Lesson study outcomes: a theoretical model

Abstract

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.

Teacher professional learning through lesson study: teachers' reflections

“…Whilst the History department negotiated through the VP to bring in HEI support and TC attended TSA LS-related events, neither Peter nor Kelly in the English department LS group were guided to such opportunities for support. Not drawing on expertise or facilitation from outside of the group and lack of time to resource collaboration, as experienced by the English department in particular, are factors cited by Mynott's (2017, 2019) research across 5 years in a UK primary school, as likely to highly limit the potential for sustainable teacher learning.…”

“…Reflection through making tacit practices explicit and offering dissonance to challenge these practices have been evidenced as key factors necessary for professional learning (Mayrhofer, 2019; Mynott, 2017, 2019).…”

“…The dissonance which is needed to engage in critical debate about developing practice (e.g. Mayrhofer, 2019; Mynott, 2017, 2019) needs a safe space for peer observation without teachers being judged (Lofthouse and Thomas, 2017; Shortland, 2004; Zaare, 2013).…”

Conceptualizing the implementation of Lesson Study in Kazakhstan within a social theory framework

“…& Komatsu, 2017;Elliott, 2019). Recent research provides strong evidence that the LS structure of; reflective cycles, collaborative teacher planning, focussed classroom observation and subsequent analysis, is the foundation for reflective discussion, development and further planning (Prenger, Poortman & Handelzalts, 2017;Elliott, 2019;Mayrhofer, 2019;Mynott, 2019;Vermunt et al , 2019 ). However, the precise mechanisms employed and the model of Lesson Study adopted varies depending on the ultimate purpose of using classroom focused development of practice (Norwich, B, 2018;Takahashi & McDougal, 2019).…”

“…Lesson Study (LS) is now widely recognised as a driver of teacher-led professional development in many education systems around the world (Lewis, 2002;Takashi and Yushida, 2004;Nakano, 2008;Robinson and Leikin, 2012;Eng-Lee and Mun Ling, 2013;Dudley, 2015;Akiba and Wilkinson, 2015;Hadfield and Jopling, 2016;Rappleye and Komatsu, 2017;Elliott, 2019). Recent research provides strong evidence that the LS structure of reflective cycles, collaborative teacher planning, focussed classroom observation and subsequent analysis are the foundation for reflective discussion, development and further planning (Prenger et al, 2017;Coenders and Verhoef, 2019;Elliott, 2019;Mayrhofer, 2019;Mynott, 2019;Vermunt et al, 2019). However, the precise mechanisms employed and the model of LS adopted varies depending on the ultimate purpose of using classroom focussed development of practice (Norwich, 2018;Takahashi and McDougal, 2019).…”