Extended Preparation Lesson Study Mynott

Extended Preparation Lesson Study

Mynott (2018)

Extended Preparation Lesson Study: Developing expertise prior to Lesson Study work By Dr. John Mynott (Head Teacher, Central Primary School) @jpmynott Abstract Object I will explore the model of Extended Preparation Lesson Study and how it can build expertise in both subject and lesson study skills. Originally modelled as an outcome of my doctoral research, Extended Preparation Lesson Study (Mynott, 2017) is a model designed to support Lesson Study teams in achieving Outcome 3 – Limited Learning Dissonance or Outcome 4 – Rich Learning Dissonance, on the Lesson Study Outcome Model (Mynott, 2017). Method Through applied thematic analysis, I will explore how using an extended preparation period prior to conducting a Lesson Study cycle can improve levels of professional conflict and use of external expertise being reflected in the research lesson reviews. I will explore three extended preparation lesson style cycles in different subject areas: French, English and Mathematics. Analysis of the transcriptions of the Lesson Study reviews was also conducted using Margolinas et al’s (2005) levels of teacher activity. This enhanced the visualisation of the interrelation of expertise development, discussion at different levels of teacher activity and Lesson Study outcomes in Extended Preparation Lesson Study. Results Extended Preparation Lesson Study, in this small study, supports teachers to achieve Outcome 3 – Limited Learning Dissonance- and above on Mynott’s (2017) Outcome model. Through the analysed discussion it is possible to see how expertise enrichment in the preparation stages is recalled and used by the participants and the facilitator to support dissonance generation and building this to potential moments of teacher learning. The skills of teachers – in observation and feedback – also appears more developed due to collaboration within the extended preparation, reducing moments of empty validation in favour of learning discussion based on the Lesson Study teams’ observations. Conclusion Extended Preparation Lesson Study has the potential to support the strengthening of core elements and skills within Lesson Study teams. This will support facilitators and participants to build knowledge and avoid pitfalls of dysfunctional dissonance or the absence of dissonance (Mynott, 2017). In building the skills and knowledge of a team within extended preparation and through reviewing the review meetings to explore how extended preparations develop Lesson Study teams, I have developed a deeper insight into the tacit nature of how Lesson Study reviews can be unmasked further, to develop moments of learning (Dudley, 2013; Pella, 2011) so that learning is less limited. To cite this paper: Mynott, J. (2018). ‘Extended Preparation Lesson Study: Developing expertise prior to Lesson Study work’, paper presented to The World Association of Lesson and Learning Study Conference 2018 at, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China. 23-25 November 2018.

1


Mynott (2018)

Extended Preparation Lesson Study: Developing expertise prior to Lesson Study work 1.Introduction Lesson Study (LS) has a spectrum of forms. Mynott (2018a) wrote about the variations of LS focus that can exist in LS and suggested that the form of LS method could also have a similar continuum of variation to the foci that he outlined. This paper will focus on one variant form of the LS method: Extended Preparation Lesson Study (EPLS). EPLS is model of LS, that emerged from Mynott’s (2017) research exploring LS. EPLS is designed to support LS teams to reach at least Outcome 3 on Mynott’s

Lesson Study Work

(2018b) Lesson Study Outcome Model – figure 1.

Outcome 1. Absence of Dissonance Outcome 2. Dysfunctional Dissonance

3.1 High limitations to learning dissonance

Outcome 3. Limited Learning Dissonance

3.2 Moderate limitation to learning dissonance

Outcome 4. Rich Learning Dissonance

3.3 Low limitations to learning dissonance

Figure 1: A revised model of potential Lesson Study outcomes (based on Mynott, 2017) (Mynott, 2018b) To achieve an Outcome 3, Mynott indicates that expertise, time and collaboration should be sufficient enough, to bring around moments of potential participant learning (Mynott, 2017; 2018b). These moments of potential learning resonate with different LS research transformations (Pella, 2011) and change (Dudley, 2013) but Mynott (2017) has extended these moments to explore how dissonance is sustained and developed to become a moment of potential learning.

EPLS as a model focuses on developing the expertise strand, through an extended period, and aims to build expertise within the participants prior to them commencing their LS cycle. In building this expertise through collaboration, the extended preparation phase also develops the LS team’s 2


Mynott (2018)

collaboration. Mynott (2018c) clarified that expertise in LS is multi-dimensional and work on developing an aspect of LS expertise does not mean that all strands of expertise are developed at the same time. In his discussion on expertise, Mynott (2018c) identified stages of expertise development, and EPLS focuses on the second of these stages, where pedagogical, subject and collaborative expertise are developed.

Through an exploration of EPLS, this article will explore how EPLS can support the development of expertise both in the recall of expertise and the use of expertise to develop dissonance, leading to potential moments of learning. In discussing these two themes, this paper will also show that an EPLS approach supports the development of observation, feedback, and collaboration.

2.Method EPLS has three distinct phases: Phase 1 Extended Preparation; Phase 2 Lesson Study Research Lessons and Phase 3 Pupil Assessment and Lesson Study Review. Figure 2 shows an example of an EPLS cycle for a study on phonics (Mynott, Paalanen & Jaffer, 2018) and this model shows the three stages of the EPLS cycle.

Figure 2: A Phonics Extended Preparation Lesson Study (based on Mynott, 2017) (Mynott, 2018d)

Phases 2 and 3 are likely to be more familiar to experienced LS participants and facilitators, but phase 1 is where the EPLS model varies from other patterns of LS methods. EPLS varies from other LS models

3


Mynott (2018)

in phase 1 by significantly increasing the time spent in preparation. In the figure 2 example, the LS team spent four months in phase 1, before progressing into LS lessons and reviews. The other LS example spent from December 2016 to May 2016 in their preparation phase. In both completed EPLS examples the extended preparation period was spent on developing key aspects of the LS team’s expertise.

Case Studies The LS described in this paper use the EPLS model as their structure. There are three cycles which will be drawn from. The first is a French and Geography LS (EPLS1) that took place in the academic year 2016 – 2017. The focus of this study was vocabulary recall and an exploration of ways vocabulary recall can be improved in French language work, using Geography to provide real world experiences. The second cycle (EPLS2) was a phonics study (Mynott et al, 2018) which explored the systematic teaching of consonant clusters to Year 1 (5 and 6-year olds). The final study (EPLS3) is a Maths example which is currently taking place in 2018 – 2019 with a focus on developing pupils’ reasoning and explanations and is at the time of writing mid-way through phase 1.

Phase 1: Preparation Phase Phase 1 is designed to develop key aspects of expertise that Mynott (2017; 2018b) found to limit the outcomes of Lesson Study work: Subject expertise and collaboration. In both EPLS studies the preparation phase started with reading. This reading consisted of Kyozaikenkyu - curriculum study (Watanabe, Takahashi, & Yoshida, 2008) reading around the initial enquiry focus and to develop an overview of the educational research needed. This educational research was then acquired and read. This happened more in EPLS2 than in EPLS1. In EPLS2 this focus meant that the team looked initially at phonology, before widening their reading to consider aspects of morphology (Grainger, Lété, Bertand et al., 2012; Gregová, 2010; Groff, 1972). Within this initial Kyozaikenkyu and wider reading precise enquiry foci formed, with EPLS1 focusing on using maps and geographical experience to 4


Mynott (2018)

support French vocabulary acquisition and EPLS2 focusing on the systematic teaching of consonant clusters (Mynott et al, 2018; Groff, 1972).

Following the initial reading, further subject and curriculum developed when the LS teams came together to explore their thinking within the classroom context. In EPLS2, the team conducted two preliminary observations to explore the work already happening in phonics, before starting to plan their phase 2 LS cycle. The school taught phonics using Department for Education and Skills (DFES, 2007) Letters and Sounds and so the team wanted to explore how they could build variations into the existing sequence. This aspect meant that the team could start to design tasks collaboratively (Fujii, 2016; Doig, Groves & Fujii, 2011) to practise prior to phase 2. These early observations also then allowed the participants the opportunity to practise observing and providing feedback in a collaborative structure. The careful task design of each preliminary observation meant that the EPLS2 team could see how their tasks worked, allowing for them to be refined for phase 2. This focus meant also that the team learnt more about each other, crucially exploring turn-taking, generating dissonance and providing and receiving feedback, all skills which Heron (1999) and Raelin (2006) suggest are important to successful collaborative communication.

While each of the LS’s followed the EPLS model displayed in figure 2, there was a variation on the breadth of expertise that was explored in the extended preparation phase. The French and Geography EPLS was the first undertaken using the EPLS model, and subsequently was a pilot study. This EPLS focused its extended preparation towards the development of subject knowledge, almost exclusively looking at research and curricula related to French and/ or Geography. In the second EPLS example, on Year 1 phonics, the focus of expertise development was more diverse. This second EPLS looked at subject expertise, collaborative expertise (observation and feedback) and pedagogical expertise in line with Mynott’s (2018c) stage 2 of expertise development. This variation is an evolution of the model, which is still in its infancy as a LS method, but also shows a growing understanding of the diversity of 5


Mynott (2018)

expertise which needs to be included within a LS. In the second EPLS it was clear that the diversity of expertise needed to be embraced so that for each of the different expertise strands Mynott (2018c) identified were developed.

Both EPLS case studies used in this paper have attempted to be more evaluation-led, with the third study, currently underway, being the most evaluation-led version of EPLS. Godfrey, Seleznyov, Anders, Wollaston, & Barrera-Pedemonte (2018) proposed that LS work needed to be accountable to a variety of evaluation measures based on Guskey’s (2002; 2016) five principles of evaluation. While the first and second EPLS studies were designed and undertaken prior to the reading of Godfrey et al’s (2018) paper, the two studies are designed in a way that is evaluation-led. The evaluation links in EPLS are not linear like those proposed by Guskey (2002) but linked instead to the stages of the EPLS model. Figure 3 shows where Guskey’s (2002; 2016) five principles as associated to LS (Godfrey et al, 2018) would be placed in and EPLS cycle.

Figure 3: An Extended Preparation Lesson Study (Mynott, 2018d) with evaluation-led principles applied (Godfrey et al, 2018)

The focus of this paper is how EPLS supports the development of expertise in LS cycles. As a result, the analysis will provide evidence on the three of Guskey’s principles: 1 Participant Reactions; 2 Participant Learning; and 4 Participant usage of new skills and or expertise. Neither of the two completed EPLS 6


Mynott (2018)

cycles occurred long enough ago to explore organisational change and pupil outcomes for the second EPLS have been explored in a separate paper (Mynott et al, 2018).

Analysis The analysis was a two-tiered process. After listening to and transcribing the audio of the review and planning sessions in both completed EPLS case studies applied thematic analysis (Guest, MacQueen & Namey, 2012) drew a selection of themes linked to the central theme of expertise. Two of these themes: recall of expertise, and the usage of expertise to generate dissonance were particularly prominent and will be discussed as sections in the findings below. Smaller but important themes of expertise around collaboration, observation, feedback and the facilitator were also identified bringing the total themes to six.

The six themes of expertise were then considered against Margolinas et al’s (2005) levels of talk to explore at which levels of talk each element of expertise was used . This comparison to Margolinas et al’s (2005) levels was designed to see if EPLS had any significant impact in producing level +3 talk. Where this comparison is useful to the findings discussion, it is included to support understanding.

3.Findings While this study is small, and to date only two EPLS cycles have been fully completed, there are some interesting and notable impacts on expertise that the EPLS model seems to support. The development of the EPLS model is still evolving and the current EPLS cycle on mathematics has learnt from the previous two incarnations of EPLS. The first EPLS cycle identified that expertise within LS is diverse and Mynott (2018d) has captured some of these strands, although this will all need further consideration. What this findings section will do is consider the expertise developments that EPLS brings to a LS cycle.

3.1 Recall of Expertise 7


Mynott (2018)

The extended preparation period impacts on the way that participants are able to recall and apply subject expertise. A clear focus and tight discussions were features of the reviews in the first EPLS (EPLS1), in the second the EPLS (EPLS2) team regularly revisited their LS enquiry focus and were collaboratively working towards their shared goal.

05:00 J: Ok (hesitantly) so, then let’s go through and think about this question in more detail. If we consider our anticipated misconceptions first and then discuss what the reality of the lesson was. How we thought it was going. Extract 1: EPLS2 Lesson 1 transcript extract (Mynott, 2018)

08:30 J: Because it goes back to the question, does the systematic teaching of clusters aid decoding and almost the proof of that would be that these clusters [the ones taught this week] being middle clusters in words. Extract 2: EPLS2 Lesson 1 transcript extract (Mynott, 2018) While, in EPLS2, it was the facilitator who was using returning summary (Mynott, 2018d) to bring the participants back to the question in extract 1 and 2 there was a closeness of enquiry. It is possible that by working together throughout the preparation phase the participants developed a clearer idea of the intent of their work. This talk also meant that the participants were accessing the full range of teacher talk levels (Margolinas et al, 2005) with the overall returning to the enquiry question placing the discussion at +3 on Margolinas et al’s (2005) levels and the team’s observations moving between +1 and -1. Although J, the facilitator, was returning in the extracts 1 and 2, all of the team had a clear understanding of their enquiry and this helped them explore the experimental LS focus (Mynott, 2018a) collaboratively. This is indicated in the reviews through agreement paralanguage, from participants, when the focus is returned to the enquiry question.

8


Mynott (2018)

In the first EPLS the team returned regularly to their central theme of using Geography to support the acquisition of French vocabulary. While this was not a facilitator using a returning summary (Mynott, 2018d), there was a distinct cohesiveness to the team’s understanding of their focus. 25:00 J: So, are we saying simplify the language? What do you think that is going to achieve? H: I think it will zone them into the vocabulary that we are looking at. As there will not be much else to hear or read it, if they are going to attempt to read it. Are we going to stop and give them a bit more time? J: Yep we can give them more time. H: I think time and simplifying each point would be helpful. Extract 3: EPLS 1 Lesson 1 Review

In extract 3, H and J held an extended discussion about the key vocabulary. H talks about the need to help the pupils’ zone into the vocabulary, to identify the specific words which are the anchors of the unit of work. This point by H links back to the initial Kyozaikenkyu. Their discussion about the simplification of surrounding vocabulary is related to making their chosen words more prominent and accessible to the pupils. This vocabulary-led discussion is the beginning of a thread of dissonance that grows throughout EPLS1 to become a potential moment of learning linked to develop vocabulary memory in the pupils, which ultimately became the main outcome for this EPLS cycle.

This discussion, in extract 3, moves between a -1 and +2 on Margolinas et al’s (2005) model. With the group considering the impact of vocabulary teaching overtime in response to their observation within the LS lesson. This discussion would have been enhanced further if the team had linked their discussions back to the research that was informing their thinking, making their talk +3. The clarity of focus and the ability to discuss their thoughts directly linked back to their observations and curriculum knowledge helped ensure that their LS stayed on track. Features of this theme identified in the transcripts were a clearly articulated focus, that was routinely returned to by all participants; tight

9


Mynott (2018)

focused conversations about their observations; ideas brought in to discuss observations linking to research read and a research-informed discussion.

3.1.2 Links findings to research read 31:00 J: With a way that we haven’t done before, that no one has done before. Because no one has tried to make this systematic. Which is why that article [Groff, 1972] is so old. What do you think A you have been a bit quiet? Extract 4: EPLS 2 Lesson 1 Transcript Extract

The extended preparation phase, in EPLS2, allowed the participants time to engage with relevant pieces of research. This research is referenced within their discussions as shown in extract 4 and exemplifies some of their level +3 discussions. The comparison between EPLS1 and EPLS2 shows that there is a greater recall of the research and more examples of +3 discussions in EPLS2. While not all the discussions directly link to the research read, the period of expertise development prior to the LS cycle of lessons meant that all participants were more richly informed. This rich information could then be drawn on to further their discussions. As EPLS2 was an evolution of the method, there was more academic reading placed alongside the Kyozaikenkyu and this academic reading seems to have enabled a more detailed and frequent +3 discussion.

3.2 Expertise development aids dissonance generation Further to this, the participants in both EPLS1 and EPLS2 were then able to adapt their thinking and use their preparation study to provide an evidence base through which to produce and sustain dissonance. In EPLS1, the group drew on their curriculum understanding in Geography to help underpin the +2 discussions and identify ways forward taking observation to dissonance and then sustaining this to potential moments of learning. 21:00 D: They are supposed to create a map because that is what our focus is. To make maps of local places. That would be the thing to do.

10


Mynott (2018)

J: So, would it be a string map? Because maybe this lesson isn’t enough on its own but maybe the next lesson could be, we give them the bullet point and then they had only the town vocabulary. Extract 5: EPLS 1 Lesson 1 Review

Extract 5 shows that the group wanted to think about how they could get pupils to demonstrate their learning in the second lesson in their cycle. D reminds the group that maps need to show local learning, and J asks if a different type of map, in this case a string map, would provide a better structure for vocabulary acquisition. This is because a string map is less complex with a focus on linear experiences, which would tie in better with vocabulary acquisition and recall. The participants’ discussion used their curriculum understanding of maps, developed in phase 1, to underpin their discussion, and so this sustaining of dissonance stemmed directly from the studying they had done on the curriculum Kyozaikenkyu prior to starting their cycle of LS lessons.

J: Which is exactly what I am talking about, because if she could actually know that, that [ee] was a diagraph and that those were two separate consonant sounds [p and l] because less is a suffix. She would have been able to see that but that is phase 6. M: mmmhmm J: And we are not there. They are not necessarily going to come across a multisyllabic word like this are they? They might come across one with one cluster. They are more likely to come across -ing, although that is phase 6 and it doesn’t test that either. M: But then how confusing is it with the clapping if we teach them that so if we teach them to chop from the back, so if it has a prefix or a suffix chop that and then take a look at your word. Chop chop J: We know what we are actually doing. We are doing what we suggested all that time ago (writes word down) there’s our word. M: umhmm. We suggested, I suggested. J: And that’s the bit you have added. A: Isn’t the bit you have added a diagraph? Extract 6: EPLS2 Lesson 2 Review

In the second EPLS there is a great deal of expertise, related to phonology, contained within the participants and the LS facilitator. Extract 6 displays part of an in-depth discussion about how in teaching consonant clusters there are complicating parts of morphology that put consonants together 11


Mynott (2018)

that do not behave like a cluster because the second consonant belongs to a separate syllable or is part of a suffix. The grey highlights, in extract 6, indicate the moments of dissonance and an overview of the whole extract shows that dissonance is being sustained by the high levels of subject expertise contained within the team. This discussion links back to an earlier discussion about morphology that took place in the initial preparation phase, where M had shared some research on teaching pupils about morphology. M’s sharing of this morphology research had enabled J and A to be able to engage with M in a detailed +3 levelled discussion and thus demonstrates how the initial preparation can support the sharing and development of expertise, which in turn leads to the effective development of dissonance.

3.3 Observation skills develop During the initial phase of the EPLS, the participants in EPLS2 undertook specific tasks related to developing their observation skills. These tasks were designed to build up both the experience of participants observing each other and to strengthen their skills of observation.

Mynott (2018b) has explored how this observation enables the facilitator of the EPLS cycle to support the LS team to transcend Heron’s (1999) stage of defensiveness. However, through strengthening the observational skills of each of the participants the quality of each members’ contributions is improved. In the second EPLS this is demonstrated in some of the detailed description A provides. A is a participant, not the facilitator, but his observational skills have been developed through the initial phase so that he has the expertise alongside the facilitator J to provide M with dissonance from detailed description. M: Then they know that I did. A: They know there is one [a cluster] then. M: He was very quiet today. There are a few of them and I do not know why that happens. I mean we want them to blend it because we are focused on that.

12


Mynott (2018)

A: Looking at the worksheets, lots of them I learn, I feel, learn the pattern. So, for these words they will do box, dot, dot. Box, dot, dot. They know it is the same. It’s the same with the splits, box, split and dot in the middle of the word, but they are not reading them. They all know that the first two letters will be a cluster. So, they will always put a box. So, when we are saying that they are doing the boxes correctly, are they? Or have they just learnt… M: That it is there always. J: Can we throw some red herrings in? Extract 7: EPLS2 Lesson 2 Review

A’s detailed description here is based on close observation of how the pupils in the phonics lesson are working. He has carefully noticed and described to the LS team that the pupils may not have been identifying clusters at all, but instead could have identified that words that have initial clusters – consonant clusters at the beginning – can be identified by the same phonological marking a box surrounding the cluster and a dot under each grapheme, as demonstrated in figure 4.

float Figure 4: An example of a phonically marked up cluster word with a boxed initial consonant cluster

In extract 7, A builds the dissonance from his initial identification that the pupils may have learnt a visual pattern rather than decoding, to question if the team can know, in the class context, if the children are decoding the clusters at all. J is then able to facilitate this further by suggesting that they use variation for the words and mix in initial diagraph words like shape to see if the pupils can distinguish the difference between initial cluster commencing words and diagraph commencing words. Ultimately, this detailed description by A was an initial stimulus, a piece of dissonance at -1 through +2, facilitated by J to discontinuity to present the LS team with another moment of potential learning linked to their overall learning about word choice and its impact on pupil learning (Mynott et al, 2018).

13


Mynott (2018)

3.4 Feedback skills develop Alongside the development of observation skills, the initial preparation phase allowed the LS team to practise giving feedback and taking turns. Stepanek et al (2007) suggests that turn-taking can be managed by a moderator in order to ensure all participants can share their thinking. The EPLS method means that the LS team have worked through their collaborative dynamic prior to starting the LS lesson cycle and as such are better at turn-taking. An improvement that is being made to the third EPLS initial phase is to experiment with Heron’s (1999) tasks to develop facilitators. These tasks would support further development of how each participant gives feedback.

Despite the improvements that could be made, the EPLS method supported the participants in both cycles to feel comfortable giving feedback and presenting each other with professional conflict. J: But they got houses. But I thought they mostly got houses. H: Yeah, I agree with you. The pupils I was with all got houses. D: At the back not really. J: No? D: No. I think they were still very much like lost in the sense of like. J: Its nice to be on a tour and we are not at the front of the tour. H: Yeah and it could also be your gestures were helpful to the front. Extract 8: EPLS2 Lesson 1 Review.

In extract 8, D was able to be direct in providing a moment of dissonance to J, the teacher of this LS lesson. J had thought that the pupils had understood the focus word meant houses and H was able to confirm this, but D was very clear that the pupils towards the rear of the group had not been able to understand the vocabulary, in part, because they could not see J’s gestures, but also because these pupils were not as actively involved. It is possible that D would have been confident to have generated dissonance in a LS cycle without needing the initial preparation but H had previously been involved in a LS cycle that reached an Outcome 1: Absence of dissonance on the LS outcome model and so the

14


Mynott (2018)

ease of managing professional conflict, and being conflict-embracing was not necessarily naturally occurring.

4. Summary The EPLS method does not contain anything new to the LS method. What it does do is strengthen areas that can be weaker in LS cycles. These weaker areas: expertise and collaboration, can have a significant impact on LS outcomes, as Mynott (2017; 2018b) has demonstrated. By spending time with the participant prior to a LS cycle, phase 2, it is possible to allow more opportunities to develop expertise, so it is used throughout discussions.

The initial two EPLS cases discussed in this article have shown that expertise is developed and enriched. In the EPLS2 case, where there was a greater emphasis on the skills related to LS expertise, the outcomes in the discussions are stronger and this EPLS2 case is a strong example of how the model of EPLS is still developing. The current EPLS3 on mathematics has learnt from both the previous EPLS cycles and has focused further on building opportunities to explore wider educational literature, to further develop the +2 and +3 talk present in the LS reviews.

Seleznyov (2018) and Godfrey et al (2018) have expressed a need to develop a more evaluation-led model of LS. EPLS is an opportunity to build a stronger evaluation-based model, that also offers a lot of opportunity to enrich participants’ experiences of LS and makes their learning and learning from LS clearer and more accessible. An EPLS approach to LS means that outcomes for participants and LS researchers are likely to be stronger, clearer and ultimately LS will be more successful.

5. References

15


Mynott (2018)

Achinstein, B. (2002). Community, Diversity, And Conflict Among Schoolteachers: The ties that blind, Teachers College Press, New York. Boylan, M., Coldwell., M, Maxwell., B & Jordan, J. (2018). Rethinking models of professional learning as tools: a conceptual analysis to inform research and practice, in Professional Development in Education, Vol. 44:1, pp.120-139. DOI:10.1080/19415257.2017.1306789 https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2017.1306789 DFES (2007). Letters and Sounds: Principles and Practice of High Quality Phonics. Primary National Strategy 00281-2007BKT-EN. Doig B, Groves S. and Fujii, T. (2011). ‘The critical role of task development in Lesson Study’. In: Hart LC, Alston AS and Murata A (eds) Lesson Study Research and Practice in Mathematics Education. Dordrecht/Heidelberg/ London/New York: Springer, pp.181–200. Dudley, P. (2013). ‘Teacher Learning in Lesson Study: What interaction-level discourse analysis revealed about how teachers utilised imagination, tacit knowledge of teaching and fresh evidence of pupils learning, to develop practice knowledge and so enhances their pupils’ learning’, in Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 34. pp.107-121. Dudley, P. (2014). Lesson Study: A handbook, Cambridge, Lesson Study UK (LSUK) http://lessonstudy.co.uk/lesson-study-a-handbook/ [viewed 11/11/2018]. Fernandez, C. & Yoshida, M. (2004). Lesson Study: A Japanese approach to improving mathematics teaching and learning, Routledge, Oxon. Fujii T (2016). ‘Designing and adapting tasks in lesson planning: A critical process of Lesson Study’. ZDM Mathematics Education, Vol. 48(4): pp.411–423. Godfrey, D., Seleznyov, S., Anders, J., Wollaston, N. & Barrera-Pedemonte, F. (2018). ‘A developmental evaluation approach to lesson study: exploring the impact of lesson study in London schools’, in Professional Development in Education, doi: 10.1080/19415257.2018.1474488 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19415257.2018.1474488 Grainger J, Lété B, Bertand D et al. (2012). ‘Evidence for multiple routes in learning to read’, Cognition, Vol.123(2). pp.280–292. Gregová R (2010). ‘A comparative analysis of consonant cluster in English and in Slovak’. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov, Vol.3(52). pp.79–84. Groff, P. (1972). ‘Sequences for teaching consonant clusters’, in Journal of Reading Behavior, Vol. 4 (1). pp.59–65. Guest, G., MacQueen, K & Namey, E. 2012. Applied Thematic Analysis, Sage, Los Angeles, London. Guskey, T. 2000. Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Guskey, T. (2016). ‘Gauge Impact with 5 Levels of Data’, in Learning Forward, Vol.37 (1), pp.32-37. Heron, J. (1999). The complete facilitators handbook, Kogan Page.

16


Mynott (2018)

Lewis, C. (2002). Lesson Study: A Handbook of Teacher-led Instructional Change, Research for Better Schools, Inc., Philadelphia. Margolinas, C., Coulange, L. & Bessot, A. (2005). ‘What can the teacher learn in the classroom?’, in Educational Studies in Mathematics, Vol. 59: pp.205-234. DOI: 10.1007/s10649-005-3135-3 Mynott, J. (2017). A Primary Head Teacher’s Exploration of Lesson Study. https://uhra.herts.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/2299/18330/14107916%20Mynott%20John%20Final%20 Submission.pdf?sequence=1 Mynott, J. (2018a). ‘A continuum of Lesson Study focus’, in CollectivED[6], Carnegie School of Education, Leeds Beckett University. pp. 64-69. http://www.leedsbeckett.ac.uk//media/files/schools/school-of-education/collectived-nov-2018-issue-6-final.pdf?la=en Mynott, J. (2018b). ‘Lesson Study Outcome: A theoretical model’, [submitted manuscript to International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies – currently under review]. Mynott, J. (2018c). ‘Lesson Study Expertise: Do we know enough to start?’ [Blog post viewed 11/11/2018]. https://mynottsmusings.wordpress.com/2018/10/31/lesson-study-expertise-do-weknow-enough-to-start/ Mynott, J. (2018). ‘Facilitating the Lesson Study Facilitator: a reflection on expertise in Lesson Study’, paper presented to The IPDA Annual Conference, Border Crossings: Professional Development in the 21st Century, Aston University, Birmingham, UK, 16–17 November 2018. Mynott, J., Paalanen, M. & Jaffer, A. (2018). ‚Does teaching consonant cluster systematically aid decoding’, in IMPACT, Journal of the Chartered College of Teaching, Vol. 3, pp.22-25. https://impact.chartered.college/article/mynott-does-teaching-consonant-clusters-systematicallyaid-decoding/ Pella, S. (2011). ‘A Situative Perspective on Developing Writing Pedagogy in a Teacher Professional Learning Community’, in Teacher Education Quarterly, Winter, 2011. pp.107-125. Perry, E. & Boylan, M. (2018). ‘Developing the developers: supporting and research the learning of professional development facilitators’, in Professional Development in Education, Vol. 44 (2), pp.254271. Raelin, J. (2006). ‘The Role of Facilitation in Praxis’, in Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 35 (1) Seleznyov, S. (2018). ‘Lesson Study: An exploration of its translation beyond Japan’, in International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLLS-04-2018-0020 Stepanek, J., Appel, G., Leong, M., Mangan, M. & Mitchell, M. (2007). Leading Lesson Study: A practical guide for teachers and facilitators, Corwin Oaks Press, California. Takahashi, A. (2014). ‘The Role of the Knowledgeable Other in Lesson Study: Examining the final comments of experienced Lesson Study practitioners, in Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, Vol. 16 (1), pp.2-17. Takahashi, A. & McDougal, T. (2015). ‘Collaborative Lesson Research: Maximizing the impact of Lesson Study’, in ZDM Mathematics Education, DOI:10.1007/s11858-015-0752-x pp.1-14. 17


Mynott (2018)

Watanabe, T., Takahashi, A. & Yoshida, M. (2008) ‘Kyozaikenkyu: A Critical Step for Conducting Effective Lesson Study and Beyond’ in Arbaugh, F. & Taylor, M. (ed.) Inquiry into Mathematic Teacher Education

18