An Exploration of Lesson Study Facilitators' Roles and the Enhancement of Teacher Learning

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

Abstract

High-quality implementation of Lesson Study (LS) proofs difficult to foster. Teachers need to know the procedures of LS and work collaboratively and inquiry-oriented. Facilitating this process for teachers seems beneficial to maximize their learning (Lewis, 2016). In this study, we take on a teachers’ perspective to explore how facilitating behavior contributes to teacher learning.
Based on research that describes LS and other inquiry-oriented professional development programs for teachers (a.o. Murata et al., 2012), we defined six facilitators’ roles: 1) ensuring LS procedures, 2) stimulating a trusting climate, 3) stimulating a focus on teacher and student learning, 4) contributing to topic exploration, 5) stimulating deep conversation, and 6) stimulating deepening of (pedagogical) content knowledge. Facilitating behavior within these roles can be seen on a continuum were on the least directive side the facilitators’ role is the smallest and on the most directive side the facilitators’ role is the biggest in designing the LS process (Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 1978).
This leads to our research questions:
1. Which profiles of teachers’ perceived directiveness in facilitating roles emerge?
2. How do these profiles relate to teacher learning?
We developed and distributed a questionnaire amongst 71 Dutch teachers who participated in a facilitated LS cycle. Because most teachers reported directive facilitating behavior in the first three roles (left skewered), we included the last three facilitating roles to search for profiles in perceived directiveness in facilitating roles.
A k means cluster analysis resulted in three groups with different profiles: group 1 (n=10) perceived the least, group 2 (n=34) perceived an average, and group 3 (n=27) perceived the most directive facilitating behavior in the three facilitating roles. A Kruskall-Wallis test showed that these differences are significant between the groups (p<.05). Group 3 reported more teacher learning (p<.05).
The results suggest the importance of facilitators to contribute to topic exploration, and stimulate deep conversation and deepening of (P)CK to enhance teacher learning. As teacher learning is complex, it is interesting for future research to study which other factors might influence the LS process. These factors might include individual, interpersonal, and conditional factors (Thurlings & den Brok, 2014). For practice, the concretized facilitating behavior in this study could be useful for facilitator training purposes.

Authors

• Iris Uffen, University of Groningen

• Siebrich de Vries

• Sofie van Harskamp, University of Groningen