th
NB: This paper was presented at an internal TLRP conference; if you wish to quote from it please contact the authors directly for permission. Contact details for each project and thematic initiative can be found on our website (www.tlrp.org).
Pete Dudley. RTF. Research Lesson Study metapedagogy project.
Paper presented at the ESRC TLRP Conference, Cardiff, Nov 2004.
1

Pete Dudley, RTF.
Paper presented at the ESRC TLRP Annual Conference,
Cardiff, 23-24 th November 2004
Abstract
Key words
To date the project has been developing an experimental design for research lesson study practices in a number of school settings – both secondary and primary, and in a range of curriculum areas. These have been within school, cross school ‘networked’ forms, cross phases, and cross subjects.
Teams of teachers have collaboratively planned, analysed and presented the outcomes of sequences of Research Lessons (studies) for use by others. Use of video and internet and means of communication feature strongly in this work.
This presentation will set out the progress the project has made to date and share some of the challenges as the project moves from a development and research phase into to research and development phase – through design experimentation.
The conference presentation will invite discussion and contributions from participants/attendees which will help inform and contribute to the next phase of the research design.
Metapedagogy, Research lessons, Innovation, Transfer, Across school settings, School networks, Classroom enquiry, Design experiment
Pete Dudley pete.dudley@ncsl.org.uk
07785 380646
Pete Dudley. RTF. Research Lesson Study metapedagogy project.
Paper presented at the ESRC TLRP Conference, Cardiff, Nov 2004.
2

Overall project design
The hypothesis behind this research project is that teaching can be improved systematically and in ways which can potentially be taken to scale, if common language, expectations and practices are developed in relation to what this project terms metapedagogy : sets of skills and behaviours involved in continuously learning to learn how to teach.
Knowledge is both socialised and situated. The contexts in which teacher practitioner knowledge is created make it hard to move around. The knowledge is ‘sticky’ (Brown and Duguid, 2002 p 29. Hargreaves,1999) because ‘ the knowledge that is produced has embedded in it a substantial tacit dimension’ (Fielding, Eraut et al 2003, p34).
Metapedagogy depends upon the creation of processes, contexts and eventually habits and cultures which surface this tacit knowledge and make it explicit and public. Evidence from Japan indicates this can happen (Heibert and Stigler,1999., Lewis, 2000, Akita, K.,
2004.) . Therefore, the project hypothesis concludes that metapedagogy, developed through research lesson study, can mobilise practitioner knowledge, enabling flow between classrooms and schools – even permeating subject and phase boundaries.
The hypothesis is formed against a background of historical barriers operating against effective teacher learning. These include the isolation in which teachers have operated and learned, (Hargreaves, 2004, p 28) a lack of evidence informed practice or reform, low professional status, and the fact that pedagogy was for many years considered an alien concept in England (Simon,1980), and the US (Bruner,1996, p 46. Shulman,
1987). There have been notable changes in recent years but these remain the dominant experiences of our ageing profession. (Over half the profession is over 45. 70% of school leaders are expected to have retired within the next 10 years).
Teacher professional development has also historically tended be ‘divorced from practice ’ (Stigler, J 2002) away from classrooms. In this country it is typically top-down,
‘cascade’ events, led by advisers who no longer teach themselves. They are ‘attended’ by lone teachers who are seldom given space on their return to school to implement any knowledge they may have gained (Ofsted 2002, p 25). In 2002 Ofsted called for the:
Pete Dudley. RTF. Research Lesson Study metapedagogy project.
Paper presented at the ESRC TLRP Conference, Cardiff, Nov 2004.
3

‘better definition of the effects of CPD in the classroom’ and ‘better dissemination processes to enable new knowledge to be shared ’. ( p26)
Cordingley et al’s systematic review of the effect of collaborative CPD on pupil learning
( 2003 ) found that sustained collaborative CPD was linked with a positive impact upon teachers’ repertoires of teaching and learning strategies, their ability to match these to student needs, their self esteem, confidence and their commitment to continuing learning and development. It was also linked with a positive impact upon student learning processes, motivation and outcomes. (p 11). It nearly always involved elements of sustained collaborative enquiry, classroom observation and joint development – mentoring or coaching.
James and Pedder (2004) reporting on a large scale study of the factors associated with changed teaching, were emphatic that teacher learning which affects classroom (in this case Assessment for Learning) practices, needs to take place in the classroom.
'1. Classroom assessment for learning practices are underpinned most strongly by teachers learning in the contexts of their own classrooms.
2. Emphasis on building social capital without a clear classroom focus does not appear to be strongly related to change in classroom practice.......
3. We need to be careful about allocating time, energy and resources to the building of social capital that lacks explicit classroom focus ’.
(James, M., and Pedder, D., (2004). P 14)
Recent developments such as the primary Literacy, Numeracy and KS3 national strategies have gone some way towards this with the introduction of common lesson formats, demonstration lessons, and modelling by strategy consultants. But evaluators of the strategies (Earle et al, 2003) have joined others such as Hargreaves (2003) and
Desforges (2002, 2004) in calling for a system which can support innovation and knowledge creation in teaching.
Policy makers in England have responded to this by attempting to create an arena where responsibility for professional learning and professional knowledge creation, which has historically tended to rest with the academic and policy communities, may increasingly come to be located amidst the teaching profession itself, in an era of
Pete Dudley. RTF. Research Lesson Study metapedagogy project.
Paper presented at the ESRC TLRP Conference, Cardiff, Nov 2004.
4

‘informed autonomy’ (Barber 2002) or ‘informed professionalism (Hopkins, 2002).
Organisations such as the National College for School Leadership (NCSL) and the
General Teaching Council (GTC) were created to help effect this transformation.
I will now argue that developments in teaching and learning and the resurgence of pedagogy in recent years have also helped counter these barriers.
Four contextual opportunities
Developmental shifts in the last five years have provided contextual openings in which to engage in this area of development and research with more hope of finding fertile ground and receptive contexts than in even the recent past. These shifts are:
(i) the resurgence of
‘pedagogy’,
(ii) the move towards lateral networking,
(iii) a strategy for educational innovation, and
(iv) a renewed focus on teacher coaching and mentoring.
(i) The resurgence of ‘pedagogy’
‘Pedagogy’, a term which was still largely alien to England, (Alexander, 2000. Simon, B
1980) in the late 1990s, is back ‘in’ again. This is most clearly evident in the emergence of distinct cross-curricular and cross-phase approaches to teaching and learning exemplified by Assessment for Learning (ARG, 1999) based upon Black and Wiliam’s
(1998) ‘Black Box’ research or Thinking skills ( McGuiness, C, 1999.,) These two amongst other ‘pedagogical approaches’ have gained increasing credibility and importance both within the profession and amongst policy-makers (Miliband, D 2004,
Dudley, P 2004), who are increasingly convinced they improve the cognitive and metacognitive performance of pupils, and provide teachers with components of coherently lin ked practices to ‘put into practice’ in their classrooms (Black et al, 2003).
(ii) The move towards lateral learning
Professional learning and knowledge creation in this form relies on the dynamic existence of many lateral learning opportunities and relationships (Hopkins and Jackson,
2002, Bentley, 2003, Hargreaves 2003 and 2004) which can be afforded by networks of professionals and schools working together in communities of enquiry and development
(Leiberman, 1998). This has given rise to the development of the GTCE’s Teacher
Pete Dudley. RTF. Research Lesson Study metapedagogy project.
Paper presented at the ESRC TLRP Conference, Cardiff, Nov 2004.
5

Learning Academies and to NCSL’s large-scale national development and research
‘Networked Learning Communities’ programme of 130 networks of schools. This has three aims – to develop good networks, to learn about ‘networked learning’ and to help the system learn how it can reform itself in order to engender such work (Jackson, D
2004). Within these contexts teachers, pupils and school leaders are exploring a range of approaches to lateral learning and knowledge creation (Dudley and Horne, 2004).
These networks are also developing shared enquiry methodologies which they are using to improve practice (Dudley, Hadfield and Carter, 2003), focused in three areas of lateral learning: across school: pedagogic development, teacher enquiry development and leadership learning (Dudley and Horne op cit.). Both the networked learning communities programme and the TLRP L2L project have helped generate a school and networked context for this metapedagogy research.
(iii) The strategy for innovation.
The DfES Innovation Unit set up in 2002, is tasked with identifying and stimulating innovation in the system. Much of this focuses around large scale enterprises such as networking (it has been a key partner in the Networked Learning Communities project), school remodelling or creative partnership initiatives. Classroom innovation which makes a long term difference is important in this context. This is where research lesson study fits in: as a process which combines features of classroom collaboration, enquiry and coaching with the aims of disciplined innovation and knowledge transfer. In order to become system based, and to avoid some of the pitfalls encountered it has encountered in the US (Fernandez, C 2002) it will require incorporating thinking which goes ‘beyond individual and team learning to organisational learning and system change ’ (Fullan, M.,
2004 p 12) into its design.
(iv) renewed focus on teacher coaching and mentoring
Largely as a result of studies cited above (Cordingley, 2003, Earle, 2003) there is now a policy move to increase the focus of CPD in English schools onto classroom centred, peer-led enquiry-based learning. At the time of writing a policy initiative is consulting on a national Framework for Mentoring and Coaching (CUREE, 2004).
Much of this work is founded upon the development of school communities of practice and enquiry, drawing on Wenger and Lave (1991) and Wenger (1998). ‘Community’ he
Pete Dudley. RTF. Research Lesson Study metapedagogy project.
Paper presented at the ESRC TLRP Conference, Cardiff, Nov 2004.
6

defines by members’ ‘shared histories of learning’ p 86). Reification, as the artefacts which demark those communities but which can result in the ‘dangerous persistence’ as they age or become redundant (p 61). Boundary ‘standardisation’ (106) and ‘brokerage’, he argues, can help create contexts and agents to help sticky knowledge flow between communities of practice , as can ‘alignment’ (174). Wenger’s suggestions for a design for an education system are based upon creating improved professional learning by
 convincing, inspiring, uniting
 defining broad visions and aspirations, proposing stories of identity
 devising proceduralisation, quantification, and control structures that are portable

Walking boundaries, creating boundary practices, reconciling diverging perspectives (p
187)
An approach such as resear ch lessons helps address Wenger’s ‘challenge of design’ which he sees as ‘
‘to support the work of engagement, imagination and alignment' (237)
In order to create portability, the Research Lesson (RLS) approach incorporates additional elements of knowledge transfer approaches which are designed to overcome the potential problems of: persistence, reliance on shared history, shared experience and communit y membership which are inherent in Wenger’s model.
RLS deliberately harnesses a Japanese concept - th e concept of ‘ba’ (Nonaka et al
2002) which, through discipline as well as design, enables the strategic location and relocation of structured exploratory reflective problem solving and innovation. So organisations can react swiftly to innovation needs across skills sectors, business fields or localities - because they have structures and processes for creating such problemsolving teams and workforces familiar with and skilled in using them in different settings.
Such teams are often created specifically for the purpose – brand new communities with no shared histories or reified practices other than those of the structured enquiry process itself.
Jugyoukenkyuu or ‘lesson study’ is a manifestation of this concept in Japanese education.
Research Lesson Study
Pete Dudley. RTF. Research Lesson Study metapedagogy project.
Paper presented at the ESRC TLRP Conference, Cardiff, Nov 2004.
7

The TIMMs study first stimulated US in ‘lesson study’ (Heibert and Stigler,1999., Lewis,
2000, 2004). Teams of teachers identify an aspect of their teaching which is likely to have an impact on an area of need in pupil learning. They spend between one and three years working in groups, planning interventions which may work, closely observing these
‘research lessons’ deconstructing and writing up what they learn – from failures as well as successes (Wilms 2003). At the end of a cycle of studies they may teach a ‘public research lesson’ before an audience of peers from local schools and colleges in order to share the practice and widen the critique. It can be a citywide event (Watanabe, 2002).
These studies are widely read by Japanese teachers who contribute more than 50% of the educational research literature produced in the country (Fernandez, C., 2002). Most
Japanese teachers would expect to be involved in at least one network or community of colleagues working on a research lesson question at any one time.
Lesson study has been developed in a number of locations in the US over the past seven years. It is also used in the IQEA and Networked Learning Communities projects in England.
Developments in England prior to the ‘Metapedagogy’ research.
In formulating an approach to ‘lesson study’ in England, it was necessary to take account of:
- what theory could contribute to the design
- lesson study processes in Japan
- the attempts to develop from the Japanese model in the US, and
- forms of collaborative classroom enquiry and coaching models in the UK which strongly reflected theory, elements of lesson study which could also be said to be successful in changing teacher practices.
These included approaches to joint lesson planning, jointly observed teaching, and collaborative deconstruction which worked, Partnership Teaching approaches developed in the 80s and 90s, facilitated and specialist coached intervention (Essex County
Council, 2000) and data from the studies used in the 2004 EPPI review of CPD (in progress). It led to a clear distinction being drawn between monitoring, demonstrating,
Pete Dudley. RTF. Research Lesson Study metapedagogy project.
Paper presented at the ESRC TLRP Conference, Cardiff, Nov 2004.
8

coaching and partnering for innovation and refinement. A model constructed from these was used in the first year to formulate Phase 1 of the project outlined below.
What the RLS metapedagogy project is attempting to find out
– and how
The project has three phases which are set out in table 1 below.
Table 1. Research Lesson Study Project Phases
Phase
1
03 - 04
2
04 -07
3
05 - 07
Questions
What should a research lesson study design look like, aimed at promoting teachers learning to learn-how-to-teach, and based upon best available evidence and knowledge about the educational context, as well as demands upon and knowledge about: learners and learning, teachers and teaching, curriculum, pedagogy, schools, schooling and the system itself?
Does research lesson study add distinctiveness and leverage to school or network based teacher learning and improvement? What factors support and inhibit such developments? What languages or behaviours, if any, emerge as distinctive and critical to such teacher learning? What artefacts and processes and habitual behaviours will best promote continuous or recursive cycles of learning to learnhow- to-teach? How are such processes best led?
What can the system learn from this research and how might any findings of note best be disseminated and implemented?
How
Concurrent:
1. Literature review
2. Pilot project with schools :
Representing a cross section
Primary and secondary phase working both within and away from networked contexts
Focusing on a range of subject areas.
Starting with an initial design based upon available knowledge.
Provided with high quality information, training, equipment and residential opportunities to share and reflect upon practice.
Construct a design experiment to study the use of research lesson study in real ecologically valid locations with minimal support, other than that offered by the initial artefacts, processes and behaviours.
Create baseline measures and collect qualitative and quantitative data over six terms with mid-term analysis after one year. Data to be collected from stratified cross sectional sample of professionals and pupils, schools and networks.
Feasibility study??
Policy papers, incorporation into national and regional teacher learning programmes, specific artefacts (handbooks, toolkits, examples and practice exchange – online and other formats.
Phase one
The Research Lesson Study (RLS) metapedagogy project has spent one academic year working with teachers in schools in a number of networks of schools across England to design an initial approach to research lesson study for English schools in 2004. The group has conducted development work in schools and attended four residential seminars aimed at elucidating designs from theory and emerging school based
Pete Dudley. RTF. Research Lesson Study metapedagogy project.
Paper presented at the ESRC TLRP Conference, Cardiff, Nov 2004.
9

experimentation - producing a toolkit for research lesson study, supported by examples of practice. A review of the literature and initial analysis of data collected to date (over 65 research lessons, a number of video presentations of practice and development over a sequence of research lessons, interview transcripts and focus group data) has led to the identification of the following as essential components of research lesson study.
Ten components of research lesson study (from ‘Getting started with research lesson s’ (2004) See appendix 1.) A sourcebook for practitioners.
1. Ground rules for working in joint research mode
2. Use of case pupils, (3 or multiples of three)
3. Identification of what you want to learn and why – your research or enquiry focus.
4. Connecting with and drawing on what is already known about your focus
5. Joint planning,
6. Joint observation (and data capture),
7. Deconstruction, analysis and recording of what has been learned by case pupils and by researchers.
8. Capturing and distilling practice / data (eg using video, stills or audio)
9. Finding ways of helping others to learn from what you have learned – innovated, refined or modified.
10. Creating an artifact to convey this (a staff meeting, a powerpoint, a video, a coaching guide) and using it for real.
Pete Dudley. RTF. Research Lesson Study metapedagogy project.
Paper presented at the ESRC TLRP Conference, Cardiff, Nov 2004.
10

1
Fig 1. Research Lesson Process Diagramme
2, 3 or more colleagues identify a question they want to answer or a problem they hope to solve
(perhaps from a previous research lesson) to do with teaching and learning.
Res- earch partner
Sch 1
Teaching partner
Sch 2
Identify + needs
They identify three (or 6 or 9)
‘case pupils’ representing three types of learner who 2 reflect differing needs. These needs are carefully analysed
Case
Pupil 1
Case
Pupil 2
Case
Pupil 3
Res- earch partner
Sch 1, 2 or 3
The lesson is designed within the sequence of what is
3 already in the curriculum plan. The time slot for joint observation of the research lesson element is identified.
The lessons is taught to the whole class and observed
4 and the key moments captured in terms of how it relates to the learning and experience of the three case pupils .
Teach- ing partner
Teach and observe, gather data.
Case
Pupil
Case
Pupil
Res- earch partner
Case
Pupil
Design research lesson – step by step
Res- earch partner
Pupil
Involve- ment
Once adult colleagues are confident with the
Research
Lesson process
– research partner pupils
(other than the case pupils) can be involved in the design, conduction and analysis phases of the research lesson.
5
Within a day the teaching and research partners deconstruct the lesson always taking the learning and experience of the three pupils as the starting point for any element of the analysis .
Teach- ing partner
Res- earch partner
6
A record is kept of:
What the each learned for specifically for themselves but also for the whole school.
Video is powerful.
Deconsruct/record
The network’s RLS enquiry leader works with the
7 partners or other partners to identify the focus for a new research lesson design
Pete Dudley. RTF. Research Lesson Study metapedagogy project.
Paper presented at the ESRC TLRP Conference, Cardiff, Nov 2004.
The schools RLS enquiry team review data from a sequence of research lessons in order to draw inferences, generate hypotheses and capture key lesson data capable of translation into a new context
11

The following ‘leads’ have also emerged from the data so far in terms of apparent efficacy of research lesson study.

Research Lesson Study (this model) is proving (to project members) to be a powerful and replicable process for innovating, transferring and improving teaching and learning practices.

The process has been developed and used successfully in the core subjects in Key
Stage 3 in schools which range from those in challenging circumstances to others in more affluent areas. Some schools consider they are addressing underachievement, whilst others have amongst the highest value-added scores in the country in KS3 and
KS4.

The RLS process encourages risk-taking in a culture of professional learning both from what does not work as well as what does – ‘failing forwards towards success’ (Edison, T in Hargreaves, D 2004 p68).

The process is being found to be useful for transferring practices across subject areas in ways previously not encountered or envisaged by participants. It may, thus, have potential significance in reducing within-school variation.

The process has been found to help teachers – experienced and less experienced – to
‘see things differently’ (project member); to be able to critically view their own practices without being blinded by familiarity or ‘blinkered by .. assumptions about [their] immediate settings’ (Desforges, C. W. 2004).

The process is viewed positively as a mechanism which lends itself to cross-school and cross-phase working particularly as a result of the fact that the unit of study and delivery is a ‘lesson’.

Teachers in their first three years of teaching have found the process has given them an opportunity to engage in ‘deep’ professional learning, experienced through existing models such as the standard diet of the induction year.

The process is providing a useful means of addressing common questions and problems encountered by teachers in pedagogic fields of metacognition found within Assessment for Learning and Thinking Skills. Schools are putting these into practice across the curriculum as a result of the KS3 and Primary National Strategies.

In all cases, teachers are finding that the value of the research lesson study is significantly increased if pupils are involved in the process.

There is evidence of some significant impact on pupil progress and outcomes – but this is early and partial data.

Schools have begun to develop cross-school or networked approaches to RLS where they are implementing a network-wide pedagogy. This has occurred in Northumberland and Essex. All networks plan to develop this aspect in the autumn term.

Schools and networks of schools involved in the project are now building RLS into their performance management policies, school improvement strategies, network development plans and their CPD models.
Pete Dudley. RTF. Research Lesson Study metapedagogy project.
Paper presented at the ESRC TLRP Conference, Cardiff, Nov 2004.
12

Phase 2. Constructing the research design
The intention is to construct a complex intervention Design Experiment (DE). A simple and compelling rationale for design experiments is given by Schoenfeld (in press).
‘Imagine a theory of aeronautics prior to the Wright brothers’ 1903 Kitty Hawk flight.
There wouldn’t be much to it would there? Not until heavier than air mechanical flight became a r eality could a theory of aeronautics get off the ground… over time, theory and design grew in dialectic, each enriching the other.
There are four reasons for this decision.
1. The starting point for the project – both contextually and methodologically - involves the study of an artefact or design which has a prior existence and which has itself been iteratively informed by recursive redesign. Gorard, Roberts and
Taylor (2004) remind us that ‘design sciences are .. concerned with producing and improving artefacts or designed interventions, and establishing how they behave under different conditions’ rather than explaining how and why things work. A failed design is potentially as important as a successful one.
2. The nature of research lesson study involves multiple dependent variables and data types. It is necessary to
‘construct a model which is not only consistent with the data, but also with existing knowledge and assumptions about the processes which produce the data’ (Finbarr, Sloane and Gorard, 2003). The most appropriate model seems to be the three phase ‘complex intervention’ - i) initial design based on theory and existing knowledge, ii) formative evaluation using qualitative data and iii) feasibility study.
3. The nature of research lesson study (studying what has worked/not worked and so engineering on the next refinement of practice) mirrors the process of
‘deliberate practice’ identified as of critical importance in ‘expert development’
(Anders-Erickson, 2002). This is a feature of teacher learning RLS attempts to bring about. It differs only in that it is necessarily collaborative – but again strongly resembles approaches to the development of communities of enquiry at
Xerox’s PARC laboratory (Brown, 1991) or Toyota’s ‘lean production system’
(Wilms, 2003).
4. Transfer of what has new innovated knowledge is critical to the success of the research lesson process. In Lobato’s concept of ‘actor-oriented transfer’ (2003) in
Pete Dudley. RTF. Research Lesson Study metapedagogy project.
Paper presented at the ESRC TLRP Conference, Cardiff, Nov 2004.
13

design experiments, transfer is built into the design as an integral component.
This is in line with emergent hypotheses in RLS process design (points 9 and 10 above). There is also a potential for an experimental feature to remain within the design, increasing its subsequent potential for refinement and improvement in later cycles of analysis and modification.
There are obvious attractions and advantages in the DE methodology. There are also numerous pitfalls. Perhaps the greatest is the need to ensure that the outcomes of interest for the design experiment are fixed first’ to avoid simply ‘trawling’ data for patterns and modifying methods along the way leaving no fixed point to the research
(Gorard et al 2004 p).
The second warning given in the same article is in the need for clarity about how the design experiment is preserved, through a distinction between experimental conditions
(the research lesson) and classroom conditions (in the needs identification or subsequent coaching). Otherwise the process is indistinguishable from other practitioner action research.
Pete Dudley. RTF. Research Lesson Study metapedagogy project.
Paper presented at the ESRC TLRP Conference, Cardiff, Nov 2004.
14

Fig 2. Design Study
Questions for discussion
from Gorard, 2004
1. How robust is the argument in favour of a design experiment?
2. How does the account of Research Lesson Study offered here (see appendix 1) seem distinctive from or encompassed by: a. Practitioner action research? b. Peer coaching?
(appendix 2 offers the beginnings of an analysis of this latter part of the question).
Pete Dudley. RTF. Research Lesson Study metapedagogy project.
Paper presented at the ESRC TLRP Conference, Cardiff, Nov 2004.
15

References
Akita, K ., An analysis of good preschool teachers’ held by Japanese pre-school teachers, Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational
Research Association, San Diego, 2004
Alexander, R., (2000) Culture and Pedagogy: international comparisons in primary education , Blackwell, Oxford.
Anders-Erickson, K., (2002) Attaining Excellence through Deliberate Practice: insights from the study of expert performers , in Teaching and learning: the essential readings,
Desforges, C.W. and Fox, R., Blackwell 2002. London. Pp 4-37
Assessment Reform Group (ARG) (1999) Assessment for Learning , University of
Cambridge and the Nuffield Foundation
Barber, M., 2002, In despatches, address to the Association of Chief education Officers ,
2002.
Bentley, T (2003) Foreword to Hargreaves, D.H. ‘Education Epidemic’ , Demos, London
Black, P., and Wiliam, D., (1998) Inside the black box: raising standards through classroom assessment.
Kings College London.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D., (2002) Working Inside the
Black Box: assessment for Learning in the Classroom. London, School of Education,
Kings College.
Brown, JS., (1991 ) Research that reinvents the corporation , Harvard Business review on
Knowledge Management, 1998. Harvard Business School Press. Boston MA
Brown, JS and Duguid, P (2002) Organising Knowledge in Managing Knowledge: an essential reader. Little, S, Quintas, P, and Ray, T (Eds.) 2002 Sage Publications and
OUP. London.
Pete Dudley. RTF. Research Lesson Study metapedagogy project.
Paper presented at the ESRC TLRP Conference, Cardiff, Nov 2004.
16

Bruner, J., (1996) The Culture of Education , Harvard University Press,
Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Rundell, B., Evans, D and Curtis, A., (2003) The Impact of
Collaborative CPD on Classroom Teaching and Learning: How does collaborative
Continuing Professional Development, (for teacher so the 5-16 range effect teaching and learning?
Evidence for Policy and Practice Information Co-ordinating centre, EPPI-
Centre, London.
CUREE, (2004) Consultation on a National Framework for Mentoring and Coaching ,
Consultation letter.
Desforges, C. W. (2002) On Teaching and Learning , National College for School
Leadership, London.
Desforges, C. W. (2004) Collaboration: why bother?
Nexus, Vol 1 No 3. NCSL , pp6-7
Dudley, P., Hadfield, M., and Carter, K., Towards knowledge based networked learning: the results of the first networked learning communities programme enquiry , Report for the DFES, September 2003. NCSL.
Dudley, P., (2004 ) Making a difference , Nexus Vol 1. No 3. National College for School
Leadership pp 2-4
Dudley, P., and Horne, M., What does ‘networked learning’ look like and how is it developing? Results from the first Programme Level Inquiry, Paper presented at the annual conference of AERA, San Diego, April 2004
Earle, L., Watson, N.,, Levin, B., Leithwood, K., Fullan, M., Torrance, N., (2003)
Watching and Learning 3: Final report of the External Evaluation of England’s National
Literacy and Numeracy Strategies . Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto
Pete Dudley. RTF. Research Lesson Study metapedagogy project.
Paper presented at the ESRC TLRP Conference, Cardiff, Nov 2004.
17

Essex County Council, (2000) The Focus Lesson Planner (Teaching and Learning
Materials)
Fernandez, C., (2002) Learning from Japanese approaches to professional development: the case of lesson study , Journal of teacher Education Vol. 53 No 5.,
American Association of colleges of teacher education.
Fielding, F., Eraut, M., Thorp, J., Cunningham, I., Jones, C., Craig, J., Horne, M.,
(2003) Factors influencing the transfer of good practice: initial literature review ,
Unpublished draft. University of Sussex and Demos.
Fullan, M., (2004) Leadership and sustainability, Prepared hotseat for the Urban
Leadership Community, England, 2004.
Sloane, F. S., and Gorard, S., Exploring modelling aspects of design experiments ,
Educational researcher, Vol 32, No. 1, pp29-31.
Gorard, S., (in press ) The promise of design studies .
Gorard, S., Roberts, K., and Taylor, C., (2004) What kind of creature is a design experiment? British Education Journal 1 2004.
Hargreaves, D.H. (1999) The Knowledge Creating School, British Journal of
Educational Studies 17 (2):122-141
Hargreaves, D.H. (2003) Education Epidemic: transforming Secondary Schools through innovation networks . Demos. London.
Hargreaves, D.H. (2004 ) Learning for Life, The Foundations for Lifelong Learning , The
Lifelong Learning Foundation, Policy Press, Bristol
Black, P., Harrison, C.
, Marshall, B., and Wiliam, D., (2003) Assessment for Learning: putting it into practice, OUP
Hopkins, D., 2002, Presentation to mark the launch of the networked Learning
Communities programme , University of Nottingham, June 2002.
Pete Dudley. RTF. Research Lesson Study metapedagogy project.
Paper presented at the ESRC TLRP Conference, Cardiff, Nov 2004.
18

Hopkins, D., and Jackson, D., (2002) Networked Learning Communities – capacity building, networking and leadership for learning , NCSL Think-piece, NCSL 2001
Jackson, D., (2004) From Networking to Networked learning: Lessons learnt from 86 school networks , Symposium introduction, AERA San Diego, 2004
James, M and Pedder, D., Assessment for Learning: where from? Where next?
Paper presented at the annual conference of the British Educational Research Association,
2004.
Leiberman, A., (1995 ) Restructuring School: the dynamics of changing practice, structure and culture . In A. Lieberman, (Ed) The work of restructuring schools: building from the ground up ’ (pp 1-17) new York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Lewis, C., (2000) Lesson Study: the Core of Japanese Professional Development ,
Invited address to the special interest group on mathematics education, American
Education research Association, New Orleans.
Lewis, C., (2004) What counts as evidence of learning from practice? Collaborative critique of Lesson Study methods, Symposium introduction presented at the annual conference of AERA, San Diego, April 2002
Lobato, J., (2003) How design experiments can inform a rethinking of transfer, and vice versa . Educational researcher, Vol 32, No. 1 pp. 17-20.
McGuiness, C., (1999) From Thinking Skills to Thinking Classrooms , Report for the
Department of Education and Skills, DfES.
Miliband, D., (Right Honourable) Minister of State for School Standards, (2004) Building a new relationship with schools , Speech to the North of England Education Conference,
Belfast, January 2004
Pete Dudley. RTF. Research Lesson Study metapedagogy project.
Paper presented at the ESRC TLRP Conference, Cardiff, Nov 2004.
19

Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., and Konno, N., (2002 ) SECI, Ba and Leadership: a unified model of dynamic knowledge creation.
In S. Little, P. Quintas and T Ray (Eds) In
Managing Knowledge, an essential reader, Sage/OUP, London.
Ofsted, (2002) Continuing professional development for teachers in schools . A report from the Office of Her majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools, HMI 140, Ofsted
Publications. London. Crown Copyright.
Schoenfeld, A. H., Design Experiments , Summary paper presented at the American
Research Association Annual Conference, San Diego, April 2004
Shulman, L. F. (1987) Knowledge and Teaching , Harvard Educational Review reproduced in ‘Learners and pedagogy’ , Moon R., and Leach, J 1999, OUP and Paul
Chapman publishing, London.
Simon, B 1980 ‘ Why no pedagogy in England?
’ in ‘Learners and pedagogy’ , Moon R., and Leach, J 1999, OUP and Paul Chapman publishing, London.
Stigler, J and Hiebert, J., (1999) The teaching Gap: the best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education inn the classroom , Free Press, new York
Stigler, J., in Willis, S. (2002) Creating a knowledge base for teaching,: a conversation with James Stigler , Educational Leadership March 2002 Association for supervision and curriculum development, Pp 6-11.
Wanatabe, T., (2002) Learning from Japanese Lesson Study , Educational Leadership,
March 2002 Pp 3639
Wenger, E., (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning Meaning and Identity , Cambridge
University Press,
Wilms, W., (2003) Altering the structure and Culture of American Public Schools , Phi
Delta Kappan, April 2003 Pp 606 - 615
Pete Dudley. RTF. Research Lesson Study metapedagogy project.
Paper presented at the ESRC TLRP Conference, Cardiff, Nov 2004.
20

Appendix 1. A step by step approach to Research Lesson Study
1. Identify your team – two, three or four people with dedicated time and
SMT support for the Research
Lesson Study
2. Set ground rules for assessed risk-taking and joint ownership of the
Rlessons where it is expected that learning is from what goes wrong as well as right.
3. Identify three case pupils (or multiples of three when you are experienced in RLessons).
4. Identify what you want to learn and why
– your research or enquiry question.
5. Connect with and draw on what is already known about your focus before you start your work.
6. Jointly plan a research lesson based on the needs of the case pupils
Guidance – what we are learning about this
(From Getting Started with research lesson study, P Dudley, 2004)
Threes work well. More can work very well but costs increase. Twos can also work successfully but there are fewer perspectives brought to bear..
It helps if there is either some element of voluntarism or some reason for you to work together – for instance you share common responsibility for a year group, or a scheme of work (in parallel secondary subject groups). Perhaps you have identified a reason to find out about each others’ practice – can some of the motivating techniques used in music, art be adapted and applied in science or mathematics.
Work in role as researchers. Agree that ‘failing intelligently towards success’ is the ethos – upping your success rate by upping your failure rate.
Agree that all aspects of the RLesson and the study are the joint responsibility of the researchers. People are more likely to risk things going wrong if they share the risk. Carve out safe areas where RLS activity can be insulated from high stakes monitoring or performance management activity.
They should be chosen because they represent three groups of learners in the class who present different batches of need in relation to the lesson objectives – they may be operating at different levels of attainment in the subject area, they may represent pupils with varying social needs, motivational needs, or linguistic needs. Write an explicit sentence about the needs they have been chosen to represent.
Checking out via a pre RLesson conversation, interview or assessment can be invaluable in relation to your RLesson design.
Write explicitly what you want each pupil to learn in the RLesson(s) ie to be able to do, understand or use as a result of the learning.
Have a question for the sequence of lessons. Construct the question so that it focuses on improved learning and teaching. Can we improve the achievement in writing of pupils by using specific success criteria in our lessons?
In a later part of the study this may become: ‘How can we further improve the achievement in writing of pupils by using specific success criteria in our lessons?’ .
Write the agreed question down in the planner and test it against the quality research question prompts for answerability and pertinence .
It is easy to draw misconclusions from small scale studies. For example teachers who observed that because collaborative groupwork can be demanding for pupils, and so can be less popular than noncollaborative options – may conclude wrongly that it is not an appropriate teaching form. There is a weight of evidence to the contrary and lots of help in how to answer the question they had really arrived at which was ‘How can we improve the achievement of our pupils in subject x through the use of collaborative groupwork?’ A search for key texts on collaborative groupwork and talk in learning can get you started. The RLS website suggests many. Visit www.nlcechange.org.uk
Draw together:
(i) what you want to learn or improve in the teaching and learning,
(ii)
(iii)
(iv) what the pupils need to learn in the curriculum, the case pupil profiles your RLS Question.
Pete Dudley. RTF. Research Lesson Study metapedagogy project.
Paper presented at the ESRC TLRP Conference, Cardiff, Nov 2004.
21

Plan each step of the lesson – keep thinking alternately about the case pupils and about the whole class.
Write the sequence of the lesson on the attached planner.
7. Joint observation and data capture Think about and agree key points you want to gather data on. Record this.
Think about and plan who will be doing what, when. Write this down.
How frequently will you pay attention to the case pupils and their groups?
What questions do you plan to ask? Write these down.
Use the RLesson plan & annotator for making notes to ensure fidelity to your plan (See pages XX).
If you are using video, which sections of the lesson do you need to plan to capture?
Will you be using any pre – or post RLesson data questionnaires or interviewing of the case pupils?
When you start to use video – read the advice from all those who have failed forward intelligently – and learned on your behalf (P ??).
8. Joint analysis and deconstruction Make sure there is plenty of time set aside for this. It always takes twice as long as you think it will. Do it before too long – ideally within 24 hours of the RLesson.
Start each point with reference to the focus pupils. Test each tentative conclusion or hypothesis against
9. Collaborative analysis and representation - being explicit about what you have learned them. They are your touchstones. Check out your assumptions against what you got from the external research knowledge-base – or plan to get.
Explicitly agree and record:
- what each pupil learned (in relation to what you hoped they would learn) and how you account for any differences.
- what each of you believes you have learned
- what new practice or hunch you want to take forward to the next RLesson
- at the end of a sequence of RLessons – what new practice you have created (ie what you are going to do differently from now on), and what difference it has made.
10 Finding ways of helping others learn from what you have learned innovated, refined or modified.
–
By planning to present and coach others in the outcomes of the study, you are ensuring the learning doesn’t just stay with you. We have a duty to share our learning. People have found that by presenting their Research Lesson Studies to colleagues, they further their own learning and deepen their understanding of what they have learned. By taking the process and modeling or coaching it with their colleagues, they further both the new knowledge about the lessons – the teaching and learning, - as well as new knowledge about how to use structured classroom enquiry – the research lessons. This way we learn better how to learn how to teach.
Modifying and amending the RLesson design.
It is human nature to adapt and change formats to suit our purposes. Research has shown that practices transfer well when they are sufficiently adaptable to enable people to take ownership and match them to their purposes and context. This framework of 10 core components allows flexibility – within and between them - for all sorts of adaptations to context, need, classroom, researchers.
However, unchecked adaptation and modification can lead to a point where the resulting process becomes far removed from the original design. The
10 components above are what makes RLessons what they are – integral structured professional experiences designed to further help practitioners learn how to learn how to teach.
Without the 10 components the enquiry is not an RLesson. (See the Step by step approach on the next page).
Pete Dudley. RTF. Research Lesson Study metapedagogy project.
Paper presented at the ESRC TLRP Conference, Cardiff, Nov 2004.
22

(From ‘Getting Started with Research Lessons’, P Dudley, NCSL 2004)
Pete Dudley. RTF. Research Lesson Study metapedagogy project.
Paper presented at the ESRC TLRP Conference, Cardiff, Nov 2004.
23

Appendix 2.
Peer coaching, specialist coaching and research lesson study: how are they different and how are they best deployed?
Some thoughts P Dudley, 2004
Peer coaching (PC)
Purpose Generation of improvements in practice – sometimes creating new professional knowledge
– and transferring this on. Development and use of professional dialogue.
Specialist coaching (SC)
Transfer of specialist subject or pedagogic knowledge from expert (in specific field) practitioner to coachee
(i.e. not so expert in the specific field).
May lead to ‘expert performance’ development (Desforges, C.W. 2003)
Research Lesson Studies (RLS)
Creation of new pedagogic knowledge to add to existing knowledge-base, making it explicit and public. Explicit commitment to risktaking and ‘failing forwards’.
May lead to coaching.
Features Identification of a focus for learning or problem solving in practice of
The focus may have been identified though monitoring or whole school
Focus determined by absence of publicly available knowledge (often one or both teachers.
Joint planning, teaching/observation, deconstruction and extended professional dialogue. Often this will lead to the identification of a further focus. improvement plan.
Joint planning
Mutual observation
– allows expert to model and demonstrate practice and then observe coachee. Deconstruction and identification of next steps. within a specialist development such as taking on thinking skills in subject X).
Teachers are ‘in role’ as research partners, identified groups of ‘case pupils’ are subjects of plans, observations and analyses. Not ego-involving.
Numbers
Unit of time
Beneficiary
Participant roles
Usually pairs
Variable
– user determined
All participants equally
Equal partners. No power relationships. Where these exist status blindness is encouraged.
Trust vital, relationships develop over time supported by action learning sets etc.
Usually pairs
Variable
All
– user determined
– interestingly the coach gets as much as the coachee (Cordingley).
One partner deemed to some degree expert in the area of focus.
Trust important.
Credibility of coach vital.
Threes plus but can be pairs
Lessons, (sections/sequences of)
The system plus participants.
In roles as researchers.
Shared responsibility for outcome i.e. new knowledge discovered or not. ‘Failure’ is as important as
‘success’. Trust – significant.
–
Formality and culture
Usually more formal. Highly formalized using a design experiment.
Skills demanded
Duration
Capacity/capit al issue
Knowledge base issues
Urgency issues
Can be informal/formal. Generative of collaborative classroom culture as norm.
Questioning,
Interpersonal skills
Creating supported challenge
Can be focused on short targeted observations or observations of whole lessons – either of these can be a ‘cycle’ often of 3-4.
Needs some high quality teachers to begin the process.
Works best where there is a high knowledge base which is accessible to the pairs. Egg. access to some high quality CPD and expertise.
Not a good starter tool in urgent improvement situations but important to build in as capacity and teaching quality grow.
As PC plus assessment of current practice of coachee in specialist area.
As PC but targeted at specific subject or pedagogic learning focus sequences of lessons.
Low
– this will determine the duration egg. maybe developing plenaries or whole
Requires expertise but also generates expertise and capital
Depends on good access to specialist coach and support materials.
Effective in urgent situations where high speed skills and knowledge acquisition is paramount.
Research and enquiry
6.
Not best for use in urgent situations. An R&D end to a rapid teaching improvement intervention however
– on the crest of the sigmoid curve is a good idea.
Low
– good research questions, good analyses.
Can be confined to relevant
‘nugget’ episodes of lessons being researched but usually a cycle of 4-
Requires capital and capacity.
Works best where knowledge base is thin or there are gaps and there is little or no access to specialist knowledge.
Dependency High on existing relationships
Focus of observation
Instigation – voluntarism v
Varies
– teacher, teaching, pupils, whole class
Needs to build on trust not power.
Partners may choose each other. compulsion
Accountabilit The participants
– and action
New specialist skills, technique, subject knowledge – teacher/pupils
The subject and coachee
Case pupils’ progress and behavior and related teaching
The public knowledge-base,
Pete Dudley. RTF. Research Lesson Study metapedagogy project.
Paper presented at the ESRC TLRP Conference, Cardiff, Nov 2004.
24

y
Suitability to a networked
(crossschool) context
Nuggets/ episodes
Useable data or Meta-data learning set
In principle yes but relationships are key so difficult to start
Maybe
Yes- very
Maybe school/network
Yes - very
Often
Replicability
No
– there may be records participants plans, records of debrief and video etc if made
– but often confidentiality prevents
Potentially - Participants plans, record of debrief and video etc. if made. Some outcome may be used to coach-on the skill to others. learning traveling.
Dependency on relationship limits Yes this.
High
– user friendly and user driven High – constraint is subject expertise.
An absolute requirement at each stage. Outcomes (eg. Video of
Study) and artifacts to be made accessible to wider audience – published.
Yes – integral to the design
Ease of use Not user driven or easy but formulaic design makes replicable.
Ways of establishing safe space
Ways of handling beliefs
Artifacts/outc omes are generative of learning beyond the context
Best used
Has the potential to be but not integral – but can be viral.
(a) Where the extent, quality and accessibility of the public knowledge-base is high.
(b) Where there is sufficient high teaching quality in the mix to ensure improvements are possible from pairings
Best not use (c ) Where urgency is high unless as a capacity building measure in conjunction with specialist coaching and closely managed.
Has the potential to be but not integral. Always
– transfer beyond the participants is a requirement.
Recorded outcomes (metadata) contribute to a searchable of
(b) Where capacity is low/moderate in the specialist area and expertise is available.
(c ) Where urgency is high.
(a) In conjunction with research lesson study, where a school/network is seeking to increase already high database of practice. Those who want to plan online get instant referrals to other RLS.
(a) Where the knowledge-base is thin in the area you are trying to improve. Where you are learning
‘ on behalf of’ others as an enquiry driven approach to a network-wide capacity by developing/innovating more specialist knowledge.
Where the aim is to create greater autonomy and self-responsibility for focused aim.
(b) in conjunction with specialist coaching where capacity is variable or low.
(c ) where urgency is high or capacity very low. The level of professional learning dependent teachers who need to develop classroom enquiry practices. specificity in the design can lead to capacity developing rapidly from a low base
Pete Dudley. RTF. Research Lesson Study metapedagogy project.
Paper presented at the ESRC TLRP Conference, Cardiff, Nov 2004.
25