Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The lesson study (LS) model, which originated in Japan, has become popular all over the world. This article will highlight some of the challenges encountered when the LS model was picked up and introduced in a local school context in a Norwegian municipality. The article views this process in the light of research on LS-model transfer into local contexts in various countries, and considers the impact modes of collaboration have on the implementation of a borrowed idea. The aim has been to reflect upon the challenges encountered in transforming a global idea into local practice. A four-stage composite-process model has provided the framework for this personal reflection: stage 1: cross-national attraction; stage 2: decision-making; stage 3: implementation; and stage 4: internalisation. The article argues that the LS model may undergo a transformation from an idea that is global, into a practice that is glocal.

Keywords

Borrowing an idea lesson study local practice glocalisation

Introduction

The processes of globalisation and internationalisation have become important features of all aspects of society, including the world of education (Schriewer, 2003). Global information flow within the education network is in a process of intensification and acceleration, facilitated by modern information and communication technologies. As a result, global ideas are transforming national education systems around the world (Seddon et al., 2013). Globalisation brings new frameworks to local schools that have implications for school owners, school leaders and teachers.

The teaching profession has had close connections with the political and cultural interests in every nation state. In every country, in all regions and within every school there is a need to develop the teaching profession so that all pupils learn optimally. The development of teacher professionalism is currently a global theme. Ideas related to teaching and learning, are quickly spreading far and wide in an open and shared-knowledge world. The profession is no longer defined by national interests alone. In this way, globalisation is challenging teachers’ impact on education (Ellis et al., 2010). New ideas will be converted to suit the local context. Globalisation may change local cultures through global ideas, mindsets and systems. The relationship between the global and local can be described as a “glocal” perspective (Oanh, 2012; Trippestad, 2013). The meaningful integration of local and global forces can help teachers to enhance their teaching practice.

National education authorities, school owners, municipality leaders, school administrators, teachers, teacher educators, researchers and/or parents often think that any new and interesting pedagogical idea that emerges in the international arena must be brought home and implemented. But the implementation and internalization of a borrowed idea in a different context can influence the original idea (Phillips and Ochs, 2003).

There are various educational models which have moved from local origins in one country and been implemented in other countries and other school cultures. One example is the lesson study (LS) model, a model in which the focus is on a central issue and development phases. The LS model supports teachers in developing their own teaching practices as a means to increase their pupils’ learning. The LS model can give the teachers the opportunity to develop their own teaching skills on the basis of problems experienced in their classrooms (Lewis, 2002). The model originated in Japan; it then gained a foothold in the USA and is now spreading to other countries.

The aim of this article is to contribute to the discussion about the consequences of transforming a global idea into local practice. We will highlight some challenges experienced when a global educational idea (LS) is picked up and introduced in a local school context in a Norwegian municipality. Our reflections have been structured by the critical framework for global-policy borrowing developed by Phillips and Ochs (2003): stage 1: cross-national attraction; stage 2: decision-making; stage 3: implementation; and stage 4: internalisation. We argue that local culture needs to be considered very carefully when appropriating successful, global ideas. Furthermore, the article argues that the LS model may undergo a transformation from an idea that is global, into a practice that is glocal.

Borrowing a global pedagogical model

Educators' professionalisation projects have been historically anchored in national institutional trajectories, but these national pedagogical practices are now encountering global reforms and ideas (Seddon et al., 2013). Sometimes this may be the result of a growing dissatisfaction with the education system; for example, negative feedback from external evaluations such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) may cause national education authorities to look to the more successful countries and borrow their pedagogical models. Sometimes the impetus may come from influential researchers’ reports on powerful education strategies employed abroad. And sometimes this turn to external sources may be the result of internal political change (Phillips and Ochs, 2003).

Teaching in a globalised world leads to an on-going discussion of the different school systems in various countries. It is not a new phenomenon that educators are interested in borrowing ideas that they think may improve their own education system (Phillips, 2005), and it is now common practice in most countries. According to Phillips and Ochs (2003), the term “borrowing” can be used to cover issues related to concepts such as copying, transfer, importation, appropriation and assimilation. The term coined for the process by which foreign models are imported and domesticated is “glocalisation”, a combination of globalisation and localisation (Oanh, 2012). Friedman (1999) defines glocalisation as the ability to absorb an idea from another culture into one’s own culture. Glocalisation embraces both global, international ideas; and local cultures and values. In this article, glocal is understood as the result of the interaction between a global pedagogical model (LS) and the local school-culture.

Points to consider when borrowing a model

Critics claim that contextual prerequisites are seldom taken into consideration when transferring a pedagogical model from one country to another (Halpin and Troyna, 1995). Such a transfer may have serious implications. One implication may be that, in order to convince the authorities, educators and teachers in the adopting country may “glorify” the model or the negative aspects of the current situation regarding pupils' learning are exaggerated. Another implication may be that success stories from elsewhere in the world exert a strong influence on opinion, thereby consolidating the new models and ideas. Rarely is there any attempt to evaluate the complexities involved in the transfer process prior to the implementation of a new pedagogical idea or practice.

It is very important to identify which contextual factors are significant for the successful implementation of an idea. The philosophy underlying the local pedagogical ideology needs to be as similar as possible to that in which the model was developed (Phillips, 2005). This also applies to such aspects as the curricula, the assessment methods, and the principles of pupil democracy and parental involvement.

A global pedagogical idea may encounter a national culture that differs at the macro-level, as well as with regard to education issues. The seriousness of the implementations will depend on a large number of contextual factors, which may affect both the development process and the potential for implementation (Phillips and Ochs, 2003). For that reason, studies on the implementation of borrowed educational ideas may reveal a great deal about the culture and the context the idea is being introduced into (Grimsæth and Hallås, in press). Other studies show that frequent education reforms do not necessarily change what happens in the classroom; teaching practice may become immutable in a culture (Seddon et al., 2013). The ways in which local educators encounter and renegotiate borrowed ideas is of great importance. The educational discourse in the nation borrowing or adopting an idea or an educational model has a great impact on whether or not the outcome is successful and the idea is adopted (Schön, 1983).

According to Murata (2010), it is more effective to study and develop one's own practice as a basis for professional development than to adopt new pedagogical ideas as a starting point. Nevertheless, global pedagogical ideas are transforming national education systems (Seddon et al., 2013). An educational idea is always born and nurtured in a specific context; the degree to which “borrowed” or “travelling” ideas are adopted or adapted in a country will therefore depend on that country's contextual factors (Phillips and Ochs, 2003).

Borrowing pedagogical ideas from another country may require that certain premises are met. Halpin and Troyna (1995) assert that borrowing pedagogical ideas from other countries is more likely when some characteristics of the two land's educational systems with relation to their dominant ideologies are synchronic. The significance of context is a complex issue that should also be taken into consideration. Things outside the education sector govern what happens inside schools. Political, social and religious factors can have a great impact on the education system with regard to both the borrowing of an idea and the stages of development. An examination of both the target country and the home country is essential in order to understand the similarities and differences between the two, since these may affect implementation (Phillips and Ochs, 2003). Another issue is that the processes involved in the implementation of an education idea can take a long time (Halpin and Troyna, 1995). The speed of change depends on how convinced the participants are. People or institutions in positions of power can delay or even prevent change. Thus, decisions to implement a global model should not be based on sudden enthusiasm and quick decisions, but rather on a deeper investigation of the model and a comparison of the socio-cultural principles of the two countries.

A global idea – the lesson study model

Lesson study has become a global pedagogical model which is now being transformed into different local practices around the world. In Japan, LS is an accepted part of teachers' everyday practice (Fernandez, 2002; Lewis, 2000; Lewis and Tsuchida, 1998). It has been practised since the 19th century in Japan and has played a role in professional development from the 1960s onwards (Lewis, 2000; Murata, 2010; Ono and Ferreira, 2010). With their book The Teaching Gap, Stigler and Hiebert (1999) brought LS to the attention of a broader audience.

LS has spread to many countries around the world, including the USA (Cerbin and Kopp, 2006; Fernandez et al., 2003; Lewis et al., 2004; Murata, 2010; Parks, 2009; Perry and Lewis, 2008), some Asian countries (Lee, 2008; Saito et al., 2006), Israel (Robinson and Leikin, 2012), Australia (Sam et al., 2005), South Africa (Ono and Ferreira, 2010), and also European countries (Davies and Dunnill, 2008; Dudley, 2013; Eriksson and Ståhle, 2010).

In Norway, there are few examples of researches on LS interventions (Grimsæth and Hallås, 2011, in press; Munthe et al., 2013). Our most recent research (Grimsæth and Hallås, in press) was based on the implementation of the LS model in four teacher groups in three schools in a small municipality in Norway. Coincidentally, the Ministry of Education and Research in Norway (The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2013) announced a “competence development” initiative that would be implemented first in upper-secondary school; the aim is to develop the general knowledge, attitudes, and learning, and the teaching and collaboration skills in schools. In this national priority programme, the LS model is recommended as an important model for teachers to follow in sharing experiences and reflecting on their own teaching practice.

LS: the basics

The LS model is a professional development model the aim of which is to improve teaching practice (Cerbin and Kopp, 2006). It focuses both on improving the planning prior to a lesson, and on building strategies for better instruction to improve pupils’ learning (Lewis et al., 2004).

In the LS model, a group of teachers prepare a detailed lesson plan with a specific learning goal. The procedure is as follows (Lewis, 2002):

The teachers set the goals for pupils’ learning based on what the students are struggling with in a subject or in relation to a theme;

The teachers collaborate to develop a plan for a teaching session to achieve the learning goals;

One of the teachers implements the teaching session in a so-called Research Lesson, while the others collect data about different aspects of the lesson by observation and filming;

In a post-lesson discussion, the teachers analyse their observations and the film in order to determine whether the teaching resulted in goal achievement;

If necessary, they plan improvements in their teaching practice for a new lesson.

The process of borrowing a pedagogical idea – a framework for discussion

Phillips and Ochs (2003) have developed a composite process for analysing policy borrowing in education which can serve as explanatory and analytical devices. They view policy borrowing as a sequence of four key stages which illustrate the borrowing process. The four stages are: stage1: cross-national attraction; stage 2: decision-making; stage 3: implementation; and stage 4: internalisation (Phillips, 2005; Phillips and Ochs, 2003, 2004). The issue of the time required to complete this process is complex; it is hard to say exactly when the process starts and when the idea is completely internalised. Throughout these four stages, careful consideration of the national and local context and pedagogical culture is considered essential.

In this article, this four-staged composite process (Phillips and Ochs, 2003) will be presented and used as a framework for a discussion of the transformation of a global idea, LS, into a local practice. We will highlight some of the challenges encountered when the LS model was picked up and introduced into a local Norwegian school context.

Stage 1: cross-national attraction

Cross-national attraction includes impulses which spark off the interest for change (Phillips and Ochs, 2003). One such impulse may be internal dissatisfaction among school stakeholders in the local context; another may derive from the need for educational reconstruction after a systemic collapse. Negative external evaluation, e.g. pupils’ attainment on TIMSS and PISA, may also provide the impulse for a change in direction. Other impulses include sudden changes in the national economy, political imperatives or political context; or innovations in the field of knowledge/skills. According to Phillips and Ochs (2003), globalising tendencies may also serve as an impulse, encouraging borrowing of a successful idea from abroad.

In relation to our project, the impulses in this first stage came from a global tendency; national and international research indicates that teachers consider their own learning to be the most important factor in their professional development, and thus for the outcome of the pupils’ learning (Postholm, 2010; Timperley et al., 2007; Wall et al., 2009). Another influential research finding was that reflection based on concrete observation is the best strategy for further developing one’s own teaching practices (Clausen et al., 2009; Ono and Ferreira, 2010; Postholm, 2008; Timperley et al., 2007). Timperley et al. (2007) stress that three factors have a positive impact on developing teachers’ professional practice: teachers’ conceptions about learning; their participation in professional networks; and the support provided by external experts. These factors coincide with the notion of basic comprehension in the LS model.

We first developed our knowledge about LS in cooperation with a professor from a Nordic university. We then participated in several seminars and carried out an in-depth study of the LS model. To further develop our own professional competence related to the LS model, we invited master's students, colleagues and teachers from different schools to participate in discussions of the model. In addition, we published two articles (Grimsæth, 2013; Grimsæth and Hallås, 2011) and a book (Grimsæth and Hallås, 2013) in which the LS model is central; presented a paper at a local conference (Hallås et al., 2013); and were participants in a DVD production about the LS model (Grinde, 2012). Cross-national impulses inspired us to further study of LS and particularly of how the model would support the development of teacher practice.

Stage 2: decision making

Decision making may be divided into several categories (Phillips and Ochs, 2003): theoretical; realistic and practical; quick-fix; and phoney. All these factors may be involved in the decision-making process. Theoretical decision making includes situations in which education is prioritised by the authorities, who then decide to borrow a pedagogical idea. Realistic and practical decision making is based on success reported in another local context, and the notion that the outcomes may be the same in the “home” context. Quick-fix decision making is often employed by education authorities who need better results immediately or who follow the advice of outside advisers who do not have the necessary knowledge about the local context; the outcomes may be the opposite of those intended. The fourth category, phoney decision making, is employed by authorities who want to adopt a foreign model for the sake of immediate effects, although there is little likelihood of it being introduced into the “home” system.

With regard to this second stage decision making in our project, we were invited to collaborate with a municipality in which the leader prioritised the development of education. Better learning results (TIMMS and PISA) achieved in other countries served as an impulse for the teachers and municipal leader to develop their own professionalism in order to support pupils' learning. When starting up a local research project based on global as well as local challenges, the theoretical priority was to supplement the teachers’ knowledge and skills related to educational issues they had expressed a need to develop. LS presented itself as a possible model for this project; this was a theoretical decision based on international research and experience gained first in Japan and then in other countries. It was a model that scored highly on results in developing teacher practice, and thereby on pupils' learning outcomes.

As researchers, we considered the LS model practical and realistic to carry out. In our first meeting with the municipal leader and all the school leaders, we suggested the LS model as a basis for developing teacher professionalism and teaching practice. The municipal leader agreed because the LS model had been a great success in other countries; the researchers became partners, responsible for the process, and there were no costs for the local authorities. The municipal leader then invited the school leaders to participate. When five (of nine) leaders immediately announced their interest, the municipal leader decided that three schools could start implementing LS, while the rest would be invited to join later. The nature of this decision-making process on the part of the municipal leader and the school leaders may indicate a quick-fix approach (Phillips and Ochs, 2003). This decision may have been influenced by a significant actor, the municipal leader. In addition, the collaboration with external experts (ourselves as researchers) and our advice about using the LS model may have strongly influenced the decision.

Stage 3: implementation

The implementation of a borrowed pedagogical idea, according to Phillips (2005), will depend on a large number of contextual conditions in the new country. Implementation is a time-consuming and complex process that requires an approach that is both long-term and systematic. The rate of change will depend on the attitudes of the actors who are supposed to participate in the implementation. These people are in a position to resist or delay change (Phillips and Ochs, 2004).

Local contexts and school cultures differ among countries. Different priorities have developed over time in various ways. The issue of context, both the national and the local, must be taken into consideration as contextual forces may have a great impact, or a variety of effects, on the process and the outcome of the implementation. The influence of social and cultural factors can be particularly significant on the process, and thereby on the results of the implementation. In addition, the dialectical relationship between continuity and change is of great importance for the transformation of social structures (Ellis et al., 2010).

In the process of implementing a borrowed idea into a local school context, collaboration among the participants is essential in order to establish a common understanding of the new idea and what consequences it implies. It is important to establish a collaborative culture that can support the process of change in schools (Fullan, 2001; Hargreaves, 1996). This is of particular importance with regard to the LS model, which is itself based on collaboration. Our project/research (Grimsæth and Hallås, in press) findings revealed that the content of the LS and the way of collaborating within the participating teacher groups seems to be quite different compared, for example, to teachers in Japan. It is important, therefore, to consider the notion of collaboration in greater depth and the impact this had for our experimental implementation of a global idea, the LS model, into a Norwegian local context.

According to Saito and Atencio (2013), it is important to pay much more attention to issues such as social interaction and group dynamics when the LS model is introduced to teachers in a new and distinct culture. Darling-Hammond and Richardson (2009) highlight that what is required for this model to succeed is collaborative work in trusting environments which allow teachers to take risks, and most importantly, to address and discuss dilemmas in their own practice. In this study, the teachers’ discussions of their practice may have been influenced by the fact that, by introducing the LS model, and thus collaborative planning, we may have challenged the teachers’ positions in the staff hierarchy. The participating teachers may have considered it insolent to criticise one of their colleagues, as well as quite revealing of themselves. The results may also be a consequence of their lack of experience in collaboration.

Collaboration is common practice for Japanese teachers (Lewis and Tsuchida, 1998). The Japanese teachers look upon themselves as researchers on their own teaching practice in addition to being teachers. Japanese teachers participate in ongoing programmes for professional development, and collaboration is central to this process (Stigler and Hiebert, 1999). In Norway, however, collaboration has not taken the same form. Collaboration is mostly a matter of coordination, planning and practical arrangements (Raaen and Aamodt, 2010). The collegial dialogue concentrated on professional correctives which could improve teaching quality is little developed in Norway. Vibe et al. (2009) found that the culture for giving feedback to another teacher’s work was only slightly developed in Norwegian schools, and there was little focus on the quality in teaching. During the last decade, the school authorities have increasingly claimed that schools are “knowledge organisations” and that collaboration is strongly linked to the notion of school as “a learning organisation” (Education and Research Ministry, 2004). It may be difficult to move from a pattern of individual, often isolated, practice to one of collaborative practice. This kind of process requires an open, supportive form of communication (Argyris, 1990; Munthe and Postholm, 2012). It involves a shift in the participants’ attitudes toward the way teachers communicate and collaborate based on critical thinking, and is a very complex and challenging process. The process of change may therefore take years in Norway, as it has elsewhere (Hargreaves, 1996; Ono and Ferreira, 2010; Schön, 1983; Stigler and Hiebert, 1999). Another reason why a shift in the modes of communication and collaboration is necessary may be related to the fact that critical reflection on one’s own knowledge and practice will always be essential, wherever we are (Schön, 1983), and may therefore be understood as a universal attribute of professional learning; Eraut (1994) emphasises that in professional life there is limited time for deliberation and consequently also a strong tendency to perpetuate an already established mindset. He also maintains that to overcome this tendency, it is essential to consult with or involve others. An open, discursive mode of collaboration becomes essential.

Special factors inherent in Norwegian schools, which are a product of national and local culture, may have influenced our implementation of the LS model in some teacher groups. The implementation of this borrowed educational model revealed a great deal about the culture and the context the idea was being introduced into. It was evident that the teachers’ lack of experience in co-planning and collaboration, including the requisite skills in constructive criticism, had implications for their analysis of their own research lessons (Grimsæth and Hallås, in press). How the culture of teacher collaboration had evolved and its features had consequences for the outcome of LS. As a result, the way the teachers collaborated had a great impact on the implementation stage. It is interesting, therefore, to examine what research from other countries has revealed about the impact of collaboration on the implementation of LS in their local context.

LS and collaboration in different countries

The LS model is premised on teachers' collaboration. However, research reveals that collaboration is not easily achieved (Hargreaves, 1996). Fernandez (2002) found, in her LS research in the USA, that participants in the collaboration phase were not able “to move beyond the simply looking at their teaching to seeing what is of value in this teaching to them as learners” (Fernandez, 2002: 400). Junge (2012) extracted another issue from her research; when collaborating, the teachers' talk had certain characteristics that limited their learning potential; what they talked about was what happened in class and it was more descriptive than explorative. Talking about a pedagogical issue does not necessarily require analysis or critique of one's own practice (Parks, 2009). Parks concluded that collaborative groups can resist a deeper analysis and discourse about what is going on, and thereby exclude innovation.

Fernández (2010) maintains that active learning among teachers involves a meaningful discussion, and this is one of the important topics in professional development in the LS model. Rønnestad (2008) argues that a continuous reflection process is the most important aspect in professional development. Murata (2010) mentions that understanding will be developed and can change through dialogue, as in the LS model, and changes in teaching practice can be facilitated through analysing familiar performed practice.

The LS model requires the teachers to develop a research-oriented approach and an inquisitive attitude (see above). Robinson and Leikin (2012) also argue that collaborative ‘noticing’ and awareness, together with brainstorming, are core mechanisms for positive teacher change. When introducing LS in the USA, Fernandez (2002) found that American teachers had to “overcome the fear of making one's teaching public” (Fernandez, 2002: 398) and they needed necessary skills to “adopt a research stance” (Fernandez, 2002: 400) so they would be able to pose “rich, researchable questions”, “specify the type of evidence to be collected” and “interpret and generalize results” (Fernandez, 2002: 400). Fernandez et al. (2003) highlight that, if teachers are to benefit from LS, they first “need to learn how to apply critical lenses to their examination of lessons” (Fernandez et al., 2003: 171). In order to learn this, and as a part of the LS model, the teachers meet after the lesson to examine the evidence related to the learning goals and to reflect on how the lesson was executed (Lewis and Tsuchida, 1998). International research on LS reveals that the way teachers collaborate and how they talk is crucial for the outcome of the LS model (Dudley, 2013; Perry and Lewis, 2008). Reflection, explorative discussions, interpretation, and professional correctives offered in a supporting way make a decision for the quality of the outcome. There is a need to examine, when using LS over time, whether and how the quality of collaboration will succeed and how this may influence the outcome of LS (Fernandez et al., 2003; Munthe and Postholm, 2012).

Stage 4: the internalisation stage

The final stage of the framework is called internalisation (Phillips, 2005). Phillips (2005) defines this stage as the process where a borrowed policy becomes part of the system of education of the borrower country. In our case, the borrowed international idea, the LS model, was intended to become a part of the education system of the participating teachers in the local municipality.

According to Ochs (2006), the internalisation stage is an iterative and on-going process. Seddon et al. (2013) focus on the ways educators renegotiate ideas that travel globally, and on “boundary work” that may hinder the complete internalisation of the idea. Within every national education system, the globally mobile ideas encounter institutional trajectories. Therefore, it is difficult to say whether or not the original idea has been internalised. Our experience showed that the mode of collaboration among some teachers in some schools in Norway was quite unlike that in Japan when using the LS model. Or we might say that a hundred years of using the LS model has given the Japanese teachers a great advantage in developing a culture for collaboration. It is not easy, therefore, to determine the extent of the impact the global idea, LS, had on the participating teachers in the local system. As discussed, collaboration is an essential part of LS and will influence the outcome and possible change in a new context. Further research is necessary to determine whether LS as a working model will influence the way teachers collaborate. Moreover, changes in culture with regard to what we talk about and how we talk take time and have to be associated with an intentional need (Hargreaves, 1996; Ono and Ferreira, 2010; Schön, 1983; Stigler and Hiebert, 1999).

The absorption of external features into the new context will be part of the internalisation process; or in our case, the extent to which external features related to the LS model become part of the new context. Features such as joint lesson planning, observation of one another’s lessons and in-depth discussions of pupils’ learning may give the teachers impulses for further collaboration. Phillips and Ochs (2004) discuss the process of re-contextualisation in acknowledging that context effects the interpretation and implementation of the borrowed idea. Thus, the LS model may have caused small changes in the context; for instance, by allowing teachers to take risks, and most importantly, to address and discuss dilemmas in their own practice.

With regard to synthesis, in the sense that the LS model has become part of the overall strategy, it seems that the four teacher groups and their leaders will need an extraordinary amount of time to introduce and spread the LS model; it will take time for it to become an integral part of the development of educational practice in their schools.

Further investigation is required in order to determine whether and how the LS model has changed the quality of the participating teachers' practice, has influenced the way they learn and the development of their professionalism, and has been incorporated into their work in the local school context. The systemic implementation of LS may, in the long term, improve education, and initiate necessary change for teachers in the local context (Fernandez et al., 2003; Munthe and Postholm, 2012).

Close examination of context is essential in order to find out the extent to which new features have been incorporated into the teachers’ work or spread in the schools (Phillips, 2005). It is of great interest to determine the extent to which the teachers and leaders in our municipality borrowed and implemented the LS model; and not least, to see if there is any indication that the LS model has become a glocal model.

The LS model: the challenge of transforming a global idea into local practice

In this article we have, through personal reflection, highlighted some of the challenges encountered when the LS model was picked up and introduced in a local school context in a Norwegian municipality. The four-stage composite-process model has provided the framework for this reflection: stage 1: cross-national attraction; stage 2: decision-making; stage 3: implementation; and stage 4: internalisation (Phillips and Ochs, 2003). We have considered in greater depth the influence of the local context on collaboration when implementing a global idea, the LS model.

Cross-national attractions include impulses which spark off the interest in change. The next stage, decision making, is carried out by authorities on the national level, as well as on the local level. The third stage, implementation, depends on a large number of contextual conditions; this is a time-consuming and complex process that requires a long-term and systematic approach. Context is of crucial importance to the development of educational systems (Phillips and Ochs, 2003). Differences between contexts may have a great impact on the outcomes of borrowed pedagogical ideas. In this article, this issue is discussed in relation to the use of the LS model in various countries; and more specifically, how teachers collaborate. On the one hand, the relationship between core values in national culture and local school culture is considered; on the other hand, teacher practice both in and outside the classroom is examined. Cultural norms are evident in the way in which the teachers collaborate and how they talk. The final stage of the framework, internalisation, is achieved when a borrowed policy becomes part of the system of education of the borrowing country.

A global pedagogical idea may undergo a transformation when picked up by education and school authorities and introduced in a local school context. This transformation from global to local practices may be considered a process of glocalisation.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Professor Viv Ellis, Brunel University, London and Associate Professor Barbara Joan Blair, Bergen University College, for their valuable comments on previous drafts of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by funding from Bergen University College, Centre for Educational Research.

Gerd Grimsæth is an Associate Professor in Education at the Faculty of Education at the Bergen University College in Norway. Her research focus is in the areas of newly qualified teachers’ situation, professional development, teaching practice and the use of the Lesson Study model.

Bjørg Oddrun Hallås is an Associate Professor in Physical Education at the Faculty of Education at the Bergen University College in Norway. Her research focus is in the areas of Physical Education, Outdoor Education, teaching practice and the use of the Lesson Study model.

References

Argyris

(1990) Bryt Forsvarsrutiner. Hvordan Lette Organisasjonslæring, Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.

Cerbin

Kopp

(2006) Lesson study as a model for building pedagogical knowledge and improving teaching. International Journal of Teaching in Higher Education 18(3): 250–257.

Clausen

Aquino

A-M

Wideman

(2009) Bridging real ideal: a comparison between learning community characteristics and a school-based case study. Teaching and Teacher Education 25(3): 444–452.

Darling-Hammond

Richardson

(2009) Teacher learning: what matters? Educational Leadership 66(5): 46–53.

Davies

Dunnill

(2008) 'Learning Study' as a model of collaborative practice in initial teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching 34(1): 3–16.

Dudley

(2013) Teacher learning in lesson study: what interaction-level discourse analysis revealed about teachers utilised imagination, tacit knowledge of teaching and fresh evidence of pupils learning, to develop practice knowledge and so enhance their pupils' learning. Teaching and Teacher Education 34(2013): 107–121.

Education and Research Ministry/Utdannings- og forskningsdepartementet (2004) St. meld. Nr. 30 (2003–2004). Kultur for læring. Available at: http://www.regjeringen.no/Rpub/STM/20032004/030/PDFS/STM200320040030000DDDPDFS.pdf (accessed 20 March 2014).

Ellis

Edwards

Smagorinsky

(2010) Introduction. In: Ellis

Edwards

Smagorinsky

(eds) Cultural–Historical Perspectives on Teacher Education and Development, London, UK and New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 1–11.

Eraut

(1994) Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence, London, UK: Falmer Press.

10.

Eriksson

Ståhle

(2010) Mätandets Ide – En Learning Study i Botkyrka Kommun, Rapport. Stockholm: Institutionen för Didaktik och Pedagogisk Arbete, Stockholm Universitet.

11.

Fernandez

(2002) Learning from Japanese approaches to professional development. Journal of Teacher Education 53(5): 393–405.

12.

Fernandez

Cannon

Chokshi

(2003) A US–Japan lesson study collaboration reveals critical lenses for examining practice. Teaching and Teacher Education 19(2): 171–185.

13.

Fernández

(2010) Investigating how and what prospective teachers learn through microteaching lesson study. Teaching and Teacher Education 26(2): 351–362.

14.

Friedman

(1999) The Lexus and the Olive Tree, New York, NY: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

15.

Fullan

(2001) Leading in a Culture of Change, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

16.

Grimsæth

(2013) Undervisningspraksisens muligheter. Spesialpedagogikk 78(1): 14–18.

17.

Grimsæth

Hallås

(2011) Når lærere ønsker å utvikle egen undervisningspraksis. Bedre Skole 2: 82–84.

18.

Grimsæth

Hallås

(2013) Undervisningspraksis. Profesjonalitet i skolen, Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.

19.

Grimsæth G and Hallås O (in press) Lesson study: an analysis of its implementation in four Norwegian schools.

20.

Grinde

(2012) Lesson Study, DVD Bergen: Høgskolen i Bergen. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-Yjl6cH3hE.

21.

Hallås

Grimsæth

Subba

(2013) Lesson Study – En Modell for Utvikling av Undervisningspraksisen, Bergen, Norway: Høgskolen i Bergen.

22.

Halpin

Troyna

(1995) The politics of education policy borrowing. Comparative Education 31(3): 303–310.

23.

Hargreaves

(1996) Lærerarbeid og skolekultur, Oslo: Ad Notam Gyldendal.

24.

Junge

(2012) Kjennetegn ved læreres kollegasamtaler, og betydningen av disse for læringspotensialet i samtalene. Norsk Pedagogisk Tidsskrift 96(5): 373–386.

25.

Lee

JFK

(2008) A Hong Kong case of lesson study: benefits and concerns. Teaching and Teacher Education 24(5): 1115–1124.

26.

Lewis C (2000) Lesson study. The core of Japanese professional development. Paper presented to the American Educational Research Association meetings, New Orleans, 28 April, Session 47.09.

27.

Lewis

(2002) Lesson Study: A Handbook of Teacher-Led Instructional Change, Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better Schools, Inc.

28.

Lewis

Tsuchida

(1998) A lesson is like a swiftly flowing river: how research lessons improve Japanese education. American Educator 22(4): 12–17, 50–52.

29.

Lewis

Perry

Hurd

(2004) A deeper look at lesson study. Educational Leadership 2004: 18–22.

30.

Munthe

Baugstø

Haldorsen

A-K

(2013) Japanske takter i Bømlo kommune. Bedre Skole 1: 11–15.

31.

Munthe

Postholm

(2012) Lærernes profesjonelle læring i skolen. In: Postholm

(eds) Lærere i skolen som organisasjon, Oslo. Norway: Cappelen Damm Høyskoleforlaget, pp. 137–154.

32.

Murata

(2010) Teacher learning with lesson study. In: Peterson

Baker

McGaw

(eds) The International Encyclopedia of Education. Volume 7, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, pp. 575–581.

33.

Oanh

DTH

(2012) Global vs. glocal English: attitudes and conceptions among educators, administrators and teachers in eight Asian countries. In: Kirkpatrick

Sussex

(eds) English as an International Language in Asia: Implications for Language Education, Multilingual Education 1, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science + Business Media, pp. 107–135.

34.

Ochs

(2006) Cross-national policy borrowing and educational innovation: improving achievement in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. Oxford Review of Education 32(5): 599–618.

35.

Ono

Ferreira

(2010) A case study of continuing teacher professional development through lesson study in South Africa. South African Journal of Education 30(1): 59–74.

36.

Parks

(2009) Collaborating about what? An instructor's look at preservice lesson study. Teacher Education Quarterly 36(4): 81–97.

37.

Perry RR and Lewis CC (2008) What is successful adaptation of lesson study in the US? Journal of Educational Change. Springer Science+Buisness Media. DOI 10.1007/s10833-008-9069-7. Available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10833-008-9069-7#page-2 (accessed 5 March 2013).

38.

Phillips

(2005) Policy borrowing in education: frameworks for analysis. In: Zajda

(ed.) International Handbook on Globalisation, Education and Policy Research, Dordrecht: The Netherlands: Springer, pp. 23–34.

39.

Phillips

Ochs

(2003) Process of policy borrowing in education: some explanatory and analytical devices. Comparative Education 39(4): 451–461.

40.

Phillips

Ochs

(2004) Research in policy borrowing: some methodological challenges in comparative education. British Educational Research Journal 30(6): 773–784.

41.

Postholm

(2008) Teachers developing practice: reflection as key activity. Teaching and Teacher Education 24(7): 1717–1728.

42.

Postholm

(2010) Self-regulated pupils in teaching: teachers’ experiences. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 16(4): 491–501.

43.

Raaen

Aamodt

(2010) Samarbeidsrelasjoner i skolen og læreres kvalifisering. In: Haug

(ed.) Kvalifisering til Læraryrket, Oslo, Norway: Abstrakt forlag, pp. 249–271.

44.

Robinson

Leikin

(2012) One teacher, two lessons: the lesson study process. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 10(1): 139–161.

45.

Rønnestad

(2008) Profesjonell utvikling. In: Molander

Terum

(eds) Profesjonsstudier, Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget, pp. 87–102.

46.

Saito

Atencio

(2013) A conceptual discussion of lesson study from a micro-political perspective: implications for teacher development and pupil learning. Teaching and Teacher Education 31: 87–95.

47.

Saito

(2006) Indonesian lesson study in practice: case study of Indonesian mathematics and science teacher education project. Journal of In-Service Education 32(2): 171–184.

48.

Sam LM, White AL and Mon CC (2005) Promoting Mathematics Teacher Collaboration through Lesson Study: What Can We Learn from Two Countries' Experience? pp.135–140. Paper to Conference: “Reform, Revolution and Paradigm Shifts in Mathematics Education”. Johor Bahru, Malaysia, 25 November–1 December.

49.

Schön

(1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, New York, NY: Basic Books.

50.

Schriewer

(2003) Globalisation in education: process and discourse. Policy Futures in Education 1(2): 271–283.

51.

Seddon

Ozga

Levin

(2013) Global transitions and teachers' professionalism. In: Seddon

Levin

(eds) World Yearbook of Education 2013: Educators, Professionalism and Politics: Global Transitions, National Spaces and Professional Projects, London, UK and New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 3–24.

52.

Stigler

Hiebert

(1999) The Teaching Gap: Best Ideas from the World's Teachers for Improving Education in the Classroom, New York, NY: The Free Press, Simon & Schuster Inc.

53.

The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training/Utdanningdsdirektoratet (2013) Plan for Skolebasert Kompetanseutvikling på Ungdomstrinnet 2013–2017, Oslo, Norway: Utdanningsdirektoratet.

54.

Timperley H, et al. (2007) Teacher Professional Learning and Development: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of education. Available at: http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/16901/TPLandDBESentireWeb.pdf (accessed 16 December 2013).

55.

Trippestad TA (2013) The Glocal Teacher and Researcher. Policy, Theory and Practice. Available at: http://www.hib.no/aktuelt/konferanse/2013/The-glocal-teacher-conference-june2013.asp (accessed 10 April 2014).

56.

Vibe N, Aamodt PO and Carlsten TC (2009) Å Være Ungdomsskolelærer i Norge. Resultater fra OECDs Internasjonale Studie av Undervisning og Læring (TALIS). Rapport 23/2009. Oslo, Norway: NIFU STEP.

57.

Wall

(2009) Teacher enquiry as a tool for professional development: investigating pupils’ effective talk when learning. The Australian Educational Researcher 36(2): 93–117.

Lesson study model: The challenge of transforming a global idea into local practice

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Borrowing a global pedagogical model

Points to consider when borrowing a model

A global idea – the lesson study model

LS: the basics

The process of borrowing a pedagogical idea – a framework for discussion

Stage 1: cross-national attraction

Stage 2: decision making

Stage 3: implementation

LS and collaboration in different countries

Stage 4: the internalisation stage

The LS model: the challenge of transforming a global idea into local practice

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Funding

References