Steen, and Nijveldt 2014). For this study, Jim’s purpose was individual professional development to enact change and understand the effect of this intervention. He served as the instructor of the secondary mathematics methods class and formed the collaborative teams used for this study. He also monitored the progress of the preservice teachers during the collaborative planning and provided feedback on their lesson plans and mathematics plans (the mathematics plan included example prob- lems, handouts, and activities that were used).

As the researcher in this action research study, Jim acted as an observer, video- taping and taking field notes while the preservice teachers were teaching lessons in the methods classroom. During the debriefing sessions after a preservice teacher’s lesson, he took on more of a participant role as he facilitated the comments from the other preservice teachers and gave feedback based on his field notes. He coordinated the schedule with the field-experience school to schedule the teaching days for each collaborative team of preservice teachers. Between Lesson Study rounds, Jim taught pedagogical strategies as well as modeled lessons in the classroom. At the conclu- sion of the study, he oversaw the implementation of the methods and analyzed the data from the participants.

Lesson Study

Teaching mathematics in Japan has changed drastically in the past 50 years, while teaching mathematics in the United States has changed very little over the same time period (Stigler and Hiebert 1999). Mathematics teachers in Japan focus more on conceptual understanding of mathematics, whereas the tradition in US mathematics classrooms is to treat the learning of mathematics as memorization and practice (Geist 2000; Stigler and Hiebert 1999).

What might account for these differences? Some research indicates that Lesson Study has resulted in much of the change in Japanese classrooms (Lewis and Tsuchida 1998; Stigler and Hiebert 1999). Lesson Study is a process to improve stu- dents’ learning through improved instruction (Fernandez and Yoshida 2004; Lewis 2002; Stigler and Hiebert 1999). It is a teacher-led professional development that brings teachers and other educators together to study in depth the teaching and learning of a particular mathematical concept or process (Tolle 2010). The spirit of Lesson Study involves ‘collaborating with fellow teachers to plan, observe, and reflect on lessons’ (Takahashi and Yoshida 2004, 439).

Lesson Study was first introduced to American educators by Catherine C. Lewis and Ineko Tsuchida (1998) in their article ‘A Lesson is like a Swiftly Flowing River’ and later by James W. Stigler and James Hiebert (1999) in their book The Teaching Gap. Since that time, Lesson Study has been implemented in schools across the United States and it is finding its way into preservice teacher education. There is strong evidence that many aspects of the Lesson Study process can posi- tively impact preservice teachers. Lesson Study can provide the opportunity to build professional learning communities, deepen understanding of content and pedagogy, and develop habits of critical observation, analysis, and feedback (Chassels and Melville 2009; Chokshi and Fernandez 2004; Groth 2011; Tolle 2010). Allowing preservice teachers to re-teach lessons after receiving feedback and revising their les- son plans to incorporate the feedback has been shown to improve the quality of their lessons (Chassels and Melville 2009; Ganesh and Matteson 2010). Preservice teach- ers appreciated the insights that their peers provided while participating in Lesson

500 J. Mostofo and R. Zambo

Study (Chassels and Melville 2009). Observing lessons from their classmates enhanced preservice teachers’ skill in critiquing lessons as well as differentiating between effective and ineffective teaching strategies (Chassels and Melville 2009).

Lesson Study assists teachers in learning that their lessons can and will improve from observation and feedback. This realization allows them to accept and learn from the constructive criticism that Lesson Study can provide (Sims and Walsh 2008). The impact of Lesson Study in preservice methods classes was found to positively impact the delivery of lessons in field-experience teaching (Chassels and Melville 2009; Ganesh and Matteson 2010) by serving as a bridge between the methods classroom and field experience (Carrier 2011).

However, implementing Lesson Study with preservice teachers can be problem- atic due to coordination with the field-experience school and teachers. For example, having students design lessons that can be implemented into the sequence of instruc- tion in the field-experience classroom requires close cooperation with the mentor teachers and the coordination of schedules between the college classroom and the field-experience classroom. Additionally, mentor teachers need to understand the Lesson Study process to support the preservice teachers, otherwise adaptations to the process could occur (Carrier 2011; Chassels and Melville 2009; McMahon and Hines 2008).

Lesson Study debriefing

Preservice teachers often have difficulty engaging in reflective thinking, and there is a lack of structured opportunities to develop these skills in typical teacher preparation classes (Goodell 2006); however, Lesson Study can provide opportunity for rich discussion on teaching strategies that is focused on student learning (Carrier 2011; Chassels and Melville 2009; Ganesh and Matteson 2010; Sims and Walsh 2008). Lesson Study allows for individual teachers and their preservice colleagues to reflect in the context of the classroom on post-lesson discussions that connect thinking and action (Leitch and Day 2000; Schon 1983), which are at the heart of the Lesson Study process (Chokshi and Fernandez 2004; Cohan and Honigsfeld 2006; Groth 2011; Tolle 2010). The Lesson Study process dictates that the teacher who taught the lesson speaks first during the debriefing session, discussing what they think worked and what did not work in the lesson followed by comments, suggestions, or questions by the other participants (Groth 2011; Stigler and Hiebert 1999; Tolle 2010). Research has shown that preservice teachers readily accepted suggestions from their peers and instructor, which in turn improved the depth of their future lessons (Fernandez 2005; Ganesh and Matteson 2010). However, there is some evidence that the lack of knowledge and experience of many participants in a collaborative Lesson Study group can severely limit the richness of conversations (Tan 2014).

Lesson Study for teacher efficacy

Evidence shows a strong link between Lesson Study (as professional development) and self-efficacy, which could be attributed to increased pedagogical content knowl- edge derived from the collaborative planning portion of the Lesson Study process (Sibbald 2009). Through sharing ideas and resources, and gaining an understanding of different teaching techniques during the Lesson Study process, preservice teachers improved their efficacy (Sibbald 2009). Professional development has the potential

Educational Action Research 501

to impact teacher efficacy; as teachers gain experience and learn more about their teaching practices and how to implement them, they improve their personal compe- tence in their domain (Zambo and Zambo 2008; Hill and Ball 2004). Research sug- gests that collaboration and support have been linked to higher efficacy for teachers, especially for novice teachers (Chester and Beaudin 1996; Rosenholtz 1989; Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk-Hoy 2007). Preservice teachers’ efficacy has been shown to increase from observing specific teaching strategies being modeled, as well as from participating in self-reflection about their teaching (Henson 2001; Johnson 2010; Schunk and Zimmerman 1997).

Methodology

Setting

Jim’s course consisted of three 65-minute classes per week for 16 weeks. This meth- ods course is the only mathematics methods course required in the secondary educa- tion program at his university. Coupled with the face-to-face class meetings, each preservice teacher was required by the university to participate in 15 hours of field experience in a secondary mathematics classroom. As part of this study, each preser- vice teacher agreed to work with a designated teacher in a field-experience partner school and to teach two lessons in the assigned field-placement classroom. Jim briefed the field-experience teacher on the Lesson Study process prior to the innovation.

Participants

There were eight preservice teachers in Jim’s secondary mathematics methods class; six of them chose to participate in this study. The two preservice teachers who did not participate still taught in the methods classroom, but went to their own practi- cum classrooms and observed without practice teaching like the preservice teachers who chose to be in the study. These six preservice teachers were directly involved on a daily basis with Lesson Study by collaboratively planning their lessons, indi- vidually teaching lessons in both the methods and the field-experience classrooms, and participating in the weekly reflections, surveys, and interviews.

Data sources

There were two sources of qualitative data that were collected: weekly reflections written by the participants (a total of 47 double-spaced typed pages), and semi-struc- tured post interviews of the participants (a total of 30 double-spaced typed pages). The purpose of the weekly reflections was to elicit responses from the participants about the Lesson Study process and how the innovation was progressing for them. Some examples of prompts Jim used for the weekly reflections were as follows: How are you feeling about teaching in your field-experience classroom? What are the three most important ideas you have learned from this class so far? Are you developing more confidence in your ability to meet expectations in a real classroom as a future teacher? Why or why not? How did you feel about finally teaching in front of real students in your field experience? The post interview was used to summarize the participants’ thoughts on the entire Lesson Study process. Some examples of post interview questions were: What were the main benefits of the

502 J. Mostofo and R. Zambo

Lesson Study process for you? Did Lesson Study impact your instructional ability (mathematical teaching)? Did Lesson Study impact your mathematics teaching efficacy?

Lesson Study process

Jim introduced the preservice teachers to the Lesson Study process during the first week of class. The innovation was set up into two phases. The first phase focused on planning algebra lessons and practice-teaching them in Jim’s methods classroom before teaching in the field-experience classroom. Twice during this phase of instruction, the preservice teachers, working in two groups of three, collaboratively planned an algebra lesson that consisted of a written lesson plan and a mathematics plan including all of the necessary example problems, handouts, and activities. They emailed these lessons to Jim for feedback prior to the first teaching opportunity. The revised lessons were then taught in class by one member of each team. The debrief- ing session following each teaching episode started with a self-reflection by the preservice teacher who actually taught the lesson, followed by a class discussion about the lesson that included comments, suggestions, and questions. Jim guided this discussion and gave additional feedback following the debriefing session. The lessons were revised again by the preservice teachers after the debriefing session and re-taught in the following class period by another team member. After the sec- ond teaching episode and debriefing, the lessons were revised for the final time and turned in to Jim for a grade. The process for the second lesson plan mirrored that of the first. After each Lesson Study cycle, Jim taught relevant course material based on his lesson observations and typical course content. Jim also modeled mathematics lessons that were followed by debriefing sessions.

The second phase of Lesson Study directly prepared the preservice teachers for teaching in the field placement classroom by targeting lessons on topics that were assigned by the field-experience teacher in advance of the scheduled teaching epi- sodes. Each Lesson Study team collaboratively planned their lesson and received Jim’s feedback before teaching it in the methods classroom. The lessons were then taught, revised, and re-taught before teaching them in the field-experience classroom. These lessons were taught and revised three times before being taught in the field-experience classroom (each preservice teacher had the opportunity to teach the lesson in the methods class and get feedback to prepare to teach it in the field- experience classroom).

Each Lesson Study team had an assigned day to teach in the field-experience classroom. The preservice teachers each taught at least one class period while their teammates observed and video-recorded the lesson. The video recordings of the les- son were shown in Jim’s methods classroom the following week and the class par- ticipated in a debriefing session for each preservice teacher. Afterwards, the entire process as described above was used in preparing and teaching a second lesson for the field-placement classroom. Figure 1 outlines the Phase One and Phase Two model used for this study.

Analysis

Jim analyzed each of the two data-sets separately. Data analysis began with open coding and then collapsing codes into categories based on similar dimensions

Educational Action Research 503

(Corbin and Strauss 2008). Saturation of the data came after multiple attempts of defining and redefining the categories. Eventually themes were created. Another researcher analyzed the raw data and independently created themes as a cross-check of Jim’s analysis. Considering the results of the cross-check, Jim finalized the themes for both sets of qualitative data. The themes, theme-related components, and assertions presented in each analysis were organized into tables.

Phase One (2 Rounds) Phase Two (2 Rounds)

Collaboratively Plan

Instructor Revisions

Teach (1st Team Member)

Debriefing Session

Revise Collaboratively

Re-Teach (2nd Team Member)

Debriefing Session

Final Revisions Turned In

*Class instruction and modeled lessons by instructor between rounds

Collaboratively Plan

Instructor Revisions

Teach (1st Team Member)

Debriefing Session

Revise Collaboratively

Re-Teach (2nd Team Member)

Debriefing Session

Revise Collaboratively

Re-Teach (3rd Team Member)

Debriefing Session

Revise Collaboratively

Field -Experience Teaching

Debriefing Session (Video-Recordings)

*Class instruction and modeled lessons by instructor between rounds..

Figure 1. Lesson Study innovation model.

504 J. Mostofo and R. Zambo

Results from the preservice teacher weekly reflections

The three overall themes that surfaced in the weekly reflections as well as the speci- fic components which supported the themes and the assertions that were developed from these thematic components are summarized in Table 1.

The first assertion that emerged from the weekly reflections was that the preser- vice teachers gained confidence from multiple teaching opportunities. In Week 3 a preservice teacher noted: ‘Well, I have to say that I was very nervous teaching for the first time in front of my peers. But, after realizing we all had wobbly knees about it, I guess it wasn’t really that bad’ (Bonnie, weekly reflection, 16 September 2012). In the same week, a preservice teacher mentioned the fear of the upcoming field-experience teaching: ‘I’m nervous about the differences in a real high school classroom’ (Haley, weekly reflection, 15 September 2012). In Week 4 a preservice teacher discussing their confidence stated: ‘I would say my confidence is in a good spot right now. I don’t feel overly confident, but I’m not in a situation where I’m rethinking my career if that makes sense’ (Robert, weekly reflection, 25 September 2012). In Week 5, before teaching the first field-experience lesson, a student wrote:

To be completely honest, I am really nervous about teaching in the practicum class- room. I have never taught a lesson in an actual high school classroom before, so it should be interesting. I feel more comfortable with the practice that I’ve gotten in class. (Haley, weekly reflection, 29 September 2012)

However, after the first field experience I noticed a shift in the confidence of the pre- service teachers based on their weekly reflections. After the first field-experience teaching, one preservice teacher pointed out:

The teaching experience was by far the most beneficial thing I have done so far. Even though we teach lessons in our own classroom each week, being in an actual high school classroom with real students had a much different feel. (Bonnie, weekly reflection, 12 October 2012)

Table 1. Reflection themes.

Theme Theme-related components Assertions

Building confidence

Confidence was gradually building from rounds of practice teaching.

Preservice teachers gained confidence from multiple teaching opportunities.

Confidence improved from teaching in the field-experience classroom.

Collaborative planning

Collaborative planning was difficult for some teams initially.

Collaborative planning was a major benefit to the lesson quality despite some issues working together initially.The Lesson Study teams

eventually thrived from the collaborative planning.

Observation of instruction

Observing themselves on video helped them to reflect on their own teaching.

Observing their own and others teaching mathematics improved their reflective practices, instructional ability, and confidence.Observing the instructor model-

teach lessons helped them to gain more ideas. Observing their peers teach allowed them to see other ways to teach.

Educational Action Research 505

By Week 8, one preservice teacher made the following statement: ‘I am much more confident in my own abilities, which makes it much easier to focus on the stu- dents and their learning rather than worrying about messing up my teaching’ (Haley, weekly reflection, 20 October 2012). By Week 12, after the final field-experience teaching, one preservice teacher wrote: ‘After stressing out for a week about the teaching, I felt it went really well. The nervousness went away almost immediately this time, so I guess that means my confidence is getting better’ (Bonnie, weekly reflection, 16 November 2012). Another preservice teacher stated the same week: ‘I felt more comfortable with my ability to teach the students, and to hold their atten- tion. I also felt much better about this lesson from a confidence standpoint’ (Robert, weekly reflection, 16 November 2012). Finally, one preservice teacher summed up the final reflection by stating: ‘I would say that I definitely felt a lot more confident and teacher-like instead of college student-like’ (Jennifer, weekly reflection, 21 November 2012).

The second assertion that resulted from the weekly reflections was that collab- orative planning was a major benefit to the lesson quality despite some issues working together initially. For example, in Week 2 of the innovation one preser- vice teacher said: ‘This week has been very trying for me. I feel as though we didn’t have enough time to collaborate on our lesson plans. Also, I found myself not feeling comfortable in expressing my opinion to my group’ (Jennifer, weekly reflection, 21 November 2012). However, by Week 4 that same preservice teacher stated:

The group planning is going better. Having more time in class to collaborate with our groups has been really good. I think we all have a feel for each other’s personality and style so it’s a bit easier to adjust ourselves to help the planning process flow. (Jennifer, weekly reflection, 28 November 2012)

Another member from that same team said after Week 3 of the innovation that, ‘Working in teams is helpful, but sometimes it can be difficult to make a lesson that everyone can feel good about’ (Robert, weekly reflection, 17 September 2012).

A member of the other Lesson Study team stated after Week 4 that, ‘I think our group planning is going great. We work really well together and everyone has a chance to share the ideas and give their opinion’ (Haley, weekly reflection, 27 September 2012). Another preservice teacher from that same Lesson Study team the same week added: ‘When one of us has a different idea, the others are willing to lis- ten and incorporate that idea into the lesson’ (Steve, weekly reflection, 12 October 2012). In Week 7, one preservice teacher stated:

We work incredibly well together. We share similar ideas, but when we have differing ideas, they help stimulate discussion that leads to an even better idea. I think we col- laborate really well when creating our lessons. Because every person brings a slightly different perspective, we are able to mesh those ideas together to create a better lesson as a group than any of us could create on our own. (Haley, weekly reflection, 12 October 2012)

By Week 9 of the innovation, both teams were thriving with the collaboration – as one team member noted: ‘I definitely think we are working as a group much better. We are getting more ideas flowing and starting to sort out what we think will work and will not work and it feels more collaborative than previous lessons’ (Robert, weekly reflection, 29 October 2012). By Week 10, one preservice teacher stated when talking about the planning process for the last field-experience lesson that, ‘It

506 J. Mostofo and R. Zambo

wasn’t so much about how we were going to teach, rather how we were going to make it exciting for the learners’ (Steve, weekly reflection, 5 November 2012).

The third assertion was that observing their own and others teaching mathemat- ics improved their reflective practices, instructional ability, and confidence. In the Week 3 reflections after teaching their first lesson in class, one preservice teacher stated: ‘I feel after teaching just this one lesson that I definitely need much more practice’ (Bonnie, weekly reflection, 16 September 2012). Another preservice tea- cher said after observing their own lesson on video in Week 4 that, ‘After watching that first video of me teaching, I realized that all those little things that you think of as wrong while you are presenting are not very noticeable’ (Robert, weekly reflec- tion, 25 September 2012). That same week a preservice teacher pointed out: ‘It was really helpful to have our instructor demonstrate for us because his examples of pac- ing and questioning’ (Jennifer, weekly reflection, 24 September 2012). Right before the first lesson in the field-experience classroom in Week 5, one preservice teacher said: ‘After observing the field-experience classroom yesterday, I feel a bit more comfortable about teaching in her class’ (Bonnie, weekly reflection, 28 September 2012). In Week 6, a preservice teacher pointed out the benefits of teaching a lesson in the field-experience classroom after both teammates had already taught: ‘… I had the advantage of seeing what worked what didn’t’ (Haley, weekly reflection, 6 October 2012). Another team member that same week stated: ‘Getting to see and hear the same lesson numerous times really helps me to reflect on how I will teach the lesson’ (Bonnie, weekly reflection, 7 October 2012). In Week 7, after the first field-experience lesson, one preservice teacher said:

… we were able to use what we saw one person do, and put our own style on it … I was able to watch my teammates and see what worked for them, and then use that idea in my own teaching. It was very interesting to see all of us teach the same lesson in different ways, and I think seeing that difference just helps your own teaching become that much stronger. (Haley, weekly reflection, 13 October 2012)

In the final week of reflections, one preservice teacher summarized how different they felt after teaching for the second time in the field-experience classroom by stating: ‘I was able to draw some good things from my teammates, which helped me to improve’ (Bonnie, weekly reflection, 16 November 2012). Another preservice tea- cher that same week mentioned:

… I think I felt good because I knew I wasn’t going to be the first one to teach. I was going to have an opportunity to see what was going to work and what I might need to change … (Robert, weekly reflection, 20 November 2012)

Results from the semi-structured interviews

All six preservice teachers in the study were interviewed following the innovation (they were interviewed by other professors and the interviews were transcribed by Jim). The three overall themes that were reflected in the interviews as well as the specific components which supported the themes and the assertions that were developed from these thematic components are summarized in Table 2.

The first theme from the interview data was that collaborative planning was essential to improving the quality of the lessons. One preservice teacher stated: ‘I think being able to work in a group and get different ideas of how to create lesson plans and different ways to implement them and different ideas was really

Educational Action Research 507

beneficial’ (Courtney, interview, 26 November 2012). Another preservice teacher, when asked about the main benefits of Lesson Study, said: ‘I think the key benefit was getting input from the group members on the actual planning of the lessons’ (Bonnie, interview, 26 November 2012). Another preservice teacher, when asked about collaborative planning, said:

You know you don’t typically get to do that and having other people’s feedback is really nice even if it’s something to where their ideas slightly differ, it is still nice to see how other people think about it because you get more benefits out of it. (Haley, interview, 26 November 2012)

One preservice teacher summed up the benefits of collaborative planning by saying that, ‘… it helped a lot with getting a little more diverse ideas and other people’s perspectives outside of my own and I think that really opened me up some to differ- ent ideas and different strategies to teach’ (Steve, interview, 26 November 2012). Another preservice teacher pointed out the importance of looking for possible student misconceptions during the planning stage:

We tried to anticipate some of the hiccups that the kids might encounter in the lesson like things that they might get confused on … We try and clear those things up as you’re teaching it. I thought that was really interesting because it is something I had not thought of before. Instead of letting them get confused, just straighten it out right out of the chute and then everything will be fine … (Bonnie, interview, 26 November 2012)

The second assertion from the interview data was that the confidence of the pre- service teachers continued to grow throughout the innovation. One preservice tea- cher stated: ‘I feel like I’m more prepared to go into my student-teaching having gone through the Lesson Study process …’ (Jennifer, interview, 26 November 2012). Another preservice teacher said it in the following way: ‘Having the opportu- nity to teach and get in front of a classroom before leaving the university and going into my student-teaching next semester it just increased my comfort level a thousand fold’ (Bonnie, interview, 26 November 2012). When asked whether the classroom is a piece of cake now, this same preservice teacher stated: ‘I am still scared, but not quite as much’ (Bonnie, interview, 26 November 2012). One preservice teacher summarized the field-experience teaching by stating that, ‘… just being able to do it and tell myself that I did it and it wasn’t so hard boosted my confidence level …’

Table 2. Interview themes.

Theme Theme-related components Assertions

Collaborative planning

Gained different ideas about how to teach. Collaborative planning was essential to improving the quality of the lessons.

Anticipating student misconceptions critical to their success (new to them).

Growth in confidence (efficacy)

Confidence increased with more practice teaching (especially in field experience).

The preservice teachers’ confidence continued to grow as the innovation progressed.Reflecting/debriefing/revising/re-teaching

helped to build confidence in their lessons. Practice teaching (real experience)

Practice teaching in classroom with their peers is a safe way to start before field experience.

Practice teaching in the classroom and field experience was essential to growth of the preservice teachers.

Planning and teaching a mathematics lesson, in addition to writing the lesson plan, enhanced the preservice teachers’ experience.

508 J. Mostofo and R. Zambo

(Haley, interview, 26 November 2012). Another preservice teacher summarized how their confidence was impacted by the Lesson Study process:

So you take all of the thoughts into consideration and make all of your changes and you have that much better of a lesson and then you get to re-teach it and again it is that much better a teaching lesson because you remember what they told you and you make the changes necessary … and because it did go better it boosts your confidence. Then you feel more comfortable teaching and it is like a giant cycle and it works well to improve all of your teaching abilities. (Haley, interview, 26 November 2012)

The third assertion from the interview data was that practice teaching in the class- room and field experience was essential to the growth of the preservice teachers. The idea of starting out teaching in front of their peers seemed to be something that bene- fitted the preservice teachers, as one preservice teacher said: ‘… you get to work out all of the kinks in front of your peers and they tell you all of the things they think went good and things that could possibly change for the better’ (Haley, interview, 26 November 2012). In fact, practicing the exact lesson before the field-experience class- room seemed to impact the innovation. One preservice teacher noted:

… we could teach the lessons in class and then get our revisions and make those changes and see what worked and what didn’t work … and make those changes for the high school students…it was like a lesson we already taught three times as opposed to doing something for the first time. (Robert, interview, 26 November 2012)

When asked about the main benefits of the Lesson Study process, one preservice teacher said that ‘…the most beneficial for me was actually teaching in our class here and the one in the field-experience classroom’ (Haley, interview, 26 November 2012). When asked whether they did this sort of thing in their other methods classes, they said: ‘I had never actually made I guess you could call it a real life math lesson before’ (Haley, interview, 26 November 2012). One preservice teacher added the fol- lowing key point about the real-life practice: ‘… with most of our classes now we just write lesson plans, but being able to actually teach it helps to see what are some flaws that you might have that you didn’t think of before’ (Courtney, interview, 26 November 2012).

Discussion and implications

Jim’s primary finding of this action research is that Lesson Study can have a strong influence on the efficacy of preservice mathematics teachers. There is some research that supports his claim. Sibbald (2009) found that through sharing ideas, resources, and gaining an understanding of different teaching techniques during the Lesson Study process, preservice teachers improved their efficacy. Lesson Study provided a means to increase collaboration during planning lessons and the ability to receive feedback and revise those lessons. The preservice teachers also were able to teach multiple times in Jim’s methods classroom and then in the field-experience classroom and receive feedback that seemed to influence their efficacy to teach mathematics.

Jim found that a key factor in establishing the confidence of the preservice teachers was the direct connection from the field-experience school to his methods classroom. Lesson Study provided an effective bridge from Jim’s methods class to the field-experience classroom. Jim noticed that by teaching the same lesson in his class before doing so in the field-experience classroom the preservice teachers

Educational Action Research 509

gained confidence. This is critical because preservice teachers often do not see the connection between their methods courses and their field experience (Darling- Hammond 2006; Lampert and Ball 1999). There is strong evidence that incorporat- ing Lesson Study in methods classrooms directly linked to field experience has benefitted preservice teachers’ development (Carrier 2011; Chassels and Melville 2009; Sims and Walsh 2008).

Lewis (2009) divides the growth of Lesson Study participants into three cate- gories: development of knowledge, development of interpersonal relationships, and development of personal qualities and dispositions. Although Lewis’ study involved inservice (practicing) teachers, this study showed gains in similar areas for his pre- service teachers. First, the preservice teachers in Jim’s study did develop their knowledge of mathematics teaching through planning multiple lessons and revising those lessons after receiving feedback. Second, the preservice teachers in his class also experienced a growth in their interpersonal relationships through collaboratively planning and critiquing lessons with their peers and field-experience teacher. Third, the preservice teachers discovered more about their personal teaching style through being able to practice-teach multiple times in Jim’s methods classroom and in the high school classroom, which seems to have positively impacted their confidence.

This action research has several implications for teacher education. Programs in teacher education need to be designed to help preservice teachers develop the ability to learn from teaching that will enable them to grow beyond their university experi- ence (Darling-Hammond and Hammerness 2005). Some research argues that con- nected field experiences provide preservice teachers with a ‘pedagogy of investigation’ to experience some of the realities of teaching through real practice (Ball and Cohen 1999, 13). In fact, preservice teachers report being most influenced by their field experiences due to the connection between their coursework and field- work (Darling-Hammond 2006; Feiman-Nemser 1983; Lampert and Ball 1999; Tabachnik, Popkewitz, and Zeichner 1979–1980). Jim’s preservice teachers in this study were able to get a small taste of teaching in an actual high school classroom before they entered their student-teaching experience. Pedagogy that is gradually integrated into the field experience allows preservice teachers the opportunity to learn from actual teaching rather than theory (Sims and Walsh 2008).

This study transformed Jim’s practice as a teacher-educator. Applying supportive action research principles can ‘re-energize’ instructors and ‘help them recapture some of their old enthusiasm for the teaching/learning process’ (Patthey and Thomas-Spiegel 2013, 482). Jim’s action research using Lesson Study as part of his methods classroom has given him a new focus on his role as a practitioner and researcher. He has become more of a facilitator when teaching his methods classes. He wants to continue to conduct action research cycles each semester in his methods classroom to refine his practice using Lesson Study. Jim is now a firm believer in the value of Lesson Study in preservice teacher education.

Jim realizes that besides improving his own practice as a method’s instructor, another purpose of action research is to produce knowledge that will be useful to other educators (Somekh and Zeichner 2009). His hope is that this article will add to the body of knowledge in the area of action research related to the use of innova- tions, in this case Lesson Study, for the improved preparation of teachers. Action research is not only about learning but knowledge production that teacher-re- searchers learn from their experience and ‘make it accessible to others’ (McTaggart 1994, 317). Future practitioners learn about their professions through what Shulman

510 J. Mostofo and R. Zambo

(2005) calls ‘signature pedagogies’. Novices in a profession are instructed in three fundamental dimensions of their field, ‘to think, to perform, and to act with integrity’ (2005, 52). Jim believes that the preservice teachers in this study were allowed to grow in all three of these areas through the implementation of this innovation. First, they were asked to ‘think’ throughout the innovation as they collaboratively planned mathematics lessons for instruction in our class and eventu- ally the field-experience classroom. They also were continually asked to analyze their own teaching as well as the instruction of their peers and mentors. Second, the preservice teachers were then asked to ‘perform’ what they had learned during their actual instruction in the methods classroom and field-experience classroom. Third, the preservice teachers were asked to ‘act with integrity’ because they had to fit into their future place of work (the high school classroom). They had to dress and act professionally during their time in the field experience. One of the goals of this study was to prepare the preservice teachers for an ‘accomplished and responsible practice in the service of others’ through the field experiences and expose them to the ‘practices and values of a field’ (Shulman 2005, 53).

Jim found that the results of this study connected strongly with the theoretical framework from Vygotsky’s Space. The preservice mathematics teachers in this study demonstrated the movement from stage one of Vygotsky’s Space (individual ways of thinking) to stage two (transforming their thinking into their own work). The preser- vice teachers were able to take the collaboratively planned lesson and modify it to fit their own individual style as they individually taught the lesson. They also moved into stage three of Vygotsky’s Space when they revised their lesson and published it as their own final version during their field-experience lessons. Using action research to implement Lesson Study has greatly enhanced the effectiveness of Jim’s secondary mathematics classroom. More importantly, the efficacy of his preservice teachers was greatly improved through this process. Additional and expanded cycles of action research are needed in order to establish whether Lesson Study provides preservice teachers with the ability to move to Vygotsky’s final stage of ‘conventionalization,’ where they implement this new practice individually in the future.

Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID Jameel Mostofo http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3491-7063

References Ball, D., and D. Cohen. 1999. “Developing Practice, Developing Practitioners: Toward a

Practice-based Theory of Professional Education.” In Teaching as the Learning Profes- sion: Handbook of Policy and Practice, edited by L. Darling-Hammond and G. Sykes, 3–32. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

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 (2): 145–160.

Chassels, C., and W. Melville. 2009. “Collaborative, Reflective, and Iterative Japanese Lesson Study in an Initial Teacher Education Program: Benefits and Challenges.” Canadian Journal of Education 32 (4): 734–763.

Educational Action Research 511

Chester, M., and B. Beaudin. 1996. “Efficacy Beliefs of Newly Hired Teachers in Urban Schools.” American Educational Research Journal 33 (1): 233–257.

Chokshi, S., and C. Fernandez. 2004. “Challenges to Importing Japanese Lesson Study: Con- cerns, Misconceptions, and Nuances.” Phi Delta Kappan 85 (7): 520–525.

Cohan, A., and A. Honigsfeld. 2006. “Incorporating Lesson Study in Teacher Preparation.” The Educational Forum 71 (1): 81–92.

Corbin, J., and A. Strauss. 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Darling-Hammond, L. 2006. Powerful Teacher Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Darling-Hammond, L., and K. Hammerness. 2005. “The Design of Teacher Education Pro-

grams.” In Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able to Do, edited by L. Darling-Hammond and J. Bransford, 390–441. San Fran- cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Feiman-Nemser, S. 1983. “Learning to Teach.” In Handbook of Teaching and Policy, edited by L. Shulman and G. Sykes, 212–233. New York: Longman.

Fernandez, C., and M. Yoshida. 2004. Lesson Study: A Case of a Japanese Approach to Improving Instruction through School-based Teacher Development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fernandez, M. L. 2005. “Exploring ‘Lesson Study’ in Teacher Preparation.” Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education 2: 305–312.

Gallucci, C., M. DeVoogt, I. H. Van Lare, and B. Boatright. 2010. “Instructional Coaching: Building Theory about the Role and Organizational Support for Professional Learning.” American Educational Research Journal 47 (4): 919–963. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/ 0002831210371497

Ganesh, B., and S. M. Matteson. 2010. “The Benefits of Reteaching Lessons in Preservice Methods Classes.” Action in Teacher Education 32 (4): 52–60.

Gay, L. R., G. E. Mills, and P. Airasian. 2009. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Geist, E. 2000. “Lessons from the TIMSS Videotape Study.” Teaching Children Mathematics 7 (3): 180–185.

Goodell, J. E. 2006. “Using Critical Incident Reflections: A Self-study as a Mathematics Teacher Educator.” Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 9 (3): 221–248.

Grossman, P., C. Compton, D. Igra, M. Ronfeldt, E. Shahan, and P. Williamson. 2009. “Teaching Practice: A Cross-professional Perspective.” Teachers College Record 111 (9): 2055–2100.

Groth, R. E. 2011. “Improving Teaching through Lesson Study.” Mathematics Teacher 104 (6): 446–451.

Henson, R. K. 2001. “The Effects of Participation in Teacher Research on Teacher Efficacy.” Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (7): 819–836.

Hiebert, J., A. Morris, D. Berk, and A. Jansen. 2007. “Preparing Teachers to Learn from Teaching.” Journal of Teacher Education 58 (1): 47–61.

Hill, H. C., and D. L. Ball. 2004. “Learning Mathematics for Teaching: Results from California’s Mathematics Professional Development Institutes.” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 35 (5): 330–351.

Johnson, D. 2010. “Learning to Teach: The Influence of a University-School Partnership Pro- ject on Pre-service Elementary Teachers’ Efficacy for Literacy Instruction.” Reading Horizons 50 (1): 23–48.

Kennedy, M. 1999. “The Role of Preservice Teacher Education.” In Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy and Practice, edited by L. Darling-Hammond and G. Sykes, 54–85. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lampert, M., and D. Ball. 1999. “Aligning Teacher Education with Contemporary K–12 Reform Visions.” In Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy and Practice, edited by L. Darling-Hammond and G. Sykes, 33–53. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Leitch, R., and C. Day. 2000. “Action Research and Reflective Practice: Towards a Holistic View.” Educational Action Research 8 (1): 179–193.

512 J. Mostofo and R. Zambo

Lewis, C. C. 2002. Lesson Study: A Handbook of Teacher-Led Instructional Change. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better Schools, Inc.

Lewis, C. 2009. “What is the Nature of Knowledge Development in Lesson Study?” Educa- tional Action Research 17 (1): 95–110.

Lewis, C., and I. Tsuchida. 1998. “A Lesson is like a Swiftly Flowing River: How Research Lessons Improve Japanese Education.” American Educator 22 (4): 12–17, 50–52.

McMahon, M. T., and E. Hines. 2008. “Lesson Study with Preservice Teachers.” Mathematics Teacher 102 (3): 186–191.

McTaggart, R. 1994. “Participatory Action Research: Issues in Theory and Practice.” Educa- tional Action Research 2 (3): 313–337.

Mills, G. E. 2007. Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher Researcher. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Morris, A., J. Hiebert, and S. Spitzer. 2009. “Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching in Planning and Evaluating Instruction: What Can Preservice Teachers Learn?” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 40 (5): 491–529.

Munby, H., T. Russell, and A. K. Martin. 2001. “Teachers’ Knowledge and How it Devel- ops.” In Handbook of Research on Teaching, 4th ed., edited by V. Richardson, 877–905. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Oolbekkink-Marchand, H. W., J. van der Steen, and M. Nijveldt. 2014. “A Study of the Quality of Practitioner Research in Secondary Education: Impact on Teacher and School Development.” Educational Action Research 22 (1): 122–139.

Patthey, G. G., and J. Thomas-Spiegel. 2013. “Action Research for Instructional Improve- ment: The Bad, the Ugly, and the Good.” Educational Action Research 21 (4): 468–484.

Postholm, M. B., and S. Skrovset. 2013. “The Researcher Reflecting on Her Own Role during Action Research.” Educational Action Research 21 (4): 506–518.

Rosenholtz, S. 1989. Teacher’s Workplace: The Social Organization of Schools. New York: Longman.

Schon, D. A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.

Schon, D. A. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schunk, D., and B. Zimmerman. 1997. “Social Origins of Self-regulatory Competence.”

Educational Psychologist 32 (4): 195–208. Shulman, L. S. 2005. “Signature Pedagogies in the Professions.” Daedalus 134: 52–59. Sibbald, T. 2009. “The Relationship between Lesson Study and Self-efficacy.” School Science

and Mathematics 109 (8): 450–460. Sims, L., and D. Walsh. 2008. “Lesson Study with Preservice Teachers: Lessons for

Lessons.” Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (5): 724–733. Somekh, B., and K. Zeichner. 2009. “Action Research for Educational Reform: Remodeling

Action Research Theories and Practices in Local Contexts.” Educational Action Research 17 (1): 5–21.

Stigler, J. W., and J. Hiebert. 1999. The Teaching Gap: Best Ideas from the World’s Teachers for Improving Education in the Classroom. New York: Free Press.

Tabachnik, R., T. Popkewitz, and K. M. Zeichner. 1979–1980. “Teacher Education and the Professional Perspectives of Student Teachers.” Interchange 10 (4): 12–29.

Takahashi, A., and M. Yoshida. 2004. “Ideas for Establishing Lesson-study Communities.” Teaching Children Mathematics 10 (9): 436–443.

Tan, Y. S. M. 2014. “Enriching a Collaborative Teacher-inquiry Discourse: Exploring Teachers’ Experiences of a Theory-framed Discourse in a Singapore Case of Lesson Study.” Educational Action Research 22 (3): 411–427.

Tolle, P. P. 2010. “Lesson Study: Still a Work in Progress in America.” Mathematics Teacher 104 (3): 181–185.

Tschannen-Moran, M., and A. Woolfolk Hoy. 2007. “The Differential Antecedents of Self- efficacy Beliefs of Novice and Experienced Teachers.” Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (6): 944–956.

Zambo, R., and D. Zambo. 2008. “The Impact of Professional Development in Mathematics on Teachers’ Individual and Collective Efficacy: The Stigma of Underperforming.” Teacher Education Quarterly 35 (1): 159–168.

Educational Action Research 513

Copyright of Educational Action Research is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.