Current Issues in Education > Volume 8, 2005 > Number 15

Citation Information

Rearden, K.T., Taylor, P.M. & Hopkins, T. (2005, June 23). Workshop Study: A Modified Lesson Study Model for Analysis of Professional Development Opportunities. Current Issues in Education [On-line], 8(15). Available: http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume8/number15/

Workshop Study: A Modified Lesson Study Model for Analysis of Professional Development Opportunities

Kristin T. Rearden

P. Mark Taylor

Terri Hopkins

Abstract

The steps of implementing, analyzing, refining, and re-implementing a lesson is referred to as “lesson study.” These steps formed the basis of a “workshop study” model that can be used to analyze a professional development workshop for the purposes of tailoring the content, resources, and collaborative efforts to better meet the needs of the participants. An initial offering of a workshop for middle school mathematics and science teachers was revised based on the evaluation and reflection by participants and instructional faculty. Based on participant feedback, the subsequent offering of the workshop more effectively met the goals set forth by the instructional faculty.

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Example of a Workshop Study: The Seeds Workshops
• Conclusion
• References

Introduction

“This is one of the best workshops ever. We are encouraged to collaborate in science and math but rarely given an opportunity to plan.”

- Participant in Seeds for Success II

Known in Japan as jugyoukenkyuu, a “lesson study” is a form of action research that is used in Japan to “enable teachers to systematically examine their own practice” (Fernandez & Chokshi, 2002, p. 128) and guide their own professional development. This process, embraced by educators from Japan and more recently the United States (Boss, 2002), is a cycle of collaborative planning, instruction, and assessment that is simultaneously informed by research and is itself a form of research. Although the process is typically used to analyze single or sequential lessons, the steps also provide a systematic method of analyzing other modes of teacher development. The purpose of this paper is to share a hybrid of the lesson study format that we, as teacher educators, used for the analysis of a professional development opportunity. The context was a two-year series of workshops for middle grades science and mathematics teachers called Seeds for Success. The process that we used to arrive at the hybrid model is what we call “workshop study,” a variation of the Japanese lesson study.

The workshop study model described here is similar to this lesson study format that has recently been implemented by teachers and researchers in the United States (Boss, 2002). According to Flannagan & Derrick (2003), the steps of lesson study include:

1. focusing the lesson
2. planning the lesson
3. teaching the lesson
4. reflecting & evaluating
5. revising the lesson
6. teaching the revised lesson
7. reflecting and evaluation
8. sharing the results

This workshop study consisted of similar steps, including

1. focusing the workshop by articulating goals
2. planning the workshop format and content
3. conducting the workshop (Seeds for Success I)
4. reflecting on and evaluating the workshop
5. revising the format and content of the workshop
6. implementing the revised workshop (Seeds for Success II)
7. reflecting on and evaluating the revised workshop
8. sharing the results of the analyses

Just as it is not the intent of a lesson study to create a “perfect” lesson (Chokshi & Fernandez, 2004), the workshop study process we employed was not intended to create a “perfect” workshop. Rather, the goal of the workshop study was to provide an in-depth study of the various aspects of the workshop in order to enhance the professional development experience of the participants. As a result, the workshop study is a combination of traditional evaluation for a project with an eye towards improvement of the profession by offering not just an evaluation but also a specific experience-enhanced example of professional development for in-service teachers. The following sections describe the workshop study cycle engaged in by the faculty members involved.

Example of a Workshop Study: The Seeds Workshops

Focusing the Workshop

With support from UT-Battelle, the managing corporation of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the University of Tennessee sponsored a workshop for middle school mathematics and science teachers in the East Tennessee region entitled Seeds for Success I (Seeds I) in Summer 2001. The faculty included professors from biology, mathematics, and science education, as well as a mathematics education doctoral candidate. The goals of the workshop included a) increasing the mathematics and science content knowledge of middle school teachers through immersion in laboratory investigations and related mathematics-based activities and b) encouraging collaboration of teachers by immersing them in activities that showcased the interconnected natures of mathematics and science.

Planning the Workshop

Science and mathematics content drove the planning of the workshop. The science and mathematics faculty developed four “seed-based” laboratory investigations and coordinated corresponding mathematical topics. The decision to focus on life science was based on the recently implemented high-stakes biology test that Tennessee high school students must pass to earn a diploma. The duration of the workshop would be eight six-hour days, which met the hourly requirements needed for the teachers to earn graduate credit in either mathematics or biology. Funds were allocated such that teachers would receive the necessary laboratory and mathematical resources to replicate the activities in their own classroom. To promote collegiality and collaborative exchange, teachers would attend the workshop as teams consisting of one mathematics teacher and one science teacher from the same middle school and would conduct laboratory experiences that integrated college-level mathematics and science content. Forty participants in the program were selected from twenty schools in East Tennessee.

Conducting the Workshop

Upon arriving, each team of teachers was given a box of supplies that would be needed during the workshop. Resources such as glassware, a triple-beam balance, Petri dishes, magnifying glasses, a TI-15 calculator and other equipment that would be utilized during the activities were provided to each team. Teachers would retain those materials upon returning to the classroom in the Fall. This met our criteria of providing teachers with the resources they would need to replicate some of the activities upon returning to their classrooms.

Teachers were immersed in both science and mathematics content throughout the Seeds I workshop (see Table 1). In each of the four laboratory investigations, content connections to the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996) and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) Principles and Standards of Mathematics (NCTM, 1991) were made, albeit in a limited fashion given the college-level status of most of the activities. Additionally, teachers were provided with examples of how to connect mathematical concepts to scientific investigations.

Table 1

Comparison of Daily Agendas for Seeds I and Seeds II

Note. ^aSeeds I activities deleted in Seeds II. ^bActivities added for Seeds II.

For example, the schedule of Day One consisted of two sessions of mathematics in the morning followed by two afternoon science sessions. The mathematics sessions centered on the development of the concepts of ratio and proportion. The focus of the first science laboratory investigation, entitled “Wheat germination and early growth under environmental stress,” was to determine the effect of salinity on the germination of wheat seeds. The mathematics content tied directly to the science laboratory activity, as the teachers needed to apply what they had learned about proportions to create solutions of varying saline molarities for this extensive investigation. Additionally, this investigation modeled a growing plight of farmers in which higher concentrations on salt in soil adversely affect the crop production. Increasing the salinity level of soil is even more of a most stressing environmental factor for soil microorganisms than heavy metal pollution (Sardinha, Muller, Schmeisky, & Joergensen, 2003) and is a phenomenon studied by agriculturalists worldwide. Therefore, teachers were provided with a real-life application of the activities from both the science and mathematics sessions.

The three other laboratory investigations also demonstrated the interplay of mathematics and science. The second investigation, entitled “Diffusion and osmosis,” demonstrated applications of interpolation and linear equations for the purpose of determining the water potential (Ψ) of potato tissue. The teachers placed thin potato cylinders in sucrose solutions varying in molarity from 0.0 to 0.70 and investigated the changes in mass of the cylinders. The point of zero weight change of the potato tissue indicated equilibrium; this “zero point” was then used to determine Y. The value was calculated by the following equation:

Ψ = Ψπ + Ψp

where Ψπ is the osmotic potential (determined using van’t Hoff’s law) and Ψp is the pressure potential (by convention with the value of 0 when the solution is open to the atmosphere).

In the third investigation, entitled “Starch hydrolysis of barley half-seeds,” the teachers investigated the function of gibberellins (plant hormones) in the early germination of barley seeds. Petri dishes containing agar and a starch solution were distributed to each group. The teachers placed half-seeds with embryos (E), half-seeds without embryos (WE), and WEs with added gibberellins in the Petri dishes. There was also a seedless Petri dish used as an experimental control set-up. The presence or absence of starch hydrolysis in each set-up was viewed indirectly by applying an iodine solution to the Petri dishes after twenty-four hours. The iodine solution created dark purplish regions where starch had not been hydrolyzed; seeds with starch hydrolysis were surrounded by circular regions of the lighter-colored agar. The role of plant hormones in food production of seedlings demonstrated by the set-ups in which starch had been converted to sugar, a usable food for the plant embryo.

The final investigation, “Pea seedling development in light and dark,” provided teachers with the opportunity to investigate the effects of light on seedling development, seed and plant water composition, and production of organic matter during photosynthesis. Pea seeds were weighed, dried, and reweighed to determine their water mass. Additionally, seeds were grown in closets and in full sunlight to determine the effects of light on growth. Teachers made observations of characteristics such as color, stem and root length, and leaf production.

Reflecting and Revising

When asked about participants’ overall impression of the Seeds I workshop, 39 of 40 participants responded in a positive manner. Comments fell into the three categories identified by Guskey (2003) as the most frequently cited characteristics of effective professional development: (a) enhancement of teachers’ content and pedagogical knowledge, (b) sufficient time and resources, and (c) promotion of collegiality and collaborative exchange. While most comments were positive, participants offered constructive criticism, particularly in the area of content.

Content and pedagogical knowledge. Teachers responded to questions regarding level of content knowledge, balance of lectures and activities, and usefulness for classroom situations. While there were positive comments made in these areas, critiques of these aspects included the following:

• The level of the science and mathematics content was extremely advanced, at times to the point of frustration.
• The connection between the science and mathematics content was not always articulated.
• The lack of translation of the workshop activities for a middle school classroom made much of the content irrelevant for immediate classroom use.

Overall, teachers felt challenged, and possibly threatened, by the mathematics and science content. These comments were not surprising to the faculty. Many teachers had specific questions when any of the mathematics content went beyond rudimentary algebra, and the majority of teachers had limited college-level mathematics and science backgrounds.

Reflections on the content by the faculty members made apparent the heavy emphasis on content knowledge that was presented at the expense of pedagogical knowledge. As a solution, the elimination of one of the four laboratory activities would make it possible to provide more sessions on pedagogical aspects related to the translation of the activities for middle school settings. Additionally, by modeling the different manners in which integrating the subjects could be approached such as team teaching, turn teaching, and synchronized teaching (Long & Rearden, 2001), the faculty would be able to offer teachers, regardless of the organization of their school, collaboratively-based instructional strategies to employ at their schools the following year.

Resources. Most of the comments regarding the resources provided to each team were positive, with a few teachers commenting that the equipment from the workshop was the only science equipment their school would have. However, the mathematics participants noted the discrepancy between the supply budgets of the mathematics materials and science materials. This was due to the extensive amount and variety of glassware needed to conduct the laboratory investigations.

Reflections by the faculty members regarding resources resulted in the decision to change the laboratory equipment from glass to plastic. The benefit would be two-fold: it would eliminate the potentially dangerous interaction of glassware and middle school students, and it would save money that could be used to increase the amount of mathematics-based resources. Several mathematics teachers had mentioned that graphing calculators and CBRs (an attachment for the graphing calculator which involves collecting data involving distances or speed during activities then translating the data to the calculator for analysis) would be useful tools to receive during the workshop, and there would now be funds for such tools.

Collaboration. Collaboration is a process that is “central to successful to professional development programs… because collaborations force their participants to make their knowledge public and understood by colleagues” (Hiebert, Gallimore, & Stigler, 2002, p. 7). Despite the informally structured and limited time for collaboration, participants were pleased with this aspect of the workshop. Spontaneous collaboration often occurred during breaks and lunchtime, and teachers use that time to share curricular ideas with colleagues. Teachers’ suggestions such as being able to “bring their curriculum to plan specific strategies” and create “collaborations that would apply to our curriculum” were offered.

Although collaboration between the mathematics and science teachers was a goal for the workshop, the approach was not overt. There were no specific lessons or activities on how participants were to collaborate upon returning to their schools. Additionally, there were no tangible products demonstrating ideas for collaborative efforts upon returning to their schools other than the technical laboratory investigations completed during the workshop. This was seen as a major shortcoming of the workshop by the faculty. The allocation of time to promote collaboration between team members was included in the new syllabus. The pedagogy faculty would formally address the collaborative teaching process, and teacher-generated ideas for collaborative endeavors would be presented to all participants in the culminating sessions of the workshop.

Implementing the Revised Workshop

With a continued focus on content and a reinforced emphasis on collaboration, Seeds for Success II (Seeds II ) was conducted the following summer with 40 new teachers. The notes on Table 1 indicate syllabus additions and deletions from Seeds I to Seeds II . The main modifications involved eliminating one laboratory investigation, allocating resources for additional mathematical tools, providing teaching models for interdisciplinary instruction, and inserting a capstone experience in which each team of teachers created a collaborative lesson to use in the upcoming school year. The omission of a laboratory investigation provided a block of time for teachers to create a lesson or series of lessons geared toward their specific curriculum needs.

Reflecting and Evaluating

The format of the Seeds II evaluation allowed for teachers to respond to various aspects of the workshop experience using a Likert-type scale of six choices ranging from “excellent” to “very poor.” Thirty-nine teachers completed the majority of the evaluation form; one teacher did not respond to one statement. See Table 2 for the list of evaluated criteria with corresponding responses. Teachers also responded to the open-ended question, “In what ways, if any, will this workshop influence your teaching next year?” and had the option of writing any comments or suggestions regarding the workshop. Based on the results of the 39 submitted post-workshop evaluations, improvement in the three areas of content and pedagogical knowledge, resources, and collaboration were noted.

Table 2

Evaluation Results of the Seeds II Workshop Components

Note. n=39. ^aOnly 38 teachers responded to this question.

Content and pedagogical knowledge. All 38 teachers who responded to the statement “Relevance of the workshop content and focus” rated the workshop as good, very good, or excellent. In answering the open-ended question regarding specific feedback on the workshop, six teachers wrote they would have liked to see the activities presented by the faculty more aligned with middle school curriculum. For Seeds I , 14 teachers had expressed that sentiment. Thirty-eight of the 39 respondents rated the statement, “Value of the workshop for your classroom teaching” as good, very good, or excellent. All 39 respondents rated the “Value of the laboratory exercises for your learning” as good, very good, or excellent. Based on this feedback and the observations of the faculty members of teachers’ engagement during the workshop, the alterations made in the syllabus positively enhanced the workshop experience for the teachers.

The reception of the capstone experience by Seeds II participants was encouraging. One participant commented to a faculty member that this was the first time she had sat down and actually looked at the mathematics curriculum her science students were studying. Her partner echoed the comment. The attitudes of the participants as well as the final products submitted for review made it apparent that the teachers favored the opportunity to create an integrated lesson in a collaborative manner. Interestingly, despite the overall focus on the same upper-level science and mathematics content in both workshops, the teachers in Seeds II did not express the level of frustration that was so evident in the participants of Seeds I . The articulation of translating the workshop content into developmentally appropriate activities for middle school classrooms provided teachers with a rationale for engaging in the more difficult endeavors.

Resources. The substitution of plastic lab equipment for the glass equipment used during Seeds I was beneficial in terms of cost, threat of breakage, and usefulness in a middle school setting. Additionally, the mathematics teachers were clearly pleased with the inclusion of the CBR and TI-83 Plus Silver Screen edition calculator with overhead projection device. In responding to the statement regarding “Usefulness of the ‘workbox’ materials you were given for your classroom,” all 39 teachers rated the materials as good, very good, or excellent. Unlike the evaluations from participants in Seeds I , there were no comments about inequity between science-based and mathematics-based materials.

Collaboration. In response to the open-ended question, “In what ways, if any, will this workshop influence your teaching next year?” 29 of 39 teachers indicated that, based on their workshop experience, they would increase their collaboration with their mathematics or science teachers. Statements included “Much greater coordination with the math department” by a science teacher and “I will work collaboratively when possible with the science teacher not only to strengthen skills in math and science but also to provide a more concrete look at the skills we learn and the real-life applications” by a mathematics teacher. The impact of the capstone experience of the integrated lesson and the direct instruction regarding methods of integrating subject areas was clearly reflected in the evaluations for Seeds II , and supported the changes made from Seeds I . Only one teacher from Seeds I had commented at all about collaboration with his or her team member on the evaluations, as opposed to nearly 75% of the teachers in Seeds II .

Conclusion

The focus of Seeds I was to develop teachers’ content knowledge and enhance collaboration between mathematics and science teachers. By applying the steps of lesson study to our workshop series, we obtained highly valuable information related to Guskey’s (2003) three characteristics of professional development: the appropriateness of the content and pedagogical knowledge, the usefulness of resources, and the perceived promotion of collaboration. Based on our workshop study of Seeds I , we found that some of the subject-area content was viewed as irrelevant, the opportunities for teachers to translate their workshop-based activities into collaborative endeavors upon returning to their classrooms were limited, and the resources provided were disproportionate and somewhat impractical. Based on this information, the syllabus for Seeds II was fine-tuned and the resources were reallocated. The evaluations of the teachers in Seeds II demonstrated the positive impact of these changes. A greater awareness of the connections between mathematics and science was achieved, and the potential for translation of the science concepts and pedagogical knowledge presented in the workshop was increased. Our most significant finding was that higher-level subject area content was more effectively presented when combined with the pedagogical tools for translating the content into forms that were usable by the teachers.

Although the characteristics of effective professional development opportunities are outlined by various professional organizations, designers of professional development must also look to the needs of the teachers they are serving and engage in reflective practices to ascertain how well they are meeting those needs. While formal program evaluations are useful, a workshop study offers a practical framework that encompasses the entire process, including initiating the idea, refining the workshop based on reflection, implementing the revised workshop, reflecting again, and sharing the results - the state at which the Seeds for Success workshop study now resides. Teacher educators involved in the designing of professional development workshops can use the steps we have outlined for improvement of their programs, and share their results as we have done here so that others may benefit from their evaluations.

Author

Kristin T. Rearden

University of Tennessee
A 408 Claxton Complex
Knoxville, TN 37996-3442
krearden@utk.edu
(865) 974-0885 (phone)
(865) 974-8718 (fax)

Dr. Kristin T. Rearden is an assistant professor in science education at the University of Tennessee.

P. Mark Taylor

University of Tennessee
A 410 Claxton Complex
Knoxville, TN 37996-3442
pmark@utk.edu

Dr. P. Mark Taylor is an assistant professor in mathematics education at the University of Tennessee.

Terri Hopkins

University of Tennessee
A 408 Claxton Complex
Knoxville, TN 37996-3442
thopkins@utk.edu

Dr. Terri Hopkins is a Post-Doctoral Fellow in mathematics education at the University of Tennessee.

References

Boss, S. (2002). A closer look at learning. Principal Leadership (Middle School Ed.) , 2 (7), 12-16.

Chokshi, S. & Fernandez, C. (2004). Challenges to importing Japanese lesson study: Concerns, misconceptions, and nuances. Phi Delta Kappan, 85 , 520-525.

Fernandez, C. & Chokshi, S. (2002). A practical guide to translating lesson study for a U.S. setting. Phi Delta Kappan, 84 (2), 128-134.

Flannagan, J. S. & Derrick, M. G. (2003). Improving student learning one lesson at a time. ENC Focus, 11 (2), 2-4.

Guskey, T. R. (2003). Professional development that works. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 748-67.

Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J.W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31 (5), 3-15.

Long, V. & Rearden, K.T. (2001, January). Preparing Middle School Teachers of Mathematics and Science for Planning and Delivering Interdisciplinary Lessons. Paper presented at the joint meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science (AETS) and the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators (AMTE), Costa Mesa, CA.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991). Principles and standards of school mathematics. Reston , VA : Author.

National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Sardinha, M., Muller, T., Schmeisky, H. & Joeregensen, R. G. (2003). Microbial performance in soils along a salinity gradient under acidic conditions. Applied Soil Ecology, 23, 237-244.