Content uploaded by John Paul Mynott
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John Paul Mynott on Nov 17, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Facilitating the Lesson Study Facilitator: a reflection on
expertise in Lesson Study
By John Paul Mynott
Abstract
Focus
In Lesson Study (LS) the expertise of a group, and ultimately the success of a cycle, can depend on the
expertise of its facilitator. Perry & Boylan (2018) describe professional development for facilitators
being under researched and this is even more pronounced in LS, where the body of literature is still
emergent.
Research Approach/ or Innovation
Through an applied thematic analysis of expertise and facilitation in an extended preparation LS on
consonant clusters (Mynott, Paalanen & Jaffer 2018). This discussion aims to develop a deeper
understanding of the facilitation challenges and how expertise enrichment can help compensate for
them.
Key Findings/ Significance
Extended preparation LS has the potential to provide expertise enrichment, which supports the
generation of potential teacher learning and can promote good outcomes. The paper also supports
the continued need to develop the development of the facilitator and furthers the dialogue of LS
facilitator development.
Key References
Mynott, J., Paalanen, M. & Jaffer, A., 2018. Does teaching consonant clusters systematically aid
decoding? Impact, Issue 3, 22-25.
Perry, E. & Boylan, M., 2018. Developing the developers: supporting and researching the learning of
professional development facilitators. Professional Development in Education, 44 (2), 254-271.
To cite this paper:
Mynott, J. 2018. Facilitating the Lesson Study Facilitator: a reflection on expertise in Lesson Study,
paper presented to The IPDA Annual Conference at Conference Centre, Border Crossings: Professional
Development in the 21st Century, Aston University, Birmingham, UK, 16–17 November 2018.
Mynott (2018): IPDA Conference Paper Facilitating the Facilitator
2
Facilitating the Lesson Study Facilitator: a reflection on expertise in Lesson Study
1. Introduction
The training and role of the professional development (PD) facilitator is understudied (Perry & Boylan,
2018) and even our understanding of the process, of PD leading to professional learning (PL), remains
under-theorised (Boylan, Coldwell, Maxwell & Jordan 2018). These themes are even less explored in
Lesson Study (LS), where the literature base surrounding evaluation-led LS is emergent (Seleznyov
2018, Mynott 2018, Godfrey, Seleznyov, Anders, Wollaston, & Barrera-Pedemonte 2018).
The underexplored nature of the facilitatior is problematic for LS researchers as Mynott (2018a)
indicated in his revised outcome model – figure 1 – that where a facilitator has been present in LS
cycles, they can support more opportunities for potential moments of learning for participants.
Therefore, it seems sensible and important to better understand how LS facilitators operate, interact
with their LS teams and ultimately begin to understand more about facilitating the LS facilitator.
Figure 1: A revised model of potential Lesson Study outcomes (based on Mynott 2017) (Mynott 2018a)
Initially, Mynott set out, theoretically, that there are four possible outcomes of LS work (Mynott 2017).
His revised model – figure 1 – has expanded Outcome 3 to include three subcategories (Mynott
Lesson Study Work
Outcome 1. Absence of
Dissonance
Outcome 2. Dysfunctional
Dissonance
Outcome 3. Limited Learning
Dissonance
3.1 High limitations to
learning dissonance
3.2 Moderate limitation
to learning dissonance
3.3 Low limitations to
learning dissonance
Outcome 4. Rich Learning
Dissonance
Mynott (2018): IPDA Conference Paper Facilitating the Facilitator
3
2018a). The LS used in this article’s analysis is an Outcome 3.3: Low Limitations to Learning Dissonance
case. This is a LS that has provided numerous opportunities for potential participant learning, some of
which have been discussed in other writings (Mynott 2018a, Mynott, Paalanen & Jaffer 2018). The LS
focused on an exploration of the systematic teaching of consonant clusters to Year 1 pupils, 5 and 6
years old (Mynott et al. 2018). The LS findings related to potential participant learning are not
repeated in this article, instead the focus of this paper is to explore, through analysis, how the
facilitator interacted with the participants to support, diminish and or create dissonance.
2. Research Approach/ innovation
Mynott’s (2018a) article, on his revised LS outcome model, places a greater emphasis on how
facilitation is a supportive factor in improving the potential for participants to experience learning
dissonance, as he suggests it can provide opportunities for the LS team to have their moments of
dissonance sustained and returned to. Where facilitation has been explored in LS previously
(Fernandez & Yoshida 2004, Takahashi 2014, Takahashi & McDougal 2015), there has been a focus on
the role of a LS Koshi, an experienced and knowledgeable other but not necessarily a facilitator, and
while this is interesting it does not satisfy the questions: What the facilitator did/ does in the LS? How
did/ does the facilitator support the LS to improve PL outcomes? It is these questions that this article
will focus on and that the research design aims to enquire into.
An extended preparation Lesson Study (EPLS) method (Mynott 2017) was used to conduct the LS in
this case (Mynott et al. 2018). Figure 2 displays the three phases of the extended preparation method
that were used in this EPLS.
Mynott (2018): IPDA Conference Paper Facilitating the Facilitator
4
Figure 2: A Phonics Extended Preparation Lesson Study (based on Mynott 2017)
2.1 Phase 1: Extended Preparation Phase
The EPLS group had identified, in the Autumn Term 2017, that they wanted to improve their
knowledge and teaching of phonics in Year 1. Assessments that the group had undertaken, in the Early
Autumn term, indicated that pupils were finding consonant clusters particularly difficult to recognise
and this was impacting on their reading speed and accuracy of their decoding (Mynott et al. 2018).
Having identified their focus, the EPLS team researched consonant clusters, and identified through
reading Groff (1972) that a systematic approach to teaching consonant clusters may benefit the
participants’ phonics instruction. There was an absence of literature focused on consonant clusters
and how pupils should learn them, reinforcing in the team’s minds the need to explore consonant
clusters in more detail. Having decided that this was a valid area of educational research and as Groff’s
(1972) article has cluster omissions the team spent time, during Autumn 2017, re-ordering the
sequence of clusters and adding missing clusters to Groff’s original list – Figure 3.
Lesson Study Cycle (3 Lessons)
January 2018
Pupil Assessments/ Lesson Study
Review
February 2018 - April 2018
Lesson 2
Lesson 3Lesson 1
Reading
Planning
Training
Assessments and
Review
Extended Preparation Phase
October 2017 - January 2018
Mynott (2018): IPDA Conference Paper Facilitating the Facilitator
5
Sequence of clusters
Beginning
clusters
(Shaded boxes
ordered based on
Groff’s 1972 model
of readability)
Set 1
Set 2
Set 3
Set 4
st
br
sp
gr
fl
cr
cl
bl
tr
sl
dr
fr
sw
pl
pr
gl
str
thr
sc
sm
sn
scr
squ
spr
spl
shr
End clusters
Set 5
Set 6
Set 7
Set 8
ld
lf
lk
lm
lp
lt
sk
sm
sp
st
ft
mp
nd
nk
nt
pt
nch
tch
mb
Figure 3: Eight Set Sequence of Consonant Clusters (Mynott et al. 2018)
After the initial research period and organisation of the clusters – figure 3, the team then planned how
they would deliver their consonant cluster teaching through their EPLS cycle. At this point the LS team
decided that they would need to explore their revised cluster sequence order to monitor its
effectiveness for supporting decoding accuracy and reading speed. This meant that the LS team were
undertaking an experimental LS (Mynott 2018b). Their LS is defined as experimental on Mynott’s
(2018b) continuum of LS foci – figure 4 – because the team were exploring something they had created
and were therefore adding to knowledge.
Figure 4: A continuum of Lesson Study foci (Mynott 2018b).
Mynott (2018): IPDA Conference Paper Facilitating the Facilitator
6
Alongside the researching and planning the team undertook training in observation and feedback,
during the extended preparation. This involved the team observing each other, and feeding back on
the lessons that they had shared, this was aimed at developing their collaborative expertise (Mynott,
2018c) as well as their technical skills. The purpose of this training was directly linked to the learning
of Mynott’s (2017) research which showed that supporting the observation and feedback skills of
participants, enables them to access potential learning moments in LS.
2.2 Phase 2: Lesson Study Cycle
After the extended preparation phase, the LS team planned, taught and reviewed three lessons in this
LS sequence. This aspect of the LS method is in line with Dudley’s (2014) Lesson Study Handbook and
other handbooks of Lesson Study (Stepanek, Appel, Leong, Mangan & Mitchell 2007, Lewis 2002) with
a planning meeting occurring a few days before each lesson, and a review taking place on the day of
the observed lesson. The lessons, in phase 2, happened on consecutive Fridays, in January 2018, and
were focused on LS’s research theme: Did the systematic teaching of consonant clusters improve
pupils’ decoding accuracy and reading speed?
2.3 Phase 3: Pupil Assessments/ Lesson Study Review
Prior to the LS cycle taking place an assessment of all the pupils, in Year 1, was undertaken. This
assessment provided a baseline for the LS team and the assessment was repeated after the study to
assess the impact of the EPLS work on pupil progress. This LS had a focus on being evaluation-led.
Evaluation-led LS has been described in detail by Godfrey et al. (2018) who have applied Guskey’s
(2000) principles of evaluation to reviewing LS. While the case, in this article, does not provide detail
on all five principles (Guskey 2000, 2016) or focus of the complexities of PD and PL identified in Boylan
et al (2018), it could ultimately suggest that LS researchers need to develop their own PD to PL
theorisation. While imperfect, in theoretical design, this EPLS has a stronger evaluation model, using
teacher perception, teacher change and pupil information/ assessment (Guskey 2016) to inform both
Mynott (2018): IPDA Conference Paper Facilitating the Facilitator
7
the reviews integrated in phase 2 – figure 3 – and the overall EPLS review and subsequent analysis in
phase 3. The results and analysis of the participant learning and the pupil assessment data are
available in Mynott et al. (2018).
2.4 Phase 4: Transcription and analysis
While a phase 4 is not represented in figure 3, it forms a central part of this article’s research. Each of
the three LS lesson reviews was recorded and transcribed. The transcriptions were then listened to
and re-read, while emergent themes were noted. Mynott (2017), Dudley (2013) and Pella (2011)
provided initial themes, while reading of Raelins (2006) and Heron (1999) provided facilitation-focused
themes. Once these themes had been identified the transcriptions were read again and using applied
thematic analysis (Guest, MacQueen & Namey 2012), some of these themes were adapted and
amended so that themes could show their duality i.e. Raelin’s (2006) confronting conflict theme also
had the active generating conflict. Overall, four significant groups of themes emerged: Dissonance
(including conflict), Detailed Description (including giving and receiving feedback), Summary (drawing
together threads of conversation) and Expertise Sharing – figure 5.
Figure 5: A visualisation of interactions towards dissonance in a facilitated Lesson Study review
Figure 5 is a visualisation of how the themes interacted within the LS reviews. Dissonance is a central
theme, with the three other themes leading towards building, sustaining or returning to dissonance.
Facilitation Techniques
Mynott (2018): IPDA Conference Paper Facilitating the Facilitator
8
The techniques used by the facilitator (facilitation techniques) are used throughout the three themes,
but also could directly lead to moments of dissonance.
What was most significant from transcribing and coding the reviews was how the three themes leading
to dissonance interacted with specific techniques the facilitator was using. It is this interaction and the
use of these techniques that will be explored in the remainder of this paper.
3. Key Findings
3.1 Summary
The facilitation techniques identified under the theme of summary are returning summaries,
summaries which generate or sustain conflict and validation summarises which reinforce ideas
promoted in the LS review discussions.
3.1.1 Returning summary
Returning the discussion to a previous point and/ or to the enquiry focus was something that the
facilitator did throughout the three reviews.
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: Lesson 1 Review
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: Lesson 1 Review
09:45
M: Yeah, I was saying that the slides, or the words, should have been more thought about. Or the
slides in general. I know.
Mynott (2018): IPDA Conference Paper Facilitating the Facilitator
9
J: So, what is it about the slides, then? Because that is really interesting because that’s to do with our
resource planning.
10:00
J: Which is coming back to this question of if we are being systematic about the teaching of consonant
clusters the construction of that resource is the most important thing.
Extract 3: Lesson 1 review
The facilitator used this returning to the EPLS’s question a few times at the beginning of review 1 –
highlighted in grey. In this review, the participants seemed to take a while to settle into the enquiry
focus they had chosen. The facilitator used returning summaries to support them to refocus. Extract
1 is a good example of this as it is very early in the first review, and follows a long hesitation/ pause
by the participants. It is not clear if this hesitation by the participants can be classified within Heron’s
(1999) defensiveness stage, as the context of this hesitation seems to be that the participants were
unsure what to say next rather than safeguarding themselves. Yet, returning to the question and
summarising it again encouraged M to continue with her reflection on the lesson she had taught as
the team’s teacher in the LS research lesson and subsequently the team was able to continue talking
and enable opportunities for dissonance to emerge.
At this point, the facilitator, J, was reluctant to start a returning summary here, as his own speech is
hesitant. Was the facilitator not gauging the flow of this conversation in the same way he is able to do
in extracts 2 and 3? The tacit nature of the facilitator’s following, gauging and responding to the
conversation within the review is a challenge to understanding why facilitators make the decisions
they do. This skill of knowing when to respond or when to give space is difficult to establish. Yet an
overview of the moments of return summaries by the facilitator makes some aspects clearer.
All the examples of the returning summary bring the participants’ focus back to the enquiry of the
Lesson Study and are linked to three parts of conversational interactions: pauses, paralanguage and
emotive statements. The returning summary might be phrased in different ways but by bringing the
participants back to the question the facilitator maintains focus. In extract 1 there was a pause that
Mynott (2018): IPDA Conference Paper Facilitating the Facilitator
10
initiated J’s return to the question. In extract 3, the facilitator uses this return to the question to
increase the dissonance generated by M’s reflection, but also in recognition of the self-depreciation
when she articulates that the words ‘should have been more thought about’. This linkage between
M’s reflection and the team’s research question takes this reflection further. It makes this slightly
throw away comment about the choice of words have more meaning, as J’s questions through this
return: Is this reflection important to the team’s research? Therefore, the moment of reflection
became a moment of dissonance which is then sustained through its linkage to the enquiry focus and
this example became an overall thread of PL for the participants in this LS (Mynott et al. 2018).
3.1.2 Conflicting Summary
The example from extract 3 can be double themed as an example of a summary that generates conflict
as it produced a moment of dissonance from a potential moment of avoidance. It is a good example
of how a facilitator can impact on the outcomes of a LS cycle, and avoid an Outcome 1: Absence of
Dissonance – figure 1.
In addition to transforming a moment into a moment of dissonance, the use of summaries generates
and sustains professional conflict. The origins of these moments are more difficult to ascertain as some
are quite direct and others build on the conversation already happening.
05:00
M: That’s a good point.
A: Or diagraphs like sh.
M: Yep, oh that’s even better.
A: So, a mix, some without, some with diagraphs, and some with clusters.
M: And then we will see if children are still boxing those.
J: Boxing all of them. There will be some. I don’t think you will trick P
M: No, you won’t.
J: Because she was even recognising the ui in fruit. Which I don’t think you have taught yet.
M: We have mentioned it
Mynott (2018): IPDA Conference Paper Facilitating the Facilitator
11
J: You mentioned it last week. But I don’t think
A: Not specifically.
J: It is a random diagraph.
M: mmm
J: I think red herrings would be useful because that would really show you if the work you have done
in the week has had the impact. It would be interesting as well if they then recall those clusters that
they haven’t studied…. Because they might be like “I am just going to put sh in it must be a cluster.”
Extract 4: Lesson 2 Review
Extract 4 demonstrates how the summary sustains dissonance. In the lesson 2 review M and A were
able to generate dissonance about an observation of the pupils enclosing the initial letters of the
words in boxes – a code used to illustrate consonant clusters in this school. They were uncertain if the
pupils were identifying the consonant clusters correctly or just overgeneralising the visual pattern. In
the extract the moment of dissonance starts to diminish so J uses a summary to reignite the
dissonance in the discussion and challenge the team to make a decision about their next research
lesson. This summary by J managed the professional conflict and helped the initial dissonance develop
from a moment of dissonance to a moment of potential PL.
3.1.3 Validation Summary
In Mynott’s (2017) research he found that there is an outcome of LS work that indicated the absence
of dissonance – Outcome 1, figure 1. This absence was a reduction in moments of dissonance through
the social-professional relationships operating within the LS team (Mynott, 2017). The LS team were
avoidant of conflict (Achinstein 2002) in Mynott’s (2017) research, but it is possible to see social-
professional relationships acting as reducers of conflict more widely than in Mynott’s (2017) piece of
research. In this EPLS case the management of conflict by summaries is not always to produce conflict
but can be used to validate. These validation summaries, were used by J to moderate the social-
professional relationship; to reduce emotive dissonance when it was damaging to the LS team or work.
Mynott (2018): IPDA Conference Paper Facilitating the Facilitator
12
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?
A: Um, it feels a bit like Whack-a-Mole. So, when they get the clusters, but then we are losing the
focus of all the diagraphs and the trigraphs. So then that we will
J: Yeah
A: like we are seeing in floating and the other words. So, I guess it is just us we need to keep
practising and using flashcards etc.
J: I think that choosing those words is really important then. So, thinking about them so those words
that still give the opportunity. So, float would be important. But you can come back to the same
spelling patterns. So, what are next week’s clusters, sn?
Extract 5: Lesson 1 Review
In extract 5 the team through their discussion had reached a point where they were starting to lose
momentum. The pink highlights of A show that he has concerns about what the focus on consonant
clusters might mean for other parts of phonology. His phrase whack-a-mole is suggestive of a
frustration with not being able to meet the expectations, all at once, that the dissonance from this
research lesson was presenting. In other words, the dissonance had started to become dysfunctional
as it was starting to feel too much and Mynott (2017, 2018a) has shown that dysfunctional dissonance
can be very problematic and damaging to a LS team. To avoid that J intervenes and uses a summary
to respond to the emotions of the team. J’s response is to manage the emotional dissonance through
validation of it, but also to move things forward by capturing the worries into a suggestion of how to
move forward. This allowed the team to further discuss the integration of previously taught aspects
of phonology – diagraphs, trigraphs etc.
3.2 Detailed description
There are two main ways detailed description was used in this EPLS case. One was to generate
dissonance linked to the LS’s enquiry and the other was to reinforce a particular aspect of the review
conversation by adding additional information from the facilitator’s expertise of their observation.
Mynott (2018): IPDA Conference Paper Facilitating the Facilitator
13
Extract 6 demonstrates both aspects of how detailed description can be used by the facilitator in a LS
review.
A: They are not seeing the word they are not seeing the cluster…
M: Do you remember who that might be?
A: L.
J: Well yeah, I can tell you in grapefruit, only 6 children were able to cluster the second cluster. So W,
Z, Q, B and O. Maybe M, but M hadn’t done it and then she had it later on.
M: mmm
J: When you spoke about it, I think M added it. She was like, I haven’t done that correctly. She wasn’t
originally one of the five that had done it but then M had it on her board. But the others had ignored
that completely from what you were saying. They also sound buttoned ‘ui’ as two different sounds as
well.
07:00
M: Although I did spend time on that.
J: Yeah
M: I mentioned it twice
J: And A had guessed grapes. So, he said grapes and you were like um no it is grapefruit and he was
like grapes-fruit
M: (laughter)
J: Because he was already applying a whole word.
M: Yeah. Because grapes is such ….
J: Because grapes
M: Yes, and it was one of the reference words on the work this week.
J: So, for me there were some surprises like Q, which was a surprise that he could see those clusters.
But obviously, he shared those very vocally. But with every single cluster he was very aware that he
needed to box it up and then he was using it [as a chunk] to sound out of the words. I didn’t necessarily
see that from anybody else in the class. T and Y were not doing that.
A: Yeah, but while L saw the middle cluster in grapefruit she didn’t see it in flashlight or bright.
Extract 6: Lesson 1 Review
Highlighted in grey in extract 6 are the elements of J’s detailed description which are linked to his
observation within the research lesson. He provides a detailed account linked to the initial moment of
dissonance in order to build this moment further. J uses his observation to further A’s point about the
Mynott (2018): IPDA Conference Paper Facilitating the Facilitator
14
majority of the pupils not seeing the cluster. This is different from M’s perception of the lesson and so
J adds this detailed description to exemplify the validity of A’s observation. This builds the moment of
dissonance in the group and that discontinuity meant that there was a potential moment of learning
which allowed the group to vary their thinking for lesson 2 in the cycle, the resulting next step of this
part of the enquiry – seen in extract 4 – was that in order for the team to see if the pupils were learning
the consonant clusters as anticipated, they would need to vary their practice further.
The second aspect of detailed description that extract 6 reinforces is that it supports an initial
observation and starts to reinforce this with the participants as a recurring item of discussion. The
theme that this detailed description is and early aspect of the choice of words used in the resources
of the lesson. J’s description drew attention to some challenging aspects of phonology including the
‘ui’ diagraph which is an infrequently occurring diagraph in English, suggesting that the group might
like to consider their word choice more carefully. A thread of potential learning that returns
throughout the reviews – extracts 3 and 4 – and one that is an overall outcome of the learning that
the participants identify themselves (Mynott et al, 2018).
3.3 Expertise Sharing
The detailed descriptions would not be possible without the facilitator holding expertise in
observation and feedback. In addition to this expertise the facilitator has to be knowledgeable about
the subject of the LS enquiry and the participants involved in the study.
3.3.1 Developing observations
The EPLS structure is a LS variation that is designed to promote the production of expertise within the
LS cycle. Phase 1 – figure 2 – promotes the observation and feedback skills of all participants as it
allows opportunities for the team to meet, discuss, observe and feedback with each other (Mynott,
2018a; 2018c). Heron (1999) theorises that at the beginning of working as a group the dynamic can be
defensive and task/ process orientated and for LS if this defensiveness and focus on completion is not
Mynott (2018): IPDA Conference Paper Facilitating the Facilitator
15
transcended it can limit the collaboration within the LS, which is an element that Mynott (2017) has
identified as a limiting factor.
This EPLS design meant that the facilitator J worked with the LS team from October 2017 and they
spent time developing their observation, enquiry-focus and collaboration. Crucially for J this meant
that he had time to build a collaborative relationship with the participants, which then allowed him to
be more knowledgeable about when the participants needed the dissonance to be managed.
Practising providing feedback as a team was an important aspect of this development and while much
of the facilitator’s work is tacit and yet to be unravelled, it seems that this extended period of
collaboration strengthens the facilitator’s expertise and the subsequent dissonance generation.
3.3.2 Furthering Knowledge
This dissonance generation also relies on the facilitator having a level of expertise in the subject matter
that LS is focused on. Phase 1 of the EPLS also provides time for the facilitator to refine their subject
expertise as they can read widely around the subject matter, in this case phonology and morphology.
In this case the team undertook this subject development collaboratively which is why in the review
transcription article references exist – extract 5 exemplifies this. Yet, as the section on detailed
description demonstrates, the facilitator has to maintain a level of subject knowledge in order to
promote dissonance in discussions and ensure that this is sustained.
4 Significance
Facilitation in LS is currently understudied and this article has started a discussion about what
facilitators do within a LS review discussion to facilitate the LS group to sustain dissonance and reach
moments of potential learning. In doing so, detailed description, summary and advanced expertise
have been discussed as themes that emerged from the transcript analysis of how J the facilitator
interacted with the participants in this LS cycle.
Mynott (2018): IPDA Conference Paper Facilitating the Facilitator
16
The use of summary by J the facilitator in this LS case managed the generation, continuation and
moderation of dissonance between the team’s participants. J appeared to link these summaries to the
use of emotive language, paralanguage and pauses within each LS review. This interaction allowed J
to moderate the flow of the conversations so they produced dissonance but also depersonalised the
dissonance when it started to become dysfunctional. Ultimately, there is much more to learn about
how a facilitator can learn to recognise and moderate the use of dissonance in LS but this initial case
study indicates it could be a rich avenue to explore further in developing the andragogical aspects of
LS research.
At times, the facilitator could not rely on summary alone and needed to adopt the position of providing
a detailed description in which he shared his own direct observations of the research lesson. This
detailed description would promote dissonance further by adding to participants’ comments and
attaching them to evidence from the lesson observation as well as reinforcing moments of dissonance
from conversations prior to periods of detailed descriptions. The facilitator therefore must be
responsive to when a detailed description is needed, like when they choose to summarise, as well as
holding the relevant expertise in observation, feedback and the subject matter of the LS enquiry. For
if J did not have the expertise in phonology, he would not have been able to describe in the detail
needed to promote dissonance in this LS team.
Therefore expertise, both in collaboration and in subjects is important. Mynott (2018c) has written in
more detail about the variety of expertise that is important in LS. For the facilitator it appears that
while all expertise strands are important understanding and holding expertise about dissonance
generation and professional conflict, alongside expertise on the participants and the subject of the
LS’s enquiry prevail as being most important to the LS facilitator.
The next challenge for this research is to establish the continuums that each element (dissonance,
detailed description, expertise and summary), work along, so that each element can be better
Mynott (2018): IPDA Conference Paper Facilitating the Facilitator
17
understood within LS. How they interact with each other, and how the facilitator can manipulate each
strand to support the overall potential learning of the LS participants is an important area of
development. To do this effectively, there needs to be a more in-depth understanding of the nuances
used by facilitators, and just as Perry & Boylan (2018) set out, we do not yet have enough research on
PD facilitators.
5. References
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, pp120-139. DOI:10.1080/19415257.2017.1306789
https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2017.1306789
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.
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
Groff, P. 1972. Sequences for teaching consonant clusters, in Journal of Reading Behavior, Vol. 4, No.
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, No. 1, pp. 32-37.
Heron, J. 1999. The complete facilitators handbook, Kogan Page.
Lewis, C. 2002. Lesson Study: A Handbook of Teacher-led Instructional Change, Research for Better
Schools, Inc., Philadelphia.
Mynott (2018): IPDA Conference Paper Facilitating the Facilitator
18
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. Lesson Study Outcome: A theoretical model, [submitted manuscript to International
Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies – currently under review].
Mynott, J. 2018b. 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. 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-we-
know-enough-to-start/
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-systematically-
aid-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, No. 2, pp.
254-271.
Raelins, J. 2006. The Role of Facilitation in Praxis, in Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 35, No. 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, No. 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.
