1 of 55

The multi-layered impact of Lesson Study: Focusing on the quality of teacher dialogues and the role of Lesson Study facilitators�

Dr Maria Vrikki

University of Nicosia | University of Cyprus

WALS Conference 2023

Zwolle, Netherlands

2 of 55

Outline

Part I: Empirical evidence on the effectiveness of LS at different levels

Part II:

(a) The Cambridge-Camden project: Relationship between dialogue and types of teacher learning

(b) LESSAM project: Impact of teacher participation in Lesson Study with a Facilitator or Advisor on student learning

Part III: Conclusions & recommendations for future work

3 of 55

Global spread of Lesson Study

Increasingly being introduced by official teacher professional development bodies or other professional bodies in several countries

Large participation at the WALS conference and increased number of presentations at other related conferences

Increasing number of publications per year and across countries

4 of 55

Scopus database (searched on 24/10/2023)

5 of 55

These papers come from different parts of the world

6 of 55

But what is the empirical evidence on the effectiveness of Lesson Study?

7 of 55

Lesson Study features

Teacher mental processes

Teacher learning outcomes

Changes in teaching

Changes in students

8 of 55

Lesson Study features

Teacher mental processes

Teacher learning outcomes

Changes in teaching

Changes in students

LS group characteristics: e.g. experience with LS, teaching experience, subject-matter expertise, personalities, motivation to participate, willingness to participate, attitudes and beliefs towards LS and collaboration with colleagues
Structural LS features: e.g. external support; number of LS cycles / duration; quality of LS materials used (e.g. observation protocols, handbooks)
Contextual factors: e.g. school support (principal, school leaders, time availability, space availability); district/system support; quality of group dialogue

e.g. Kager, Mynott & Vock, 2023; Akiba et al., 2019; Vermunt et al., 2023; Hadfield & Jopling, 2016; Benedict et al., 2023.

9 of 55

LS group characteristics: e.g. experience with LS, teaching experience, subject-matter expertise, personalities, motivation to participate, willingness to participate, attitudes and beliefs towards LS and collaboration with colleagues
Structural LS features: e.g. external support; number of LS cycles / duration; quality of LS materials used (e.g. observation protocols, handbooks)
Contextual factors: e.g. school support (principal, school leaders, time availability, space availability); district/system support; quality of group dialogue

e.g. Kager, Mynott & Vock, 2023; Akiba et al., 2019; Vermunt et al., 2023; Hadfield & Jopling, 2016; Benedict et al., 2023.

Lesson Study features

Teacher mental processes

Teacher learning outcomes

Changes in teaching

Changes in students

10 of 55

The means by which outcomes are achieved, often characterized as “black-boxes” due to the difficulty of unpacking them (e.g. Vrikki et al., 2017; Cajkler et al., 2013)

Examples:
Reflective practices (e.g. Norwich et al., 2016)
Descriptive vs interpretive learning processes (e.g. Vrikki et al., 2017)
Depth of teachers’ noticing (e.g. Karlsen & Helgevold, 2019) 🡪 Teachers’ emphasis on student thinking (e.g. Perry & Lewis, 2009)

Lesson Study features

Teacher mental processes

Teacher learning outcomes

Changes in teaching

Changes in students

11 of 55

Changes in…

Teachers’ content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge (e.g. Dudley, 2013; Schipper et al., 2017; Goh & Fang, 2023)
Teachers’ knowledge of their own students (e.g. Moss, 2015)
Teachers’ learning patterns (e.g. Vermunt et al., 2019)
Teachers’ professional identity (e.g. Vermunt et al., 2017)
Teachers’ self-efficacy (e.g. Chong & Kong, 2012; Schipper, Goei, de Vrie & van Veen, 2018)

Lesson Study features

Teacher mental processes

Teacher learning outcomes

Changes in teaching

Changes in students

12 of 55

Lesson Study features

Teacher mental processes

Teacher learning outcomes

Changes in teaching

Changes in students

Teachers improved their instructional practices.

For example:

- their use of higher-order, open-ended questions (Dudley, 2013)

- practices on teaching fractions (Lewis & Perry, 2014)

- teachers’ instruction on writing (Collet, 2017)

13 of 55

Mainly pre-post test designs assess students’ achievement in a subject matter (e.g. Gersten, et al., 2014; Murphy et al., 2017; Lo et al., 2006)
Qualitative studies analyze students’ answers on a specific topic (e.g. Merton & Pang, 2006)

Lesson Study features

Teacher mental processes

Teacher learning outcomes

Changes in teaching

Changes in students

14 of 55

Multi-layered effects of Lesson Study

Rich body of mostly descriptive and qualitative research on LS 🡪 Promising findings but more controlled, large-scale studies are need to determine effects
Also, we have a wide range of LS structures and methodologies, which makes it difficult to draw systematic conclusions
Studying the effects of LS is not a simple task due to a multi-layered chain of effects.

e.g. Xu & Pedder, 2014; Cheung & Wong, 2014; Kager, Mynott & Vock, 2023; Benedict et al., 2023

Three challenges

15 of 55

Research projects

Dr Maria Vrikki

16 of 55

Project 1: ‘Teacher Learning and Lesson Study in Mathematics Higher Order Teaching and Learning’

Funded by the London Schools Excellence Fund (2013-2015)

Collaboration between:

University of Cambridge team: Jan Vermunt, Neil Mercer, Paul Warwick, Maria Vrikki

Camden Local Education Authority (London): Pete Dudley, Jean Lang

17 of 55

‘Teacher Learning and Lesson Study in �Mathematics Higher Order Teaching and Learning’

Project initiated after the introduction of a new mathematics curriculum in England (2013)
Mathematics teachers from primary and secondary schools in London were invited to participate in LS for a period of 2 years
Aims:

Developmental aim: To help teachers in London learn how to implement the new curriculum by using Lesson Study in their schools
Research aim: To examine teacher learning in the context of Lesson Study with a particular focus on group dialogues

Lesson Study features

Teacher mental processes

Teacher learning outcomes

Changes in teaching

Changes in students

Project 1: ‘Teacher Learning and Lesson Study in Mathematics Higher Order Teaching and Learning’

18 of 55

Why focus on group dialogues?

There is a well-established body of literature on dialogues in student groups, which demonstrates different qualities of talk (e.g. Barnes & Tod, 1977; Mercer, 1995)

Groups that engage in “interthinking” (i.e. collective thinking, sharing of relevant knowledge, joint negotiation of meaning, joint problem solving) are more successful (Littleton & Mercer, 2013)

http://discuss.cle.ust.hk/mediawiki/index.php?title=Sociocultural_Theory

19 of 55

Three modes of talk in groups

Disputational talk

A lot of disagreement
Individual rather than collective decisions
No constructive criticism
Competitive atmosphere

Cumulative

talk

Everyone simply accepts and agrees with all ideas
Knowledge shared but in an uncritical way
Ideas not being carefully evaluated

Exploratory

talk

Everyone engages critically, constructively with ideas
Questions are being asked to clarify ideas
Agreement at each stage before progressing
Thinking together

e.g. Littleton & Mercer, 2013; Mercer, 1995

20 of 55

Studying talk in Lesson Study

Some evidence of different qualities in teacher talk in Lesson Study

Dudley (2013) found that the three categories of student talk in groupwork could also be used to understand teachers’ talk in LS groups. The most productive sequences resembled exploratory talk.

Warwick et al (2016) also identified particular dialogic moves that promoted productive professional dialogues. These included questioning, building on each other’s ideas, coming to some agreement, providing evidence or reasoning, and challenging.

21 of 55

The Research Lesson Study model

Joint planning of RL1

Teach / Observe RL1

Interview pupils

Post-RL1 discussion and initial RL2

Joint planning of RL2

Teach / Observe RL2

Interview pupils

Post-RL2 discussion and initial RL3 plans

Joint planning of RL3

Teach / Observe RL3

Interview pupils

Post-RL1 discussion and overall findings

RL = Research Lesson

Dudley, 2013

22 of 55

Research focus: How did teachers learn during Lesson Study discussions?

Data: Recordings (video or audio) of all LS meetings conducted by the teachers and sent to us

23 of 55

Example of our video data from a primary school in London

24 of 55

1	Rob	I’ve got Abdi. He did really well. He had the practice paper as well which yeah he…the first thing I said to him was ‘what did you enjoy most about the lesson?’. He said ‘I find things were really smooth, although I still wanted to be challenged more’.
2	Georgie	Yeah of course.
3	Rob	And I said ‘did you understand why Georgie asked you to do the practice?’ And he didn’t really.
4	Alison	It’s really hard. What’s come out of this a lot is this bunch of children, that are often lower-middle I think, that are so desperate to be middle or middle-higher that they are quite happy to throw to the wind any understanding but they may not be quite there yet. They just don’t care about that; they just want to appear to be understanding.
5	Georgie	Ι know, that’s so interesting.
6	Alison	Yeah, it is cause it makes it really difficult. Cause you feel like it’s almost the battle between ‘you should do this’, ‘no, I want to do this’.
7	Rob	But I mean…all credit to [Abdi], he worked through his activity really really well on his own and he got onto the challenge.
9	Alison	I remember that.
10	Rob	…which is brilliant. And I think he felt really good.
11	Alison	Well, it’s an achievement, isn’t it then? (Note: referring to the workbook)
12	Rob	And he was really, like compared to yesterday’s lesson, he was really really excited.
13	Alison	So did he exceed our expectations? (Note: referring to the workbook)
14	Rob	Yeah he did.
15	Alison	Which actually is the same as Jake. [Note: another case pupil]
16	Georgie	Yeah. We underestimated both of them.
17	Alison	Yeah.
18	Rob	One thing though that is a surprise, you know how we said that he’ll double and double again at the start cause he loves doubling? [A & G: Yeah] I realized that he’s using the word ‘double’ instead of ‘multiply’. He thinks ‘double’ is ‘multiply’. So for instance he says ‘I double two by three to get six’.
21	Georgie	Oh that’s so interesting.
22	Rob	And I said ‘you mean you multiply two by three to get six”. And he said ‘oh yeah, yeah, yeah”. But he did it again later on so just be aware of that Georgie.
23	Georgie	Yeah that’s really good to know.
24	Rob	I said do you know what doubling is?
25	Alison	Who was it who said, at the beginning bit, that said, when we talked about ratio, or was it in the end, and they said ‘it’s when you double a number’ and I said ‘do you always double it?’ and they were like ‘oh well, not necessarily’. Cause I said ‘we’re doubling it here cause it’s… Someone else said that in the beginning. [G: Yeah] And I was like ‘well you don’t always double cause you might be dividing it down’, so someone else…
28	Georgie	Maybe we gave too many examples of doubling.
29	Alison	…when they are doubling.
30	Rob	Yeah possibly.
31	Georgie	That’s good to know.

25 of 55

1	Rob	I’ve got Abdi. He did really well. He had the practice paper as well which yeah he…the first thing I said to him was ‘what did you enjoy most about the lesson?’. He said ‘I find things were really smooth, although I still wanted to be challenged more’.
2	Georgie	Yeah of course.
3	Rob	And I said ‘did you understand why Georgie asked you to do the practice?’ And he didn’t really.
4	Alison	It’s really hard. What’s come out of this a lot is this bunch of children, that are often lower-middle I think, that are so desperate to be middle or middle-higher that they are quite happy to throw to the wind any understanding but they may not be quite there yet. They just don’t care about that; they just want to appear to be understanding.
5	Georgie	Ι know, that’s so interesting.
6	Alison	Yeah, it is cause it makes it really difficult. Cause you feel like it’s almost the battle between ‘you should do this’, ‘no, I want to do this’.
7	Rob	But I mean…all credit to [Abdi], he worked through his activity really really well on his own and he got onto the challenge.
9	Alison	I remember that.
10	Rob	…which is brilliant. And I think he felt really good.
11	Alison	Well, it’s an achievement, isn’t it then? (Note: referring to the workbook)
12	Rob	And he was really, like compared to yesterday’s lesson, he was really really excited.
13	Alison	So did he exceed our expectations? (Note: referring to the workbook)
14	Rob	Yeah he did.
15	Alison	Which actually is the same as Jake. [Note: another case pupil]
16	Georgie	Yeah. We underestimated both of them.
17	Alison	Yeah.
18	Rob	One thing though that is a surprise, you know how we said that he’ll double and double again at the start cause he loves doubling? [A & G: Yeah] I realized that he’s using the word ‘double’ instead of ‘multiply’. He thinks ‘double’ is ‘multiply’. So for instance he says ‘I double two by three to get six’.
21	Georgie	Oh that’s so interesting.
22	Rob	And I said ‘you mean you multiply two by three to get six”. And he said ‘oh yeah, yeah, yeah”. But he did it again later on so just be aware of that Georgie.
23	Georgie	Yeah that’s really good to know.
24	Rob	I said do you know what doubling is?
25	Alison	Who was it who said, at the beginning bit, that said, when we talked about ratio, or was it in the end, and they said ‘it’s when you double a number’ and I said ‘do you always double it?’ and they were like ‘oh well, not necessarily’. Cause I said ‘we’re doubling it here cause it’s… Someone else said that in the beginning. [G: Yeah] And I was like ‘well you don’t always double cause you might be dividing it down’, so someone else…
28	Georgie	Maybe we gave too many examples of doubling.
29	Alison	…when they are doubling.
30	Rob	Yeah possibly.
31	Georgie	That’s good to know.

26 of 55

Coding of data�

Aim:

To capture teacher learning and the processes that led to it
Develop a reliable tool to do this (coding at scale)

Step 1

Collected all relevant features to learning and what led to learning (bottom-up)
Led to 54 features

Step 2

Reduce number of codes to make tool reliable – Iterative process

Grouped features based on literature
Removed features that occurred less frequently

Step 3

Tested reliability and ended up with 7 reliable codes (k = .68-.89)

27 of 55

CODING SCHEME�Final reliable version

DIALOGIC MOVES	SCOPE OF DISCUSSION	LEARNING PROCESSES
[DM1] Requesting information, opinion or clarification [DM2] Building on ideas [DM3] Providing evidence or reasoning	[S1] Groups of pupils [S2] Particular pupils	[DLP] Descriptive processes [ILP] Interpretative processes

28 of 55

Definitions of teacher learning processes

Level of representing a selection of what is known, e.g. describing lesson plans, activities, expectations for pupils and teaching, and observations of pupil learning and teaching
Aims to capture how teachers marshal knowledge resources in a strategic manner to move thinking forward.

Descriptive learning processes

Goes beyond the level of description and reveals interpretative thinking identified in the following forms:
(a) Evaluating teaching by considering the effectiveness and appropriateness of activities / tasks
(b) Evaluating pupil learning or progress against the success criteria
(c) diagnosing pupil errors, misconceptions or problems observed in lessons.

Interpretive learning processes

29 of 55

1	Rob	I’ve got Abdi. He did really well. He had the practice paper as well which yeah he…the first thing I said to him was ‘what did you enjoy most about the lesson?’. He said ‘I find things were really smooth, although I still wanted to be challenged more’.		S2	DPL
2	Georgie	Yeah of course.
3	Rob	And I said ‘did you understand why Georgie asked you to do the practice?’ And he didn’t really.		S2	DLP
4	Alison	It’s really hard. What’s come out of this a lot is this bunch of children, that are often lower-middle I think, that are so desperate to be middle or middle-higher that they are quite happy to throw to the wind any understanding but they may not be quite there yet. They just don’t care about that; they just want to appear to be understanding.	DM2	S1	ILP
5	Georgie	Ι know, that’s so interesting.
6	Alison	Yeah, it is cause it makes it really difficult. Cause you feel like it’s almost the battle between ‘you should do this’, ‘no, I want to do this’.	DM3	S1	ILP
7	Rob	But I mean…all credit to [Abdi], he worked through his activity really really well on his own and he got onto the challenge.		S2	DLP
9	Alison	I remember that.
10	Rob	…which is brilliant. And I think he felt really good.	DM2	S2
11	Alison	Well, it’s an achievement, isn’t it then? (Note: referring to the workbook)	DM1
12	Rob	And he was really, like compared to yesterday’s lesson, he was really really excited.		S2	ILP
13	Alison	So did he exceed our expectations? (Note: referring to the workbook)	DM1	S2
14	Rob	Yeah he did.		S2
15	Alison	Which actually is the same as Jake. [Note: another case pupil]	DM2	S2	ILP
16	Georgie	Yeah. We underestimated both of them.
17	Alison	Yeah.
18	Rob	One thing though that is a surprise, you know how we said that he’ll double and double again at the start cause he loves doubling? [A & G: Yeah] I realized that he’s using the word ‘double’ instead of ‘multiply’. He thinks ‘double’ is ‘multiply’. So for instance he says ‘I double two by three to get six’.		S2	DLP
21	Georgie	Oh that’s so interesting.
22	Rob	And I said ‘you mean you multiply two by three to get six”. And he said ‘oh yeah, yeah, yeah”. But he did it again later on so just be aware of that Georgie.		S2	DLP
23	Georgie	Yeah that’s really good to know.
24	Rob	I said do you know what doubling is?		S2	DLP
25	Alison	Who was it who said, at the beginning bit, that said, when we talked about ratio, or was it in the end, and they said ‘it’s when you double a number’ and I said ‘do you always double it?’ and they were like ‘oh well, not necessarily’. Cause I said ‘we’re doubling it here cause it’s… Someone else said that in the beginning. [G: Yeah] And I was like ‘well you don’t always double cause you might be dividing it down’, so someone else…	DM2	S2	DLP
28	Georgie	Maybe we gave too many examples of doubling.	DM2		ILP
29	Alison	…when they are doubling.	DM2		ILP
30	Rob	Yeah possibly.
31	Georgie	That’s good to know.

Dialogue	Scope	Learn. processes
[DM1] Requesting information [DM2] Building on ideas [DM3] Providing evidence	[S1] Group of pupils [S2] Particular pupils	[DLP] Descriptive processes [ILP] Interpretative processes

30 of 55

Methodology

Videos 91 teachers working in 30 LS groups (from 2 to 4 teachers each) from 30 different schools

Four two-minutes fragments, thereafter called episodes, were randomly selected for each group 🡪 Total: 120 episodes to code

Binary coding system: Coders decided whether or not each code could be seen for each teacher separately in each two-minute episode

Multilevel analysis conducted to determine whether the group learning processes had an impact on the processes of the individual teachers

31 of 55

Highlights from findings

The more teachers build on each others’ ideas at the group level, the more they engaged in descriptive learning at the individual level (importance of dialogue)

Talk about specific students contributes to individual’s descriptive learning, while talk about groups of students contributes to individual’s interpretive learning

The two learning processes should be regarded as two separate processes (no correlation between them); they do not influence each other

Learning in a group has an impact on teachers’ individual learning processes

32 of 55

Relevant paper:

33 of 55

Other publications that stem from the project

Vermunt, J., Vrikki, M., Dudley, P. & Warwick, P. (2023). Relations between teacher learning patterns, personal and contextual factors, and learning outcomes in the context of Lesson Study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 133. 10.1016/j.tate.2023.104295

Vermunt, J., Vrikki, M., van Halem, N., Warwick, P. & Mercer, N. (2019). The impact of Lesson Study professional development on the quality of teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 81, 61-73.

Warwick, P., Vrikki, M., Færøyvik Karlsen, A.M., Dudley, P.& Vermunt, J.D. (2019). The role of pupil voice as a trigger for teacher learning in Lesson Study professional groups. Cambridge Journal of Education, 49(4), 435-455.

Vrikki, M., Warwick, P., Vermunt, J.D., Mercer, N. & Van Halem, N. (2017). Teacher learning in the context of Lesson Study: A video-based analysis of teacher discussions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 211-224.

Warwick, P., Vrikki, M., Vermunt, J.D., Mercer, N. & Van Halem, N. (2016). Connecting observations of student and teacher learning: An examination of dialogic processes in Lesson Study discussions in mathematics. ZDM Mathematics Education, 48(4), 555-569.

Dudley, P. & Vrikki, M. (2019). Teachers’ collaborative dialogues in contexts of Lesson Study. In N. Mercer, R. Wegerif & L. Major (eds), The Routledge International Handbook of Research on Dialogue Education, pp. 217-226. Routledge.

Dudley, P., Warwick, P., Vrikki, M., Vermunt, J. D., Mercer, N., Van Halem, N. & Færøyvik Karlsen, A.M. (2019). Implementing a new mathematics curriculum in the UK: Lesson Study as a driver for professional dialogue and teacher learning. In R. Huang, T. Akihiko, & J. P. da Pedro (eds), Theory and Practice of Lesson Study in Mathematics: An international perspective. Springer.

Vermunt, J.D., Vrikki, M., Warwick, P. & Mercer, N. (2017). Connecting teacher identity formation to patterns in teacher learning. In S.J. Clandinin & J. Husu (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, Chapter 8. SAGE Publications: London.

34 of 55

Project 2: Lesson Study as a vehicle for improving achievement in mathematics (LESSAM)�

Duration: October 2020 – September 2023

Webpage: https://www.ucy.ac.cy/lessam2/?lang=en (available in English, Greek and Dutch)

35 of 55

Project 2: Lesson Study as a vehicle for improving achievement in mathematics (LESSAM)�

Members of the LESSAM Consortium
University of Cyprus (Coordinating partner)	National and Kapodistrian University of Athens	University of Antwerp	Eindhoven University of Technology	Cyprus Pedagogical Institute
Leonidas Kyriakides Maria Vrikki Panayiotis Antoniou	Giorgos Psycharis Despina Potari Chryssavgi Triantafyllou Theodosios Zachariades	Vincent Donche Katelijne Barbier Elke Struyf Ellen Vandervieren	Alexander Schuler-Meyer Nathalie van der Wal Jan Vermunt Birgit Pepin	Efi Papadistodemou Pavlina Hadjitheodoulou

36 of 55

Aims of the project

1. To examine the effects of teachers’ participation in Lesson Study on teacher learning and on their students’ mathematical reasoning

2. To examine the potential impact of the role of external support (LS Advisors and LS Facilitators) on teacher learning and on their students’ mathematical reasoning�

Lesson Study features

Teacher mental processes

Teacher learning outcomes

Changes in teaching

Changes in students

37 of 55

Role of external expert

Facilitators have been identified as a critical element for teacher professional development (e.g. Borko, 2004) 🡪 Various efforts focused on transforming teacher leadership to facilitators of teacher learning communities (e.g. Borko, Koellner & Jacobs, 2014)
In the LS literature, various terms exist for external experts: Facilitator (most widely used), Knowledgeable Other, Moderator, Outside Advisor, Experienced-Other (e.g. Cajkler & Wood, 2016)

38 of 55

Roles and responsibilities

Various roles:

As convenors, teacher trainers, researchers, group members 🡪 These ‘roles co-exist, alternate and influence each other throughout the process’ (Clivaz & Clerc-Georgy, 2020, p. 86)

Various responsibilities

To engage teachers in in-depth discussions about students’ thinking (e.g. Akiba et al., 2019)
To support teachers’ inquiry in LS and shaping its quality (e.g. Schipper et al., 2017)
To support teachers’ discussions in LS meetings by posing questions, encouraging teachers to share their experiences and perspectives, challenging teachers to reflect on their chosen activities, student predictions etc (e.g. Akiba et al., 2019; Bjuland & Helgevold, 2018)
To support more opportunities for potential moments of learning for practitioners (Mynott, 2018; De Vrie, Verhoed & Goei, 2016)
To “manage the LS process and stimulat[es] teachers to use theory and new insights” (Schipper et al., 2017)

Requires different kinds of expertise & adaptability

39 of 55

Research design

Intervention study conducted in all 4 countries
Target population: Mathematics teachers teaching in lower secondary schools (Grades 7-10)
Staged sampling procedure led to the recruitment of 124 teachers and 2427 students (from all countries)

40 of 55

Intervention with three groups

Experimental Group 1 LS + Facilitator	Experimental Group 2 LS + Advisor	Control group
guides teachers through the LS process fosters their discussions promotes teacher learning not expected to provide advice to teachers on how to improve their teaching practice.	guides teachers through the LS process fosters their discussions Provides suggestions on how to improve their teaching practice based on research findings. Respects teacher ownership: teachers make decisions on their teaching	Did not do Lesson Study

41 of 55

Three groups

	Time 1 (October 2022)	Intervention (Nov2022 – Apr2023)	Time 2 (May 2023)
Experimental group 1: LS + Facilitator	Written tests on mathematical reasoning	Teachers conducted the RLS twice with a Facilitator	Written tests on mathematical reasoning
Experimental group 2: LS + Advisor		Teachers conducted the RLS twice with an Advisor
Control group		Teachers did not conduct LS

42 of 55

Quantitative data

Aspects of mathematical reasoning: inductive reasoning, evaluation of mathematical claims, deductive reasoning, reasoning by analogy, reasoning with images etc.
Five tests were developed to assess students’ cognitive learning outcomes in relation to mathematical reasoning

Test A used as pre-test of Grade 7, Test B used as post-test of Grade 7 and pre-test of Grade 8, Test C used as post-test of Grade 8 and pre-test of Grade 9, Test D used as post-test of Grade 9 and pre-test of Grade 10 and Test E used as post-test of Grade 10.

The tests were validated since their construct validity was checked through across- and within- country analyses.

Written tests measuring students’ mathematical reasoning

43 of 55

Quantitative findings

At pre-test, no statistically significant differences were found between the three groups in all countries (one-way ANOVA)

At post-test, we found the following statistically significant differences (Scheffe test)

Cyprus: The Advisor Group was found to perform better than both the Control Group and the Facilitator Group.
Greece: The Advisor Group was found to perform better than the other two groups and the Facilitator Group was found to perform better than the Control Group.
Belgium: The Advisor Group was found to perform better than the other two groups but the differences detected were significant at .10 level.

44 of 55

Qualitative data (from Cyprus)

Aim: To explore the roles of facilitators and advisors further

Two focus groups were recorded:

Focus group 1 (duration 1h6m): 3 Advisors, expertise in teaching mathematics
Focus group 2 (duration 1h9m): 4 Facilitators, expertise in pedagogy (no background in mathematics)

Interview Schedule: Questions mainly concerned:

How they approached their roles
How they supported teachers
Whether aims were achieved
How they value their roles
etc

45 of 55

Qualitative findings

“It's a difficult dilemma [because] you find yourself in a difficult position where you have to justify your role in the discussion; you can't just attend and coordinate. Teachers looked to us for direction. The teachers themselves did not see us as facilitators but as advisors. They were waiting for us to give them direction. So it was a bit awkward a lot of times [because] you just asked them more questions without giving answers.”

Facilitator 1

Reported dilemmas from both Advisors and Facilitators

“The difficulty I had was, on the one hand, to give some suggestions and, on the other hand, to let [teachers] make some decisions, e.g. during lesson planning. What I did was more to let teachers do the planning first, then discuss it with each other, and then I would ask some questions […] that aimed to help them make some changes on their lesson plans. But I didn't always manage to do this.”

Advisor 1

46 of 55

Qualitative findings

Facilitator as organizer of LS process

“I think my presence there was basically [so teachers] would have space and time to meet. If teachers really wanted to have these meetings they would do it. Being there felt like I was a supervisor. […] [I think the facilitator is not necessary] provided the teachers want to be involved.”

Facilitator 1

Facilitator as teacher trainer

“Regarding the facilitator, I think that after the experience of the groups [with the LESSAM] program, [the teachers] can function without the facilitator, just with the handbook. I think they understood the process, how the discussions should be, what they should discuss, what they should observe. […] [As teacher trainers] we want to train [teachers] to do this reflection, not to [always] need someone else.”

Facilitator 2

Evaluating the role of facilitator

47 of 55

Symposium:��Investigating the effectiveness of Lesson Study: A European project

Tuesday 28^th November 2023

14:00-15:30

Room 15

48 of 55

Conclusions and insights for future research

49 of 55

In order to enhance their learning, teachers should…

…develop an awareness of the different types of talk that they could engage in during LS discussions and strive to use exploratory talk.
…actively engage in descriptive and interpretive learning by sharing knowledge and interpreting information in their LS groups.

Conclusions for teachers

50 of 55

Literature is limited and undertheorized 🡪 Need for tighter descriptions of the role and background characteristics of effective LS Facilitators

The complexities of this role may suggest the need for a PD on LS Facilitators.

More research needed to examine the different types of role of LS facilitators

Do Advisors (who have expertise in the teaching of the subject matter) contribute to more effective Lesson Study processes in other contexts too?
How can Advisors maximize teachers’ learning opportunities?

Conclusions for LS external supporters

51 of 55

More large-scale studies with controlled designs are needed
A conceptual model that can help tie these findings to a common framework is needed

This can help us answer the question of “what helps when”

Conclusions for theory

52 of 55

References (I)

Akiba, M., Murata, A., Howard, C. C., & Wilkinson, B. (2019). Lesson study design features for supporting collaborative teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 77, 352–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.10.012

Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1977). Communication and Learning in Small Groups. London. Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.

Benedict, A. E., Williams, J., Brownell, M.T., Chapman, L. Sweers, A. & Sohn, H. (2023). Using lesson study to change teacher knowledge and practice: The role of knowledge sources in teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 122.

Bjuland, R. & Helgevold, N. (2018). Dialogic processes that enable student teachers’ learning about pupil learning in mentoring conversations in a Lesson Study field practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 246-254.

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.

Borko, H., Jacobs, J. & Koellner, K. (2010). Contemporary Approaches to Teacher Professional Development. In P. Peterson, E. Baker & B. McGaw (eds), International Encyclopedia of Education. volume 7, pp. 548-556. Oxford: Elsevier.

Cajkler, W., Wood, P., Norton, J., & Pedder, D. (2013). Lesson Study: Towards a collaborative approach to learning in Initial Teacher Education? Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(4), 537–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2013.834037

Cajkler, W. & Wood, P. (2016). Mentors and student-teachers “lesson-studying” in initial teacher education. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 5(2), 84-98.

Clivaz, S. & Clerc-Georgy, A. (2020). Facilitators’ roles in lesson study. In A. Murata & C.K.E. Lee (eds), Stepping up Lesson Study: An educator’s guide to deeper learning. Chapter 9.

Cheung,W. M., & Wong, W. Y. (2014). Does lesson study work?: A systematic review on the effects of lesson study and learning study on teachers and students. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 3(2), 137-149. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLLS-05-2013-0024

Chong, W. H. & Kong, C. A (2012). Teacher Collaborative Learning and Teacher Self-Efficacy: The Case of Lesson Study, The Journal of Experimental Education, 80(3), 263-283, DOI: 10.1080/00220973.2011.596854

Collet, V. S. (2017). Lesson study in a turnaround school: Local knowledge as a pressure-balanced valve for improved instruction. Teachers College Record, 119(6), 1e58. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811711900605

De Vries, S., Verhoef, N. & Goei, S. L. (2016). Lesson Study: a practical guide for education.

53 of 55

References (II)

Dudley, P. (2013). Teacher learning in lesson study: What interaction-level discourse analysis revealed about how teachers utilised imagination, tacit knowledge of teaching and fresh evidence of pupils learning, to develop practice knowledge and so enhance their pupils’ learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 107–121.

Gersten, R., Taylor, M. J., Keys, T. D., Rolfhus, E., & Newman‐Gonchar, R. (2014). Summary of research on the effectiveness of math professional development approaches. (REL 2014–010). Washington, DC: Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs

Goh, R. & Fang, Y. (2023). A tale of two schools: curriculum deliberation and school-level orientation in transforming knowledge through lesson study. International Journal for Lesson & Learning Studies, 12(2). 166-178. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLLS-02-2022-0026

Hadfield, M. & Jopling, M. (2016). Problematizing lesson study and its impacts: Studying a highly contextualised approach to professional learning, Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 203-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.08.001.

Kager, K., Mynott, J. P. & Vock, M. (2023). A conceptual model for teachers’ continuous professional development through lesson study: Capturing inputs, processes, and outcome. International Journal of Educational Research Open. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2023.100272

Karlsen, A.M.F. & Helgevold, N. (2019). Lesson Study: analytic stance and depth of noticing in post-lesson discussions. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 8(4). pp. 290-304. DOI 10.1108/IJLLS-04-2019-0034

Lewis, C., & Perry, R. (2014). Lesson study with mathematical resources: A sustainable model for locally-led teacher professional learning. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 16(1), 22-42. https://doi.org/10.3316/aeipt.205652

Littleton, K. & Mercer, N. (2013). Interthinking: Putting Talk to Work. Routledge.

Lo, M.L., Chik, P.P.M. & Pang, M.F. (2006), Patterns of variation in teaching the colour of light to primary 3 students, Instructional Science, 34(1), pp. 1-19.

Moss, J., Hawes, Z., Naqvi, S., & Caswell, B. (2015). Adapting Japanese lesson study to enhance the teaching and learning of geometry and spatial reasoning in early years classrooms: A case study. ZDM, 47(3), 377-390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0679-2

Mercer, N. (1995). The Guided Construction of Knowledge: Talk Amongst Teachers and Learners. Clevedon. Multilingual Matters.

54 of 55

References (III)

Vermunt, J., Vrikki, M., Dudley, P. & Warwick, P. (2023). Relations between teacher learning patterns, personal and contextual factors, and learning outcomes in the context of Lesson Study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 133. 10.1016/j.tate.2023.104295

Vermunt, J., Vrikki, M., van Halem, N., Warwick, P. & Mercer, N. (2019). The impact of Lesson Study professional development on the quality of teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 81, 61-73.

Vermunt, J.D., Vrikki, M., Warwick, P. & Mercer, N. (2017). Connecting teacher identity formation to patterns in teacher learning. In S.J. Clandinin & J. Husu (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, Chapter 8. SAGE Publications: London.

Vrikki, M., Warwick, P., Vermunt, J.D., Mercer, N. & Van Halem, N. (2017). Teacher learning in the context of Lesson Study: A video-based analysis of teacher discussions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 211-224.

Warwick, P., Vrikki, M., Vermunt, J.D., Mercer, N. & Van Halem, N. (2016). Connecting observations of student and teacher learning: An examination of dialogic processes in Lesson Study discussions in mathematics. ZDM Mathematics Education, 48(4), 555-569.

Xu, H., & Pedder, D. (2014). Lesson Study. An international review of research. In P. Dudley (Ed.), Lesson Study: Professional learning for our time (pp. 29-58). London: Routledge.

Murphy, R., Weinhardt, F., Wyness, G., & Rolfe, H. (2017). Lesson study: Evaluation report and executive summary. Education Endowment Foundation. Retrieved from https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/public/files/Projects/Evaluation_Reports/Lesson_ Study.pdf

Mynott, J. (2018). Facilitating the Lesson Study Facilitator: a reflection on expertise in Lesson Study, paper presented to The IPDA Annual Conference at Conference Centre, Border Crossings: Professional Development in the 21st Century, Aston University, Birmingham, UK, 16–17 November 2018.

Norwich, B., Koutsouris, G., Fujita, T., Ralph, T., Adlam, A., & Milton, F. (2016). Exploring knowledge bridging and translation in lesson study using an inter Professional team. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 5(3), 180–195. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLLS-02-2016-0006

Perry, R. R., & Lewis, C. C. (2009). What is successful adaptation of lesson study in the US? Journal of Educational Change, 10(4), 365-391.

Schipper, Τ., 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.

Schipper, T., Goei, S. L., de Vries, S. & van Veen, K. (2018). Developing teachers’ self-efficacy and adaptive teaching behaviour through lesson study, International Journal of Educational Research, 88, 109-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.01.011.

55 of 55

Thank you for your attention

vrikki.maria@ucy.ac.cy

vrikki.m@unic.ac.cy