Category Archives: Blog

Professionalism Is As Professionals Do

Posted on by
Reply

School conversation, the serious flavor, between teachers and administrators and school board members often leads to the topic of treating people as professionals. Whether the talk is about teaching and learning, school policies and practices, salaries and benefits, or inclusion in decision-making, the idea of “treat me as a professional” becomes a filter for sifting ideas. I listen for it. Someone in the conversation ultimately invokes the word “professional” like a trump card in a game of bridge and others in the group are immediately tarnished with “unprofessional”. Some years past, the phrase was “I’m for our kids”. Whoever said it first took the high ground and all others were in the dirt. “Whoa”, I say. Professional treatment is a 360-degree proposition. To be treated professionally requires all to act professionally.

To paraphrase Forest Gump, “Professionalism is as professionalism does”. The only high ground is an idea or practice that is best practice and that is illuminated by professional study, consideration and action. To mix the metaphors – professionalism is the tide that raises all boats. It is not an ethereal that we blindly tip our caps to. Professionalism is in our actions, our words, our work and our expectations. It is in our commitment to the constant improvement of teaching and learning and to those engaged in this work. Yes, Forest, professionalism is what professionals do.

In the early 70s professionalism was more of a lower-case word. College graduates prepared for the profession of teacher anticipating a career of causing children to learn. However, at that time, college graduates entering their first classroom were employees in an employer-dominated era. Where allowed, strikes and work stoppages and no salary or benefit improvements were tools too often used by educational professionals against other educational professionals. In 1970 my first days as a teacher were spent “on strike” and I have not forgotten the sense of waste as the education of children was held hostage to professionalism.

I do not want to overgeneralize negatively about our history, because there also were many wonderful achievements accomplished through professional collegiality. However, when push came to shove and it did, differences arose that separated us into two or more camps of professionals. The tide raised only some boats while other boats were left tied to docks of status quo.

In my observation, professionalism is not a thermometer that we check daily or occasionally. Being professional is not fluctuating weather in the schoolhouse. It is not related to good or better or improved treatments of employees by employers, or conversely, to the attitudes of the supervised to their supervisor. Professionalism does not live when employee salaries are increased or benefits are expanded and it does not die when monies for salary and benefit enhancement are not available. Professionalism is not factored by class sizes or supply budgets. Professionalism is the doing, the process of talking and creating understanding and the constant commitment to educating children that binds educators as a profession.

I look for four tell tale signs of professionalism.

  •  Listening. Professionals take the time to personally listen to each other. The sense of hearing provides each of us with the greatest amount of information about our world and surroundings every day. We hear things unconsciously, because that is how the sense of hearing works. Listening is different. It is intentional and focused and conveys connection. I am listening to you tells me what you want me to know. Given, a lot of our conversations are inane. Yet, when one person actively listens to another, listening conveys the value of communication and shared communication is essential for professionalism to thrive.
  •  Continuing education. This is not graduate degrees for all, but it is education beyond formal education or initial training for all. Professionals intellectually consider the what, why and wherefore of their work. They conscientiously try to become more informed, better skilled and more expert in their field of work. Schools help by supporting job-related continuing education and training for all employees. Professionals take this one step further by being personally vested in their own improvement.
  •  Appreciation. There is nothing more rewarding in the schoolhouse than to be recognized and appreciated. No person in the school in any role is on the fast track to fame and fortune. Few in the schoolhouse receive much recognition for their work inside the school outside of the schoolhouse. That is why in-school appreciation is essential to its professionalism. The first step of appreciation is knowing each other’s name. When employees pass each day like ships in the night, there is no appreciation. Being recognized by name is such a small thing with such a big reward. The second step is a thank you, now and again. Thank you for the work you do; your work and you are recognized and valued. If you don’t understand this try it. Appreciation begets smiles and smiles join people together.
  •  Commitment. Professionals are not day jobbers. They are invested in the meaningfulness of their work over time. They personally evaluate the quality of their work and strive to keep their performance, no matter what the job, at the highest level they can. I have observed superintendents and board members work as hard to wordsmith a policy or proposal as the building and grounds supervisor and cleaners work to keep school restrooms clean and sanitary. Their commonality is their intrinsic desire to “do good work” that converts every employee into a school professional.

Think about your workplace. Are you listened to and do you actively listen to others? Are you personally and is your school equally engaged in your learning to be an expert in your work? Do you know that you and your work are appreciated and do you appreciate those you work with and their work? Are you collegially committed to making your school the best it can be? If you have four answers of yes, Forest Gump’s words apply to you in a most positive way.

“Just Go Do” Goes Nowhere

Posted on by
Reply

Our common mythologies tell us that men will not ask for directions. Men would rather drive and get lost or fail at assembling a new purchase than display the unmanly plight of seeking help. “I can do this” is a real man’s mantra. However, to paraphrase Louis Pasteur, “Fortune favors the prepared mind.” Whether it is man, woman or child, understanding the directions and gaining the skills for how to get from here to there, literally or hypothetically, is the best preparation for success. Without preparation and direction, we tend to go nowhere. Note: the following is not a diatribe about men, but a story concerning all of us.

In recent school discussions of student reading performances over the past five years, we realized that these outcomes were far below our students’ capacity to perform and our school’s expectations for all children. Disaggregation of statewide and local assessment scores showed about 15% of children performing at advanced levels of reading and 30% at proficient levels. These data matched state and national reading trends. Yet, we were chronically looking at the larger pool of 45% of children who were in the basic category reading performance. What kept these children from being proficient readers. We had a problem.

There were other indicators, such as poor spelling and confusion with the structures of grammar and syntax that consistently showed up in the daily work of our basic readers. We observed stumbling with reading fluency, especially with new, technical vocabulary. Our in-house screener showed these children making progress in their reading skills, however they did it make enough progress to become proficient on any assessments. Our assessments led us to questions and direct observation of children led us semi-conclusions. Too many of our children were weak in demonstrating phonological awareness, abilities to decode new words and had limited sight word recognition. Our advanced and proficient readers learned these skills, either from our instruction or parental assistance or through their own intuitive processes. But, for 55% of our children, we were at Point A, an unacceptable level of reading performance. We needed to get these children to Point B, student proficiency in reading built upon stronger student phonological and orthographic understanding and skills.

The Board’s Student Learning Committee, led by a Board member and comprised of teachers, parents, and administrators, began to study the nature of phonology. Parent members were vested in the issue; most were parents of children with reading challenges. Generally, the problem did not arise from a lack of reading interest at home or parental support of school. It did not arise from intellectual disorders. And, it did not arise from ambivalence. Parents and teachers and administrators were concerned with the stalled improvement in reading performance and wanted solutions.

Several of our children of interest displayed characteristics of dyslexia and their instruction was guided by an IEP. By looking at these children intensely, the committee began to understand that our teaching and learning model had several significant gaps. The committee met with representatives of Lindamood-Bell to understand that vendor’s approach to diagnostic and intense, clinical reading instruction. In addition, teachers trained in Orton-Gillingham and Wilson Reading explained how their preparation told them to address the needs of children with dyslexia and coding/decoding problems. A consultant from the International Dyslexia Association explained what reading is like for a child who can’t code and decode. She helped the committee to understand best practices in reading instruction for these children. The committee concluded that improvement in each student’s phonologic and orthographic skills was necessary to cause every student to be a proficient reader.

To get from Point A to Point B, we needed to change and improve our teaching-learning model. We could not say to our K-6 teachers, “just do it” – somehow make the necessary changes in your teaching to cause different results. Pasteur’s model told us that we needed to prepare for success if we wanted to be successful. Our starting point was to discern the current level of teacher preparation for phonics-based reading instruction. We found that our results were consistent with our preparation. Due to no fault of any teacher, most of our faculty had completed only a unit or two of instruction in phonics in a single course as part of their baccalaureate preparation. That was the extent of their academic preparation. Through self-designed continuing education, some had developed their own understanding of phonics-based reading and were achieving some success with some children. As a whole, we were not Pasteur-prepared for success.

It took half his life for Pasteur to be Pasteur. After six months of study, we still are not prepared, but we know how to be prepared. We know what our teaching-learning models lacks and we have a plan to provide each teacher with the directions and skills needed to move our children to Point A to Point B. We also know that our plan for success preparation takes time to achieve. This summer, each K-6 teacher, reading specialist and special education working with K-6 children will receive training in the Orton-Gillingham methodologies for intensive and sequential phonics-based instruction of word formation. These teachers will receive additional training the following summer. We will prepare each teacher to “go do”.

Our new designs says that all children will receive grade level instruction in our core reading program that is embedded with phonological and orthographic training AND each child who demonstrates phonological weakness will receive developmentally-appropriate OG instructional intervention. Our superintendent proposed a strategy of curriculum compacting that will provide more time each day for children needing deeper interventions of clinical and intensive instruction. Through district-provided preparation, all K-6 teachers will be able to teach a stronger phonics-based reading program, diagnose a child’s weaknesses in phonological understanding and skills, and give direct instruction to remediate the weakness. This approach to district-provided professional development is a change for our district. This PD is mandated and required for all current K-6, elementary special ed teachers and reading specialists. It is performance-based. We will be able to associate student achievement in phonics-based reading with a teacher(s) prepared for phonics-based reading instruction. It is prospective – all new-to-the-district K-6 teachers will receive OG training in future years.

Most importantly, this approach to professional development sets the stage for future analysis of student academic performances. When the district identifies a teaching-learning problem in the future and our educational outcomes are adjusted, an immediate question will be “How well are we prepared to ‘go do’?”. We will be Pasteur-like in our preparation for success.

Reading Skills Proficiency or Critical, Mindful Reading – What is the Goal?

Posted on by
Reply

Can a student in school become a proficient reader without being a mindful and critical reader? Can a mindful reader lack proficient reading skills? Testable skills? Applicable skills? I thought I knew, but foolish me.

For decades I have fretted reading scores. I pore over our school’s annual results on the statewide academic assessments looking at individual scores, disaggregated groups of scores, and multi-year trends in score patterns. When scores inch up a decimal, I smile. When scores dip a similar decimal, I frown. At the end of poring, everything boils down to cause effect analysis. How is our instructional program in reading affecting student proficiency in reading test score? And, how can improvements in teaching cause children to be better readers? Better readers!

As I sat in a local coffee shop, I eavesdropped on people at the next table sipping, munching and talking. They talked about local issues. Weather, road conditions, the ups and downs of local business, and local gossip. Talk, talk, talk. When the conversation turned to politics and taxes, I leaned a bit closer. Perhaps they would talk about something of substance. I waited and waited until I heard one person say, “I read …”. I was intrigued to hear how this person reported out what she had read. I heard her say “…the article said…”, “… the reports say …”, and “… according to this, the data says …”. Okay. She read for content comprehension. Then, I heard another voice say, “I read a different story that told me …”. Smile. Now, there was a little analysis of what had been read. They were comparing and contrasting what each person understood from their reading. Sip, sip and munch, munch. The first voice said, “…I don’t think I agree with what I read. I think …, because…” and I smiled more broadly. Yes, I heard some evaluation of what she read. She read, understood, considered, analyzed, and evaluated what she read against her own understanding and experience. She gave an alternative interpretation and explained why she favored this alternative. I had listened to a conversation based upon critical and mindful reading. Many smiles. But, were they proficient readers? How had these folks gone about their reading? Did they apply the reading skills taught in school? I did not care. I glanced at them as I left my table. They probably were young adults in their late 20s, no longer in school anywhere, getting together for a morning ritual before moving on to their day. They represented the outcomes of a school education.

At a developmental level, we must pay attention to the assessments of reading proficiencies that populate K-6 schooling. The science of reading tells us that, although we can teach all children to read, reading is not a natural human activity.  It takes time for children to learn to read. And, it takes time for children to advance their reading skills toward being mindful and critical readers. When we combine the science of reading with each student’s proclivities for learning, home and environmental support, and instructional effectiveness, assessments give us guidance as to the what kind, when and to what extent we need to apply teaching and learning exercises. The assessments are checkpoints in a pathway to more important outcomes.  Don’t fret the small stuff, I am learning.

My reconsidered attention now is drawn to the effectiveness of early reading programs in 4K through third grade and how individual children develop decoding and encoding of letters and sounds. I am concerned with their orthographic ability to assemble and spell words and to build those words into vocabulary. I am concerned with reading fluency and a child’s ability to read, understand, make self-corrections in their reading.  I look at their ability to develop rich background knowledge through reading. The snapshot assessments of these explicit skill sets make sense to assure each of the pieces of reading is being taught and learned properly so that children are prepared to be mindful and critical readers later in their schooling and adult lives. Analyzing reading proficiency in the primary grades is how we pay attention to smaller details. They are important signposts of learning but annual, small skill assessments are not the “big duh” outcomes of reading.

As I adjust my fretting, I am liking the bigger question of “What can children understand and learn from what they read?”. This is a completely different educational outcome and its assessments, due to their subjectivity, should not lead to fretting. Upper elementary, middle school and high school education provide rich instruction and application of advanced reading skills throughout curricular content areas. At this point, we shift from sub-test analysis to the larger interest of what older children are able to “do” with their reading abilities.  We focus on how they process information, create and test generalization from facts and supporting detail.  We look for critical questioning of sources when they inspect for bias and when they compare and contrast differing material.  We watch carefully when they are confounded by what they read and attempt resolve conflicting points of view or presentation of facts. Schools will continue to take scheduled snapshots of how well children read in these grade levels as part of mandated assessments. And, they also need to look carefully at how children learn from what they read.

Getting one’s pants in a bunch when the data produced by a periodic assessment snapshot does not jive with desired numbers and conclusions may not be as productive as we think it is.  I shall treat those results for what they are. Some assessments look backward at how well children learned and other assessments look forward toward how well children are growing into mindful and critically thinking young adults.

Taken against the big picture of developing mindful and critical readers, I am liking and finding more value in secondary school evaluative assessments of how we want school graduates to be critical and mindful readers. It is like cooking soup. At the early stages of chopping ingredients, we know the nutritional values of what is going into the soup. But, any premature tasting is not of soup; it is checking the process of making soup. Soup is soup when the prep and cooking are completed. The soup of reading should be evaluated when it is served – when graduates leave school for futures in college or career. Make instructional adjustments earlier in the process, but don’t make exclamations about reading achievement until reading is soup to be served. Wait to fret, if fret you must.

Teacher Tool Box: Some Teachers Have Sharper Tools

Posted on by
Reply

It is late August and teachers are returning to school. Classrooms look like tornado zones as teachers unpack supplies and reorganize learning centers. Opened boxes, books, and bins are strewn around the floor. Within days and after much attention, teachers and classrooms will be ready to cause new learning for children assigned to them.

My observations are not entirely casual. I am looking for teachers who know what they are doing and why they are doing it. I am looking for teachers who are restocking their tool boxes of teaching competence. Without my stopping what they are doing, as if I could, we engage in the annual conversations of getting ready for school.

Two distinct impressions rise from these observations and conversations. Two distinctly different teacher-types emerge. I have talked with teachers who confidently know what they are doing and are doing it. And, I have talked with teachers who think they know what they are doing and are trying to do it. On the first day of school, their classrooms may look similar, but on the second day of school what these two teacher-types do in the teaching of children will be dissimilar.

In the school gym, parents are engaged in the annual chore of school registration. They are updating demographic data about their children, paying school fees, and, most importantly, receiving their children’s classroom assignments for the new school year. The last item lists the names of the persons each child will have as her and his teachers this year. Some parents smile, some frown, and some don’t know enough to do either.

Why is this thus?

Frommers, Fodor’s, Concierge and Lonely Planet do not publish a travel guide for how to best traverse K-12 classrooms, but local parents know the best pathways. The knowledge of which teachers are best at causing children to learn their grade level and course curricula is an unwritten document, but in the parking lot on registration day there will be many conversations about which children will have the best travel guides or teachers this school year. This knowledge is performance-based and data-documented. It is not just preferential. As the mothers of children in the parking lot tell me, “Look it up. Some teachers always produce better test results than other teachers. And, the children they taught do better on tests the next school year. Some teachers send more children to the office for behavior problems; they don’t know how to keep kids learning so kids get distracted and misbehave. I want my child to have the teachers that know how to teach and produce the best learning results.” Parents, especially mothers, know.

Each teacher in the school is licensed by the DPI to teach their assigned classes and courses. Each teacher has earned a baccalaureate degree or added a post-grad degree as preparation for their professional work. Most teachers in the school are veteran teachers with several to many years of on-site experience. Yet, differences exist.

• There is a difference between having teaching tools and having sharp teaching tools.

Some teachers sit with children in a reading group, listen to children read, and smile or frown. Children take turns reading and demonstrating their ability to sound out new words, read fluently, and follow along. Other teachers listen to children read. This teacher stops the reading to assist a child phonetically pronounce a new word, to ask children what new words mean to build vocabulary, and to ask children to explain what they understand from their reading. This teacher has individual children read, children read aloud together, and has children listen to the teacher model reading a sentence or paragraph before a child is asked to read the same sentence or paragraph. One teacher uses the tool of reading groups while another teacher exercises the sharper tools of teaching reading in a group.

• There is a difference between teaching and knowing how to teach to teach to each child.

From the doorway, daily teaching can look the same in most classrooms. From a seat in the classroom, it is apparent that some teachers make a lesson plan, walk through the steps of their lesson plan calling on some children, asking children to “show their work”, moving from one subject to the next, and tomorrow they will do the same. From a seat in another classroom, it is apparent that this teacher works their lesson plan, engaging every child, asking children to demonstrate and explain their thinking, and staying with the lesson until satisfied that every child is ready for a next lesson. It is apparent that when a teacher kneels next to a child’s chair, one teacher encourages a child to finish the assignment and another teacher provokes the child to do learn from the assignment.

• There is a difference between teaching and knowing when and how to continue teaching and to teach differently.

Every teacher sets a curricular calendar. With approximately 180 days of school, a schedule must be maintained to assure that all the curriculum is taught. Some teachers are driven by the curricular calendar while some teachers are driven by the curriculum on the calendar. The first teacher will move to the next lesson and the next chapter because time is important. Another teacher will stay with a lesson until all children have learned its objectives before moving to a next lesson. This teacher will teach and re-teach and her re-teaching purposefully will be different than her first teaching. If a child did not learn from the first teaching, it is unlikely a repeat of the same teaching will cause a different result. A sharper teaching tool is differentiated teaching to meet the needs of the child and the time and place of the child’s learning.

• There is a difference between giving tests of learning and using tests for learning.

A test may signify for a teacher that a chapter or unit has been completed. For this teacher, a test says it is time for children to move to the next chapter or unit of teaching. For another teacher, a test signifies how well the teacher has taught the chapter, unit or semester and if the teacher is ready to move to the next. This teacher looks at the results and, if the results are not good for all children, the teacher uses test data to selectively correct or strengthen what students did not learn “well enough”. A move to the next chapter or unit happens when learning not time indicates it is time for what comes next.

• There is a difference between looking like you are doing and actually doing. In other arenas, this is the difference between talking a good game and playing a good game.

Some teachers know the talk. They can tell you what is happening in their classroom. They hand you chapter books and point at learning centers and at posters on the wall. Other teachers can explain the talk. They can tell you why what is happening in their classroom is necessary for each child’s learning, how they will know that each child has learned from what is happening, and when it will be time to change what is happening in the classroom and what that change will look like.

• There is a difference between being liked as a teacher and being esteemed as a teacher.

If this difference needs explaining, a reader will not understand the difference.

Parents in the parking lot know these things. They know that some teachers are expert teachers with sharp teaching tools. They want these teachers to be their child’s teachers. Sadly, some children will have other teachers. Teaching tools really matter.

Lesson study: Sharpening Your Teaching Tools

Posted on by
Reply

I planned the lesson. I taught the lesson. I examined student work resulting from the lesson. I evaluated the effectiveness of the lesson. I taught similar lessons in similar ways. I taught this lesson again the next year.

Almost anything we purchase today has a consumer rating or a list of consumer reviews. These inform us of how the item of interest compares to quality standards and of the satisfaction, praises and complaints of other purchasers. Homemade things do not have these ratings and reviews. A teacher’s lesson plan is a homemade product. So, how do we understand the quality of a lesson plan?

Self-reflection and self-evaluation are components of professional work. These are built into a teacher’s mindset as she progresses through a teacher preparation program albeit as an abstract application. Once in a classroom assignment, the daily process of constant and continuous lesson planning and teaching day after day can move self-reflection and self-evaluation to the “back burner” of daily demands. Reflection and evaluation give way to the demands of the next lesson.

At some point in a loop of lesson planning, teaching and lesson review, objectivity is obscured by all of the “I”s. When a person’s professional perspective is formed by looking in the mirror and confirming “I look fine. I am fine. My work is fine”, a person should wonder “How do others see me and my work.”

(Disclaimer – this is not the professional evaluation of Educator Effectiveness or a demonstration of Frameworks for Teaching (Danielson). This writing is pointed at daily lesson work and how a teacher professionally improves her lesson planning.)

It is clear to say that no teacher designs a lesson plan for the purpose of failed teaching and learning. Lesson plans are created with every good intention and design for causing children to learn. Given every good intention, how does a teacher add perspective to the improvement of her lesson plans?

Lesson studies are not a new concept. Japanese Lesson Studies were introduced when Japan undertook a national initiative to improve its international ranking in educational performance assessments (TIMSS). I will use the term “Lesson Studies” to refer to a variety of models for peer teachers to review and critique lesson designs.

Lesson studies are a teacher-centered and teacher-led process for teachers to share lesson/unit plans with a small group of colleagues for the purpose of peer critiquing. Three to five teachers form a study group and take turns presenting a lesson plan for peer review. Principals and administrators do not participate in lesson studies.

A model for lesson study process looks like this.

Background – A teacher gives the peer group a contextual background for the lesson. Peers must know the grade level or course the teacher is teaching and where in a unit of instruction the lesson fits. Information includes a background of the students and prior lessons leading up the lesson of interest. Data may indicate base line pre-unit assessments. Information also may include any special considerations for children, classroom conditions, school life or other externals that affected her lesson design.

The Lesson – The teacher presents the lesson in the format of the school’s lesson design format. Using a common format gives peers a common language and scheme for understanding presented lessons and decreases time needed to conceptualize how the presented lesson is formatted. If the school does not subscribe to a common lesson planning format, the presenting teacher explains her preferred format. The presentation is a brief, yet detailed description of lesson objectives and teacher planned actions, in-lesson decisions, and responses to students as the lesson unfolded. It is important for the peers to understand all the intentional teaching acts made by the teacher, planned and unplanned.

Clarifying Questions – The peers ask questions to fill in their understanding of the lesson. The questions deal only with the lesson. Questions such as “Why did you…? and “How did you…?” are common. It is easy to pile on questions, so peers keep questions to those which illuminate teacher behaviors and decisions.

Student Outcomes – The teacher lays out examples of student work, performances, and assessments completed during and as a result of the lesson. These artifacts connect the objectives, lesson design, and teaching acts and decisions to the outcomes of the lesson. Samples are pre-chosen to reflect a range of successful to unsuccessful student work.

Consideration – The peers take several minutes to individually consider the presentation and artifacts and construct comments and feedback they will give the the teacher.

Feedback – Peers take turns with their commentary. Each peer is required to make a comment and provide feedback. Comments are to be critical yet not criticizing. Peers should consider pedagogical technique, theory into practice designs, clarity of teacher talk and input to students, and how the lesson produced its desired outcomes. Peers recognize that some outcomes will not be known until subsequent lessons are taught.

Commentary and feedback are the heart of the lesson study. Trust is a big deal. The teacher group trusts that all comments are designed for improvement. Additionally, what is said in the study stays in the study.

Although it is easy for peers to say “I would have…”, how a peer would have taught the lesson is not a subject of the study. Peers are neutral and objective reviewers of the lesson presented.

Teacher Reflection – The presenting teacher summarizes the comments and feedback she received. Presenting teachers should take notes as they listen to peer feedback to assure that they have a record of the comments and feedback. Peers listen to the reflective summary to assure that the teacher has properly understood the feedback. Needed clarification is given to assure a fidelity of what was said and what was heard.

Debriefing – Before disbanding, the teacher and peers review the purpose and design of their lesson study and reflect upon how this study complied with those. They also set the time, place and presenter of the next lesson study.

A lesson study requires 50-60 minutes of group time. It is essential that enough time is allocated so that teacher reflection, the last and perhaps most important component of the study, is conducted without interference from the clock. Early practitioners of lesson studies want to present lessons they confidently believe caused positive student outcomes. Experienced practitioners present lessons that are essential for student learning in meeting grade level and course standards. They choose these lessons to improve the lesson’s success for all children.

Once lesson study groups are formed and working, they schedule weekly lesson studies. If the study group includes four to five members, weekly meetings allow each member to present seven to eight lessons per school year. Eight lesson studies combined with self-reflection and self-evaluation of lesson plans provide a teacher with balanced insights into the effectiveness of her lesson planning skills.

The following links point to resources that can assist a teacher in creating a collegial and collaborative lesson study process.

https://www.uwlax.edu/sotl/lsp/guide/planstudy.htm

https://schoolreforminitiative.org/doc/tuning.pdf

https://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/global_learning/2016/04/using_japanese_lesso

https://achieve.lausd.net/cms/lib/CA01000043/Centricity/Domain/435/13%20%20TTLP.pdf