Lesson Study (LS), originally developed in Japan a century ago, is a collaborative form of professional development involving a plan-do-review model of practice (Lewis, 1998). It is now used internationally in different variations including the UK and other European countries. Despite some variations in LS practice, the basic principle involves teacher collaboration to develop a series of research lessons in which different approaches to teaching are tried to improve specific forms of pupil learning (Takahashi and Yoshida, 2004). In the UK version of LS, the LS cycle usually consists of three research lessons, each preceded and followed by review and planning meetings. LS teams consist of teachers and the focus is 1-2 case pupils who are the focus for the planning and evaluation. These pupils are identified depending on the topic and aims of the LS (Dudley, 2012).

This paper aims present an overview of a programme of research and development trials that adapted and developed LS principles and procedures that are relevant to inclusive teaching, the dynamic assessment of learning needs and inter-professional collaboration. The paper also aims to present some specific findings of the latest trial in this series which focussed on the inter-professional collaboration between teachers and practitioner educational psychologists using LS to further develop the teaching of pupils with learning difficulties.

The typical LS model has been modified in various ways but there have been few studies in relation to inclusive and special needs education. Some have adapted the model for the training of special education teachers in Singapore to include support staff from health services (Chia, 2013). Some current research in Sweden, Netherlands and the UK, including what is summarised in this paper, has been applied LS to inclusive settings (Goei, Cai and Kee, 2017). This programme of UK trials involves the following trials:

Trial 1: Teaching pupils with moderate learning difficulties. In this trial the LS purpose was to develop adapted teaching approaches. The LS team members were class teachers (Norwich and Ylonen, 2013; Norwich and Jones, 2014). It is the flexibility of LS that enables it to be used to develop teaching approaches for pupils with learning difficulties and disabilities.

Trial 2: Assessing learning needs of pupils with learning difficulties. In this trial the LS purpose was assessment. The LS team members were class teachers and SEN coordinators (Norwich, Dudley and Ylonen, 2014). It is the assessment of case pupil learning in response to the teaching in the research lesson that enables LS to be used as a form of response to teaching or dynamic assessment of pupils with learning difficulties (Laughlan and Carrington, 2013).

Trial 3: Inter-professional collaboration with University specialists. In this trial the LS purpose was to develop adapted teaching approaches. The LS team members were class teachers and university based mathematics educationalists and practitioner/ research psychologists (Norwich et al., 2016). LS provides the means of bringing together teachers’ practical pedagogic knowledge with other types of knowledge relevant to teaching and learning, such as the professional knowledge of allied professionals and research/ theoretically based knowledge.  This was the basis for this and the fourth trial.

Trial 4:  Inter-professional collaboration with local practitioner educational psychologists. In his trial the LS purpose was to develop adapted teaching approaches informed by working memory theory and practices. The LS team members were class teachers and the schools’ practitioner educational psychologists.

The fourth trial was designed to address these questions:

1. To what extent and how was working memory knowledge translated into teaching practice?
2. How did the LS team interact with each other?
3. What processes and contexts were identified by team members as influencing LS outcomes?

Alloway, T (2007) Automated Working Memory Assessment manual. Pearson Publishers. Chia, N.K.H. (2013), “Modified lesson study within the integrated teaching-learning framework for professional development of special education teachers”, Educational Research International, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 22-33. Dudley, P. (2012), Lesson Study development in England: from school networks to national policy, International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 85-100. Goei, S.L., Cai, N., & Kee, N. (2017) Lesson Study in Inclusive Educational Settings. (eds., in press) Taylor & Francis. Laughlan, F. and Carrington, D. (2013) Improving Learning Through Dynamic Assessment: A Practical Classroom Resource, Jessica Kingsley, London Lewis, C. (1998), A lesson is like a swiftly flowing river: how research lessons improve Japanese education, American Educator, Vol. 10 No. 9, pp. 12-17, 50-51. Norwich, B., and Ylonen, A. (2013) “Design based research to develop the teaching of pupils with moderate learning difficulties (MLD): Evaluating lesson study in terms of pupil, teacher and school outcomes”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 34, pp. 162-173. Norwich, B and Jones J. (2014) Lesson Study: making a difference to teaching pupils with learning difficulties. London: Continuum Publishers. Norwich, B., Dudley, P. and Ylonen, A. (2014) Using lesson study to assess pupils’ learning difficulties. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies Vol. 3 No. 2, 192-207. Norwich, B., Koutsouris, G., Fujita, T., Ralph, T., Adlam, A. and Milton, F. (2016) Exploring knowledge bridging and translation in lesson study using an inter-professional team. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 180-195. Takahashi, A. and Yoshida, M. (2004), “Ideas for establishing lesson-study communities”, Teaching Children Mathematics, Vol. 10 No. 9, pp. 436-443.