building collaborative pedagogy: lesson study in higher ... · pdf file... teaching and...

Building Collaborative Pedagogy: Lesson Study in Higher Education • College Quarterly

http://collegequarterly.ca/2017-vol20-num01-winter/building-collaborative-pedagogy-lesson-study-in-higher-education.html[2/17/2017 6:52:43 PM]

Volume 20 • Issue 1 (2017)

HOME CURRENT ISSUE EDITORIAL BOARD SUBMISSION GUIDELINES HISTORY ARCHIVES

SEARCH

Building Collaborative Pedagogy:Lesson Study in Higher Education

Krystel H. Chenault

AbstractIn this discussion-based article, the author considers thebenefits of an in-depth collaborative model for curricularand faculty development, the Japanese lesson study, amethod that is largely untested in higher education,though the few instances of its usage have producedpromising results. The author examines the barriers tofaculty collaboration in higher education as well aspractical solutions for encouraging collaboration,grassroots leadership, and social development using thelens of prominent leadership theories.

KRYSTEL H. CHENAULT

Krystel H. Chenaultearned her M.A. inComposition and Rhetoricat Wright State Universityin Dayton, Ohio and iscurrently pursuing a PhDin EducationalAdministration at theUniversity of Dayton. Herresearch interests includecollege teaching andlearning as well as

http://collegequarterly.ca/

http://collegequarterly.ca/index.html

http://collegequarterly.ca/2017-vol20-num01-winter/index.html

http://collegequarterly.ca/2017-vol20-num01-winter/editors.html

http://collegequarterly.ca/info_authors.html

http://collegequarterly.ca/history.html

http://collegequarterly.ca/archive.html

http://collegequarterly.ca/search.html



Keywords: faculty development, teaching and learning,leadership

Building Collaborative Pedagogy: Lesson Study in HigherEducation “The norms of the higher educationcommunity at large encourage autonomy andindependence” (Uchiyama & Radin, 2008, p. 271).Indeed, autonomy and independence are unwaveringvalues that undergird the structures of power andprofessional advancement in higher education. Frominter-institutional competition for enrollment to intra-institutional competition for funding, promotion, andtenure, the higher education landscape is built uponcompetition and individualism, values that can be passedon to students in the way they mobilize their learning,despite society’s increasing demand for self-motivatedleaders that can collaborate and lead others to success(Fein, 2014; Uchiyama & Radin, 2008). When it comesto classroom instruction, Hutchings, Huber, and Ciccone(2011) describe a fundamental shift in higher educationfrom institutions of teaching, in which instructors serveas singular arbiters of knowledge, to institutions oflearning that value growth, cooperation, and evolution ofthought. Classroom instruction in higher education canbe a microcosm of the values of the institution and ofsociety, as distilled through the instructor. Therefore, itbecomes ever more imperative that classroom contentand curricula are thoughtfully designed andimplemented in a way reflective of the collaborative,evolutionary values proving beneficial for institutions ofhigher education today and of the future.

Leadership in higher education plays a crucial role inushering in this shift to collaboration and the

educational policysupporting studentsuccess. She haspreviously publishedarticles on educationfinance and counseling at-risk students.



empowerment of others within individual classrooms,academic departments, and campus wide. After all, thefundamental hallmarks of leadership are envisioning theinstitution’s ideal future (Nadler & Tushman, 1995) andcultivating and facilitating change (Kotter, 1995) to meetthat vision. A vision of an institution of higher educationbuilt upon community and collaboration requires a shiftfrom professional competition to cooperation amonghigher education faculty, a cultural change that leadersmust shrewdly pioneer through a gentle ebb and flow ofpower that ultimately empowers faculty to lead eachother to work collaboratively.

Faculty Collaboration: Benefits andBarriersAccording to Uchiyama and Radin (2009), collaboration,collegiality, and relationship building are values thattranscend mission and profession but are especiallyrelevant in an educational environment. Teaching as aprofession can be a paradox because it can besimultaneously social and isolating. Teachers interactextensively with students in a professional capacity, butopportunities for professional interaction with peers canbe limited, even though its presence can be highlybeneficial for faculty climate and educational outcomes.Kelchtermans (2006) found that increased collegialityamong faculty provides moral support and promotesconfidence and instructional innovation, while Hindin,Morocco, Mott, and Aguilar (2007) attest that facultycollaboration helps facilitate personal reflection and thedrive to work together within a common mission.

However, the lack of a common purpose and larger senseof belonging are frequently cited reasons for facultydisillusionment and turnover (Barnes, Agago, & Coombs,



1998; Tierney & Rhoads, 1994; Uchiyama & Radin,2009). Furthermore, the often competitive pursuit ofresearch and tenure leaves little room for collaborationand social integration among faculty (Demir, Czerniak, &Hart, 2013), as faculty members’ individual professionalpursuits may have little or nothing to do with the missionof the institution and the goals of other faculty members(Briggs, 2007; Uchiyama & Radin, 2009), let alonestudent learning outcomes. The lack of opportunities forworkplace collaboration and relationship-building inhigher education can leave faculty feeling isolated andlethargic in their professional obligations, especially inthe classroom (Briggs, 2007; Demir et al., 2013; Lester &Kezar, 2012; Uchiyama & Radin, 2008).

A solution to increase collaboration and scholarlyreflection can be found in form of centralized curricularcollaboration among higher education faculty. Hutchingset al. (2011) describe a “teaching commons” in highereducation, (p. 2), a space for collaboration, innovation,and pedagogical inquiry that situates teaching as acooperative scholarly endeavor that encourages faculty toform communities of teaching and learning that cancounteract the sense of isolation ingrained in theindividualistic culture of higher education. This “cycle ofinquiry, evidence, and improvement makes thescholarship of teaching and learning a powerful form ofprofessional growth and development” (Hutchings et al.,2011, p. 118) and can serve as an integral tool to developa sense of respect, collegiality, and opportunity forpersonal and professional reflection. What’s more,improved congruence among course material and eveninstructional style can improve the social andprofessional relevance in student outcomes, both ofwhich are crucial elements that many scholars and



practitioners argue is lacking in many curricula in highereducation (Briggs, 2007; Nduna, 2012).

Collaborative Teaching in Action: TheLesson Study ModelLester and Kezar (2010) chronicle two types of facultycollaboration as kinds of grassroots leadership: sense-making and problem solving. Indeed, task-orientedgroup activities involved in problem-solvingcollaborative initiatives kindle the self-direction andleadership necessary for a wider collaborative culture totake hold department-wide and beyond. But while alsoallowing for the development of participants’ leadershipskills, sense-making collaborations allow more for thecultivation of comprehensive social bonds. These socialbonds ensure that a collaborative culture isn’t just builtaround utilitarian tasks that come and go after they aredealt with but are a fundamental part of the socio-emotional experience of the workplace.

One model for sense-making collaborations as vehiclesfor grassroots leadership is the lesson study. Started inJapanese primary schools, the lesson study approachesteaching and learning from a constructivist standpoint(Fosnot, 1996), which emphasizes cooperation andreciprocity in making meaning and understanding reality(Demir et al., 2013). Lesson study is a profoundlycollaborative approach to teaching in which a team ofinstructors designs and revises a curriculum as well asoffers one another advice and support in critiquingindividual lessons (Cerbin & Kopp, 2006; Demir et al.,2013). Lesson study is so common in Japan that nearlyall Japanese teachers belong to a lesson study group(Cerbin & Kopp, 2006), though the model is apredominantly novel approach in North America,



cropping up in a small number of public and privateprimary and secondary schools.

Lesson study works like this: a team of instructors,usually from the same or related academic departmentsengage in profound reflection and discussion about thestrategies and goals surrounding a related set of coursesin hopes of analyzing areas of student need as well ashow the coursework fits in with the larger institutionalmission. The fruits of these collaborative efforts include afunctional lesson plan developed from the wide array ofexpertise of the faculty involved in its development andan on-going, in-depth analysis of the success of thelessons contained in the lesson plan as well as plans forfuture improvement (Cerbin & Kopp, 2006). Analysis ofcoursework follows peer observations and a debriefingprocess following each class. Instructors collaborate toexamine which parts of the curriculum worked, whichdidn’t, and why. This process of reciprocal reflection andknowledge consolidation is a powerful tool not only forimproving student outcomes but also allowing for deeperlevels of interpersonal bonding among participants.Instructors learn to question how students learn and notjust what they learn as well as to approach theirprofessional responsibilities with reflective curiosity anda desire for personal growth. Along with this desire forgrowth comes the desire to facilitate the growth ofothers. Successful teaching becomes not just a personaltriumph; when faculty become involved in each other’spedagogy on such a deep level, a well-taught classroom ofengaged students is a shared victory. Likewise, adisastrous lesson no longer has to weigh on oneindividual alone. Unsuccessful lessons simply becomepart of a fluid process of trial and error, a reconciling ofstudents’ diverse talents and learning styles with faculty’s



wide array of expertise and opinions. Instructionalfailures no longer have to ruminate in the brain of oneperson; if multiple faculty members not only haveintimate knowledge of the lesson as well as a personalstake in its success, it’s in everyone’s best interest tocollaborate in figuring out what can be done to improvefuture lessons.

Lesson study is mostly untested in higher education.Cerbin and Kopp (2006) and Demir et al. (2013)implemented pilot lesson study programs in highereducation contexts, and the benefits seen in K-12institutions indeed carry over to higher education. Demirand colleagues reported lesson study promoted “reform-based pedagogical practices, reflective teaching, andawareness of student thinking and misconceptions” (p.25). Faculty who participated in lesson study claimedtheir teaching was improved because they were able toexamine student learning in a way they had never donebefore; they were able to step out of the habits of theirwell-worn teaching styles and incorporate new ideas(Demir et al., 2013). Cerbin and Kopp (2006) foundreported similar results, with lesson study beingcategorized as a form of focused practitioner researchthat focuses on how students learn and how instructorsimpact that learning, all with the added benefits offaculty affiliation and bonding. Cerbin and Kopp (2006)continue by stating that lesson study has the potential tobe an exceptionally useful tool for maximizing teachingand collaboration in higher education: “It scaffoldsreflective practice in which instructors carefully examinegoals for student learning and development, design goal-oriented learning experiences, conduct a lesson, observeand analyze student learning and revise the lesson designto improve learning” (p. 253). Lesson study opens up the



lines of inquiry into and about student learning and doesso in a fashion that is built upon peer support andknowledge sharing.

Japanese lesson study is usually centered around theindividual school’s “research focus,” which is a set of“school-wide goals … such as curiosity, independentthinking, tolerance of individual differences and so forth”(Cerbin & Kopp, 2006, p. 251). Similarly, lesson study inhigher education could be centered around theinstitution’s mission or even leadership’s vision for thedepartment, which could possibly be formulated on amore grassroots level than the overall institutionalmission. Overall, lesson study offers the potential forcurricular collaboration to be consistently sharedthrough an ongoing process of conception,implementation, and reflection, all to the great benefit ofstudents and faculty, both professionally and socially.

Barriers to Faculty Collaboration: Solutionsfor LeadersDespite all the recorded and potential benefits for bothstudents and faculty, frequent and centralized curricularcollaboration among college faculty like lesson study mayoften meet with ambivalence, doubt, or resistance.Lesson study, for instance, is time consuming and mayinterfere with other faculty obligations, like research andadvising (Demir et al., 2013). What’s more, the culture ofautonomy in content and knowledge ownershipcontinually permeates the curricula in higher education,and any move toward collective ownership of practicalknowledge can be seen as unnecessarily risky or a wasteof effort, especially since faculty often view teachingquality as an undervalued aspect of professional success(Demir et al., 2013). And perhaps even more so than



research, classroom content and instruction can beviewed by faculty as deeply personal and tied to the self,and therefore, critiquing and analyzing one’s owninstructional practices and the instructional practices ofcolleagues may be uncomfortable or difficult to manage.In fact, Demir et al. (2013) reveal that faculty memberstaking part in their lesson study model frequently foundthe observation and peer debriefing process to beawkward and invasive, often devaluing their ownpotential contributions as intrusive or unfounded.Therefore, despite increasing calls for curricular cohesionand workplace relevance (Briggs, 2007; Nduna, 2012),the subjectivity of pedagogy remains a barrier as long ascollaboration is viewed as overstepping one’s bounds or ausurping of power.

In addition to the nebulousness of position and hierarchyamong faculty participants in curriculum collaboration,the role of the formal leader in these exchanges can alsobe a point of contention. Demir et al. (2013) characterizethe role of the facilitator in the lesson study model asinstrumental to the effort’s success but also the mostcontentious. A facilitator too focused on task delegationand oversight may take away from the crucial group led,power-sharing dynamic of the model; faculty may beginto view the lesson study as a task they are being forced tocomplete and are more likely to view it as detractingfrom important individual responsibilities, such asresearch and advising. However, an absent facilitator, ora facilitator who did not undergo the gradual acclimationof faculty members to the concepts of power sharing andgrassroots leadership, may be viewed as too laissez-faireor shirking his or her responsibilities as a leader (Preskill& Brookfield, 2009). After all, not all individuals arereadily equipped to accept leadership responsibilities,



even if the responsibility is only over oneself. Kelley(1995) characterizes followership patterns ranging fromindependent and critical thinking individuals who areready and willing to accept leadership responsibilities, todependent and uncritically thinking individuals who areless apt to accept responsibilities for even self-leadership,let alone the leadership of others. And if a leader isn’tadequately prepared to empower individuals with widelyvariable levels of enthusiasm toward self-direction andcooperation, the in-depth curricular analysis and trustbuilding in lesson study may be frustrating and fruitlessfor those involved.

Apart from the logistical or structural issues with lessonstudy and other centralized curricular collaborations,oftentimes the climate of many institutions of highereducation is not conducive to widespread, top-downcollaborative directives. Fein (2014) characterizes leader-led faculty collaboration as artificial, and faculty willlikely view it as such. After all, Fein argues, there are notangible, policy-driven barriers to faculty collaboration,so reforms aimed at coordinating collaborative effortsmay be viewed as unnecessary or an overreach of power.Lester and Kezar (2012) agree that effectiveorganizational change in higher education rarely comesdirectly from leaders but from the members of theinstitution operating at all levels. For this reason, it’scrucial that leaders wishing to encourage morewidespread curricular analysis and collaborationcarefully and gradually facilitate a culture of dialogue,empowerment, and collective leadership from the groundup.

SuperLeaders and FollowerEmpowerment



Follower empowerment and the cultivation of grassrootsleadership are common themes in leadership literatureover the past two decades. Kelley (1995) advocates aleveling of the power structure of the leader-followerdynamic and suggests that followership and leadershipare equal parts of the same goal, just encompassingdifferent tasks. And according to Gardner (1995), the keytask of leadership is to empower followers to developinternally motivated passion for the goals and values ofthe collective group, a drive that should persist in theleader’s presence or absence, as well as serve to increasethe self-worth and confidence of all involved (Rosener,1995). Indeed, the central goal of the 21st century leadershould be to create more leaders and a collaborativeculture that inspires the group while “satisfying basichuman needs for achievement, a sense of belonging,recognition, self-esteem, a feeling of control over one’slife, and the ability to live up to one’s ideals” (Kotter,1995, p. 120). In other words, leaders should serve asbeacons of encouragement emboldening individuals tofollow their own natural course toward achievement andaffiliation, two important facets that comprise a happy,fulfilling workplace. And if faculty members viewcollaboration as a relinquishment of power, leaders mustintroduce the idea that power is not a finite resource tobe given up or taken by other group members or bywhoever is supposed to be in charge; power is a fluid andunlimited resource that proliferates the more peoplecooperate and contribute and encourage others to do thesame.

If leaders in higher education can inspire facultymembers to feel compelled by their own internallymotivated desires to impart change and improveconditions for work and learning within their immediate



environments, whether it’s within their department orcampus-wide, an increasingly collaborative academicculture will emerge more smoothly. Research shows thatfaculty already collaborate on a more informal level tothe benefit of the faculty members involved and theirstudents (Briggs, 2007; Lester & Kezar, 2012). Theseunofficial brainstorming sessions are valuable tools forimproving student outcomes as well as buildingcommunity and leadership among faculty. Therefore, thegoal of leaders in higher education isn’t necessarily tolegitimize informal faculty collaboration but to illuminateit as a form of collective leadership that can be fosteredinto a more collaborative culture campus-wide.

By sharing power and situating collaboration as a centraltenet of the institution’s culture, a leader can worktoward making doubtful, directionless individuals feelthat their group is “leaderful,” rather than “leaderless”(Preskill & Brookfield, 2009, p. 84), situating curricularcollaboration models like lesson study as professionalendeavors in which all faculty members hold a stake. Tothese ends, leaders in higher education must relinquish aconsiderable amount of power in order to allow“leaderful” groups of energetic faculty to emergeorganically. Manz and Sims (1995) put forth the conceptof SuperLeadership as an invaluable perspective toconsider when instituting a power-sharing, highlycollaborative professional environment. Much likeGreenleaf’s (1995) servant leadership in which thoseindividuals with systemic power relinquish that power inorder to allow others to emerge as leaders, SuperLeadersfacilitate the gradual hand-off of power and leadershipresponsibilities from the formal leader to the members ofthe group in such a way that collaborative groups of self-motivated leaders form naturally out of common



interests, values, and needs. But even servant leadershipimplies an innate hierarchy that servant leaders arewilling to invert for the sake of those below them; rather,SuperLeadership involves dismissal of hierarchy alltogether and a sharing of power rather than giving itaway.

For a leader, the key to successful collaboration is thegradual professional and personal development of herassociates by creating opportunities for collaboration andsocial bonding. Garvey Berger (2013) emphasizes theimportance of the leader’s ability to evaluate themembers of an organization and their developmentalneeds, both socially and professionally, as well as toguide them to the next level of social function. Manz andSims (1995) illustrate the central tasks ofSuperLeadership as developing the practical skillsnecessary for successful collaboration and self-leadership. Briggs (2007), Lester and Kezar (2010), andPreskill and Brookfield (2009) suggest offering frequentand fulfilling opportunities for collaboration anddiscussion. By facilitating faculty dialogue beyond directtask fulfillment or any other departmental demands,leaders can help faculty build a rapport and respectfulprofessional relationships in which they view oneanother not as competition, but as equal scholar-practitioners with whom they can derive expertise as wellas emotional and professional support.

Narrative Experience and Supportive Self-CritiqueBy encouraging professionally engaging discourse amongfaculty, leaders in higher education can help build alarger collaborative culture that recognizes the value ofworking with others to make sense of the academic



landscape faculty members navigate every day. GarveyBerger (2013) presents the metaphor of “getting on thebalcony” in professionally interactive environments as away of rising above one’s own immediate desires, fears,and interpretations and appreciating the experiences ofothers, not just for how they might affect one’s owninterests, but how they affect the larger group. Byencouraging a collaborative culture built upon narrativeexperiences, leaders in higher education can help facultymembers rise above their own immediate hardships andtriumphs by sharing in each other’s and thinkingcritically about how these experiences gel with their ownbehaviors and perceptions. The key is for leaders tocreate as many of these opportunities for dialogue andsharing ideas as they can, possibly in a more informalfashion so as to maintain the virtues of a voluntarygrassroots leadership group detailed by Briggs (2007)and Lester and Kezar (2010) but also in a morestructured, guided way so as to encourage participationand reduce member attrition.

Preskill and Brookfield (2009) offer guidelines andprompts for leaders to help facilitate occasions fornarrative sharing and self-critique. They describe “TheTalking Practice Group” (p. 28), a voluntary gatheringfocused on sharing teaching experiences, triumphs,failures, and questions. These meetings are unstructuredand focused on building alliances and simply ventingabout classes, which are key elements of the lesson studymodel. Leaders can be the catalyst for these get-togethers, but it is crucial that they are member-led sothat faculty can begin to develop self-direction and notfeel as if they are being forced to interact with oneanother. The Talking Practice Group can serve as aprecursor to more a more formal lesson study



arrangement, or lesson study-like practices may evenemerge organically as faculty members form bonds overcommon interests or goals.

A wider sense of affiliation and belonging can arise fromthese narrative sharing experiences and curriculumcollaboration may bloom more organically, which mayfurther complement other tools that could be used intandem with lesson study, like Preskill and Brooks’(2009) Critical Incident Questionnaire. These shortquestionnaires can be given to students periodically andserve as a means of helping faculty analyze theirinstruction. Questions include:

At what moment in the class this week did you feelmost engaged with what was happening?

At what moment in the class this week did you feelmost distanced from what was happening?

What action that anyone (teacher or student) tookin class this week did you find most affirming andhelpful?

What action that anyone (teacher or student) tookin class this week did you find most puzzling orconfusing?

What about the class surprised you the most?

Using questionnaires such as the CIQ could serve as astarting point for faculty members to begin to dissecttheir instructional and curricular choices with the help oftheir peers. As previously detailed by Demir et al. (2013),faculty members using lesson study to improve theircurriculum and instructional choices often complained offeeling uncomfortable critiquing each other’s teaching oraccepting critique about their own teaching. But if facultyuse the CIQ as a starting point for self-critique as well asaccepting critique from others, the feeling of over-



stepping one’s bounds might be lessened, especially iffaculty members are just helping each other make senseof what the students express as being an issue for them.The CIQ could follow a class session observed by anotherfaculty member as part of lesson study so the observerwould have the context to help the instructor make senseof what the students are expressing. The ease of thecritique could be amplified even more if the facultymembers have already built a rapport during informal,leader-facilitated social events like The Talking PracticeGroup.

Lester and Kezar (2010) reiterate the importance ofbuilding trust in grassroots leadership teams throughconnecting professional tasks to shared personalexperiences, which not only serves to build trust andincrease the quality of collaborative efforts but also“assist[s] teams in reaching cognitive complexity” (Lester& Kezar, 2010, p. 122). This cognitive complexity issimilar to the social development described by GarveyBerger (2013) when she describes the disparate levels ofsocial functioning experienced by members of anorganization at all different professional levels and howoptimal functioning is marked by empathy, criticalreflection, and openness to growth opportunities.Learning to make sense of the experiences of others,Garvey Berger continues, is crucial in the cultivation ofthe higher social functioning necessary for effectivecollaboration. Garvey Berger suggests certain activelistening techniques for group members to make themost of narrative sharing as a means of moving towardgrowth and effective collaboration. For example, “movingyour questions to the edge” (Garvey Berger, 2013, p. 50)is a way of taking interest in the narrative experiences ofothers beyond surface content and into the wider context



of the social self-involved in making the decisions thatperson made and expressing their narrative experiencethey have chosen to express it. “Be really curious” and“judge slowly” (Garvey Berger, 2013, pp. 51-52 ) areadditional interpersonal tools for group members toincrease their capacity for empathy as well as a way tothink introspectively and examine their own worldviewsby thinking critically about the views of others, both ofwhich are instrumental in ushering in a larger culture ofcooperation and understanding. Once the cycle ofcollaboration and reflection in lesson study becomescommon practice, quality leadership and self-directioncan bloom at all levels with little more than gentleguidance from top-down leadership.

Transformational Development throughCollaborationWhen implementing intensely involved models ofcollaboration like the lesson study, leaders will likelyencounter a wide array of not only willingness tocollaborate from faculty but also varying levels of socialcapabilities for collaboration. In this case, leaders canemploy Garvey Berger’s (2013) guidelines in identifyingand improving the social development of different typesof faculty members, as successful collaboration oftenrequires high levels of social functioning from itsparticipants. Garvey Berger (2013) utilizes Kegan’s(1994) constructivist development theory to detail fourstages of human social development that can help leadersmake sense of the reality in which their employees aresituated: self-sovereign, socialized, self-authoring, andself-transforming. Individuals operating under lowerlevels of social development, like the self-sovereign mindand even the socialized mind, may resist and fail tobenefit from collaborative work until they can be moved



to further development by their need to make sense oftheir new and complex experiences. The self-sovereignmind is intensely self-interested and superficial, andwhile Kegan (1994) insists that developmental stages areconsistent across situations without regression, it can beeasy for faculty members operating in the autonomous,and often competitive higher education landscape to getstuck in this simplistic, ego-driven way of thinking as ameans of bolstering their professional survival. Self-sovereign individuals can fail to see the connectionsbetween themselves and others, so being asked toconnect their previously self-governing instructional liveswith a larger collective of pedagogical perspectives canseem frustrating or a waste of time. Even for individualsoperating from the developmental level above the self-sovereign, like the socialized mind, alternativeperspectives can lead to dissonance and confusionbecause they lack the social capacity to easily reconciletheir own perspectives with those of others.

It’s key that leaders become adept in identifying andmotivating all different levels of social development toensure smooth transition into a more collaborativeenvironment. For example, leaders can move self-sovereign individuals into a more socialized way ofthinking by framing initial attempts at collaboration in away that directly benefits that individual, perhaps in theform of better student evaluations or smootherinterpersonal exchanges within the department. Byfacilitating development in this way, leaders help theseindividuals gain the capability of understanding theconnections between themselves and others and becomemotivated by external forces like the values of the groupor some sort of larger mission beyond themselves. Oncethey appreciate the connectivity among all members of



the lesson study, socialized faculty can begin to move to aself-authoring phase in which they can feel lessthreatened by the others’ critiques and suggestions andfeel empowered to become better teachers and scholarsof pedagogy.

Garvey Berger (2013) asserts that these developmentalchanges transform our way of thinking about what weknow about ourselves and what we know about others.Leaders using a social development lens whenencouraging collaborative practices are helping facultyview their curriculum and their instruction in a new wayby engaging in reciprocal exchanges of knowledge withpeers or potential mentors. Furthermore, intensecollaboration like lesson study allows practitioners to“rub theories together,” as Garvey Berger puts it, byexamining pedagogy from all different perspectives andlevels of experience. And Garvey Berger continues bystating that “taking new theories and putting themtogether—especially theories, practices, or ideas that arecontradictory—gives us practice in holding the paradoxesof what it means to be human” (p. 93). Learning toconfront and reconcile the complexities andcontradictions of collaborative work can help movefaculty to higher levels of social development, and inturn, become more adept at self-direction and leadingothers.

ConclusionIn reference to successful leadership, Lao Tzu (1995)said, “the wise leader is like water … water is fluid andresponsive … like water, the leader is yielding. Becausethe leader does not push, the group does not resent orresist” (p.70). When encouraging a supportiveeducational culture that values experiences,



collaboration, and development, a leader must take herplace as an equal member of the group and help makethe environment fertile for the free exchange of ideas andthe cultivation of self-directed leaders, much like waterin soil. The most successful organizations are fluid andopen to new ideas, and one of the most powerful ways tostay fluid and adaptable is to encourage the free flow ofideas on a constant basis, to make communication andteamwork a key component of the mission and culture.Lesson study is just one way for leadership in highereducation to encourage the collaboration and grassrootsleadership that makes educational institutions rich withinnovation and prepared to adapt to the ever-changingoutside world. Like any cultural change, it is not an easyfix but a commitment from leadership to listen to othersand to elevate the practical experiences of teachers to ahigher institutional level and encourage faculty to do thesame.

ReferencesBarnes, L. L. B., Agago, M. O., & Coombs, W. T. (1998).Effects of job-related stress on faculty: Intention to leaveacademia. Research in Higher Education, 39(4), 457–469.

Briggs, C. L. (2007). Curriculum collaboration: A key tocontinuous program renewal. The Journal of HigherEducation, 78(6), 676-711.

Cerbin, W. & Kopp, B. (2006). Lesson study as a modelfor building pedagogical knowledge and improvingteaching. International Journal of Teaching andLearning, 18(3), 250-257.

Demir, K., Czerniak, C. M., & Hart, L. C. (2013).



Implementing Japanese lesson study in a highereducation context. Journal of College Science Teaching,42(4), 22-27.

Fein, M. L. (2014). Redefining higher education: Howself-direction can save colleges. New Brunswick:Transaction Publishers.

Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: A psychologicaltheory of learning. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism:Theory, perspectives, and practice (pp. 8–33). NewYork, NY: Teachers College Press.

Gardner, J. W. (1995). Leaders and followers. In J. T.Wren (Ed.) The leader’s companion: Insights onleadership through the ages (pp. 185-188). New York,NY: The Free Press.

Garvey Berger, J. (2012). Changing on the job:Developing leaders for a complex world. Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1995) Servant leadership. In J. T. Wren(Ed.) The leader’s companion: Insights on leadershipthrough the ages (pp. 18-23). New York, NY: The FreePress.

Hindin, A., Morocco, C. C., Mott, E. A., & Aguilar, C. M.(2007). More than just a group: teacher collaborationand learning in the workplace. Teachers and Teaching:Theory and Practice, 4, 349-376.

Hutchings, P., Huber, T. M., & Ciccone, A. (2011). Thescholarship of teaching and learning reconsidered:Institutional integration and impact. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.



Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mentaldemands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Kelchtermans, G. (2006). Teacher collaboration andcollegiality as workplace conditions: A review. Journal ofEducation, 2, 220-237.

Kelley, R. E. (1995). In praise of followers. In J. T. Wren(Ed.) The leader’s companion: Insights on leadershipthrough the ages (pp. 193-204). New York, NY: The FreePress.

Kotter, J. P. (1995). What leaders really do. In J. T. Wren(Ed.) The leader’s companion: Insights on leadershipthrough the ages (pp. 114-123). New York, NY: The FreePress.

Lao-Tzu (1995). Tao Te Ching. In J. T. Wren (Ed.) Theleader’s companion: Insights on leadership through theages (pp. 69-71). New York, NY: The Free Press.

Lester, J. & Kezar, A. J. (2012). Understanding theformation, functions, and challenges of grassrootsleadership teams. Innovative Higher Education, 37, 105-124.

Manz, C. C. & Sims, H. P. (1995). SuperLeadership:Beyond the myth of heroic leadership. In J. T. Wren (Ed.)The leader’s companion: Insights on leadership throughthe ages (pp. 212-221).

Nadler, D. A. & Tushman, M. L. (1995). Beyond thecharismatic leader: Leadership and organizationalchange. In J. T. Wren (Ed.) The leader’s companion:Insights on leadership through the ages (pp. 108-113).New York, NY: The Free Press.



SenecaPress

Views expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect those of College Quarterly, or Seneca College.Copyright SenecaPress © 2017.

Nduna, N. J. (2012). The relevance of workplace learningin guidingstudent and curriculum development. SouthAfrican Journal of Higher Education, 26(2), 232-248.

Preskill, S. & Brookfield, S.D. (2009). Learning as a wayof leading: Lessons from the struggle for social justice.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rosener, J. B. (1995). Ways women lead. In J. T. Wren(Ed.) The leader’s companion: Insights on leadershipthrough the ages (pp. 149-160). New York, NY: The FreePress.

Tierney, W. G. (1999). Faculty productivity and academicculture. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), Faculty productivity:Facts, fictions, and issues (pp. 39–54). New York, NY:Falmer Press.

Tierney, W. G., & Rhoads, R. A. (1994). Facultysocialization as cultural process: A mirror of institutionalcommitment. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.93-6. Washington, D.C.: The George WashingtonUniversity School of Education and HumanDevelopment.

Uchiyama, K. P. & Radin, J. L. (2009). Curriculummapping in higher education: A vehicle for collaboration.Innovative Higher Education, 33, 271-280.

building collaborative pedagogy: lesson study in higher ... · pdf file... teaching and...

Documents