Learning study implemented
| LS meetings | LS Cycles 1 and 2 |
|---|---|
| Planning phase | |
| (1) Teachers identified the problem to be tackled (shared goal) | The point of departure was based on improving student learning, where teachers wanted to tackle teaching difficult topics in the newly implemented curricula in British Columbia After discussions which drew on the teachers’ prior teaching experiences, the teachers decided to work on the following: summary and setting (language arts, Cycle 1); life cycles (science, Cycle 2) |
| (2) Teachers explored neuroscience information | Neural network hypothesis, hierarchical relational binding theory and the influence of emotions and novelty on attention were discussed; neuroscience articles (e.g. Shimamura, 2010) were read and discussed Cycle 1: 3 meetings, 3 h; Cycle 2: 5 meetings, 5 h |
| (3) Teachers collaboratively designed lessons (integrating neuroscience with teaching) | Consistent with neuroscience perspectives, teachers made use of probes to identify gaps in students’ learning. The gaps also helped identify the object of learning and determined the event features that constituted the object of learning They then collaborated to design the lessons, reviewing their existing resources and creating new ones Cycle 1: 5 joint meetings (5 h), 3 split group meetings (total: 4 h); Cycle 2: 3 group meetings (3 h) |
| Classroom research phasea | |
| (4) Teachers taught their research lessons (average class size: 24) | Teachers taught the research lessons while the researchers and rest of the team members observed the lessons (either in person or via video-recordings) “Probes” and “check for understanding” activities (pre- and post-lesson tests) were used to assess student knowledge and ascertain student learning Lessons were revised based on reflection and feedback (see reflection phase) Team members implemented revisions in the next round of teaching. (Some teachers retaught their lessons.) Cycle 1: n=10 lessons (2 per teacher), total 8.5 h; Cycle 2: n=6 lessons (2 per teacher), total 6 h |
| Reflection phasea | |
| (5.1) Teachers reflected on their lessons | Teachers individually reflected on student learning and teaching practices by examining their own classroom data (e.g. probes, check for understanding activities, teaching materials and recordings of lessons) |
| (5.2) Teachers discussed lessons with researchers | Post-lesson conference with researchers (usually immediately after the lesson or within the same day); lessons discussed Cycle 1: n=5 (40 min–1 h each); Cycle 2: n=3 (40 min–1 h each) |
| (5.3) Teachers reflected as a group | Post-lesson conference with team members; teachers discussed their overall insights with team members. Video-recordings of lessons and classroom materials were used in the discussion Cycle 1: upper grade level: n=2, total 2 h; lower grade level: n=1, total 1 h Cycle 2: n=2, total 2 h |
| Dissemination phase | |
| (6) Teachers shared their experiences | Teachers shared their insights and learning experiences with their professional communities (via grade-level meetings, school presentations, workshop seminars) |
| LS meetings | LS Cycles 1 and 2 |
|---|---|
| (1) Teachers identified the problem to be tackled (shared goal) | The point of departure was based on improving student learning, where teachers wanted to tackle teaching difficult topics in the newly implemented curricula in British Columbia |
| (2) Teachers explored neuroscience information | Neural network hypothesis, hierarchical relational binding theory and the influence of emotions and novelty on attention were discussed; neuroscience articles (e.g. |
| (3) Teachers collaboratively designed lessons (integrating neuroscience with teaching) | Consistent with neuroscience perspectives, teachers made use of probes to identify gaps in students’ learning. The gaps also helped identify the object of learning and determined the event features that constituted the object of learning |
| (4) Teachers taught their research lessons (average class size: 24) | Teachers taught the research lessons while the researchers and rest of the team members observed the lessons (either in person or via video-recordings) |
| (5.1) Teachers reflected on their lessons | Teachers individually reflected on student learning and teaching practices by examining their own classroom data (e.g. probes, check for understanding activities, teaching materials and recordings of lessons) |
| (5.2) Teachers discussed lessons with researchers | Post-lesson conference with researchers (usually immediately after the lesson or within the same day); lessons discussed |
| (5.3) Teachers reflected as a group | Post-lesson conference with team members; teachers discussed their overall insights with team members. Video-recordings of lessons and classroom materials were used in the discussion |
| (6) Teachers shared their experiences | Teachers shared their insights and learning experiences with their professional communities (via grade-level meetings, school presentations, workshop seminars) |
Note: aIterative cycles of teaching included both the classroom research and reflection phases
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.