Mohammad Reza Sarkar Arani
Seijoh University, Aichi, Japan
Fukaya Keisuke
Chūbu University, Aichi, Japan
James P. Lassegard
Hōsei University, Tokyo, Japan
h is research examines “lesson study” as a traditional model of creating
professional knowledge in schools. “Lesson study,” typically dei ned as teachers’
classroom based collaborative research, has a long history in Japan as a shared
professional culture with potential for enhancing learning, enriching classroom
activities and transforming the school environment. A case study method
based on historical data is the primary approach used in this research. Detailed
description and analysis of lessons are provided, individual lesson plans are
examined and exchanges of views between teachers are discussed. h e i ndings
are intended to help clarify the cultural and historical role of lesson based
research in Japanese schools, and also the signii cant inl uence that lesson study
has exerted on developing a culture of shared professionalism in Japan.
Keywords: lesson study, elementary school, teaching, professional
culture, Meiji era, Taishō era, Shōwa era, Japan
1. Introduction
h e purpose of this research is to examine the historical background to teachers’ collaborative
research on classroom activities known as “lesson study” (jugyō kenkyū 授業研究), and the
process by which it came to be established at the elementary school level in Japan. Emphasis is
here placed on an analysis of the environment and culture of support which generated lesson
study within Japan’s school culture. School culture is here dei ned straightforwardly as “the
commonly held beliefs of teachers, pupils, and principals” (Stolp 1994, p. 2). Beliefs are of
particular signii cance since they represent basic assumptions, modes of thinking, values, rituals,
heroes, and symbols (Hofstede 2001, Senge 1990). A review of the research literature on school
culture reveals an understanding that parents, teachers, principals and pupils all work within a
cultural context that inl uences every aspect of their educational activities (Prosser 1999; Hinde
2004; Takahata 2004). h is paper thus refers to school culture, as dei ned above, especially
in terms of organization (Hofstede 2001). Following Bruner (1996) who notes that “culture
has always been in the process of change” (p. 97), the present authors regard school culture as
malleable, forever accommodating possibilities for leadership inspired change. Our discussion
of lesson study as professional culture within Japanese schools also draws on Schein’s dynamic
view of organizational culture, with its theoretical perspective on how cultures begin and how
they develop. Schein (1985) reveals the “underlying interpersonal and emotional processes that
help to explain what we mean when we say a number of people share a common view of a
problem and develop a shared solution.” For Schein, moreover, “all dei nitions of culture involve
the concept of shared solutions, shared understanding, and consensus” (p. 149).
h e phenomenon known as lesson study evolved through precisely such a sharing
of responsibility, and a collaborative process of preparing lesson plans, conducting and
observing lessons, checking and evaluating teaching, rel ecting on practice, and replanning
(Sarkar Arani, Shibata and Matoba 2007). Teachers i rst created lesson plans in response to
learning requirements, and they established their classroom objectives in the actual process of
classroom teaching. Subsequently, methods for evaluating lesson objectives were devised. All of
this was managed entirely by the teachers themselves. School committees were established for
collaborative lesson study, and they were typically divided into their various functions of lesson
planning, lesson implementation and classroom observation, and sessions for evaluation and
rel ection. In preliminary research meetings, careful consideration was given to understanding
the circumstances of pupils. h ere would also typically be an examination of the development
of the lesson, based on whether or not the questions, printed documents distributed, and
instructions given by teachers were appropriate, and whether pupils had developed motivation
for study. Teachers observed actual classroom conditions, and they later conducted critique or
“rel ection sessions” (hanseikai 反省会).
Inherent to lesson study were the training sessions conducted for lesson plan review,
for classroom observation documents, and for lesson rel ection and evaluation. A unique
environment developed in which fellow teachers visited and observed each other in the
classroom, and pupils engaged in study in the uncommon atmosphere of being observed. Since
classroom visits occurred on a regular basis from 1872 as part of teacher training for novice
teachers, pupils quickly became accustomed to studying in this open setting. Visiting teachers
examined the responses and behaviour of pupils to determine the degree of their interest in the
class, and the suitability of the questions asked and of the texts used. h e rel ective nature of
lesson study had as its premise collaboration between participants, and throughout the process
emphasis was placed on how pupils viewed and comprehended the subject matter being taught.
h e methodology inherent in conducting lesson study further led to the need for ef ective
documentation of classroom observations. Lesson study was thus inherently a collaborative
undertaking which Senge has identii ed as “involving everyone in the system in expressing
their aspirations, building their awareness, and developing their capabilities together” (Senge
et al. 2000, p.5). It is, of course, of interest to consider how lesson study might be ef ectively
transposed into other educational cultures, but of more immediate concern to the present paper
is an exploration of how Japanese lesson study developed into an intrinsic part of Japanese
educational culture in general, and of the culture of individual schools in particular. h is paper’s
focus is on the operation of lesson study as it developed within Japanese public schools from
Meiji through Taishō to Shōwa, and it deploys to this end historical evidence and documents
created by school-based research groups.
2. Lesson Study in the Meiji Era
Modern Japan’s education system began with the promulgation of the Fundamental
Code of Education (Gakusei 学制) of 1872, which laid the foundations for new schools, new
perspectives on education, including teaching methods and the professional development and
training of teachers. h e Ministry of Education (Monbushō 文部省) sought to establish a
unii ed system of school and teacher training throughout Japan (Tōkyō Bunrika Daigaku and
Tōkyō Kōtō Shihan Gakkō 1932). According to Lincicome’s research on educational reform in
Meiji Japan, “the government founded the i rst normal schools, recruited their i rst pupils, hired
their i rst faculties, and translated the i rst teaching manuals to train them in the new “science”
of education” (Lincicome 1995, p. 233). Certainly, prior to Meiji, there were numerous other
“schools” in existence, such as the local schools or (terakoya 寺子屋) which Western scholars
translate as “temple schools” (Marshall 1994; Lincicome 1995). Learning also took place within
private schools, and in schools established by feudal domains, but these schools did not have an
impact on education across Japan. As a result of education reforms implemented shortly after
the Meiji restoration of 1868, Japanese elementary school education became oriented toward
European and American models, with their spirit of improving education for the common
people in an age of modernity. In the process of transferring Western technical “know-how,”
the Meiji government deemed it necessary to encourage educational goals that were conducive
to building a modern Japan.
Early Meiji educational methodology was concerned above all with the process of
teaching lessons in the classroom. h e teacher stands up straight in front of the wall map or
blackboard, with pupils seated in an orderly fashion before him. Pupils respond to instructions
and questions that are repeatedly posed by teachers. Western, particularly American, textbooks
were translated for use in the classroom, and classes were conducted in a uniform manner
regardless of the subjects being taught. Such a methodology was rooted in Western educational
thought and practice, and while there were clearly insui cient numbers of teachers capable
of teaching with modern educational methods, the ideal remained of implementation within
all elementary schools in Japan. h e afore mentioned Fundamental Code of Education set
out to establish facilities for the cultivation of teachers. Accordingly, in January of 1873,
the Japanese government founded an elementary school, the so-called Tōkyō Shihan Gakkō
Fuzoku Shōgakkō (東京師範学校附属小学校 Elementary School attached to Tokyo Normal
School), and in April of the same year, 78 pupils began classes there. h e elementary school was
founded for the purpose of providing a practical learning environment for teachers and pupils
of Tokyo Normal School where they could observe classrooms, conduct experiments using new
methods, and provide training for teachers in classroom management (Tōkyō Bunrika Daigaku
and Tōkyō Kōtō Shihan Gakkō 1932).
h e graduates of Tokyo Normal School during the i rst decade of Meiji era did not
become elementary school teachers, but were invited by prefectural governments to accept
positions as teacher trainers. Tokyo Normal School thus served as a training institution for
elementary school teachers in rural areas, and its role later changed in 1902 when it became
the Tokyo Secondary School Teachers College (ibid). In August of 1873, Normal Schools were
also established in Osaka and Sendai, and in 1874 government-operated normal schools were
set up in Aichi, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Niigata prefectures. h ese institutions attempted to
inform their teacher training with educational methods found in Western countries, and it was
natural for teachers to engage in collaborative learning about curriculum and instruction. h e
graduates of these Normal Schools disseminated their newly acquired knowledge of Western
teaching methods at their schools of employment, and were expanding further upon their
experiences in the classroom.
Teachers set up regional learning groups (chiiki no gakushū shūdan 地域の学習集団)
which were designed to facilitate the sharing of experiences about learning, teaching, designing
ef ective lesson plans, and managing the classroom and school administration. h ese groups
also concerned themselves with teachers’ working rights (Inagaki 1966). Regional learning
groups l ourished, and had a signii cant impact on teachers’ professional development in the
i rst decades of the Meiji period, when most schools could employ only one or two teachers.
In 1877, out of a total number of 19,345 schools, 8,332 (43 percent) employed one teacher,
4,766 schools (25 percent) had two teachers, and only 84 schools reportedly had ten teachers.
Moreover, 6,170 schools were equipped with only a single classroom. By 1881, the total number
of schools declined to 17,889, but over half of them employed at least two teachers (Inagaki
1966, p. 37).
Teachers in early Meiji elementary schools revealed a deep interest in curriculum and
instructional methods. h ere was notable participation in regional autonomous learning groups
during the period of the popular rights movement (jiyū minken undō 自由民権運動) from
1878 to 1888. h e activities of educational organizations at this time, which saw teachers form
autonomous study groups, have been mentioned in previous literature on the subject (Katagiri
1990). In the 1880s, teachers’ research on classroom instruction concentrated on the i ve
steps of teaching structure based on the educational philosophy of Johann Friedrich Herbart:
namely, preparation, presentation, comparison, integration, and application (Robinson 1977;
Inagaki 1993). Miller (2003) explains the signii cance of the Herbartian approach as follows:
“Using this structure a teacher prepared a topic of interest to the children, presented that
topic, and questioned them inductively, so that they reached new knowledge based on what
they had already known, looked back, and deductively summed up the lesson’s achievements,
then related these to moral precepts for daily living” (p. 114). Subsequently Japanese teachers
published research that drew on Herbart’s method, which proved to be the favoured method
of teacher training in Meiji Japan. h e work of Higuchi Kanjirō 樋口勘次郎, who led the
movement toward more pupil-centered teaching practices, is representative (Higuchi 1905).
During Meiji, the frequent importation of Western educational thought and systems led
to the establishment of a new educational discourse, in which “teachers, as professionals, were
trained to assume the dual roles of both “scientist” (empirical, logical, critical, and analytical)
and “artist” (creative, adaptive, and l exible)” (Lincicome 1995, p.234). New critical approaches
to Herbart duly emerged among educators in the early 20th
century (Hisaki, 1980). h is critical
discourse resulted in teachers shifting their focus from teaching to learners’ needs, activities,
individuality, and learning strategies (Lincicome 1995; Nakano 1968). In spite of these new
developments, classroom circumstances, in which teachers directly advised and taught many
levels of pupils, remained fraught with dii culty. h ere were insui cient numbers of qualii ed
teachers, and it was often the case at schools with mixed levels that an individual teacher was
required to accommodate pupils of multiple ages and abilities in the same classroom. However,
a breakthrough happened around the turn of the twentieth century that alleviated these dii cult
conditions. h is was the popularization of teaching methods that catered to pupils of dif erent
levels within the same classroom.
Research by Katagiri (1990) has indicated that during the 1880s, the regional learning
groups, which had been established throughout Japan, gave teachers the opportunity to begin
“lesson study groups” (jugyō kenkyūkai 授業研究会). h e main purpose of these latter groups
was to share the experiences of teachers who conducted lesson study in their classrooms.
Elementary schools attached to teacher training colleges began to undertake empirical studies
to overcome problems within the school classroom, and lesson study groups were formed
at numerous elementary schools. h ese gatherings for the exchange of knowledge were
enthusiastically hosted by the growing community of alumni at the teacher training colleges.
Furthermore, the reports of alumni meetings, for example, contained detailed records of
classroom teaching practices. h e existence of lesson study groups at elementary schools attached
to teacher training colleges had became common by the late Meiji era, while the numbers of
participating elementary school teachers grew. h is motivation to study new teaching methods
encouraged teachers to accept more responsibility for teaching and learning. h is kind of teacher
learning community was supported and expanded by the Normal Schools Alumni Association
(Shihan Gakkō Gakuyūkai 師範学校学友会). h at lesson study groups now began to exert
a substantial impact on the improvement of teaching practice, and subsequently helped to
inl uence the expansion of lesson study in schools. h e background for cooperative lesson plans
at elementary schools had developed within three main social contexts of the Meiji era. First,
in various regions of Japan there was a contextual basis for teachers to learn a new teaching
method provided by the new Meiji educational discourse. Second, there already existed in
Meiji Japan teacher training colleges intended to cultivate professional skills, while the ai liated
elementary schools served as a laboratory for conducting practical research. Teachers were thus
able to conduct research based on practical classroom issues and timely educational topics, and
to convey these research perspectives to their counterparts in regional areas. h ird, there existed
“Alumni” Practical Research Reports (jissen hōkoku 実践報告) for college graduates.
In the late 1870s and early 1880s, the Ministry of Education challenged local school
administrators to apply a more creative and l exible approach through ef ective teacher training.
Lincicome states that “in practice, however, the Ministry’s tightly knit web of laws demanded just
the opposite: strict allegiance to the center” (Lincicome 1995, p. 234). Indeed, the government
relied on the Ministry to revise curriculum guidelines, and to inspect and authorize textbooks,
activities which certainly exerted a profound inl uence on the content and transmission of
school-based knowledge. In this context, local administrators and teachers were persuaded
to accept the political and ideological values of the Meiji government as a framework for the
modernization of Japan (ibid). According to Horio, teachers were expected to function in their
dealings with children and their parents as agents acting under “the emperor’s supervision”
(tennō no kanri 天皇の管理) (Horio 1988, p. 254).
Nevertheless, the apparent contradictions between ideals held by teachers and the dictates
of national government policy led educators in the 1880s to promote an educational discourse
that emphasized pedagogical knowledge and teaching methods (Marshall 1994; Abosch 1964).
Educational progress during the Meiji period thus came to support principals’ and teachers’
critical rel ection on both theory and practice for the improvement of lessons and of the
teaching training system. Individual educators, such as Marion McCarrell Scott (1843–1922),
introduced Western educational practice into Tokyo Normal School (Sato 1998), and then
promoted a pedagogical discourse that focused on ef ective teaching methods during the Taishō
era (1912–1926) (Collins 1975). Such developments “helped to fuel the so-called new education
(shinkyōiku 新教育) or liberal education (jiyū kyōiku自由教育) movement” based on the
philosophies of Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi (1746–1827), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778),
Friedrich Wilhelm August Fröbel (1782–1852) and Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) (Lincicome
1995, p. 240). Teachers subsequently acquired the opportunity to do lesson study in small
groups and to link educational concepts such as learning from practice (jissen kara manabu
実践から学ぶ) and rel ection (hansei 反省) on teaching, with new Western ideas such as
pupil centered education, l exible educational administration, individuality, citizenship, anti
bureaucratic activity, and the application of practical teaching and training methods (Hisaki
1980; Ebihara 1975). h e stage was thus set for teachers to expand their autonomy in terms of
professional development which, although at times conl icting with state authority, allowed for
the eventual sustainability of lesson study in schools across Japan from the Taishō era.
3. Lesson Study in the Taishō Era
Japanese scholars have noted that during the prewar period when school curricula had
become increasingly rigid and nationalistic, teachers still created opportunities for research on
teaching in practice, and engaged in collaborative inquiry on classroom activities in order to
improve teaching. For example, Toyoda (2005) has detailed how during the Taishō era Japanese
teachers created a child centered curriculum, and independent learning activities. He suggests,
moreover, that teachers at Mikuni 三国 Elementary School in Taishō Japan, had the freedom to
“choose subjects of study, devise learning methods, develop learning materials and collect pupil
data” (Toyoda 2005, p. 86).
Iwasaki’s investigation of the lesson study process in elementary school science education
in Taishō found that teachers’ discussion meetings were particularly ef ective in enhancing
teaching by paying more attention to pupils, and by encouraging the search for better designed
teaching and learning materials (Iwasaki 2001). Iwasaki has analyzed records of teachers’
meetings on science lesson plans held at Toyohira 豊平 Elementary School in Sapporo in
1920, and he reports how teachers discussed ways of emphasizing cooperation and mutual
interaction between teachers and pupils. Fukaya’s (2007) research on an elementary school
attached to the Kagoshima 鹿児島 Normal School demonstrates that teachers in early Taishō
were collaborating to encourage discussion and rel ection on teaching. According to Sugiyama
(2004), “[Japanese] school curriculum had been nationally determined for a long period,
during which time there had been instructor manuals for teaching the national curriculum.
It was therefore required that teachers adhere to these manuals; lesson study in practice was
only geared toward technical aspects of teaching” (p. 352). Toyoda (2009) also notes that while
lesson study was strictly bound by nationally determined curricular content, teachers made
innovations on an individual level. For instance, in the Taishō era, Miyoshi Tokue 三好得恵,
a principal of Mikuni Elementary School, cultivated teachers’ capacity to exercise leadership by
promoting collaborative activities. Moreover, Miyoshi founded an association to raise funds for
holding open classes and for publishing books on teaching.
h e origin of the Taishō model of lesson study, which emphasizes critical feedback
on lessons, assessment of lesson plans, and rel ective practice, can be found in the teaching
methods of Ashida Enosuke 芦田恵之助 (1873–1951), a teacher at the elementary school
attached to the Tokyo Higher Normal School from 1899 to 1917. His area of expertise was
teaching Japanese language (kokugo 国語) (Kobayashi 1989). h e lesson records (jugyō kiroku
授業記録) of Ashida and other teachers who learned from him are contained in Dōshi dōgyō
同志同行, a monthly journal of research on teaching.
1
h ese lesson records of teachers were
entitled Kyōdan kiroku 教壇記録, and consisted of the shorthand writings of Aoyama Hiroshi
青山廣志, a correspondent for the Osaka Mainichi Shinbun 大阪毎日新聞 (Osaka Mainichi
Newspaper). h ese writings of er a description of the evolution of Ashida’s classroom practice.
Ashida outlined his teaching methods for reading Japanese in the “Ashida Method of Seven
Steps” (Ashida shiki shichi henge 芦田式七変化), and embarked on a mission to disseminate his
philosophy of teaching throughout Japan.
2
h e Dōshi dōgyō was read by teachers who wanted
to learn Ashida’s methods, and had a large impact on Japanese elementary schools in the 1930s.
h rough their review of Ashida’s lesson records, teachers were able to learn from his reading
methods, and integrate them into their own practices. Ashida emphasized the power of lesson
records and lesson analysis (jugyō bunseki 授業分析). His methods represented a departure
from the Herbartian and other teaching structures in their emphasis on more meticulous
classroom interaction, and greater respect for children’s learning and communication needs
(Ashida 1936a).h e Herbartian teaching method was prone to formality, and had proved
dii cult to apply to teaching in an actual classroom. Moreover, its strict adherence to the
completion of all i ve stages was not well suited to lessons which accommodated pupils of
diverse abilities. h ese points of criticism, informed by an active approach to learning, were
i rst made by Higuchi Kanjirō (Higuchi 1905). Ashida was well known as a fervent supporter
of Higuchi, and he too cautioned against a teaching approach that was too regimented. As the
lesson records published in Dōshi dōgyō make clear, Ashida maintained charts of pupil seating
(zaseki hyō 座席表) and teachers’ blackboard writings, and he wrote down the exchange of
questions and answers that transpired between teachers and pupils. Teachers’ rel ection upon
classroom activity based on question and answer sessions with pupils was accomplished by
direct observation of the classroom, and group discussion. Furthermore, mimeograph machines,
which by now had become widely used in educational settings, made the dissemination of ideas
possible throughout Japan. h ese machines allowed the easy distribution of lesson plans, lesson
records and rel ective comments among teachers. As a result, active lesson study was able to
develop and become more widespread at schools.
School principals were often active in supporting teachers’ autonomy in their practice
of lesson study (Toyoda 2009). Nevertheless, principals and local education authorities did
not readily welcome learning and teaching innovations that challenged traditional methods of
school management as dictated by the Ministry of Education (Ebihara 1975). Hence, Taishō
teachers in general did not have the individual authority to reform teaching content and school
curriculum in order to render it more responsive to pupils’ needs (Lincicome 1995; Inagaki
1993; Ebihara 1975). Kijō 亀城 Elementary School in Early Shōwa Japan
With the proliferation of mimeograph machines, preparing lesson plans based on
curriculum guidelines, followed by critical review sessions, became the central work of lesson
study committees. Teachers at elementary schools used the mimeograph to print out lesson
plans that rel ected their educational views, distributed them to fellow teachers, and attended
open classes and critical review sessions for evaluation and rel ection.
Written records of teaching plans between the years 1932 to 1934 were maintained at Kijō
Elementary School (KES) located in Kariya 刈谷 city, Aichi Prefecture.
4
A geography lesson
study plan comprising seven lessons for 5th
year pupils is analyzed here, and a description of the
seven lessons may be viewed in Appendix A. h is record of seven lessons is part of a unit lesson
study plan created by Isomura Akira 磯村章, and it took place on September 20, 1930. Isomura
describes here in detail the objectives of the lesson, and designs an outline of observations and
professional dialogue on his teaching for the discussion session to be held afterwards. His lesson
plan resembles a check list: it contains seven items for teaching, and eighteen items for teacher
and pupil activities in the teaching and learning process. h ese were to be used for both self-
evaluation and rel ection on the lesson, as well as for colleagues’ discussion of methods for
geography teaching.
Isomura carried out two surveys of pupils, and made an analysis of his i ndings. h e
questionnaires inquired about children’s motivation toward the learning of geography. A
preliminary investigation was conducted in early May (Appendix B); it was followed by another
in late September (Appendix C). Isomura’s observations suggest his ability to rel ect deeply
on his practice: “I wondered what children, who are as pure as blank sheets of paper, thought
about the learning of geography, and so I listened carefully to their honest opinions. h ere were
twenty i ve comments from twenty two children about why they liked learning geography,
while forty children gave i fty three reasons for their dislike of geography” (Appendix B).
h e basic intention behind Isomura’s lesson study was to “facilitate pupils’ learning about
mountains in central Japan, and to cultivate their interest in mountains,” but he also emphasized
raising their general interest in geography. To this end, his lesson plan also state what approach
in geography was most appropriate for understanding the feelings and cultivating the interest of
youngsters. For Isomura, lesson planning was the way to improve practice. He noted:
I must admit that I am to blame for many pupils’ responses [about learning geography].
When learning geography for the i rst time, pupils are expected to memorize a large
amount of information. I ignored the obvious fact that learning the geography of one’s
region requires an enormous amount of ef ort. In light of this, I thought I would like
to start anew and try to teach geography that was interesting and fun (Appendix C).
h e results of Isomura’s research on classroom practice can be verii ed by means of the two
afore mentioned questionnaires. h e children’s responses leave no doubt that the lesson plan
attracted their attention, and encouraged them to focus and engage themselves in the classroom
activity. Isomura’s change of approach toward the teaching of geography resulted in verii able
dif erences in children’s perception of the classroom atmosphere and the study of geography
(Appendix B). His second survey saw the number of positive pupils’ comments rise from twenty
i ve to eighty, while reasons given for their dislike of learning geography declined from i fty three
to thirty seven. It is also meaningful to examine how pupils wrote their comments (Appendix
C). In the i rst survey, pupils only wrote very brief comments, but in the second most wrote full
sentences to explain their enthusiasm for geography. For example, one pupil wrote, “I really
like geography. It is because 1) I can i nd out many things by looking at a map; 2) I love learning
about many towns and cities; 3) I can easily understand the teacher’s questions, and have an
interesting discussion for an hour; 4) It’s interesting to learn how the topography of the land
has developed” (Appendix C). It must be underscored that Isomura repeatedly rel ected upon
his own classroom practice, and was concerned that his teaching may not have been completely
understood by his pupils (Appendix C). He noted:
…children thought it was interesting and fun to start the lesson by looking at the
postcards and illustrations that they had brought to class. I was glad to observe that
children were happy with the way I resolved the previous problems, and it became my
usual teaching practice to conduct lessons while working in tandem with them. h is was
a warning for me to change my teaching style (Appendix D).
Isomura’s comments suggest the potential for Japanese teachers to collaborate regularly
and learn from colleagues, and rel ect individually on the realities of pupils’ learning. His
records of lesson study process are, however, not the only ones in existence for KES. For 1930 to
1933, there exist mimeograph records of other lesson plans, participant observation notes and
teachers’ notes of discussion and evaluation sessions. h e appendices of this paper contain just
a few of the many existing records relating to lesson study process at KES. Other evidence of
the lesson study process in practice exists in the form of the discussion and evaluation sessions
of 4th
and 6th
grade science education lessons in 1930 (Appendices E and F). In particular,
we may observe from the teachers’ notes included in Appendix E, the specii city with which
they recorded their rel ections and observations on teaching science to pupils. Consider for
example the following notes: “whether questions posed to pupils are refutable”, “the degree of
pupil-centered teaching,” “how to respond to pupils’ questions.” Appendix F provides detail
of teachers’ discussion and critique sessions, and includes these comments by a 6th
grade class
teacher (Sugiura Ito 杉浦いと): “h e lesson should begin with a discussion of something made
from vinegar that is related to life,” “the pupils’ experiments are mechanical” and “make sure
that the results from the experiment are duly written down in the record book.”
h ere was also some debate in the review and evaluation sessions over whether the class
was clearly focused on pupils’ learning activities, whether teaching was directed at pupils’
understanding, and whether the teacher adopted a sui ciently rel ective attitude toward his
lesson plan. From these excerpts, it would seem that many KES teachers emphasized pupil-
centered teaching, and were striving to function as “managers of learning,” in addition to their
roles as didactic instructors in the building of a learning community culture in schools of early
Shōwa Japan.
5
5. Discussion
KES records of geography and science classroom lesson study shed light on lesson study
as it was implemented in one public school at the start of the 1930s. Lesson study, teachers’
professional development, and the use of new teaching methods were not only prevalent in
the ai liated schools of teacher education colleges, but were also actively incorporated into
regional public schools (Nakauchi 1970; Miyoshi 1972). h is owes much to the fact that
Japan had a very high rate of primary school enrollment, even compared with more developed
nations. Indeed, as early as the year 1907, 98.5 percent of boys and 96 percent of girls went to
school (Kaigo and Naka 1963, p. 90). Moreover, in the 1930s when lesson study became more
prevalent, the rate of secondary enrollment was also relatively high, with 21 percent of boys and
15.5 percent of girls attending (Murata et al. 1996, p. 85).
During the early 20th
century, many educational journals focused on teaching methods.
Kyōiku kenkyū 教育研究 (Educational Research) was published in 1904 by the elementary
school attached to the Tokyo Higher Normal School, and it became a prominent educational
journal contributing to the practice of lesson study (Koizumi 1904). Additionally, numerous
other journals on lesson study also contributed to its dissemination. h ese included Kyōiku
jikkenkai 教育実験界(h e Society for Experimental Education), and Kyōiku gakujutsukai 教
育学術界(h e Society for Science of Education) which were founded in 1898 and 1899,
respectively (Ōmura 1898; Inoue 1899). It would appear, therefore, that lesson study came
to constitute an essential aspect of school culture and teachers’ professional development by
the late Taishō and early Shōwa eras, and the educational journals served to deepen mutual
exchanges between schools throughout Japan. Certainly, the culture of lesson study was formed
through classroom instruction of teachers at schools across Japan. School teachers taught
lessons based on their individual views of education, and they openly shared their views on
educational improvement both inside their schools and with society at large. At the start of the
20th
century, teachers were also using photography to record classroom activities and learning
environments, and were making these images and words public by means of educational
journals (Kinkōdō Henshūbu 1910; Yoshida 1921; Ebihara 1975; Toyoda 2005; Fukaya
2007). Photography was used for more empirical evaluation of lessons and teaching. Figure 1
depicts pupils’ independent learning environment in a class at Honami Shōgakkō 穂波小学校
(Honami Elementary School). h is photo was used as instructional material for pupils in the
teacher training and education course at Fukuoka ken Fukuoka Shihan Gakkō 福岡県福岡師
範学校 (Fukuoka Prefectural Normal School) in 1909. In the photo we can observe the quiet
and attentive of pupils after the whistle has blown marking the start of study time.
h e question that naturally arises is why teachers thought it necessary to photograph the
classroom learning activities of pupils. Figure 2 is a photograph of the school principal, Kuroda
Sadae 黒田定衛, teaching pupils a lesson in moral education using the story of Matsumoto
Keidō 松本奎堂. Matsumoto was a samurai 侍, well-known in the city of Kariya for his
driving ambition, and his philosophy of school discipline which included the principles of
“improvement, perseverance, and cooperation”. In the photos, Principal Kuroda stands directly
in front of the class; the backs of pupils are visible and convey the tense classroom atmosphere
typical of the study of moral education. h e atmosphere of the moral education class depicted
in Figure 1 appears to be contemplative and collaborative, and is quite dif erent from the rigid
atmosphere depicted in Figure 2. h e teacher in Figure 1 can be seen wandering among pupils,
checking their work and giving individual assistance. However, in Figure 2, the teacher delivers
a traditional didactic lesson from the front of the classroom with pupils sitting straight to
attention. h e contrasting pedagogical styles of the teachers can be clearly discerned in these
two photographs. During the Meiji and Taishō eras, it was common for school principals to
assume responsibility for teaching moral education (shūshin 修身). h is explains much of
the dif erence found between approaches to teaching morals and other subjects. Principals
tended to give formal lectures in moral education, which covered such topics as school culture,
goals, life skills and ethics in society. In the Shōwa era, however, the National School Law
(Kokumin Gakkō Rei 国民学校令) of 1941 dictated that responsibility for moral education
should be transferred from principals to home room teachers (Motokane 1996; Hayashi 1997;
Monbushō 1981). It should be duly noted that both photographs were taken 1909–1910, and
the suggestion is that by this time there already existed diverse views of teaching. It is commonly
viewed that Meiji era education, particularly from 1890, was based on instilling the values of
loyalty, patriotism, and respect for the emperor (Yoshida 1921). Nevertheless, the impression
given by Figure 1 is that pupil-centered learning in classroom activities had already begun to
develop at regional public elementary schools.
A school organization comprises teachers, administrators, and pupils themselves, and
the formation of school culture is a direct outcome of the actions taken by these dif erent
stakeholders. Teachers’ lesson study served to create the educational culture in Japan over the
course of one hundred years. Elementary school teachers’ cooperative engagement in lesson
study remains to this day a remarkable feature of elementary and junior high school teaching
in Japan. It points to a school culture that encourages mutual observation and the exchange
of pedagogical views; it is one in which teaching and learning take place through voluntary
activity that enhances the professional competence of school teachers. What was the role,
then, that lesson study played in the formation of professional development at schools? In
elementary and junior high schools, this practice led to an increased motivation for learning.
Indeed, lesson study committees were recognized by the teaching staf as vital spaces for the
educational development of children, and played an important role in supporting the essential
function of school education. As seen in the case of KES, a variety of lesson study activities had
already taken root in regions of Japan by 1930. Furthermore, lesson study encouraged teachers,
through their observations of pupils’ learning activities, to rel ect upon their own teaching
practices, and so accumulate teaching experience. Lesson study continuously urged teachers
to examine their own professionalism and create goals that help maintain positive motivation.
h is revitalization function generated new teaching practices.
Finally, lesson study emphasized collaborative research on classroom activities, and
enhanced the possibilities for teachers to rel ect upon their own practice from multiple
perspectives. h is yielded benei ts for the entire school in terms of pupil comprehension and
the sustainability of quality teaching. Yet, it must acknowledged that the uncritical adoption
of lesson study did not necessarily result in more rel ective teacher practice, or even teachers’
collaborative learning. What seems absolutely necessary was for teachers to have a signii cant
degree of common understanding of educational practice as a source of rel ection on the
teaching and learning process.
School based in-service training focusing on lesson study promoted professional
competence and the enhancement of teaching skills. Lesson study enabled educators to
observe the progress of pupils while improving their teaching skills. In other words, teachers
became more aware of the diversity in their pupils, and more inclined to think in terms of
lesson planning oriented to pupils’ learning activities rather than teacher focused pedagogy.
Improvements in teaching transpired naturally through regular lesson study. Such conditions
allowed for the democratization of school management, as well as for the possibility of teachers
making new discoveries in the classroom. One consequence of lesson study was to negate the
notion that a uniform style of teaching was ef ective. Pupils’ inability to understand a lesson
did not mean that the fault was in the pupils’ ability or motivation. Rather, it provided teachers
with the opportunity to rel ect upon their own teaching, and encouraged in the entire school
teaching staf an attitude of contemplative ef ort in striving for successful learning by all pupils.
h e careful collaborative examination by teachers of lessons helped generate an awareness
of their need to assume more responsibility in terms of school level management. Furthermore,
if lesson study enhanced teachers’ perceptions of pupils’ circumstances in the classroom, by the
same token it improved their professional skills. Teachers who admitted to each other that their
teaching was not ef ective, who empathized with fellow teachers, and who discovered that they
had something in common, had the opportunity to set new goals for themselves and for their
future lessons.
6. Conclusion and Lesson Study Prospects
Lesson study as a professional culture in Japanese education has a long history. During
the Meiji era, it was necessary that Japan absorb and learn from the educational methods of
the West in order to create a modern educational system better suited to the needs of the
modern state. h e seeds for the future development of lesson study were planted during this
important period. In particular, Meiji lesson study was conducted collaboratively at schools
ai liated to teacher education colleges, spaces for learning that supported the education of
teachers. h is teaching culture subsequently spread to public schools all over the country. In
the early 20th
century, a typical Meiji era school environment emerged which provided spaces
for teachers to discuss the ef ectiveness of their teaching methods (Kinkōdō Henshūbu 1910).
In addition, the proliferation of mimeographs facilitated collaborative lesson plans. Copying
and sharing of lesson plans allowed their dissemination to other schools. h e proliferation
of this new technology helped contribute to open discussion about teaching. Lesson study
also enabled Japanese teachers to realize, rel ect upon, and sustain meaning in their classroom
environment, and in pupil learning activities. h is pedagogical awareness transpired as a result
of the accumulation of formal lesson study, but it also arose out of the informal rel ection of
individual teachers. h e way of viewing pupils as described in Isomura’s geography lesson plans,
for example, was achieved through continuous rel ection on teaching.
h is study asserts that the Japanese model of lesson study supported schools in managing
micro-level educational reform in practice, bringing teachers together to learn from each other
and to develop the school’s capacity for promoting learning and fostering shared values. Of
course, the school professional culture of lesson study in Japan was not achieved overnight. It
constitutes one example of the Japanese practice of kaizen 改善 (continuous improvement)
which is relatively easy to comprehend yet dii cult to master in practice, and requires time
and systematic support from inside and outside the school. A professional school culture was
formed through cumulative lesson study activities of teachers, who rel ected on the realities of
their pupils for over a century. h e culture of lesson study was cultivated within this learning
community.
Arguably, the most remarkable impact of lesson study historically has been its contribution
toward the creation of a shared professional culture dedicated to educational improvement,
the enhancement of pupil learning, enrichment of classroom practices, and acquisition of
pedagogical knowledge (Sarkar Arani, Shibata and Matoba 2007; Takahashi and Yoshida
2004). Looking to the future, lesson study may help to support school leadership by building
a culture of collaboration, and instilling a shared commitment among teachers to focus more
on learning than teaching, and also a shared sense of the meaning of ef ective teaching. h is
may be accomplished through the use of a common language for sharing ideas, in the search
for a common mission, common values and a common vision (Peterson and Deal 1998;
O’Neil 1995). Since Stigler and Hiebert published h e Teaching Gap in 1999, describing the
Japanese approach to lesson study, teachers and educational researchers worldwide have reacted
positively to this practice, and this has resulted in an increase in research utilizing ethnography
as a qualitative method to examine school culture and teacher culture (Fernandez, Cannon and
Chokshi 2003; Lewis, Perry and Murata 2006; Lee 2008).
Recently, educators in many countries have begun to learn from their Japanese counterparts
how to develop a new culture for promoting learning communities at their schools (Sarkar
Arani and Fukaya 2009). Needless to say, countries such as the United States, China, Indonesia,
Singapore, Iran, and Germany in their attempt to transfer the Japanese model have developed
their own perspectives on lesson study based on indigenous school cultures, educational context
and needs. In the teaching cultures of many countries, opening up classrooms to the outside and
soliciting criticism are often interpreted uniquely as a means of teacher evaluation, and there is
a tendency for teachers to have conl icting feelings regarding engaging in lesson study (Matoba,
Shibata and Sarkar Arani 2007). Moreover, since the practice of lesson study is typically done
simultaneously with large numbers of pupils, it is often dii cult to determine how ef ective it
is for all pupils, or how pupils may perceive the instruction. Many strategies are necessary for
transferring lesson study to other educational contexts. Collaborative lesson plans, participant
observation, and rel ective thinking on teaching are the three points that serve as the core of
lesson study, and should be highlighted in its application to other educational contexts. It is
essential that teachers work together to plan lessons and to give feedback with no one individual
teacher functioning as the sole leader in lesson study. Educators, as equal participants, must
clarify their own views toward education and pupil learning; they must present a collaborative
lesson plan based on these aspects, and articulate their fundamental approaches to teaching.
h e i nal consideration is that lesson study should be understood as both regular practice
and as process, and that problems will not be resolved after a single session. Ef ective lesson
study follows the teaching of pupils and their progress over a long period of time. h is kind
of long term and continuous research orientation situates lesson study at the heart of school
culture.
Acknowledgement
h is research was supported in part by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)
under the Grant-in-Aid for Scientii c Research C (Reference number: 21530811). h e authors would
like to express their gratitude to the JSPS for the assistance and encouragement that made this research
possible.
http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/6339/6339_toc.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment