differs from other CPD approaches, what teachers learnt by participating in lesson study, and any concerns they had about teachers participating in lesson study.
Understanding of lesson study
Two in-service providers (ISP3 and ISP4) stated that the Ministry had defined the Zambian lesson study model as comprising eight steps. According to ISP3, the major activities for teachers in the eight steps were to “plan the lesson, try out, re-plan, perfect it [the lesson plan] and go and deliver it to students”. ISP4 commented that the eight-step lesson study model helped teachers to:
130 | P a g e
Study together, brainstorm together, then develop a lesson plan, and then come up with the teaching strategy to use. Maybe one or two methods that are going to be used in the process of tackling that so-called difficult area. That is how it is done. (ISP4)
According to ISP3 and ISP4, lesson study involved “perfecting the lesson plan”. When asked to give reasons, ISP3 stated that revising and re-teaching implied that lesson study helped perfect the lesson plan. By way of contrast, the purpose of lesson study in Japan is not targeted at refining a lesson plan but to gain new knowledge for teaching and learning (Takahashi & McDougal, 2016). As observed by Fujii (2014), re-teaching a research lesson even once is not common practice in Japan.
According to MOE2 and ISP5, lesson study was a problem-solving strategy that helped to build the capacity of teachers in delivering student-centred lessons. MOE2 said that teachers’ pedagogical strategies would be enhanced through lesson study, while ISP5 added that this, in turn, would affect student achievement. ISP5’s response to a follow-up question on what he meant by “problem-solving strategy” was that lesson study started with giving students a problem to solve instead of telling them strategies to find a solution. This idea of using a problem-solving strategy, as stated by ISP5, is similar to the approach widely used in Japanese lessons of “teaching mathematics through problem-solving” (Shimizu, 2003). Shimizu’s (1999) four stages of a Japanese structured problem-solving lesson have been stated in Chapter 2. However, ISP5 did not state whether the problem-solving strategy was similar to that as stated by Shimizu.
Duration of a lesson study cycle
According to MOE1, a lesson study cycle in Zambian schools should be completed within a month. He stated that
One lesson study cycle takes a month to complete. So, there is a space of four days in between each activity. When teachers meet to plan a lesson to discuss the challenges, when they agree on one challenge, there is a space of four days. First of all, they go to their classes, and they continue teaching. After four days, they would meet again now to plan a lesson together to address that particular challenge. After
131 | P a g e
planning again, there is a space of four days. So a cycle, lesson study cycle, is completed in about a space of one month. (MOE1)
This contrasts with the Implementation Guidelines where it is specified that teachers should complete a lesson study cycle within five days (MOE & JICA, 2010).
Setting goals for lesson study
According to ISP4, lesson study involved the identification of a challenging topic or problem. This resonated with the statement in the Implementation Guidelines that lesson study involved teachers of the same subject or grade meeting to discuss problems and challenges in teaching, including questioning techniques, difficult topics, and pedagogical approaches (MOE & JICA, 2010B). This practice is also similar to the Japanese model, in which, according to Takahashi and McDougal (2016, p. 519), “the topic of the research lesson should usually present some challenge for students or teachers”.
The response of MOE1 and MOE2 to the question of who set goals for lesson study in Zambian schools was that teachers were expected to set the goals.
According to MOE1, the authority to set goals for lesson study was embedded in the Zambian policy on education, Educating Our Future (MOE, 1996), which stated that all school- based CPD activities would be demand driven and initiated at the school level. Therefore, teachers had authority to drive lesson study activities at school level.
Investigation of instructional materials
MOE1 and MOE2 did not state the extent to which teachers investigated instructional materials when conducting lesson study. However, they said the Ministry provided teachers with instructional materials. According to MOE1, the Ministry provided “materials and other resources so that teachers can teach better and children can learn better”.
MOE2 stated that the National Education Support Team (NEST) produced or acquired resource materials that could help teachers conduct lesson study, mentioning the Teaching Skills
Book as an example of such materials. However, the challenge, according to MOE2, was that
NEST did not supervise teachers implementing lesson study at the school level, therefore, it was difficult to ascertain the extent to which teachers were using the instructional materials provided by NEST.
132 | P a g e
Sometimes you can take these materials to the teachers, and depending on the supervision at the local level, they may not be used. Meaning, the impact will not be felt, as we would want it to be. (MOE2)
Observing the lesson
According to MOE1, when one teacher presents the lesson, other members of the planning team sit and take notes.
One of them demonstrates the lesson; others sit to observe what is going on in that lesson and take down the points of discussion according to the way the lesson is going. (MOE1)
However, neither MOE1 nor MOE2 mentioned that people from outside the planning team should be invited to observe a lesson. The statement by MOE1, that observers take down the points of discussion according to the way the lesson is going, is similar to the statement in the Implementation Guidelines that, while one team member implements the lesson in a classroom, others observe and evaluate the lesson, with each observer focussing on assigned points of observation (MOE & JICA, 2010b). However, it is not clear, from either the perspective of MOE1 or the Implementation Guidelines, whether the focus of assigned points of observation should be students.
The term used by MOE1 to describe the observers, “the others sit to observe … and take down the points”, has little connection with Japanese research lessons where observers walk around “collecting data on how the lesson impacts the students, relative to the research theme and the learning goals” (Takahashi & McDougal, 2016, p. 520).
Sharing lesson study results
According to MOE2, one way to share lesson study results was through meetings between teachers and MESVTEE.
At times, we have meetings where we want to learn from them [teachers]; how they are implementing lesson study. We share, we exchange ideas, and then we advise where we can. Where we feel they could do better. As I said, it is an exchange. They also give us challenges in what we are proposing, and so on and so forth. At the end of it, all we try to come up with a model that will best suit them. (MOE2)
133 | P a g e
However, ISP2 raised his concern about the lack of documentation, stating that: It’s now almost ten years or so practising lesson study. So with them [teachers], they have understood. But Ministry of Education’s concern is: I would want to see us document all the lessons developed as best practices. The lessons that I talked about can be developed into booklet form, maybe at Zonal level, school level and district level, so that we can keep because we have invested a lot of time and resources in developing these lessons. Therefore, to let go just like that, it would not be a good idea. (ISP2)