Lesson study as a tool for improving teachers’ classroom

assessment practices

Melaku Takele Abate

Department of Mathematics Education, Jimma Teachers’ College & Department of Teacher
Education and Curriculum Studies, Jimma University, Jimma, Ethiopia.

Abbi Lemma Wodajo

Department of Teacher Education and Curriculum Studies, Jimma University, Jimma,
Ethiopia. Email: [Link]@[Link]

Adula Bekele Hunde

Department of Teacher Education and Curriculum Studies, Kotebe University of Education,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Email – [Link]@[Link]

Corresponding Author: Melaku Takele Abate

E-mail: mku2001@[Link]
Abstract
This research aimed to examine the impact of the Lesson Study for Transformative Assessment
(LSforTA) professional development programs on teachers and students. LSforTA focuses on
developing a framework to design and implement transformative assessment practices in
secondary school mathematics classes. Using pre- and post-surveys and interviews, we
examined how LSforTA changed the classroom assessment practices of eleven mathematics
teachers in two secondary schools. It was found that LSforTA had a positive impact on the
teachers' assessment practices, leading to increased student engagement and improved
teachers’ uses and skills in using transformative assessment methods. This included a shift in
the way they designed and implemented classroom assessment as well as a move away from
traditional assessment practices. Other changes were related to the so-called equity in
classroom assessment practices, a crucial element of the LSforTA professional development
programme. Teachers also perceived that students' attitude towards mathematics learning and
their academic honesty had changed positively. The results suggest that LSforTA program can
be used to improve classroom assessment practices in mathematics.

Key words: Lesson study; Effectiveness; Transformative assessment; Mixed method, Ethiopia
1. Introduction
1.1 Background of the study
It is essential for teachers to acquire different knowledge and skills so that they can respond
effectively to the challenges in educational practices and lead students into more efficient
learning methods. It is also important for teachers to develop their skills in understanding
students' individual learning styles in order to provide them with support. Knowing different
types of students in a class based on their gender, performance, or other background
characteristics helps teachers make appropriate accommodations for each student (Blazar &
Kraft, 2017). This can include adjusting the pace of instruction, providing alternative
assessment activities, or using different teaching methods. These accommodations allow each
student to reach their full potential. Therefore, teachers should be encouraged and supported to
develop professionally and renew their abilities to design and implement effective strategies
(Schipper et al., 2017; Zeini, 2019).

Teachers' professional development (PD) involves identifying goals and learning the skills that
support their daily practices and help them succeed (Nishimura, 2014). If PD is directly tied to
teachers' daily experiences, they are more likely to change their instructional practices and gain
more subject knowledge (Pitsoe & Letseka, 2014). Also, in order to improve student
achievement, continuing PD is an essential tool for improving teachers' practices, content
knowledge, and pedagogical skills (Zeini, 2019). It is actually true that teachers learn every
time they teach, conduct assessments, review curriculums, or read educational articles. These
examples illustrate the dynamic nature of PD as ongoing, continuous, and embedded in
teachers' daily lives (Earl & Katz, 2006).

Effective PD is not just about consistently providing information to teachers. It is about

considering teachers' different backgrounds and situations. Hence, it is essential that PD takes
place on the job in a collaborative environment where teachers are encouraged to reflect on
their experiences to further shape their instructional process (Payne, 2018). As a result, an
effective PD program equips teachers with the skills they need to initiate and conduct research
in their classrooms and schools. Generally, effective PD provides teachers with a platform to
collaborate, exchange ideas, and discuss issues related to the classroom. This is because
teachers prefer to learn best by doing and building their understanding rather than being told
(Royce, 2010). Thus, teachers need to think deeply about their practice, experiment with novel

1
approaches, share their learning with their colleagues, and reflect on their practice. These are
common features of lesson study PD activities (Christie, 2019; Doig & Groves, 2011).

Lesson study (LS) is one of the most rapidly growing PD approaches in the world (Dudley,
2015; Fischman & Wasserman, 2017) and embodies many high-quality features of teachers’
PD (Schipper et al., 2020). It often involves a group of teachers working together to observe,
discuss, and refine their teaching practices (Huang & Shimizu, 2016; Lewis et al., 2006).
Participants engage in collaborative inquiry, reflecting on their practice, and making
improvements to their lessons. Through this process, teachers can gain a deeper understanding
of their teaching goals and methods. This leads to developing teachers' capacity of lesson
delivery and transformative assessment practices through peer learning (Fischman &
Wasserman, 2017; Iris & Piet, 2019).

Through continuous PD programs, teachers can develop their skills to practice transformative
assessment in the classroom. Earl and Katz, (2006) stresses the use of teachers’ professional
judgment to obtain adequate and relevant inferences of students learning. Noting, the validity
of such inferences depends on their proficiency. However, teachers may not be adequately
prepared to create and conduct transformative assessments (Hattori & Saba, 2008) and lack
continuous professional training. This calls for mathematics teachers to develop their
profession to continue to teach mathematics meaningfully.

1.2 Statement of the problem

Around the world, several studies have explored how LS impacts teachers' classroom practices
and students' performance positively (Burghes & Robinson, 2010; Fischman & Wasserman,
2017; Hiebert & Morris, 2012; Iris & Piet, 2019; Rock & Wilson, 2005). However, it is still
new in Ethiopia’s context, and also, to date, very little research has concerned on implementing
the framework and investigating its impact at the secondary school level. Traditional teaching
and assessment practices continue to dominate (Ayele et al., 2019; MoE, 2021; Teferra et al.,
2017) and student engagement has either continued to fall or remained static mainly in
mathematics (Tibebu et al., 2021). Therefore, teachers must have access to continuous
professional development opportunities such as LS and its impact should be investigated.

As a result, we argue that a school-based lesson study PD model should be used in our
secondary schools and its impact on teachers' transformative assessment practices should be
investigated. It is because in Ethiopia, the top-down model delivered in the form of workshops,

2
seminars, and conferences was criticized and did not bring the desired change for being isolated
from real classrooms (Joshi & Verspoor, 2013; Taye, 2015; Tuli & Tynjälä, 2015). But LS is
teachers-led participatory activity and thus can allow teachers to collaborate with each other in
sharing best practices to solve problems and improve their classroom assessment practices
(Fischman & Wasserman, 2017; Norwich et al., 2014; Smith, 2008).

1.3 Purpose of the study

This study investigated secondary school mathematics teachers’ changes in classroom
assessment practices after participating in a PD program called Lesson Study for
Transformative Assessment (LSforTA). Additionally, the overall impact of LSforTA program
and teachers’ perception of changes in their students’ learning were examined. Specifically,
the following research questions were examined:
1. What impact does a LSforTA PD program have on teachers’ classroom assessment
practices?
2. What changes in teachers’ assessment practice occur as a result of LSforTA PD?
3. What changes in students’ learning were perceived by teachers as a result of LSforTA
PD?
4. How can we sustain the positive influences of LSforTA on teachers assessment
practice? (I leave presenting data for this question based on your last time’s comments.
Also the number of words required for publication become increase, I decided to omit
this question. But it is found in the proposal).

2. Methods
2.1 Study design
This study utilized a mixed-methods design (Mertens, 2010) where both quantitative and
qualitative data are collected simultaneously and analysed in a complementary manner. The
two types of data are collected independently during intervention time. The effectiveness of
LSforTA was determined statistically using quantitative data and the real changes that
participants experienced through participation in the program were measured via qualitative
data (Creswell & Clark, 2018). Furthermore, the final conclusions and inferences are based on
the results of analyses of both types of data (Mertens, 2010).

2.2 Study participants

3
A six-month LSforTA PD intervention program was conducted to a small group (n = 11) of
mathematics teachers from two secondary schools in Jimma Town, south-western Ethiopia.
The teachers were selected purposefully based on their availability in terms of educational
qualifications and teaching experience. Informed consent was obtained from the school
principals and the teachers. None of these teachers had received training about LS PD program
before this intervention. Five(45.5%) of the teachers have a Bachelor of Education degree and
six(54.5%) teachers have a Masters degree in mathematics. 16.7% of the teachers had 11-15
years of teaching experience, 16.7% had 16-20 years of experience, and 66.6% had over 20
years.

2.3 The Lesson Study for Transformative Assessment (LSforTA) PD program

The LSforTA program aimed to support teachers by guiding them to develop and practice
transformative assessment for improving students' mathematics performance. As described in
various literature (e.g., Benson & Dresdow, 2014; Butler & McMunn, 2006; Popham, 2011;
MoE, 2012), transformative assessment focuses on changing the way teachers teach and
students learn a lesson. This includes (but is not limited to) assessing students’ learning
equitably by integrating with instruction, using different assessment methods and tasks,
providing constructive and timely feedback, interpreting students’ assessment data by
following assessment guidelines and ethics, and making consistent judgments based on
evidence. Therefore, participants were required to develop transformative assessment uses,
skills, and practices during the intervention period. Major topics covered during the LSforTA
program included theoretical and practical issues of transformative assessments and LS steps.

By changing their classroom assessments, LSforTA provides valuable methods to help teachers
change students' mathematics learning. It is crucial for teachers to establish a process to assess
students' mathematical understanding, determine priority areas, conceptualize instructional
tasks, and monitor student progress so they can intensify instruction for all students.

2.1 Data collection instruments

Questionnaires and interviews were used to collect data for this study. Different sources of data
collected using different methods resulted in rigorous, empirically grounded claims, and
assertions (Cobb et al., 2003). A pre/post-survey questionnaire was administered to the
participants to understand their prior uses of and changes in transformative assessment and
skills in using it. The questionnaire was developed based on the framework explained in the
Professional Standard for Ethiopian School Teachers (MoE, 2012), categorized under four

4
main constructs: assessing students’ learning, providing constructive feedback, interpreting
students’ assessment data, and making consistent judgments that guide teachers to practice
transformative assessment. Each category includes indicators that further describe and
conceptualize how that construct is realized in a teaching-learning process. After piloting the
questionnaire and revisions made, it was distributed to the participants, all participants
completed the survey, and returned to the researchers.

Besides this, a semi-structured interview of approximately 55 minutes duration was conducted

with the teachers after the program intervention. The interview was designed to examine
teachers' changes in classroom assessment practices and their perception of students' changes
in mathematics learning and performance. The interviews were conducted in local languages
(Afan Oromo and Amharic) audio-taped, transcribed, translated sentence by sentence, and
given to language instructors for review.

2.2 Methods of data analysis

The pre/post-survey data was analyzed by calculating the mean values of the items to
understand teachers’ changes in the uses of transformative assessment and skills in using it
using SPSS software. Pre-intervention levels were also examined and then compared with post-
intervention scores using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (Field, 2009; Norwich & Ylonen,
2015). A Wilcoxon-Signed Rank Test (WSRT), which is a non-parametric test, is commonly
used for paired data with independent units of analysis that include measurements taken before
and after interventions from the same participants (Field, 2009; Rosner et al., 2006; Yan, 2021).
The results of these quantitative data supplement the qualitative results collected by interviews
and analyzed thematically (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Creswell, 2013). Analyses of interview data
were assisted by concept-evidence tables, which help organise and sort data (e.g., excerpts from
interview transcripts) (Cloutier & Ravasi, 2021; Ferede et al., 2022). This process helped us
focus our attention on evidence directly relevant to the research questions and keep
trustworthiness of the analysis (Cloutier & Ravasi, 2021). To ensure anonymity, teachers are
represented by pseudonyms. We used closed brackets to indicate the parts of the transcripts we
omitted to focus on what is vital for illustrating the findings.

3. Results
3.1. Impact of LSforTA PD program on teachers’ assessment practices
The LSforTA PD program had a considerable impact on improving teachers’ uses and skills in
using transformative assessment methods in mathematics classes. Teachers’ overall use of

5
transformative assessment methods on the survey post-test (M= 14.04) was nearly 3 points
higher than their use on the pre-test (M = 11.37). Besides this, their overall skills in using
transformative assessment methods on the survey post-test (M= 14.36) was also nearly 3 points
higher than their skills on the pre-test (M = 10.91). The greatest amounts of improvement were
experienced on interpreting students’ assessment data with the mean increasing from 2.73 to
3.56 for use scale and providing constructive feedback with the mean increasing from 2.36 to
3.58 for skill scale. A summary of the subscales and total scores for the pre-test and post-test
is provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Comparisons between pre- and post-survey results for each subscale, corresponding
to each of the four constructs of transformative assessment practices (N = 11).
Use scale Skill scale
Transformative assessment Pre- Post- Pre- Post-
constructs test test Chang Ra test test Chang Ra
Mean Mean e nk Mean Mean e nk
Assessing students’ learning 3.10 3.82 +0.72 2 2.82 3.78 +0.96 2
Providing constructive feedback 2.91 3.52 +0.61 3 2.36 3.58 +1.22 1
Interpreting assessment data 2.73 3.56 +0.83 1 2.82 3.77 +0.95 3
Making consistent judgments 2.63 3.14 +0.51 4 2.91 3.23 +0.32 4
Overall Mean (M) 11.37 14.04 +2.67 10.91 14.36 +3.45
Note. 1. The rating scale is a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to very often (5).
2. The overall score had a maximum possible value equal to 20 points.

Also, the evidence of the impact of the intervention program was provided using WSRT
statistics for teachers’ pre- and post-surveys.
Table 2. Wilcoxon-Signed Rank Test statistics for teachers’ pre- and post-surveys
N Mean Sum of Z Asymp. Sig.
Rank Ranks (2-tailed)
Negative Ranks 0a .00 .00
After Int – Before Int
Positive Ranks 11b 6.00 66.00 -2.934d .003
(transformative
Ties 0c
assessment uses)
Total 11
After Int – Before Int Negative Ranks 0a .00 .00
b
(Skills in using Positive Ranks 11 6.00 66.00 -2.936d .003
c
transformative Ties 0
assessments) Total 11
a. After Int < Before Int; b. After Int > Before Int;
c. After Int = Before Int; d. Based on negative ranks
According to the WSRT statistics presented in Table 2, there is a significant increase in the use
of transformative assessment methods (z = 2.934, p = 0.003) and skills in using the methods (z
= 2.936, p = 0.003) among teachers. This indicates that teachers' transformative assessment

6
practices and skills in practicing it changed significantly after the intervention. This suggests
that the intervention had a positive impact on teachers' use of transformative assessment
methods and skills in using the methods. The following sections provide detailed information
on how the intervention program affected teachers and students in a positive way. The findings
were derived from interviews with teachers regarding their perceptions of changes in their
students' mathematics learning and performance, as well as their changes in assessment
practices.

3.2 Changes in teachers’ assessment practices

The results of our study indicated that planning assessment activities/tasks and practicing
equitably, identifying students’ learning errors, providing feedback, interpreting assessment
data by adhering to assessment guidelines and ethics, and marking and recording students’
assessment results are changes brought regarding teachers’ classroom assessment practices.
Table 3. Teachers’ changes in practicing classroom assessment
Themes Sample quotations
Teacher F: “Planning assessment together helped us to exchange necessary
information about the content & our students […]. We studied a lesson together,
discussed about assessment techniques to be used and planned what we have to
implement in a class. This was one of the positive aspects of this program that
changed our teaching-learning strategies by improving collaboration among our
Planning team.”
assessment
and Teacher H: “When planning we studied curriculum materials & shared many ideas
practicing with each other. We consider our students’ performance levels (slow, medium & fast
equitably learners) and learning styles when planning assessment. We planned and used
different levels of assessment tasks to assess students equitably in the classroom.”

Teacher I: “The program helped me learn and use assessment in a different way than
I knew and practiced before. […]. Before this training, I practiced assessment by
focusing on fast-learners. Now, I have stopped focusing only on fast-learners and
became involve all types of students in the classroom as much as possible.”
Teacher A: “Focusing on assessment helps me to identify students misunderstanding
from the lesson topic. I gave corrective instruction after assessing and identifying
their errors.”

Identifying Teacher D: “It was important to me that students did not feel ashamed of their
students’ mistakes. I responded carefully to their errors by guiding them to correct.”
learning
errors Teacher G: “After this program, I started caring of my students not to hate my subject.
Students learn math through practice. When practicing, they commit errors many
times. I acknowledge their errors and gave corrections immediately. I welcome
students’ errors and helped them understand their misconceptions […].”

Teacher I: “This program made us to focus on our students’ learning. Because many
students participate to try the given assessment task, they commit errors and hence I
gave corrective instruction.”

7
 Teacher A: “I provided immediate feedback for my students because I assess them
Providing continuously. The feedback was both written & oral. However, due to the work load
feedback and large classes, providing specific feedback to each student is challenging.”

Teacher H: “Before starting this program, I blamed students when they missed
questions. But now I give feedback based on what they missed in completing the
assessment task. I help them to learn from their mistakes rather than praising them
for getting the correct answer. But I couldn’t reach all students when providing
feedback individually. So most of the time, I provide general feedback to the class.”
Teacher A: “This program was important because it helped me to follow rules &
regulations about students’ assessment. In interpreting assessment data, I adhered to
Adhering to the guidelines to avoid polluting students' results with non-achievement factors. All
assessment students got marks based on their assessment results only. Their results were also
principles interpreted in the context of the stated learning objectives and benchmarks.”
and ethics.
Teacher G: “This program helped me not to give marks for our students without
assessing them. […]. I strictly followed assessment principles when valuing &
interpreting students’ assessment results, focusing on what they did in their
assessment tasks only. We found this is good work in this program and changed our
attitudes about assessment and practices accordingly.”

Teacher A: “Turn by turn, I mark students' assessments & record results every day.
Marking By collecting results based on assessment tasks daily, I could judge each student
students’ consistently. This changed the way I evaluate my students’ performance and guide
assessment the next days’ lessons.”
and recording
results Teacher B: “I used rubrics to continuously record students’ results. This is very
important to know our students very well and provide the necessary support.
However, a lack of recording tools and large class sizes are significant challenges.”

Teacher C: “Though there are a lot of students in a class, I mark and record some
students’ assessment results in a period. I reach all students in a week because I score
and record their assessment results daily. This helped me increase oversight and
better monitor students’ work.”

3.2.1 Planning assessment and practicing equitably

Planning assessment tasks and activities that can be integrated into a classroom lesson is
essential for teachers because a successful lesson requires strategies for checking students'
understanding. Teachers planned assessment tasks collaboratively with their team by
considering their students’ levels to ensure equity. During planning, they studied the students'
textbooks and other references and shared many ideas with each other. Planning together also
helped them exchange necessary information about the content and their students that in turn
helped them consider when implementing it. Teachers also highlighted that studying and
planning assessment tasks helped them learn and use assessment methods in a different way.
Besides this, as Teacher I described, these before-class preparation activities helped teachers
to stop focusing only on fast-learners and instead incorporate all types of students into their

8
classroom assessment practices. By doing so, they were able to create a learning environment
that was more inclusive and equitable for all types of students.

3.2.2 Identifying students’ learning errors

Identifying and correcting errors in the learning process helps students reflect on what they
know and then explain the solution in a clearer and more complete manner (Rushton, 2018).
Concept errors and procedure errors are common errors that students make when learning
mathematics (Delastri & Lolang, 2023). Students make concept errors when they don't
understand the mathematics concepts fully. The most difficult error to identify at first glance
is the concept error, which involves the incorrect use of formulas, misinterpreting concepts,
mistyping formulas, and not writing equations to answer questions. It is also the most difficult
error to recognize but the most important error to catch and correct (Delastri & Lolang, 2023).
Therefore, teachers identified these errors using assessment and addressed them by giving
corrective instruction without blaming the students. The teachers also acknowledged students'
errors and corrected them immediately so that they would understand their misconceptions.

3.2.3 Providing constructive feedback

Feedback is a mechanism of providing information to the learners on their current state of
performance, achievement, and learning progress. After assessing students’ learning, teachers
provided timely feedback on their progress. They gave feedback based on what the students
missed in their assessment task. They also encouraged students to learn from their mistakes
rather than praising them for getting the correct answers. But teachers indicated that, due to
some challenges such as large class sizes, they couldn’t reach all students when providing
feedback individually. As a result, they provided general feedback to the entire class most of
the time.

3.2.4 Adhering to the principles and ethics of assessment

Teachers’ ethical responsibility in schools requires them to adhere to rules, beliefs, and values.
Ethics deals not only with the result but also the process and indicates what should and should
not be done for example during classroom assessment practices. After the LSforTA
intervention program, teachers adhered strictly to guidelines when valuing and interpreting
students’ results. The interpretations teachers made were based on the assessment tasks
students completed. They indicated that the guidelines and ethics of assessment learned in the
program helped them not to pollute students’ marks with non-achievement factors such as
students’ conduct, effort, attendance, and class participation. They also reported that many

9
students demonstrated an acceptable level of proficiency for the stated learning objectives and
met established benchmarks.

3.2.5 Marking students’ assessments and recording results

Recording is the process of documenting students’ performance on an assessment task using
different tools such as rubrics and marklist sheets. This involved tracking student scores and
noting areas of improvement. Teachers’ recordings were also based on learning objectives
stated in their lesson plans. Teachers reported that they used this data to review and reflect on
student performance and guide future lessons. Additionally, teachers identified which students
needed additional help by recording their progress though they are challenged by large class
sizes.

In sum, teachers in the two schools highlighted the decisive role of the LSforTA program in
order to change their classroom assessment practices. Furthermore, they reported enhanced
collaboration and communication with their peers in the program. Despite this, they
complained that large class sizes, workloads, and insufficient resources were preventing them
from conducting transformative assessments in a more effective way.

3.3 Teachers’ perception about their students’ change

Teachers perceived that students' attitude towards learning mathematics and their academic
honesty had changed positively.
Table 4. Teachers’ perception about their students’ change
Theme Sample quotations
Teacher B: “Their interest in attending the lesson, participating on class work,
preparation for next day lesson, etc are improved.”

Teacher C: “My students changed the way they attend their lesson. Absenteeism was
Attitude
minimized, their participation in class increased, attitude towards learning math was
towards changed, and all students started showing their solutions for different exercises. […].
learning All students started doing their homework.”
mathematics
Teacher H: “As they began to pay attention to the lesson, arrive on time, ask
questions, and try exercises on their own, they became more engaged. Many of the
students became motivated to show their solutions to the given assessment questions
in the class. Students show progress from time to time. This changed their attitude to
learn math. Many students' assessment (tests and quizzes) results have also
improved.”
Teacher C: “[…] I score and record their assessment results daily. This helped me
increase oversight and better monitor students’ work.”

Academic
honesty

10
 Teacher F: “[…]. Many passive and off-task students became active participants in
most of my lessons. […]. Being in school, no student wants to miss math class.
Cheating from one another on tests and assignments are also minimised.”

Teacher I: “Yes, there was a substantial change in students' attention & participation.
Many students wanted to show their work to me. I then mark and record their
solutions […]. This motivated & initiated them to participate in every classroom
assessment. Many students started doing their assessments independently and
copying answers from one another became minimized. […]”

3.3.1 Attitude towards learning mathematics

Attitude refers to the ways in which students view learning mathematics (liking or disliking)
and take part in its classroom activities. Teachers perceived that students’ attitude towards
mathematics became positively changed because their students liked the subject and engaged
in different mathematical activities during the teaching-learning process. The teachers believed
that these activities were meaningful and students had the opportunity to understand
mathematics and perform better in their assessments.

Teachers also noticed an improvement in students' motivation to do exercises and interest in

the subject. As the teachers explained, these changes in attitude led their students to better
performance and better scores on mathematics quizzes and tests. The positive attitude also
fostered a collaborative learning environment which allowed many students to work together
and learn from each other than copying one another on tests and exams.

3.3.2 Academic honesty

Academic honesty is doing own work, not cheating, and not presenting others' work as own.
After this PD program, teachers noticed that majority of their students were doing their own
work and their academic honesty improved. This is because teachers had increased oversight
and better monitor students’ work. This also enabled them to identify and address potential
issues of cheating and plagiarism in a timely manner. Furthermore, the program helped teachers
to provide timely feedback and support to students, which allowed the students to understand
their mistakes and enhance their performance. These new assessment practices increased the
accuracy of student assessments which resulted in a more transparent grading process and
fosters trust between the student and the teacher. Teachers attributed the changes to the
transformative assessment strategies they learned in the program.

Taken together, PD activities can provide teachers with new strategies, techniques, and
resources to support instruction. This can lead to an increase in student engagement and

11
improved student performance. Additionally, it can foster a deeper teacher-student
relationship, creating an environment of trust and respect.

4. Discussion
In this study, we examined how the LSforTA PD program affected secondary school
mathematics teachers' classroom assessment practices and students' learning. In line with
previous evidences (Fischman & Wasserman, 2017; Mertler, 2009; Norwich & Ylonen, 2015)
our study showed that the program had a substantial impact on improving teachers’
transformative assessment uses, skills, and practices in mathematics classes (Mertler, 2009).
As Dekker and Feijs (2005) disclosed, changes in attitude toward assessment and classroom
practices were also found for teachers who participated in this study. The study also confirmed
that the LS model can serve as a means of teachers’ PD with a positive impact on their
instructional practices (Iris & Piet, 2019; Rock & Wilson, 2005).

Specifically, our study revealed an increase in teachers’ uses of transformative assessment

approaches by planning assessment activities/tasks and practicing equitably. Formal classroom
assessments need to be designed and planned to obtain specific information about a student's
performance at a specific point in time (Ketabi & Ketabi, 2014). Teachers have much to gain
from using formatively the information gathered from their ongoing informal assessment
situations (i.e., those that arise naturally in the classroom environment) as part of their teaching-
learning process. However, letting things 'just happen' would seriously endanger the quality of
classroom assessment (Buhagiar, 2006). As classroom assessment now primarily supports
learning, teachers should gather as much revealing information as possible, including through
conscious planning by having the necessary information based on the course's learning
objectives.

Another planning consideration linked to the classroom assessment paradigm is teachers’

collaboration. In order to provide teachers with common and consistent assessment
opportunities, the traditional planning process must be replaced with a more open, collaborative
process of planning activities together from the start (Buhagiar & Murphy, 2008), as practiced
by teachers in this study. Stewart, (2014) also concluded that passive and individual practices
do not prepare teachers to integrate the academic skills students need.

Planning and integrating assessments into the teaching and learning process is basic,
appropriate, and effective practice (Black & Wiliam, 2018). It can increase interactions

12
between students and teachers, inspire learning, and make learning interesting. This helps to
ensure equity because all students can take part in classroom activities to demonstrate their
achievements. Equitable assessment practices help to eliminate any potential bias or
discrimination on the basis of gender, class, or ability (Herman & Cook, 2020). Furthermore,
it fosters a more inclusive learning environment where students feel valued and respected that
encourage them strive for their goals and work hard to succeed. Overall, the program was
successful in developing teachers with the necessary approaches to create a more equitable and
inclusive assessment environment.

As a result of participating in the LSforTA PD program, teachers improved identifying

students’ learning errors using assessments, providing feedback based on assessments,
adhering to assessment principles and ethics to interpret students’ assessment data, and marking
and recording students’ assessment results to make consistent judgements. Besides these, the
program helps teachers learn how to use assessment data to inform their instructional decisions
and use a variety of formative and summative assessments to monitor their students’ progress.
It also enabled them to develop the necessary skills for using these transformative assessment
approaches.

Moreover, this study emphasized that classroom assessment should take into account the issue
of assessment guidelines and ethics. Ethics ensures the quality and fairness of assessments in
the classroom (Liu et al., 2016). An ethical, fair, useful, feasible, and accurate student
evaluation is essential (Green et al., 2007). When teachers modify grades or scores because of
student effort, late work, or behavior problems, for example, the scores do not accurately
communicate the level of mastery and do not represent actual student achievement in content.
Therefore, it is necessary to maintain a grading system that is consistent and accurately reflects
student achievement. Grades should be used to measure and report student achievement, not
for student motivation (Chamberlin et al., 2018). Grades should also be based on content, not
effort or behavior. This will ensure that students get an accurate assessment of their knowledge.

Marking and recording assessment results are also an integral part of classroom assessment
(Sethusha, 2014) and were the major activities practiced by the teachers participated in this
study. Due to large class sizes, however, teachers did not keep detailed notes in their recordings
to provide each student with individualized and specific feedback for improving her/his
learning. The records should include detailed and descriptive information about the nature of
the expected learning as well as evidence of students’ learning, and should be collected from a
13
range of assessments (Earl & Katz, 2006). The right record-keeping shows whether the
student’s work is on track and, when it is not, raises questions about the instruction and suggests
ways it could be adjusted.

Teachers must also understand the impact of their improvements on their students. LSforTA
PD also indirectly impacted students' mathematics learning, according to the teachers
interviewed in this study. Teachers perceived that students' attitude towards learning
mathematics and their academic honesty had changed positively. They also reported that their
students’ assessment results increased after the program. This can be due to teachers' changes
in classroom assessment practices after participating in the LSforTA PD program. PD activities
can provide teachers with new skills and strategies to use in the classroom, which can improve
students' achievements (Zeini, 2019).

5. Conclusions and Implications

The LSforTA program provided teachers with methods to assess and evaluate students’
mathematics learning and performance in ways that are meaningful for all students in a class.
It also encouraged teachers to reflect on their own assessment practices and strive for
continuous improvement. Teachers reported positive changes occurred in their classrooms, as
students became more engaged and motivated to learn. Besides, they developed a better
understanding of how to design and implement meaningful and engaging assessment tasks. The
process encouraged teachers to observe carefully and analyse student thinking, with the goal
of designing and implementing effective responses to student actions. Teachers are
increasingly aware of the importance of transformative assessment and are more able to use it
skillfully. Taken together, the program has helped teachers develop transformative assessment
practices.

Teachers also noticed that students' mathematics performance had improved. Moreover,
teachers recognized that the program helped to change their students’ attitude towards learning
mathematics and academic honesty, which are the main challenges in our current practices of
teaching-learning processes. This highlights the need for teachers to be properly supported and
equipped to help students reach their full potential and change their practices positively.

Studies indicated that, even with local limitations, LS is a worthwhile practice, and can lead to
improved conditions (Clivaz & Takahashi, 2018; Fernandez & Yoshida, 2004). So, a deeper
understanding of local situations can help teachers sustain the LSforTA PD program. So, the

14
greater its support, the greater its impact will be. And hence, institutional support are key to
the success of lesson study projects.

Finally, as voiced by teachers in this study, perhaps the most beneficial aspect of the program
was its collaborative nature that brought meaningful changes to classroom assessment
practices. What remains to be seen, however, is the extent to which LS improves teachers’
general pedagogical competency. The involvement of students can also be beneficial in
understanding the full potential of the program in changing instructional processes and
students' achievement. Thus, future studies can focus on these issues using other research
methods such as experimental studies.

References
Ayele, M. A., Woldeyesus, K. M., Aboretugne, M. A., Gobaw, K., Wamisho, A. D., Mamie,
A. H., Demis, Z., & Berhe, G. D. (2019). Teachers ’ Classroom Teaching Practices in
Amhara Region and Addis Ababa City , Ethiopia. Africa Education Review, 16(3).
[Link]
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2018). Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in
Education, 25(3). [Link]
Blazar, D., & Kraft, M. A. (2017). Teacher and Teaching Effects on Students’ Attitudes and
Behaviors. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(1), 146–170.
[Link]
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research
in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. [Link]
Buhagiar, M. A. (2006). The classroom assessment cycle within the alternative assessment
paradigm: exploring the role of the teacher. Journal of Maltese Education Research,
4(2), 17–36. [Link]/jmer
Buhagiar, M. A., & Murphy, R. (2008). Teachers ’ assessments of students ’ learning of
mathematics. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15(2), 169–182.
[Link]
Chamberlin, K., Yasué, M., & Chiang, I. C. A. (2018). The impact of grades on student
motivation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 24(2), 1–16.
[Link]
Clivaz, S., & Takahashi, A. (2018). Mathematics Lesson Study Around the World:
Conclusions and Looking Ahead. In M. Quaresma, C. Winsløw, S. Clivaz, J. P. da
Ponte, A. N. Shúilleabháin, & Akihiko Takahashi (Eds.), Mathematics Lesson Study

15
 Around the World: Theoretical and Methodological Issues (pp. 153–165). Springer
International Publishing AG. [Link]
Cloutier, C., & Ravasi, D. (2021). Using tables to enhance trustworthiness in qualitative
research. Strategic Organization, 19(1), 113–133.
[Link]
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., Disessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design Experiments in
Educational Research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.
[Link]
Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches
(3rd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods
Research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. All.
Dekker, T., & Feijs, E. (2005). Scaling up strategies for change: Change in formative
assessment practices. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 12(3),
237–254. [Link]
Delastri, L., & Lolang, E. (2023). Students ’ Conceptual Error and Procedural Error in
Solving Algebraic Problems. Multicultural Education, 9(1), 18–24.
[Link]
Doig, B., & Groves, S. (2011). Japanese Lesson Study : Teacher Professional Development
through Communities of Inquiry. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development,
13(1), 77–93.
Dudley, P. (2015). How Lesson Study works and why it creates excellent learning and
teaching. In P. Dudley (Ed.), Lesson Study: Professional learning for our time (Vol. 1,
Issue 69, pp. 5–24). Routledge.
Earl, Lorna, & Katz, S. (2006). Rethinking Classroom Assessment with Purpose in Mind:
assessment for learning, assessment as learning, assessment of learning. Western and
Northern Canadian Protocol for Collaboration in Education (WNCP).
[Link]
[Link]?v=1545282892
Ferede, B., Elen, J., Van Petegem, W., Hunde, A. B., & Goeman, K. (2022). Determinants of
instructors’ educational ICT use in Ethiopian higher education. Education and
Information Technologies, 27(1), 917–936. [Link]
Fernandez, C., & Yoshida, M. (2004). Lesson study: A Japanese approach to improving
mathematics teaching and learning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

16
Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Fischman, D., & Wasserman, K. (2017). Developing Assessment through Lesson Study.
Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 22(6), 344–351.
Green, S. K., Johnson, R. L., Kim, D. H., & Pope, N. S. (2007). Ethics in classroom
assessment practices: Issues and attitudes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(7), 999–
1011. [Link]
Hattori, K., & Saba, A. N. (2008). Comparison of Classroom Assessment Practices : A Case
of Selected Ghanaian. 3, 95–105.
Herman, J., & Cook, L. (2020). Fairness in Classroom Assessment. In S. M. Brookhart & J.
H. McMillan (Eds.), Classroom Assessment and Educational Measurement. Taylor &
Francis. [Link]
Iris, W., & Piet, V. den B. (2019). Lesson Study Effectiveness for Teachers ’ Professional
Learning: a best evidence synthesis. International Journal for Lesson and Learning
Studies, 1–19. [Link]
Joshi, R. D., & Verspoor, A. (2013). Secondary Education in Ethiopia: Supporting Growth &
Transformation. Washington, DC: World Bank. [Link]
9727-5
Ketabi, S., & Ketabi, S. (2014). Classroom and formative assessment in second/foreign
language teaching and learning. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(2), 435–
440. [Link]
Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Murata, A. (2006). How Should Research Contribute to Instructional
Improvement? The Case of Lesson Study. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 3–14.
[Link]
Liu, J., Johnson, R., & Fan, X. (2016). A comparative study of Chinese and United States
pre-service teachers’ perceptions about ethical issues in classroom assessment. Studies
in Educational Evaluation, 48, 57–66. [Link]
Mertens, D. (2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology : integrating
diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (3rd ed.). SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Mertler, C. A. (2009). Teachers ’ assessment knowledge and their perceptions of the impact
of classroom assessment professional development. Improving Schools, 12(2), 101–113.
[Link]
MoE. (2012). Professional Standard for Ethiopian School Teachers. Ministry of Education of
Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.

17
MoE. (2021). Education Sector Development Programme VI (ESDP VI), Ministry of
Education of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.
Nishimura, T. (2014). Effective professional development of teachers: A guide to actualizing
inclusive schooling. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 10(1), 19–42.
Norwich, B., & Ylonen, A. (2015). A design-based trial of Lesson Study for assessment
purposes: evaluating a new classroom based dynamic assessment approach. European
Journal of Special Needs Education, 30(2), 253–273.
[Link]
Payne, J. P. (2018). Professional Development and Its Influence on Teacher Practice and
Student Achievement. Masters Theses & Specialist Projects. Paper 3064. [Western
Kentucky University]. [Link]
Pitsoe, V. J. P., & Letseka, M. (2014). Exploring Teacher Professional Development ( TPD )
through Foucault and Freirean lenses. Pensee Journal, 76(9), 372–381.
Rock, T. C., & Wilson, C. (2005). Improving Teaching through Lesson Study. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 32(1), 77–92. [Link]
Rosner, B., Glynn, R. J., & Lee, M. L. T. (2006). The Wilcoxon signed rank test for paired
comparisons of clustered data. Biometrics, 62(1), 185–192.
[Link]
Royce, C. A. (2010). A revolutionary model of professional development. Science Scope,
34(3), 6.
Rushton, S. J. (2018). Teaching and learning mathematics through error analysis. Fields
Mathematics Education Journal, 3(4), 1–12. [Link]
Schipper, T., Goei, S. L., de Vries, S., & van Veen, K. (2017). Professional growth in
adaptive teaching competence as a result of Lesson Study. Teaching and teacher
education, 68, 289-303. [Link]
Schipper, T. M., Lans, R. M. Van Der, Vries, S. De, & Lin, S. (2020). Becoming a more
adaptive teacher through collaborating in Lesson Study ? Examining the influence of
Lesson Study on teachers ’ adaptive teaching practices in mainstream secondary
education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 88, 102961.
[Link]
Sethusha, M. J. (2014). Communicating assessment results: Teachers’ views of recording and
reporting classroom assessment. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(2), 273–
276. [Link]
Smith, R. R. (2008). Lesson Study: Professional Development for Empowering Teachers and

18
 Improving Classroom Practice. PhD dissertation, Florida State University.
Stewart, C. (2014). Transforming Professional Development to Professional Learning.
Journal of Adult Education, 43(1), 28–33. [Link]
Taye, D. (2015). School based continuous professional development practices at a selected
general secondary and preparatory school in Bahir Dar town. Bahir Dar Journal of
Education, 15(2), 38–57.
Teferra, T., Asgedom, A., Oumer, J., W/hanna, T., Dalelo, A., & Assefa, B. (2017).
Ethiopian Education Development Roadmap (2017-30): An integrated Executive
Summary. Ministry of Education; Education Strategy Center (ESC); Addis Ababa.
Tibebu, D., Sabates, R., Rolleston, C., & Hoddinott, J. (2021). Trends in Mathematics
Learning in Ethiopia : 2012 - 2019. Bahir Dar Journal of Education, 21(1), 26–45.
Tuli, F., & Tynjälä, P. (2015). Professional learning of teachers in Ethiopia: Challenges and
implications for reform. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(5), 1–26.
[Link]
Yan, Z. (2021). Assessment-as-learning in classrooms : the challenges and professional
development. Journal of Education for Teaching, 47(2), 293–295.
[Link]
Zeini, E. (2019). Examining the Effectiveness of Lesson Study on Teachers’ Practice in
Mathematics within a Secondary School Environment. PhD Thesis, Department of
Curriculum Teaching and Learning, Ontario Institute for the Studies in Education,
University of Toronto.

19
 Appendix A: Teachers’ pre-and post-survey questionnaire
Dear Teacher,
The purpose of this questionnaire is to collect data on your classroom assessment practices.
Therefore, your valuable response is very important; hence, you are kindly requested to fill out
this questionnaire carefully.
Thank you in advance!
A) Background information
Name of the school 1) Mole Mendera 2) Jimma Senior Sec 3) Aba Buna Sec 4) ________
Teaching Experience in years: 1) 1-5 2) 6-10 3) 11-15 4) 16-20 5) 20-30 6) >30
Teaching load per week: 1) 15-20Cr hrs 2) 21-25 Cr hrs 3) 25-30 Cr hrs;
Gender: 1) Female 2) Male; level of education 1) BA degree 2) Master’s degree
B) Teachers’ Classroom Assessment Practices Inventory
Instruction: This inventory contains 19 items that address issues of teachers’ classroom
assessment practices & skills. For each item, please use the following rating scales to indicate
(a) how frequently you use the assessment practice described by the item and (2) how skilled
you are in using that assessment practice. The two rating scales are defined as follows:
Use Scale: 1 = not at all used, 3 = used occasionally,
2 = seldom used, 4 = used often, 5 = used very often
Skill Scale: 1 = not at all skilled, 3 = somewhat skilled,
2 = a little skilled, 4 = skilled, 5 = very skilled
Teachers’ Classroom Assessment Practices Use scale Skill scale
No Assessing Students’ Learning 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 Planning a variety of assessments by integrating
them with a lesson
2 Aligning assessment with learning objectives
3 Using a range of assessment methods by integrating
them with instruction
4 Using assessment tasks inclusive of all students
(slow, medium, & fast learners; females & males)
5 Allowing students to demonstrate their
achievements in a variety of ways
6 Identifying students’ learning errors through
assessment and providing corrective instruction
Providing Constructive Feedback
7 Providing timely feedback.
8 Providing feedback on strong and weak areas of
students’ performance.

20
 9 Giving brief feedback.
10 Giving feedback specific to individual students.
11 Giving feedback consistent with the assessment
criterion.
Interpreting Assessment Data 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
12 Adhering to the principles and ethics of assessment
(e.g., taking care of score pollution, not using non-
achievement factors such as attendance or class
activity to give marks for students).
13 Evaluating students’ progress using assessment data
in collaboration with colleagues.
14 Applying comprehensive systems of assessment and
reporting (NB: Assessment systems are
comprehensive when they allow students to
demonstrate their understanding in a variety of
ways).
15 Collaborating with colleagues to ensure common
interpretations of student learning progress.
Making Consistent Judgments
16 Recording/scoring students learning progress
consistently/regularly.
17 Using recorded evidence as a basis for estimating
student attainment of learning outcomes.
18 Differentiating non-achievers from achievers
19 Acknowledging students’ errors and actively
seeking to correct them.

Appendix B: Teachers’ interview guide (After Phase 2 intervention)

Dear Teacher, the purpose of this study is to investigate the change in CA practices of math
teachers’ after their participation in a Lesson Study for Transformation Assessment (LSfTA)
Professional Development program. The information that is to be collected will be treated with
utmost confidentiality and anonymity. There is no right or wrong answer, so please answer in
the way that makes sense to you.
Thank you.
Background information:
Name of the school__________________________; Teaching Experience in years: ______;
Teaching load per week _________; Gender_______; level of education _______________
You have been taking part in LS program. How do you see the practice? How do you evaluate
it?
1. How has your assessment practice changed as a result of your participation in LSfTA?
What can you say about the changes you brought concerning the following practices?
(በ LSfTA ውስጥ በመሳተፍዎ ምክንያት የግምገማ ልምምድዎ እንዴት ተቀይሯል?
የሚከተሉትን ተግባራት በተመለከተ ስላመጣሃቸው ለውጦች እንዴት ትገልፃለህ)

21
 a. Planning and using assessment tasks inclusive of all students (slow, medium, & fast
learners; females & males) ሁሉንም ተማሪዎች ያካተተ የግምገማ ስራዎችን ማቀድ እና
መጠቀም
b. Identifying students’ learning errors through assessment and providing corrective
instruction የተማሪዎችን ስህተቶች በግምገማ መለየት እና ትክክለኛ መፍትሄ መስጠት
c. Providing constructive feedback (ገንቢ ግብረ መልስ መስጠት)
d. Adhering to the principles and ethics of assessment (e.g., taking care of score
pollution, not using non-achievement factors such as attendance or class activity to
give marks for students). የግምገማ መርሆዎችን እና ስነምግባርን ማክበር
e. Scoring and recording students learning progress consistently/regularly. የተማሪዎችን
እድገት በተከታታይ መመዝገብ
f. Acknowledging students’ errors and actively seeking to correct them. የተማሪዎችን
ስህተቶች እውቅና መስጠት እና ማረም
2. How your students’ learning did changed after the LSfTA program? Please, could you
provide some examples, if any? (በLSfTA ፕሮግራም በመሳተፍዎ የተማሪዎ ትምህርት እንዴት
ተቀየረ? እባክዎን አንዳንድ ምሳሌዎችን ማቅረብ ይችላሉ፣ ካሉ?)
3. Has LS been a suitable professional development approach for your school? (LS ለት /
ቤትዎ ተስማሚ የሙያ ማጎልበቻ አቀራረብ ሆኖ ቆይቷል?)
a. Can you specify promoting elements? What made these elements promoting?
b. Can you specify hindering elements? What made these elements hindering?
4. What do you think about sustaining the LSfTA PD program in your schools? (በትምህርት
ቤትዎ ውስጥ የLSfTA PD ፕሮግራም ስለመቀጠል ምን ያስባሉ?)
5. Are there any issues that we have not discussed but which you would like to address?
(ያልተነጋገርናቸው ነገር ግን ማንሳት የፈለጓቸው ጉዳዮች አሉ?)

22