I compared the main observations of team’s second lesson reviews in the table below:
Team 1 Lesson 2 Team 2 Lesson 2
Points noticed
Reduction in dissonance
Focused on teacher affirmation
Socialisation important
No real teacher learning
Dissonance sustained to discontinuity
Focused on children’s learning
Start of a sense of joint endeavour
Some teacher learning Figure 4.3: Table of main findings in Team 1 and 2’s Lesson 2
What was most striking about this second comparison is that while the observations of Team 1 had not changed, there had been change in the observations of Team 2. Their second lesson was completely different from the first session in the reduction of threat towards Alex as the teacher – protecting her ego – by focusing on the learning of the children. Teresa held fast to her observations of Nish to consistently provide dissonance to the group to find a way to help Nish in his mathematical learning. Over the course of this feedback session we can start to see discontinuity and the group thinking together. It was not quite a joint endeavour, as it was still three individuals talking about a lesson, but there was a starting conversation that might build into joint endeavour and with that joint endeavour the opportunity for teacher learning.
This second lesson by Team 2 felt more like the reviews I had had with Miqdad and Jasmine in the Summer Term 2013, when we completed the pilot study. I felt that the conversation between Jasmine and I was similar in focus to the one Teresa and Alex have in this second review sessions.
What was also interesting is that dissonance and the sustaining of that dissonance to create discontinuity were a clear part of the discussion in Team 2’s second feedback session, Alex was able to talk and then Teresa used her observations to challenge and respond to what Alex
thought. This allowed Alex to really consider her thinking about the support she was giving to Nish. Alex’s views were listened to by Teresa and Camille but also challenged. The team took an embracing conflict stance (Achinstein, 2002) and this was allowing them to have a more purposeful discussion than they had had in Lesson 1.
Team 1 did not develop in the same way as Team 2– All participants had had the same training about focusing on the learning as a means to deflect attention away from the teacher and thus provide ego protection while still enabling the creation of dissonance. Despite this training, Team 1 continued to protect Libby’s ego even though Libby, herself, was providing moments of dissonance for the team to consider. This affirmation of Libby as the teacher meant that moments of dissonance were reduced and there was a sense of moving through the lesson in the review rather than engaging in a discussion as can be seen in Team 2.
Why is there a difference?
_____
It was clear that I needed to give more help and advice following listening to the feedback sessions.
I needed to help them talk.
_____
I provided some training to all teams following the first lessons, and drew on some of the advice in Stepanek et al (2007) about focusing the attention of the review away from the person teaching the lesson, and onto the learning that was being undertaken within the lesson. I would suggest that Team 2 took this training on board more than Team 1 did, as Team 1 was still concerned with protecting the lesson’s teacher. What is complicated about this difference is that it would be possible to suggest that Team 1 were ‘ego protecting by promoting esteem’ and Team 2 were ‘ego suppressing’ by focusing away from the teacher.
Both these characteristics are in Dudley’s (2015) diagram Figure 1.2, as aspects of teacher learning suggesting that both could lead to teacher learning, and professional learning but why then did only ego suppression seem to lead to the beginnings of teacher learning?
Figure 1.2: How planning, experiencing and analysing research lessons contribute to
aspects of teacher learning in Lesson Study (Dudley, 2011 reprinted in Dudley, 2015: 17)
If Lesson Study depends so much on the people involved why have there not been more cases
of unsuccessful Lesson Study. I think this is to do with the individuals previously involved in
Lesson Study studies. Pella (2011) chose her participants and this is a tendency echoed in the
advice for setting up Lesson Study groups (Dudley, 2014) which suggest choosing keen
volunteers to start the Lesson Study process off. This means that previous research is based
on people who are looking to learn, and this may affect the results of those studies, whereas a
whole school model will include all types of teacher and in doing so will show that the Lesson
Study preparation needs to be different in order to support teachers with undertaking Lesson
I am not convinced that ego protection (Dudley, 2015) as seen in Team 1’s first two lessons is integral to teacher learning in Lesson Study. In fact, ego protection seems to have a negative impact on learning as it prevents moments of dissonance in Team 1 which mean that they do not further their thinking. While I do not think that ‘ego destruction’ – like that seen in Team 2’s initial lesson feedback – is better for teacher learning, I think that if the dissonance offered is about learning, as seen in Team 2’s second feedback session, then teacher learning has the opportunity to happen, and thus ego protection for a teacher will happen naturally.,
I think the difference in Lesson 2 between the two teams is an interesting development and suggests that there are elements to consider around professional conflict in Lesson Study that have not featured widely in the Lesson Study literature to date.