Teaching and Teacher Education 140 (2024) 104468

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Research paper

“Are we jumping into a gap?” A study of the interplay between theoretical

input and practical knowledge during noticing as reasoning of a lesson
study team in initial teacher education
Carien Bakker a, *, Kees de Glopper b, Siebrich de Vries a
a
University of Groningen, Faculty of Teacher Education, PO Box 72, 9700 AB Groningen, the Netherlands
b
Faculty of Arts University of Groningen PO Box 72 9700 AB Groningen the Netherlands

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Using sociocultural discourse analysis, we examined when and how a Lesson Study team in initial teacher ed­
Noticing as reasoning ucation integrated theoretical input with practical knowledge when reasoning about subject-specific learning by
Initial teacher education and teaching of their pupils. We found 10 reasoning sequences in which theoretical input helped student teachers
Preservice teachers
externalize their practical knowledge and reflect on the relation between practical knowledge and theoretical
Lesson study
input. Three times this process resulted in new understanding of subject-specific pedagogy. Our findings support
Knowledge integration
the assumption that Lesson Study is an appropriate learning task to help student teachers relate theory to practice
and develop their subject-specific pedagogical insights.

1. Introduction
An important goal of initial teacher education (ITE) is to promote
student teachers’ (STs’) subject-specific pedagogical competence
(Grossman et al., 2005; van de Ven, 2002). Teachers with this compe­
tency use their practical knowledge to understand the different ways
pupils interpret subject matter and they know how to adapt their
teaching in such a way that pupils achieve the learning objectives
(Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap, 2017). “Practical
knowledge” in this context means an integrated whole of experiential
knowledge and theoretical knowledge that originates from many do­
mains, such as subject pedagogy, educational science, and the subject
taught. It concerns the personal knowledge and views that teachers
develop during their career (Verloop et al., 2001).
To stimulate novice teachers to develop this practical knowledge, our
teacher training institute provides theoretical knowledge and ask them
to connect that theory to their practical experiences. Our goal with this is
to enable STs to better understand the practice of their school subject
and to make more conscious choices about their own teaching (van de
Ven, 2002; van Onderwijs, 2017). According to van Veen and Van de
Ven (2008), the required theoretical knowledge concerns a heteroge­
neous collection of subject-specific, pedagogical, and general educa­
tional knowledge, insights, and views regarding various aspects of
learning and teaching. This collection is made up partly of research and
scientific knowledge and partly of teacher educators’ practical knowl­
edge. We call this collection ‘theoretical input’, akin to van Veen and
Van de Ven (2008, p. 48), who use the concept ‘theoretical framework’
“to refer to a range of theoretical and empirical conceptions of subject
pedagogy, teaching, pupil learning and educational goals. All derive
from academic literature and research that grows and sometimes
changes over time as new research emerges.” Theoretical input offers
assumptions and ideal-typical interpretations that help STs make sense
of their teaching experiences (van Veen and Van de Ven 2008).
However, STs themselves make relatively few connections between
the theoretical input provided and their practical experiences during
their internship (Korthagen, 2010; Leeferink, 2016). The result is a gap
between theory and practice. Several causes for this gap have been put
forward in the research literature, like the socialization towards patterns
existing in the school, the complexity of teaching, and the limited
attention in coursework and lectures to knowledge that is
situation-specific as a result of which STs may be unable to recognize the
situations that call for the enactment of their knowledge (Korthagen,
2010). As experienced teacher educators and educational researchers,
we understand that making real connections between theoretical input
and your own practice is difficult, and that you need specific activities to
consciously connect them.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: c.h.w.bakker@rug.nl (C. Bakker), c.m.de.glopper@rug.nl (K. de Glopper), s.de.vries@rug.nl (S. de Vries).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104468
Received 14 April 2023; Received in revised form 14 November 2023; Accepted 27 December 2023
Available online 17 January 2024
0742-051X/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
C. Bakker et al.
A practice-based teacher education (PBTE) pedagogy might be
helpful in this (Janssen, Grossman, & Westbroek, 2015). Building on
Dewey’s ideas about inquiry-oriented, content-rich, and
learning-centered teacher preparation (Dewey, 1904), PBTE recognizes
that teaching is a complex and dynamic profession that requires both a
solid theoretical foundation and the ability to apply that knowledge in
real-world settings (Forzani, 2014; Kavanagh et al., 2020). Within PBTE,
STs systematically examine and enact core practices by engaging in
repeated cycles of observing, analyzing, planning and enactment in
increasingly complex approximations of these practices (Forzani, 2014;
Janssen, Grossman, & Westbroek, 2015; Kavanagh, 2020). PBTE offers
student teachers representations, decompositions and approximations of
core teaching practices to help develop their expertise in teaching.
Among other things, PBTE can prepare student teachers to use peda­
gogical reasoning when teaching. Pedagogical reasoning is the thinking
activity through which teachers attach their actions to the purposes that
undergird them. Teachers who use pedagogical reasoning, consider and
decide before they enact activity in the face of pedagogical dilemma’s
(Kavanagh et al., 2020).
Lesson Study in initial teacher education (LS in ITE) can be seen as a
learning task which encourages pedagogical reasoning about pupils’
subject-specific learning (Bakker et al., 2022). In LS in ITE, STs form a
team that investigates a learning or education problem that they have
identified themselves during their apprenticeship. In the study phase,
the team analyzes the problem, based, among other things, on partici­
pants’ practical knowledge and theoretical input, which results in a
research question and design for a so-called research lesson (plan
phase). This research lesson is intended to find out how the designed
lesson affects pupil’s learning and why the lesson may or may not have
had the intended effects. During the execution of the research lesson (do
phase), one executive teacher teaches the research lesson and the other
participants collect empirical data about how pupils learn during the
research lesson. They do this, among other things, by observing and
interviewing students. In the reflection phase, the LS team analyzes the
collected data, makes connections between the characteristics of the
research lesson and the collected data, and then adjusts the research
lesson. The adjusted research lesson is then executed by another member
of the LS-team, new empirical data are collected and analyzed, and so
on. Finally, the LS team reviews all the collected data, answers the
research question and reflects on the LS-cycle.
LS is not intended to ingrain visible teaching routines (“what they
do”), but is focused on exploring the invisible elements of teaching, on
considering, weighing, predicting and reasoning about whether and how
pupils learn from teaching (“why they do”). As a result of the LS
approach, decomposition of practice occurs; the complex practice of
teaching is broken down into important steps, helping students to
identify relevant events in the lessons amidst the overwhelming amount
of information.
Applying the LS approach involves using several sources to build new
knowledge and insights about subject-specific pedagogy, including
participants’ own practical knowledge and theoretical input. During LS
in ITE, the sources used by STs become visible in STs’ reasoning about
subject-specific learning by and teaching of pupils, also known as
“noticing as reasoning” (Bakker et al., 2022). Although LS may be an
appropriate learning task to enable STs to establish a relationship be­
tween theoretical input and their own practical knowledge, we do not
know whether and how STs do that during reasoning. Several studies on
LS in ITE reviewed by Larssen et al. (2017) address the question how STs
learn and what they learn. Some of them (i.g. Fernandez, 2010; Jansen &
Spitzer, 2009; Ricks, 2011) identify how STs’ use their practical
knowledge while reflecting on pupil’s learning. Fernandez and Robinson
(2006) report that STs themselves find that microteaching-LS helps them
connect theory and practice. Helgevold et al. (2015) show that the
(theoretical) input provided by mentors during LS in ITE influences the
content of STs’ conversations. However, none of the reviewed studies
explicitly analyzed how LS teams in ITE integrate theoretical input with
2
Teaching and Teacher Education 140 (2024) 104468
practical knowledge to create new knowledge about subject-specific
pedagogy. This study addresses this void and allows us to better un­
derstand the STs struggles trying to integrate theory and practice during
LS, as well as moments when they succeed. We believe these insights will
make us better teacher educators.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1. LS in initial teacher education
LS in ITE has several variants (De Vries et al., 2017; Larssen et al.,
2017) that differ on dimensions such as the focus of the research ques­
tion (pedagogical, general educational, or subject pedagogy), the
context of the implementation of the research lessons (at the institute, at
a school with pupils, or a mix), team composition (only STs or STs with
experienced teachers), and form of support (with or without a facilitator,
subject matter experts or knowledgeable others). When, as in our
context, the aim is to increase STs subject-specific pedagogical compe­
tence, it is desirable that the LS is facilitated by subject-specific peda­
gogy experts (Cajkler & Wood, 2016a; Amador & Weiland, 2015;
Larssen & Drew, 2015). The LS process in ITE involves a guided, cyclical
design in which the research lesson to be created is intended to
contribute to the solution of an identified subject-specific learning
problem in the specific educational context of STs.
2.2. LS and noticing as reasoning
When designing the research lesson, LS teams reason about the
relationship between subject-specific learning and teaching, which
Bakker et al. (2022) refer to as “noticing as reasoning.” In doing so,
teachers set up their reasoning by identifying key events that may affect
pupil learning, interpreting those events, and planning follow-up ac­
tivities to promote learning (Jacobs et al., 2010; Lee & Choy, 2017;
Mason, 2011; Sherin et al., 2011; van Es, 2011). Such collectively
reasoning can be set up not only in preparation for the research lesson
but also after it has ended, during evaluations of the research lesson
(Amador et al., 2017; Bakker et al., 2022; Choy et al., 2017). The
reasoning consists of the eight elements noted in Fig. 1, which can be
substantiated with the help of collected empirical data, LS teams’ own
practical knowledge, and theoretical input.
For example, element 1 – identification - can be substantiated with
data from a preliminary survey with pupils (e.g., “Three-quarters of the
pupils answered the question about the adverbial clause incorrectly”),
team members’ own practical knowledge (e.g., “My experience is that
pupils are easily distracted if I explain the adverbial clause”), and
theoretical input (e.g., “publication X reports that in the Netherlands
50% of second-graders have difficulty recognizing an adverbial clause”).
Explanations (element 7) can arise from, for example, empirical data (e.
g., “Two pupils indicated during the interview after the research lesson
that they found the explanation too abstract, so that they did not un­
derstand the explanation”), teams’ own practical knowledge (“I often
give more examples in my own class when I explain. I suspect that the
pupils in the research class also needed them”), or theoretical input (“In
publication Y, I have read that cognitive overload can arise if too much
work memory has been used. Could that also be the case here?“).
2.3. Noticing as reasoning, knowledge integration processes, and the
function of theory therein
Several researchers found that LS provides teachers with new
knowledge (e.g., Barber, 2018; Cardoso et al., 2023; Lewis & Perry,
2017; Ní Shúilleabháin, 2016). Lewis et al., 2019 explain this process
according to Linn and Eylon’s (2011; 2015) knowledge integration
framework. This framework states that four successive subprocesses
enable the development of increasingly in-depth understanding of
complex phenomena: (1) eliciting students’ own practical knowledge
C. Bakker et al.
Fig. 1. Theoretical Model for Noticing as Reasoning while Preparing and
Evaluating Research Lessons during Lesson Study, based on Authors (2022),
with Sources of Support ED = empirical data; PK = practical knowledge; TI =
theoretical input.
(elicit ideas); (2) encountering new ideas from theory (add ideas); (3)
developing criteria to compare and distinguish ideas using scientifical
evidence (distinguish); (4) building coherent understanding by reflecting
on the relationship between own and new ideas (consolidate). According
to Linn et al. (2015), all four subprocesses must be completed if inte­
gration between one’s own knowledge and the added information from
the theoretical input is to occur.
Linn et al.‘s framework is a pedagogy, intended to let students ac­
quire new knowledge by connecting their own practical knowledge with
the theory presented, through a fixed sequence of the four subprocesses.
The executive teacher has more or less control over the order in which
these subprocesses take place, for example by first questioning students’
prior knowledge before introducing theory, or by giving students an
assignment to compare their own knowledge with the theoretical input.
Although in LS in ITE, the phasing of the entire LS process is tightly
controlled, the input of STs’ practical knowledge and theory during
reasoning is less tightly controlled. Whether and when STs articulate
their own practical knowledge about an element of the reasoning so far,
whether and when they bring in which theoretical input, whether they
make an attempt to connect the two is more or less up to the STs
themselves. Whether the subprocesses take place during LS in ITE and in
3
Teaching and Teacher Education 140 (2024) 104468
what order may be less obvious than with Linns’ pedagogy. Neverthe­
less, Linns’ knowledge integration processes provide a clear lens to look
at how knowledge integration occurs during STs’ reasoning about
subject-specific learning and teaching.
In LS in ITE, studying and discussing theoretical input is an explicit
step in the study, plan and reflection phase of LS, as a means to
encounter or add new ideas (add ideas). The function of theoretical input
is that it offers STs assumptions and ideal-typical interpretations of how
pupils acquire knowledge, skills, or attitudes (van Veen and Van de Ven
2008). These assumptions and interpretations can increase STs’ aware­
ness of relevant aspects of teaching (Korthagen, 2009) and help them
externalize their own practical knowledge (Marra 2004) (elicit). In
addition, theory can raise questions, point to ambiguity, and reveal the
complexity of learning and teaching (van Veen and Van de Ven 2008).
This complexity often relates to the relationship between the formal and
ideological curriculum (that which should happen) on the one hand and
the operational curriculum (that which actually happens) and experi­
enced curriculum (that which teachers experience) on the other (van
Veen and Van de Ven 2008). Theories are abstract and general, whereas
practice is concrete and specific; this contradiction offers an excellent
opportunity to compare, analyze, and evaluate (distinguish) one’s own
practical knowledge and ideas from theory about subject-specific
pedagogy. This comparison can, for example, strengthen the insight
they already had, or lead to integration of practical knowledge and the
information from the theoretical input (consolidate), resulting in new
knowledge about the relationship between subject-specific learning and
teaching.
We combined Linn et al.‘s knowledge integration processes and
Bakker et al.‘s noticing as reasoning during LS in ITE in one model
(Fig. 2). The model shows that there is always a reasoning so far present
at any time during LS conversations. This reasoning may be more or less
complete, even empty at the start of LS, and subject to change during the
LS process. The elements of the reasoning are substantiated with theo­
retical input, and/or practical knowledge and/or empirical data. At
some point during the conversation, theoretical input about one of the
elements is introduced, either by a ST or by the facilitator, which could
be the stepping stone to eliciting STs’ practical knowledge, dis­
tinguishing the theoretical information and externalized own practical
knowledge, consolidating, and integrating this knowledge by supple­
menting or amending the reasoning so far.
2.4. This study
Research on noticing as reasoning shows how LS teams set up
reasoning about subject-specific learning and teaching. Knowledge
integration research describes how new knowledge can be created and
the potential role of theoretical input in this. However, little is known
about how LS teams in ITE integrate theoretical input with their own
practical knowledge into new knowledge and insights during that
reasoning. This study aims to fill this research gap.
To this end, we analyze the reasoning that one LS team in ITE de­
velops during the LS meetings and how the theoretical input functions.
We will answer the following research question: To what extent does a
LS team in ITE integrate theoretical input with practical knowledge
during reasoning to create new knowledge and insights about subject-
specific pedagogy? In accordance with Fig. 2, we formulate three sub-
questions: (1) At what point in the LS cycle does the LS team insert
theoretical input in their reasoning?; (2) What are the outcomes in terms
of integrated knowledge after theoretical input is inserted in the
reasoning?; and (3) To which elements of the reasoning does the inte­
grated knowledge pertain?
Our study of the joint reasoning of a Lesson Study team can be seen as
an example of sociocultural discourse analysis (Mercer, 2004) since we
analyze how a team of student teachers constructs knowledge in inter­
action. Within this broad methodological framework, that encompasses
both qualitative and quantitative research (Hennessy et al., 2020), the
C. Bakker et al.
Fig. 2. Theoretical Model of Knowledge Integration Processes that can be triggered by Theoretical Input during Noticing as Reasoning, based on Authors. (2022) and
Linn and Eylon’s (2011; 2015).
design of our study focuses on one case (Swanborn, 2010), an LS team
that supplied an extensive collection of teacher talk (10 meetings, 876
min of total meeting time). Our data analyses are primarily qualitative
(cf. section 3.4). In our study we analyze the workings of the LS design
by unravelling when and how theoretical input is integrated with
practical knowledge. Outcomes of our work may feed into design or
formative research (Sandoval & Bell, 2004).
3. Method
3.1. Context and participants
We carried out the study in the Dutch ITE program for teaching in
higher secondary education at the University of Groningen in the
Netherlands. There, LS is a compulsory part of the curriculum,
comprising of 140 study hours. The LS part of the curriculum took place
in the second semester of 2019–2020, from a plenary kickoff meeting for
all STs from all school subjects in mid-January 2019 to a closing poster
presentation session in mid-June 2020. The STs had ten meetings in
their schedule. In addition to these scheduled meetings, the STs could
organize meetings themselves, for example to further develop the
research lesson or to discuss a preliminary version of the research report.
Each LS team jointly wrote a research report, and each ST wrote an
individual reflection report.
Ten STs Dutch language and literature participated in LS in ITE in
2019–2020, spread over three LS-teams. Only one of the LS-teams
audio/video recorded all meetings, so we only had a complete data set
for that LS-team. This LS-team is an average LS-team in ITE, which
makes it suitable to explore in depth how knowledge integration pro­
cesses may take place during LS in ITE. The LS team consisted of three
STs between the ages of 25 and 29, all teaching at rural, comprehensive
schools. The research lesson was conducted in grade 4 of pre-university
education.
4
Teaching and Teacher Education 140 (2024) 104468
3.2. Working method of the LST team in ITE
The problem the selected LS team intended to address was pupils’
lack of motivation pupils to read literature. The LS team met ten times.
The first four meetings took place at the institute in the presence of two
facilitators, including the first author. Due to COVID measures, the
subsequent six meetings took place online. The research lesson also was
an online lesson. Fig. 3 shows an overview of the LS meetings. STs audio
recorded the first four meetings, and video-recorded the other six,
conducted on videoconference via MS-Teams.
During the first meeting, the team members discussed their desired
way of collaborating. In the second, third, and fourth meetings, the team
made a problem analysis. In the fifth meeting, the team formulated the
design principles for the research lesson. In the sixth and part of the
seventh and ninth meetings, the team elaborated the design principles
into a concrete research lesson, including the design of the data collec­
tion instruments. Half of meeting 7 and all of meeting 8 were devoted to
discussing the supervisors’ written feedback on the first version of the LS
research report to be written. In the ninth meeting the data collection
tools were developed. In the tenth meeting, the research lesson given
was evaluated and adjusted.
During the ten meetings, the LS team used 17 sources of theoretical
input. STs read at home (scientific) articles that highlighted different
elements of the reasoning and introduced their reading experiences and
findings during the meetings. The theoretical input concerned:
• 5 subject-specific sources on research into pupils’ reading
motivation,
• 10 subject-specific pedagogic resources on reading proficiency
pedagogy, and
• 2 general educational resources on learning and teaching.
Instances of use of theoretical input were identified on the following
basis:
C. Bakker et al.
Fig. 3. Overview of the LS meetings of the LS Team in ITE.
• ST (or facilitator) mentions the title of a (re)source and use material
from it
• ST (or facilitator) mentions the author of a (re)source and use ma­
terial from it
• ST (or facilitator) refers implicitly to a source that belongs to the
common frame of reference because it is part of the compulsory
literature in their ITE
• ST (or facilitator) mentions a theoretical concept from a source that
has been introduced earlier in the conversation or in previous
conversations
3.3. Conversation cards and facilitators
To help teams complete the LS cycle, we developed conversation
cards that LS teams could use during their LS meetings. These cards
contained questions and assignments that guided the study, plan and
reflect phase. The conversation cards, suitable for STs of all school
subjects, allowed STs to think about different elements of reasoning,
making use of theory, practical knowledge, and empirical data. All cards
consisted of guiding questions and all kinds of targeted assignments and
discussion questions that should result in the answer to those guiding
questions. A total of 15 cards were available: cards 1–3 supported the
preparation for the LS (composition of teams, making agreements about
the way of working together), cards 4–8 concerned the study phase in
which the students select the subject-specific pedagogy problem they
would like to address, and analyzed the problem, cards 9–13 concerned
the planning of the research lesson, card 14 the evaluation of the
research lesson, and card 15 the reflection on the LS as a whole. In ap­
pendix A we have included an overview of the main guiding questions.
The STs of the studied LS team consulted all the cards in the order in
which they were presented.
Two facilitators, both experts in pedagogy of the school subject in
question, were present during the offline meetings and available on
demand during the online meetings. During the meetings they asked
guided questions that encouraged the STs to think about elements of the
reasoning, their practical knowledge, and the relationship between
practice and theory (Leavy & Hourigan, 2016; Næsheim- Bjørkvik &
Larssen, 2019), and they gave solicited and unsolicited reading sug­
gestions and shared their practical knowledge. They also gave interim
feedback on the problem analysis and the design of the research lesson.
Table 1
Steps of the data analysis.
Step Activity
1 Listen to the recordings and make a summary of each meeting.
2 Divide the meetings into fragments and transcribe those fragments in which reasoning takes
place.
3 Highlight fragments from step 2 in which is explicitly referred to theoretical input.
4 Code the distinct elements of the reasoning according to Fig. 1 into the fragments from step 3.
5 Determine which fragments belong to one and the same element of a reasoning.
6 Using the reasoning sequences from step 5, describe which route of reasoning is taken.
7 Code some reasoning sequences from step 6 according to preliminary version of the code tree.
Coauthors check the team’s analyses.
8 Using the definitive code tree, determine which knowledge integration process is involved in
each fragment from a reasoning sequence.
9 Determining what the outcomes are according to Table 3.
Coauthors check the teams’ analyses.
5
Teaching and Teacher Education 140 (2024) 104468
3.4. Data analysis
During the analysis, we alternated between working bottom up and
top down (Boeije, 2009). We established the reasoning on the basis of
recognition of the elements, and this recognition was in turn guided by
identifying their link with the unifying greater whole. After multiple
sessions, the three authors arrived at a definitive determination of the
reasoning by comparing and discussing differences in interpretation. To
further increase the trustworthiness of this study, we describe in detail
below how we analyzed the data. In the results section, we also provide
ample quotes from the conversations so that the reader can follow the
analyses and assess their validity. Our analyses are primarily of a
qualitative nature. Table 1 lists the steps we took to analyze the data.
We initially divided the conversations into fragments. A fragment is a
series of utterances that relate to the same element of the reasoning that
the LS team sets up. Utterances can concern part of a conversation turn
of a conversation participant, a whole turn of a conversation participant
or (parts of) turns of one or more conversation participants. Contribu­
tions from more than one participant can therefore together constitute a
reasoning element. The LS team could partially create an element and
complete it later in the conversation, or it could revise an element that
has already been established later. All fragments belonging to the same
reasoning element form a reasoning sequence, such that a reasoning
sequence can consist of one, two, three, up to N fragments.
We next coded each reasoning sequence with one code indicating
which of the eight elements of the reasoning it relates to, using Fig. 1,
and one code indicating the level of knowledge integration, using the
code tree “Routes in reasoning in which theoretical input is added” (see
Fig. 4). This code tree shows the possible routes in reasoning in which
theoretical input is brought into the conversation. Each reasoning
sequence from our analysis starts by adding theoretical input in line with
the reasoning up to that point. After that, three routes are possible: (1)
the addition of the theoretical input is self-contained and does not elicit
practical knowledge from the STs: The reasoning stops, and the LS team
starts discussing another topic (Y-codes). (2) Even though the theoretical
input elicits practical knowledge, the practical knowledge does not
match the knowledge from the theoretical input. The STs then make a
leap in their reasoning (X-codes), e.g. when the theoretical input about a
certain approach leads to associations about an entirely different
approach, or when the theoretical input about possible causes of the
Result
Global overview of the reasoning set up by the LS team and the theoretical
input used.
Detailed representation of what was said when the LS team was reasoning.
Selection of those fragments in which theoretical input was inserted during
reasoning by one of the STs.
Insight into the structure of the reasoning that was set up: the elements and
their coherence.
Determination of sequence of fragments—the so-called reasoning sequences.
Description of routes of reasoning resulting in a preliminary version of Fig. 4.
Adjustments of the code tree to a definitive code tree (Fig. 4).
Determination of the knowledge integration processes in each individual
fragment from a reasoning sequence.
Established outcomes of inserted theoretical input per reasoning sequence.
C. Bakker et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 140 (2024) 104468

Fig. 4. Code Tree with Routes of Reasoning from the moment Theoretical Input is Inserted in the Conversation. P refers to the knowledge integration processes: P1 =
adding theoretical input, P2 = adding practical knowledge, P3 = comparing practical knowledge and TI; P4 = integrating PK and TI. Y-codes refer to dead ends in
reasoning, X-codes to leaps in reasoning, A-codes to continuation of the reasoning. Fat line = route to integration of theoretical input and practical knowledge
resulting in a modified reasoning.

problem evokes practical knowledge about how to approach the prob­
lem. The original reasoning stops in this scenario as well. (3) STs
contribute practical knowledge that relates to the theoretical input (A-
codes). The same possibilities arise during the distinguishing processes:
nothing happens (again X codes); something does happen, but a leap is
made in the reasoning (again Y codes); or it builds on the reasoning up to
that point (again A codes). There are two possible outcomes with the A-
code for distinguishing: practical knowledge and theoretical input
correspond, confirm each other and do not raise any further questions
(A2). The reasoning breaks off at that point. The other outcome is that
practical knowledge and theoretical input do not fully correspond,
which raises questions about the exact situation with regard to that
specific element of the reasoning (A1). Only this outcome leads to an
attempt to integrate practical knowledge and theoretical input into new
knowledge about a specific element of the reasoning.
The thick line in Fig. 4 shows the route to integration of theoretical
input and practical knowledge: (1) a reasoning up to that point has
occurred; (2) then, the team introduces theoretical input that concerns
one of the elements of the reasoning; (3) the team formulates practical
knowledge that relates to that theoretical input; (4) a process starts in
which STs compare the theoretical input and the practical knowledge
and that comparison raises questions or issues about the current

6
C. Bakker et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 140 (2024) 104468

situation; and (5) STs resolve the issue by integrating the practical
knowledge and theoretical input into new knowledge about the element
of the reasoning being discussed. The Y-codes on the left are the dead
ends; reasoning about the element about which STs bring theoretical
input stops, because no practical knowledge is expressed (F2Y), or
because practical knowledge is expressed but not compared with the
theoretical input (F3Y) or because comparison takes place and also
raises questions that the STs then don’t try to answer (F4Y). The X-codes
on the right indicate the jumps in reasoning that occur, but do not build
on the reasoning up to that point.
In Table 2 an example is given of a sequence in which the thick line/
route has been followed. The theoretical input (P1) about a possible
approach for the research lesson elicits practical knowledge up to three
times, one of which is a jump (P2-A, P2-A, P2-X). Subsequently, a pro­
cess of comparison takes place twice, after which the team found one
instance in which practical knowledge and theoretical input matched
(P3-A2) and another in which a question was raised (P3-A1). They
resolved this issue by integrating practical and theoretical knowledge
into new knowledge and insights about the approach. STs thus seemed
to understand that social interaction is achieved by stimulating pupils to
talk to one another during the speed date (P4-A).
The example in Table 2 shows that adding theoretical input elicits
the formulation of practical knowledge, and comparing and integrating
both lead to new knowledge. Fig. 4 also shows other possible routes,

Table 2
Analysis of a sequence from one of the conversations.
Reasoning so far

In meeting 3, the LS team narrowed down the motivation problem to the following: pupils did not have a good strategy for choosing suitable books. In meeting 4, they mentioned a
part of a potentially promising approach: pupils could “speed date” with books so that they encounter books of different levels and themes. Prior to meeting 5, STs searched for
sources that provide more information about a possible adequate approach for the research lesson (Approach 1).
ST Quotation Analysis
2 About the right strategy for choosing a book? I did find something about that. P1-Add_Approach 1
I put it in the problem analysis, but that was very minimal. I’ll give it a go, The contributed theoretical input added new knowledge about potentially
because I don’t know that off the top of my head. Let’s see what’s here. That’s appropriate strategies for getting pupils to choose adequate books, namely, that
what I just said. That they find it really fun and challenging. That a good book social interaction can be a good design principle in a book-choice strategy.
choice comes about through social interaction.

And that’s basically what I found. And interaction comes about through P2A-Elicit_Approach 1
speed dating, which is also a design principle. ST 2 referred to the activity mentioned in meeting four, namely, speed dating with
books.

If interaction is something that is important, then your pupils will probably
also need to engage in conversation with each other. Or not?
1 ST 3 expressed practical knowledge, implying there will be too little time to let
2 Yes
3 We only have 50 min
1 Yes, but I originally thought, you put down books, let pupils read something,
they think about themes, write something about it. But that is of course quite
focused on the individual student and if it is also important that they start
talking about it …
Which I was also thinking about, which might also be nice, you could also
integrate it with writing, with creative writing, but that is difficult to include
that again.
P3B-Distinguish_Approach 1
ST 2 compared speed dating with the design principle “social interaction” found in
the theoretical input and indicated that social interaction is achieved through speed
dating and that speed dating is therefore a form of social interaction. The practical
knowledge of ST2 was then confirmed by the theoretical input.
P2A-Elicit_Approach 1
ST 1 expressed practical knowledge that social interaction implies that pupils start
talking to each other. ST 2 confirmed this.
pupils talk to each other.
P3A1-Distinguish_Approach 1
ST1 recalled the effect of the speed date and compared it with the design principle of
“social interaction”. With “and if it is also important that they start talking about it”.
ST1 seemed to imply that the previously formulated approach is not a form of social
interaction, because speed dating is aimed at the individual student. ST1 therefore
had a different understanding of the relationship between the design principle
“social interaction” and speed dating than ST2, which raises an issue.
P2X-Elicit_Approach 1
ST 1 jumped to another idea about a possible approach. This jump was evaluated by
ST 2 and amortized by ST 1.

1
2 Yes, if you were to make a lesson series I would agree with you. The idea is
natural
1 Yes it’s probably too much for one lesson to include that
But I think you can do such an interaction moment quite okay. For example, P4A-Consolidate_Approach 1
if you don’t do that speed date individually, pupils go in groups at tables with The issue “Is speed dating a form of social interaction?” was resolved. ST2
all kinds of themes and level books, yes then children end up at the same formulated an assumption that this social interaction—the conversation—will
table at the same time. Then you cannot avoid social interaction. automatically start if the speed dating takes place at tables where more pupils speed
2 dating with books at the same time. ST1 questioned this assumption. ST2 specified
1 So you think it’s automatic? that pupils will be encouraged to talk to each other during the speed date and came
2 I don’t suppose we’re going to say “You have to shut up for 50 min and just to the insight that speed dating in that form is an elaboration of the design principle
walk from table to table and read”. That’s not happening. Inherent in this of social interaction. ST1 and ST3 seemed to agree with this line of reasoning.
model is social interaction. And if we just say that we put it in very STs solved the issue by combining and integrating practical knowledge and
consciously. theoretical input about the approach.
1 Okay so social interaction is also a design principle.
2 I think so. Correct me if I am wrong.
3 I think it’s right.
Outcome: Integration of PK and TI concerning Approach 1 resulting in a modified reasoning

7
C. Bakker et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 140 (2024) 104468

Table 3
Four Possible Outcomes after Theoretical Input is introduced by a ST.
Sequences of Outcome Description
Codes

P1–P2Y 1) Addition of information Theoretical input adds information about an element of the reasoning, but does not elicit the practical knowledge that builds on
P1–P2X from TI the information from the theoretical input.

P1–P2A-P3Y 2) Addition TI and Theoretical input adds information about an element of the reasoning, and elicits practical knowledge that builds on this
P1–P2A-P3X Elicitation of PK information, but does not elicit a process of comparison.

P1–P2A-P3A2 3) Distinguish PK and TI Theoretical input adds information, elicits practical knowledge and both are compared, but no new knowledge or insights arise.
P1–P2A- The reasoning so far may be perpetuated, but is not modified.
P3X–P4X

P1–P2A-P3A1- 4) Consolidate PK and TI Theoretical input and practical knowledge are integrated into new knowledge or insights about an element of the reasoning. The
P4A reasoning is supplemented or amended with the new knowledge

routes where adding information from theoretical input to the reasoning
does not lead to the integration of theoretical input and practical
knowledge, but has a different outcome. Based on Fig. 4, we distinguish
four possible outcomes as a result of introducing theoretical input into
LS team’s reasoning (see Table 3).
3.5. Positionality statement
The primary author of the current study, who is a teacher educator
and the supervisor and assessor of the Lesson Study team under inves­
tigation, led the data collection and analysis processes. The second
author is a professor emeritus of Speech Communication and Discourse
Analysis. The third author is professor of applied sciences, and an expert
in the field of Lesson Study in the Netherlands. All authors contributed to
interpreting findings and the implications of the study. It is likely,
however, that our backgrounds influence the collection and in­
terpretations of the data. Regarding the data collection; the STs some­
times made comments such as ’[Author 1] is also listening’, for instance
when they gossiped about other teacher educators and curriculum
components. The fact that STs were aware of the fact that author 1 was
going to analyze the conversations was inevitable because, in connec­
tion with research ethics, the STs were asked for informed consent in
advance. However, when asked, STs indicated that they did not feel
limited in expressing themselves during the LS conversations. To limit
the effect on the data analysis, all authors made efforts to bracket
existing biases or assumptions. As a result of being pedagogy expert,
supervisor, assessor and researcher, author 1 had knowledge of practice
from within and an investigative view from outside. Specifically, author
1 had prior knowledge about the reasoning that the LS team had team set
up as a result of being present during some meetings and assessing the LS
product. During the analysis of the LS-conversations, this sometimes
provided the necessary context, making some parts of the conversations
easier to interpret. Occasionally, this prior knowledge led to a tendency
to ‘fil in’ what had not exactly been said. Authors 2 and 3 were not
‘affected’ by this bias and kept the distance necessary at those moments.
By working with a coding system and constantly ping-ponging back and
forth during the analysis, we have further prevented ourselves from
speaking for the data.
4. Results
4.1. At what point in the LS cycle does the LST team in ITE insert
theoretical input in their reasoning?
In the meetings 2, 3, and 4 and the beginning of meetings 5 and 6, the
LS team explicitly addresses and uses theoretical input to reason about
subject-specific learning and teaching. We observed 16 reasoning se­
quences in which the LS team inserted information from theoretical
input to the reasoning so far. Fourteen times the insertion concerned the
problem analysis (i.c. elements 1–3 of the reasoning), and two times the
LS team used theory in the plan phase, while formulating and elabo­
rating on the design principles of the research lesson. During the
reflection phase, the LS team did reason about elements 5, 6, 7 and 8, but
without making a connection with theoretical input.
4.2. What are the end outcomes in terms of integrated knowledge after
theoretical input is inserted in the reasoning?
In two of the sixteen reasoning sequences, the theoretical input only
adds information to the reasoning without eliciting STs’ practical
knowledge. Four times, practical knowledge was elicited, but no attempt
was made to analyze where practical knowledge and theoretical input
came across or differed. Seven times theoretical input and practical
knowledge was compared, but without resulting in new knowledge. In
three of the sixteen fragments the LS team introduced theoretical input
and compared this to their practical knowledge leading to new knowl­
edge or insights. In the rest of his section, we give examples of sequences
of each outcome and our analysis thereof.
4.2.1. Outcome: theoretical input only adds information to the reasoning
Twice the LS team only added information from the theoretical input
in the reasoning without eliciting their practical knowledge about the
element of reasoning that was discussed. Table 4 provides an analysis
from such a reasoning sequence from the second meeting.
4.2.2. Outcome: theoretical input adds information to the reasoning ánd
elicits practical knowledge about the same element of reasoning
In 14 reasoning sequences, the added theoretical input not only
added information to the reasoning but also elicited STs’ practical
knowledge about the same element of reasoning. It stayed there four

8
C. Bakker et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 140 (2024) 104468

Table 4
Example of Outcome: Theoretical Input only adds Information without Eliciting Practical Knowledge.
Reasoning so far

In the first meeting, the LS team set the topic on pupils’ lack of motivation to read books. During meeting 2, the lecturers summarized ten sources and assessed each for usability. In
this sequence, they discuss theoretical input on a possible approach for the research lesson (element 4 - Approach 1).
ST Quotation Analysis
Which comes to me completely at random now, but I thought I’d just say it. There is a P1 – Add_Approach 1 (E4)
Dutch teacher and he has done a lot with literature lessons, and he claims that his strength Theoretical input added information about a possible approach to get
was that he knew his pupils well and could therefore give tailor-made books so that pupils pupils more motivated to read literature, namely by tailoring books.
had a lot more fun because he knew what they liked. If people like it then they do not mind Theoretical input was judged on usability (“Not very scientific in itself,
2 reading much, was his theory. I think a newspaper has written a piece about that. Not very but interesting in itself” and “But that’s as background information”)
scientific in itself, but interesting in itself. We could send him another email.
3 However, that is as background information.
2 Yes, and what you base it on. Of course, it sounds super logical, but
3 Next article is about graphic novels [source 16]. I found it a bit of a difficult article, to be STs move on to discussing another source.
honest. Actually, it came out about the same as the other research. P2Y Elicit
The theoretical input from source 21 does not initiate the elicitation of
practical knowledge.
Outcome – Addition of information from TI, concerning element Approach 1 (E4)

Table 5
Example of outcome: Theoretical input adds information and elicits practical knowledge.
Reasoning so far

In the first meeting, the LS team set the topic on pupils’ lack of motivation to read books. During meeting 2, the STs summarized ten sources found on this subject and assessed each for
usefulness. In this sequence, they discuss theoretical input on the problem (element 2) and a possible approach (element 4) for the research lesson.
ST Quotation Analysis
The next article is about graphic novels. I found it a bit of a difficult article, to be P1-Add_Approach 1
honest. Actually, it came out about the same as the other research. Source was introduced, with participant stating that it added similar information
to another source they already discussed

3
What do you mean by graphic novels? Like from The Assault? P2A–Elicit_Approach 1
ST 2 expressed practical knowledge about the genre and provided an example of
a graphic novel (The Assault)

2
Yes, The Assault is also mentioned. That is a kind of comic book, but of slightly
higher literature. It is already being done a lot abroad. “The pupils in our study
appreciated the pictorial novel for various reasons. At the same time, the results
of the test did not show that the pictorial novel has direct positive effects.” So,
pupils enjoy reading more, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they understand
the literary concepts better.
P2A–Elicit_Approach 1
ST 3 expressed his practical knowledge about the genre
P1–Add_Approach 1
Theoretical input from another source added information about the effects of an
approach on the appreciation of works with pictorial novels.

3
However, if we want to deal with motivation, it does not matter whether they get P2A–Elicit_Problem
grade eight or a six. ST2 expressed his practical knowledge about the relationship between
motivation and performance. ST3 agreed.

2
3 Precisely.
2 Therefore, that leads to an increase in motivation. I find that an interesting fact. I
think that’s pretty nice.
3 I also found this one, but didn’t look it up: “Stability of reading pleasure and
STs move on to discussing another source.
reading avoidance.” Special education: Research and practice, 54(2), 60–73.“’ I
P3Y Distinguish
have marked that as perhaps interesting. Snowballs eh. Theoretical input on a possible approach elicited practical knowledge about the
problem, but STs do not attempt to compare practical knowledge and theoretical
input.
Outcome – Addition of information from TI and elicitation of PK, concerning element Problem and Approach 1

9
C. Bakker et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 140 (2024) 104468

times when the STs did not relate the information from the theoretical
input to their practical knowledge, and made no attempt to analyze
where both came across or differed. Table 5 shows an analysis of this
type of outcome from meeting 2.
4.2.3. Outcome: distinguish theoretical input and practical knowledge, not
resulting in new knowledge
In 10 of the 14 reasoning sequences in which the theoretical input
elicited practical knowledge, a process of distinguishing was initiated. In
7 of those occurrences, the LS team found that the practical knowledge
and the information from theoretical input matched, the theoretical
input confirmed the practical knowledge, and the comparison did not
reveal inconsistencies or questions. The reasoning so far was perpetu­
ated. Table 6 provides an analysis this outcome from meeting 6.
4.2.4. Outcome: integration of practical knowledge and theoretical input
resulting in new knowledge and insights
In 3 of the 10 reasoning sequences in which the STs distinguished
theoretical input and practical knowledge, this raised inconsistencies,
questions or issues that were answered or solved by combining and
integrating practical knowledge and theoretical input into new knowl­
edge and insights about subject-specific pedagogy. One of those
sequences is shown in Table 3 in the “Method” section. Table 7 presents
another analysis of this outcome.
4.3. To which elements of the reasoning do the integrated knowledge
pertain?
Table 8 shows that this LS team used theoretical input primarily for
reasoning about the problem (seven times) and the approach to the first
research lesson (ten times). Once, the team used theoretical input to add
information about the causes of the problem (E3–Cause). The team used
no theoretical input to generate explanations for the efficacy of the
research lesson (E7–Explanation) or the modified approach
(E8–Approach 2). In all three cases in which the team integrated theo­
retical input and practical knowledge into new knowledge, they were
concerned with the approach of the research lesson (E4–Approach 1).
One case involved a combination of approach and problem; see the
example of a reasoning approach in the level 4 sequence from Table 7.
5. Discussion and conclusion
To shed light on how LS teams in ITE link theoretical input to their
practical knowledge and create new knowledge about subject-specific

Table 6
Example of outcome: Comparison of theoretical input and practical knowledge without creating new knowledge.
Reasoning so far

In meeting 5, the following design principles for the research lesson were established: (1) Social interaction, exchange of teaching experience; (2) Alignment with the current reading
level of pupils; (3) Explanation about the why of literature education; (4) Giving reading time in class; and (5) Concrete help from the teacher in choosing a book that is in the zone of
close development, in the form of a book-choose strategy. The team did not yet know what that book-choice strategy would look like, and meeting 6 was devoted to developing this
strategy. ST1 had already thought about a possible approach at home, based on the formulated design principles. In this sequence, they discuss theoretical input on a possible
approach for the research lesson.
ST Quotation Analysis
2 In itself, I think the strategy can flow quite fluently from the literature we Teacher student 2 expected this strategy to emerge from the literature studied.
have already found.
Yes, I said last time that we are going to take a level test. That is actually P2A-Elicit_Approach 1
already part of the strategy, determining the level. I just came up with The previously added information about the design principles from the literature
something. I have said that pupils can indicate three themes that they find created a leap in ST 1’s thinking about the approach (“I just came up with
interesting and based on that we can create as many themes. We choose the something.“)
1 themes that pupils find most interesting and we look for books of different
levels. Then you already have determination of level and theme. Yes, then
you have to think further. I thought they would be able to look at the book
first, read the text from it, for example. If you are going to do speed dating,
you are going to organize rounds. If you divide it into different phases. That
you start with an orientating phase of one or 2 min or so. That they first
determine “okay I want to know more about this book”, then they can select a
certain book and read a part of that book and find that and then determine
what they think about it and then at the end of those few minutes you let them
have a conversation.
2 Yes, I think that is exactly what is said about how to motivate pupils to read in P3A2-Distinguish_Approach 1
class [refers to previous introduced source]. ST2 compared ST1’s practical knowledge with the previously added information
Even giving space in class to actually start reading […] from the theoretical input about how to motivate pupils. The theoretical input is
reinforced by the practical knowledge.
P1-Add_Approach 1
Theoretical input added information about the approach—namely, that to promote
motivation, it is good to have pupils read in class.

1 But in this way, we can substantiate that strategy a bit

3 Yes
1 So read a bit, reflect and decide whether you want to continue reading. ST 1 and 3 summarized the approach so far.
3 That sounds like a strategy. So if we just take that as a strategy: determining
P3A2-Distinguish_Approach 1
the level, determining the theme, orienting reading, reflecting and others, go
The theoretical input confirmed the practical knowledge. STs connect what they
back to the start. [STs talk further about the lesson plan made by ST 1]thought to what they had read, with TK and PK confirming each other, but no new
knowledge or insights arose. The reasoning so far is perpetuated.
Outcome – Comparison of TI and PK resulting in perpetuation of the reasoning so far, not resulting in new knowledge, concerning element Approach 1

10
C. Bakker et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 140 (2024) 104468

Table 7
Example of Outcome: Theoretical Input Adds Information, Practical Knowledge is Elicited, and Both are Compared and Integrated into New Knowledge or Insights.
Reasoning so far

At the beginning of this meeting 3, ST 1 summarized that the literature that has been studied so far provided insight into what the problem is (lack of motivation for reading literary
works) and what possible approaches are, but not into which subject matter would be relevant. In meeting 2, they wrote off the literary concepts as part of possibly suitable subject
matter. In the search for suitable subject matter, the STs discussed four theoretical sources: (1) the legal learning objectives; (2) the legal frame of reference language, which offers
pupils details of the learning objectives; (3) a guideline for reading short stories; and (4) a dissertation on the literary development of pupils of senior general secondary education and
pre-university education. In this sequence, they discuss theoretical input on the problem, causes and a possible approach for the research lesson.
ST Quotation Analysis
1 Well, that is what I was thinking about as well. At domain E [ referring to the P1-Add_Approach 1
legal exam requirements], if you then look at the literary development, then Resources 1 and 2 added new information about the goals that pupils should
pupils should also, according to the frame of reference [referring to the legal achieve—namely, that they should be able to give a reasoned response to works
frame of reference] it also states ‘Give a substantiated response to works that read.
you have read’’. P2A-Elicit_Approach 1
We had also discussed earlier; you could perhaps link that to concrete subject A previous discussed source gave ST1 the idea for the research lesson that giving a
matter. We had previously talked about working based on a short story and reasoned response to a short story could be good learning material.
that you build a lesson around it, so to speak.

2 I think, I do think, as a very general subject matter “give a substantiated P2A-Elicit_ Problem
response to a literary work”, I think there is a lot to be initially learned from Source 2 elicited ST2’s practical knowledge about the problem (“that our problem
that and that our problem becomes somewhat clear too, because I expect also becomes somewhat clear too”). ST2 is expecting pupils will not provide a
pupils to just say “stupid”, “boring”, and whatever. substantiated first response very extensively.

1 Maybe you can bring it to life? P2A-Elicit_Approach 1

ST1 repeated that giving a substantiated response to a short story could be good
subject matter.

3 We may also expect that pupils have too little knowledge to be motivated for
1 Wouldn’t you, wouldn’t it be wonderful, to treat a story and that you … just
like, like with that book you were talking about “How do I read”. I have also
read in it and the writer goes by a lot of “I notice this” and “I notice that.”
P2A-Elicit_Causes
Sources 1 and 2 elicited practical knowledge from ST 3 about a possible
explanation for the lack of motivation of pupils—namely, the lack of knowledge.
ST3 seemed to refer here to own experiences about the importance of knowledge of
the literary conceptual framework expressed in meeting two: “I think the
interesting thing is that you know those kinds of things, because then you can see
from the it goes like this” and “I also have books that at the end I think I didn’t
understand a lot about”.
P2X- Elicit_Approach 1
The added information from source 14 created a leap in ST 1’s thinking about the
approach.
P1-Add_Approach 1
Resource added information about the approach.

3 Then you’re back in the literary concepts, I think. P3A-Distinguish_Approach 1

2 True, but to come back to “The Eye of the Master”, Theo Witte’s dissertation
[source]. In it, I thought that was very nice, it is said that one of the most
important problems is the connection with the initial situation of pupils.
The problem with the fourth grade of pre-university education is that they all
have to write a reading autobiography, probably yours too, our school too,
and you see completely different kinds of readers come out of grade 3, and
they’re all molded in grade 4.
And that is, according to him, a problem and one of the reasons for his
dissertation.
But some pupils are not ready to interpret a story in grade 4, but they mainly
want reading pleasure, a good read. Therefore, that’s already a big step.
Moreover, if you start with literary concepts, you will not quite reach your
goal.
ST 3 evaluated the jump of ST 1 and recalled that the literary concepts are central to
source 3, while the LS team had previously decided not to discuss those literary
concepts in the research lesson. The comparison raised the question of whether the
source is useful.
P1-Add_Problem
Source 4 added information about the connection problem between class 3 and
class 4 pre-university education.
P2A-Elicit_ Problem
Source 4 elicited practical knowledge from ST2 about the different initial situations
of their own pupils.
P3A2-Distinguish_Problem
ST2 compared its own practice and theoretical information and sees similarities.
The reasoning so far is perpetuated.
P4A-Consolidate_Problem and Approach 1
ST2 indicated that source 4 shed light on the two articulated practical problems/
issues: (1) the initial situation of the own pupils in fourth grade is so different and
(2) literary concepts probably do not constitute good subject matter for the
research lesson. Source 4 helped ST 2 understand why paying attention to those
literary concepts will not lead to the goal of making them more motivated for
reading.

(continued on next page)

11
C. Bakker et al.
Table 7 (continued )
3 Right.
Outcome: Integration of practical knowledge and theoretical input, concerning element Problem (E2) and Approach 1 (E4)
pedagogy, we analyzed the reasoning a LS team in ITE set up. We
distinguished 16 sequences of reasoning in which STs used theoretical
input. Those reasoning sequences were only encountered during the
study and plan phases. In these sequences, all possible outcomes of
integration between theoretical input and practical knowledge were
evident. Twice, the LS team added only information from the theoretical
input without subsequently externalize their practical knowledge. Four
times, the theoretical input elicited the articulation of their practical
knowledge about the problem and the design principles, but the STs then
have not subsequently compared and connected the two. In seven se­
quences, the STs did compare the theoretical input with the practice
knowledge, but the comparison did not raise inconsistencies between
the two, meaning the practical knowledge and the theoretical input
coexisted or confirmed each other. No new knowledge or insights
emerged. In three sequences, this distinguishing process resulted in the
finding that the two did not fully match, and, in attempting to resolve
these inconsistencies, the LS-team came across with new knowledge and
insights; it built coherent, new understanding of the subject-specific
learning by and teaching of their pupils through the processes of add­
ing theoretical information, eliciting practical knowledge, distinguish­
ing practical knowledge and the theoretical input and reflecting on the
relation between the two. These results show that adding and discussing
theoretical input indeed help STs externalize their own practical
knowledge (Marra 2004), reflect on and question their practical
knowledge (van Veen & Van de Ven, 2008), and gain new insights about
subject-specific pedagogy.
We observed that the STs from our study mainly used theoretical
input to understand the problem and to generate ideas for a possible
approach. This may be a logical consequence because of the extensive
Table 8
Overview of the Outcomes, the Number of Sequences in which that Outcome was Achieved, and the Element of the Reasoning (and their numbers) to which the
Outcome Relates.
Outcome
Addition of information from TI
Addition of information from TI and elicitation of PK
Comparison of TI and PK not resulting in new knowledge, the
reasoning so far may be perpetuated.
Integration of PK and TI, the reasoning so far is supplemented or
amended with the new knowledge
Total
Teaching and Teacher Education 140 (2024) 104468
ST3 confirmed the reflection of ST2.
P4A Consolidate
STs solved the issue by combining and integrating practical knowledge and
theoretical input about the problem and the approach.
attention to the study and plan phases in the conversation cards these LS
teams in ITE used. We also saw that these STs used little theoretical input
in elaborating the design principles into a concrete research lesson. This
phenomenon is probably due to the lack of detailed signposting in ill-
structured domains such as literature education in general (Witte,
2008). Only a few studies could be linked to the specific subject of this
LS; as a result, the STs often had to rely on their own practical knowledge
and creativity in the plan phase. This finding raises the question of the
extent to which these STs are able to link general educational theoretical
input to a subject-specific context. The lack of appropriate theoretical
input calls for abductive reasoning; the empty space that arises between
problem and approach can sometimes be bridged only with (creative)
reasoning leaps (Blom & van Lanen, 2021). This suggests that LS in ITE
might be a good context in which to practice and develop this abductive
reasoning in a real-life setting. Specifically, LS in ITE offers a high degree
of approximation of practice (Grossman et al., 2009), because it effec­
tively reflects the complex practice of teaching (Koopman et al., 2016).
We also noted that the LS team did not use theoretical input in the
reflection phase. In the evaluation meeting immediately after the
research lesson, the LS team was expected to answer the question of
whether the design principles have stimulated the intended learning of
pupils, how this can be explained, and what adjustments, if any, the
research lesson needs. The conversation cards have not explicitly
encouraged the team to make the connection between what they noticed
during the research lesson and what is known from theory. The LS team
did not make those connections on its own.
Our findings add to the research literature by generating insights
about how STs use and integrate theoretical input and practical
knowledge to build new knowledge about subject pedagogy during LS.
Number of reasoning sequences in which that Element of the reasoning to which the
outcome was achieved outcome relates
2 E3: Cause (1)
E4: Approach 1 (1)
4 E2: Problem/Approach 1 (1)
E2: Problem (2)
E4: Approach 1 (1)
7 E2: Problem (3)
E4: Approach 1 (4)
3 E2: Problem/- Approach 1 (1)
E4: Approach 1 (2)
16 E2: Problem: 7
E3: Cause: 1
E4: Approach 1: 10
12
C. Bakker et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 140 (2024) 104468

We studied one LS-team in one context with the aim of properly studying
and understanding the phenomenon. We do not claim that the results are
generalizable. We do wonder whether the observed phenomena are also
observed in other LS-teams in the same and other contexts, but that
requires further research. This study is more about transferability (e.g.
Polit & Beck, 2010): based on our thick description of the context,
teacher educations determine for themselves whether the results also
apply for their teacher training. This brings us to the limitations of our
study. It is quite conceivable that part of the knowledge creation pro­
cesses took place invisibly for the researchers, for example when the STs
worked on the LS report. New knowledge about subject-specific peda­
gogy may have arisen during the writing of the report (Bangert-Drowns
et al., 2004), or in between meetings. We therefore recommend that
follow-up studies of knowledge creation processes during LS have STs
keep logs, in which they report on knowledge creation processes be­
tween meetings. Another limitation of the current analysis is that we
only selected those sequences and encoded fragments within them in
which theoretical input was explicitly added to the reasoning. Therefore,
theoretical input later in the cycle has already become practical
knowledge and was no longer recognizable as theoretical input to us.
Follow-up research could show whether it is also possible to understand
these kinds of processes during LS in ITE.
The analysis instruments we developed proved helpful for our ana­
lyses. In this study, we used Linn et al.‘s framework (2011; 2015) as a
lens to look at which knowledge integration processes the insertion of
theoretical input in the LS in ITE conversations evokes. We not only got a
good view of the way in which the insertion of theoretical input resulted
in the confirmation of practical knowledge or in new knowledge, but
also in how dynamically the knowledge integration process and process
of noticing as reasoning can be during LS in ITE. For example, the STs
sometimes made leaps in reasoning, regularly shuttled between ele­
ments of the reasoning, and occasionally reached a dead end in their
reasoning.
A practical adjustment that could promote the integration between
practical knowledge and theoretical input during LS in ITE involves a
targeted stimulation of STs’ knowledge integration processes. This may
be achieved by using conversation cards that explicitly activate all
knowledge integration processes in all phases, whether or not in a fixed
order such as with Linn et al.‘s knowledge integration framework. Also,
more attention could be paid to interim reflection, such as by having STs
reflect in a logbook after each meeting about the knowledge and insights
they gained about subject-specific pedagogy. In doing so, explicit
attention should be paid to the value of practical knowledge in the
creation of new knowledge and insights. The STs in our study seemed to
attach more value to theoretical input than to the practical knowledge
brought in by the STs themselves or the supervisors, perhaps as a result
of the deductive research paradigm of their subject study. For example,
consider the reaction of a ST to the practical knowledge brought in by
the facilitators: “It may not be very fair and I don’t want to play the man
and I understand their point, but is it also theoretically substantiated?”
Our findings support the assumption that LS in ITE is an appropriate
learning task to help STs relate theory to practice and develop their
subject pedagogical knowledge and insights (Lewis & Perry, 2014; Sti­
gler & Hiebert, 2009). One ST from our study summed this up well;
when comparing theoretical input with own practical knowledge, the ST
wondered aloud: “Are we jumping into a gap here?” With PBTE, in
which inquiry learning plays a central role, teacher trainers give up a
certain degree of control; the more we place STs’ learning in K-12
classrooms and the more we allow them to direct their own learning, the
greater the risk STs learn ‘the wrong thing’. We find it encouraging that
the STs in our study have gained new knowledge and insights that are
not only based on their own - often limited - practical knowledge, but
also on theoretical input. Based on our informal observations of the
knowledge integration processes of the LS team in this study and of other
LS teams in ITE, we have the idea that both the input from the facili­
tators and the use of the conversation cards support these processes, but
formal research into this is desirable to offer teacher educators practical
help when they wish to promote STs integration of theory and practice.
Declaration of competing interest
There’s no financial/personal interest or belief that could affect au­
thor’s objectivity.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.

Appendix B. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104468.

Appendix A. Overview on the conversation cards

Conversation cards

Phase Elements Guiding questions Card

0 Preparation phase
• Assemble teams
• Choice subject
• Desired cooperation
1 Study phase
• Formulation of lesson objectives and
analysis of subject matter
• Analysis of what is known about student
learning
• Analysis and selection of useable design
principles
• Formulation of the central research
question and sub-questions
2 Plan phase
Design of the research lesson
• Which topics are relevant and interesting? Which do we choose? 1–3
• How do we want to work together?
• How do we relate to Lesson Study as a way of doing research?
• How to conduct a good Lesson Study conversation?
• What lesson objective do we want to achieve? 4–8
• Why is it important for pupils to learn this? According to whom and what sources?
• What is the subject matter?
• What do pupils find difficult about learning the subject matter?
• What should pupils do or say to demonstrate that they have mastered the subject matter?
• What explanations can we think of for the difficulties pupils may have in learning the subject matter?
• Does the central research question take the following form: how do students learn during a lesson based on
design principles [a,b,c] that contributes to achieving [the lesson objective]?
• Do the sub-questions tie in well with the central research question?
• How do we define the core concepts of the research question?
• What does the research lesson look like in detail? 10–12
(continued on next page)

13
C. Bakker et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 140 (2024) 104468

(continued )
Conversation cards

Phase Elements Guiding questions Card

3 Teach phase
4 Reflection phase
In relation to the research question
Quick analyses
• describe and interpret the collected data
• adjust research lessons and tools
Thorough analysis
• Formulate yields
Reflection and sharing yields
• Is the research lesson transferable? Is each team member able to execute the lesson exactly as intended? And
relative outsiders?
• Are our data collection methods appropriate to make pupils’ learning visible?
– –
• Was the pupils’ learning behavior we intended to elicit with the research lesson actually elicited? 14
• What differences do we see between pupils?
• Did pupils achieve the lesson objectives?
• What possible explanations do we have for this?
• For the present, what is our answer to the research questions, based on the interviews and observations?
• Do we need to adjust the research lesson? How?
• Do we need to adjust the data collection methods? How?
• Reviewing all data collected during all research lessons: what are our results and what is the answer to the
research questions?
• How do the results and conclusions fit with our problem analysis and design principles?
• What comments do we make with regard to the conduct of our research?
• What do we recommend for follow-up research?
• What conclusions can we draw from previous phases for our own education and professionalization? 15

References Jacobs, V., Lamb, L., & Philipp, R. (2010). Professional noticing of children’s
mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(2),
169–202. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.41.2.0169
Amador, J. M., Carter, I., Hudson, R. A., & Galindo, E. (2017). Following a teacher’s
Jansen, A., & Spitzer, S. M. (2009). Prospective middle school mathematics teachers’
mathematical and scientific noticing across career progression from field experiences
reflective thinking skills: Descriptions of their students’ thinking and interpretations
to classroom teaching. In E. O. Schack, M. H. Fisher, & J. A. Wilhelm (Eds.), Teacher
of their teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12(2), 133–151. https://
noticing: Bridging and broadening perspectives, contexts, and frameworks (pp. 161–181).
doi.org/10.1007/s10857-009-9099-y
Springer International Publishing.
Janssen, F., Grossman, P., & Westbroek, H. (2015). Facilitating decomposition and
Amador, J., & Weiland, I. (2015). What preservice teachers and knowledgeable others
recomposition in practice-based teacher education: The power of modularity.
professionally notice during lesson study. The Teacher Educator, 50(2), 109–126.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2015.1009221
tate.2015.06.009
Bakker, C., de Glopper, K., & de Vries, S. (2022). Noticing as reasoning in Lesson Study
Kavanagh, S. S., Conrad, J., & Dagogo-Jack, S. (2020). From rote to reasoned: Examining
teams in initial teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 113, 1–13.
the role of pedagogical reasoning in practice-based teacher education. Teaching and
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103656
Teacher Education, 89, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102991
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based
Koopman, M., Swinkels, M., & Struyven, K. (2016). Leer- en leerlinggericht opleiden. In
writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of
D. Beijaard, & red) (Eds.), Weten wat werkt. Onderwijsonderzoek vertaald voor
Educational Research, 74(1), 29–58. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3516060.
lerarenopleiders (pp. 58–69). Ten Brink Uitgevers.
Barber, K. (2018). Developing teachers’ mathematical-task knowledge and practice
Korthagen, F. A. J. (2010). The relationship between theory and practice in teacher
through lesson study. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 7(2),
education. International encyclopedia of education, 7, 669–675.
136–149.
Larssen, D. L. S., Cajkler, W., Mosvold, R., Bjuland, R., Helgevold, N., Fauskanger, J., …
Blom, H., & van Lanen, B. (2021). Strategisch ontwerpen: Onderzoeks-en
Norton, J. (2017). A literature review of lesson study in initial teacher education:
ontwerpprocessen situationeel inrichten. Uitgeverij Coutinho.
Perspectives about learning and observation. International Journal for Lesson &
Boeije, H. R. (2009). Analysis in qualitative research. Sage.
Learning Studies, 7(1), 8–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlls-06-2017-0030
Cajkler, W., & Wood, P. (2016a). Adapting “lesson study” to investigate classroom
Larssen, D., & Drew, I. (2015). The influence of a Lesson Study cycle on a 2nd grade EFL
pedagogy in initial teacher education: What student-teachers think. Cambridge
picture book-based teaching practice lesson in Norway. Nordic Journal of Modern
Journal of Education, 46(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Language Methodology, 3(2).
0305764X.2015.1009363
Leavy, A. M., & Hourigan, M. (2016). Using lesson study to support knowledge
Cardoso, L., Da Ponte, J. P., & Quaresma, M. (2023). The development of pedagogical
development in initial teacher education: Insights from early number classrooms.
content knowledge of prospective primary teachers in a lesson study. International
Teaching and Teacher Education, 57, 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Journal for Lesson & Learning Studies, 12(2), 152–165. https://doi.org/10.1108/
tate.2016.04.002
IJLLS-02-2022-0027
Lee, M. Y., & Choy, B. H. (2017). Mathematical teacher noticing: The key to learning
Choy, B. H., Thomas, M. O., & Yoon, C. (2017). The FOCUS framework: Characterising
from lesson study. In E. O. Schack, M. H. Fisher, & J. A. Wilhelm (Eds.), Teacher
productive noticing during lesson planning, delivery and review. In E. O. Schack,
noticing: Bridging and broadening perspectives, contexts, and frameworks (pp. 121–140).
M. H. Fisher, & J. A. Wilhelm (Eds.), Teacher noticing: Bridging and broadening
Springer.
perspectives, contexts, and frameworks (pp. 445–466). Springer.
Leeferink, J. A. C. (2016). Leren van aanstaande leraren op en van de werkplek. Doctoral
de Vries, S., Roorda, G., & van Veen, K. (2017). Lesson study: Een effectieve en bruikbare
thesis. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
professionaliseringsbenadering voor de Nederlandse context? Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Lewis, C., Friedkin, S., Emerson, K., Henn, L., & Goldsmith, L. (2019). How does lesson
Dewey, J. (1904). The relation of theory to practice in education. Teachers College Record,
study work? Toward a theory of lesson study process and impact. In R. Huang,
5(6), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681040050
A. Takahashi, & J. P. da Ponte (Eds.), Theory and practice of lesson study in
Fernandez, M. L., & Robinson, M. (2006). Prospective teachers’ perspectives on
mathematics. Advances in mathematics education (pp. 13–37). Cham: Springer. https://
microteaching lesson study. Education, 127(2), 203–215.
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04031-4_2.
Forzani, F. M. (2014). Understanding “core practices” and “practice-based” teacher
Lewis, C., & Perry, R. (2014). Lesson study with mathematical resources: A sustainable
education: Learning from the past. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 357–368.
model for locally-led teacher professional learning. Mathematics Teacher Education
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114533800
and Development, 16(1), 22–42. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/aeipt
Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re-
.205652.
imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching, 15(2), 273–289. https://doi.
Lewis, C., & Perry, R. (2017). Lesson study to scale up research-based knowledge: A
org/10.1080/13540600902875340
randomized, controlled trial of fractions learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Grossman, P., Schoenfeld, A., & Lee, C. (2005). Teaching subject matter. In L. Darling-
Education, 48(3), 261–299.
Hammond, & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What
Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B.-S. (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of
teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 201–231). Jossey-Bass.
technology to promote knowledge integration. New York: Routledge.
Helgevold, N., Næsheim-Bjørkvik, G., & Østrem, S. (2015). Key focus areas and use of
Linn, M. C., Eylon, B. S., Rafferty, A., & Vitale, J. M. (2015). Designing instruction to
tools in mentoring conversations during internship in initial teacher education.
improve lifelong inquiry learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and
Teaching and Teacher Education, 49, 128–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Technology Education, 11(2), 217–225. https://doi.org/10.12973/
tate.2015.03.005
eurasia.2015.1317a
Hennessy, S., Howe, C., Mercer, N., & Vrikki, M. (2020). Coding classroom dialogue:
Mason, J. (2011). Roots and branches. In M. Sherin, V. Jacobs, & R. Philipp (Eds.),
Methodological considerations for researchers. Learning, Culture and Social
Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. 35–50). Routledge.
Interaction, 25, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100404, 100404.
Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analysing classroom talk as a social
mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 137–168.

14
C. Bakker et al.
Næsheim- Bjørkvik, G., & Larssen, D. L. S. (2019). Reflective practice and the lesson study
process in initial teacher education. In P. Wood, D. L. S. Larssen, W. Cajkler, &
N. Helgevold (Eds.), Lesson study in initial teacher education: Principles and practices
(pp. 105–118). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Ní Shúilleabháin, A. (2016). Developing mathematics teachers’ pedagogical content
knowledge in lesson study: Case study findings. International journal for lesson and
learning studies, 5(3), 212–226.
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2010). Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research:
Myths and strategies. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47(11), 1451–1458.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.06.004
Ricks, T. E. (2011). Process reflection during Japanese lesson study experiences by
prospective secondary mathematics teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 14(4), 251–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-010-9155-7
Sandoval, W. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Design-based research methods for studying learning
in context: Introduction. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 199–201.
Sherin, M. G., Jacobs, V. R., & Philipp, R. A. (2011). Situating the study of teacher
noticing. In M. Sherin, V. Jacobs, & R. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing:
Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. 3–13). Routledge.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2009). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for
improving education in the classroom. Simon and Schuster.
15
Teaching and Teacher Education 140 (2024) 104468
Swanborn, P. (2010). Case study research: What, why and how? SAGE.
van de Ven, P. H. (2002). Vakdidactiek en lerarenopleiding Nederlands. Velon Tijdschrift,
23(2), 7–13, 2002.
van Es, E. A. (2011). A framework for learning to notice student thinking. In M. Sherin,
V. Jacobs, & R. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’
eyes (pp. 134–151). Routledge.
van Onderwijs, M. (2017). Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, 148. Besluit
van 16 maart 2017 tot wijziging van het Besluit bekwaamheidseisen
onderwijspersoneel en het Besluit bekwaamheidseisen onderwijspersoneel BES in
verband met de herijking van de bekwaamheidseisen voor leraren en docenten.
Cultuur en Wetenschap. Den Haag: Ministerie van Justitie.
van Veen, K., & Van de Ven, P.-H. (2008). Integrating theory and practice. Learning to
teach L1 language and literature. L1: Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 8
(4), 39–60. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2008.08.04.05
Verloop, N., Van Driel, J., & Meijer, P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge
base of teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 441–461.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(02)00003-4
Witte, T. C. H. (2008). Het oog van de meester: Een onderzoek naar de literaire
ontwikkeling van HAVO-en VWO-leerlingen in de tweede fase van het voortgezet
onderwijs. Stichting Lezen.