Implications of Lesson Study for Tertiary-Level EFL Teachers’ Professional Development: A Case Study From Turkey

Abstract

This qualitative case study carried out at a Turkish university with four English language teachers aims to explore what teachers experience in the planning, implementation, analysis, and reporting phases of the lessons study process and what the implications of lesson study for teacher professional development can be. Data in this four-month study were gathered through observations, interviews, whole group discussions, and reflective reports. Findings revealed that lesson study had potential challenges and benefits for the professional development of teachers. The model poses challenges in finding a topic and research question, determining the lesson design and teaching style, making student thinking observable and analyzing qualitative data. On the other hand, it benefited teachers in terms of increasing their pedagogical content knowledge, reflectivity, research skills, collaboration, and collegiality. This study suggests that lesson study might be a good starting point for institutions wishing to adopt a more teacher-led, inquiry-driven and collaborative perspective for professional development.

Establishing a lesson study collaboration matrix

“…Avoidant cultures play a large role in the failure of LS cycles; where members of staff are unavailable or unwilling to take part (Fox and Poultney, 2020; Widjaja and Vale, 2020; Mynott, 2019). In addition to this, inertia can result from poorly defined LS cycles which do not focus on learning (very secure code) (Bayram and Bikmaz, 2021; Lewanowski-Breen et al. , 2020; Quaresma, 2020; Widjaja and Vale, 2020; Mynott, 2019; Kusanagi, 2013) and avoidance in organisational culture where groups are unable to “ overcome the culture of nice” and disagree with each other (secure code) (Mynott, 2019; Lee Bae et al.…”

“…Only one secure code was identified as a collaborative advantage within avoidant LS cycles; individuals may enjoy meeting with colleagues (Bayram and Bikmaz, 2021; Mynott, 2019; Puchner and Taylor, 2006). Bayram and Bikmaz (2021) suggest LS “aroused positive feelings”, and camaraderie developed (Puchner and Taylor, 2006). Mynott (2019) suggested that while an avoidant group might feel positive, enjoyment alone may not sustain a LS cycle, with groups ceasing their cycles.…”

“…Participant anxiety, or perceived inadequacy, is a secure code (Quaresma, 2020;Pella, 2011;Puchner and Taylor, 2006). This links with the two insecure codes, where frustration can result when the hard work of LS is overlooked (Mynott and Zimmatore, 2021;Ylonen and Norwich, 2013) and that learning is limited by individual participants skills regarding observation and feedback (Bayram and Bikmaz, 2021;Mynott, 2019). All suggesting a lack of participant security in the LS process.…”

“…6.2.3 Micro. Only one secure code was identified as a collaborative advantage within avoidant LS cycles; individuals may enjoy meeting with colleagues (Bayram and Bikmaz, 2021;Mynott, 2019;Puchner and Taylor, 2006). Bayram and Bikmaz (2021) suggest LS "aroused positive feelings", and camaraderie developed (Puchner and Taylor, 2006).…”

“…One very secure, one secure and two insecure codes were identified. The two secure codes are; that joint endeavour exists and the focus of work is "we" not "I" (Lewanowski-Breen et al, 2020;Mynott, 2019;Dudley, 2013) and that tools and focus points can support participants to generate feedback (Bayram and Bikmaz, 2021;Aas, 2020;Soto et al, 2014;Dudley, 2013). The insecure codes suggests that LS acts as a way of revealing collaborations that already exist within an organisation or school (Schipper et al, 2021; Establishing lesson study collaboration matrix Lewanowski-Breen et al, 2020) and LS enables participants to take risks (Skott and Møller, 2017;Ylonen and Norwich, 2013).…”