teacher collaborative learning and teacher self-efficacy: the case of lesson study
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 19 November 2014, At: 22:29Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Journal of Experimental EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjxe20
Teacher Collaborative Learning andTeacher Self-Efficacy: The Case ofLesson StudyWan Har Chong a & Christine Anne Kong aa Nanyang Technological University , SingaporePublished online: 11 May 2012.
To cite this article: Wan Har Chong & Christine Anne Kong (2012) Teacher Collaborative Learningand Teacher Self-Efficacy: The Case of Lesson Study, The Journal of Experimental Education, 80:3,263-283, DOI: 10.1080/00220973.2011.596854
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2011.596854
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
THE JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL EDUCATION, 80(3), 263–283, 2012Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0022-0973 print/1940-0683 onlineDOI: 10.1080/00220973.2011.596854
LEARNING, INSTRUCTION, AND COGNITION
Teacher Collaborative Learning and Teacher Self-Efficacy:The Case of Lesson Study
Wan Har ChongChristine Anne Kong
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Empirical evidence suggests that successful teacher professional development programs are intensive,ongoing, and connected to practice; focused on specific subject content; and foster strong workingrelationships among teachers. They support teacher motivation so that the acquired skills continue tobe practiced in class. These critical elements are also embedded in collaborative learning structures.Research indicates that these collaborative contexts have an impact on teacher efficacy, an outcomethat has been empirically linked to improved student achievement, and teacher adaptability andadjustment. This study used a qualitative lens to examine how lesson study provided the conditionsidentified in effective collaborative learning structures to support teacher efficacy. It was carried outin 3 subject domains with 10 teachers in a Singapore high school. It further explored the efficacysources that facilitated the teachers’ collaborative efforts. The authors discuss implications for staffdevelopment programs in the light of these findings.
Keywords lesson study, Singapore, sources of efficacy, teacher collaborative learning, teacherefficacy
TO PREPARE STUDENTS WITH COMPLEX ANALYTICAL SKILLS to meet educationaland work challenges of the 21st century, teachers must learn new ways of teaching that havea significant effect on student learning. In an extensive review of the literature, Wei, Darling-Hammond, Andree, Richardson, and Orphanos (2009) noted that for professional developmentof teachers to be successful, training programs need to be intensive, ongoing and connected topractice, focused on specific subject content, and needed to foster strong working relationshipsamong teachers. Educational research has identified these critical ingredients for successfulpractice in collaborative learning structures. Successful collaborations permit teachers to converseknowledgably about their theories, methods and processes of teaching, and learning to improve
Address correspondence to Wan Har Chong, Psychological Studies Academic Group, National Institute of Education,Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616, Singapore. E-mail: [email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
22:
29 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
264 CHONG AND KONG
upon classroom instruction. These collaborative processes have been shown to enhance studentwork and performance outcomes, such as reduced student dropout; absenteeism; and academicgains in math, science, and reading (Y. L. Goddard, Goddard, & Tschannen-Moran, 2007; Strahan,2003).
For new teaching practices to be successfully implemented, teacher development programsmust also attend to underlying psychological mechanisms that support teacher motivation forcontinued engagement (Gregoire, 2003; Hochberg & Desimone, 2010; Lewis, Perry, & Hurd,2004; Nielsen, Barry & Staab, 2008). Empirical evidence suggests that teacher collaborativelearning contexts affect teacher efficacy, an outcome that has been empirically linked to improvedstudent achievement and teacher psychological well-being, adaptability, and adjustment (Y. L.Goddard et al., 2007). Many of these studies, however, have used quantitative methodologiesthat made it difficult to accurately observe and describe underlying processes and mechanismsthat foster effective teacher collaboration. Few qualitative studies have undertaken this attempt,and our study hopes to add to current understanding by exploring how a particular collaborativelearning process—the lesson study—supports self-efficacy in small groups of teachers as theywork to create new research lessons in different subjects for high school students.
Collaborative Learning
Research has described a variety of structures and processes that foster effective collaborativecultures (e.g., Erickson, Brandes, Mitchell, & Mitchell, 2005; Nelson et al., 2008) and thatalso constitute critical elements in effective professional development programs. Collaborativelearning structures typically involve teachers meeting on a regular basis to develop shared re-sponsibility for their students’ school success. Learning teams follow a cycle that begins withthe teachers examining areas of student learning needs and identifying new teaching approachesand strategies to address these needs. They then look at applying what they have learned in theteam to the classroom, observing the processes and effect on student outcomes, and repeating thecycle to further refine them. Through shared participation and exchanges with peers in a support-ive environment, these approaches open up opportunities for teachers to critically examine theirclassroom instruction as they work together to revise current practices.
For collaborative learning to transform practice, research has identified critical principles thatshould be adhered to in the designing of professional learning and development programs (Garet,Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001). First, teacher participatory efforts should be intenseand sustained over a substantial period of time. Wei et al. (2009), for example, in a review ofeducational research on in-service programs, found programs of greater intensity and durationto be positively associated with student learning, and that teachers who spent more hours inprofessional development (more than 80 hr) were more likely to put into practice the teachingstrategies acquired during training. Intensive training programs over a period of time, therefore,afford teachers the time and opportunities to bring new knowledge to planning and instruction; totry out ideas in the classroom; and to reflect on the results of their experiments. This has a greaterchance of sustained instructional change with translation of gains in student achievement.
Nielsen et al. (2008) highlighted three other conditions in collaborative structures that supportteacher change. First, their investigation showed that teachers believed they learned more whenprofessional development was embedded within their school and classroom contexts. Empiricalevidence supports the collective participation of teachers in the same school, subject, or grade
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
22:
29 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
SUPPORTING TEACHER EFFICACY THROUGH LESSON STUDY 265
to bring about greater connectedness and alignment of teachers’ learning goals with schoolpolicy and goals. It helps to shape a shared culture in which teachers can develop a commonunderstanding of instructional goals, methods of teaching, problems of learning, and solutions(Garet et al., 2001). By pooling their collective wisdom and experience to problem-solve, itreduces isolated and individual change effort that may not have a sustainable effect in the longrun. However, for teacher engagement to be effective, learning needs to occur in a working climatewhere mutual trust is encouraged and the preferred mode of interaction is one of collegiality andnondirectiveness (Glickman & Tamashiro, 1982). This fosters (a) openness and willingness to tryout new ideas and take risks without the fear of ridicule or intimidation and (b) promotes a senseof collective responsibility and intellectual purpose for student learning.
Second, teachers said they learned more when professional development focused on a limitednumber of clearly defined learning goals and provided opportunities for deep learning. Themost productive collaborative undertakings consist of those in which the learning focus is withdeepening teachers’ content knowledge and instructional practices. These could be acquiredthrough opportunities for in-depth learning of new teaching methods until they could implementthem independently and with confidence in their classrooms. They would occur through activeengagement that includes meaningful discussions; planning classroom implementation; observingexpert and experienced teachers; reviewing common student problems in learning; obtainingfeedback in teaching through being observed; and engaging in reflective discussions about thelearning processes (Postholm, 2008; Yost, 2006). In essence, effective teacher developmentprograms introduced through collaborative learning structures need to ensure that new skills andknowledge are connected to subject content, and their acquisition should occur in or approximatethe settings where they will most likely be used (Hochberg & Desimone, 2010).
Third, at an organizational level, schools need to provide the structures and processes thatsupport instructional change. Introducing changes to the classroom can be demanding on timeand overwhelming to teachers who are already busy with daily teaching routines. Teachers needto find common times to meet regularly and for a sustained period over the course of a schoolyear. School administrators need to create a collaborative learning culture that allows teachers toblock out time to come together. In addition, they need to ensure that the necessary resources tosupport teacher efforts are readily available, and work toward reducing structural obstacles thatimpede change processes (Erickson et al., 2005).
Lesson Study
Lesson study is the ‘centerpiece’ (Pucher & Taylor, 2006, p. 923) of Japanese teachers’ profes-sional development at the elementary school level since the 1990s. Analysis of the lesson studyprotocol suggests that it provides conditions identified in effective collaborative learning struc-tures. Set within the context of the school’s curriculum goals that teachers are already workingon, teacher skill development is therefore connected and aligned with school goals and priorities.
Lesson study involves research lessons that form a key part of the professional inquiry. Itprovides a structure by which teachers work collaboratively with their peers to craft knowledge(Fernandez, 2002; Shimahara, 2002; Wei et al., 2009). In particular, a lesson study cycle involvessmall groups of 4–6 teachers, from the same grade-level and/or content-area, and entails thecollaborative planning of a research lesson designed to improve student learning. One teammember will teach this new lesson to a class of pupils while the others gather to observe the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
22:
29 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
266 CHONG AND KONG
extent to which it could be implemented successfully. The observers take down notes about theteaching behaviors, pupils’ behaviors and interactions in the classroom, and the work completedby them during lesson time. The team meets again to exchange feedback, discuss and improvethe research lesson. Another team member teaches the revised lesson to another class of pupilsunder the observation of team members. This cycle is repeated and typically takes 6–9 weeks tocomplete.
When the lesson study protocol was first introduced and implemented with a group of Americanelementary school teachers, Fernandez, Cannon, and Chokshi (2003) documented a number ofchallenges facing these teachers as they worked to develop and adopt an unfamiliar lens inexamining their current teaching practices. It was inevitable that any changes in instructionalnorms and contexts would require these teachers to reexamine their beliefs (Nelson et al., 2008).The study found that the teachers’ motivation and beliefs were important to help them negotiatedifficulties as they worked together to develop new ways of teaching.
To the best of our knowledge, there are few educational research studies examining howlesson study offers the conditions and opportunities to support these teacher self-beliefs. Theonly empirical evidence came from Puchner and Taylor (2006), who identified this link betweenlesson study and teacher efficacy. The objective of their study was to explore and uncover howthis new collaborative learning experience provided the conditions to foster the teachers’ efficacy.The researchers first identified specific teacher behaviors that were indicative of teacher efficacy,by drawing upon research findings that spelt out specific behaviors that are linked to efficacy.Through a qualitative lens, they then proceeded to illustrate how teacher efficacy merged as atheme when four American elementary school teachers worked on a math lesson study to bringabout greater student engagement in a classroom.
Efficacy Beliefs
Substantial research evidence shows that developing skills alone are not sufficient to bring aboutinstructional change if teachers do not have the will to apply them persistently in the face ofdifficulties (Zeldin & Pajares, 2000). Skill acquisition is effective in influencing practice if theindividual teacher has positive beliefs about the personal ability to negotiate difficulties and worktoward the desired learning outcomes. Gregoire (2003) and Hochberg and Desimone (2010)have pointed out that besides enhancing teacher knowledge, fostering teacher beliefs that arefacilitative of instructional changes is equally critical in professional development programs. Inparticular, Gregoire (2003) highlighted the role of teacher efficacy beliefs in helping teachersinitiate critical knowledge, skill, and instructional practice change processes.
Situated in Bandura’s (1997) social cognitive theory, teacher efficacy is about teachers’ ap-praisal of their capabilities to influence student outcomes (Wheatley, 2002). An efficacy expec-tation is the conviction that one can orchestrate the necessary actions to perform a given task(Bandura, 1986). As most people engage in tasks in which they feel competent and confident andavoid those in which they do not, self-efficacy beliefs are powerful predictors of behaviors. Agrowing body of research has clearly demonstrated the contribution of teacher efficacy to teach-ers’ persistence, perseverance, engagement, commitment, intrinsic interest, resilience, and effortsin teaching-related activities and in experimenting with new pedagogies, and various aspects ofprofessional well-being (Henson 2001; Pajares, 1997; Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy,1998).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
22:
29 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
SUPPORTING TEACHER EFFICACY THROUGH LESSON STUDY 267
Bandura (1997) asserted that these behavior changes involving greater engagement and com-mitment to tasks can only take place if the individual’s preexisting beliefs change and arepowerful enough to initiate change. This positive shift would only occur when compelling feed-back forcefully disrupts an individual’s disbelief in his or her capabilities. For those teacherswhose experiences have solidified their disbelief in their capabilities over time, this disruption inmindset can be particularly difficult to achieve. As such, positively affecting teachers’ beliefs islikely to happen with those longer term professional development programs that push teachersto think critically about their classroom and to respond actively with instructional improvement.Recent research has indicated that teacher collaborative practices can enable this shift (Garet etal., 2001; Henson, 2001; Liaw, 2009; Puchner & Taylor, 2006). They provide a platform to createteacher efficacy doubts, which foster a transformative disequilibrium, thus triggering a changetoward teaching and learning.
Research has also examined how teacher efficacy information is developed and sourced toenable effective collaborative practice (Labone, 2004; Ross & Bruce, 2007). Bandura (1977)identified four avenues of efficacy expectations through which efficacy beliefs can be strength-ened and promoted. It has been demonstrated that enactive mastery obtained through variousprofessional development initiatives such as classroom experience and group discussions (Liaw,2009), and contextual factors such as availability of teaching resources and interpersonal sup-port, are important to promote the efficacy of preservice and novice teachers (Tschannen-Moran& Woolfolk Hoy, 2007). Vicarious experience and verbal persuasion through modeling or peercoaching have been identified as useful in enhancing the efficacy of those seeking alternate prac-tices to work with student behaviors (Hagen, Gutkin, Wilson, Caryll, & Oats, 1998). Physiologicalstates such as anxiety, stress, fatigue and mood states similarly provide information about efficacybeliefs. Although the contribution of this source is acknowledged, its relevance is most evidentin clinical research and has not been much explored within the teacher efficacy paradigm.
The extensive body of research on self-efficacy has provided the prior theoretical propositionsto describe the specific circumstances within which these beliefs are known to exert a significantinfluence (Zeldin & Pajares, 2000). To date, the body of teacher efficacy research on its role infacilitating positive teaching behaviors utilizes largely quantitative methodologies (e.g., Allinder,1994; Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Tschannen-Moran, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). These studies haveprovided critical information to help us understand how the construct has been overtly expressedin cognitions, traits, and behaviors. For example, teachers with higher efficacy set higher goalsfor themselves in terms of student performance than do those with low efficacy. These teachersbelieve that if one works hard, one can have a positive effect on difficult students (Blase & Blase,2001; Ross, 1995; Tschannen-Moran, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007; Wheatley, 2002). Such teachersalso reported greater in-depth planning and attention to lessons that bring about greater studentengagement. They were observed to adopt more innovative practices and change in their teaching(Lewis, Perry, & Hurd, 2004; Puchner & Taylor, 2006).
Research needs to explore deeply the ways in which teacher efficacy is shaped, supported andmaintained, particularly in the contextual conditions under which it occurs (Bandura, 1997). Fewqualitative studies have used such theoretical propositions to guide the identification of specificsources of efficacy beliefs. Zeldin and Pajares’s (2000) study is an exception. These authors used acase study approach and identified verbal persuasion and vicarious experiences as critical sourcesof efficacy to fifteen women who made academic and career choices in male-oriented domains.More qualitative studies are needed to extend, confirm, and challenge the conclusions drawn
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
22:
29 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
268 CHONG AND KONG
from quantitative work and build on information using other sources of data. The intent of thisstudy is to examine if these propositions remain useful for extension, confirmation or challengein contexts that differ from where they have traditionally been shown to exist. In particular, weaim to explore this relationship between teacher self-efficacy and lesson study across differentsubject content at the high school level and seek to understand:
1. In what ways does the lesson study process provide the conditions for successful teachercollaboration to support teacher self-efficacy? and
2. What sources of teacher self-efficacy are experienced through the lesson study protocol?
METHOD
Our study is exploratory in nature and not designed to test out if teacher efficacy increasesor decreases with the lesson study approach. As such, we selected a qualitative methodologyto obtain more detailed descriptions, narratives, and stories of the teacher participants as theyworked together.
Participants
Ten teachers from the mathematics, humanities, and science departments of an all girls’ highschool in Singapore volunteered to participate in this project that took place over 7 weeks. Theteachers in this school were already familiar with various cooperative learning approaches, suchas “The Blueprint” (Bellanca & Fogarty, 2003). Eight of the teachers were women and the othertwo were men, reflecting the gender composition of the school. They were grouped into teamsof three and four (for mathematics) according to subject specialization. The teaching experiencewithin each team ranged from 2 to 40 years.
Each team had a preferred teaching approach according to the nature of the subject they wereteaching and the degree of collaboration of the respective subject department. The science andhumanities teachers who were more specialized in their subject area (of physics, chemistry, orbiology) were more likely to work alone, whereas the mathematics teachers showed a generaltendency to develop lessons as a team for standardized use across the academic levels.
Procedures
Three senior teachers with specialized content knowledge of the respective subjects were eachassigned to a team. They were from the same subject department, had worked together on previousoccasions, and were, therefore, familiar to the participants. In this study, their role was to overseethe implementation of lesson study in the subject teams and they worked to ensure that the teamsadhered to the lesson study protocol. They observed the team’s activities, provided direction intheir discussions, and offered expertise on the subject of their specialization.
The second author and one of the senior teachers were familiar with the lesson study protocol.As such, they provided prior training to the other senior teachers by offering an overview of thelesson study approach, the concept of teacher efficacy and objectives of the study as well as aset of guidelines for their observations. A training session was also conducted for the teacher
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
22:
29 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
SUPPORTING TEACHER EFFICACY THROUGH LESSON STUDY 269
participants using the protocol obtained from the Teachers’ College, Columbia University website(www.tc.columbia.edu/lessonstudy/tools/html).
In the course of this study, the three senior teachers met the second author at regular intervalsto provide an update on the teams’ progress, discuss their observations, process the informationcollected, and ensure that there was consistency in the data collected across the three teams. Thesenior teachers convened with their respective subject team at least once at each specific stageof the lesson study process: planning and design of the lesson; postobservation discussion ofthe first lesson; and postobservation discussion of the second lesson. These meetings providedopportunities for the team members to share their observations and findings, refine processes,and identify areas for further deliberation.
Sources of Data
Information was collected from four sources to enable the researchers to complement and identifypatterns of findings that thematically emerged across these multiple data sources (Table 1). First,group discussions were audiotaped and the recordings were transcribed. The recordings capturedall the contributions, and questions and issues raised and faced by the participants. In addition,the senior teachers’ discussions with the second author were audiotaped. Second, observationfield notes on each meeting or discussion convened by the lesson study groups were made bythe respective senior teacher. Third, participants recorded their thoughts after each lesson studygroup discussion session in a journal. The journal reflections were useful in identifying factorsthat brought about shifts in their feelings, contributions and motivation as they moved throughthe lesson study process. Last, team interviews were conducted by the respective senior teacherat the end of the project to elicit specific factors that have contributed to the participants’ successfuland unsuccessful collaborative efforts. We used the interview protocol that Klassen et al. (2008)designed for their study to guide the senior teachers (Table 2). These were also audiotaped andtranscribed.
The narrative accounts arising from the group discussions were used in the analysis of data tohelp identify and support emerging themes of the study. These were checked against the othersources of data. Responses of the participants in their reflection journals, for example, werechecked for frequency, consistency, and congruency with information found in the transcriptsof the discussion sessions and group interviews, and in cross-reference with the observers’ field
TABLE 1Summary of Sources of Data
Number ofData source data sets Contributors Intent
Written reflections 48 Participants and senior teachers To capture individual participant’s thoughtsand learning.
Discussion sessions 18 Teams; between senior teachersand second author
To capture processes of lesson study andprovide information for cross validation.
Observation notes 35 Senior teachers; participants To record incidents for discussionGroup interviews 3 Subject teams To elicit factors that contributed to successful
and unsuccessful collaborative efforts
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
22:
29 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
270 CHONG AND KONG
TABLE 2Interview Protocol
1. What experiences contributed to your confidence in working on the lesson plans (or to provide a positive learningexperience)? (mastery experience)
2. How do your colleagues influence your confidence to work out these lesson plans? (vicarious experience)3. What did people (colleagues, senior colleagues, students) say to you as you worked on developing the lesson plans?
What sort of messages did you get from these people? (verbal persuasion)4. How would you describe your feelings and beliefs as you worked on the lesson plans? (physiological state)5. Can you tell me about any training that has increased your confidence in this process? (mastery experience)6. Why do you think some teachers are more effective at working out these lesson plans and using these with the
students than others?7. Tell me one memorable story that helps me understand how teachers in your group are able to work out challenging
moments.8. Looking back at this experience, if you could have done anything differently, what would that be?
notes. These multiple data sources enabled a fuller understanding of the phenomena being studiedfrom different perspectives.
Data Analysis
The social cognitive model (Bandura, 1986) has been well validated in teacher efficacy researchand was used to guide our interpretation of the responses and make inferences within the per-spective of the model. When prior theoretical propositions guide data collection analysis, we,the authors, are mindful that other possible theoretical explanations should not be excluded orignored. To ensure internal validity, we followed the procedure used in Zeldin and Pajares (2000)by having the senior teachers who were unfamiliar with the sociocognitive theory and two seniorcolleagues of the first author provide counter-checks and commentary on the patterns of data andthe findings that emerged.
We adapted the procedure used by Giorgi (1985). The descriptions were first sorted andcategorized. The transcripts of the lesson study discussions and the interviews of all groups,and reflective exercises were first read several times to allow for an in-depth understanding andappreciation of the intricacies of the phenomena under study. These included details of the process,the conversations and interactions that took place, the emotions and feelings experienced and theother influences that were captured in the transcripts. Data from these sources were first organizedand analyzed into categories on the basis of meaning units. Meaning units were identified as itemsin the transcripts that reflected a specific response or influence to the participants’ experienceduring the lesson study process. We sought phrases that either provide an understanding ofbehaviors indicative of self efficacy or elicit an inference on the source of self efficacy. We alsonoted statements that were indicative of unsuccessful or dissatisfactory encounters. Twenty broadmeaning units were generated. Examples of meaning units include the following:
Awareness of student learning needs: “So if I compare my lesson to . . . . this class needed a lot morescaffolding and for some of them, instructions needed to be given more than once.”
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
22:
29 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
SUPPORTING TEACHER EFFICACY THROUGH LESSON STUDY 271
Group goals, objectives, or focus: “Then of course we have met the objective which is to allow pupilsto know at least the derivation of Pythagoras Theorem through hands-on activity and identify thequality of the students’ learning.”
At the second and third steps, meaning units with similar themes were organized into codeswhich were further classified into categories. Categories were statements that captured the par-ticipants’ teaching behaviors and responses that have been documented in research as indicativeof teacher self-efficacy (Blase & Blase, 2001; Lewis et al., 2004; Puchner & Taylor, 2006; Ross,1995; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998; Zeldin & Pajares, 2000). They included the following:an increased capacity to generate new ideas; a readiness to experiment and adopt innovativeapproaches; perseverance in the development of better teaching strategies and classroom man-agement; stronger planning processes; observations of teachers raising doubts and dissatisfaction,and engaging in feedback for improvement; display of motivation to continue refining the ap-proach; and greater level of student engagement (Allinder, 1994; Henson, 2001; Stein & Wang,1988). At the fourth step, we reexamined the categories, codes, and meaning units to identify forpsychological meanings that created clusters suggestive of sources of self-efficacy. Four sourceswere identified and reported in the next section. In addition, we also identified specific incidentsthat may impede teachers’ sense of efficacy.
RESULTS
In answering the first research question, evidence of the ways lesson study provided the conditionsfor successful teacher collaboration to support teacher efficacy emerged in the following ways.
Improvement of Content Knowledge and Application of New Pedagogyand Innovative Instructional Materials
With the systematic protocol laid down in the lesson study, participants described how theprocess helped to improve their content knowledge through opportunities to share and acquirenew information about instructional practices. They also spoke about using their prior knowledgeon knowledge of content and pedagogical practices to develop new ideas and build upon eachothers’ contributions, particularly with using specific cooperative learning strategies (Bellanca& Fogarty, 2003). These capacities enabled them to deliberate on the way they planned andemployed learning activities that met the overarching goal of their team. Examples about how thelesson plan provided conditions for collaboration include the following:
Science team participant: “Active discussion was encouraging . . . and each member con-tributed . . . we really listened to each other.”
Humanities team participant: “We accepted each other’s points of view . . . and came up with a goodlesson plan.”
Their expressions of improved confidence in teaching were often linked to the acquisition of thisnew capacity. An illustration consists of the following:
Math team participant: “The lesson progressed smoothly due to the devised lesson plan . . . and thatreally improved the confidence in my teaching.”
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
22:
29 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
272 CHONG AND KONG
Collaboration and Scaffolding of Ideas
It was not difficult to locate accounts of how lesson study had afforded opportunities for theparticipants to work together in creating new and innovative practices. From various participantaccounts, the joint creation of the lesson from inception appeared to have a motivating influenceon the team and generated a collaborative learning experience that positively affected individualmembers. The following comments exemplify the process:
Math team participant: “It is really eye opening what three heads can think of! One comes up withan idea, the others build on it and a brand new enhanced idea is created.”
Humanities team participant: “I guess it helps . . . the shared ideas . . . as there are three heads—sothree brains contributing ideas . . . The other thing is the strategies to teach . . . each of us havesome ideas, and know how to teach, whether it’s taking group work, or you know, any small ideas orwhatever, it helped in the planning of the lesson as well . . . It’s not just the content, we had someideas on pedagogy as well, and combined ideas.”
Such opportunities would provide the teachers with a platform to foster their efficaciousness tocreate new innovative practices.
Reference to Overarching and Content-Specific Goals
The lesson study protocol required the teams to develop an overarching goal to guide theirefforts toward a specific lesson design. Members used the protocol to help them plan the les-son; seek clarity with each other’s understanding of various goal definitions and how contentspecific goals for the lesson should be derived from this overarching goal; and guide the gener-ation of teaching strategies to achieve these desired outcome(s). Teacher efficacy traits such aspersistence and engagement surfaced in these encounters. This is exemplified in the followingaccount:
Math team participant: “During the first session, we set out the overarching goals and then the specificgoals for the lesson . . . . working as a team, we were able to identify the areas to focus on for thespecific lesson and come up with a lesson plan format for the teacher to use during the lesson . . . .but from the discussion, I learnt it was not that simple in setting the overarching goals and the specificgoals if I want to look deeply into what I want to achieve.”
It appears that this aspect of the lesson study protocol is important and strategic in guidingthe respective teams to delineate subsequent lesson objectives and learning outcomes. Notes andobservations from the senior teacher with the humanities team suggested the group had difficultiesin working toward this because of their initial failure to abide by the protocol. Their efforts tocollaborate were not spontaneous. One member of the team had a lesson plan and the othersmerely critiqued it. As such, they could not develop a sense of ownership and commitment to theprocess. In this instance, the senior teacher played a critical role in redirecting the team back tothe lesson study protocol. The senior teacher observed:
They started unsteadily . . . They arrived at the overarching goal at the end of the session andtried to align the lesson goals to that but they had difficulty . . . the team was disparate, still veryindividualized—each one doing a part . . . members merely doing a job, waiting for instructions.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
22:
29 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
SUPPORTING TEACHER EFFICACY THROUGH LESSON STUDY 273
Such difficulty reinforced the importance of adhering to the protocol for the lesson study process.
Observation Skills Were Heightened
Participants showed evidence of their efficacious by their readiness to experiment, innovate andpersevere in developing engaging lessons. This capacity would require opportunities to developa keener sense of observation and critical thinking to enable one to improvise, create or offer newsuggestions and ideas specific to the lesson design. Accounts from the journals and discussiontranscripts showed that participants paid particular attention to a range of issues that includedteacher questioning techniques, student learning styles, group composition, classroom groupdynamics, and student interaction patterns in the classroom. The issues varied with the subjectgroups. Initial observations surfaced as without focus and were rather sporadic, but subsequentgroup feedback helped with giving participants information about the pertinent things to look outfor. These observations provided the necessary materials for the group to go back to the drawingboard to refine the lesson for further trial implementation by other team members. Accounts ofheightened motivation were noted when members shared and converged on their observations,and challenged and affirmed each other’s perceptions and judgments. Excerpts from the scienceteam during a postlesson discussion provide an example:
Participant A: “I think the class enjoyed the lesson. They were engaged, spontaneous, and manyraised their hands to ask questions . . . ”
Participant B: “But I was thinking that it’s a mixed ability class. Some of them did very well.They managed to piece everything together without real difficulty. But some groups were stillstruggling . . . ”
Participant C: “I think compared to the last lesson, getting the students to write down the functionswas better than the last time we did it because we asked them to read and then made them fill upthe worksheet . . . I also observed a number of students at the back of the room, who were actuallydebating amongst themselves as to whether the responses from the others were correct . . . ”
A further example is as follows:
Humanities team participant: “Somehow we assumed that the lesson will work out well, but in theend you find that after carrying out (the lesson), there were a lot of areas you need to work on . . . theone thing that stands out in my mind is that we take many things for granted when we are teaching. Irealized from the feedback that the students do not know.”
Reflections and Feedback for Change and Improvement
Participants recorded accounts of the group discussions and observation sessions which allowedthem to raise doubts, question assumptions and participate in feedback sessions. In particular,those who taught using the lesson study admitted to being overconfident about their proficiency todeliver the new lesson. The peer feedback, in highlighting specific teaching deficiencies, enabledthem to rationalize their approaches and evaluate their ideas and intent. It also provided insightwhere it was not evident to others. More important, the participants noted that because the focusof peer feedback was on how to improve their jointly devised lesson plan and facilitate studentlearning capability, and not on their teaching performance, there was a greater sense of confidence
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
22:
29 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
274 CHONG AND KONG
and they did not feel threatened by the process. Indeed, the efficacy derived from appraising theircurrent capability and that obtained through observing their peers appeared to have given themsufficiently strong motivation to enable their positive appraisals of the task demands as challengesand not threats (Gregoire, 2003). As such, these occasions for reflection and feedback createdimportant channels to promote more accurate appraisals of the teachers’ teaching behaviors andto foster their efficacy. The following excerpts are taken from a discussion between humanitiesteam participants to provide an illustration in point:
Participant D: “First plus was they were willing to share ideas . . . they posed relevant questions. Ifelt very effective because they can actually see . . . The activity also suited them . . . . . . becausethey’re not strong in language . . . The timing was alright and I was mentally prepared to end about5–10 minutes after the bell rings.”
Participant E: “You had a group of 7 girls, the last group here, and the two groups that were observedhad four, four, then you’ve got one 7, one 6. So in terms of group size, it’s unequal. What is more ofconcern to me is this group of 4 girls. I thought maybe in terms of racial mix, it’s not good to havethem together.”
Positive Responses From Pupils
Although the intent of lesson study is on developing lesson plans that build student learningcapacity, what many participants did not expect from this process was the positive responses oftheir pupils, their behaviors and participation in the lessons. These pupils were usually reticentbut were observed to be more participative in class. When classroom tasks were executed, it wasnoted that more students came up with correct answers and with greater accuracy. While thejournal reflections suggested that some of the pupils’ behaviors may have been influenced by thepresence of observers, the experience had generated in some participants surprised feelings andthoughts that they were actually capable of making changes and creating new possibilities forstudent learning. Greater student engagement has often been identified as an outcome of enhancedteacher efficacy. Participants from one of the teams shared the following observations during apostlesson observation discussion:
Participant I: “I thought the class was very enthusiastic; there were lots of responses and a few ofthem volunteered answers. I did not quite expect that.”
Participant J: “Yes, the class was very enthusiastic, very eager to share and when they were workingon the puzzle, everyone was involved. Maybe that has to do with the puzzle being cut into smallerpieces.”
Participant H: “My fears were unfounded really. The girls were good. They saw the observers andwere well-behaved . . . Well, although after most of the lessons with them, I usually feel like tearingmy hair out . . . so it was indeed heartwarming to be reminded that they cared . . . It’s such thoughtsand actions that push me on, particularly on those days when I feel burnt out.
With respect to Research Question 2, the themes drew out four clusters that may be suggestiveof sources of efficacy experienced through various aspects of the lesson study protocol. Theseappear in the following sections.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
22:
29 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
SUPPORTING TEACHER EFFICACY THROUGH LESSON STUDY 275
Mastery Experiences
Two important sources offered participants opportunities to acquire new skills and learningthat built up their self-efficacy. One important source came from the experience in conductingthe lesson that was developed collaboratively. Because the lesson was jointly designed, theperformance under the observation by team members was executed with greater confidence andunder less threat. Participants who executed the lesson were able to identify specifically howthe lesson progressed and why aspects could not be executed according to plan. When lessonsuccess can be attributed to the clarity of specifically designed approaches executed in class, andthat control was exercised with clear intent, the participants developed greater confidence in theircapability to employ innovative teaching strategies to engage the pupils. The following quotationprovides an illustration:
In general, the lesson progressed smoothly due to the clarity of the devised lesson plan, whichalso improved the confidence in my teaching, knowing very well the different stages of my les-son . . . Because of the hands–on nature of the lesson . . . the cooperative learning environment, thelesson developed into an engaging one for the students . . . There were many positives we can drawtoo, as many students and pairs were observed to have come up with the required algebraic equationand word statement accurately.
Second, the systematic protocol of lesson study provided participants with direct hands-onexperiences that allowed them to develop new skills and knowledge for effective collaboration.In particular, it afforded many the opportunities to learn to work collaboratively in a productivemanner. It taught them the skills of good questioning and critical thinking, and how to provideeach other with a supportive, nonthreatening but yet challenging environment to effectively workin together. The lesson study process required many to revisit fundamentals of good pedagogicalpractices and teaching in order to come up with new strategies. The following math team membernoted:
Though the goal setting discussion took longer than expected, there was great learning among theteachers in the team . . . every member voiced their opinions . . . and there was acceptance andbuilding of ideas together . . .
Vicarious Experiences
Vicarious experience was most frequently received through observing peers trying out the lessonthat the team had designed. The observers reported greater confidence in engaging studentsand felt better prepared because they now know what to expect, permitting them to anticipatepossible classroom problems. Team members with various years of teaching experience describeddifferent learning opportunities offered through the lesson study process. For younger membersof the team, the experienced teachers provided expert advice on sound practices and back-to-basicprinciples in teaching. For seasoned members, the process opened up new perspectives, gave theman opportunity to pick up new knowledge and skills, and helped them overcome the apprehensionand inertia to adopt new approaches in a supported and encouraging environment. Age did notbecome a barrier. These vicarious experiences, therefore, provided specific information to allowparticipants to appraise their personal capability to perform the set of teaching behaviors asdemonstrated by the model. Also, now that they have seen how the new lesson can be enacted,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
22:
29 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
276 CHONG AND KONG
they felt better able to exercise control of the new instructional approach. This sense of personalcontrol has been linked to self-efficacy in the literature. The journal reflection of a math teacherwith four years of experience provides an example:
After attending Mr. E’s and Ms. F’s lessons, I was more confident in engaging the students to learnPythagoras Theorem using pair work as the learning platform. I was better prepared as I had observedwhat the students’ problems in class were. Teacher resources were shared among the teachers. Ipersonally find that the inputs from more senior teachers are useful in improving teachers’ teachingpedagogy.
Verbal Persuasion
Compared to mastery experiences and vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion surfaced lessoften in the descriptions and was most evident in the form of constructive feedback on lessonsobserved, and in the encouragement and support as the team worked to refine each other’s ideas.Feedback was viewed as constructive and nonthreatening, giving members the courage to takerisks and try. At the same time, members felt they have joint responsibility for developing aneffective lesson, which propelled them to seek improvisation, even against the constraint of time.The following comments reflect typical thought processes:
Math team participant: “The feeling of being supported is great. When one’s idea gets acknowledged,especially when someone says they like my idea, it feels great!”
Math team participant: “During the session, I realized that we ‘craved for approval’ from all membersthat the plan would work. When a single doubt was mentioned or even a slight frown or through thebody language of one of us, we were willing to make changes even when time was against us.”
Physiological and Emotional Experiences
Although the lesson study process aimed at creating a conducive approach for learning, theparticipants’ emotions were subjected to their own reflections and interpretations of experiences.At the beginning of the lesson study process, feelings of doubt, anxiety, and apprehension wereelicited from the participants’ journal recordings. These feelings were associated with uncertaintyabout what the lesson study entailed and generated some fears about having to be observed inteaching. Where their responses were positive and constructive, they provided the impetus forbuilding and strengthening teacher efficacy. Similarly, negative responses could have inhibitedtheir efficaciousness. As collaborative work progressed, participants found that some of theiranxieties and negative expectations were unfounded. The process proved to be nonthreatening,and there was increasing documentations of positive endorsements of their group experiencesand the lesson study as a good method of initiating teacher change in teaching and learning. Arange of emotions documented across the different phases of the lesson study is captured in thefollowing:
Participant D: “My initial reactions were one of apprehension . . . . would there be enough time, wouldit succeed?”
Participant G: “At the beginning I was anxious . . . . . . additional lesson observation . . . middle,began to see the advantages . . . . the end . . . . found it a good method.”
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
22:
29 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
SUPPORTING TEACHER EFFICACY THROUGH LESSON STUDY 277
External Factors of Influence on Teacher Self-Efficacy
Although we did not set out with the objective to identify conditions and processes that couldimpede teacher efficacy in lesson study, we noted various though not a significant number ofdescriptions and observations in the teachers’ reflections that may allude to teachers’ frustrationsand dissatisfaction with adhering to the lesson study protocol. These comments were not locatedin any particular individuals but comments came from across the teams. Left unattended, thesecan undermine teachers’ confidence and perception in their ability to enact lesson and classroomchanges to achieve better student learning outcomes, and can thus inhibit teacher efficacy. Wenoted that many of the teachers’ frustrations were about the conditions under which lesson studywas conducted, and the lack of educational and school organizational systems set up to supporttheir efforts. The reflections were frequently with regard to the following aspects: more time to de-liberate on their discussions, the need for better logistical support, additional manpower resourcesand other infrastructural support such as timetable re-scheduling. The following statements reflectthe common sentiments:
Science team participant: “I felt that there could have been too much time spent on the planning stage.For lesson study to work, the teachers in charge of the planning must not feel burdened by the largeamount of time spent such that it affects other teaching-related work.”
Math team participant: “As A’s class clashed with mine, I had to find my own arrangement to swaplessons with another teacher teaching that class. If the lesson study process is here to stay, thetimetabling could be re-looked.”
Facilitator-observer: “Time did not give us the opportunity to deliberate more . . . . Because of theconstraints . . . I did not feel satisfied with it. Our time frame was not appropriate because we did nothave any class, all the classes were doing revision.”
Science team participant: “Need to remind myself that there will be no more lesson three! . . . I didenjoy the brainstorming sessions though.”
Humanities team participant: “I find that the logistical support could have been better.”
We also noted incidents of what Wheatley (2002) termed teacher efficacy doubts (p. 11).These encompass everything from mild uncertainty to profound doubts about specific or generalaspects of teaching and doubts regarding outcome expectancies (Lange & Burroughs-Lange,1994; Wheatley, 2002). Examples of such encounters include the following:
Math team participant: “From the discussion, I realized that it was not that simple in setting theoverarching goals if I want to look deeply into what I want to achieve . . . we struggled with notknowing what an independent learner and self-directed learner was like.”
Humanities team participant: “I did not conduct the lessons . . . . I also have not taught the lowerachieving classes for two years (the lesson study was to be carried out with a low achieving class). . . . so this lesson jolted me of the need to consider some possible and new ideas.”
These comments that reflect reservation, hesitation, frustration or doubt were similar to thoseexpressed by the elementary school teachers in Puchner and Taylor’s study (2006). They arosefrom the recognition that the conditions for lesson study to occur do not normally exist for themin regular school teaching (p. 6). They may appear destabilizing and problematic, and could
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
22:
29 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
278 CHONG AND KONG
hamper teacher self-efficacy. However, these researchers and Wheatley (2002) argued that theycould be beneficial in that they foster a psychological disequilibrium, pulling the individual toresolve such feelings by further appraising one’s practices and making changes. They provideplatforms to enhance effort, self-regulation, and achievement but these changes could occur onlywhen individuals feel they are capable of learning (Schunk, 1994). As such, it is important thatsuch barriers and obstacles be considered and contained in the implementation of a schoolwidelesson study program or they have the potential of undermining teachers’ efficacy in assessingtheir capability to make positive changes.
DISCUSSION
The lesson study offers an alternative structured collaborative approach that permits teachersto work with peers, make critical instructional decisions, assume control of the strategies theyselect, implement educational interventions in their classrooms, and evaluate the effectiveness ofthese efforts (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Henson 2001). Empirical evidence suggested thatsuch processes foster teacher efficacy, which in turn enhance student achievement and sustainpositive teacher behaviours (Henson, 2001; Liaw, 2009; Puchner & Taylor, 2006). To date, mostlesson study has been carried out with elementary school populations. The findings from thisstudy suggest its feasibility for application in a high school setting where subject contents aremore complex (Fernandez, 2002).
The first research question in this study attempted to identify the conditions in the lessonstudy that enable successful teacher collaboration and support teacher efficacy. Research hasdocumented various teacher behaviors, attitudes and traits that are commonly found in thosewith high levels of self-efficacy (Blase & Blase, 2001; Tschannen-Moran, & Woolfolk Hoy,2007; Wheatley, 2002). Where such behaviors are evident, they are indications of opportunitiesto develop or sustain teacher efficacy. Through multiple sources of documentation, our findingssuggested the collaborative lesson study process to provide numerous opportunities to supportthese behaviors.
In particular, lesson study provided a protocol requiring teacher participants to articulate cleargoals and procedures to guide the development of their lesson designs. The respective subjectteams worked on new ideas, made observations and provided constructive feedback to enablelesson improvisation. Because the lesson was designed by the team, there was a sense of jointownership and responsibility. Student responses and learning indicated some positive shifts. Theparticipating teachers documented improved sense of motivation as they worked together in anonthreatening climate. This environment permitted them to articulate their doubts, challengeeach other’s thinking, take risks and experience success as they worked concertedly toward sharedgoal(s). The study highlighted the processes inherent in lesson study that provided the necessarystructures to support the teachers’ sense of efficacy in the various shared undertakings.
It may be important to note that because the lesson study was conducted with subjects taught ata high school level and are therefore more complex, the collaborative processes should be guidedand supported by an expert or resource teacher steeped in specific subject-content knowledge.In the case of this study, they came from the senior teachers who facilitated and oversaw thewhole process. They ensured that the teachers adhered to the lesson study protocol, providedsubject-specific information and observational input, and facilitated, redirected and monitoredvarious group processes to ensure that the lesson developed was of good quality.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
22:
29 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
SUPPORTING TEACHER EFFICACY THROUGH LESSON STUDY 279
Although the three teams subscribed to the same protocol, it was noted that they displayeddiscernible variations in focus during their lesson study process. The mathematics participantsabided closely to the protocol and deliberated methodically at each stage of the process. Theyquestioned their understanding of the overarching goal and the mathematical concepts selected.They examined and reflected on how the designed lesson would impact pupils with differentmathematical abilities. The humanities team paid more attention to classroom managementpractices that would maximize student learning outcomes. The science team, on the other hand,focused on details of the lesson activities and the subject matter. Despite these differences in focus,these variations kept to the true intent of lesson study in subscribing to a model which accepts thatthe area of interest and focus may vary with the goal and objective of the lesson as delineated bythe respective group. However, such variations may not only have differential impact on teacherefficacy but the uneven influence could shape the teachers’ attention and behaviors on differentaspects of teaching. This observation is consistent with Bandura’s (1986, 1997) contention thatthe influence of efficacy beliefs is very much dependent on contextual factors that include thenature of the task and student behaviors. How teacher efficacy was shaped and maintained in thedifferent subject groups was, however, not examined in our study as the primary intent was toexplore the general influence of lesson study as a collaborative approach on teacher efficacy. Itremains an important agenda in teacher efficacy research (Labone, 2004).
In respect to the second research question, which aimed at understanding the sources ofteacher efficacy as experienced in the lesson study process, the findings provided empiricalsupport to existing research evidence that has identified four primary efficacy sources (Bandura,1986) in building teachers’ capability for self-appraisal. The study identified specific structuresand processes in the lesson study approach that supported teacher efficacy. In particular, thevarious sources of information converged to suggest that the systematic protocol provided theteachers with a structured framework in which collaboration to research and develop the lessonwas undertaken. The lesson study structure also used practical demonstrations to ascertain theextent to which the plan was viable for classroom practice. This was evaluated through peerobservations and collective feedback. The study also identified specific organizational factorsthat may have a determining influence on the teachers’ sense of efficacy. The teacher participantshighlighted the need for various forms of supportive school organizational practices to be inplace if lesson study is to be successful and sustainable. These supportive factors are consistentwith the external change factors identified by Fernandez (2002) and Nielsen et al. (2008). Thefinding has significant implications on teacher professional development programs that emphasizeconstructivist approaches in which active teacher participation and sustained involvement areimportant.
Last, we are uncertain about the extent to which specific school factors may have influencedthe teachers’ collaborative efforts on teacher efficacy. This study was undertaken in a schoolwith a strong tradition of collegiality, and where there was already prior teacher training anduse of cooperative learning instructional practices. As such, these teachers were not entirely newto teacher collaborative practices. An existing sense of collective efficacy may have been thereto facilitate the teachers’ working together. High perceived teacher collective efficacy has beenshown to enhance a group’s capability of fostering creative problem solving, influencing decision-making, and the individual capability for classroom management, and teacher commitment. Italso makes an independent contribution to specific learning tasks (Chong et al., 2010; Goddard,2001; Goddard, Logerfo, & Hoy, 2004). In addition, teachers’ sense of efficacy has been shown tocorrespond with the level of teacher collective efficacy (Chong et al., 2010; Goddard & Goddard,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
22:
29 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
280 CHONG AND KONG
2001; Klassen et al., 2008). The qualitative data revealed group traits that resembled Bielacyze andCollins’s (1999) description of collective efficacy traits evident in the learning communities theystudied. These group traits and behaviors included: having clear directions and goals; employinga range of learning activities to support individual development as well as collaborative learning;and demonstrating understanding and respect for its members.
Although evident across the three teams, this sense of collective efficacy appeared to varybetween them. Some of these variations may again be in response to contextual differences, suchas different group composition. The math group, for example, showed greater rigor throughoutthe processes of lesson study. On the other hand, the humanities group took some time at theinitial stage to work through apprehension before developing a collaborative approach to thetask. The findings from earlier studies (Fernandez, Cannon, & Chokshi, 2003; Puchner & Taylor,2006) suggested that this factor may have an important bearing on the group’s receptivity andresponsiveness to the new model of teacher practice. Qualitative exploration of the contributionof teacher collective efficacy to teacher collaborative learning would be necessary to providefurther in-depth understanding of this observation.
Limitations
A number of limitations should be considered to place the findings of this study in perspective.First, we approached this study from a self-efficacy perspective and our aim was to observe,explore and understand how the lesson study process supports these beliefs with a high schoolcurriculum. We recognize that the findings do not necessitate generalization to other populationsor teacher collaborative structures. The transferability and applicability of the findings could onlybe determined by further studies in other similar contexts so that comparisons could be made toestablish if the patterns identified are typical and common. The study was conducted in an allgirls’ high school and with a small teacher sample. In addition, this school has strong collegiality,a supportive school culture, and teachers were already familiar with collaborative work—factorsthat could have facilitated their introduction to lesson study and suggested that collective teacherefficacy may already have some influence in shaping this undertaking. We reiterate that thesignificance of these findings should be seen in the context of this positive school climate andstructure. Second, a thorough and complete lesson study cycle takes 6–9 weeks and this studywas completed in 7 weeks but was conducted toward the end of the school semester. This limitedthe range of lessons available for selection. In an ideal scenario, the lesson study planning shouldoccur in the year before its implementation so that teachers could build connections and linkagesacross the curriculum.
A considerable number of challenges also faced the groups, which included the difficulty infinding common meeting times for discussions and lesson observations, familiarizing themselveswith the specific details of the lesson study process, and handling an already heavy schoolworkload. Some of these constraints have been highlighted in previous studies (e.g., Fernandez,2002). However, it is noted that these constraints are not peculiar to lesson study. As highlightedin the earlier review, effective teacher collaborative structures necessitate intensive and sustainedinvolvement over a period of time, particularly when teachers are learning a new way of teaching. Ithighlighted that successful collaborative endeavors would require the development of facilitativeschool norms and structures (Erickson et al., 2005; Nielsen, Barry, & Staab, 2008). This studyreiterated a need to consider how teacher efficacy and teacher collaborative learning vary between
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
22:
29 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
SUPPORTING TEACHER EFFICACY THROUGH LESSON STUDY 281
schools and classrooms as a function of these variables. In addition, as indicated earlier, we didnot consider how efficacy beliefs vary across the groups and were shaped by specific contextualinfluences that may be different for the respective groups. Furthermore, our focus was with howteacher efficacy beliefs were supported in lesson study and we did not explore extensively andin-depth the nature of the barriers that hamper its promotion although we have alluded to possibleinhibitors in the course of our discussion (e.g., organizational structures). We therefore do notnegate the possibility that some of the experiences could inhibit the teachers’ sense of efficacy.
Conclusion
These shortcomings and constraints notwithstanding, the findings from this study suggested somethoughtful implications for professional teacher development for school administrators and pol-icy makers. The findings suggested that for professional development programs to be successful,instructional change would require schools and program developers to identify and structureteachers’ working conditions and attend to their self-beliefs to enable sustainable changes. Em-bedding professional development programs in the classroom and at the subject level where thenew learning is to eventually take place, and safeguarding regular time away from curriculumhours over the course of the school year to reinforce collective learning, are examples of con-textual conditions that the school can enforce to promote instructional change. The study alsoattempted to identify those aspects of a structured teacher collaborative learning approach thatsupport and generate positive feelings of capability in teachers so that they can be enabled toenhance practice. In particular, the collaborative structure that required teachers to work togetherand learn from each other provided the precise conditions to support teacher efficacy beliefs asthey developed joint ownership of the lessons (Ross & Bruce, 2007). Particularly, for the interestof school administrators at the high school level and beyond, we have attempted to show thatlesson study can be used with complex subject content at the high school level.
In conclusion, this study provided an alternative research paradigm, through a qualitative lens,to expand on current understandings of teacher efficacy within a specific teacher collaborativeundertaking, an aspect which quantitative studies have not been able to capture (Labone, 2004;Milner & Woolfolk Hoy, 2003). This study utilized the social cognitive theory as a guidingframework to examine the psychological constructs of interest (Henson, 2000). It attempted toidentify specific underlying pathways through which to enable sustainable practice by attendingto teachers’ motivational beliefs. In addition, the study reiterated the findings of earlier researchsuch as that teacher efficacy is a contextual construct and that its effectiveness as a motivatingforce for teacher change is tied to the broader context that includes the school community supportnetwork and the possible influence of teachers’ collective sense of efficacy. These findings warrantfurther in-depth investigative studies of a qualitative nature.
AUTHOR NOTES
Wan Har Chong, PhD, is an associate professor at the Psychological Studies Academic Group,National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Her researchinterests include self-efficacy, self-regulation, positive development of adolescents and adaptivecoping. Christine Anne Kong obtained her MEd at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
22:
29 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
282 CHONG AND KONG
Technological University. She was a former cluster superintendent at the Singapore Ministry ofEducation and is now Principal of Catholic Junior College. Her research interests include lessonstudy and collaborative learning in teacher education.
REFERENCES
Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationships between efficacy and the instructional practices of special education teachersand consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 86–95.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. A cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Bandura, A. (1997) Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.Bellanca, J., & Fogarty, R. (2003). Blueprints for achievement in the cooperative classroom (3rd ed.). Glenview, IL:
Pearson.Bielaczye, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice.
In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II,pp. 269–292). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers’ perspectives of how principals promote teachingand learning in schools. Journal of Education Administration, 38, 130–158.
Chong, W. H., Klassen, R. M., Huan, V. S., Wong, I., & Kates, A. (2010). The relationships among school types, teacherefficacy beliefs and academic climate: Perspective from Asian middle schools. The Journal of Educational Research,103, 183–190.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28,15–25.
Erickson, G., Brandes, G. M., Mitchell, I., & Mitchell, J. (2005). Collaborative teacher learning: Findings from twoprofessional development projects. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 787–798.
Fernandez, C. (2002). Learning from Japanese approaches to professional development: The case of lesson study. Journalof Teacher Education, 53, 393–405.
Fernandez, C., Cannon, J., & Chokshi, S. (2003). A US-Japan study collaboration reveals critical lenses for examiningpractice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 171–185.
Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective?Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76,569–582.
Giorgi, A. (1985). Sketch of a psychological phenomenological method, In A. Giorgi (Ed.), Phenomenology and psycho-logical research (pp. 8–22). Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.
Glickman, C., & Tamashiro, R. (1982). A comparison of first-year, fifth-year, and former teachers on efficacy, egodevelopment, and problem solving. Psychology in the Schools, 19, 558–562.
Goddard, R. D. (2001). Collective efficacy: A neglected construct in the study of schools and student achievement.Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 467–476.
Goddard, R. D., & Goddard, Y. L. (2001). A multilevel analysis of the relationship between teacher and collective efficacyin urban schools. Teacher and Teacher Education, 17, 807–818.
Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R. D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical investigation of teachercollaboration of school improvement and student achievement in public schools. Teachers College Record, 109,877–896.
Gregoire, M. (2003). Is it a challenge or a threat? A dual-process model of teachers’ cognition and appraisal processesduring conceptual change. Educational Psychology Review, 15, 147–179.
Hagen, K. M., Gutkin, T. B., Wilson, C. P., & Oats, R. G. (1998). Using vicarious experience and verbal persuasion toenhance self-efficacy in pre-service teachers: “Priming the pump” for consultation. School Psychology Quarterly, 13,169–178.
Henson, R. K. (2001). The effects of participation in teacher research on teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education,17, 819–836.
Hochberg, E. D., & Desimone, L. M. (2010). Professional development in the accountability context: Building capacityto achieve standards. Educational Psychologist, 45, 89–106.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
22:
29 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
SUPPORTING TEACHER EFFICACY THROUGH LESSON STUDY 283
Klassen, R. M., Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S., Wong, I., Kates, A., & Hannok, W. (2008). A mixed methods look at teachermotivation and academic climate across cultures. Teaching & Teacher Education, 24, 1919–1934.
Labone, E. (2004). Teacher efficacy: maturing the construct through research in alternative paradigms. Teaching andTeacher Education, 20, 341–359.
Lange, J. D., & Burroughs-Lange, S. G. (1994). Professional uncertainty and professional growth: A case study ofexperienced teachers. Teachers and Teacher Education, 10, 617–631.
Lesson Study Research Group. (2008, June 4). Teachers College Columbia Lesson Study Research Group. Retrieved fromhttp://www.tc.columbia.edu/LESSON-STUDY
Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Hurd, J. (2004). A deeper look at lesson study. Educational Leadership, 61, 18–22.Lewis, C., Perry, R., Hurd, J., & O’Connell, P. (2006). Lesson study comes of age in North America. Phi Delta Kappan,
88, 273–281.Liaw, E. C. (2009). Teacher efficacy of pre-service teachers in Taiwan: The influence of classroom teaching and group
discussions. Teaching & Teacher Education, 25, 176–180.Milner, H. R., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2003). A case study of an African American teacher’s self-efficacy, stereotype threat,
and persistence. Teaching & Teacher Education, 19, 263–276.Nelson, T. H., Slavit, D., Perkins, M., & Hathorn, T. (2008). A culture of collaborative inquiry: Learning to develop and
support professional learning communities. Teachers College Record, 110, 1269–1303.Nielsen, D. C., Barry, A. L., & Staab, P. T. (2008). Teachers’ reflections of professional change during a literacy-reform
initiative. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1288–1303.Pajares, F. (1997). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543–578.Postholm, M. B. (2008). Teachers developing practice: Reflection as key activity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24,
1717–1728.Puchner, L. D., & Taylor, A. R. (2006). Lesson study, collaboration and teacher efficacy: Stories from two school based
math lesson study groups. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 922–934.Ross, J. A. (1995). Strategies for enhancing teachers’ beliefs in their effectiveness: Research on a school improvement
hypothesis. Teachers College Record, 97, 227–251.Ross, J. A., & Bruce, C. (2007). Professional development effects on teacher efficacy: Results of ramdomised field trials.
The Journal of Educational Research, 101, 50–60.Schunk, D. H. (1994). Self-regulation of self-efficacy and attributions in academic settings. In D. H. Schunk & B. J.
Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational implications (pp. 75–99).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shimahara, N. K. (2002). Teacher professional development in Japan. In G. DeCoker (Ed.), National standards andschool reform in Japan and the United States (pp. 107–120). New York, NY: Teachers’ College Press.
Stein, M., & Wang, M. (1988). Teacher development and school improvement: The process of teacher change. Teachingand Teacher Education, 4, 171–187.
Strahan, D. (2003). Promoting a professional collaborative culture in three elementary schools that have beaten the odds.The Elementary School Journal, 104, 127–133.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching andTeacher Education, 17, 771–869.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice andexperienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2, 935–943.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review ofEducational Research, 68, 202–248.
Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in thelearning profession: A status report on teacher development in the US and abroad. Dallas, TX: National StaffDevelopment Council.
Wheatley, K. F. (2002). The potential benefits of teacher efficacy doubts for educational reform. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 18, 5–22.
Yost, D. S. (2006). Reflection and self-efficacy: Enhancing the retention of qualified teachers from a teacher educationperspective. Teacher Education Quarterly, Fall, 59–76.
Zeldin, A. L., & Pajares, F. (2000). Against the odds: Self-efficacy beliefs of women in mathematical, scientific, andtechnological careers. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 215–246.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
22:
29 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014