Lesson Study as Organizational Routine

• In Event: 63.065 - Lesson Study in the Netherlands: Current Trends and Issues

Abstract

This study investigates the implementation process of lesson study (LS) by exploring how teachers understand, implement and appreciate LS. The concept of organizational routines offers a fruitful way to investigate how new ways of working are created (Becker, 2004; Nelson & Winter, 1982). Organizational routines have an internal structure, consisting of a general idea and a specific implementation (Feldman & Pentland, 2003). Applied to our context this means LS as an organizational routine involves the idea teachers have of what LS is and how LS is implemented. To understand how teachers appreciate LS we apply the sensemaking perspective (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). Thirty-two teachers from fifteen secondary schools in the north of the Netherlands participated in two Professional Learning Networks (PLN) for three years set up to develop teacher learning, prepare teachers to become LS facilitators, and introduce LS at their own school. The LS cycle used was the American adaption of the Japanese LS by Stepanek et al. (2007) which contains five stages: 1) setting goals, 2) planning the lesson, 3) teaching, observing and debriefing, 4) revising and reteaching, and 5) reflecting and sharing results (p.3). After four years, teachers could decide for themselves if and how they wanted to continue with LS and implement it in their own schools, which ten did.
Semi-structured, open-ended interviews were held with facilitators (former PLN participants) (N=19). Questions were asked about the idea, implementation, and appreciation of LS. Examples include, what, in your opinion, is the goal of LS? Which stages of the cycle do you perform? To what extent is LS worth the time-investment? A coding scheme was developed based on Feldman and Pentland (2003) and Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld (2005).
Teachers had three different ideas on what the goal of LS was: collectively designing lessons and/or talking about education, (collaboratively) investigating student behavior, or collectively developing pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). In each group, LS implementation was linked to teachers’ idea and sensemaking of LS. In the first group, most teachers did not consider LS worth the time investment as it yielded only one lesson and therefore did not implement LS. Teachers who did implement LS adjusted the cycle by turning quickly to lesson design, not taking the time to think deeply about the goals. In the second group, teachers considered LS worth the time-investment. When implemented, teachers adjusted the cycle by shortening the goal setting phase and sometimes skipping the planning phase by using existing lesson plans. In the second group, teachers considered LS worth the time investment. They stressed all stages were important and none were eliminated during implementation. Understanding LS to be collectively investigating student behavior or developing PCK led to appreciation and implementation of LS.
The results suggests that understanding if and how LS can be adopted in new contexts requires not just conceptual consensus on what LS is and what its core components are, but also how educators can come to understand LS as such.

Authors

• Fenna Wolthuis, University of Groningen

• Siebrich de Vries