Anda di halaman 1dari 5

Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 152 (2014) 808 812

ERPA 2014

The practicum in pre - service teachers education in Greece: the


case of lesson study
Karadimitriou Kostasa*, Rekalidou Galinia, Moumoulidou Mariaa
a

Department of Education Sciences in Early Childhood, N. Chili, Alexandroupolis 68100, Greece

Abstract
The Department of Education Sciences in Early Childhood of the Democritus University of Thrace has been implementing the
Lesson Study model in Practicum since the academic year 2011-12. In this paper we present results of the model implementation,
during the years 2011-12 and 2012-13. Data were collected through a questionnaire given to 248 students and their
written assignments. Results show that students are satisfied with the processes of the model regarding collaboration and
active participation. However, we have identified difficulties which are associated with the forms of collaboration, their
reflection capacity and their role as observers during the educational process.

2014 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by
by Elsevier
ElsevierLtd.
Ltd.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
2014
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the ERPA Congress 2014.
Peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the ERPA Congress 2014.
Keywords: pre service teacher education; lesson study; collaboration; reflection; practicum

1. Introduction
University Departments of Pedagogical Sciences were established in Greece in 1983. Studies last four years and
besides the theoretical courses, Practicum is a key component and an integral part of the curriculum (Stamelos, 1999.
Avgitidou, 2007. Mavrogiorgos, 2014). Each Department implements a different model of Practicum depending on
its philosophy and the special circumstances. The choice of a particular model clearly indicates the orientation of
each Department as to the type of teacher who wishes to form and shall be viewed in the aspect of the improvement
of the curricula for initial teacher education, in an effort to meet the evolving requirements of the profession. For this
purpose, the investigation of perceptions of pre-service teachers is of particular importance as highlights their

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 00302551030114


E-mail address: kkaradim@psed.duth.gr

1877-0428 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the ERPA Congress 2014.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.325

Karadimitriou Kostas et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 152 (2014) 808 812

personal theories about teaching. Those perceptions are restructured during their Practicum, while reflection and
review are some of the means for recalling them (Poulou & Haniotakis, 2006).
2. The lesson study model (l.s.) in pre-service teachers` practicum in the department of education sciences in
early childhood of the Democritus University of Thrace
Reflection is not the only skill that pre-service teachers are required to acquire as part of their Practicum.
Teaching in the complex environment of the class requires a set of skills that compose the image of the
contemporary teacher. Pre-service teachers are also required to be able to plan and implement instructional
interventions, to cooperate, to observe and record data and furthermore to revise their lesson based on their
observations.
These qualitative features characterize the Lesson Study model (L.S.), which has been implemented since 2011 in
the Department of Education Sciences in Early Childhood of the Democritus University of Thrace. This model has
its origins in Japan and it is based theoretically in constructivism. It is aiming not just to the modification of
teachers personal theories but also contributes to the general improvement of their teaching practices (Marble, S.,
2007. Norwich & Jones, 2014. Iksan, Nor, Mahmud, & Zakaria, 2014). During the first phase of the model a group
of teachers plan the lesson: they set goals and plan the process to achieve them. In the second phase one member of
the team implements teaching while the other members of the team observe the process. Reflection and feedback
discussion in a plenary session is following. At last there can be a lesson revision probably by another member of the
team and in a different class (Fernandez, Cannon & Chokshi, 2003. Lewis, Perry & Murata, 2006, Iksan et al. 2014).
The academic year 2011-12 we have tried a pilot implementation of the model in Practicum, taking into account
the general educational culture of our country and therefore of the students. Specific adaptations have also being
made in order to preserve both the philosophy of the model and the flexibility of the application (Rekalidou,
Moumoulidou, Karadimitriou, Mavromatis, & Salmont, 2013). Thus, after theoretical courses and workshops, which
lasted three years and have been provided by members of the Faculty, students planed a lesson in groups of eight
(Planning Phase) and implemented cooperatively teaching in pairs (Implementation Phase) under the direction and
supervision of special trained early childhood teachers. Those teachers also guided the feedback reflection
discussions (Feedback Reflection Phase).
3. The purpose and the methodology of the study
The purpose of this study is to present the results of the implementation of the Lesson Study model to 3rd grade
and 4th grade students in order to highlight its potential for improving initial teachers` education. Results were
obtained from two published surveys conducted during the academic years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. In the 1st
survey we examined difficulties and problems that the 3rd grade students encountered in all three phases of the
model (planning, implementation and feedback - reflection), the knowledge and skills they consider that they gained
and the quality of cooperation and the types of interactions they had with each other. We used a questionnaire which
included 31 open ended and closed ended questions and written assignments of the students. The Sample was 121
students (Rekalidou et al., 2013).
In the second survey we examined the same students in the fourth year of their studies. We investigated their
cooperative experience in all three phases of the model and the way they have perceived the processes of reflection
and feedback. Furthermore we examined how their supervisors perceived students engagement in the processes of
collaboration, reflection and feedback. The questionnaire that has been applied to the first survey has also been used
in this survey, with small modifications. The final questionnaire included 34 open ended and close ended questions
and the sample was 127 students. We have also made content analysis of the evaluation reports of the five
supervisors, who guided groups of students in the program design, supervised educational activities in the classroom
and participated in feedback sessions (Rekalidou, Moumoulidou, & Karadimitriou, 2014).
Data procession was performed with the statistical package SPSS 14. The quantitative data presented here are
derived from frequency tables, which resulted from students responses to the closed ended questions. For the
qualitative results of the students answers to the open ended questions as well as for their written reports we
conducted content analysis. Their responses were examined, grouped into categories according to their content and

809

810

Karadimitriou Kostas et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 152 (2014) 808 812

then followed an interpretative processing of each category (Miles & Huberman, 1994. Lacey & Luff, 2001. Robson,
2002). In a similar way we analyzed the reports of the supervisors to the second survey.
4. Results
4.1 Planning Phase
Regarding cooperation students responded in high percent in both the first and the second survey that they have
faced no problems (75% and 66% respectively). Supervisors reports even show that cooperation among students
has been continued even outside the designated mandatory group meetings that were taking place in the context of
the Practicum program in the university campus. Students who have reported in the first survey that they have faced
problems focused mainly: on difficulties with coordination and communication (27.6%), in the sense that one of the
two students in the pair did most of the work (20.7%) and in inconsistency of fellow students (20.7%). Students who
have reported in the second survey that they have faced problems focused mainly: in the inconsistency of
their fellow students (46.5%) and in difficulty with coordination and communication (41.9%).
A more explicit picture of students difficulty to share their views with their fellow students is stated in ones
student report. She wrote that: We could have opened ourselves more as to our ideas [....]. To exchange our ideas
[...] to process the different opinions and not to think that the others will steal our idea. Written reports of the
supervisors show that sometimes the fatigue of students and their attempt to meet the requirements of the program
was also a cause of tensions between the group members. It should be noted here that students perform one month
teaching in the class in the 4th year of their studies.
However, while presenting their design to the whole group, students assessed in both surveys the climate of
interaction between them as positive (53.8% and 45.7% respectively) and fairly positive (45.4% and 54.3%
respectively). Nevertheless, 16.5% of students in the first survey and 32.3% in the second felt that during the
presentation of their design the expression of views of some members of the group had the sole purpose to criticize
and not help.
Possible misinterpretation of the words of some students also functioned as a deterrent to some students to
express their opinions. One student reported characteristically that: When I had to state my views, I came in trouble
many times regarding how to do it. This happened because we have not learned to work in this way and some may
misunderstand my view, perhaps in a negative way, contrary to my intention.
4.2 Implementation phase
Students answered questions concerning the interaction between the pair of students who implemented the
teaching session. The percentages in both surveys show that they acted in a coordinated way and that there were
social and cognitive interactions between them. Very few students answered that there was no coordination /
cooperation between them (4.1% and 4% respectively) or that social and cognitive interactions have not been fertile
(5% and 5% respectively).
An important parameter of the model during the implementation phase is the observation of the educational
process from the other members of the team. Most students answered in both surveys that they faced no difficulty
from the presence of the observers (46.3% and 43.7% respectively) while 39.7% in the first survey and 43.7% in the
second replied that they felt slight difficulty. Fewer students felt that the presence of third persons during the
process made them feel much or too much difficult (14% and 12.6% respectively). Those difficulties were
caused primarily by the presence of their fellow students (50.8% and 52.9% for the first and second survey,
respectively). One student reported characteristically on this issue: It was very stressful because our fellow students
were the observers. If we were implementing the program without having this stress, it is likely we were more
spontaneous and free. Of course, on the other hand, the presence of the group of our fellow students helped us later
in the feedback to understand what went wrong and what was not wrong. To a minor degree made it difficult the
presence of the supervisor (41.5% and 39.7% for the first and second survey, respectively) and much less of the
teacher of the class (7.7% and 7.4% for the first and second survey, respectively).

Karadimitriou Kostas et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 152 (2014) 808 812

4.3 Phase of feedback - reflection


Almost all students responded in both surveys that feedback reflection processes in plenary group were very
interesting (> 90%) and substantial (> 80%) and believe that they achieved substantial benefits from the feedback
reflection discussion with their group (> 90%). In the second survey, students have refined these benefits and
hierarchically reported that they realized their weaknesses (71.9%), that enriched their ideas (57%), that
became familiar with self-assessment procedures (41.2 %) and that learned more about the development of the
program (20.1%).
Supervisors reported that feedback reflection was the most important part of the Practicum, because it
encouraged students to assess and be assessed, separating the assessment of their grade. They also observed that
students have gradually improved through the dialectical processes of feedback reflection the following skills: to
participate in dialogues (active listening, reasoning, etc.), to overcome or handle problematic situations both in
teaching and in their relationships within the group, to cooperate and to assess themselves. Moreover they noticed
that feedback reflection processes contributed to improve their critical capacity and boosted their self-confidence
regarding their teaching skills. Similarly, contemporary studies have shown that teachers who implemented the L.S.
model became more confident to take risks with approaches to teaching (Cajkler, Wood, Norton, Pedder, & Xu,
2014), whereas other studies also indicate that L.S. model enhances critical thinking of trainee teachers (Iksan et al.
2014).
Despite those results only 19% of students responded in the first survey that everybody in the team participated
actively in the processes of feedback - reflection, while 45.5% responded that participated almost all, 24.8%
responded many and 9.9% responded that was a few those who participated. In the second survey percentages
are almost similar: 16.5% responded that all students participated actively in the feedback - reflection discussion,
50.4% responded that almost all participated actively, 25.2% responded many, and 7.9% responded a few.
One possible explanation for the low rates of participation in the process is given by a student. She reported that:
During this phase there were made very constructive comments but not from all. Some did not express their views
about the progress of the program. Probably because they thought that would be seen as negative criticism [...]. On
the other hand, the above rates are justified by the fact that students are not generally familiar with such procedures.
5. Discussion
Results show that the conditions for collaboration boosted by the model have been accepted by the students with
all the benefits that this may entail for their social and cognitive interactions. In some cases cooperation between
students continued beyond the scheduled appointments at the university campus. This may indicate that students
understood the importance of collegiality and cooperation. However, a significant number of students had
cooperation difficulties and problems, confirming that despite the training that proceeded, the cultural deficit of the
students regarding cooperation, which is a result of the Greek educational system, is not easy to cover.
At the same time an obstacle to maximize the benefits from the application of the model seems to be the belief of
many students that their fellow students are pursuing to judge them through their comments. This is supported by
the relatively high proportion of students who perceived as difficulty the simultaneous presence of their fellow
students in the classroom. Other similar studies found the same results and interpret them as an inability of students
to separate the educational practice from the person (Sims & Walsh, 2009) so any criticism is perceived personally
or even as immaturity of students to separate their emotions from their experiences resulting to experience negative
emotions in cases of negative criticism (Carrier, 2011).
Finally, it seems that the processes of feedback - reflection attracted the interest of students and according to both
themselves and their supervisors were beneficial and substantial. In the above results probably contributed the fact
that these processes distinct to traditional practices and also that their training in our Department, before and during
the implementation of the model, emphasize to the importance of identifying their mistakes, their weaknesses and
their strong points and then to be able to analyze and interpret them.
However we concluded, judging by their written assignments, that their concerns and their reflections were weak
in the depth of the analysis and their interpretations often stopped in superficial descriptions. To some extent this is
expected because reflection is a complex and rigorous process that need time and experience to be performed in a

811

812

Karadimitriou Kostas et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 152 (2014) 808 812

high level (Rodgers, 2002). Similarly low levels of reflection and feedback are also found in other studies
conducted with students who implemented the L.S. model (Myers, 2012, Orland-Barak, 2005). In our case, seems
that students were continually improving their reflective thinking and the ability to benefit from their mistakes and
their self-assessment. We could also argue that cooperation, reflection and feedback skills require systematic
training and that the L.S. model can contribute towards this direction, if included in curriculum for the pre - service
teachers education.
References
Avgitidou, S. (2007). The quest for a stochastic-critic educator in initial teacher education: the contribution of the Practicum program. Education
Sciences, 1, 45-57. (In Greek)
Cajkler, W., Wood, P., Norton, J., Pedder, D., & Xu, H. (2014). Teacher perspectives about lesson study in secondary school departments: a
collaborative vehicle for professional learning and practice development. Research Papers in Education, (ahead-of-print), 1-22.
Carrier, S. J. (2011). Implementing and integrating effective teaching strategies including features of lesson study in an elementary science
methods course. The Teacher Educator, 46(2), 145-160.
Fernandez C, Cannon, J., & Chokshi, S. (2003). A USJapan lesson study collaboration reveals critical lenses for examining practice. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 19, 171185.
Iksan, Z. H., Nor, S. N. A. M., Mahmud, S. N., & Zakaria, E. (2014). Applying the Principle of" Lesson Study" in Teaching Science. Asian
Social Science, 10 (4), 108-113.
Lacey, A., & Luff, D. (2001). Qualitative data analysis. Sheffield: Trent Focus.
Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Murata, A. (2006). How Should Research Contribute to Instructional Improvement? Educational Researcher, 35, (3), 3
14.
Marble, S. (2007). Inquiring into Teaching: Lesson Study in Elementary Science Methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18 (6), 935953.
Mavrogiorgos, G. (2014). Basic education, teacher training and biography: Critical incidents and legitimate
questions. Comparative and International Education Review, 10, 1-6. (In Greek)
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. USA: Sage.
Myers, Julia (2012). Lesson Study as a Means for Facilitating Pre service Teacher Reflectivity. International Journal for the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning 6, (1), Article 15. Available at: http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/ij-sotl/vol6/iss1/15.
Norwich, B., & Jones, J. (Eds.). (2014). Lesson Study: Making a Difference to Teaching Pupils with Learning Difficulties. A&C Black.
Orland-Barak, L. (2005). Portfolios as evidence of mentors learning: what remains untold. Educational Research, 47(1), 25-44.
Poulou, M., & Haniotakis, N. (2006). Reflection of pre-service teachers for Practicum: a first attempt. Education Sciences, 1, 87-97. (In Greek)
Rekalidou, G., Moumoulidou, M., & Karadimitriou K., (2014). Implementation of Lesson Study with pre service teachers: cooperation, reflection
and feedback. Hellenic Journal of Research in Education, 1st special issue, 7-32. Available at: www.ereunastinekpaideusi.gr. (In Greek)
Rekalidou, G., Moumoulidou, M., Karadimitriou K., Mavromatis, G., & Salmont, E. (2013). A pilot implementation of Lesson Study model
in the Practicum programme of the Department of Education Sciences in Early Childhood of the Democritus University of Thrace. In
Androusou A. & Avgitidou S. (Eds), Practicum in initial teachers education: research approaches (pp. 69-96). Athens: Faculty of
Education for Preschool Teachers - University of Athens. (In Greek)
Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research, (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842-866.
Sims, L., & Walsh, D. (2009). Lesson study with pre service teachers: Lessons from lessons. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25 (5), 724-733.
Stamelos, G. (1999). The Pedagogical University Departments: Origins, Present situation, Perspectives. Athens: Gutenberg. (In Greek)

Anda mungkin juga menyukai