What is lesson study?

At its simplest, lesson study can be described as a joint practice development approach to
professional learning in which teachers collaboratively plan a lesson, observe it being taught and
then discuss what they have learnt about teaching and learning. However, the critical features of
the lesson study process are less simple to identify and frequently contested in the literature.

Based on an analysis of the literature, and drawing largely on a model developed by Lewis (2000) we
have attempted to identify the critical components of the lesson study process (see Figure 1).

Critical features of the lesson study process

1. Identify focus
To identify a school-wide research theme, teachers compare long-term goals for pupil
learning and development to current pupils’ learning characteristics.

2. Planning
Teachers work in collaborative groups to carry out kyozai kenkyu (study of material relevant
to the research theme). This study leads to the production of a collaboratively written plan
for a research lesson. This detailed plan attempts to anticipate pupil responses,
misconceptions and successes for the lesson.

3. Research lesson
The research lesson is taught by one teacher (called the focus teacher), who is a member of
the collaborative planning group. Other members of the group act as silent observers,
collecting evidence of pupil learning in relation to the research theme.

4. Post-lesson discussion
The collaborative group meet to discuss the evidence gathered. Their learning in relation to
the research theme is identified and recorded. It is intended that this learning informs
subsequent cycles of research lessons.

5. Repeated cycles of research lessons

Subsequent research lessons are planned and taught that draw on the findings from the
post-lesson discussions.

6. Mobilising knowledge
Opportunities should be created for teachers working in one lesson study group to access
and use the knowledge from other groups, either through observing other groups’ research
lessons or through the publication of group findings.

7. Outside expertise
Where possible, there should be input from a kochi or ‘outside expert’ involved in the
planning process and/or the research lesson.

Figure 1: Critical components of lesson study

Japanese authors recognise the appeal and power of lesson study for countries beyond Japan, but
are well aware of the potential pitfalls. Isoda (2007) states that:

…moving outside of its own historical and cultural context may entail the loss of some of the
powerful influences that shape and give direction to lesson study in Japan.

He acknowledges that in moving beyond Japan, lesson study may undergo ’creative
transformation’ as it is adapted to a different culture. In other words, there is a recognition that the
Japanese model of lesson study will not easily translate into another cultural context and some kind
of adaptation might be necessary.

American and Japanese researchers have written extensively about the successes and challenges of
adopting the lesson study model in a US context. However, very few researchers have focused on
the nature of implementation in an English context. What does this mean for English schools
wanting to implement a lesson study approach?

Our lesson study model

In our experiences of working with English schools, a practical application of the LCLL lesson study
model has the following features:

1. Establishing the collaborative group

Teachers are placed into groups of around three or four. The composition of the groups vary,
sometimes these are year group, phase or departmental groups, sometimes they are cross-phase or
cross-subject groups.

In homogenous groups, there is often a shared language and understanding of the research theme
and new learning is more easily incorporated into shared curricula and policies. The timetables of
such groups are often similar making it easier to find shared time to allocate to lesson study.

More disparate groups enable the asking of naïve questions that challenges teachers’ thinking: ‘Yes,
why have I always done it like that?’ They help teachers to gain a wider appreciation of the learning
needs of different achievement groups and to see that often, similar problems are faced by teachers
in different phases and subject areas to which there might be common pedagogical solutions.

Each group has an identified chair, who will lead planning sessions, research lessons and post-lesson
discussions. This person should feel confident to lead the group and to manage the lesson study
process. The chair may or may not participate as a focus teacher.

2. Identifying a focus

The school identifies a priority, usually from the school development plan, that would be beneficial
to focus on for lesson study. This becomes the school’s research theme and is often identified in
consultation with teachers. This theme may be developed for a year or more.
3. Planning

Based on the overarching research theme and using the LCLL ‘impact framework’ (Earley
and Porritt, 2010), groups of teachers consider what changes in pupils’ learning and teacher practice
they want to see. The impact framework supports teachers to consider what learning will look like
in a year’s time if the desired change is successfully made to teaching and learning (the impact), and
specifically what teachers and pupils will be:
- saying
- doing
- hearing
- feeling.

The impact framework then supports teachers to consider what learning currently looks like (the
baseline) in comparison to the desired situation (the impact). Based on this comparison of baseline
and impact, a research question is developed that will guide the lesson study process. The research
question should be tight enough to guide the research but loose enough to allow for unexpected
outcomes. Teachers often find this stage of the process difficult. Teachers often request support to
help them tighten their research question and align it with the baseline-impact statements in their
impact framework and to identify some related key research or good practice evidence for kyozai
kenkyu. Teachers will share this research and discuss which of the findings are relevant to their
context and might be worth exploring in the research lesson. They will agree which member of the
group will be the first focus teacher, who will teach the first research lesson.

Three hours of professional learning time (for example, a morning or afternoon) is then allocated for
the planning of the research lesson. This handbook provides a standard template (page 36) for this
that encourages teachers to link the lesson plan to the impact framework, the research question and
the lessons drawn from kyozai kenkyu. The lesson plan is written with a small group of focus pupils
in mind (maximum of six). Key to the planning of this lesson is the writing of a script-like description
of the lesson that includes expected pupil responses (both successful and unsuccessful). This is not a
script to be adhered to in the research lesson, but an attempt to consider and to have planned for
the various possible outcomes for pupils, in order that the teacher may focus on an exploration of
the research question, rather than in firefighting in response to unexpected pupil responses and
confusions. At the end of the lesson plan, three questions for observers are planned so that it is
clear what the focus of the observational data gathered should be. Sometimes teachers who are not
teaching the research lesson agree to try the lesson out beforehand to test its assumptions and to
feedback any relevant information to the group before the date of the research lesson.

4. Research lesson

On the day of the research lesson, the teacher group meets to review the lesson plan. A seating plan
is shared and each teacher is given one or two focus pupils to observe. Any important contextual
information is shared (for example, recent issues that may affect the class dynamic). During the
research lesson, the observers attempt to remain as unobtrusive as possible. They do not interact
with each other and avoid interacting with the pupils as much as possible, often by deflecting any
attempt at interaction by saying ‘Go and ask your teacher about that’. Unless the lesson involves
considerable movement by pupils (for example in a free flow early years setting), observers remain
static for the majority of the lesson. They gather as much observational detail as they can about the
focus pupils, including times, actual words, actions and feelings.
5. Post-lesson discussion

Where possible, teachers meet immediately after the lesson to discuss their findings. There is a
formal chair for this discussion and ideally this is a teacher who was not observing a focus pupil or
the focus teacher. The chair follows a set of strict protocols, (page 50) that aims to ensure a tight
focus on the research question and to avoid judgemental language: we are exploring learning not
teaching. During the first part of the discussion, each observer shares the evidence they have
gathered in turn, with no interruptions apart from requests for clarification or further detail. The
teacher who taught the lesson speaks last. Once each set of observational data has been shared, the
chair suggests two to three themes for further discussion that are common across the observational
data. These themes form the basis for the second part of the discussion. Finally, as the professional
dialogue draws to a close, the chair suggests ideas from the discussion might be useful to explore in
the next research lesson and encourages the teachers to think about what changes they might want
to make to their own classroom practice, based on what they have observed and discussed.

6. Knowledge mobilisation

This cycle of planning, research lesson and post-lesson discussion is repeated until each teacher in
the group has had the opportunity to teach a research lesson. Teachers often refer back to the
impact frameworks to see if they have achieved the anticipated planned impact. At this point some
findings are usually agreed that would be useful to share with a broader group of staff, or at an all
staff event. A plan is developed to achieve this ‘knowledge mobilisation’ (Sharples, 2013). Many
schools have allocated professional learning time to share findings. Others have planned ‘open
house’ research lessons to showcase findings, where teachers beyond the planning group for the
lesson are able to observe and participate in the post-lesson discussion.

Japanese lesson study in English schools: potential tensions

What do schools need to know about the Japanese education system in order to understand the
need for ‘creative transformation’ (Isoda, 2007) of the approach in England, as exemplified in the
above model of lesson study?

We believe there are five important differences between the two systems and cultures that need to
be considered by schools wanting to implement lesson study.

1. Teacher learning and development

As a profession, teaching in Japan has a higher status than in England and is a job for life. Takahashi
(2016) describes three levels of teacher competency (this one is a mathematics model):

Level 1: The teacher can tell students the important basic ideas of mathematics
such as facts, concepts and procedures;
Level 2: The teacher can explain the meanings and reasons behind the important
basic ideas of mathematics in order for pupils to understand them;
 Level 3: The teacher can provide pupils with opportunities to understand these
basic ideas, and support their learning so that the pupils become
independent learners.

A Level 1 teacher could feasibly be replaced by a computer programme. The main ambition is to
enable all teachers to work at Level 3. However, this is seen as a ten year journey, and lesson study
is perceived as a key professional learning model to enable this progression (see Figure 2).

For becoming a Level For becoming a Level For becoming a Level

1 teacher 2 teacher 3 teacher
Phase 1 Professional Reviewing the Undergraduate Undergraduate
Development contents for teaching courses for courses for
prospective teachers prospective teachers
 Workbooks
 Online courses  Books/ resources  Books/ resources
 Developing lesson  Classroom videos  Classroom videos
plans  Classroom  Classroom
observation observation

Lesson study
Phase 2 Professional
Development Design, teach,
observe and reflect
Find effective ways of
presenting ideas and Establishing shared
procedures through knowledge for Level 3
lesson study teaching

Figure 2: The role of lesson study in teacher progression

In England, in contrast, a teacher who has successfully passed their NQT year is expected to teach
with the same skill and confidence as a teacher who has spent 20 years in the classroom.

2. Teacher accountability

In Japan, there is not a strong performance management or accountability framework for teachers
at primary level. There is a nationally administered test of ‘academic skills’ for pupils at the
beginning of grade six, which puts some pressure on teachers to teach well. This contrasts to
England, where there are high stakes statutory tests at Year One, plus the Key Stage 1 and 2 SATs
and pressures on teachers in all year groups to demonstrate ‘good progress’.

When the professors from Tokyo Gakugei University were asked what would happen if a teacher was
identified as struggling they gave an example:

If a Year 3 teacher was identified as struggling, it would be the responsibility of all Year 3
teachers to ensure the effective learning of all pupils in Year 3. This would mean the other
 teachers would support the struggling teacher until such time as their teaching had sufficiently
improved.

This contrasts sharply with the rigorous performance management systems in operation in many
English primary schools and the perceived need to ‘move teachers on’ should their performance be
below expectations and not improving. This accountability and performance management
framework in England has created what Chris Watkins (2010) has depicted (Figure 3) as a tension
between lesson observation as a tool to improve learning and lesson study as a means of proving
one’s performance:

Figure 3: Tension between learning and performance (Watkins, 2010)

What does this mean for lesson study? Below is a quote from a Japanese teacher, reflecting on her
experience of teaching a research lesson:

I remember one time I did an awful [study] lesson… As a result, I got a lot of severe criticism
from the other teachers…I got so upset I started to cry in front of the other teachers. I still
remember the event and every time I recall it, I still feel shivers down my spine. I guess I started
to cry because I was disgusted with myself and embarrassed about my teaching ability. I
thought I was a good teacher, but my confidence and pride was destroyed … Later on that day,
some of the teachers took me out for a drink. And they told me that they were hard on me
because I was a tough person and had the potential for becoming a good teacher… I took the
event as my own medicine and now I am very seriously thinking about improving my teaching…
(Fernandez & Yoshida, 2012)

Many English teachers’ response to this quote is to say that this experience would have been highly
demotivating for them, the opposite response to that of the Japanese teacher. My own experiences
of observing lesson study in Japan corroborates the fact that the teacher who taught the lesson feels
(s)he ‘owns’ it and is responsible for its success or failure, despite the collaborative planning. It is
also evident that the discussion of the lesson feels like ‘feedback’ to the teacher who taught the
lesson and is considered crucial to their own personal learning as a teacher.
Chokshi and Fernandez (2004) argue that this focus on observation as performance management
could put US teachers off the lesson study model or divert its focus to the showcasing of ‘excellent’
teachers. Both US and English academics have identified the risk of teachers failing to engage in rich
conversations about learning due to the perceived need to be polite and supportive towards other
practitioners.

As a result of this tension, our guidance on lesson study significantly shifts the focus away from
individual responsibility for the lesson towards collective responsibility. Protocols for chairing post-
lesson discussions (page 50) encourage the use of ‘we’ rather than ‘you’ or ‘I’ and clamp down on
any judgemental comments, either positive or negative. The protocols frame the discussion as a
sharing of observational evidence of pupil learning (not teaching) and the collective lessons that can
be drawn from this evidence.

3. Curriculum and pedagogy

The Japanese curriculum is significantly less content-heavy than the English National Curriculum.
This means that Japanese teachers can focus on quality rather than quantity and develop deep
learning, not just basic skills. In one lesson we observed, the pupils spent the whole entire hour
debating whether it would be possible to divide by a decimal: not actually doing the division, but
considering whether it was conceptually possible.

This ‘freedom’ is deceptive as there are nationally sanctioned sets of textbooks at teacher and pupil
level, that broadly follow the same teaching sequences, which every school is expected to use. This
means that when teachers engage in planning meetings or visit research lessons in other schools,
they are all speaking the same language in terms of their knowledge of individual lessons and the
broader sequence of learning. Lewis (2006) noted that without textbooks and teachers’ manuals, US
teachers relied on a study of procedural materials when planning which sometimes led to lower
quality discussions.

For us, the role of kyozai kenkyu in the lesson study process is crucial here, as engaging with
materials that may challenge teachers’ beliefs about education and their embedded practices can
significantly raise the quality of teacher discussion. Similarly, the role of the kochi or ‘outside expert’
has been integral to the success of kyozai kenkyu. We can provide valuable support to lesson study
projects by locating material that will challenge teachers’ thinking, a key feature of powerful
professional learning (Stoll et al, 2012), and finding ways to present this material to teachers that
make it accessible and engaging. The lesson study protocols in this handbook draw teachers back to
the findings from their own kyozai kenkyu sessions frequently to ensure that the quality of dialogue
remains high.

Similarly, lesson study has enabled Japanese teachers to develop a shared language for pedagogy
and an agreed structure for lessons. For example, in mathematics, the lesson begins with hatsumon,
a brief introduction to the problem solving activity. Pupils are then asked to tackle the activity
independently. While pupils do this, the teacher engages in kikanshidou, observing pupil responses,
deciding which will be shared as examples and in which order. This is followed by neriage, or whole
class social construction of ideas. The entire lesson is recorded on a long blackboard or wipeboard,
including what the teacher has said and pupil responses or questions. This is called bansho. The
lesson ends with matome, where the teacher summarises the learning from the lesson, by following
the development of thinking as recorded in the bansho.

Whereas lesson study groups in Japanese schools largely have a subject specialism and focus on a
specific subject concept or theme, our experience in England has been that lesson study groups can
gain successful learning by focusing on a specific area of pedagogy and its application into different
subject areas. In our experience, there is considerable scope in England to debate and explore
pedagogy as well as to develop subject knowledge.

4. Teaching time

Fujii (2014) describes the process of designing a research lesson as sometimes taking more than half
a year and Fernandez (2002) talks about 10-15 hours of time over a 3 to 4 week period. In Japan,
schools are closed for one afternoon a week and this time can be given over to lesson study.

Our own research identified the reasonable allocation of teacher time as integral to the success of
the lesson study project. In fact, where teachers were not given sufficient time (for example, when
teachers were expected to use their own release or after-school time for planning and post-lesson
discussions), there was an associated reduced reported impact on improvements to practice and on
pupil learning. Schools we have supported to successfully scale up lesson study have redeployed
professional learning time, rather than increasing it. Several after-school staff meetings have been
allocated to the identification of a research theme, kyozai kenkyu and planning the lesson, meaning
the only teacher release time required is for research lessons.

5. The role of the expert or kochi

The kochi plays a key role in shaping any impact analysis, linking the lesson study to the broader
research and good practice literature and developing lesson study protocols, to ensure deep learning
for teachers.

The US lesson study literature highlights teachers’ unfamiliarity with research as problematic.
Murata (2011) describes how US teachers found it difficult to develop a research hypothesis, to
design an appropriate classroom experiment to test the hypothesis, to gather and use appropriate
evidence, and to generalise the findings. In our projects, we have supported teachers through this
process and enabled them to develop a research skillset and understanding that goes beyond lesson
study. This is important as it enables teachers to become ‘proponents of evidence informed expert
judgment rather than evidence-based, top down instruction’ (Brown, 2016).

In addition, the kochi plays a key role in enabling knowledge mobilisation across schools. Chokshi
and Fernandez (2004) describe how Japanese lesson study groups operate within networks that can
share findings and pool professional knowledge. Such networks are not accessible to all schools in
the US or England. Pedder (2015) sees the development of lesson study networks as key to the
success of English lesson study. Our lesson study experts have been able to share learning across
the many lesson study networks they have supported in terms of teaching and learning, as well as
the successful implementation of lesson study.

When is lesson study not lesson study?

When carrying out an extensive literature review to explore the impact of lesson study on teacher
and pupil learning, we came across many studies that seemed to have made adaptations to lesson
study such that they lost the essence of the approach. In our view, the adaptations of lesson study
below move so far away from the Japanese model that they risk not being lesson study at all.

It’s enough for teachers to simply talk about teaching.

Several lesson study models focus on teacher talk in the lesson study process as the key vehicle for
learning. In our view, it is the engagement with research knowledge in combination with teacher
collaboration that makes lesson study so powerful. Without reference to what is known about the
research theme beyond the school, teachers may be simply ‘reinventing the wheel’, possibly to a
lower design specification. Kyozai kenkyu is highlighted in much of the Japanese literature on lesson
study as a vital part of the process. Kyozai kenkyu prevents ‘groupthink’ (Janis, 1972) whereby the
research group fails to consider viable and more effective alternative teaching and learning
strategies, preferring to operate within its own (possibly ineffective) comfort zone.

We can use video instead of live observation.

Despite the fact that there is no evidence of video being used in Japanese lesson study, several
research studies have replaced the live lesson observation with video recording for reasons of
expedience and cost. This is obviously a tempting option for schools who are struggling to cover the
costs for release time for teachers to observe a research lesson. In our opinion, video is a poor
substitute for live lesson observation. If there is only one camera, it is very likely to be focused on
the teacher, shifting the observers’ focus from learning to teaching. Even the most recent
developments in video technology cannot capture the full 3D effect of sitting in a lesson: there are
only so many angles from which the camera can film. A live observation, where the teacher sits
near the focus pupil, enables them to gain a sense of the pupils’ emotional reactions to the lesson as
well as their verbal responses and physical actions. Teachers are often able to capture the quieter
communication between pupils, which can be more informative than the louder communication in
whole class discussion.

Having said this, there are occasions where the judicious use of video can expand access to lesson
study, without compromising on the benefits of a live lesson observation, for example if it enables
extra observers to see a lesson and participate in the post-lesson discussion without destabilising the
teaching.

We are developing the perfect lesson.

In terms of revising or re-teaching the research lesson, the literature diverges. Some sources claim
that revising and re-teaching the lesson to a different class is a standard part of the lesson study
process, while others declare it as optional or as not part of the process.

Professor Fuji, from Tokyo Gakugei University sees the re-teaching of the lesson as unethical. In his
opinion, a research lesson is designed with a particular class at a particular moment in the learning
process in mind. To teach the same lesson to another class with a different set of pre-learning
experiences would work against the learning needs of these pupils. This links to a focus in the
literature, on lesson study as a process, not a product. Chokshi and Fernandez (2004) state that
lesson study is about ‘intellectual process’ rather than ‘isolated products’. In our opinion, perfecting
one lesson should not be the focus of a lesson study process. Lesson study should focus instead on
gradual, incremental changes to teachers’ practice that will enable improved learning for all pupils
over time.

We don’t need to look outside our own school.

Several studies note the role of the ‘outside expert’ (kochi) in the lesson study process. Murata
(2011) describes how the kochi observes the lesson, pulls together the ideas shared in the
discussion, and ties what is explored to larger subject-matter and pedagogical issues. The kochi ‘s
role is to ensure that teachers build on the work of other lesson study groups, the kochi acting as a
‘bridge between the various lesson study groups that he or she works with or knows about’
(Fernandez and Yoshida, 2012). Japanese lesson study groups operate within networks that can
share findings and pool professional knowledge via the kochi. It has been argued that the need to
source and develop such experts in the US and UK is crucial to the success of lesson study, and that
the associated cost to schools makes this problematic.

In addition, teachers’ unfamiliarity with research was found to be problematic in the US. Many
teachers found it difficult to develop a research hypothesis, to design an appropriate classroom
experiment to test the hypothesis, to gather and use appropriate evidence, and to generalise the
findings. In our projects, we have been able to support teachers through this process to develop a
research skillset and understanding that goes beyond lesson study, which has wider beneficial
impact on their professionalism and practice.

In our model of lesson study, the kochi plays a key role in shaping any impact analysis, linking the
lesson study to the broader research and good practice literature and developing lesson study
protocols to ensure deep learning for teachers. We have been able to share learning across the
many lesson study networks we have supported in terms of shared knowledge about teaching and
learning and the successful implementation of lesson study.

We’ll all help you plan your lesson and then give you feedback.
As described above, the accountability and performance management framework in England has
created what Chris Watkins (2010) has depicted (Figure 3) as a tension between lesson observation
as a tool to improve learning and as a means of proving one’s performance.

Teachers being observed as part of standard performance management lesson observations do not
want to take risks with their practice: the stakes are too high. And yet, it is only by taking risks that
they are likely to improve their practice. One of the most beneficial aspects of lesson study reported
by schools is that it encourages teachers to take risks with their practice by making the lesson a
shared product. The lesson is ‘ours’ not ‘yours’ and therefore we all take responsibility for its
successes and failures.

Some schools have tried to short-circuit the need for release time for teachers, by providing them
with time out of class to discuss the lesson plan, but then expecting the teacher whose class will be
taught to produce the written plan. This has two undesirable outcomes. Firstly, the value of the
planning process lies largely in the co-production of the ‘script’. It is in the writing of the ‘script’ that
teachers report their most significant learning and in which the shared ownership of the lesson is
forged. Secondly, as the lesson plan has now been written by the person who will teach the lesson,
it essentially ‘belongs’ to them and is therefore much closer to a performance management lesson
observation. In post-lesson discussions teachers therefore find it difficult not to slip into the ‘what
went well, even better if’ language frame for lesson observation feedback, as the lesson is a
demonstration of the individual teacher’s skill and not the group’s shared understanding of pupil
learning.