The impact of observers’ beliefs on the perceived contribution of a Research Lesson
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, Lesson Study (LS) has gained popularity in countries worldwide because of its potentially positive effects on teachers’ practices (e.g., reflection, cooperation, and pre-service development) and students’ learning. However, despite global interest in LS’s implementation, an important gap exists between Japanese LS and its implementation in other countries, which may be due to several reasons, such as differences in culture and educational systems or teachers’ beliefs. In this study, we examined the effect of teachers’ beliefs on their evaluation of LS in Chile. We administered a questionnaire to 94 teachers who participated in the Research Lesson (RL) as observers. The questionnaire assessed teachers’ beliefs and RL’s contributions to knowledge of the subject matter, instructional strategies, monitoring skills, lesson planning, and student understanding. Using a stepwise logistic regression, after controlling for sex and occupation, we found that the observers’ beliefs influenced their perceptions of RL’s contributions to monitoring, assessment, and instruction. Participants with student-focused beliefs were more likely to find that RL contributed to their monitoring skills and ability to assess students’ understanding of content. The results regarding instructional strategies were mixed. Our findings can help devise strategies to increase the effectiveness of LS implementation. For example, by designing two types of LS, one adapted to teachers with student-focused teaching beliefs and the other to teacher-focused teaching beliefs. To the best of our knowledge, this dual strategy is not part of LS implementation, at least in Chile. LS teams could easily explore this dual strategy, which could improve teachers’ professional development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".