Charting the Professional Development Journey of Irish Primary Teachers as They Engage in Lesson Study

Abstract

This paper focuses on the perceptions of Irish primary teachers about Lesson Study as a professional development model. To further our understanding of the characteristics of Lesson Study and its compatibility with the Irish educational context, the opinions of primary teachers are fundamental. Within this study, 19 primary teachers across eight urban schools engaged in Lesson Study for the first time, working within four grade-level Lesson Study groups. The findings suggest that while primary teachers were newcomers to Lesson Study, they were eager to engage and welcomed many of its characteristics. Notably, they valued the focus on collaboration and particular Lesson Study practices. Teachers’ engagement was hampered by the barrier of time. The paper explores additional adaptations to the Lesson Study approach that participants perceived would develop a more realistic and sustainable Lesson Study model within their particular educational context.

1. Introduction

Education systems worldwide are constantly reforming in response to society’s ever-changing needs. In mathematics education, reform curricula strive to enhance practice by promoting conceptual understanding and skills, including problem-solving and communication. While the teacher is fundamental in realising intended reforms, their readiness for change is challenged by beliefs, experiences, and cultural norms, particularly where they have limited personal experience of reform mathematics [1]. To meet reform demands and develop appropriate understandings and dispositions, teachers must access high-quality professional development (PD) [2,3]. However, not all PD models are considered equally effective. For example, Owens et al. (2018) report that many teachers perceive PD as irrelevant to the problems they face [1]. While still prevalent, traditional, one-off PD workshops, where teachers are passive recipients of knowledge from outside experts, have a negligible effect on teachers’ practice [1,4] due to limited support during implementation [2]. Instead, more promising contemporary PD models advocate a practice-oriented approach to teacher learning, situating PD in classroom practice, addressing problems of practice over an extended period. These approaches promote teacher agency, target the active construction of knowledge, focus on student learning, and foster collaboration in implementing, evaluating, and reflecting on practice [1,4].

In terms of teachers’ perceptions of effective PD, teachers in Park Rogers et al.’s (2007) study [5] agreed that PD should be directly applicable to their classroom (curriculum, subject, grade level); facilitate teachers to take the role of learners, thus experiencing students’ perspectives; and provide opportunities for collaboration and potential support networks. In addition, Owens et al. (2018) revealed that teachers reported valuing access to ready-to-use materials and learning from other teachers most during PD [1].

Lesson Study (LS) meets the criteria of effective PD [3], as it promotes active teacher learning through an iterative and extended process of collaborative planning, classroom implementation, guided observation, and reflection aimed at enhancing student learning. Its focus on a problem of practice, teachers’ own classrooms, and students naturally fosters teacher agency and motivation [6].

Professional Development (PD) in Ireland

Traditionally, PD in the Irish education system has been ‘top-down’ and centrally mandated in response to national priorities. Within this model, the one-off workshops use a basic transmission model, taking little account of teachers’ contexts [7]. The publication of the Policy on the Continuum of Teacher Education [8] marks a significant change in the approach to PD, where professional collaboration and learning communities were endorsed to facilitate teachers to engage in autonomous and self-directed learning that addresses their identified needs, interests, and ambitions. However, enacting these aspirations is challenging [7,9] due to many Irish teachers’ limited experience of collaboration [9]. Over time, teacher collaboration has been promoted in the Irish system through the requirement for schools to engage in self-evaluation [10]. Despite these changes, relative to countries such as Japan, Ireland’s culture of collaboration is nascent due to the continuing prevalence of cultures of isolation and autonomy [2,11]. In fact, research identifies a ‘culture of hiding difficulties’ [9] (p. 10) within the Irish educational context that deters teachers from acknowledging vulnerabilities. Given these realities, alongside curriculum overload, it is unsurprising that professional learning communities have not been embedded within the Irish context. In response to the proposal that structured collaboration would be ‘a necessary first step to developing professional capital in these contexts’ [9] (p. 14), our study introduced primary teachers to a school-based, collaborative, iterative, extended, and research-based form of PD, namely Lesson Study (LS). Specifically, this study sought to answer the research questions:

• What are Irish primary teachers’ reactions to LS as a PD model?
• What are teachers’ beliefs regarding LS as a sustainable model of PD?

2. Lesson Study (LS) as a Form of Professional Development

2.1. Japanese Lesson Study

Japanese Lesson Study (LS) originated in Japan in the late 19th century when the Meiji government started a new school system and adopted pedagogies from the West. The ‘object lesson’ approach, developed by the Swiss teacher educator Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, was introduced in the normal school (Japanese teacher training college) as an updated teaching method that involved teaching all children together. American teachers, such as Marion Scott, who had experience in teacher education, were invited to teach in the normal school [12,13,14]. At this stage, the ‘criticism lesson’ was used to support pre-service teachers, where pre-service teachers presented a lesson to the class, while other pre-service teachers engaged in observation and discussion that focused on four points of criticism, namely matter, method, teacher, and children. Hence, Lesson Study originates from the desire to educate pre-service teachers using the object lesson during the early Meiji period in Japan. Both the criticism lesson and the object lesson approach spread countrywide through normal school outputs, including instruction manuals, new textbooks, and graduating teachers [12,14]. Over time, these practices were evident in elementary schools across Japan [15]. In the 1890s, while the object lesson was replaced, the criticism lesson continued to support teachers in implementing new teaching approaches [14]. While initially used ‘…to disseminate classroom teaching from the West’ [13] (p. 19), from the 1920s, the criticism lesson was used to experiment with innovative practice [13]. By the middle of the 1960s, Lesson Study became a grass-roots practice used by teachers to support them in addressing an agreed-upon school-wide goal [16]. Acknowledging its multi-cultural origins, in the Japanese context, LS practice has grown and evolved and is an integral part of teaching. Teachers may engage in LS at the school level, at the district level, within laboratory schools (attached to universities), or through professional organisations [17]; the most popular venue is within a single school [16].

At the school level, LS involves a group of qualified teachers working together as part of an LS group to collaboratively study, design, teach, and revise a research lesson that addresses a pre-established teaching–learning challenge related to the school-wide theme [18,19].

During the study phase, substantial time is spent examining curriculum content, learning trajectories, relevant research, and teaching materials to develop teachers’ knowledge of the content and student thinking [19]. Subsequently, during the planning phase, teachers collaboratively plan a research lesson that will address the identified problem of practice and improve student learning [6]. LS practices during the planning phase include predicting possible student responses and associated reasoning. During the implementation phase, one LS group member teaches the research lesson while all others critically engage with students’ responses, collecting data. The live research lesson is considered one of the main strengths of LS [8]. Within the reflection phase, the LS group discusses and reflects on the impact of respective lesson activities on student learning, using observations and other data to justify conclusions and inform lesson refinement. Fernandez and Yoshida (2004) [16] report that while some LS groups choose to revise and reteach the lesson, this step is optional. In this situation another LS group member teaches this revised research lesson to a new class (same/similar grade) [15]. Afterwards, the LS group writes a report to share their learning [16,19]. In some cases, LS can be open to teachers outside the LS group, where additional teachers observe the implementation and engage in the post-lesson discussion [17].

In Japan, it is common for a knowledgeable other, that is ‘someone … with deep expertise in the content, often deep expertise in teaching, and much expertise in lesson study’ [19] (p. 515) from outside the LS group, to be invited to provide additional support periodically during the LS cycle [16]. A knowledgeable other could be invited to support planning and to highlight important issues and identify valuable resources [17,19] and has a central role in providing final comments during post-lesson discussions, thus stimulating ‘the thinking of groups beyond their own limitations’ [20] (p. 182). Takahashi and McDougal (2016) [19] identify the knowledgeable other as a fundamental component of LS.

2.2. Lesson Study (LS) outside Japan

Elliot (2019) acknowledges that international comparative testing, e.g., TIMSS, where Japanese students excel, has driven the globalisation of LS as a PD model [2,3]. While LS is the primary means of PD in Japan with well-developed principles and practices, it remains relatively new in many other countries [17]. Given the backdrop of the Irish PD context previously outlined, it is unsurprising that the practice of Irish primary teachers engaging in LS is extremely rare, generally ensuing from single research projects, e.g., doctoral research or recent initiatives from the Professional Development Services for Teachers (PDST) [21]. Hence, research exploring Irish primary teachers’ engagement with LS is sparse [22,23]. Another difference is that while in-service teachers engage in LS in Japan, LS has been used within pre-service programmes in other countries (e.g., Canada, Spain, Norway, UK, Ireland). In Ireland, increasing research explores Irish pre-service teachers’ engagement with LS [24,25,26].

In these educational contexts, LS has been adapted [3]. However, questions remain as to whether LS adaptations are ‘faithful representations of its ‘critical features’’ [27] (p. 175). A balance between fidelity to LS as originally envisaged and developing an LS approach that fits the education system’s cultural context is recommended [19]. Research concurs that LS must be viewed as a research method where the LS group’s focus is framed as a research question, the research lesson is a unit of analysis, and teachers act as researchers [2,27,28,29]. Less favourable LS adaptations, such as removing the initial study phase, using compressed cycles, and emphasising the creation of a perfect lesson, may result in less than optimum outcomes [20,30]. Research also questions if limited LS practice is due to the quality of support for LS groups [19,30].

Unlike Japanese teachers, who are extremely familiar with LS, teachers in most other education systems (e.g., US, UK, Ireland) require more ongoing and multi-dimensional support. Therefore, the teacher educator or ‘teacher of teacher’ is crucial in determining teachers’ LS experience [30]. In such contexts, the ‘teacher of teacher’ may take on the complex and emergent role of an LS facilitator. This position requires a range of knowledge, skills, and dispositions when guiding teachers through the LS process, answering content questions and supporting observation and reflection [22,31,32]. Given this, the LS facilitator must understand the complexities of school life, teaching, and the curriculum and possess deep mathematical content knowledge and pedagogical skills conducive to working with both teachers and students. The requirement to respond to the LS group’s needs necessitates that the LS facilitator move between the roles of LS group member and expert [32].

In this setting, aspects of the knowledgeable other role may include identifying important content and pedagogical issues during planning as well as using the post-lesson discussion to support LS participants to become aware of aspects of the lesson not previously addressed, thus supporting them to develop their knowledge for teaching. Hence, the knowledgeable other is instrumental in ‘sustaining a rigorous process of collaborative lesson research’ [27] (p. 183) and optimising teacher learning by ‘bringing their outside views to the teachers’ inside perception of their classroom’ [6] (p. 221).

Within the Irish context, LS represents a significant departure from PD, where teachers passively receive expert knowledge [32]. This study examines the perceptions of Irish primary teachers about LS as a PD model and explores their views regarding LS adaptations conducive to developing a sustainable LS model within the Irish educational context.

3. Research on Lesson Study (LS)

The rise in popularity of LS internationally resulted in increased research [4] that is ‘overwhelmingly positive’ [18] (p. 205). LS has been credited with various benefits for teachers. These include transformed beliefs regarding effective pedagogy and increased efficacy in their use [2,18,28]. The development of teacher knowledge is also reported [2,17,18,26,28,30,33,34]. Other gains include a greater emphasis on students and the development of learning resources [17,18,20,28,30,33]. LS has been found to support teachers in developing reflective practices [3,13]. Increased teacher commitment and collaboration [2,17,28,33] and reduced feelings of professional isolation are also reported [2,33].

An identified shortcoming of LS is that it has been researched ‘mainly through small-scale, qualitative studies by investigators directly involved in Lesson Study implementation’ [34] (p. 265). Two recent studies, however, that use randomised controlled trials have measured the efficacy of LS [34,35]. The findings evidence the benefits of LS that incorporate research-informed resource kits. More specifically, Lewis and Perry’s (2017) [34] study reported statistically significantly greater improvement in both educator and student fraction knowledge under conditions where both LS and fraction resource kits were used, whereas Schoen et al.’s (2023) [35] study revealed a statistically significant positive effect on classroom instruction among participants with access to fraction resource kits. These studies suggest the central role of quality resource kits in supporting LS implementation and their documented role in efforts to scale up LS within education systems.

While LS has ‘strong change potential’ [29] (p. 29), implementing LS is not without its issues. LS requires ‘an investment of time and patience…to produce small incremental improvements in teaching over long periods of time’ [36] (p. 121). Hence, LS may be unattractive and recruitment problematic because of the time commitment required and the desire for rapid improvements [28]. Reported barriers include teacher resistance [31,32], a lack of time and opportunities to collaborate [2,4,20,30,32], cost (e.g., teacher substitution), and organisational complexities [6,17,18,27,28,30]. There is agreement that the success of LS is dependent on the level of support provided by school administrators [2,15,18,27]. Despite LS intentionally focusing on pupil learning [28], discomfort in teaching in front of colleagues may deter teachers from participating [4]. Sustaining LS is also problematic [17,18,19,26,28,32].

4. Impetus for This Study

Recent policy focus on professional collaboration and learning communities marks a considerable shift in Ireland’s PD culture. Within this context, given the potential use of LS in supporting Irish primary teachers to make the necessary transition to engaging in school-based, needs-led professional learning, the researchers wished to examine teachers’ openness to LS as a PD model. In this study, the participating teachers selected the problem of practice, whereas the researchers, who were also the teacher educators in this study, supported teachers’ LS engagement. The findings of this study serve to inform and shape future Irish PD policy and practice.

The researchers were also aware that existing LS research is dominated by the teacher educator voice [29]. Within national teacher PD contexts, research needs to focus on ‘the conditions in which Lesson Study may be successfully carried out’ [29] (p. 23), thus making sustainable engagement in LS ‘routines and norms’ achievable [18] (p. 205). Given these realities, this paper focuses solely on Irish primary teachers’ perceptions of LS as a PD model, that is, their perspectives of the PD process and the perceived effects of participation, alongside their views of potential enhancements. Hence, this paper examines two research questions:

• What are Irish primary teachers’ reactions to LS as a PD model?
• What are teachers’ beliefs regarding LS as a sustainable model of PD?

5. Methodology

5.1. Context and Participants

A network of 12 urban schools, co-ordinated by their local education centre, engaged in an initiative to enhance teachers’ mathematics problem-solving practices. On being approached by the co-ordinator of this initiative regarding a suitable PD programme, the researchers, in their capacity as teacher educators, proposed LS. For over a decade, both teacher educators have assumed the role of LS facilitators and knowledgeable others while working on LS with pre-service primary teachers [24,25]. Those ten years of LS experiences involved over 250 pre-service teachers and 50 research lessons. Beyond the context of initial teacher education, the researchers have worked with other LS facilitators, practising teachers, education centres in school districts, and national PD bodies pursuing LS to promote its use. These collaborations, alongside reflection on their practice, have carefully developed their LS skills [22].

Principal teachers (school leaders) from eight urban schools opted to engage in the problem-solving LS initiative. Within each school, principal teachers and network teachers (teachers released from in-school duties to support and co-ordinate PD for network schools) invited classroom teachers and special education teachers to participate in a problem-solving PD initiative. Teachers were informed that all engagement would take place during school hours and that their classes would be covered to facilitate participation. In instances where low numbers of teachers volunteered after initial invitation, principal teachers and network teachers approached teachers and asked them to participate [22]. No incentives were offered to participating schools or teachers besides the opportunity to develop problem-solving practices using LS.

The eight participating schools were paired to create four LS groups based on the grade taught by participating classroom teachers, e.g., Grade 4 teachers from school 1 and school 2 were matched. Each LS group generally consisted of 4–5 teachers, including at least 2 teachers from each school and the researchers (teacher educators). In total, 19 elementary teachers (16 female, 3 male) with a range of teaching experience participated, including nine classroom teachers, six special education teachers, and four network teachers. Network membership meant that teachers in this study had more access to PD opportunities during their school day relative to Irish primary teachers generally. As the teachers had no LS experience, the researchers, in their teacher educator role, acted as both facilitators, guiding teachers through the LS process, and knowledgeable others, therefore ‘wearing two hats’ and stepping in and out of LS group membership [22]. Through these roles, the researchers also assumed the additional role of LS advocates.

The LS process took place across eight weeks in the autumn school term (October–December). The network imposed this timeframe due to other parallel projects and commitments. During this period, the researchers, in their teacher educator role, guided LS groups through the four LS phases:

Phase 1: The study phase consisted of a one-day workshop in the education centre with all LS teachers. The morning session focused on LS as a school-based form of PD, outlining the purpose and potential benefits of each LS phase. The researchers identified the opportunity available to trial the PD model and experience its impact on teachers and pupils. It was envisaged that through this process, LS’s valuable features and potential adaptations would be identified to create a version optimally compatible with their school context, thus supporting sustainability. As the network had selected problem-solving as the ‘teaching-learning issue’, the afternoon session introduced a new approach, namely ‘teaching through problem-solving.’ Teachers were invited to engage with LS and teach through problem-solving readings. Each LS group was asked to communicate among themselves and the researchers (teacher educators) prior to the start of the planning phase to decide the specific mathematics focus of their research lesson (Figure 1). While acknowledging this condensed study phase, the sessions, totalling 5 h, gave teachers substantial time for exposition, reflection, and discussion. Given the short timeline, the researchers (teacher educators) consciously addressed the content traditionally covered in the study phase (e.g., relevant curriculum content, materials, and research) during the planning phase [23].

Phase 2: The planning phase consisted of two formal 1½ h face-to-face planning sessions (i.e., planning meetings 1 and 2) for each LS group over four weeks. Each planning meeting took place in one of the LS group’s schools. Planning sessions involved extensive discussion to select lesson goals in response to particular challenges experienced when teaching problem-solving (Figure 1) [23]. After engaging with relevant curriculum content and research, each LS group worked to pose (create/modify) a problem (

Table 1. Problems posed by each LS group.

LS Group A	LS Group B	LS Group C	LS Group D
This year in the North Pole, Santa has told the elves that the number of baubles on each Christmas tree must match the number displayed on the star on the top of the tree. Can you help Santa work out all the ways the Christmas trees can be decorated?	There will be a new skyscraper in Limerick. The builder needs your help to work out how many windows he will need to order. As it is a very narrow building, for each storey, there is one window on each side of the building and a sunroof on the top. Instead of counting the number of windows each time, we want to help the builder to come up with a quicker way to work out the total number of windows required.	The principal teacher has received money for new equipment for the school and has selected your class to help decide what equipment should be purchased. The budget is €1000. You and your partner need to think carefully about what the school needs. You must buy at least one item from each of the 5 shops. You must not spend more than the budget. You will be reporting your ideas back to the principal.	A factory was printing nets for Christmas-themed gift boxes (cubes) in the lead up to Christmas. However, the printer malfunctioned and started to produce random nets. While some nets are correct, others are faulty and do not make a cube. Your help is needed to identify as many different correct nets for the cube.

) that would support students in developing the targeted mathematical concepts and problem-solving dispositions (Figure 1). After problem posing, the LS groups developed the research lesson stages, considering possible student strategies, materials, language, and other pedagogical matters [23]. While teachers were encouraged to take the lead, the researchers adopted the role of knowledgeable other where appropriate. Ertle, Chokshi, and Fernandez’s (2001) [37] 4-column lesson plan template was used, as it required explicit attention to expected student responses and teacher responses. Due to time constraints, teachers were encouraged to liaise to start to populate their research lesson plan between planning meetings. While teachers’ work was evidenced in lesson plans and resources shared before or at the start of the next meeting, details regarding conversations and decisions were captured in researcher (teacher educator) fieldnotes and teacher reflections completed during planning meeting 2. Teachers within three of the four LS groups completed this work. Teachers’ willingness to complete planning outside of formal meetings affected their LS experience. This is discussed fully in a separate paper [22].

Phase 3: The implementation phase involved one teacher in each LS group teaching the research lesson (teach 1) in their school. The remaining group members and teacher educators (researchers) observed and recorded students’ responses on the research lesson note and accompanying observation sheet. Immediately after the lesson implementation, the researchers met with each LS group to evaluate it. Within this post-lesson discussion, a series of focus questions were used to uncover teachers’ observations of the impact of the research lesson on student learning. Teachers supported their observations with samples of children’s work and student responses. This collective sharing supported the LS group in determining the extent to which the lesson goals were achieved alongside lesson modifications. Where appropriate, the researchers, assuming the role of knowledgeable others, drew teachers’ attention to particular issues they had not noticed. Subsequently, each LS group revised their research lesson. The revised lesson (teach 2) was taught 7–10 days later by a second LS group member in the teacher’s own classroom. The post-lesson discussion for teach 2 focused mainly on the impact of changes made after the first implementation on student learning, differences between the two classes, and further changes to the lesson. Due to the complexities of finding a compatible time when all LS group members could attend, teachers only observed their own LS group’s lesson implementation.

Phase 4: Although the reflection phase occurred after each implementation, the final reflection involved teachers coming together for a half-day meeting at the local education centre to share their research lessons, experiences, and learning. Each LS group presented, identifying their research lesson’s focus and sequence, summarising and analysing their implementation, observations, reflections, and revision decisions. LS groups used artefacts (research lesson plan, materials, samples of student work, photos) as evidence, engaged their peers in selected lesson activities, etc. While teachers were aware of the other research lesson ideas through informal conversations during the LS process, it was only in the reflection phase that they gained insights into each other’s research lessons.

Teachers also reflected privately in writing (

Table 2. Data collection procedures.

Data Source	Phase 1 Study	Phase 2 Planning	Phase 3 Implementation	Phase 4 Reflection
Fieldnotes	X	X	X	X
Email correspondence	X	X	X	X
Teacher reflection	X	X		X

, Figure 2) and subsequently in groups on their experience of both LS and problem-solving, the perceived benefits and challenges and suggestions for future practice.

5.2. Data Collection

An exploratory, qualitative approach was taken to this study. Given that the researchers in this study assumed the roles of LS facilitator, knowledgeable other, and by default LS advocate alongside the role of researcher, it was important to identify potential risks associated with such ‘insider’ research and outline practices undertaken across data collection and data analysis to ensure the trustworthiness of findings. To this end, throughout the research process, all ethical obligations were adhered to. Of the 19 LS teachers invited to partake in the research study, 16 provided informed consent. These teachers were aware of the purposes of the study, that is, to share their experiences of the impact of LS on teachers and pupils in order to identify valuable features and potential adaptations.

In addition, given their teacher educator roles as LS facilitators and knowledgeable others, the researchers attended all meetings and implementations across all LS groups and systematically collected qualitative data throughout the LS process (Table 2). Taking account of this paper’s focus on participating Irish primary teachers’ perceptions of LS as a PD model, the principal data sources were fieldnotes (Phase 1–4), email correspondence (Phase 1–4), and individual teacher reflections (Phases 1, 2, 4) (Figure 2). Fieldnotes refer to all notes taken by researchers across the LS phases (study sessions, planning meetings, lesson observations, post-lesson discussions, and final reflection session). All emails received from teachers across the LS phases (Table 2) that provided insights into their perceptions of LS as a PD model were included as data. Written teacher reflections were facilitated during three LS phases (Table 2), where teachers responded to reflection questions (Figure 2) that were intentionally broad to facilitate them to identify areas pertinent to them. In some cases, additional prompts were included to promote further insights. The use of anonymous teacher reflection across the LS cycle facilitated all teachers to communicate their experiences and opinions freely and openly. Within this paper, the analysis only focused on data that addressed the research questions.

5.3. Data Analysis

In order to ensure that researchers’ personal bias regarding the affordances of LS did not contaminate the data analysis process, they engaged in a number of intentional practices [38]. While not a data collection method for this paper, the researchers completed a reflective journal entry after every session to record significant events, overall patterns, and conclusions. The researchers acted as critical friends for each other, meeting at the end of the LS process to discuss reflective journal entries, thus exposing and acknowledging any personal biases and supporting meaning making [22].

A grounded theory approach was adopted to data analysis, where the theory emerges from the data analysis process rather than starting with a theory to be confirmed or refuted [39]. Therefore, the data were examined focusing on evidence of teachers’ perceptions of LS.

A systematic process of data analysis was implemented. Initially, all data were coded using open coding. The raw data were organised into natural units of related data under various codes, e.g., welcoming collaboration, teacher educators, being observed, concerns regarding pupils, workload, logistics, dynamics, adaptations, sustainability, and absenteeism, that broadly reflected the themes within the theoretical framework. Through successive examinations for relationships between existing units, codes were amalgamated. Progressive drafts resulted in the firming up of four broad themes that represented a generalised model of participants’ perceptions of LS, namely an openness to LS features, time as a persistent obstacle, an acknowledgement of gains, and tweaking LS to strengthen the fit. Figure 3 and Figure 4 present samples of the codes applied and subsequently grouped to generate the emerging themes and subthemes.

Although one of the researchers completed the initial coding, both researchers met regularly to discuss and interrogate codes and come to agreement on the establishment of themes in an effort to reduce the possibility of the findings being influenced by the researchers’ personal biases [38].

As individual teacher reflections were anonymised, it was not possible to track particular teachers across the LS phases. Consequently, data are labelled in terms of phase and instrument only, for example, ‘Phase 3, fieldnotes’. It is to be expected that there is a heavy weighting of data from Phase 4, which provides insights into their perceptions after completing all LS phases (Figure 2). Data from the earlier phases reflect teachers’ evolving perceptions at a particular point in their unfolding LS experience.

6. Findings

The findings draw on data collected across the LS phases and address the research questions. Within the confines of this paper, illustrative quotes provide the reader with insights into each theme. An additional layer of analysis confirmed a balanced representation of teachers’ views across LS groups in reporting findings. For example, in Phase 2, the 18 quotes used came from 13 different teacher reflections. Equally, the four fieldnotes used represented four different teachers’ views. In Phase 3, the data sources (fieldnotes and email correspondence) represent the perceptions of seven different teachers across all four LS groups. In Phase 4, the 56 quotes used include data from 14 teacher reflections alongside fieldnotes representing 7 different teachers’ views. An examination of the perceptions of those teachers not included when reporting findings confirmed that these were represented within the quotes used. Hence, the researchers are confident that the findings represent the views of teachers across all LS groups.

6.1. Openness to LS Features

This theme answers the research question, ‘What are Irish primary teachers’ reactions to LS as a PD model?’ and consists of three subthemes: eagerness to trial, steadfast appreciation of the value of collaboration, and progressive recognition of the value of LS practices.

6.1.1. Eagerness to Trial

Due to the limited use of LS at primary level in Ireland, it is to be expected that some teachers were unfamiliar with this PD model:

I was approached by my principal…I was happy to take part but I didn’t really know anything about it

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

Regardless of whether teachers had volunteered, were asked to attend by their peers/leaders, or were participating as part of their role (network teachers), all communicated enthusiasm about engagement in LS. The reasons included an openness to ‘try something new’ and gain insights into the LS process:

I was curious to see how the process worked and what I would take from it. What were the underlying principles guiding Lesson Study

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

The potential impact on their classroom practice and benefits for their pupils was also motivational:

Would any of the materials/strategies/methods influence my further teaching?

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

I was most excited about doing something new with my kids as part of our maths LS group. It’s always good to allow for change

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

This enthusiasm persisted during the LS process:

Exciting to be part of! Eager to see how it will pan out and the learning that will be taken from it, to be used again in the future

(Phase 2, Teacher reflection)

From the early LS phases, participants were keen that LS would impact their school in the long-term:

As this is very new to us and something we haven’t engaged with before in our school we are relying on you both for expertise and instruction so that it will hugely benefit the school as a whole

(Phase 1, email correspondence)

6.1.2. Steadfast Appreciation of the Value of Collaboration

From the start, teachers consistently reported welcoming the opportunity to collaborate with other teachers. Their commentary suggested that pedagogical solitude was the status quo for many classroom teachers who reported limited prior experiences of collaboration:

I loved the idea of collaboratively planning and reflecting. The chance to see other teachers’ styles

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

I was curious about working collaboratively with a teacher from other schools. Not something I’d have a lot of experience with

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

During the early LS phases, alongside consistently acknowledging various benefits of collaborating with teachers, the perceived gains of working with teacher educators were also recognised:

I thought it was a very interesting concept. I liked the idea of collaborating with other schools and also the opportunity to work with senior maths lecturers, sharing knowledge and developing new skills

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

During the planning phase, teachers repeatedly reported valuing collaboration opportunities, identifying the many affordances:

Working in a group and the nice dynamic it creates

(Phase 2, teacher reflection)

The interesting ideas I would never think of

(Phase 2, Teacher reflection)

The task when hashed with a few teachers appears less daunting

(Phase 2, Teacher reflection)

When asked about the teacher educators’ role during the reflection phase, teachers were consistently positive, communicating an appreciation for guidance:

They kept the group focused and provided support and advice and quality feedback

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

At the end of the LS process, teachers were unwavering in identifying collaboration as one of the strengths of LS:

Collaboration with other teachers/facilitators—sharing ideas, planning together, thrashing out different ideas/methods/strategies

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

All participants communicated feeling valued and supported during the process:

Problem-solving is an area of great difficulty across the school…The pressure was alleviated working with another school

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

I felt it was a very supportive process and we were all in it together. Listening to each other’s ideas and concern. All comments valued

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

Collaboration opportunities were viewed as building a sense of community:

Good to get insight into where other schools are at, and the issues they face. Interesting to see we had similar goals and challenges

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

It’s a fantastic way to introduce/encourage collaboration in a school where this isn’t already happening

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

6.1.3. Progressive Recognition of the Value of LS Practices

In terms of the essential LS practices previously identified in the literature, namely detailed planning and live lessons, teachers’ appreciation of their significance only emerged from engaging in LS:

Detailed planning. Initially, it was common for teachers to question the level of planning involved:

It seemed like a lot of work for one lesson

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

In particular, there was an initial lack of awareness regarding the benefit of predicting learner strategies:

What are the benefits of predicting the children’s responses?

(Phase 1, fieldnotes)

However, over time, teachers became aware of the affordances of engaging deeply with the research lesson and thorough planning:

Beneficial to tease out a relatively narrow topic over a protracted period, getting the chance to think

(Phase 2, Teacher reflection)

What I really liked about it was the focus and attention to detail

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

There was also a growing understanding of the value of focusing on learners’ thinking during planning:

Taking children’s different ways of thinking into consideration and being mindful of them going forward

(Phase 2, Teacher reflection)

Collaborative planning, predicting strategies students may develop, reviewing the first teach, opportunity to reflect informed the reteach lesson

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

Live lessons. Before the initiative, network teachers flagged that classroom teachers may struggle to overcome being watched by colleagues. Despite reassurances across the early LS phases that the focus was on pupils’ learning, classroom teachers communicated concerns:

Pressure on the teachers actually teaching the lessons

(Phase 2, Teacher reflection)

Teaching in front of so many adults that I knew were more experienced than myself

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

There was a sense that the live teaching element of LS was reminiscent of teaching practicum:

Apprehensive about teaching in front of academics

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

However, classroom teachers seemed to slowly accept the reality of joint responsibility for the research lesson. By the end of the LS process, all teachers acknowledged this was less problematic:

Once it began, I realised it was a collaborative lesson that we all created together…

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

LS group members valued the ‘live lesson’:

My biggest take away… seeing other teachers in action was really worthwhile and we can learn a lot from each other

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

However, classroom teachers did report relief when their lesson implementation was complete:

It was tough having so many teachers and lecturers watching me. I’m glad it’s over but am happy enough with how it went

(Phase 3, fieldnotes)

In the final reflection, one teacher expressed concern that LS is more pressurised for those teaching the research lesson:

It puts pressure on the teaching teacher

(Phase 4, teacher reflection)

Alongside this, early in the LS process, many classroom teachers shared concerns regarding their pupils’ reaction to the research lesson:

The fear that the children will not understand the lesson objective. How will they respond?

(Phase 2, Teacher reflection)

…how the kids would react to more adults in the room? Was it a true lesson?

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

Commentary suggested that classroom teachers feared that students would be inadvertently evaluated:

Possibly a bit apprehensive about other schools having a different (higher) level

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

However, classroom teachers later acknowledged that their concerns were alleviated during Phase 3:

But it wasn’t a problem…the students didn’t bat an eyelid at the extra people in the room and responded well to the problem

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

Teachers demonstrated a growing awareness of the benefits of observing the lesson implementation, focusing on pupils’ thinking:

Having additional sets of eyes picking up on how the children tackle the task set will help as sometimes the teacher may not pick up on everything themselves

(Phase 2, Fieldnotes)

Teachers’ observations of your class- watching/understanding children’s many ways of thinking/solving—seeing pupils through the process

(Phase 4, teacher reflection)

Teachers welcomed opportunities to discuss, reflect, and refine the lesson in light of observations:

[I] like the fact that we are evaluating the lesson and learning from both the positives and negatives

(Phase 2, Teacher reflection)

Our trying it informed our practice

(Phase 4, fieldnotes)

Focus- it’s rare we get a chance to re-evaluate teaching methods. Nice to be able to tweak after the first lesson

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

In essence, teachers confirmed valuing engaging in LS practices that served to overcome their pedagogical isolation and promote meaningful collaboration.

6.2. Time as a Persistent Obstacle

This theme addresses the research question ‘What are Irish primary teachers’ reactions to LS as a PD model?’ Teachers perceived ‘Time’ in various guises as the perpetual barrier to LS. As early as the study phase, teacher apprehension was consistently linked to concerns about time:

I was apprehensive about the workload involved, getting cover for my class, paper work overload and time investment

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

Again, during the planning phase, all teachers mentioned time-related challenges: The amount of time you have to spend outside the classroom for the preparation. Preparation is excellent but just getting class cover can be difficult

(Phase 2, Teacher reflection)

In particular, the logistics of co-ordinating additional meetings with other LS group members proved problematic:

There won’t be further opportunities for the teachers involved to collaborate before the next meeting

(Phase 2, email correspondence)

We found it hard to meet as [teachers’ name] was [on leave] and I was on a course

(Phase 2, fieldnotes)

For LS groups who convened between planning meetings, optimising their time proved difficult:

… we spent the majority of the time trying to create a problem that would be accessible to the children yet challenging- we never got to the lesson plan…

(Phase 2, fieldnotes)

We tried to populate the lesson template but it was new and very time consuming at the start

(Phase 2, Teacher reflection)

LS groups who could not facilitate this additional collaboration identified the need to write up the lesson plan without the other school as a difficulty. The additional workload associated with using a new lesson note format on top of teachers’ day-to-day teaching proved challenging:

Feeling overwhelmed by it…a lot of time has been put into it

(Phase 2, fieldnotes)

The particular time of the school year posed an additional problem for some teachers, especially during Phase 4:

We have an issue with the final meet [reflection phase]- it won’t work. We’d prefer not to rush one of the most beneficial parts. We’re just so busy- it’s the time of year

(Phase 3, fieldnotes)

The allocation of an 8-week timeframe alongside the complexity of co-ordinating four different LS groups, each consisting of two different schools, resulted in little potential for rescheduling:

Timeframe very limited

(Phase 2, Teacher reflection)

In light of these time-related issues, absenteeism was an unavoidable reality across LS groups due to job-sharing, professional leave, alternative PD commitments, and clashing school events:

Researcher: Despite meetings scheduled since the start, only two of the four teachers are present

(Phase 2, fieldnotes)

Unfortunately, we are unable to attend the sharing session. We are extremely busy that day in school and there are no teachers available to cover both our classes

(Phase 3, email correspondence)

Members of one LS group reported an inefficient use of time within group planning sessions: ‘Staying on track with different personalities’ (Phase 2: Teacher reflection). This claim is confirmed and clarified within the researcher’s reflection:

This meeting was quite frantic, with multiple parallel conversations happening at the same time and one teacher continuously revisiting previously discussed topics. Such narratives and stories tended not to progress the meeting but rather draw us away from the focus. Nonetheless, while it may not have been as linear as I wished, the group managed to make key decisions and discuss many pertinent and relevant areas

(Phase 2: Researcher reflection)

It is necessary to consider how these situations can be better handled going forward, to ensure all teachers have an optimum experience. By the end of the LS process, the issue of time was not reconciled:

It’s highly valuable but time consuming

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

Lots of time constraints

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

6.3. Acknowledgement of Gains

This theme, consisting of two subthemes, learning through LS and commitment to LS moving forward, sheds light on the research question ‘What are Irish primary teachers’ reactions to LS as a PD model?’ The former subtheme reflects teachers’ perceptions of the value of engaging in LS in terms of teacher learning, while the latter reveals teachers’ interest in pursuing LS, thus signifying their level of endorsement for this PD model.

6.3.1. Learning through LS

All teachers confirmed that they had benefited from engaging in ls and reported on their teacher learning. While the specifics of teachers’ learning regarding mathematics problem-solving practices have been explored fully elsewhere [23], here, the focus is on teachers’ perceptions of their professional learning from engaging in LS.

Teachers communicated increased insights into their pupils’ problem-solving abilities, frequently acknowledging having previously underestimated pupils’ capacity:

My main learning was that I under-estimated my kids which was awful

(Phase 4, fieldnotes)

Children surprised me with the way they approached the problem given that the teacher gave them little information on how to solve the problem

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

All teachers confirmed developing teacher knowledge regarding mathematics problem-solving practices. While some acknowledged limited previous practice, others also identified future problem-solving priorities:

We tend to spoon-feed them… We need to find a balance…We need to break the cycle…

(Phase 3, fieldnotes)

Over-scaffolding, I use a lot of teacher talk, surprised with what they could do. I need to pull back

(Phase 4, fieldnotes)

The problem is key, we don’t spend enough time picking the problem

(Phase 4, fieldnotes)

Aim for problems with multiple strategies and solutions

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

Teachers also confirmed that LS participation highlighted the benefits of particular pedagogical approaches. The importance of incorporating a context of interest to the children when problem posing was a universal outcome:

It was an eye opener to me. If it’s relevant to them they will engage, persevere and share

(Phase 3, fieldnotes)

Another common learning was the benefits of promoting pupils to share strategies:

LS allowed me to see the importance of children sharing ideas and how it helps/motivates others around them. Sharing and explore ‘more than 1 way’ is a vital part of teaching

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

Let the children solve problems their own way and then communicate it back to their class. Maths dialogue is important

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

6.3.2. Commitment to LS Moving Forward

Interestingly, despite experiencing various obstacles to LS engagement, all teachers who attended the final reflection phase (n = 15) indicated a willingness to participate in ls again:

I’ll definitely do it again, it’s worth doing, very beneficial

(Phase 3, fieldnotes)

Lesson Study is a daunting process but I found it very worthwhile. I would be very much delighted to take part again. It provides great collaboration to gain new knowledge and ideas

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

One teacher was less definite: ‘I would do it again with certain caveats’ (Phase 4, Teacher reflection). Such ‘caveats’ are explored fully in the next theme tweaking LS to strengthen the fit.

Although a few teachers’ reflections (n = 2) suggested a limited view of the usefulness of LS, ‘Spending so much time on a lesson you may not teach again, hard to justify the time commitment’ (Phase 4, fieldnotes), the remaining reflections demonstrated that teachers recognised the potential of LS:

Great opportunity for the children and teacher to learn

(Phase 2, Teacher reflection)

Very transferable

(Phase 4, Fieldnotes)

Gives you a chance to choose any area of the curriculum you may lack confidence in and get insights/ideas/help from other teachers

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

In fact, almost half the teachers (n = 7) reported having made definite plans to develop LS practices further within their schools. Typically, those who took this leadership role were either special education teachers or network teachers, who have access to various class groups in their respective positions. Most of these teachers (n = 5) had organised another LS cycle focusing on problem-solving:

We hope to teach the lesson again in one of the other classes

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

I plan to try the other [LS groups’] lessons

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

Some (n = 4) had also considered further the potential role of LS:

Yes, within our school to change our math teaching. Other teachers in the school have shown an interest to find out what LS involved. I would be keen to try LS out again. I hope to set up a group in the school

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

6.4. Tweaking LS to Strengthen the Fit

This theme addresses the research question ‘What are teachers’ beliefs regarding LS as a sustainable model of PD?’ During the study phase, when sharing their perceptions of effective PD (Figure 2), teachers consistently reported valuing relevance to their school context and class level:

Class level appropriate, practical in application

(Phase 1, Teacher reflection)

Ongoing support was also considered desirable: Continued contact

(Phase 1, Teacher reflection)

While teachers initially questioned the relevance of LS, their views had changed in this regard:

I initially thought it wasn’t realistic but bringing it down to your own classroom it is relevant

(Phase 4, fieldnotes)

However, there was consensus among all teachers that in its present form, engaging in LS throughout the school year was unrealistic. During the reflection phase, while all teachers demonstrated an appetite to engage in another LS cycle in the future, there was a palpable sense that a subgroup of teachers (n = 7) were actively considering possible workable models of LS that would guarantee its sustainability in their context:

We could pick a subject/area for the term/year and have each class level do a mini Lesson Study and share at Croke Park hours [additional non-contact hours]

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

…may only be feasible once or twice a year if you were hoping to get it up and running over a period of time

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

To this end, when reflecting on possible adaptations, individual teachers had a range of one-off, yet worthy, suggestions:

If lecturers could develop a presentation that we could show to the whole staff before LS so everyone is on board/understands the general idea

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

A whole school approach

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

Principals should be more involved

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection).

However, one teacher’s reflection aptly summed up the overall sentiment regarding making LS a more sustainable PD model:

Time factor cannot be ignored. Unless the necessary time is given, it may become ‘just another initiative.’ Difficult to reconcile both parts of the issue

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

It was apparent that all participants perceived that the restrictive timeline imposed led to many of the issues incurred and that a more flexible model of LS was needed. Rather than conclude that LS was unsustainable in their context, teachers offered a range of practical adaptations to address the particular barriers they experienced. Therefore, suggestions included references to the time of the year:

Plan LS earlier in the term. Perhaps spring would be better in general

(Phase 4, teacher reflection)

One teacher proposed that LS ‘should be done throughout the year, not just a one-off’ (Phase 4, Teacher reflection). If implemented, teachers could choose to participate at a time that works best. This is the case in Japan, where within school-based LS, while annually each teacher works within an LS group on 2–3 research lessons, they have the opportunity to observe and participate in many more research lessons within and beyond the school.

In a bid to address issues with class cover, alternatives to face-to-face meetings were proposed:

Online sessions might be helpful as there’s no teacher cover available

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

If skype (or something similar) could be used, it might be easier to liaise with the group

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

The need to cut the planning demands in order for LS to be sustainable was also recommended:

…in an already overcrowded curriculum I feel the planning element may not be as in-depth

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

Interestingly, while time was an ongoing barrier, a number of suggested adaptations involved the allocation of more time for group meetings:

Would have loved more time together as a group to plan the lesson together

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

Maybe an extra meeting before the final teach

(Phase 4, Teacher reflection)

While some teachers believed that engaging in LS within their own school would support co-ordination, others advocated the value of pursuing LS with a partner school:

There’s a lot of time and work involved in consulting with another school but I could see it work within our own school. There’s a culture in the school of staying back to work together after school and that it would be more manageable within our own school

(Phase 3, fieldnotes)

I would like to be involved with another school as I feel this enhances the process, and also really allows you to focus on the lesson when they aren’t your children. Do it a few times a year…Liaise with other schools

(Phase 3, fieldnotes)

The data reflect teachers’ desire for more flexibility in the LS process to accommodate the particular needs and preferences of LS group members, thus ‘customising’ the LS experience. The implementation of the teachers’ suggestions would facilitate more localised control over the focus, the LS group membership, and the LS timing that works best for all participants. These adaptations could facilitate a workable LS model that may facilitate all planning work during allocated LS meetings, thus promoting all LS groups to adhere to advocated LS practices [22].

Hence, the findings collectively suggest that teachers considered that LS could be sustained if further adaptations were implemented that would support their engagement.

7. Discussion

In this research study, the researchers, taking on the various teacher educator roles, engaged primary teachers in an LS model that strove to find a balance between fidelity to the critical features of LS and an approach that fits the Irish educational system. Over eight weeks, each LS group collaborated to plan and implement a research lesson that addressed their identified problem of practice [2,18,20]. Consequently, this LS initiative met the criteria for effective PD as it was directly relevant to teachers, focused on children’s learning, modelled preferred instructional practices in the live research lessons, promoted active learning and teacher inquiry, fostered collective participation in a professional learning community and focused on prolonged engagement [3,4,5,35]. Through this LS engagement, teachers gained their first experience of the PD model envisaged within Irish policy [8,10].

Throughout the process, teachers showcased openness to LS features. Initially, they acknowledged a lack of familiarity with LS [29] but displayed an eagerness to trial this PD model [6,22]. Teachers’ commentary suggested pedagogical isolation [9,11,40]. However, they were positively disposed to opportunities to work with other teachers and teacher educators, demonstrating a steadfast appreciation of the value of collaboration, thus supporting the findings of Cajkler et al. (2015) [28]. Interestingly, the findings suggest that teachers viewed the researchers, who assumed the various teacher educator roles, as collaborators in their LS groups and considered their dual roles as LS facilitators and knowledgeable others to be critical to their LS experiences, valuing their function [19].

Teachers initially demonstrated an uneasiness about the live lesson despite ongoing reassurances that pupils’ thinking was the focus of observations, reflecting the findings of previous studies [4,29]. They were also concerned about pupils’ reactions [29]. Alongside this, reflecting Richit and Ponte’s (2017) [29] study, teachers initially communicated surprise at the need for detailed planning. However, on moving through the LS process, they demonstrated a progressive recognition of the value of these LS practices, in particular the merit of exploring pupils’ thinking when planning [17,18] and observing research lessons to inform future practice [28,29]. Teachers’ collaborative engagement in detailed planning and live lessons supported ‘distancing themselves from their own practice and looking at it critically’ [29] (p. 22). Regarding the constraints affecting LS implementation, teachers battled with time as a persistent obstacle, a finding frequently documented in previous studies [2,4,20,32]. When sharing their acknowledgement of gains, teachers reported learning through LS. Perceived outcomes included developing relevant teacher knowledge [20,28,29,33]. LS also challenged teachers’ preconceptions about particular pedagogical approaches [2,18,28] and pupils’ engagement and capabilities, in particular their tendency to underestimate their students’ abilities [2,18]. Teachers committed to using advocated approaches in their practice going forward. A testament to teachers’ advocacy for the potential of LS as a PD model [28], all participants, despite experiencing various challenges, demonstrated a commitment to LS moving forward, reporting a willingness to engage in LS again. Unlike Cajkler et al.’s (2015) [28] study, where teachers expressed doubts regarding the sustainability of LS, almost half of the teachers in this study had already planned to complete another LS cycle or had carefully considered how LS could be continued in the subsequent school term to best fit the context of their school setting. However, all agreed that tweaking LS to strengthen the fit was necessary to ensure LS was sustainable [27]. This is to be expected given that using ‘LS in new circumstances and cultures, adaptations have to be made to provide an optimal fit to those new environments’ [3] (p. 72). Teachers believed that LS could be embedded in school if particular conditions were met [28]. They identified a range of practical and achievable adaptations (e.g., LS membership, timing, alternative meeting platforms) to the LS process that would promote engagement without weakening the LS experience or removing critical LS features [19,27,28,32,33]. Teachers’ suggestions that LS should be schoolwide reflect Takahashi and McDougal’s (2016) [19] recommendation. A whole-school approach would promote optimum flexibility for teachers as well as the sharing of good practice. However, for LS to be viable and to become embedded in a school, ‘sustained commitment’ [41] (p. 387) is also required from school leaders in supporting teachers to manage the organisational dimensions [2,15,18,27,28]. The findings suggest that the seven teachers who were proactive in considering how to further embed LS in their schools had already stepped into the role ‘LS advocate’ in their school [15]. Given necessary supports, these teachers are well positioned to promote and extend the reach of LS to additional teachers in their schools. This finding demonstrates the power of teacher-led change. The initial LS initiative was not a ‘bottom up’ process; however, the role of the network in selecting the problem of practice provided the impetus for teachers to engage with LS to explore the unique problems of practice experienced in their school contexts.

In terms of study limitations, a relatively small number of teachers participated in this study. In addition, the data were collected immediately after LS was completed. Therefore, the findings cannot reflect the impact of LS on teachers’ teaching practice in the medium- to long-term [33]. Relative to other studies [3,28,29], the teachers in this study engaged with LS for a less extended period (2 months). It is possible that participants may gain additional insights with sustained LS participation [41]. In terms of data collection, the open-ended reflection questions may result in the omission of relevant perceptions. Going forward, the researchers recommend including focus questions examining teachers’ experience of the teaching and observation aspects of the LS process. In addition, when using self-report data, there is potential for a mismatch between one’s perceptions and the reality. Alongside this, despite researchers’ promotion of full disclosure through the use of anonymised written teacher reflections, it is possible that respondents were conservative in reporting negative experiences and beliefs given their awareness that the researchers were the LS facilitators, knowledgeable others, and LS advocates. However, there was no sense that the teachers were trying to please the researchers, as they were forthright when invited to highlight issues across the LS phases [3]. The method of recruitment to the study is also a limitation. Given that this study includes teachers who volunteered, findings may not generalise to non-volunteers or volunteers in different school settings (outside the school network, with varying levels of school leader support, and available class cover).

Despite the acknowledged limitations, the findings overlap greatly with other LS research from other jurisdictions, reflecting conclusions of other LS initiatives [2,17,28,33]. This is promising, adding weight to the existing research about LS’s perceived value and effectiveness [28] and providing learning opportunities beyond this study. The extent to which the study recommendations are transferable to other contexts is dependent on the congruence of the settings and participants involved.

8. Conclusions

This study demonstrates that Irish primary teachers are open to LS as a PD model, in particular welcoming opportunities for and the affordances of collaborative planning, observation and discussions [28,29]. Reflecting other studies internationally, time proved a multi-faceted and relentless barrier to LS engagement [2,4]. However, teachers’ reported learnings included the development of relevant knowledge for teaching as well as improved efficacy in relation to pedagogical approaches and the development of insights into pupil ability [2,18,28,29]. Teachers demonstrated a commitment to LS, with a subgroup assuming the role of LS advocate in their schools. Suggested modifications to the LS approach to promote its sustainability included changes to LS group membership, LS timing, a whole-school approach, and more flexible meeting arrangements [18,19].

Given the consensus that a curriculum change provides favourable conditions for LS [19], this PD model would facilitate primary teachers to collaboratively experience the forthcoming mathematics curriculum in action, thus becoming curriculum designers as opposed to curriculum implementers [18]. However, one teacher’s reference to LS being ‘just another initiative’ if the issue of time is ignored echoes Elliot’s (2019) [27] contention that rather than adapting LS, changes to the education system are required to facilitate LS. This is worth further consideration in future studies given the challenges of promoting a culture of collaboration [27] in education systems such as Ireland, where teachers spend the vast majority of their working day teaching pupils [2,11]. Hence, if Irish policy makers wish to accrue the greatest benefits from the sustainable implementation of LS in shaping policy, shaping curriculum development, and ultimately enhancing practice, system changes are fundamental. In this regard, the promotion of LS state-wide in Florida provides guidance [30,42]. While this study demonstrates teachers’ receptiveness to LS as a model of PD, ensuring its sustainability requires multi-faceted supports. It is critical that teachers, particularly in education systems such as Ireland, where a culture of collaboration is relatively embryonic, can engage in LS under optimal conditions [27,29]. Akiba et al. (2019) [42] proposed investment in three design features: duration, facilitator, and the quality of materials. This would require that teachers receive opportunities to engage in LS in different roles (teaching and non-teaching LS group member, observer). Release from teaching duties would be necessary to facilitate full engagement and thus accrue the benefits of collaboration with LS peers, facilitators, and/or knowledgeable others. Opportunities to participate in LS across the school year alongside a flexible timeline to complete the LS phases are also essential. Such conditions would guarantee that teachers experience the many affordances of LS [22]. This recommendation is borne out in the findings of Akiba and Wilkinson (2016) [30], where a lack of investment in ensuring sufficient time for teachers to engage fully in LS practices in some Florida districts resulted in undesirable modifications. These included the presentation of LS as a short-term, simplified process that could be completed within 2–4 days, the use of pre-existing lesson plans for early LS cycles, and the absence of a research focus [30,42].

Equally, given the acknowledged centrality of the LS facilitator and knowledgeable other roles in providing systematic support to teachers during the LS process, it is necessary to consider how these roles can be filled in countries such as Ireland, where LS is relatively new and there is a dearth of LS experience across the education system [32]. The current piecemeal approach to LS relies for the most part on ad hoc research and initiatives. A more systematic approach is necessary. If there is genuine interest in embedding LS practices in the education system, in the short term, systemic capacity building needs to focus on the roles of LS facilitator and knowledgeable other. For example, the identified ‘LS advocates’ in this study, with further opportunities to experience LS as participants alongside targeted supports, could move into the role of an LS facilitator, leading the teachers through the LS phases. As previously outlined, this is the long-term goal of this research study. Similarly, the Professional Development Services for Teachers (PDST) team [15], who have been engaging in LS initiatives with primary schools as part of their brief to engage in-service teachers and school leaders in PD, could play an active role in this regard. Fora to support teachers making this transition include communities of practice, shadowing experiences, peer coaching, critical friends’ groups, and online support fora [22]. For example, the development of a network of experienced LS teacher, who assume the role of LS facilitators, would facilitate the meaningful sharing of experiences and feedback, thus promoting knowledge transfer. Taking the above approach, the role of the external knowledgeable other would be critical in providing specialist expertise and guidance to the LS group during the planning phase and/or in the post-lesson discussions [16,18]. This knowledgeable other role could be assumed by invited teacher educators with the relevant expertise. Investment in such capacity building of both teacher educators and teacher leaders must be a priority in order to ensure effective supports for LS groups. National LS experts could play an important role in informing and supporting such capacity building. Such liaisons could also promote the creation of research-informed LS resources, e.g., LS toolkits [30,34,35,42]. The creation of toolkits that include quality LS and content-specific resource kits could play a critical role in promoting the fidelity of LS implementation that includes critical features in efforts to scale up LS within the Irish context [25,33,42].

LS must be seen as a long-term endeavour rather than a short-term intervention. The latter viewpoint in Florida led to a failure to reconsider existing PD organisational structures and routines to facilitate LS. Instead, modifications to LS to fit existing PD structures and routines negatively impacted the LS experience. Future studies must focus on exploring system reforms that would promote meaningful LS implementation within the Irish context.

In terms of contribution, this study adds weight to the body of research regarding the impact of LS on teachers’ knowledge and beliefs. It also contributes to the field as it documents an adapted LS approach within the Irish education context. Equally, this study confirms previous studies that identify time as an immense barrier to LS. It challenges research questioning the sustainability of LS within countries that have a predominantly traditional approach to PD and reinforces and extends research that advocates for bespoke LS models that incorporate adaptations promoting a good fit for the particular educational context. This study’s findings provide evidence that triggered a thorough consideration of the range of adaptations and supports within and beyond the school setting required to promote LS as a sustainable PD model within the Irish education system.