Article Preview
TopBackground
It is now widely accepted that the most important variable in efforts to improve educational outcomes is the quality of teaching. In turn, continuing professional development represents the primary mechanism for increasing that quality over time. Unfortunately, research has shown that fragmented, episodic professional development experiences often fail to improve the quality of instruction or student learning (see, for example, Caena, 2011; Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Filges et al., 2019; Fullan, 1995).
Guskey (2002) argues that the traditional deficit-mastery model of professional learning fails due to a misunderstanding concerning the process of teacher change. Following the identification of a weakness, it is typical for an invited expert to present their recommended solution to gathered educators. The aim of the activity is to equip teachers with the knowledge, skills, attitudes, beliefs and enthusiasm they require in order to change what they do in their classrooms. Despite everyone’s best efforts, however, the student experience remains largely unaffected (Guskey, 1995; Stigler & Hiebert, 2009).
Unusually, teachers learn most of what they know about their profession before they are old enough to practice it. This learning is unintended and indirect, the result of many years of participation in classroom life while still students (Taylor et al., 2005). As a consequence, effective professional development necessitates the un-learning of old, well-established scripts and behaviours as much as the development of new ways of working (Cheah & Lim, 2010). Such an outcome is beyond what might reasonably be expected of a typical ‘one-shot’ workshop.
Instead, Guskey (2002) proposes an alternative model of professional learning, one where teachers do not think themselves into new ways of acting but progressively act themselves into new ways of thinking. Only after experiencing the positive impact of innovative practices can teachers experience cognitive dissonance and, as a result, begin to adapt their beliefs and develop a commitment to reform (Lewis et al., 2009).
There exists a growing consensus regarding the features of this new paradigm. In addition to effective professional learning being sustained and intense, such experiences should also be goals-driven, collaborative and focused on specific academic content (Cordingley et al., 2003; Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009; Garet et al., 2001; Perry & Lewis, 2009). Perhaps most important is that teacher learning be authentic and directly related to actual classroom instruction (Saito, 2012; Schipper et al., 2017; Widjaja et al., 2017).
Since the late nineteenth century, the teaching profession in Japan has been engaged in a practice known as jugyou kenkyuu. Translated as ‘lesson study’, this approach demonstrates the characteristics of this alternative paradigm. Put simply, lesson study involves small groups of teachers working together to plan, observe and evaluate individual lessons. The process in Japan consists of five main stages:
- 1.
Establishing the Research Theme
- 2.
Preparing the Research Lesson
- 3.
Observing the Research Lesson
- 4.
Discussing Student Learning
- 5.
Sharing Outcomes
Today, this approach to professional learning is almost ubiquitous within the Japanese education system (Akiba & Wilkinson, 2016). In fact, Fuji (2014) has argued that lesson study is such a natural part of what it means to function as a teacher in Japan that it can be difficult to imagine life without it.