ELEP Case Study 4: Using research based professional development for teaching

Using a lesson study approach to professional development.

On this page: Introduction | Object based learning | Lesson study: research engaged model of professional development | Conclusion | Acknowledgements | Further resources | References | Appendix

ELEP Case Study 4: Using research based professional development for teaching (a downloadable Word version)

ELEP Case Study 4: Using research based professional development for teaching (a downloadable Word version)

Introduction 

This case study serves as a starting point for addressing historical legacies in education, highlighting the importance of staff support in reparative educational development.

The ways that people learn to teach potentially difficult and/or sensitive topics in higher education (HE) are dynamic and complex. Research has consistently demonstrated that high quality professional development (PD) is vital to support educator wellbeing, the changing learning needs of students, and educational innovation. While defining what constitutes PD is complex and contested, there is consensus that it can play an important role in the development of new teaching practices, keeping up to date with curriculum development and improving student outcomes (Sancar et al, 2021).  

This case study looks at the relationship between object-based learning (OBL), the history of eugenics, and student learning. From 2022 to 2025, Helen Knowler (ELEP academic lead) and Dr Amy Unsworth (module lead) collaborated on Amy’s Science and Society module, with support from Masters student Nasra Hersi. They explored the use of objects from the Eugenics and Biometrics Collection in the context of UCL’s eugenics inquiry, reflecting on how to introduce sensitive content ethically and inclusively. Their work led to tangible actions for curriculum development and student support, positively impacting student achievement. Ethical approval for this research was obtained from UCL (ref. 27099/001). 

Key terms and concepts 

LCCOS is UCL’s Library, Culture, Collections and Open Science department. This includes the team who oversee the object based learning laboratory and science collections in this case study. 

A Lesson study (LS) is a collaborative research method. It involves educators working together to plan, observe, and analyse learning and teaching.  

Object based learning (OBL) is an approach that emphasises the use of physical objects to enhance learning. 

Object based learning

Object based learning (OBL) at University College London (UCL) is an educational approach that emphasises the use of physical objects from UCL's extensive collections to enhance learning. This method involves hands-on engagement with objects such as artworks, manuscripts, specimens, rare books, and artifacts, which are used as educational tools across various disciplines.

Key aspects of OBL at UCL include: 

Active and experiential learning: Students interact directly with objects, which helps in personal meaning-making and long-term retention of ideas. 

Development of skills: OBL helps students develop academic and transferable skills such as teamwork, communication, analytical skills, practical observation, and drawing skills. 

Interdisciplinary approach: UCL's museums and collections are used in teaching across a wide range of disciplines, making the learning experience rich and diverse. 

This approach not only aids in understanding the subject matter but also encourages a different engagement with historical issues and their contemporary resonance.  

Lesson study: research engaged model of professional development 

Working within an area of difficult knowledge, such as eugenics, affords an opportunity to explore the affective and relational dimensions of teaching (Zembylas, 2017). This is crucial to investigate the ways that addressing historic harms generates a range of emotions and relational mechanisms that have not traditionally formed part of professional development for HE academics.  

We adopted a Lesson Study (LS) model (Cerbin & Hutchings, 2011). LS supports the notion of professional development as dynamic and supports a longer-term engagement with the dilemmas or tensions that are faced by educators. The method involves several key steps which form one cycle of activities: 

• Collaborative planning: reflecting and examining an existing lesson/session, focusing on specific learning goals or outcomes. A crucial dimension of this phase is researching the issue or dilemma at hand and using research-based insights to ask questions about the current situation.
• Teaching and observation: One person teaches the lesson while others observe, collecting data on student engagement and learning outcomes.  

• Reflection and revision: The team analyses the collected data, discusses the effectiveness of the lesson, and makes necessary revisions to improve it. 

This process is iterative, promoting continuous improvement in teaching practices and dialogue about it. Stages can be repeated to create several cycles, so that the team can explore the impact of changes made. The number of cycles will depend on the issue at hand, time constraints, and contextual factors such as curriculum organisation and assessment cycle. 

About the module 

• Module: Science and Society (NSCI0010) 

• Department: Natural Sciences (Faculty of Mathematics and Physical Sciences) 

• Module lead: Dr Amy Unsworth 

• Level: Undergraduate (FHEQ Level 4) 

• Module size: 133 

The module examines how science and other aspects of society shape each other. Students reflect on the damaging impacts of science in some contexts and consider how interdisciplinary approaches may contribute to dealing with some of the most urgent problems we face.  

The three-year lesson study 

Students participate in an OBL session focused on objects related to UCL’s history of eugenics. Part of their assessment at the end of the module is to create a presentation on one of the objects they have encountered. These two elements were central to the lesson study. 

Following initial dialogue and reflection about the module, Amy and Helen worked together for three iterations of the module (one per academic year) to look at:  

• The impact of working with distressing materials and supporting the teaching of critical thinking skills. 

• Student engagement and increased confidence in talking about eugenics and anti-eugenics histories. 

• The development of follow up and assessment activities (Table 2). 

The use of LS meant actively collating information and evidence of activities to support professional dialogue. This also supports critically reflective analysis of the impact of current practices and making decisions about what to change.  

In Year 1, our approach was to engage with a series of meetings, observations and reflections (Table 1). 

In the first year of the module, several students experienced misunderstandings regarding eugenics. Through Amy's reflective discussions with Helen, it became apparent that the curator's verbal explanations of each object during the OBL sessions might pose comprehension challenges for some students. This difficulty was attributed to the absence of accompanying slides with textual summaries of the orally delivered content and the lack of recorded sessions, which could otherwise be reviewed (with captions if necessary). Consequently, this insight prompted the creation of the resources outlined in Table 2 and the incorporation of a supplementary lecture in the week following the OBL sessions. 

In Years 2 and 3, Amy and Helen met less frequently but continued to meet before and after teaching and assessment to discuss how changes made in Year 1 impacted on student engagement and learning outcomes. At the end of Year 3, Helen and Amy had a final meeting to reflect on the overall impact of module developments and Amy’s learning about working with the objects from the Eugenics and Biometrics collection.

Working and reflecting together 

Preparing educators to support students when teaching difficult knowledge requires time, experimentation, and supportive supervision from experienced colleagues (Figure 2).

This can be difficult to establish in a busy HE curriculum. However, this does raise important issues if we are expecting colleagues to include eugenics content in their curriculum as part of an educational project to confront the legacy of eugenics at UCL. Brina (2003) notes, introducing complex or controversial content into a lesson positions the educator in a place of not knowing raises important questions about how educators manage classroom dynamics when students respond to content that is troubling. Questions such as, “what if I lose the confidence or connection with my students by introducing complex ideas that make them feel uncomfortable or unsafe?” become more prominent.

At the end of Year 1, we allocated two hours for reflection, using Mason's (2002) concept of 'noticing' to focus on impactful teaching incidents. This yielded important reflections from Amy (Image 2): 

• Feeling safe and oriented in teaching makes a significant difference in session delivery. 

• Some students understand the historical harm of eugenics but may not consider its present and future implications. 

• Teaching unfamiliar concepts can feel unsafe and is often avoided. 

In our final reflection, Amy identified aspects of her work she had been avoiding, leading to ideas for module development: 

• Addressing diverse views in teaching, especially harmful ones. 

• Managing unplanned 'departures' in teaching that affect emotions and teaching identity. 

• Considering cultural sensitivities around teaching eugenics and the global context of eugenics ideology. 

These reflections highlighted the need for thoughtful preparation when introducing complex content into the curriculum.

Actions for module development 

At the end of this process, conversations above yielded tangible actions for module development going into Year 2. Three areas emerged for further development these were: 

1. Preparing learners to work with distressing or difficult content. This involved developing virtual learning environment (Moodle) content to prepare learners to engage with objects from UCL’s Biometrics and Eugenics collection and to manage their experience across the module, from initial engagement with eugenics to the assessed activity.  

2. Working with others across UCL and providing resources. This involved creating new object resources to support students as they planned their assessment. Table 2 is an example of the object descriptions coproduced with Leah Johnson and Liz Blanks, UCL librarians and archivists with a special interest in eugenics.  

3. Following up on learning after working with difficult knowledge. Amy developed a post-OBL session, whereas previously it had been a standalone session. This provided an important opportunity to check in and highlight the critical thinking skills outlined in the module’s overarching intended learning outcomes (ILOs). 

Table 2. Example of object description supporting assessment activities.

Object	Galton’s Counting Gloves
Description	These gloves contained a punch card concealed in the glove to facilitate the creation of a ‘beauty map’ of the British Isles. Galton would place one card in his left pocket for tallying the women he deemed unattractive, and the other in his right for keeping count of the attractive ones. A small pin sewn into each thumb would allow Galton to make a mark on the card simply by pressing his thumb to his finger.
Where did this object come from?	Sir Francis Galton invented these counting gloves to include a hidden panel which he could prick with a pin so he could collect data without being observed.
Critical Thinking	Galton was famous for claiming ‘Whenever you can, count.’ However, these gloves were used covertly, and this wasn’t just about counting. Rather these gloves were used to rate people on the basis of their physical characteristics. So, is Galton a genius or a monster?  How do objects like gloves help us to reflect on the ways that science can cement ideas about humans that are false?
More information	Short clip (no subtitles) from BBC 4’s Eugenics: Science's Greatest Scandal series with former UCL science curator, Subhadra Das, on how Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics, used modified gloves to covertly assess female beauty. Full programme available (with transcript) via Box of Broadcasts. Or read about her favourite object.  This open access article, How Eugenics Shaped Statistics by Aubrey Clayton explores the tension between pioneering science, the development of statistics as a scientific discipline and the racism of eugenics.

Impact of the lesson study  

Engagement in the OBL session. There was clear evidence that students enjoyed engaging with OBL across the three cohorts. We carried out three focus groups in 2023 and student interviews in 2024 which showed that students have strong resonance with objects such as the eye chart and hair gauge. One student noted it was “hard to look away from the objects as I didn’t know much about the content before the session.” Another noted that some of the content was “difficult to listen to and uncomfortable at times.” There was also a common theme from the students we spoke to about a desire to spend more time with the objects and find out more about eugenics history. Students also noted the importance of having a curator there talk about the objects, that the sessions felt respectful and focused, and many students noted they were eager to learn more, feeling that the OBL session enhanced their ability to engage with the assessment task (a presentation on one object of their choice). 

Assessment. At the end of year one, the team carried out an assessment scrutiny to look at the presentations and their grades. The team independently looked at a sample of 24 assignments to compare the features of assignments grades (under 40% (3), 50%+ (3), 60%+ (3) and 70%+ (3 - including two over 80%)). There was a wide range of grades represented with the highest graded assignments demonstrating a strong understanding of the features of good presentation, in depth research of the object, and a clear understanding of the present implications of eugenics logics. Assignments at the lower end of the grade spectrum tended to be descriptive and did not follow the assignment brief. From this discussion we developed the Action Plan (Table 3) to scaffold student planning for the assignment in Year 2.  

In Year 2 we looked at assessment outcomes following the additional of support materials. This reflection showed that more students achieved a pass grade than in the previous year and that the quality of assignments was improved in terms of critical engagement with the project and following the assignment brief. A particular reflection from Amy was the importance of the follow up session and the ways that this enhanced assessment outcomes. Amy notes that some students who had performed poorly in previous assessments had clearly understood the assignment better and their grades improved accordingly. She reflected that this was due to clear instructions so that they were able to demonstrate very strong subject knowledge around the object and eugenics histories. 

Educator confidence. By the end of the second iteration of the module, Amy was able to reflect on the range of positive student feedback on the sessions. She was pleased that the work to develop support and reflection has paid off in positive student outcomes. In a reflective interview Amy said “...I am pleased because I felt like there weren't the sort of gross misunderstandings of the objects or the subject matter …that I did encounter last year.” Helen noted in her observation of the follow up session “I thought the way you (Amy) made that group see themselves and their own kind of histories entangled with (eugenics) was really powerful.” 

Collaboration. ELEP collaborated with the LCCOS team and module lead to produce additional resources for the third year to support student engagement with the OBL session. There were also wider and more in-depth collaborations between ELEP, LCCOS, and module colleagues, leading to a well planned and executed OBL session.  

Benefits of a lesson study approach 

Utilising a LS approach for this work supporting the following aspects: 

• Enhanced collaboration: This method promoted teamwork and collaborative inquiry, allowing us to share best practices from research and learn from each other’s experience.  

• Deeper understanding: Through continuous reflection and analysis, educators gain a deeper understanding of both curriculum content and inclusive pedagogy.  

• Developing teaching practices: The iterative process of planning, observing, and revising.  

• Improved student outcomes: By focusing on student learning and engagement, insights from the LS process can lead to tangible actions that positively impact student outcomes.  

• Supportive community: LS can foster a supportive community of learners, where educators feel valued and motivated to improve their teaching. 

Conclusion 

The conclusion superficially appears easy and achievable. However, it is important to note that all points require people to allocate time and energy beyond their regular responsibilities. They also require support at a departmental and institutional level.  

Scaffold learners. Time needs to be taken to both prepare students for difficult topics and provide follow up support and materials. This support should be practical (Table 2) and affective, modelling taking educational care of students. 

Work with other professionals when planning teaching. OBL work is usually a collaborative process, including people such as curators and tutors. All involved in a session should be aware of the intended learning outcomes (ILOs), the scaffolding in place for learners, and have an opportunity to ask questions.   

Engage in professional development. PD is an opportunity to enhance teaching quality and keeps content current, benefiting student engagement and learning outcomes. It also supports lecturers' career advancement, personal growth, and adaptability to educational trends. Additionally, it fosters valuable networking opportunities and collaboration within the academic community. 

Acknowledgements 

Thank you to Dr Amy Unsworth and her students for her engagement with this work. Nasra Hersi, for her input as our intern. Liz Blanks, for her continuing engagement with ELEP and allowing experimental approaches to engaging with the Eugenics and Biometric Collection. 

Further resources   

• If you are interested in visiting the OBL, please contact the museums team (museums@ucl.ac.uk).   

• Resources to support the use of eugenics related objects in the OBL are available via the Science Collection webpages.   

• UCL’s Prejudice in Power website contains information about the legacy of eugenics at UCL. 

• An Inclusive Education Training Programme (designed by Dr Manjula Patrick) - we recommend all staff and students work through.  

• There are a plethora of UCL teaching toolkits available to support teaching across and beyond UCL.  

References  

Brina, C (2003) Not crying, but laughing: the ethics of horrifying students, Teaching in Higher Education, 8:4, 517-528, DOI: 10.1080/1356251032000117607. 

Cerbin, B., & Hutchings, P. (2011). Lesson study: Using classroom inquiry to improve teaching and learning in higher education. Routledge. 

Dadvand, D., Cahill, H, & Zembylas, M. (2022) Engaging with difficult knowledge in teaching in post-truth era: from theory to practice within diverse disciplinary areas, Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 30:3, 285-293, DOI: 10.1080/14681366.2021.19

Sancar, R., Atal, D., & Deryakulu, D. (2021). A new framework for teachers’ professional development. Teaching and teacher education, 101, 103305. 

Zembylas, M. (2021). The affective turn in educational theory. In Oxford research encyclopaedia of education. 

Appendix 

Example of action planning following reflective conversation at the end of Year 1 (Table 3). 

Author: Helen Knowler. 

Editors: Shixi Lin, Elsa Wilbur, and Tor Wright. 

Back to top