2013. Vol.4, No.12, 1069-1072
Published Online December 2013 in SciRes (
Open Access 1069
Teacher’s Assessment for Students’ Learning in Classroom
Using Lesson Study and Open Approach
Sirirat Chaona, Narumol Inprasitha
Faculty of Education, Khon Ka en Un iv ersity, Khon Kaen, Thailand
Received September 25th, 2013; revised October 26th, 2013; accep t e d N o ve mber 23rd, 2013
Copyright © 2013 Sirirat Chaona, Narumol Inprasitha. This is an open access article distributed under the Crea-
tive Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any me-
dium, provided the original work is properly cited. In accordance of the Creative Commons Attribution License
all Copyrights © 2013 are reserved for SCIRP and the owner of the intellectual property Sirirat Chaona, Naru-
mol Inprasitha. All Copy right © 2013 are guarded by law and by SCIRP as a guardian.
Previous procrastination research has provided considerable support for procrastination as a failure of
self-regulation. However, procrastination has rarely been examined in relation to models of self-regulated
learning. The purpose of this study was to understand the motives and reasons for academic procrastina-
tion from a self-regulated learning perspective. The current study employed a mixed-methods design in
which participants completed several survey instruments of academic procrastination, self-regulation, and
academic motivation and participated in semi-structured interviews. Findings indicated that academic
procrastination was related to poor self-regulatory skills and defensive behaviors including self-handica-
pping strategies. Only limited support for students’ demonstration of procrastination as an adaptive be-
havior (or, active procrastination) was also indicated. Limitations and implications for future research are
Keywords: Assessment for Learning; Open Approach; Lesson Study
National Education Act 1999 (the Revised Issue, 2002) men-
tioned that the school had to assess students by considering
their development and behavior, learning behavior observation,
activity participation and testing in aligned with instructional
process based on appropriateness with each level as well as
Educational Model. The teacher played an important role in
evaluating the students’ progress by various techniques appro-
priately with nature of subject, and students’ developmental
level (Ministry of Education, 2008). But, the assessment in
Thailand still emphasizes on learning achievement, especially
the achievement obtaining from testing (Inprasitha, 2003). In
addition, Chiengkoon (2006) stated that teachers could not
promote the students’ learning because the teachers have had
traditional style of teaching as lecturing focused on content as
well as testing for memorization. Since the assessment by test
did not measure students’ real condition, and could not assess
both of product and process which the students had real practice.
Moreover, it could not indicate development clearly. The real
achievement was not assessed only using the test. Leahy et al.
(2005) stated that the information from testing was difficult to
be utilized according to 2 reasons: 1) the short duration of time
in classifying each standard or skill in marking period. So, test-
ing was performed only to investigate the overall learning
achievement rather than to find the cause of students’ specific
weak point, and 2) the existing information was too late to be
utilized, to use the findings in general improvement such as
repetition of teaching, or extending more time in learning unit,
or specify the teacher who succeeded in teaching that unit. If
the academic gave an importance to the evaluation for instruc-
tional development by focusing on details, it would lead to the
real changes in learning and teaching.
The assessment for developing the students’ learning, Rob-
inson & Bartlett (1993) stated that it was in context of instruc-
tional management as the process in trying to understand the
students’ activity participation. It was more than testing since it
should be continuously and regularly performed in order to see
the students’ understanding in the process, interaction, and
application. It was not the last step of instructional activity. But,
it was the starting point for enhancing the students’ learning. It
was supported by Miy auchi (2010) that the childr en’s assessme nt
while they were participating in classroom activity was the most
necessary thing to be done. In order to accomplish curriculum
objective, teacher should collect data of students’ changes and
progress of thought and comprehension. White (2007) sug-
gested that assessment should be seen as a process for gathering
evidence and making judgment about students needs strengths,
abilities and achievements. So, when the assessment was spo-
ken, the process should be emphasized rather than produced. In
classroom using the assessment for supporting one’s learning,
the teacher should adjust teaching continuously in order to see
the students’ changes (Leahy et al., 2005). Black & William
(1998) concluded the research studies regarding to the occur-
rences in class as follows: 1) to set the problem as guidelines
for students to use their skill as well as apply their approach, 2)
to provide opportunity for students to communicate what they
had learned by drawing, acting, role playing, concept mapping,
and writing, 3) to observe by listening to the students while
they were explaining and reasoning, 4) to set question by using
open-ended problem situation as the phrase inviting the stu-
dents to explore their own approach and reason, and 5) to dis-
cuss the words or techniques used by the students.
Inprasitha (2003, 2004) recommended a guideline that for in-
structiona l activ ity ma nageme nt to enhance the students to have
learning process, it was necessary to use the innovation in
learning and teaching. For instance, open-ended problem which
was special being different from other kinds of mathematical
problem since it included broader meaning than general
exercise in Thailand. It was also used in teaching approach by
the Center for Research in Mathematics Education (CRME) in
studying the Japanese Lesson Study to be used in Thailand
since 2002. Inprasitha (2010) brought the Open Approach to be
used as a teaching method focusing on problem solving in the
process of Lesson Study. The 4 phases are consisted of 1) Pos-
ing open-ended problem, 2) Students’ self-learning, 3) Whole
class discussion and comparison, and 4) Summarization of
students’ mathematical ideas emerged in the classroom. These
4 phases were included in 3 steps of Lesson Study as: 1) col-
laboratively planning, 2) collaboratively observation, and 3)
collaboratively reflection. Therefore, in viewpoint of students’
assessment in mathematics class, major issues could be con-
cluded that the evaluation for developing and supporting stu-
dents’ learning should be emphasized. Specifically, for the
assessment in mathematics class using the Lesson Study and
Open Approach, it was necessary to explain evaluation tech-
nique for students’ learning, since the innovation was used by
teachers, as context enhancing the learning in both of teacher
and students (Inprasitha, 2010).
Research Methodology
The qualitative research methodology was administered in
this research. Data were presented by descriptive analysis in
context of schools under the project of Mathematics Teaching
Professional Development through the Lesson Study and Open
Approach. The objective was to explore the teacher’s assessed
for students’ learning in classroom using Lesson Study and
Open Approach. The Lesson Study was implemented based on
Inprasitha’s (2010) including 3 phases of implementation.
In this case, Lesson Study group comprised of a mathematics
teacher and an internship mathematics student. The first phase
of lesson study: collaboratively planning which was the phase
that the teacher and internship mathematics student in school
collaborated in planning the lesson together, Phase 2: collabo-
ratively observation. In this phase an internship mathematics
student as a teacher that teaching in the lesson plan and teacher
was observer. Activities in the classroom were video and au-
dio-recorded for analysis purposes. The group had planned a
50-minute lesson to teach on the topic addition (increase) in
first grade mathematics class. Phase 3: collaboratively reflec-
tion, mathematics teacher and internship mathematics student
reflected about the lesson and student learning.
The researcher was a graduate student in Mathematics
Education program, Faculty of Education, Khon Kaen Univer-
sity, used to be the first cohort of 5-year in Mathematics Educa-
tion Program, Faculty of Education, Khon Kaen University. In
2008, the researcher practiced teaching in school for one year,
in the school using Lesson Study and Open Approach, had
experience in learning organizational planning with the Lesson
Study Team, and used the plan in classroom, participated in
reflection after instructional management. After graduating in
Bachelor’s degree, the researcher furthered her studying in
Master’s Degree in Mathematics Education Program, Faculty of
Education, Khon Kaen University, and had experience in
working as well as learning in the Project of Professional De-
velopment based on Lesson Study and Open Approach as a
researcher in the Less on Study team.
Target Group was an internship mathematics student, who
had teaching practices at Ku-Kam-Pittayasan school, Khon-
Kaen province as the schools under the Project of Professional
Development based on Lesson Study and Open Approach con-
ducted by the Center for Research in Mathematics Education,
Faculty of Education, Khon Kaen University since 2006, re-
Delimitation of the study, in this research, the researcher
determined boundary of what to be explored as the assessment
method used by internship mathematics student in assessing the
students in class administering the Open Approach and Lesson
Activities: Teacher posed the open-ended problem by show
Figure 1 and asked the students to notice and survey a number
of fish and provided students to tell story about the fishes in the
In context of Lesson Study and Open Approach, the intern-
ship mathematics students used assessment method for their
students’ learning by considering 4 steps of the Open Approach
as guidelines for teaching, as follows:
Step 1: Posing the open-ended proble m
When teacher set task as an open-ended problem to the stu-
dents, she waste time for students as investigate material and
understand situation that teacher post in the classroom. And she
provided opportunity for students to communicate about prob-
lem and thei r le arning. Teacher assessments were as follows:
1) determine the started problem situation in the guidelines
for students to use their approaches.
2) provide opportunity for students to communicate their
3) observe or listen to the students’ posing or presentation.
4) set the questions for students to explored their ideas or
Step 2: Students’ self-learning.
Figure 1.
Addition (increase) Hitotsumatsu (2005: p. 40).
Open Access
Figure 2.
Teacher posed the open-ended problem.
Figure 3.
Students’ idea about problem situation.
Teacher gave the task for group work. Teacher assessments
were as follows:
1) provide opportunity for students to communicate their
learning by drawing picture, acting, role playing, concept map-
ping, and writing.
2) evaluate by observation including listening to what the
students explained their work, task and reasons.
Step 3: Whole class discussion and comparison
In this step when the student had already group work, teacher
asked them to present the idea or reason about the task to whole
class for learning together. Teacher assessments were as fol-
1) provide opportunity for students to communicate their
learning by drawing picture, acting, role playing, concept map-
ping, and writing.
2) observed by listening to what the students explained their
work task and reasons.
3) ask question by using the open-ended question as the
phrases persuading the students to explore the ideas or reasons.
4) discuss the wordings or techniques used by students.
Step 4: Summarization through connecting students’
mathematical ideas emerged in the classroom.
In this step after in the classroom discussion have many idea
from the students teacher asked student to summarize the lesson
about what they have to learn. Teacher assessments were as
1) observe by listening to what the students explained their
Figure 4.
Students communicated idea in small g roup.
Figure 5.
Students explain their work and reasons in small group.
Figure 6.
Discussing words and how students are used.
work task and reasons.
2) ask question by using the open-ended question as the
phrases persuading the students to explore the ideas or reasons.
Open Access 1071
Open Access
Conclusion and Discussion
Open Approach and Lesson Study support teachers in assessing
students’ learning by: listening to how students describe their
work, using open ended questions for students to explore their
ideas, setting problem situation, asking students to communicate
their learning through drawings, actions, diagrams, writing and
discussing words and how they are used. Inprasitha (2013) stated
that an instructio nal activity based on Open Approach illustrating
“how to” assessed students’ mathematical learning processes as
follows: 1) observing, 2) journals, 3) gathering and arranging in-
formation and valuing students’ idea, student’s solution and also
prioritizing st udent s’ prese ntations, 4) questi onin g, 5) setting ta sks,
6) their learning drawing, action, role play, concept mapping as
well as writing.
Figure 7. This work was supported by the Higher Education Research
Promotion and National Research University Project of Thai-
land, Office of the Higher Education Commission, through the
Cluster of Research to Enhance the Quality of Basic Education
and Center for Research in Mathematics Education, Faculty of
Education, Khon Kaen University.
Students explained their work and reasons in whole class.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004).
Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the class-
room. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 8-21.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning.
Assessment in Education, 5, 7-74.
Chiengkoon, W. (2006). A report of Thai Education situation 2004/
2005. The root of the problem and guideline for solving.
Hitotsumatsu, S., et al. (2005). Mathematics for elementary school, 1st
grade: Study with your friends. Tokyo: Gekkoh Tosho.
Inprasitha, M., et al. (2003). Mathematical learning process reform in
school by focusing on mathematical process (pp. 2-3).
Figure 8. Inprasitha, M. (2004). Teaching by using open approach in mathemat-
ics classroom of Japan. KKU Journal of Mathematics Education, 1,
Students explained their work and reasons in whole class.
Inprasitha, M. (2010). One feature of adaptive lesson study in Thailand:
Designing learning unit. In Proceedings of the 45th National Meeting
of Mathematics Education (pp. 19-24). Gyeongju: Dongkook Uni-
Inprasitha, M. (2013). An assessment of students’ mathematical learn-
ing process using teaching and learning based on open approach. In
Proceedings of the 37th Conference of the International Group for
the Psychology of Mathematics Education (5).76. Kiel: PME.
Leahy, S., et al. (2005). Classroom assessment: Minute by minute, day
by day. Assessment to Promot e Learning, 63, 19-24.
Miyauchi, K. (2010). Assessment as a part of teaching. Journal of Ja-
pan Society of Mathematics Edu c at io n , 26-27.
Robinson, G., & Bartlett. K (1993) Assessment and the evaluation of
learning. In R. J. Jensen (Ed.), Research ideas for the classroom:
Early childhood mathem a t ics. New York: Macmillan.
White, A. (2007). Assessment in school mathematics. In N. Idris (Ed.),
Classroom assessment in mathematics education (pp. 43-58). Kuala
Lumpur: McGraw Hill Education.
Figure 9.
Discussing the techniques used by students.
3) discuss the wordings or techniques used by students.