Studying Lesson Study Results from Michigan’s Round 1 Mathematics/Science Partnership Grant Projects

April 25, 2006 NCSM 2 Contents Introduction to Lesson Study and MSP Round 1 projects What we have learned so far –Qualitative data –Quantitative data

April 25, 2006 NCSM 3 What is Lesson Study? A view from MacombMacomb

April 25, 2006 NCSM 4 What is a Mathematics/Science Partnership Grant (MSP- Title IIB)? Increase the academic achievement of students in mathematics and science by enhancing the content knowledge and teaching skills of classroom teachers. Partnerships between high-need school districts and the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) faculty in institutions of higher education are at the core of these improvement efforts.

April 25, 2006 NCSM 5 What is a Mathematics/Science Partnership Grant (cont.) Scientifically-based professional development Quasi-experimental design –Treatment and control groups –Quantitative and qualitative data

April 25, 2006 NCSM 6 Michigan MSP’s In Michigan our first round applicants were asked to focus on: Mathematics K-8 Teachers that needed to become highly qualified

April 25, 2006 NCSM 7 Michigan MSP’s 1 st round received award in February, 2004 –4 recipients –18 months –Projects ended August 30, 2005 –All received a 2-year continuation which ends August, –All had a Lesson Study Component

April 25, 2006 NCSM 8 Michigan MSP’s Similarities Shared a common control group Worked together to develop a common content knowledge measuring tool Planned a common introduction workshop to Lesson Study Summer Institutes Middle school Lesson study topic determination based on weaknesses in student achievement

April 25, 2006 NCSM 9 Michigan MSP’s Differences –# of teachers receiving treatment –Team configurations –Interventions –Lesson creation/research Implications –Success with lesson study may be affected by these variables

April 25, 2006 NCSM 10 Michigan MSP’s Purpose of Lesson Study in our Projects Reinforce the content teachers learned from the Math Institutes/content courses Help teachers use this content knowledge in their classrooms Increase teacher collaboration around student learning

April 25, 2006 NCSM 11 What have we learned so far? What our experiences have taught us so far about implementing Lesson Study. What qualitative data suggests about the effectiveness of Lesson Study in improving mathematics instruction.

April 25, 2006 NCSM 12 Qualitative Measuring tools Teachers –Surveys –Journals –Observations –Final reports Students –Observations, including videos –Work samples –Student presentations

April 25, 2006 NCSM 13 Lessons Studied, Lessons Learned Lessons Learned

April 25, 2006 NCSM 14 Project Jugyoukenkyuu Difficulties –Teachers were not all volunteers –Lack of STEM leadership/involvement as knowledgeable others –Scheduling and time out of the classroom for teachers –Different priorities for PD within a district

April 25, 2006 NCSM 15 Project Jugyoukenkyuu What we have learned –Teachers are examining their questioning skills –Rethinking their day to day lessons –Become more aware of the involvement level of their students in a lesson –Start to think more about the student reaction and student response to activities

April 25, 2006 NCSM 16 Project TEAM 2 Transforming Education and Achievement in Middle School Mathematics Benton Harbor Area Schools Grades 4-5 –Summer: Content Institutes –School Year: Everyday Math PD Grades 6-8 –Summer: Technology Institutes –School Year: Lesson Study (2 cycles)

April 25, 2006 NCSM 17 Results of the Professional Development Feedback Likert Scale (5 pt) –mean score differences showed that while teachers feedback was positive from both groups, the grades 6-8 teachers scores were significantly higher in 4 of 5 categories. Project TEAM 2

April 25, 2006 NCSM 18 Teachers viewed their Lesson Study Professional Development Experience as having a greater impact upon: –Knowledge about the Michigan GLCEs (4.2>3.7*) –Use of a variety of instructional strategies (4.4>3.9*) –Their own mathematics content knowledge (4.4>3.7*) –Their understanding about how students learn mathematics (4.0>3.3*) Project TEAM 2

April 25, 2006 NCSM 19 Challenges in Implementing Lesson Study in Mathematics in an Urban School District Administrative Issues Teacher Issues Substitute Issues Student Issues Restructuring Issues Community Issues

April 25, 2006 NCSM 20 What was gained from … ? Planning the Research Lesson collaboratively Observing and debriefing the Research lesson Revising and re-teaching the Research Lesson Project TEAM 2

April 25, 2006 NCSM 21 Sustained Professional Development= Student Achievement Lesson Study is valuable because: –a valuable opportunity for teachers collaboratively discuss issues, research content, and plan a lesson. –promotes openness to other perspectives of teaching mathematics. –directly relevant to day to day classroom teaching. –changes the focus from teaching a lesson’s content to how students respond to and learn that lesson’s content. –increases teacher knowledge of how students respond to a lesson/learn. –provides an opportunity for students to see teachers model professional inquiry and collaboration.

April 25, 2006 NCSM 22 Sustained Professional Development= Student Achievement Our Lesson Study could be improved by: –A stronger assessment of student learning to evaluate the effectiveness of the lesson and improve formative assessment. –A more detailed lesson script of possible teacher – student interactions. –Scheduling is difficult. In the future make lesson study integral to the school professional learning environment and allocated PD time. –Administration needs to be included in the lesson observation and debriefing so they understand Lesson Study and learn how to support process. –Lesson study is currently supported by outside funding (see third bullet).

April 25, 2006 NCSM 23 Sustained Professional Development= Student Achievement Changes in Practice Due to Lesson Study –I listen more closely to students. –It is okay for students to make mistakes if they can explain their thinking. It is a part of the learning process. –I ask students to explain or justify their answers. –I think more about lesson objectives and student response/learning in planning. –I use more group work when I teach.

April 25, 2006 NCSM 24 What have we learned so far? What quantitative data suggests about the effectiveness of Lesson Study in improving mathematics instruction.

April 25, 2006 NCSM 25 Quantitative Measuring tools Teachers Content –Michigan Test for Teacher Certification (MTTC) –Learning for Mathematics Teaching (LMT) Instructional Techniques –Science and Mathematics Program Improvement (SAMPI); –Survey of Enacted Curriculum (SEC) Students –Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) –Standardized tests –STAR Math

April 25, 2006 NCSM 26 Three sites reviewed MEAP data All tracked trend data (increased or decreased percents proficient) One site found no change at grade 4(no Lesson Study) and an increase at grade 8 (Lesson Study) One site found the treatment group increased and noted the control group decreased One site found an upward slope for the treatment group Student Results

April 25, 2006 NCSM 27 One site used district administered standardized NRT data for the five of seven districts that used standardized tests Data for three districts were compared to a control group Data for two districts were compared pre/post No significant differences were found A second site used the Star Math assessment pre/post; no significant differences and small effect sizes were found Student Results

April 25, 2006 NCSM 28 Four sites used the Michigan Test for Teacher Certification (MTTC) and conducted pre/post – treatment/common control comparisons The four sites reported no significant differences One site found that being highly qualified had a significant influence on pre/post MTTC as did being highly qualified and participating in Lesson Study and being male A second site found no significant difference in participating in Lesson Study Teacher Results

April 25, 2006 NCSM 29 Two sites used the Learning for Mathematics Teaching (LMT); Both used a pre/post design One site found no significance One site found significant differences on two of three subtests (geometry and numbers/operations) but not for algebra Teacher Results

April 25, 2006 NCSM 30 Teacher Results Two sites used Science and Mathematics Program Improvement (SAMPI); both used a pre/post design One site found an overall downward trend One site found no significant differences: small effect sizes for content and lesson overall medium effect sizes for implementation of lesson

April 25, 2006 NCSM 31 Teacher Results Four sites used the Survey of Enacted Curriculum (SEC); all used a pre/post – treatment and control design Three sites grouped items to form a variety of subsets One site reported statistics for individual items related to that sites goals

April 25, 2006 NCSM 32 Teacher Results SEC (cont’d) Most results were mixed with some increases and some decreases. There appears to have been a positive change for the scale measuring active teacher engagement in professional development

April 25, 2006 NCSM 33 Lessons Studied Lessons Learned Specific Quantitative Data: From the Survey of Enacted Curriculum, scale scores were derived from Treatment participants (n=47) as compared to the Control group (n=45) at the post-assessment and used in the final Evaluation Report. These scale scores represent a cluster of questions from the SEC survey which are accompanied with reliability coefficients determined from the Wisconsin Center for Teacher Research based on a massive data base.

April 25, 2006 NCSM 34 Lessons Studied Lessons Learned Specific Quantitative Data Further post-assessment within the Treatment group, a subgroup of Lesson Study participants (n=26) was compared to non- lesson study participants (n=21) as to the effectiveness of the Lesson Study intervention. Again scale scores were derived from the SEC survey.

April 25, 2006 NCSM 35 Lessons Studied Lessons Learned Active Teacher Engagement Criteria from SEC Observed demonstrations of teaching techniques Led group discussions Developed curricula or lesson plans which other participants or the activity leader reviewed Reviewed student work or scored assessments Developed assessments or tasks as part of a professional development activity Practiced what you learned & received feedback as part of a PD activity Received coaching or mentoring in the classroom Given a lecture or presentation to colleagues

April 25, 2006 NCSM 36 Lessons Studied Lessons Learned Active Teacher Engagement Criteria from SEC (cont’d) Our results = Treatment: M=1.37,SD=.55 Non-treatment: M =.89, SD =.61 [p =.012] Reliability coefficient = 0.767

April 25, 2006 NCSM 37 Lessons Studied Lessons Learned Conclusion Lesson Study protocol seems to be an effective method of active teacher engagement in professional development as determined from our preliminary data. IF the goal of the intervention includes the criteria as listed in the scale cluster of the SEC survey, then a noted influence has been observed.

April 25, 2006 NCSM 38 Small n sizes Local evaluators were not required to use a common format MEAP test – individual student pre/post results not possible Matching common control group students with program students was a challenge Limitations of Quantitative Data

April 25, 2006 NCSM 39 Continue quasi-experimental treatment vs. comparison group design Address issues related to internal validity based on comparison group choice Continue to use established performance measures for students and teachers Identify additional performance measures for Lesson Study Key Recommendations

April 25, 2006 NCSM 40 Key Recommendations (con’t) Increase number of participants Address SEC administration procedures Consider issues of congruency between school mathematics texts and PD offerings Continue the provision of manipulatives for classroom use Encourage university instructors to incorporate more of the PD techniques in their instruction

April 25, 2006 NCSM 41 Conclusions Qualitative data suggests PD well received Quantitative data suggests limited improvement for teachers – No discernable change in student achievement

April 25, 2006 NCSM 42 Conclusions Dysfunctional systems that are characteristic of high needs schools Statistical power of quantitative data limited by: – n size – Sensitivity of measuring tools – Time – Longitudinal studies are necessary, especially with respect to student data

April 25, 2006 NCSM 43 Measurable Aspects of Lesson Study Specific content that is the topic of the lesson studied Hard to define because of the individual needs of the teams, i.e. manipulatives, student questioning –But this is the strength of Lesson Study The work that teachers do in each lesson varies But over time we would see changes in classroom culture that supports student learning – ultimate measure

April 25, 2006 NCSM 44 For more information - Michigan MSP website MTTC Study Guide Survey of Enacted Curriculum (SEC) Learning Mathematics for Teaching (LMT) SAMPI Ruth Anne Hodges Michigan Department of Education

April 25, 2006 NCSM 45 To learn more about Lessons Studied Lessons Learned and to view the lesson study videos visit:

April 25, 2006 NCSM 46 Proposal Does Lesson Study really work? Is there quantifiable evidence to suggest that it is an effective teacher development tool? Funded by an MSP grant four different groups in Michigan studied Lesson Study using a scientifically- based research model. The meta- analysis of this data will be presented supported by participant vignettes.

April 25, 2006 NCSM 47 Objectives of the Presentation In Michigan’s first round of Mathematics/Science Partnership grants all grantees chose to evaluate Lesson Study as a teacher development tool using a scientifically based research model. Although a lot has been written about Lesson Study there is little actual quantitative data to support its effectiveness. We feel that it is important that we share our results from these studies with those responsible for designing and implementing teacher development.

April 25, 2006 NCSM 48 Evaluation Designs Quasi-experimental employing a common control group and pre/post measurement Multiple measurement instruments All used MTTC compilation and Survey of Enacted Curriculum (SEC) 2 used Learning Mathematics for Teaching (LMT) and SAMPI Michigan MSP’s