1. The 2014 PanSIG Conference Proceedings210
Meeting Teacher Goals Through Collaborative Lesson
Study: Improvements in Classroom English Usage
Michael James Rupp
Kumamoto University
michael.rupp@gmail.com
Lesson Study (LS) is a cyclical teacher development model in which the LS team members
collaborate in the planning, execution, revision, and re-teaching of a lesson. In this paper I
will highlight one of the outcomes that emerged from the introduction of an LS cycle into the
preservice teacher-training program at a Japanese junior high school. The LS team included the
author, a Japanese teacher of English, and two Japanese preservice teachers. The study focused on
the teaching of one of these teachers. LS was shown to have numerous benefits including increased
teacher awareness, membership in the community of practice of professional teachers, professional
knowledge transfer among teachers, and finally increases in ability to meet personal and professional
development goals.
授業研究 (LS) は，参加するメンバー（教師）が授業の計画・実施・修正，また再授業を協
力して行う一連のサイクルであり，それにより参加者が教師としての成長を目指す営為であ
る。本稿は，日本の中学校において，LS サイクルを基盤とする教員育成プログラムを導入
したことにより得られた成果を報告する。本プロジェクトにおいて LS の対象としたのは，２
人の教育実習生（大学生）であった。LS により，二人の教師としての意識，またプロの教師
の一員であるという自覚は高まった。さらに，メンバー間の専門知識の共有が促進され，プ
ロの教師として伸長させるべき目標達成に関する能力が確実に向上した。
The impetus for this study came from discussions with
K-sensei, a Japanese teacher of English at the junior
high school attached to a national Japanese university.
K-sensei was a typically busy teacher responsible for
getting the graduating third year students into good
high schools, training the preservice teachers from
the faculty of education at the university, teaching
a heavy load of classes, managing club activities,
attending endless meetings, visiting students’ homes,
Rupp, M. J. (2015). Meeting teacher goals through
collaborative lesson study: Improvements in
classroom English usage. In G. Brooks, M. Grogan,
& M. Porter (Eds.), The 2014 PanSIG Conference
Proceedings (pp. 210-216). Miyazaki, Japan: JALT.
and generally dealing with the responsibilities of
fulfilling the role of being the de facto parent that
Japanese society expected her to be. Our discussions
revealed that she was not satisfied with the quality of
pedagogical guidance she had been able to provide to
the preservice teachers who visit the school for two
weeks of teaching practice several times throughout
each school year.
Based on my observations and interviews with
the teachers working at my school, I have found that
the actual process of preservice training appears to
lack a consistent formal structure, leaving much of
the implementation details to be decided by the in-
service teachers. Perhaps overly specific guidance
from the university was deemed unnecessary, with

2. The 2014 PanSIG Conference Proceedings 211
Meeting Teacher Goals Through Lesson Study, pages 210-216
university professors preferring to defer such details to
the experienced junior high school teachers who work
daily on the front lines of secondary education.
I became aware of a potential remedy to
K-sensei’s dilemma in the form of collaborative
lesson study through consultations with a university
professor specializing in teacher development.
The professor informed me of this cyclical teacher
development model, similar to an action research
cycle, which leverages the wide variety of experience
and knowledge held by a group of professionals in
order to collaboratively tackle teacher training and
development. After explaining the model and gaining
consent from the participants and permission from
the school, I was able to conduct a collaborative lesson
study cycle at the school in an effort to investigate and
improve the quality of preservice teacher training. The
lesson study team focused on the lessons conducted by
one teacher, Y-san, who was tasked with teaching third
year students under the guidance of K-sensei. The
research questions posed for the study were:
1. What effects does the process of going through
a collaborative lesson study have on pedagogical
environment and teacher learning in a Japanese
junior high school?
2. Could the secondary education curriculums
in Japan benefit from a more structured
implementation of collaborative lesson study?
What is Lesson Study?
Lesson study originated in Japan about 100 years ago
and became well known in the United States by 1999,
through the Third International Mathematics and
Science Study (Lewis, Perry, & Friedkin, 2009). The
term lesson study comes from a Japanese translation
of the practice known as jugyō kenkyū (授業研究),
which is widely used as a teacher development process,
mainly for Japanese elementary education. In lesson
study, a small team of teachers collaborates in the
setting of personal and professional development
goals (PPDs) as well as specific lesson goals, followed
by collaborative planning of a research lesson. One
member of the group teaches this lesson while the
other members observe and record observations to be
used in follow-up group revisions of the lesson. The
revised lesson is retaught to another class of students
by the same or another member of the lesson study
team and the lesson study cycle concludes with a final
reflection meeting, the results of which are reported
on for the benefit of other teachers.
Although there has been a surge of interest
in lesson study outside of Japan, especially in
mathematics education, it appears to be neglected in its
country of origin in secondary and tertiary education.
In place of collaboratively planned and executed lesson
study, what we see in junior high schools is more akin
to mere demonstration lessons. These lack the crucial
element of collaborative planning and revision. This
may be due to the fact that elementary school teachers
must teach a wide variety of subjects, making the
benefits of collaboration due to differences of expertise
more tangible, whereas at the junior high school level,
teachers are considered specialists in their fields.
Figure 1 shows the six stages of the lesson study
cycle used for this study.
Differences Between Lesson Study
and Action Research
The main difference between lesson study and action
research is the focus (Lewis, Perry, & Friedkin, 2009).
Theybothshareacyclicalnatureinvolvingobservation,
reflection, and revision, but lesson study focuses on
a collaboratively constructed lesson, whereas action
research focuses on solving a problem. In lesson study,
the lesson is seen as underpinning all of the important
elements of teaching and as an implementation of
the methodologies applied by the teacher. Finally, in
lesson study the entire group shares responsibility for
effort, taking some of the pressure off of the teacher
who happens to teach the lesson (Laskowski, 2009;
Laskowski, 2011; Prahbu, 1992). This contrasts with
traditional teacher development models, which follow
a top-down transmission model approach.
Contrasting Traditional Teacher
Development With Lesson Study
Lesson study, taking a bottom-up approach to teacher
learning, differs greatly from traditional models. Table

3. The 2014 PanSIG Conference Proceedings212
Rupp
1 summarizes the differences between traditional
transmission model approaches and the lesson study
approach (Lewis, 2011). The bottom-up lesson study
approach provides a grounded, teacher-centered,
autonomy-enhancing alternative.
Lewis (2008) points out that in lesson study,
instructional improvement does not come from the
improvement in lesson plans per se, but rather it is the
collaborative nature of the planning, peer observation,
reflection, data collection, revisions, and group
discussions that leads to improvement. She points
out that teacher development benefits of lesson study
occur in the following areas (Lewis, 2008):
•• increased knowledge of subject matter and
instruction,
•• increased knowledge of students and student
thinking,
•• stronger collegial networks,
•• stronger connection of daily practice to long-term
goals,
•• stronger motivation to learn and belief that
changes make a difference, and
•• improved materials.
Figure 1. The six stages of the lesson study cycle used in this study, adapted from Lewis (2011).
Table 1
Summarizing Differences Between Traditional Teacher Development and the Lesson Study Approach (Lewis, 2011, p. 7)
Traditional teacher development Lesson study
Begins with answers
Driven by outside “expert”
Communication: trainer --> teachers
Hierarchical relations between trainer and teachers
Research informs practice
Begins with questions
Driven by participants
Communication: among teachers
Reciprocal relations among learners
Practice is research
Lesson study is process oriented

4. The 2014 PanSIG Conference Proceedings 213
Meeting Teacher Goals Through Lesson Study, pages 210-216
The Importance of Collaboration in
Teacher Development
Despite the fact that collaboration is shown to have
many benefits, including increased levels of trust,
creative problem solving, positive attitudes towards
teaching, and improved efficacy, it is not emphasized
in university coursework and receives little support for
those who try to engage in it (Goddard, Goddard, &
Tschannen-Moran, 2007; Tschannen-Moran, 2001).
The dialogic construction of knowledge as seen in
collaborative lesson study allows a cross pollination
of ideas among members of the shared community of
practice (CoP; see Wenger, 1998), which can allow
newcomers, such as young preservice teachers, to go
from outsiders to full-fledged members through their
interactions as peers with the expert in-service teachers
(Wells, 1999). It is important also to point out that
the interaction between newcomers and experts is not
a one-way street. Newcomers and experts can interact
and learn from each other despite vast differences in
knowledge and experience. While it is usually the case
that the experienced teacher will have more to offer the
newcomer, sometimes newcomers can come up with
fresh ideas or think more creatively, unconstrained by
years of tradition and habit. Figure 2 illustrates how
members can collaboratively share knowledge and
experience in lesson study regardless of their age or
experience.
Methodology
This study took place at a local junior high school
attached to the university and was approached using a
qualitative research paradigm with data gathered from
each stage of the lesson study cycle through video and
audio recordings of all meetings and lessons, lesson
observation logs, meeting notes, reflections notes,
questionnaires, teacher learning plans, and interview
notes. The members included the author, a university
teacher development advisor, a Japanese teacher of
English, and two preservice teachers (juniors in the
Faculty of Education at the university).
Figure 2. Sharing of knowledge among various members of a lesson study.

5. The 2014 PanSIG Conference Proceedings214
Rupp
Method of Data Analysis
Analysis of data was conducted by engaging in a
thorough cataloguing of the sources of data at each
of the stages of the lesson study cycle (as described
in Figure 2). The emergent categories were then
holistically analyzed using comparative analysis and
triangulated for validity using multiple data sources.
For this study, it was extremely helpful to have the
video and transcripts and translations of the video, as
it allowed for deep analysis.
The Six Stages of this Lesson Study
The six stages of this lesson study are summarized in
Table 2. Stage 1 began with questionnaires given to
the two preservice teachers in order to ascertain their
personal and professional development goals. The two
preservice teachers, Y-san and A-san, were to teach for
two weeks, sharing four classes (40 students per class)
of third year junior high students. Thus, each lesson
would be taught twice by each teacher. We decided to
focus our lesson study on the teaching and re-teaching
of a particular lesson of Y-san, which would be re-
taught on a following day, allowing enough time for
a reflection session between teaching episodes. One
of the constraints that arose during our lesson study
cycle was the difficulty of arranging the schedules of
the team members to be present at each stage. In the
lesson study framework, it would have been as possible
to have A-san teach the revised lesson, but scheduling
demands on the group made this problematic.
The entire cycle took three days to complete,
as we needed ample time between stage 3, the first
actual teaching stage, and stage 5, the teaching of the
revised lesson. This time was required for collaborative
reflection and revision of the lesson. We conducted
stages 1 and 2 on the first day, stages 3 and 4 on the
second day, and stages 5 and 6 on the third day.
In stage 1, the team determined the personal and
professional goals of Y-san and A-san as including
having good time management, having a fun class,
using a naturalistic and humanistic approach to
teaching, understanding the students’ abilities and
actual English levels, and finally being able to use
classroom English (CRE). The outcome of this study
in regards to the professional goal of CRE usage is the
focus of this paper.
•• CRE refers to incidental use of English in
classroom management and student-teacher
interactions as opposed to the target English of
the lesson. It is also used in “teacher talk” or casual
teacher chatting in English to open a lesson.
Table 3 shows a summary of the categorization of
Y-san’s personal and professional development goals
(PPDs).
Emergent Categories
Four major categories emerged after a thorough
analysis of the data from multiple sources taken at
each of the six stages of the study, including a detailed
analysis of transcripts and translations of the meeting
notes, planning sessions, and lesson videos. The
categories were “Significant Personal and Professional
Goal Attainment”, “Professional Knowledge Transfer”,
“Teacher Awareness Changes” and “Increased CoP
Membership Identification”.
From the category Significant Personal and
Table 2
The Six Stages Used in this Lesson Study
Stage Purpose of stage
1
2
3
4
5
6
Establish PPDs, collaboratively choose lesson, plan lesson collaboratively
Conduct a practice demonstration lesson in the group, refine teaching points
Teach lesson first time with lesson study members observing and gathering data
Reflect on and revise lesson with input from all members
Reteach the lesson to another group of students; may change teacher
Engage in final reflections and consolidation of learning; report on results of lesson study

6. The 2014 PanSIG Conference Proceedings 215
Meeting Teacher Goals Through Lesson Study, pages 210-216
Professional (PPD) Goal Attainment, a major
subcategory labeled Classroom English Usage (CRE)
Gains emerged and is highlighted below.
Looking at PPD3 - Classroom English (CRE)
Usage Gains
CRE usage gains emerged as a major subcategory and
was also frequently pointed out by the members of the
study as being very important to their teaching. CRE
usage also has a cross influence on other goals such
as PPD-2 (Class Atmosphere) in that the natural use
of English during the lesson promotes both implicit
learning and the creation of a fun atmosphere. The
ability to produce CRE can also be affected by the
level of anxiety the teacher is experiencing. Preservice
teachers are typically very nervous when they first
start teaching, and this often impacts negatively on
their CRE production ability. I have observed cases
where failures to smoothly produce CRE has led to
a downward spiral in confidence with the teacher
abandoning CRE altogether and switching to Japanese
only.
In stage 3, the first actual teaching of the lesson,
the team observed that Y-san’s CRE at the beginning
of the lesson (some teacher talk about trips overseas)
had gone very smoothly, but her CRE usage severely
declined after a computer mishap occurred. The stress
of having a major activity fail during the lesson seemed
to cause Y-san to falter in her CRE usage. This was
confirmed in the stage 4 postlesson discussion during
which Y-san admitted she was unable to produce even
simple CRE sentences such as, “I want you to say your
answer,” getting stuck at “I want…”
In stage 4, we worked on ways of phrasing English
questions to get desired responses from students, gave
advice on CRE usage mistakes, and provided and
practiced a number of alternative expressions.
In stage 5, the teaching of the revised lesson,
the team noticed that Y-san’s teacher talk and CRE
had become much better than in stage 3, and her
confidence level also appeared to be higher. In my
observation logs I had noted “using good teacher talk
and CRE,” and in stage 6, the final reflections, K-sensei
remarked that she too was impressed with Y-san’s
increased use of CRE. Y-san confirmed that she had
taken to heart the advice from stage 4.
Quantifying CRE Improvement
In order to get a more objective view of the perceived
changes in CRE, I decided to operationalize the
variables of quantity and quality. This was achieved
through the creation and analysis of raw transcripts
of the CRE usage from the two actual lesson teaching
stages, stage 3 and stage 5. I decided to define
quantity as the number of tokens (the total running
word count) and quality as the number of word
types (unique instances of each word, or the size
of the vocabulary used). For example, the sentence
“Everyone, I want you to pass your papers forward
after you finish writing your reflections.” would have
15 tokens and 13 word types, as you and your are each
repeated.
The results of analysis confirmed the perceived
improvement, with about a 30% increase in both
metrics. Quantity (token count) increased from
604 to 787 words, and quality (number of unique
word instances) increased from 176 to 231. It was
encouraging to see that not only the total amount
of CRE had increased, but that the quality had also
increased.
Table 3
Categorizing Y-san’s Personal and Professional Development Goals (PPDs)
Category Features
PPD-1
PPD-2
PPD-3
PPD-4
PPD-5
Timing: maintaining a natural flow of lesson transitions
Atmosphere: having a fun class, engagement, energetic pacing, body language
English: CRE usage, speaking lots of English, avoiding mistakes in CRE
Grammar: Lesson goal of past-participle grammar introduction and usage
Content: Lesson goal of teaching about discrimination against minorities

7. The 2014 PanSIG Conference Proceedings216
Rupp
Conclusion
In answer to research question 1, it appears that going
through a collaborative lesson study at a Japanese
junior high school can improve the pedagogical
environment and increase teacher learning, as
illustrated in this paper, by helping teachers meet their
personal and professional development goals.
For research question 2, the positive outcomes
shown above indicate that the secondary education
curriculums in Japan should benefit from a structured
implementation of collaborative lesson study, which
is currently mostly occurring in elementary school.
The benefits of lesson study do come at a cost, and the
most vexing limitation is time. Teachers who wish to
conduct collaborative lesson study cycles will have to
deal with the scheduling hassles required to get a group
of busy members together for each of the stages of the
cycle. I believe the case can be made that this sacrifice
would be worthwhile, but these benefits will have to
be made clear to the stakeholders in education in order
to allow lesson study to become fully institutionalized.
References
Goddard, Y., Goddard, R., & Tschannen-Moran, M.
(2007). A theoretical and empirical investigation
of teacher collaboration for school improvement
and student achievement in public elementary
schools. The Teachers College Record, 109(4), 877-
896.
Laskowski, T. (2009). Crossing borders in teacher
development: Jugyokenkyu (lesson study) from
the East and action research from the West.
Kumamoto Daigaku Bunronsou [Kumamoto
University Journal of Culture and Humanities,
Faculty of Letters], 100, 117-134. Retrieved from
http://opsearch.lib.kumamoto-u.ac.jp/recordID/
handle/2298/19561?hit=-1&caller=xc-search
Laskowski, T. (2011). Jugyokenkyu (lesson study)
in America. Kumamoto Daigaku Bunronsou
[Kumamoto University Journal of Culture and
Humanities, Faculty of Letters], 102, 59-77.
Retrieved from http://opsearch.lib.kumamoto-u.
ac.jp/recordID/handle/2298/11333?hit=-
1&caller=xc-search
Lewis, C. (2008). Lesson study: How can it build
system-wide improvement? [Powerpoint slides].
Retrieved from http://www.csus.edu/mase/
calessonstudy/2008/docs/proceedings/
Catherine_Lewis.pdf
Lewis, C. C., & Hurd, J. (2011). Lesson study step by
step: How teacher learning communities improve
instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Friedkin, S. (2009). Lesson
study as action research. In S. Noffke, &
B. Somekh (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of
educational action research. (pp. 142-155).
London, England: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9780857021021.n14
Prabhu, N. S. (1992). The dynamics of the language
lesson. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 225-241.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Collaboration
and the need for trust. Journal of Educational
Administration, 39, 308-331.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry in education:
Building on the legacy of Vygotsky. In C. D. Lee
&P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives
on literacy research, (pp. 51-85). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning,
meaning, and identity. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Author’s Biography:
Michael Rupp, formerly worked as an ALT in Kumamoto, and now lectures at Kumamoto
Unviersity, Kumamoto Gakuen University and Tokai University. His research interests include
teacher development, learner autonomy, communities of practice, psychometrics, Chinese and
Japanese linguistics and translation/interpretation.