Lesson Study-Building Communities of Learning Among Pre-Service Science Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lesson Study is a widely used pedagogical approach that has been used for decades in its country of origin, Japan. It is a teacher-led form of professional development that involves the collaborative efforts of teachers in co-planning and observing the teaching of a lesson within a unit for evidence that the teaching practices used help the learning process (Lewis, 2002a). The purpose of this research was to investigate if Lesson Study enables pre-service teachers to improve their own teaching in the area of science inquiry-based approaches. Also explored are the self-efficacy beliefs of one group of science pre-service teachers related to their experiences in Lesson Study. The research investigated four questions: 1) Does Lesson Study influence teacher preparation for inquiry-based instruction? 2) Does Lesson Study improve teacher efficacy? 3) Does Lesson Study impact teachers' aspiration to collaborate with colleagues? 4) What are the attitudes and perceptions of pre-service teachers to the Lesson Study idea in Science? The 12 participants completed two pre- and post-study surveys: STEBI- B, Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (Enochs & Riggs, 1990) and ASTQ, Attitude towards Science Teaching. Data sources included student teaching lesson observations, lesson debriefing notes and focus group interviews. Results from the STEBI-B show that all participants measured an increase in efficacy throughout the study. This study added to the body of research on teaching learning communities, professional development programs and teacher empowerment.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".