Purpose Lesson study (LS) research is disadvantaged by a lack of clarity surrounding the potential outcomes an LS cycle can produce for participant learning. The purpose of this paper is to set out a model of the potential outcomes an LS cycle can achieve. The model identifies the limitations that can occur in LS groups and how these limitations impact on the overall outcomes for participants. Design/methodology/approach Case studies are used to exemplify the different outcomes in the model taken from five years of LS work in a primary school in England. The case studies shape the four different outcomes of the model, defining and contextualising the attributes and characteristics of each outcome. Findings The model presented indicates that there are four key outcomes for LS cycles, with the most common outcome being a form of limited learning. The paper explores the limitations of time, collaboration and expertise to articulate how each of these limiting factors has a bearing on the overall outcome for an LS cycle. Research limitations/implications The model is currently based on a singular educational setting. This means that each outcome needs further exploration through wider LS work in order to clarify and refine the outcome model. Practical implications The outcome model will support the development of a shared vocabulary for discussing LS cycles. By articulating where on the outcome model an LS is, it is possible for researchers to discuss how to reduce the impact of limitations and other challenges to LS, enabling research to develop a more evaluation-led approach to using LS. Originality/value The outcome model supports LS researchers in articulating the outcomes of their LS cycles with a shared vocabulary. It addresses understudied areas of LS research, namely failed and dysfunctional LS cycles and identifies that while an LS can bring the potential for participant learning, the cycle outcomes are the starting point for participant change.

PurposeProductive friction (Ward et al., 2011) can exist as pracademics cross between boundaries of their different identities. Through an exploration of the self-perception of two collaborating pracademics, this paper will consider that organisational and occupational (Evetts, 2009) elements exist that generate professional friction for pracademics.Design/methodology/approachUsing two consecutive Lesson Study cycles as a boundary object, the authors will consider their pracademic identity through a spatial approach. Their perceptions are expressed through semi-structured qualitative interviews and subsequent thematic analysis. This analysis is then explored through Engeström's (2001) learning stages to consider how pracademics interact within the contradictions of their identities and within their context and their work.FindingsTime, purpose, integration and collaboration are all elements that impact on pracademic identities. For each one of these themes, pracademics both experience friction and find resolutions. As these themes vary, there are also moments of unresolved friction, where the pracademics maintain their work based on their enthusiasm alone. Constraints on time and the visibility of pracademic emerge. Exploring these pressure points and their resolutions is key to understanding how pracademics can be further supported by other professionals.Originality/valueWhile it is not possible to draw large conclusions from the experiences and perceptions of two primary-school-based pracademics, their experiences and understanding of contextual pressure points may facilitate the support of other pracademics and resonant with their experiences, particularly if they are using Lesson Study.

No abstract

Background/purpose -Developing the body of knowledge about how facilitators act and engage with participants is essential to developing Lesson Study (LS) facilitation. This research reveals how two LS facilitators from the United Kingdom and the United States support and lead cycles. Materials/methods -We used the Standards, Assessment, Instruction and Intervention, Leadership, and Sustainability (SAILS) framework (Hasbrouck & Denton, 2005; Hasbrouck & Michel, 2022) to explore and thematically code reflective semi-structured interviews between two LS facilitators. We coded and organized themes to explore the actions, processes, tools, and behaviors that facilitators use. Results -Standards formed a key feature of LS facilitation. Leadership, how the facilitators intervened and supported participants to sustain LS, was a salient theme. The skills, tools, and processes used by the facilitators built upon existing knowledge of LS facilitators (de Vries & Uffen, 2021; Morago & Grigioni Baur, 2021; Mynott, 2018). A fundamental finding is that the facilitator is a leader who needs to be present enough to navigate discussions, yet invisible enough to not get in the way of participant learning. Conclusion -Deepening our knowledge of what the facilitator can do to increase the sustainability of participant learning can help support future LS teams. How a facilitator thinks about aspects of their work in advance, which tools can be used during conversations, and how they summarize learning are all important aspects of their work.

No abstract