Boundary crossing and learning from variation

Citation

Lo, M.L. (2015), "Boundary crossing and learning from variation", International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, Vol. 4 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLLS-02-2015-0008

Boundary crossing and learning from variation

Article Type: Editorial From: International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, Volume 4, Issue 2.

In this issue we have four research papers and one poster, and we continue to facilitate dialogue between researchers in the form of two exchanges on the same paper and a book review.

Although less well known to the rest of the world, China – like Japan – has a long tradition of carrying out lesson studies. Some unique features of Chinese lesson study are having at least two cycles and being content focused and pedagogy oriented. The aim is to develop effective strategies for teaching particular content, rather than focusing on general learning or teaching goals. As such, there is more similarity to learning study than to lesson study in general, as the object of learning is the point of departure of learning study. The main difference between a learning study and a Chinese lesson study is that the learning study is guided by theory (e.g. variation theory being used as a guiding principle in pedagogical design), whereas the Chinese lesson study is empirically derived and guided by practical experience (e.g. being guided by teaching researchers who are experienced in both teaching and research on teaching). Rongjin Huang and Xue Han’s paper “Developing mathematics teachers’ competence through parallel lesson study” reports on a new and exciting development of lesson study in China, known as parallel lesson study (PLS). Two research lessons, developed by separate, independent lesson study groups and involving the teaching of similar topics (in this case, using algebraic expressions to express patterns) are compared. Apart from the learning that is made possible through a normal lesson study, PLS has the additional benefit of allowing all of the participants to experience the variations made possible by observing two research lessons aimed at the same learning objectives. As the initial learning objectives are the same, comparing the two resulting research lessons enables those aspects that vary to be discerned. These include how the different lesson study groups interpret the intended object of learning (what students are supposed to learn to achieve the learning objectives), the pedagogical strategies that are used, and how the pedagogical strategies affect the final enacted object of learning (what the teachers actually teach in the lesson).

In their paper, Huang and Han use the key concepts of expansive learning – transformation of the object, boundary crossing, and community building – to explain outcomes. As communities develop, they create boundaries between participants and non-participants; boundary crossing creates spaces that are part of different communities, in which members of different communities have “something to do together, some productive enterprise around which to negotiate diverging meaning and perspectives” (Wenger, 1998, p. 114). This is facilitated by boundary brokers and those individuals who can introduce elements from one community into another. The potential of lesson study and PLS to provide opportunities for boundary crossing, thus contributing to the professional development of teachers, is illustrated in this paper.

Sarkar Arani and Mohammad Reza’s paper “Cross cultural analysis of an Iranian mathematics lesson: a new perspective for raising the quality of teaching” is another example of how boundary crossing facilitates cultural scripts to be revealed. In a previous study, Arani et al. (2014) compared independently produced analyses by Singaporean and Japanese lesson study teachers of a Singaporean science lesson, with the aim of revealing the cultural scripts embedded in the teaching. This paper follows a similar vein, reporting on what can be learnt when an Iranian mathematics lesson study is critiqued through the eyes of Japanese educators, and the views of both the Iranian and the Japanese teachers and educators are compared. Three main differences in perspective are identified:

1. what are regarded as appropriate learning tasks;

2. the meaning and degree of conceptualisation of mathematical phenomena that teachers should aim at; and

3. the objectives of mathematical communications and how they are to be brought about.

Lesson study and learning study cannot be sustained without a supportive environment. Huang and Han point out that the success of PLS in China is facilitated by a number of factors: a “culture of teaching as public activity”; the professional promotion system; the official mentoring system; a culture of respecting seniors; and the well-established teaching research system. Yuefeng Zhang points out in her paper “Sustaining lesson study in schools with positive peer leadership: a case study in Hong Kong” that a number of studies have been carried out and a number of suggestions put forward regarding sustaining lesson study in schools. These include a shared understanding among teachers and school leaders about the effectiveness of lesson study on student performance; providing time and space for teachers engaged in lesson studies; transforming learning studies into more flexible and adaptable formats to fit within different school contexts; support in terms of resources, manpower, guidance, and incentives; and creating a non-threatening and supportive learning-oriented community of practice. Zhang’s paper adds to this literature by using a case study to illustrate how a school managed to sustain lesson study. Her paper reveals that there is another type of lesson study being carried out in Hong Kong besides the well-known learning study that originated there. Since 2009, lesson study has been promoted by the Hong Kong Government. Similar to lesson study elsewhere, it focuses on the improvement of teaching acts and strategies such as co-operative learning, questioning skills, and ways of providing feedback to students. The paper examines those factors that inhibit the sustainability of lesson study in Hong Kong in general, and uses a case study to illustrate how a school successfully overcame all of the constraints affecting it and managed to sustain the use of lesson study as a means of assisting teachers with professional development and improving student learning. The school leadership practices are analysed using a five-category framework: establishing a vision and setting directions for the school; understanding staff in the school and assisting with their development; managing learning programmes; designing the school organisation and cultivating a learning culture; and managing internal and external resources to support school development.

The paper by Sajida Zaki and Munawer Sultana reports on an experimental study to investigate whether problem-based learning (PBL) can be used as an alternative to the traditional ELT pedagogy at public colleges in Pakistan. The traditional pedagogy has been criticised as being ineffective, as its approach suggests that English is regarded as a content-based subject rather than a skill-based one, and it is characterised as lecture-based, teacher-centred, and authoritative with little or no opportunities for using English for communication, emphasising rote learning and reproducing content from prescribed books and teachers’ notes. PBL has been explored as a possible alternative pedagogy because it encourages the use of English, is learner-centred and takes contextual factors into account. The study involved an experimental group taught using PBL and a control group taught using traditional methods. A commendable aspect of the design is that the experiment was carried out with future implementation and sustainability in mind, so that the required resources for PBL were catered for by the existing classroom arrangements and resource provisions. It was found that the group using PBL out-performed the group using traditional teaching methods in the post-test, and that PBL changed students’ perceptions of and attitudes towards the compulsory English course. The success of the project changed the learning culture of the college, e.g., the computer lab was refurbished with internet, audio, and video recording facilities to also act as the language lab, an activity room was created to facilitate the presentation of projects and many other teachers began trying PBL in their classes.

What the last two papers report can also be viewed as successful boundary crossing by brokers. In Zhang’s study, the principal successfully acted as a broker to bring in elements of change and lesson study to the school, resulting in a change in school culture. In Zaki and Sultana’s paper, it is revealed that Zaki’s motivating learning experience in an in-service course for teachers on PBL prompted her to bring PBL in, changing the teaching and learning culture of the college under study.

In this issue, we also have a poster, “Outdoor Learning Contra Indoor Learning”, from Susanne Mellvig and Anders Nilsson. They report on a study that aimed to discover whether outdoor teaching, in contrast to traditional classroom teaching, could improve the understanding of sea and lake ecosystems. This is an interesting piece of research about the issue “Ecology should be studied in the field”, which might be taken for granted by many teachers. Even better, and very encouraging, is that it was the teachers themselves who took on this investigation. We hope for more contributions to the IJLLS from teachers who are carrying out research on their own practices and wish to share their findings. Mellvig and Nilsson found that student motivation was boosted in outdoor teaching, while both the experimental and the control groups showed gains in a post-test following learning. However, in contrast to what most people would expect, there was no significant difference in the learning outcomes of the two groups. The authors suggest that, as measured by test performance, outdoor learning may have a greater effect on school-tired students but a lesser effect on students who are already well motivated.

The PBL study and the Outdoor Learning study, reported above, demonstrate two variations in the effect of teaching arrangements on learning. A positive effect was found in one case (PBL), whereas no significant difference was found in the other case (outdoor learning). The insight drawn from comparing these two cases is that we may have to look beyond teaching arrangements.

As Japanese lesson study is promoted around the world, different countries are adopting it for their own educational systems and contexts. It is easy for different communities of practice to develop and boundaries to be created. We hope that the IJLLS will serve as the space in which brokers from these communities are able to negotiate diverging meanings and perspectives. We have invited responses to papers published in the Journal, in the hope that researchers with different theoretical perspectives will be able to communicate and negotiate diverging meanings based on the same paper, as an effective means of breaking down the boundaries between different research communities. In this issue, we have a response from Peter Posch on Anne Brosnan’s paper “Introducing lesson study in promoting a new mathematics curriculum in Irish post-primary schools”, published in Vol. 3 No. 3, 2014, and a response from Anne Brosnan. We hope that similar professional discourse will continue in future issues.

Adding to the professional dialogue is a book review, Lesson study East and West: Identifying Some Key Issues, written by Padraig Hogan. It reviews two recently published books: Lesson Study: Professional Learning for Our Time, edited by Peter Dudley, and Realising Learning: Teachers’ Professional Development through Lesson and Learning Study, edited by Keith Wood and Saratha Sithamparam. Hogan commends both books in that they “capture the energetic tenor of the developments of lesson and learning study and provide a range of illuminating insights into how central lesson/learning study can be in promoting teaching as a creative practice in its own right, and that many of the contributions to these two edited collections place both lesson study and learning study in a rich philosophical vein, and there are discernible signs here of a long-eclipsed orientation for educational thought and practice that is genuinely Socratic in origin”, but he also raises a number of very interesting and provocative issues about lesson study and learning study as described and espoused from the papers in the two books:

1. Besides advances in cognitive achievement, should high-quality learning also take into account significant shifts in students’ self-understanding and emergent sense of personal identity? Would variation theory contribute to this, and how?

2. The concept of the “object of learning” is not clear to a reader who is not familiar with variation theory.

3. Why are qualitative issues such as enduring enhancement of students’ attitudes towards learning and in their practices of learning, which would place lesson and learning study in the context of educational research rather than research on effectiveness of learning or “school effectiveness”, not included in lesson study and learning study?

4. Lesson and learning study seem to provide a more inclusive and fertile type of learning environment for teachers, so why are the learning processes of the teachers not more to the fore?

5. None of the papers seem to take account of collateral learning and how attitudes towards learning change and develop among those pupils who were the beneficiaries of the LS initiatives.

In putting these volumes together, there were of course constraints and very sound reasons that guided the editors in their choice of papers. However, it would be interesting to see comments from those who are not submerged in the same culture, so that “what has been taken for granted” can be revealed. Here is a good example of an opportunity for boundary crossing. We hope that more researchers from both lesson study and learning study will comment on this book review and on the books themselves, acting as brokers across different research communities. We would like to invite responses on these comments, to be published in the next issue.

Arani and Reza’s study is of interest because it reminds us of the many possibilities for further research. Because lesson study in Japan is developed through practical experience in the field, the ways of seeing that Japanese lesson study experts use probably benefit from wisdom in teaching and learning that is shared and inherited, as teaching is practised as a public activity. Would the same ways of seeing emerge if a lesson were to be analysed by a group of experienced teachers and researchers in another country with a similar teaching and learning culture, e.g., China? Would similar issues be identified if it were to be analysed by learning study researchers who are guided by a pedagogical theory of learning, e.g., researchers in Hong Kong or Sweden?

In exploring and developing different types of lesson and learning studies, a number of interesting areas of study have emerged. It is interesting to take stock of the different types of study and to compare what is kept invariant, what varies and what it is possible to discern. At least four types of study can be identified:

1. In a traditional lesson and learning study with at least two cycles, the intended object of learning (OL) and the critical features (CFs) are kept invariant, whereas the teaching strategies for bringing these about vary. The research lesson of the second cycle builds on what is learnt from the first cycle. It is possible to discern the relationship between teaching strategies and the enacted OL. However, teaching strategies, OLs and CFs may also change during the course of the learning study as a result of learning from students and teachers.

2. A research lesson developed in one country is analysed by teachers and researchers in another country (e.g. Arani and Reza’s paper in this issue; Arani et al., 2014; Runesson and Mok, 2005). The research lesson is kept invariant, whereas the ways of seeing it vary. This helps to reveal the cultural script and the theoretical assumptions of those involved.

3. The OL and CFs of a learning study developed in one culture are used as a basis for the development of learning studies in another culture. For example, Kullberg (2012) explores whether the insights gained by teachers in a learning study can be shared by others and used to enhance other students’ learning. Runesson and Gustafsson (2012) also report on a study in which Swedish teachers used documented Hong Kong lessons from a successful learning study as a resource. As the teaching strategies were not shared, the resulting research lessons would of course have been different. Both studies tested the generalisability of the CFs identified in a learning study. Although most of the CFs were found to be generalisable, it was also found that new CFs emerged from different students, changing the enacted OL.

4. As none of us lives in a vacuum, all of our actions are culturally bounded. The cultural differences between schools in the same country may be as significant as those between countries. Studies carried out in the same country may be as informative as studies carried out across countries. With PLS in China, as reported by Huang and Han in this issue, there is no interchange before lessons and each lesson study group is left to interpret, design and teach the lesson, to deliver an agreed learning objective. This is to ensure that the teaching approaches vary, so that the effectiveness of the teaching approaches in achieving the learning objectives can be compared. Parallel lesson study such as this also provides an opportunity to examine whether two research groups identify the same CFs and how the resulting enacted OL differs.

All of the above types of lesson study serve to expose the cultural script through allowing the participants to experience variations in culture. What is taken for granted only becomes visible when it varies. It will be interesting to see what further developments in lesson study emerge.

Lo Mun Ling

References

Arani, M.R.S., Shibata, Y., Lee, K.E.C., Kuno, H., Matoba, M., Fong, L.L. and Yeo, J. (2014), “Reorienting the cultural script of teaching: cross cultural analysis of a science lesson”, International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 215-235

Kullberg, A. (2012), “Can findings from learning studies be shared by others?”, International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 232-244

Runesson, U. and Gustafsson, G. (2012), “Sharing and developing knowledge products from learning study”, International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 245-260

Runesson, U. and Mok, I. (2005), “The teaching of fractions: a comparative study of a Swedish and a Hong Kong classroom”, Nordisk Matematikkdidaktikk, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 1-15

Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice, Learning, Meaning and Identity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge