This study forms part of a three-year institutional initiative aimed at integrating Lesson Study (LS) into an initial teacher education (ITE) university in Kazakhstan. Adopting an institutional case study design, the research examines (1) teacher educators’ and student-teachers’ perceptions of LS, (2) institutional practices supporting its implementation, and (3) implications for the sustainable institutionalisation of LS within ITE.

Globally, the teaching profession is experiencing increasing complexity as a result of education reforms, accountability pressures, and demands for improved learning outcomes. Across European and international contexts, these challenges have prompted a re-examination of ITE programmes and a call for stronger practice-oriented, inquiry-based approaches that connect theory with authentic classroom experience (OECD, 2011; Darling-Hammond, 2014; Helgevold & Wilkins, 2020). However, international scholarship cautions against reducing practice-based education to technical apprenticeship models, which risk weakening teachers’ critical agency and professional learning capacity (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Beauchamp, 2015; Fullan, 2016). Instead, practice-based inquiry is increasingly viewed as a means of rebalancing the theory–practice relationship in ITE while fostering reflective, research-informed professionalism (Willemse et al., 2015; Frost, 2006).

Within this global shift, LS has gained prominence as a collaborative, inquiry-oriented model of teacher professional learning in ITE (Lamb & Aldous, 2016; Wood et al., 2019). Originating in Japan, LS has been widely adapted across Europe, Asia, and other regions to support teachers’ reflective practice, pedagogical reasoning, and professional dialogue (Cajkler & Wood, 2019; Schipper et al., 2020; Beckmann & Ehmke, 2023). The LS cycle typically involves goal setting, collaborative planning, observation of research lessons, structured reflection, and dissemination of learning (Dudley, 2014). International research demonstrates that LS enhances pre-service and in-service teachers’ pedagogical skills, content knowledge, and instructional decision-making (Cajkler & Wood, 2016; Coenders & Verhoef, 2019).

For teacher educators, LS also provides a platform for modelling inquiry-based professional learning and reshaping traditional hierarchical relationships in ITE toward co-construction of knowledge (Lewis et al., 2009; Dudley, 2014). Consequently, LS has been conceptualised not only as a pedagogical strategy, but as an organisational and cultural innovation capable of addressing the persistent disconnection between university coursework and school practice.

Despite this international interest, research on the institutionalisation of LS within ITE remains limited (Wood et al., 2019). European studies reveal that embedding LS requires attention to organisational conditions such as time allocation, scheduling, leadership support, and recognition of LS as legitimate professional learning (Schipper et al., 2020; Vermunt et al., 2019). UK research demonstrates that when LS is positioned as a structured and coherent element of ITE, it can strengthen university–school partnerships and deepen student-teachers’ pedagogical learning (Cajkler et al., 2013; Cajkler & Wood, 2016). However, international reviews caution that many LS initiatives remain fragmented and dependent on individual enthusiasm rather than systemic institutional commitment (Baumfield et al., 2022).

These international insights are particularly relevant for Kazakhstan, whose teacher education system remains highly centralised and theory-oriented (Sarmurzin et al., 2021; Urkunova et al., 2025). In such contexts, institutionalising LS requires not only pedagogical adaptation but also structural and cultural transformation. Sustainability depends on how effectively LS is embedded within institutional policies, leadership practices, curriculum design, and professional norms (Ni Shuilleabhain & Bjuland, 2019; Wood & Cajkler, 2020).

By situating the Kazakhstan case within European and international scholarship, this study contributes to global debates on how collaborative inquiry models can be adapted across diverse governance and policy environments. The findings offer insights into how LS can function as a bridge between global educational reforms and local institutional realities, and how ITE institutions in centralised systems can move toward more reflective, research-informed, and practice-connected models of teacher education.

This study examined the integration of Lesson Study (LS) within one initial teacher education (ITE) university, with the aims of exploring institutional implementation processes and assessing LS’s potential to transform ITE through practice-based research. The study was guided by three research questions: (1) how teacher educators and student-teachers perceive the role and value of LS; (2) how they experience its implementation; and (3) how they perceive opportunities and challenges related to institutionalising LS. An organisational case-study design was adopted to investigate LS integration within its real-life institutional context (Yin, 2014). The unit of analysis was the LS integration process rather than individual participants, enabling a holistic and process-oriented examination of organisational change. This approach was appropriate given the complexity and context-specific nature of LS implementation in ITE. Data were collected during Year 3 of LS integration, when the initiative had reached greater maturity. At this stage, structured mentoring, reflective online documentation, and collaborative project work were fully embedded, allowing for more informed and critical participant reflections. Multiple qualitative methods were used to ensure triangulation and credibility: open-ended questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and focus groups (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2014). Questionnaires captured participants’ perceptions, satisfaction, challenges, and views on LS’s transformative potential. Interviews provided in-depth insights into individual experiences, while focus groups explored collective perspectives and collaborative dynamics. The case university was selected through purposive sampling as a revelatory case of sustained LS implementation. Random sampling was used to select participants within the LS cohort. In total, 60 student-teachers and 27 teacher educators completed questionnaires. Semi-structured interviews involved 5 student-teachers and 14 faculty members, and focus groups included 5 student-teachers and 5 faculty members, representing diverse subject backgrounds. Data were analysed using iterative thematic analysis supported by MAXQDA software. Initial open coding generated 1,703 codes, which were refined through axial coding into thematic categories aligned with the research questions (Stake, 2013). Pattern matching and explanation building were employed to link empirical findings with theoretical propositions (Yin, 2014). Reliability was enhanced through triangulation, reflexivity, and separation of researcher roles. Ethical approval was obtained from the Nazarbayev University Institutional Research Ethics Committee. Informed consent, confidentiality, and voluntary participation were ensured in accordance with KERA ethical standards. Although findings are context-bound and analytically rather than statistically generalisable, the study provides valuable insights into the organisational dynamics that shape LS institutionalisation and sustainability within ITE.

The findings indicate that LS was perceived by both teacher educators and student-teachers as a significant shift from theory-dominated approaches toward practice-based, learner-centred inquiry. Word-frequency analysis confirmed this orientation, with “Lesson Study,” “research,” “practice,” and “professional development” dominating participants’ accounts, positioning LS as a research-informed model of professional learning rather than a procedural requirement (Cajkler & Wood, 2019; Dudley, 2015). First, LS was viewed as an effective response to the persistent theory–practice divide in ITE. Unlike traditional diploma projects, which were often described as compliance-driven and weakly connected to classroom realities, LS enabled sustained engagement with authentic teaching problems, direct observation of pupil learning, and iterative instructional refinement (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Schipper et al., 2020). Participants also noted that LS promoted research authenticity and reduced plagiarism through reflective documentation and evidence-based inquiry . Second, implementation experiences were described as both challenging and developmental. Although students initially struggled with reflective writing and systematic analysis, LS strengthened their analytical thinking, instructional adaptation, and collaborative learning. The collaborative nature of LS reduced hierarchical boundaries and fostered shared inquiry, motivation, and agency, resulting in both academic and practical educational products (Cajkler & Wood, 2016; Vermunt et al., 2019). Finally, institutionalisation depended on structural conditions. Participants highlighted insufficient induction, uneven mentor preparation, and scheduling constraints as major barriers. They recommended earlier LS integration, clearer guidelines, stronger mentor training, and better alignment with partner schools (Schipper et al., 2020; Wood et al., 2019). Overall, LS demonstrates strong transformative potential for ITE in Kazakhstan, however, its sustainability requires coherent institutional alignment so that LS becomes an embedded organisational practice rather than an isolated capstone activity.

Beauchamp, C. (2015). Reflection in teacher education: issues emerging from a review of current literature. Reflective Practice, 16(1), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2014.982525 Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-305. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X024001249 Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). Strengthening Clinical Preparation: The Holy Grail of Teacher Education. Peabody Journal of Education, 89(4), 547–561. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2014.939009 Dudley, P. (2014). How Lesson Study works and why it creates excellent learning and teaching. In Dudley, P. (Ed.) Lesson study. Routledge. pp. 1-28. Frost, D. (2006). The concept of ‘agency’ in leadership for learning. Leading & Managing, 12(2), 19-28. Fullan, M. (2016). The new meaning of educational change. Teachers’ College Press. Helgevold, N., & Wilkins, C. (2020). International changes and approaches in initial teacher education. In Lesson study in initial teacher education: Principles and practices (pp. 1-15). Emerald Publishing Limited. Lamb, P., & Aldous, D. (2016). Exploring the relationship between reflexivity and reflective practice through lesson study within initial teacher education. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 5(2), 99-115. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLLS-11-2015-0040 Sarmurzin, Y., Amanzhol, N., Toleubayeva, K., Zhunusova, M., & Amanova, A. (2021). The impact of OECD research on the education system of Kazakhstan. Asia Pacific Education Review, 22(4), 757–766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564- 021-09715-8 Schipper, T. M., Goei, S. L., Van Joolingen, W. R., Willemse, T. M., & Van Geffen, E. C. (2020). Lesson study in Dutch initial teacher education explored: its potential and pitfalls. International Journal for Lesson & Learning Studies, 9(4), 351-365. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLLS-04-2020-0018 Urkunova, A., Kennedy, K. J., Karabassova, L., & Ryspayeva, D. (2025). Preparing educators for global challenges: insights from pre-service teacher education. Cogent Education, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2529422 Vermunt, J. D., Vrikki, M., van Halem, N., Warwick, P., & Mercer, N. (2019). The impact of Lesson Study professional development on the quality of teacher learning. Teaching and teacher education, 81, 61-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.02.009 Willemse, T. M., Ten Dam, G., Geijsel, F., Van Wessum, L., & Volman, M. (2015). Fostering teachers' professional development for citizenship education. Teaching and teacher education, 49, 118-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.03.008 Wood, P., Cajkler, W., Larssen, D. L. S., & Helgevold, N. (2019). The future of lesson study in initial teacher education. In Lesson study in initial teacher education: Principles and practices (pp. 203-213). Emerald Publishing Limited.