See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/338286831

Revisioning Grammar Instruction through Collaborative Lesson Study: A New

Apprenticeship of Observation

Article  in  Literacy Research and Instruction · December 2019

DOI: 10.1080/19388071.2019.1709927

CITATIONS READS

7 220

2 authors, including:

Vicki Collet
University of Arkansas
31 PUBLICATIONS   142 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Lesson Study View project

Expert Perspectives on the RISE Arkansas Initiative View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vicki Collet on 25 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Revisioning Grammar Instruction through Collaborative Lesson Study: A New
Apprenticeship of Observation
Vicki S. Collet
University of Arkansas
Angelia C. Greiner
University of Arkansas

Pre-print manuscript; please cite the final version:

Collet, V.S. & Greiner, A.C. (2020). Revisioning grammar instruction through
collaborative lesson study: A new apprenticeship of observation. Literacy Research &
Instruction 59(2), 95-120.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Vicki S. Collet,

Department of Curriculum and Instruction, 1 University of Arkansas, 120 Peabody Hall,
Fayetteville, AR 72701. Contact: collet@uark.edu
 Revisioning Grammar Instruction through Collaborative Lesson Study: A New
Apprenticeship of Observation
Grammar and punctuation instruction often focuses on memorization of definitions,
ineffective worksheets, and out-of-context application, practices that ignore the possibility of
punctuation as an element of design and result in little transfer to students’ own writing (Dunn &
Lindblom, 2011; Gwosdek, 2013; Liu, 2011; Hillocks, 1986; 2003; Hudson, 2016; Myhill, 2010;
Phipps & Borg, 2009; Smagorinsky, Wright, Augustine, O’Donnell-Allen, & Konopak, 2007).
Too often, both teachers and students see punctuation as a technical skill, ignoring links to
meaning (Hancock, 2009). Teachers may be unsure of the value of teaching mechanics of writing
and may be insecure in their own knowledge of syntax and punctuation as meaning markers
(Hudson, 2016; Myhill, 2010).
Where knowledge and efficacy are lacking, teacher professional development (PD)
provides the possibility for improved instruction. However, there is limited research on PD in
teaching grammar and punctuation (Miller, 2008), and existing studies tend to treat punctuation
as a rule-based skill rather than a method for supporting meaning (Fearn & Farnan, 2012; Pella,
2015). Increasing teachers’ knowledge and self-efficacy for teaching grammar and punctuation
requires effective professional development.
Teachers’ professional development (PD) is often impersonal and reliant on presenters
who are not part of their unique learning communities (Nasciutti, Veresov, & de Aragão, 2016;
Ono & Ferreira, 2010). However, teachers benefit from the opportunity to collaborate with their
peers and appropriate new information within the context of their own classrooms (Coenders &
Verhoef, 2019; Grimm, Kaufman, & Doty, 2014; Nasciutti et al., 2016; Scherer, 2014).
PD may be effective in providing information to teachers but fail when it comes to the
time needed to grapple with the information and experiment with it in their own classrooms
(McDonald, 2012; Ferraro, 2000). Teachers may attend PD for a day, or even a week, but if the
new knowledge is non-contextual, absent of the students who the new learning aims to help,
impact decreases (Author, 2017; Horn & Little, 2010; Simon & Johnson, 2015). Additionally,
PD may include limited time for teachers to “reflect on their teaching for transformative
learning” and on how to promote reflective learning in their students (Brockbank, & McGill,
2007, p.119).
The call for more effective practices in teacher PD has led to a number of different
methods; among these is a learning cycle called Lesson Study. Lesson Study originated in Japan
but has since been used in many countries and locations (Makinae, 2010, Saito, Murase, Tsukui,
& Yeo, 2015). During Lesson Study, teachers use their classrooms as labs to observe student
learning first-hand and study the effectiveness of their practice in collaboration with their peers
(Author, 2017; Lewis, Perry, Hurd, & O’Connell, 2006; Ono & Ferreira, 2010).
To investigate the potential for teacher learning through Lesson Study in English
Language Arts, this paper considers the dynamics of collaboration as teachers experienced
Lesson Study for the first time. Our study was guided by the questions: What (if any) aspects of
Lesson Study promote and extend high school English teachers’ knowledge and practice in
grammar and punctuation instruction? What (if any) new pedagogical knowledge do teachers
gain that is generalizable beyond the specific lesson taught/observed?
 Literature Review
Effective instruction requires content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and a blend of
these that is particular to the discipline and subject matter: pedagogical content knowledge
(Shulman, 2000; Ball, Thames & Phelps, 2008). Research suggests that teachers lack this
knowledge in relation to the teaching of grammar and punctuation (Bostock & Boon; Cajkler &
Hislam, 2002; Fearn & Farner, 2012; Myhill, Jones, Lines, & Watson, 2012; Hudson &
Walmsley, 2005; Nunes & Bryant, 2006),); therefore, a focus is needed on effective PD practices
that will support teachers’ acquisition of such knowledge.
In recent years, attention has been given to how teachers acquire new knowledge and
appropriate new methods of practice in their classrooms, demonstrating that opportunities for
collaboration create collegial forums that enable refining of practice (Author, 2017; Horn, 2010;
Lewis, Perry, Friedkin & Roth, 2012; Rust, 2009; Simon & Johnson, 2015). Additionally, a
growing body of research focuses on PD that is contextualized, having its genesis in the teacher’s
own classroom practice and professional learning community (Darling-Hammond, Hyler, &
Gardner, 2017; DeLuca, Bolden, & Chan, 2017; Forde, McMahon, Hamilton, & Murray, 2016;
Grimmett, 2014). As Ball and Cohen (1999) suggest, “Teaching occurs in particulars—particular
students interacting with particular teachers over particular ideas in particular circumst ances"
(p.10). Grimm, Kaufman and Doty (2014) add:
These particulars make traditional approaches to PD inadequate in cultivating
instructional change. We can only get at these particulars effectively by embedding PD in
the classroom and by activating the voice too often absent in PD efforts—the teacher's.
(p.29)
Lesson Study includes a focus on these attributes. It is dependent on teacher collaboration,
classroom observation, and reflection to analyze and evaluate best practices needed for a
particular group of students with a particular teacher at a particular time.
Lesson Study as Contextualized Professional Development
One of the major drawbacks of off-site PD is that learning is isolated and apart from the
reality of the classroom. Teachers benefit from opportunities to not only collaborate but also
share in the context of the learning through classroom observation. If knowledge is contextual,
learning should be situated within the spaces in which it occurs (Wenger, 2010).
Research suggests that Lesson Study creates communities of experts by foregrounding
the study of teaching in situ, with teacher learning as a natural consequence (Dierking & Fox,
2013, Hiebert & Morris, 2012). Lesson Study’s PD cycle allows teachers to share ideas,
collaborate on the design of a lesson, and observe the lesson as it unfolds in the classroom. The
lesson is observed by the collaborating teachers so that the information gained about the success
of the lesson can be grappled with, analyzed, evaluated, and reflected upon. Teachers
collaborate within the contextual framework of their classroom and their school.
Lesson Study in Communities of Practice
Professional collaboration is at the heart of Lesson Study. Teachers discuss a specific
problem area within their curriculum, research viable solutions, and together design a lesson that
will address the problem. Lesson Study allows for collaboration that invites teacher reflection
and the extension of ideas so that teachers develop expertise in implementing best practices to
support student learning (Lewis & Hurd, 2011; Doig, & Groves, 2011).
 During Lesson Study, teachers work together to identify areas of weakness in student
learning. To do this, teachers talk collaboratively about their instructional methods, their
experiences in the classroom, and what they know and understand about their students
(Meirinka, Imants, Meijer, & Verloop, 2010; Nasciutti et al., 2016). By engaging in
communities of practice, teachers’ activities and discussion allows members to learn from each
other and create and maintain resources for their shared practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991;
Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002).
Lesson Study reflects a sociocultural framework in which learning is not simply an
acquisition of knowledge, but a process of social participation (Culligan, 2013; Dudley, 2013;
Vygotsky, 1978). Collaborative conversation makes thought and learning audible. Lesson Study
builds trust among members, allowing for deeper, more reflective interaction (Author, 2017;
Howell & Saye, 2016; Kolenda, 2007).
Lesson Study as a Scaffold for Teacher Reflection
Protocols for Lesson Study include time for collaborative planning and reflection among
participants that typical PD experiences may not provide (McDonald, 2012; Timperley, 2011).
Without structures that safeguard time for collaborative reflection, the day-to-day, minute-by-
minute demands of teaching make this practice difficult. Experience alone does not lead to
learning; reflection on experience is essential. Without an opportunity to reflect, appropriation of
knowledge may not occur (Grimm et al., 2014).
Reflection is an important aspect of teacher learning that is enhanced by collaborative
dialogue. Reflective dialogue has a positive impact on improvement-oriented collaborations
(Horn & Little, 2010; Taylor, Pearson, Peterson, & Rodriguez, 2005). The process of engaging
dialogically encourages consideration of new perspectives as multiple voices intersect and react
to one another (Brady, 2009; Bakhtin, 1981). When teachers discuss and critically consider their
own assumptions about teaching and learning, they adapt their teaching in powerful, positive
ways (Author, 2011; Penlington, 2008).
Lesson Study to Increase Student Learning
Through collaboration, teachers can analyze and extend their own professional
knowledge (Wenger, 1998). Working with colleagues provides both the responsibility and the
energy for teachers to redesign their practice (Author, 2017; Levine, 2011). When teachers view
themselves as having shared responsibility for student learning, teacher learning increases in
ways that are closely connected with their own classrooms (Author, 2017; Hadar & Brody,
2013).
During Lesson Study, the classroom becomes a place where student learning is observed.
The nuances of student interaction, the flow of activities and time, and the effects of teacher
moves, chosen content, and student groupings are noted, discussed, analyzed, and evaluated in
ways that can increase students’ understanding and learning success (Bocala, 2015; Cajkler,
Wood, Norton, Pedder, & Xu, 2014; Huang & Shimizu, 2016; ).
Lesson Study and Literacy Learning
Although Lesson Study initially focused on math instruction, there is now a research-base
suggesting the effectiveness of Lesson Study to support teacher learning across academic areas
(Cajkler, Wood, Norton, Pedder, & Xu, 2014; Coenders & Verhoef, 2019; Dudley, 2012; Rock
& Wilson, 2005). Research has investigated the use of Lesson Study in literacy teaching,
including writing instruction (Author, 2017; Parks, 2009; Pella, 2011). For example, Parks
(2009), in her study of preservice teachers, found that participants were mutually engaged in
joint work and developed a shared repertoire of language; however, they made little change in
how they talked about writing and students during the Lesson Study.
Pella (2011) investigated Lesson Study with middle school writing teachers, finding that
the process allowed participating teachers to synthesize and integrate diverse resources and
investigate how varied approaches to writing instruction engaged their students. While
participating in the study, teachers developed higher expectations of students and their own self-
efficacy increased.
More recently, author’s (2017) research provides an example of the benefits of Lesson
Study for both teacher learning and students’ literacy achievement. In this study, fifth-grade
teachers in a high-needs, “Turnaround” school participated in Lesson Study focused on writing
instruction. Findings indicated that instruction changed as teachers made intentional changes to
their practice, such as use of anchor charts, mentor texts, conferring, and peer discussion.
Students’ writing significantly improved, with the groups’ mean growth percentile moving from
the 30th to the 46th percentile as measured by state writing assessments. Although this study
demonstrates benefits of Lesson Study for writing instruction, there is currently no research
applying this professional development practice to grammar instruction, specifically.
Writing and Grammar Instruction
Although teachers rated professional development as the thing that most influenced their
writing instruction (Simmerman et. al, 2012), teachers’ opportunities for professional learning
about writing may be limited (Harris, Graham, &Adkins, 2015; Harward et. al, 2014;
Simmerman et. al, 2012; Whyte et al., 2007). Research focused specifically on grammar
instruction finds that teachers have few opportunities for professional development on this topic
(Cajkler & Hislam, 2002; Fearn & Farner, 2012; Myhilll, Llines, & Watson, 2011; Hudson &
Walmsley, 2005; Nunes & Bryant, 2006), and rarely does this PD portray punctuation as a
meaning-making tool (however, see Reid, 2007 for a peripheral, but useful, description of
teacher collaboration about punctuation). As described by Dean (2011), when teaching
grammar, teachers may find it is a “journey without a lot of maps” (p. 21).
Writing, grammar and punctuation
Teachers may lack understanding of how grammar and punctuation develop (Bostock &
Boon, 2012). Writing differs from speech in that it lacks the hesitations, repetitions, fragments,
and circularities present in oral language. In contrast with these characteristics, writing is
semantically dense, embedded with subordination, and full of ellipsis (Czerniewska, 1992;
Myhill, 2010). For the writer, syntactic structure represents choices about meaning and style.
The ability to use syntactic patterns that are irregular in speech is an important aspect of
development for older writers (Myhill, 2008). Studies suggest that, as writers mature, their
writing becomes more lexically dense, with increased use of subordination and increased length
of clauses (Massey et al., 2005; Myhill, 2008; Verhoeven et al., 2002). However, it is less clear
how students develop these complexities and the ability to use punctuation to demarcate them.
Developing punctuation
Writers begin to acquire use of punctuation at an early age, developing an understanding
of sentence end marks first (Hall, 2009; Myhill, 2010). However, little is known about how
writers develop use of weaker markers, such as commas and semi-colons, which are used by
more-experienced writers to demarcate different sentence types (Fayol, 1997). Although
punctuation is related to prosody (Bruthiaux, 1995), oral language provides no models for
punctuation. Therefore, development of these finer points of punctuation is probably associated
with both reading and writing texts that have greater complexity, requiring numerous,
hierarchically-ordered marks (Fayol, 2016). Unfortunately, how the ability to use these markers
develops is an aspect of writing that has been under-researched (however, see Hall, 2009, for a
discussion of research on the punctuation use of younger writers).
Teaching grammar and punctuation
Teachers themselves are not always sure about the value of teaching grammar and may
be insecure in their own syntactical knowledge (Bostock & Boon, 2012; Myhill, 2010). A study
about the teaching of writing was reported in the popular news with the headline, “Syntax too
taxing for teachers” (Stewart, 2008, as reported by Myhill, 2010, p. 170), demonstrating anxiety
(perhaps on the part of the reporter) about grammar and punctuation. Too often, both teachers
and students see grammar and punctuation as a mechanical system rather than recognizing links
to meaning (Hancock, 2009).
Grammatical choices in writing reflect ways of making meaning and the agency to
choose, linking form to purpose (Myhill, 2010). Grammar and punctuation can be viewed as
elements of design, as part of a writer’s meaning-making toolkit (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; Kolln,
2006; Myhill, 2010). The inner voice of written language creates “prosodic possibilities for
punctuation” (Chafe, 1987, p. 5). However, these possibilities may not be emphasized
instructionally; grammar instruction is often ‘not empowering but disempowering,
not rhetorical but decontextualised, not progressive but remedial’ (Micciche, 2004, p. 717).
Pedagogical approaches
A specific concern about grammar and punctuation instruction within English Language
Arts is the ineffectiveness of the frequently-used practice of grammar worksheets and a focus on
rote memorization of definitions and out-of-context application (Dunn & Lindblom, 2011;
Gwosdek, 2013; Liu, 2011; Phipps & Borg, 2009; Smagorinsky, Wright, Augustine, O’Donnell-
Allen, & Konopak, 2007). This practice is both pervasive and problematic, in that studies
suggest students show little transfer between isolated grammar practice through worksheets and
their own writing (Hillocks, 1986; 2003; Hudson, 2016).
One practice for improving writing through grammar instruction is sentence-combining
activities. Studies have found that grammar instruction using such activities had both immediate
and delayed positive effects on students’ writing (Hillocks, 2003; Graham & Perin, 2007;
Maimon & Nodine, 1978). However, although sentence-combining activities have been shown to
increase the length of writers’ sentences, these studies typically do not analyze whether such
sentences are more effective. The benefit of such exercises may be more functional than
meaning-driven. Pedagogical use of sentence-combining activities without attention to design
and meaning can lead to formulaic writing (Andrews et al., 2006). In contrast, a rhetorical
approach to grammar instruction treats grammar as a meaning-making system and punctuation as
a deliberate choice (Jayman et al., 2006; Schleppegrel, 2007).
Unfortunately, instruction about punctuation does not typically take a meaning-centered
approach. According to Hall (2009), “Teachers and textbooks have tended to teach children that
punctuation is a set of rules imposed upon writers rather than a set of tools for writers so that
they can make their meanings as clear as possible’ (p. 272).
In light of recent findings that applied grammar instruction can improve students’ writing
(Myhill, Jones, & Watson, 2013), a need for research on improving teachers’ pedagogical
knowledge in this area is indicated (Fearn & Farnan, 2012; Locke, 2009; Hudson, 2016). The
current study focuses on the dialogic interaction among one group of high school English
teachers using Lesson Study protocols to improve instruction, generally, and to improve
grammar and punctuation instruction, specifically, considering their professional learning.
Methods
This case study examines teacher collaboration to consider what aspects of Lesson Study
promote and extend teacher knowledge and practice, specifically their practice for teaching
grammar and punctuation. During this month-long study, two researchers and three teachers
collaborated to plan, teach/observe, reflect and revise instruction on sentence structure and
punctuation. The processes and outcomes of these events were considered.
Participants and Context
For this study, we sought to work with a group of high school teachers who taught a
diverse group of students showing a need for increased learning. This high-needs context was
important for our inquiry about impacting student learning. It was preferred that participants had
no prior knowledge of Lesson Study or its components. Proximity to researchers was an
additional consideration. A general internet search that included school websites with
demographic information as well as a search of the area’s state report card data for individual
school districts was utilized to generate a list of potential schools for the study, along with their
contact information. An introductory email and invitation to participate in Lesson Study was sent
to superintendents of school districts within a targeted region of the Southern United States who
met these criteria. The introduction email included a link to information about Lesson Study
along with information about time requirements. The email also offered funding to reimburse the
school district for any substitutes needed. One superintendent who received the invitation replied
to our inquiry and we were able to schedule a time to discuss Lesson Study with the high school
principal and three English teachers, who were interested in participating.
The selected high school (grades 9 through 12) is located adjacent to the elementary and
middle schools in a town with a population of about 4,000 with a median annual family income
of $25,000. The general population is predominantly split between white and Native American
with just under 10% of the population being Hispanic. The town’s livelihood is primarily
agriculture-based and offers a vocational technology center for additional training after high
school. The high school has approximately 650 students with a free and reduced lunch
population of 100%. The high school has an 85% graduation rate with the state’s accountability
letter grade a D-, at 63%.
Three high-school teachers responsible for English instruction participated. Years of
teaching experience range from seven to twenty years (see Table 1). All three English teachers
grew up within 150 miles of the school. The semester prior to the study, the high school had
allocated funds for an outside company to help with revising their curriculum in the core subject
areas, including English. At the time of the study, the school was in a state of transition with no
clear decision on where to go next in their curriculum planning due to a lack of funds. The
principal and English teachers were committed to engaging in curriculum changes and PD that
would benefit their students and prepare them for success after high school.
Procedures
The study consisted of one cycle of Lesson Study that included three meetings and online
interactions over the course of one month. Teachers initially met with the researchers and the
principal for an hour to learn about Lesson Study and to consider an instructional focus. A
second meeting was held during the teachers’ conference period to collaborate on a lesson. Based
on a review of assessment data (both standardized and formative) teachers determined that a
focus on students’ grammar and usage would be helpful; specifically, teachers wanted to focus
on students’ sentence structure and how punctuation was used. During the planning process,
teachers designed a lesson where students worked in small groups to create compound and
compound-complex sentences out of phrase strips placed in an envelope at each station. Between
the face-to-face meeting and the lesson observation day, additional communication on lesson
design and content was conducted via email and shared online documents. The third meeting
lasted four hours and included a pre-observation discussion, observation while one of the
teachers taught the lesson, and a debrief immediately afterward when teachers discussed what
they had seen and heard during the lesson. The process was guided by Lesson Study protocols
and templates to guide discussion (Author, 2019).
The focus for the teacher-participants in this study was two-fold. The teachers wanted to
understand and experience the process of Lesson Study as a possible replacement of more costly
approaches to PD. Secondly, the teachers wanted to understand how best to meet the learning
needs of their students regarding sentence construction.
Data Sources
Teacher discussions during curriculum planning (two one-hour meetings) and the
observation-day (one four-hour meeting) were audio-recorded and transcribed for analysis. The
initial meeting occurred in early March 2018, with the collaborative planning meeting occurring
during teachers’ planning period one week later. The observation day meeting, which included
time before and after the observation for collaboration, occurred March 27, 2018. Thirty-four
email exchanges among teachers and researchers over the course of the study provided additional
data for analysis. These included discussion with attached documents and photos. Additionally,
the lesson plan was drafted and resources shared via Google docs and Google drive, allowing for
continuing collaboration. Field notes of the meetings and classroom observation were
considered as secondary data sources.
Data Analysis
Round one of analysis included multiple readings of all data, labeling passages with
striking words or phrases which were also highlighted in the data. This initial in vivo coding,
capturing participants’ own words (Creswell, 2013), supported a general understanding of the
data. For example, the word “we” occurred frequently in the data, suggesting a collaborative
stance; the words “notice,” “think” and “wonder” cued us to the concept of reflection. Next,
holistic coding (Saldaña, 2016) was used to grasp basic issues within the data. Two broad
categories were identified: collaborative learning and observational learning. This broad analysis
served as a “preparatory approach to a unit of data before a more detailed coding or
categorization process” (Saldaña, 2016, p. 166).
During the next phase of analysis, data were segmented into meaningful units and
selections that included highlighting from the initial phase were excerpted. Each excerpt was
initially categorized as either collaborative or observational learning. Collaborative learning
was defined as learning that occurred through the process of teacher collaboration. Observation
learning was defined as learning that was linked to observation of the research lesson. The
excerpts and their corresponding categories were uploaded to an online data analytic program
called Dedoose (Dedoose Version 8.0.42, 2018). This program was used to sort and label data
throughout the remainder of the analysis process.
 Through attention to highlighting and in vivo coding, more detailed codes were identified
during the next round of analysis. Within each category, codes were developed to more
specifically identify types of learning. For example, a teachers’ comment, “So I’m wondering if
you could do this, scaffold it” was coded as catalyst for reflection. Two codes (extending
practice and sharing knowledge) were related to collaborative learning and four codes were
related to observation learning (seeking clarification, student thinking and understanding,
catalyst for reflection, and teacher insights).
Informed by these codes, all data were subsequently reviewed and additional excerpts
were identified, resulting in a total of 183 excerpts. Each excerpt was a comprehensible unit,
including both the phrase that informed coding and enough surrounding words to provide
context. All excerpts were then coded. Excerpts were double-coded if ideas representing more
than one code were included (see Table 2). Double-coded excerpts were typically the result of
an excerpt that included phrases that illustrated more than one code; these excerpts were not
separated because the result would have been incomprehensible units. All codes were reviewed
by the second researcher and discrepancies between coding were discussed and revised. Only
three excerpts did not fit within the codes; these were considered exceptions that did not add to
understanding of the data. Correlations among codes were noted, which supported the initial
grouping of codes within categories. For example, the code, student thinking, occurs 25 times in
conjunction with observational learning but only once in conjunction with the category,
collaborative learning.
To support trustworthiness, findings were emailed to all participants, who concurred with
the analysis, offering no objections or further insights. Throughout analysis, consideration was
given to how teachers’ learning about grammar instruction was illustrated.
Positionality
As a practicing high school English teacher, Angie (first author) was intrigued by the
possibilities of Lesson Study and its potential for effective teacher learning. As a participant
observer, Angie was in a unique position to collaborate with high school English teachers in a
rural school that was quite different from her own. Additionally, she was curious about what she
could take from this experience and apply to her own teaching. As a teacher educator and
researcher, Vicki (second author) was interested in seeing how two areas of her previous
research (Lesson Study and literacy instruction) came together during this experience. Together,
we wondered how implementation of Lesson Study might help this group of English teachers in
their own professional learning about grammar instruction. These perspectives helped guide us
during participant observation and data analysis.
Findings
Our study centered on teachers’ learning during a Lesson Study cycle focused on
grammar instruction. We wondered whether teachers extended their knowledge and practice for
grammar instruction, specifically, and their general pedagogical knowledge. Analysis revealed
teacher learning about the following instructional attributes:
• Scaffolding
• Socially-interactive learning (small-group work)
• Kinesthetic learning
• Relevant content
• Opportunities to revise
 • Opportunities to apply information
Interestingly, each of these benefits applies not only to teaching grammar, but to instruction more
generally. More specific to grammar instruction was teachers’ recognition of the utility of
having students combine phrases to create sentences with varied structure, a practice that, in their
research lesson, was carried out as an interactive, kinesthetic activity. Each of these findings is
illustrated below in our analysis of how Lesson Study appeared to support this learning.
Initial coding revealed two main themes for teacher learning: Collaborative Learning and
Observation Learning (see Table 2). These themes are centered on the ways in which teacher
learning occurred, the impetus for learning. Reviewing the data sets with these overarching
themes in mind resulted in identification of 183 experts. Through coding of these excerpts, two
subthemes were identified within Collaborative Learning and four subthemes were identified
within Observation Learning, as described below.
Collaborative Learning
A major theme emerging from analysis was collaborative learning. Collaborative learning
represented interactive teacher learning derived from discussion that was not specific to
observation of the lesson itself. Teachers asked one another’s opinions (“What do you think
about that?” “Why is it important?”) and built on each other’s thinking, There were 112 (60%)
excerpts that provide examples of collaborative learning (see Table 2).
Sharing knowledge. Sixty-five of 112 excerpts coded as Collaborative Learning (58%)
demonstrated teachers’ sharing of content and pedagogical knowledge and knowledge about
students. For example, when teachers described curricular goals, shared strategies they had used
successfully in the past, or described available resources, these excerpts were coded as Sharing
Knowledge. Words and phrases such as “resources,” “need to know,” and “I used. ” were cues
for this code. Phrases such as “They (students) know” or “my students will” cued an explanation
of knowledge about students that led to collaborative learning. Teachers’ knowledge led to joint
problem-solving and expanded understanding of students’ needs.
Teachers’ knowledge of assessment data and student work led to the focus for their
Lesson Study. Their school had been assigned a D- grade by the state based on assessment
scores, so they were highly attuned to this metric and felt pressure for students to perform well
on their upcoming standardized assessment. They had identified grammar and punctuation rules
as an area of need based on previous assessment data and evidence from student work. The
excerpt below describes how sharing knowledge helped them refine the Lesson Study focus
together.
Angie: So, what is the overall goal you want to achieve regarding punctuation?
Cherie: We want them to score well on the ACT, but they don’t capitalize proper
names or pay attention to the mechanics at all.
Angie: …Why is it so important for them to understand punctuation or at least
how to use it?
Liz: They need to know how to be clear.
Cherie: Well, they need to know how to write when they go to college.
Through conversation about assessment data and sharing content knowledge about the role of
punctuation, teachers broadened their focus from a narrow goal of doing well on the upcoming
test to one with broader application.
Additional discussion led to collaborative learning about the validity of teaching
mechanics and punctuation. For example, during the planning conversation, Liz said, “They need
to know how to be clear.” Angie reinforced that comment, saying, “It is about making their
ideas clear to the reader so they are not misunderstood…One of the ways we achieve clarity is
through the use of punctuation. Punctuation serves as signals to the reader.” Liz added, “We
need to show them how punctuation can clarify a message so that they don’t take it the wrong
way.” This conversation demonstrates teachers’ collaborative learning about the value of
punctuation for clarifying meaning. As teachers shared their knowledge of grammar and
mechanics, a clearer approach to the lesson came into focus.
Teachers also discussed how their pedagogical knowledge connected with knowledge
about students. In the statement below, this teacher describes her practice of not using student
work as negative examples:
Tanya: I said, “These are examples of problems that I noticed repeatedly in our
diagnostics.” I don’t say these are your problems.
Rather than pointing specifically to student errors, this teacher shared her feeling that it was more
productive to share general examples because of students’ need to save face in front of their
peers. This example combines knowledge of students with pedagogical practice.
Throughout the Lesson Study process, discussing knowledge about students contributed
to teachers’ collaborative learning. Teacher comments illustrate the sharing of teacher
knowledge about specific students in their classes and about their school population more
generally. Since small group work had been infrequently used by these teachers prior to the
Lesson Study, the topic of how to effectively group students for small group work appeared
multiple times. During the debrief conversation, Cherie commented, “It’s just an interesting
thing to look at…when boys are comfortable to speak, you throw a girl in the mix, you know and
it’s…” However, Tanya seemed to counter this statement, adding her observation that, “Evelyn
doesn’t talk to those girls, ever. She always sits with the boys.” In this comment, the teacher
shares her observation about an individual student as an explanation for participation during
small group work.
In their discussion of student grouping, teachers also shared knowledge about their
students’ cultures and how this might impact group interactions:
Liz: Culturally, the Hispanic kids are completely different than the Native American
kids because my Hispanic kids are very vocal, very outgoing, very opinionated….
And the Indian kids are like, don't look at me, don't talk to me, I hear you but I
don't want you to point me out.
In this excerpt, the teacher shares her perspective on differences between two cultural
groups within the school’s student population. During this discussion after the lesson
observation, teachers shared their knowledge about students as a way to make sense of what they
had seen. Sharing their knowledge of individual students and cultural groups within the school
setting helped them consider how student needs could be addressed more effectively.
 Extending practice. Fifty-two excerpts (46%) related to extension of practice. These
excerpts illustrate points in collaborative conversation when the teachers were able to expand on
ideas from past practice or from the research lesson, finding new applications. Ideas were
stretched so that they could be used in other contexts. Phrases like, “that’s like,” “do that” and “I
like the idea of…” were cues that teachers were extending practice. This process was evident in
both planning and debrief conversations.
During the planning conversation, teachers described their previous grammar instruction.
They had been using a series of worksheets and sentence problems on the whiteboard to
demonstrate punctuation and grammar errors, but they described students as apathetic during
such instruction and overwhelmed by the process. They felt a need to expand their practices
related to grammar instruction, as expressed here:
Cherie: The problem is that teaching punctuation and grammar is boring. All they
want to do is put a comma or a hyphen or something and think they are doing all right.
Angie: I get it. Some things we teach are hard to make fun.
Cherie: What do you do to teach grammar? I mean how do we make it fun?
As teachers problem-solved together, they decided on an activity where students manipulated
sentence pieces that had been cut into strips to create more than one way to construct a sentence.
Through further discussion, teachers extended this idea to make the task collaborative, with
students working in small groups.
After observing the lesson, Cherie expressed her desire to incorporate and build on the
small-group activity from the grammar lesson, “I like the actual assignment part,” she said. “I
would like to do this as a practice, maybe with teacher help…. So I'm wondering if you could do
this, scaffold it.” She described how she might extend the lesson to provide additional supports
for her students. “I'm eager to try to figure out what I want to do with it,” she added. Similarly,
Liz described how she might expand the lesson with her upper-level students, using sentences
with increasing complexity. Their descriptions indicated that they wanted not just to adopt the
lesson, but to adapt, adjust, and expand it.
The teachers’ ability to extend and generalize their learning is demonstrated in the
excerpt below, which occurred during the debrief following observation.
Liz: I like the presentation idea but I’m also thinking about the culture, as well. Some
of my students are very quiet.
Vicki: Chalk talk.
Cherie: Go look at them (responses to a statement) kind of like a gallery walk. Have them
look at them and then choose one of them to write one page or paragraph on.
Tanya: And you can use other people’s points to support your argument.
Liz: That’s their text evidence!
In this example, teachers considered a modification that could be made to the lesson to
accommodate students’ cultural needs. They build off one another’s ideas as they talk about how
to modify the lesson with an alternative to group presentation, a silent “Chalk Talk,” where
students walk around the room looking at each other’s posters, rather than having each group
orally present in front of the class, a practice they felt might not be culturally-appropriate for
some students.
During the debrief conversation, teachers extended their thinking, going beyond the
original lesson and considering solutions to meet their students’ needs. Teachers also
collaborated on what might be next steps after the research lesson. As they considered how to
bridge the activity they had done to students’ own writing, they discussed having students create
and extend a story using the writing they had done. Tanya described how students could work as
a group to write their own ending, and Liz added, “I’d like to see that.” Their discussion
considered how they would expand on the practices they had included in the research lesson,
giving students opportunities to practice and apply grammar skills more authentically.
The idea of rotation and discussion that was used in the observation lesson led to ideas
for extending these procedures beyond grammar instruction. Prior to the Lesson Study, teachers
reported that very little group work had been occurring in their English classrooms. Students
typically worked alongside other students during assignments but did not work with students to
solve problems or synthesize information. Although these teachers rarely used small group work,
during the debrief, one teacher described a successful lesson she had used in the past that
included opportunities for students to work together:
Liz: We read the story “The Most Dangerous Game,” we discuss,…then I give
them a rubric and I have them do stations where they get butcher paper and each
group must create a map based on clues from the story.
Cherie excitedly took up this idea as a way to incorporate small group work, which she
now viewed as a successful strategy because of the research lesson. She commented, “I'd like to
see that…That’s good. Okay.” Their sharing demonstrated that they were applying experienced
successes to new content. Liz’s use of small groups had been expanded to grammar instruction
during the research lesson. Cherie was now looking to expand her practice to include small
groups based on observation of the research lesson.
During both planning and debrief conversations, teachers shared from their own practice
ways to create lessons that were successful in engaging students in the learning. They discussed
benefits of using student voices as evidence to support an argument or idea, and they talked
about using groups and movement in the teaching of other concepts. Through collaboration,
teachers expanded their practice.
Observation Learning
Excerpts from audio transcripts that illustrate teacher learning related to classroom
observation were coded as “Observation Learning” with 74 of the 183 excerpts (40%) fitting this
theme. We defined Observation Learning as evidence of new understanding of student learning
and insights on teaching practice or content knowledge tied to the experience of observing
classroom instruction. Within this theme, variations of the word think were frequent, and
teachers used the word wonder as they talked about the observation. They also frequently
referenced the notes they had taken during the observation. Teachers said things like, “I’m just
thinking...,” and asked, “How does this affect (students)?” Subcategories further defined the
nuances of this theme. Those subcategories are: Seeking Clarification, Student Thinking and
Understanding, Catalyst for Reflection, and Teacher Insights (see Table 2).
 Seeking clarification. As we read the transcripts, if teachers seemed to be expressing
some confusion, an excerpt was coded as “seeking clarification.” This included the need to
clarify a teacher’s ideas, clarification of what was going on in the classroom, and clarification of
the Lesson Study process. Excerpts include questions and, where such was included, clarifying
responses.
During the meeting in which the setting of goals and the planning of the lesson were
discussed, one of the teachers asked about information on the observation form:
Cherie:What is, “What will students be saying and doing?”
Angie: This is what we hope to be seeing or hearing from the students during the
lesson that lets us know that they are getting, it, that they are learning.
Since the process of Lesson Study was new to the teachers, there were questions
regarding the process itself and particularly what the teachers would be doing when they
observed their colleague teaching. Angie’s response focused on one of the key goals - student-
focused observation during the lesson. The focus of observing the students was a different
approach from familiar teacher evaluation protocols that center on the teacher.
Teachers also sought clarification as they were planning the research lesson together. For
example, Liz asked, “So when you do this, are you gonna strategically pick groups, or are you
going to let them put themselves in groups?” She was thinking about how different approaches
to grouping might work and asked about what might work best for students in Tanya’s class.
During the debrief discussion, teachers asked again about group structure. They also
asked questions to clarify next steps. For example, Cherie asked if Tanya would have students
write all four of the paragraphs they came up with on their anchor charts the next day, since they
ran out of time to finish the lesson they had planned.
Teachers also asked each other to clarify terms or processes that were being explored.
For example, after the lesson, teachers identified the small-group work and rotations between
stations as an idea they wanted to hang onto and began discussing other ways these structures
could be used. A suggestion was made to have students rotate among anchor charts, posting an
answer to a different question at each one. Cherie seemed confused and expressed concerns
about students copying each other’s answers, so Vicki clarified, “It’s about the level of question
that you’re asking,” describing open-ended questions that didn’t have one specific right answer.
Throughout the Lesson Study process, asking for clarification about the processes of both teacher
and student learning was part of teachers’ discussion
Student thinking and understanding. Teachers frequently described or made
hypotheses or projections about student thinking in connection with the observed lesson. Words
like think, understand, and minds cued this code. Teachers asked, “Did you hear…?” when
referencing student talk that demonstrated their understanding during the research lesson.
Twenty-five excerpts (34%) relate to teacher learning or understanding of student thinking.
During the debrief, teachers described evidence of student thinking. Tanya noted that she
heard one of the students say, “I think the smaller ones are actually harder than the longer
phrases.” The student was thinking aloud about the combination of phrases that he and his group
would have to manipulate in order to combine ideas into a compound-complex sentence that
made sense and was correctly punctuated. Teachers’ discussion of student thinking helped them
consider how the lesson might be adjusted.
 Liz commented that one group asked each other what the word ‘siding’ was in one of the
sentence phrases for combining. Referencing her notes on this topic, Liz said, “I put, maybe
didn't understand, didn't care about that sentence.” The students were not familiar with this type
of building material, and teachers discussed how students’ lack of background knowledge made
the task less relevant for them. Teachers’ perceptions about students’ understanding
demonstrated their focus on students during lesson observation.
Catalyst for reflection. Of the 74 excerpts coded as Observation Learning, 43 (58%)
describe reflective thought stemming from the classroom observation. Notice, think, and wonder
were key words in the transcripts that cued the code of reflection. The experience of observing
the planned lesson as it unfolded appeared to be a catalyst for reflection.
Eleven excerpts that were double-coded for both student thinking and understanding and
catalyst for reflection. In these instances, observations about student thinking seemed to support
teacher reflection. For example, in the excerpt above about scaffolding, Tanya drew attention to
a student comment about short phrases being harder to combine. In this discussion, teachers
reflected about students’ need for scaffolding in order to fully grasp the grammatical concepts
targeted in the research lesson. They discussed progressions for moving from simpler tasks to
more difficult ones; for example, teachers felt that providing a list of coordinating conjunctions
would be a good starting place, saving adverbial clauses for later. Teachers collaboratively
reflected about student understanding, as is also evident in the excerpt below.
Vicki: I also really liked your idea of giving them the opportunity to revise first
thing when they come back. Go back and say, ‘Oh, did I leave a comma
out? A semi-colon out? Did I capitalize where I shouldn’t have? Before
you present to the class.
Cherie: That’s a really good lesson on stepping back and realizing that just
because it makes sense to you doesn’t mean it’s going to make sense to
your audience…
Tanya: That’s closer to what they’d be used to as well, because when we do
essays, First thought, best thought. And then the next day we go back and
‘let’s look at that paper again.’
Vicki: You could say, “You know, we got so crunched for time at the end last
time, we’re going to start over and each group gets to share again once
you have had a chance to look over it and revise it.” Give them a chance to
look at the moves they made in creating their sentences and the rules. So,
you are connecting them to that resource and reinforcing it a little better,
too.
Cherie: Oh, that’s good, too.
Tanya: That’s one of the things we were looking for was can they explain it.
In this excerpt, Cherie pointed out that sometimes what we write makes sense to us but
may not make sense to someone reading what we write, which led Tanya to think about how she
promotes the writing process in her classroom. In reflecting on the process of creating sentences,
it became clear that it was important to allow time for the students to reflect on their learning as
well. When Tanya says, “That’s one of the things we were looking for,” she is circling back to a
notion they discussed during planning, that students should be able to explain their reasoning for
combining phrases in the way that they did. As teachers reflected together, they realized this
hadn’t been drawn out during the lesson, and they decided it would be important to emphasize
during the follow-up lesson. Reflection not only encouraged the teachers to reflect on the moves
made within the lesson but also generated insights about student learning.
Teacher insights. There were 31 excerpts (42%) that demonstrated teacher insight
gained through the experience of classroom observation or subsequent teacher discussion
germane to the observation. We define teacher insights as new notions or “aha” moments about
student learning and classroom practice. Sometimes these insights were marked by teachers’ use
of modal verbs, expressing ability or possibility. Phrases like, “I could do…,” “I would have…,”
and “We should be…” were often included.
Teachers gained insight about how sequencing of instruction supports students’ mastery
of content and skills. For example, they noted that the groups had more difficulty with some
types of sentence combining than others, even though the students had been introduced to all of
the sentence combining techniques at some point prior to this lesson. Teachers’ understanding of
learning progressions and pacing grew as they discussed this topic together:
Liz: What if we did this three or four days in a row, and so all the sentences gradually
got harder, because then you could still have movement…
Cherie: Or over even the period of a month or something, do one a week, a different
type of conjunction. Just so they get kind of used to it.
In this example, teachers demonstrated their insight that students would benefit from extended
practice with different types of sentence structures. They felt that additional experiences would
help students feel more comfortable about working with other students on the solution to a
problem, in this case developing compound-complex sentences from related phrases.
Through observation, teachers grasped the benefits of having students physically
manipulate the sentence strips. Cherie noticed that when students were standing, they moved the
strips more. Liz added, “When the groups moved the strips, the ideas flowed.” Teachers gained
insight about how kinesthetic activities supported students’ understanding of grammar.
Another insight teachers gained related to student participation. Initially, some teachers
felt that a group that had little discussion had not been participating; however, through
collaborative dialogue, teachers realized that the two Native American students in the group had
been participating through gestures and eye movements, communication methods consistent with
their culture. Initially, Cherie asked, “Are (the Native American students) still learning?” and
Tanya responded, “No, they shut off.” However, after discussing their observations, with
guidance from Liz, who was knowledgeable about the students’ culture, Tanya said, “But Jacob
and John were communicating.” Tanya’s shift in perspective demonstrates insight gained
through the Lesson Study process.
Discussion
Research suggests that many teachers lack necessary content and pedagogical content
knowledge for teaching grammar and usage (Bostock & Boon, 2012; Fearn & Farner, 2012;
Hall, 2009; Hancock, 2009; Myhilll, Llines, & Watson, 2011). Punctuation is typically taught as
a mechanical system rather than as a meaning-making tool, through use of grammar worksheets,
memorization of definitions and rules, and out-of-context application (Dunn & Lindblom, 2011;
Gwosdek, 2013; Liu, 2011; Phipps & Borg, 2009). Professional development experiences may
increase teachers’ knowledge about grammar instruction; however, research suggests that
opportunities for these PD experiences may be limited (Dean, 2011; Myhilll, Llines, & Watson,
2011; Harward et. al, 2014; Simmerman et. al, 2012).
In this study, we considered whether Lesson Study, as a form of professional
development, might promote and extend teachers’ knowledge and practice about instruction in
grammar and punctuation. We wondered if teachers would gain knowledge that was
generalizable beyond the specific lesson that was the focus of Lesson Study. We found that
Lesson Study supported teacher learning through collaboration and observation and that teachers
expanded their instructional repertoire as they revisioned grammar instruction. We make no
claims that this round of Lesson Study was transformative; however, through analysis of
transcripts, we recognize shifts in teachers’ thinking about grammar instruction
Impact on Grammar Instruction
The Lesson Study cycle includes opportunities for teachers to first study what is already
known about the topic under consideration, then plan with this information in mind. Similar to
Pella’s (2011) findings regarding Lesson Study of writing instruction, we found that during the
Lesson Study cycle analyzed here, collaborative planning extended teachers’ practices regarding
grammar instruction as they shared knowledge. Corroborating previous studies indicating the
value of contextualized professional learning, we found that the opportunity to observe the
research lesson in action and reflect together about student thinking supported teacher insights
about effective grammar instruction.
Prior to this Lesson Study cycle, participating teachers reported that they had used
worksheets and writing individual sentences on the board as their primary means of grammar
instruction. During the initial planning phase, research suggesting sentence combining as one
effective way to support students’ understanding of sentence structure and punctuation was
considered (Hillocks, 2003; Graham & Perin, 2007; Maimon & Nodine, 1978), and teachers
determined this would be their approach. Collaboratively and with prompting, teachers extended
this idea to design an interactive lesson with small groups rotating to different stations, where
they manipulated phrases to create multiple sentences with varying structures. Teachers indicated
that they had seldom used small group work, but they were interested in trying it. As they
planned, teachers noted that it was important for students to be able to explain the punctuation
rules they used for sentence combining, an idea to which they returned during their conversation
after the lesson observation.
As they reflected together during the debrief, teachers described how when students
physically moved the phrase strips, “the ideas flowed.” This insight aligns with
recommendations by Benjamin and Berger (2010), whose experience with middle-school
students suggests that teaching grammar with manipulatives results in durable learning. Through
manipulation of sentence parts, students can become more proficient at producing sentences with
increased complexity (Eberhardt, 2013). Teachers recognized how the socially-interactive
approach had supported students’ learning.
Teachers also gained insights about how grammar instruction might be scaffolded. For
example, they recognized that sentence-combining activities using coordinating conjunctions
might be a good way to introduce students to this practice, saving more complex adverbial
clauses until later. Although not part of their lesson plan, the lesson observation supported
teachers’ insights about the benefits of using relevant content and giving students opportunities
to revise and apply their learning about sentence variety in their own writing. These insights all
seem generalizable beyond the specific research lesson; with the exception of the sentence-
combining activity itself, these insights also appear to be generalizable to the teaching of other
content and skills. To better understand how teachers gained insights about social interaction,
kinesthetic learning, scaffolding, and opportunities to apply and revise, we analyzed their
participation in the Lesson Study process.
Impactful Features of Lesson Study
This study validates and extends previous research and theory regarding benefits for
teacher learning through collaboration within communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991;
Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). Throughout the Lesson Study cycle, teachers thought
and talked with one another, constructing meaning together about their students and their
instruction. Through observation and collaborative reflection, teachers gained a new vision for
grammar instruction that differed significantly from the worksheet-driven practice that had
previously dominated their grammar instruction. Teachers determined that small-group work
during which students collaboratively constructed sentences led to increased student
understanding of grammar and punctuation. In addition, teachers realized the more general
benefits of active, collaborative work for student learning. These insights came through shared
inquiry and observation as a catalyst for reflection.
Sharing and extending knowledge together. The Lesson Study cycle supported
collaborative planning and reflection. Initially, teachers identified a broad, overarching goal.
Then, through a dialogic problem-solving process (Bakhtin, 1981; Wegerif, 2008), they clarified
their purpose and subsequently determined the topic for their research lesson. Teachers’ goal for
students about knowing the conventions of writing changed from making a passing score on the
ACT to a more expansive and relatable goal of instruction to improve clarity in writing. With
this clear purpose, teachers narrowed their focus to how punctuation improves the clarity.
Teachers identified two problems: students’ inconsistency in applying comma rules and their
apathy about grammar instruction as it had previously been provided, through worksheets and
isolated sentence problems on the whiteboard.
As members of a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, McDermott, &
Snyder, 2002), participants explored ideas for a lesson on punctuation, building on research and
past experiences. A review of evidence-based practices for writing instruction revealed that
sentence combining could be a successful approach for their lesson (Hillocks, 2003; Graham &
Perin, 2007). Although their use of small-group work in the past had been limited, they felt it had
been successful. As these ideas were juxtaposed, the plan for the lesson came to fruition.
Throughout the planning process, teachers’ discussion was characterized by
problematization of practice and appropriation of methods they felt would meet the needs of their
students. During the debrief session after the lesson observation, teachers extended their learning
to consider how practices that were successful in the observed lesson could be applied more
broadly. For example, teachers thought together about what was possible and effective in using
groups and movement. Seeing the effectiveness of these practices during their research lesson,
they recognized they could be used with other content.
Through dialogic problem-solving during planning and extended reflection occurring
after the lesson observation, teachers added to their ongoing conversation – an intertwined chain
of dialogue extending from past conversations about testing to present conversations about the
specific lesson – as they projected their learning to future lessons. Their insights were the
product of different views. They pushed beyond the external, authoritative discourse of
standardized testing, creating discourse that was internally persuasive for teacher participants
(Bakhtin, 1981).
Observation as catalyst for reflection and insight. Dialogue among participants in
Lesson Study supported their thinking and learning, with the observed lesson providing a focus
for purposeful reflection. Having several teachers observe the same lesson provides for differing
perspectives. During the lesson, the teachers had varying points of view, both literally and
figuratively. Teachers stood in different spots in the room, focused on different students, and
considered different aspects of the lesson. Even when teachers had the same focus, though, as
was the case with their discussion about students’ apparent minimal participation, they saw
things differently because of personal perspectives. These differing perspectives helped them
revision their approach to grammar instruction.
Joint observation created shared experience that fueled dialogue. The lesson observation
was the catalyst for reflection through which teachers clarified procedural knowledge and gained
insights about student thinking and effective instruction. Time for collaboration after the lesson
observation prompted new insights
As Lortie (1975) described decades ago, teachers have nearly a life-long apprenticeship
before entering the profession; however, this “apprenticeship of observation” (p. 61) can be
problematic. It can lead to perpetuation and reification of ineffective practices. Additionally, as
student participants, “apprentices” are not focused on teaching, but on their own learning. They
have a limited frontstage view, without consideration of teachers’ decision-making and students’
responses. During the observation phase of the Lesson Study cycle, participants attended to these
aspects. As was apparent from teachers’ dialogue during the debrief, they also attended to
students’ response to instruction, shifting their view to notice students’ varying participation.
During Lesson Study, teachers in this investigation had a new apprenticeship of observation –
one that led to insights that could guide future instruction.
Limitations and Implications
This study found that collaborative learning through Lesson Study led to shared problem-
solving and extension of teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. Additionally, observation supported
teacher reflection and insight about student learning. Although this study is limited to one
Lesson Study team in a small, rural school, findings suggest implications for research and
practice.
Implications for Future Research
Since this study included a small group of rural teachers in one context, it would be
helpful to consider the effects of a similar process with other teachers in other contexts.
Research could consider the role context plays in teachers’ learning. Is it important for the
observed lesson to be in a context similar to teachers’ own, or are differences also illuminating?
Further research could provide insight about the role of context in teachers’ learning during
Lesson Study.
In the investigation reported here, observation of the research lesson led to insights
during collaborative, reflective discussion. Future research might consider whether such insights
could be achieved through observation of a lesson that had not been jointly planned. Is
collaborative planning necessary for insight, or might a similar level of effective, reflective
discussion be achieved without joint planning?
 Quantitative research measuring the impact on student achievement might also be
fruitful. For example, the Author’s (2017) study reports the effects of Lesson Study on students’
writing achievement, but no known study considers the impact on grammar and punctuation,
specifically, which was the focus of the current study.
Implications for Practice
Teachers in this study found that constructing sentences in small groups led to students’
increased understanding about the role of grammar and punctuation in clear writing. In the
research lesson, student collaboration and active learning through the manipulation of sentence
strips increased students’ engagement and enhanced their learning. Whereas teachers reported
students had previously found grammar instruction to be boring, they noted increased
participation as a result of this more active approach. This study, therefore, extends previous
research about student collaboration (Nokes-Malach, Richey, & Gadgil, 2015) and active
construction of knowledge (Burns, Pierson, & Reddy, 2014), implying that these practices can be
used together for effective instruction in grammar and punctuation.
Importantly, this study suggests that teachers’ insights about improved instruction were
the products of collaboration and observation. As has been previously described in research,
having opportunities to work with peers increases teacher learning (Culligan, 2013; Dudley,
2013; Meirinka, Imants, Meijer, & Verloop, 2010; Nasciutti et al., 2016). In this study,
collaborative learning appeared to be supported by joint observation of practice. Observing
student participation during the research lesson was a catalyst for reflection and insight that
encouraged the teachers to revision their instruction (Author, 2019). This implies that finding
opportunities for teachers to observe one another teach could be an effective catalyst for teacher
learning. Further, providing opportunities for teachers to reflect together on what was observed
appears to encourage learning that transcends the specific lesson. Our study suggests the benefits
of providing teachers with a new “apprenticeship of observation” for grammar instruction
(Lortie, 1975, p. 61) through collaborative Lesson Study.
 References
Andrews, R., Torgerson, C., Beverton, S., Freeman, A., Locke, T., Low, G. et al. (2006). The
effect of grammar teaching on writing development. British Educational Research
Journal, 32(1), 39–55.
Bakhtin, M.M. (1981), The Dialogic Imagination, (translated and edited by M. Holquist and C.
Emerson), University of Austin Press, Austin, TX.
Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a
practice-based theory of professional education. In G. Sykes & L. Darling-Hammond
(Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Ball, D.L., Thames, M.H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What make is
special. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(5), 389-407.
Benjamin, A., & Berger, J. (2010). Teaching grammar: What really works. New York: Taylor &
Francis.
Bocala, C. (2015). From experience to expertise: The development of teachers’ learning in lesson
study. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(4), 349-362.
Bostock, L., & Boon, H. (2012). Pre-service teachers' literacy self-efficacy and literacy
competence. Australian and International Journal of Rural Education, 22(1), 19.
Brady, L. (2009). ‘Shakespeare Reloaded’: teacher professional development within a
collaborative learning community. Teacher Development, 13(4), 335-348.
Brockbank, A., & McGill, I. (2007). Facilitating reflective learning in higher education (2nd
ed). Maidenhead, England: McGraw-Hill Education.
Bruthiaux, P. (1995). The rise and fall of the semi-colon: English punctuation theory and English
teaching practice. Applied Linguistics 16(1), 1–14.
Burns, M., Pierson, E., & Reddy, S. (2014). Working together: How teachers teach and students
learn in collaborative learning environments. International Journal of Instruction, 7(1),
17-32.
Cajkler, W. & Wislam, J. (2002). Trainee teachers grammatical knowledge: The tension between
public expectations and individual competence. Language Awareness, 11, 161-177.
Cajkler, W., Wood, P., Norton, J., Pedder, D., & Xu, H. (2014). Teacher perspectives about
lesson study in secondary school departments: A collaborative vehicle for professional
learning and practice development. Research Papers in Education, 30(2), 192-213.
Coenders, Fer & Verhoef, Nellie. (2019). Lesson Study: professional development (PD) for
beginning and experienced teachers. Professional Development in Education. 1-14.
Collet, V. S. (2012). The gradual increase of responsibility model: Coaching for teacher change.
Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27-47.
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), 1-58.
Collet, V. S. (2019). Collaborative Lesson Study: ReVisioning Teacher Professional
Development. Teachers College Press.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of
social futures. London: Routledge.
Creswell, J.W. (2013). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Culligan, K. (2013). The relationship between language and thought: Exploring Vygotsky and
sociocultural approaches to second language research. Atlantic Journal of Graduate
Studies in Education, 1(1), 1-16.
Curwood, J. S. (2014). English teachers’ cultural models about technology: A microethnographic
perspective on professional development. Journal of Literacy Research, 46(1), 9-38.
Czerniewska, P. (1992). Learning about writing: the early years. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., Gardner, M. (2017). Effective Teacher Professional
Development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Research review/teacher learning: What
matters? Educational Leadership, 66(5), 46–53.
Dean, D. (2011). " EJ" in Focus: Shifting Perspectives about Grammar: Changing What and
How We Teach. The English Journal, 100(4), 20-26.
DeLuca, C., Bolden, B., & Chan, J. (2017). Systemic professional learning through collaborative
inquiry: Examining teachers' perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 67-78.
Dierking, R.C., & Fox, R.F. (2012). Changing the way I teach: Building teacher knowledge,
confidence, and autonomy. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(2), 129-144. DOI:
10.1177/0022487112462893.
Doig, B., & Groves, S. (2011). Japanese lesson study: Teacher professional development through
communities of inquiry. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 13(1), 77-93.
Dudley, P. (2012). Lesson study development in England: From school networks to national
policy. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 1(1), 85-100.
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.
Dunn, P. A., & Lindblom, K. (2011). Grammar rants: How a backstage tour of writing
complaints can help students make informed, savvy choices about their writing.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Eberhardt, N. C. (2013). Syntax: Somewhere between words and text. Perspectives on Language
and Literacy, 39(3), 43-49.
Fayol, M. (2016). From language to text: The development and learning of translation. In C.
MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd ed.,
pp. 130–143). New York, NY: Guilford.
Fearn, L., & Farnan, N. (2007). The influence of professional development on young writers'
writing performance. Action in Teacher Education, 29(2), 17-28.
Ferraro, J. M. (2000). Reflective practice and professional development. ERIC Clearinghouse on
Teaching and Teacher Education.
Forde, C., McMahon, M. A., Hamilton, G., & Murray, R. (2016). Rethinking professional
standards to promote professional learning. Professional Development in
Education, 42(1), 19-35.
Graham, S. & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445-476.
Grimm, E. D., Kaufman, T., & Doty, D. (2014). Rethinking classroom observation. Educational
Leadership, 71(8), 24–29
Grimmett, H. (2014). The practice of teachers’ professional development: A cultural-
historical approach. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Gwosdek, H. (2013). William Lily’s grammar of Latin in English: An introduction of the Eyght
Partes of Speche, and the construction of the same. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Hadar, L.L. & Brody, D.L. (2013). The interaction between group processes and personal
professional trajectories in a professional development community for teacher educators.
Journal of Teacher Education, 64, 145-161.
Hall, N. (2009). Developing an Understanding of Punctuation. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, J Riley
and M. Nystrand (Eds) Sage Handbook of Writing Development (pp. 271–283). London:
Sage.
Hancock, T. (2009). How linguistics can inform the teaching of writing. In R. Beard, D. Myhill,
J. Riley & M. Nystrand (Eds.). Sage handbook of writing development (pp. 194–208).
London: Sage.
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Adkins, M. (2015). Practice-based professional development and
self-regulated strategy development for Tier 2, at-risk writers in second
grade. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40, 5-16.
Harward, S., Peterson, N., Korth, B., Wimmer, J., Wilcox, B., Morrison, T.G., Black, S.,
Simmerman, S. & Pierce, L. (2014). Writing instruction in elementary classrooms: Why
teachers engage or do not engage students in writing. Literacy Research and
Instruction, 53(3), 205-224.
Hiebert, J., & Morris, A. K. (2012). Teaching, rather than teachers, as a path toward improving
classroom instruction. Journal of teacher Education, 63(2), 92-102.
Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers
of English.
Hillocks, G. (2003). Reconceptualizing writing curricula: What we know and can use.
Unpublished manuscript.
Horn, I.S. (2010). Teaching replays, teaching rehearsals, and re-visions of practice: Learning
from colleagues in a mathematics teaching community. Teachers College Record, 112(1),
225-259.
Horn, I.S., & Little, J.W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: routines and resources for
professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American Educational
Research Journal, 47(1), 181–217.
Howell, J. B., & Saye, J. W. (2016). Using lesson study to develop a shared professional
teaching knowledge culture among 4th grade social studies teachers. The journal of
social studies research, 40(1), 25-37.
Huang, R., & Shimizu, Y. (2016). Improving teaching, developing teachers and teacher
educators, and linking theory and practice through lesson study in mathematics: an
international perspective. ZDM Mathematics Education, 48(4), 393-409.
Hudson, R. (2016). Grammar Instruction. In C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds).
Handbook of Writing Research (second edition), (pp. 288-299). New York: Guilford
Press.
Hudson, R. & Walmsley, J. (2005). The English patient: English grammar and teaching in the
twentieth century. Journal of Linguistics, 41, 593-622.
Jayman, J., Doolan, L., Hoover, M., Maas, S., McHugh, T., Mooney, K. et al. (2006). Sentence
patterns: Making meaning with a countrywide grammar initiative. English Journal, 95(5),
41–7.
Kolenda, R. L. (2007). Japanese lesson study, staff development, and science education reform--
The neshaminy story. Science Educator, 16(1), 29-33.
Kolln, M. (2006). Rhetorical grammar: Grammatical choices, rhetorical effects. London:
Longman.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge University Press.
Levine, T.H. (2011). Experienced teachers and school reform: Exploring how two different
professional communities facilitated and complicated change. Improving School, 14(1),
30-47.
Lewis, C. & Hurd, J. (2011). Lesson study step by step: How teacher learning communities
improve instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Lewis, C.C., Perry, R.R., Friedkin, S. & Roth, J.R. (2012). Improving teaching does improving
teachers: Evidence from Lesson Study. Journal of Teacher Education, 63, 368-375.
Lewis, C., Perry, R., Hurd, J., & O’Connell, M. P. (2006). Lesson study comes of age in North
America. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(4), 273–281.
Liu, D. (2011). Making grammar instruction more empowering: An exploratory case study of
corpus use in the learning/teaching of grammar. Research in the Teaching of English,
353-377.
Locke, T. (2009). Grammar and writing—The international debate. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, J.
Riley, & M. Nystrand (Eds.), The Sage handbook of writing development (pp. 182-193).
London: Sage.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Maimon, E. P., & Nodine, B. F. (1978). Measuring syntactic growth: Errors and expectations in
sentence-combining practice with college freshmen. Research in the Teaching of
English, 12(3), 233-244.
Makinae, N. (2010). The origin of lesson study in Japan. In The 5th East Asia Regional
Conference on Mathematics Education: In Search of Excellence in Mathematics
Education, 15.
Massey, A.J., Elliott, G.L. and Johnson, N.K. (2005). Variations in aspects of writing in 16+
English examinations between 1980 and 2004: Vocabulary, spelling, punctuation,
sentence structure, non-standard English research matters: Special Issue 1. Cambridge:
University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate.
McDonald, L. (2012). Learning, motivation and transfer: Successful teacher professional
development. Teacher Education and Practice, 25(2), 271-286.
Meirinka, J. A., Imants, J., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2010). Teacher learning and
collaboration in innovative teams. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40(2), 161–181.
Miller, M. (2008). Problem-based conversations: Using preservice teachers' problems as a
mechanism for their professional development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(4), 77-
98.
Myhill, D. (2008). Towards a Linguistic Model of Sentence Development in Writing. Language
and Education 22(5): 271–88.
Myhill, D. (2010). Rhythm and blues: making textual music with grammar and punctuation. In
D. Wyse, R. Andrews, & J. Hoffman, (Eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of
language and literacy teaching (pp. 170-181). New York, NY: Routledge Taylor and
Francis Group.
Myhill, D. Jones, S. Lines, H. & Watson, A. (2012). Re-thinking grammar: The impact of
embedded grammar teaching on students’ writing and students’ metalinguistic
understanding. Research Papers in Education, 27, 139-166.
Myhill, D. A., S. M. Jones, and A. Watson. 2013. “Grammar matters: How teachers’
grammatical subject knowledge impacts on the teaching of writing.” Teaching and
Teacher Education, 36, 77-91.
Nasciutti, F. M. B., Veresov, N., & de Aragão, A. M. F. (2016). The Group as a source of
development: Rethinking professional development in a collaborative perspective.
Outlines: Critical Practice Studies, 17(1), 86–108.
Nokes-Malach, T. J., Richey, J. E., & Gadgil, S. (2015). When is it better to learn together?
Insights from research on collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4),
645-656.
Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (2006). Improving literacy by teaching morphemes. London: Routledge.
Ono, Y., & Ferreira, J. (2010). A case study of continuing teacher professional development
through lesson study in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 30(1), 59–74.
Parks, A. N. (2009). Collaborating about what? An instructor's look at preservice lesson
study. Teacher Education Quarterly, 36(4), 81-97.
Pella, S. (2011). A situative perspective on developing writing pedagogy in a teacher
professional learning community. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(1), 107-125.
Pella, S. (2015). Pedagogical Reasoning and Action: Affordances of Practice-Based Teacher
Professional Development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 42(3), 81-101.
Penlington, C. (2008). Dialogue as a catalyst for teacher change: A conceptual
analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(5), 1304-1316.
Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs
and practices. System, 37(3), 380-390.
Reid, L. (2007). Teachers talking about writing assessment: valuable professional
learning?. Improving Schools, 10(2), 132-149.
Rock, T. C., & Wilson, C. (2005). Improving teaching through lesson study. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 32(1), 77-92.
Rust, F.O. (2009). Teacher research and the problem of practice. Teachers College Record, 8,
1882-1893.
Saito, E., Murase, M., Tsukui, A., & Yeo, J. (2015). Lesson Study for Learning Community: A
guide to sustainable school reform. London: Routledge.
Saldaña, J. (2016). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (Third). Los Angeles: Sage
Publications.
Scherer, M. (2014). Bright Spots in Professional Learning. Educational Leadership, 71(8), 7.
Schleppegrell, M.J. (2007). At Last: The meaning in grammar. Research in the Teaching of
English, 42(1), 121–8.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shulman, L. (2000). Teacher development: Roles of domain expertise and pedagogical
knowledge. Journal of Applied Development Psychology, 21(1), 129-135.
 Simmerman, S., Harward, S., Pierce, L., Peterson, N., Morrison, T., Korth, B., Billen, M., &
Shumway, J. (2012). Elementary teachers’ perceptions of process writing. Literacy
Research & Instruction, 51(4), 292-307.
Simon, N., & Johnson, S. M. (2015). Teacher turnover in high-poverty schools: What we know
and can do. Teachers College Record, 117, 1–36.
Smagorinsky, P., Wright, L., Augustine, S. M., O’Donnell-Allen, C., & Konopak, B. (2007).
Student engagement in the teaching and learning of grammar: A case study of an early-
career secondary school English teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 76-90.
Taylor, B., Pearson, P. D., Peterson, D., & Rodriguez, M. (2005). The CIERA school change
framework: An evidence-based approach to professional development and school reading
improvement. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(1), 40–69.
Timperley, H. (2011). Realizing the power of professional learning. Berkshire, UK: Open
University Press.
Verhoeven, L., Aparici, M., Cahana-Amitay, M., van Hell, J.V., Kriz, S. and Viguie-Simon, A.
(2002). Clause packaging in writing and speech: A cross-linguistic developmental
analysis. Written Language & Literacy 5(2), 135–61.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Wegerif, R. (2008). Dialogic or dialectic? The significance of ontological assumptions in
research on educational dialogue. British Educational Research Journal, 34(3), 347-361.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker, 9(5),
2-3.
Wenger E. (2010) Communities of practice and social learning systems: The career of a concept.
In: Blackmore C. (eds) Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice. London:
Springer.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., Snyder, W., (2002). Cultivating communities of practice.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Whyte, A., Lazarte, A., Thompson, I., Ellis, N., Muse, A., & Talbot, R. (2007). The National
Writing Project, teachers' writing lives, and student achievement in writing. Action in
Teacher Education, 29(2), 5-16.

View publication stats