Task design for highly educated newcomers: improvement and implementation through Lesson Study

Abstract

Purpose

This case study aims to explore the outcomes of two Lesson Study (LS) cycles involving four teachers of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) in the Netherlands, focusing on task-based language pedagogy.

Design/methodology/approach

Using LS, teachers engaged in a Plan-Observe-Analyse-Evaluate cycle to address the unique needs of highly educated newcomers. Initially, teachers received input on task-based pedagogy and redesigned materials for specific learner groups. One teacher taught while others observed, and student feedback was collected. Post-lesson, teachers and the More Knowledgeable Other (MKO) discussed improvements, repeating the process the following week. Qualitative analyses of audio recordings, classroom observations, task designs and student feedback identified critical moments in the LS cycle.

Findings

Findings indicate that the task-based approach, task design and classroom implementation offered by LS helped to improve teachers’ professionalism: The LS cycle made teachers aware of task difficulty and clarity relative to student proficiency and interests, leading to adaptations for high, average and low-achieving students. It shifted teachers’ focus from “how to teach” to understanding student needs, revealing that low performance may stem from personal traits rather than proficiency. The process also underlined the additional care needed for vulnerable students facing challenges like long commutes from asylum seeker centres.

Practical implications

This study highlights the transformative potential of the LS model in enhancing task design, teaching practices and teacher development through collaboration, reflection and student-centred approaches. Teachers should adapt tasks collaboratively to accommodate diverse student needs, focusing on accessibility, engagement and emotional well-being, particularly in mixed-ability and vulnerable student groups. Real-time adjustments based on classroom experiences, combined with understanding students’ emotional challenges, can foster better outcomes. Future research could explore the long-term impacts of adaptive teaching on student engagement, confidence and performance as well as the integration of emotional support into teaching strategies for vulnerable learners.

Originality/value

This study contributes to understanding the effectiveness of LS in task development and improvement as well as professional development. It highlights implications for teacher training and task design in EAP contexts.

1. Introduction

Classroom-based reflective practice approaches to professional development (PD) have recently gained popularity in educational organisations across the world. Growing amounts of empirical evidence suggest that it is more effective compared to traditional and transmission-based approaches such as workshops, seminars and training courses. Lesson Study (LS), an inquiry-based PD model originating in Japan, is one of those reflective approaches. LS involves teachers collaboratively identifying student learning issues, developing and implementing research lessons, and critically reflecting on the outcomes. This process allows teachers to gather and share data on student learning, improving both their teaching practices and contributing to the broader teaching community's knowledge.

LS has been particularly prominent in mathematics and science education (e.g. Lewis, 2016; Takahashi and Wake, 2023) and is gaining interest in other disciplines, including language teaching. Studies on LS, such as those by Hurd and Licciardo-Musso (2005) and Stillwell et al. (2010), highlight benefits such as fostering a safe, collaborative environment for professional growth, enhancing instructional materials, and promoting a sense of professionalism and efficacy among teachers. Despite its growing popularity, research on LS in English language teaching remains limited, though it shows promise for expanding teacher development and student achievement across various educational contexts.

The case study reported on in this paper was conducted in a unique language teaching context in the Netherlands. We focus on an NGO that offers English-language courses for refugees, asylum seekers and other newcomers aiming to pursue higher education in Dutch institutions or to advance their professional careers. The English-language learning program, structured on a trimester basis, uses a modular system based on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR, Council of Europe’s, 2001), with three entry levels: B1+, B2 and B2+. During each three-month trimester, students attend forty-eight hours of face-to-face classes (two times two hours per week) and complete up to one hundred hours of self-study, including weekly assignments. The program's primary goal is to help students achieve the required IELTS (International English Language Testing System) score for higher education entry, such as a 6.5 overall for most BA (Bachelor of Arts) programs. Both in-class and self-study materials are designed to meet this objective, following a synthetic focus on forms approach using coursebook material.

The project is supported by a team of administrators, coordinators, and teachers who contribute on a voluntary basis. These volunteers come from diverse cultural backgrounds and possess varying levels of experience in teaching English, ranging from novices to experts with PhDs in applied linguistics. A secondary aim of the program is to foster PD among volunteer teachers through interaction and collaborative action. To this end, a co-teaching model has been implemented, pairing experienced and novice teachers to plan, teach, and evaluate lessons together. This model promotes mutual learning and the exchange of best practices, enhancing the overall quality of instruction.

Middleton (2019) conducted a small-scale needs analysis (NA) within the same organisation as part of his MA thesis supervised by the second author of this paper. The NA identified the following additional needs for this specific group of refugee learners.

• Speaking: Taking part in classroom activities and meetings
• Listening: Conversations with teachers/instructors or colleagues
• Listening: Understanding teacher instructions in class
• Writing academic texts: reports/reviews/articles
• Writing: Formal letters/emails.

In response, we present a task-based series of one-hour lessons that complements each module in the existing curriculum, addressing the identified needs (Gök and Michel, 2021). These lessons complement the course-book material, resulting in a “hybrid syllabus” where both the structure-based course book and the tailor-made task-based lessons are employed simultaneously. The tailored material builds on principles of task-based language teaching (TBLT), such as consisting of cycles of an input-providing pre-task, main task performance eliciting authentic language use, and post-task reflections gradually approaching target task performance in the real world (Michel, 2023).

Students, being newcomers, either live in asylum seeker centres or have just been granted status to stay in the Netherlands, which entitles them to independent housing. They are highly educated, having completed university or held academic-level jobs before fleeing their home country. Course takers are eager to return to their professions, but need language proficiency to do so. While the Dutch government supports Dutch language classes, the NGO focuses on teaching English, given that higher-level jobs and studies in the Netherlands often require English. In addition, for the specific cohort of students, learning English will go faster because they can build on pre-existing knowledge of earlier English language learning in their home country. Typically, this earlier English experience builds on grammar-heavy structure-focussed teaching. Also, many of the volunteer teachers have experienced a strong form-orientation in both their own learning and teaching.

The primary objective of this study is to investigate the potential of LS as a method to enhance volunteer teachers’ TBLT practices. To the best of our knowledge, there is no earlier work focusing on the integration of LS and TBLT.

We aim to address the following research questions:

• In what ways can LS contribute to the development and improvement of task-based lessons and materials?
• To what extent can the LS process contribute to teachers’ PD and facilitate their understanding and implementation of TBLT?

By exploring these questions, we aim to fill a gap in the current literature and provide insights into the efficacy of LS as a tool for task development in EAP, in particular, in the context as described above where volunteer teachers support newcomer learners.

To achieve this, a group of teachers were fully engaged in the LS process, tasked with refining specially designed tasks tailored to their target student group. Through this immersive experience, the study uncovered insights into how LS can serve as a valuable tool for improving tasks and materials, while simultaneously fostering professional growth among teachers.

2. Lesson Study in English language teaching

Recent years have witnessed a proliferation of LS implementation in language teaching contexts, particularly in higher education. This trend is notably evident in Turkey, where the use of LS in English Language Teaching (ELT) contexts has grown significantly. For example, Gök (2016) introduced LS within into a higher education language program in Turkey, sparking increased research on LS in Turkish ELT contexts. Baysal and Bumen’s (2021) meta-synthesis report how Gök’s study engaged a group of teachers in LS as part of a PD initiative, providing continuous support throughout the process. Gök’s pilot application was conducted under the guidance of the Lesson Study Research Group (LSRG) at the University of Leicester's School of Education in the UK. Despite time constraints, the participating teachers reported numerous positive outcomes. For example, teachers reported how the PD activity had shifted their focus from teaching to understanding learning. The collaborative nature of the project enabled them to learn from each other, share ideas, and foster a supportive, innovative environment. This experience built their confidence, increased motivation, and encouraged experimentation with new teaching methods. Additionally, it improved their ability to address students' needs more effectively. These findings suggest that LS has significant potential for the PD of ELT teachers, provided there is sufficient time and management support for its implementation.

Bayram and Bıkmaz (2021) replicated Gök's study procedures by implementing LS in a comparable context during the 2016–2017 academic year, aiming to investigate the experiences of teachers throughout the planning, implementation, analysis, and reporting phases of the LS process, as well as the implications of LS for teachers’ PD. Over a span of four months, data were collected through observations, interviews, whole group discussions, and reflective reports. Findings revealed both challenges and benefits associated with LS. Challenges included difficulties in selecting a topic and research question, determining lesson design and teaching style, making student thinking observable, and analysing qualitative data. Conversely, teachers experienced benefits such as increased pedagogical content knowledge, reflectivity, research skills, collaboration, and collegiality. This work suggests that LS could serve as a valuable starting point for institutions seeking to adopt a more teacher-led, inquiry-driven, and collaborative approach to PD.

In subsequent years, Karabuga and Ilin (2019) conducted qualitative research on LS implementation in Turkish EFL teacher development. Analysing data from five teachers' collaborative work and researcher observations, they found positive attitudes toward LS, leading to improved teaching practices. In 2019, Uştuk and Çomoğlu (2019) conducted a systematic review of LS implementations by English language teachers worldwide, including Turkey, and recommended broader adoption of the model by language teachers. Yalçın Arslan (2019) looked at the role of LS in pre-service EFL teacher education, highlighting its potential as a PD model for initial teacher training. Kincal et al. (2019) collaborated with 24 ninth-grade students and five English teachers in a school facing socioeconomic challenges to investigate if implementing LS could improve students' English skills and teachers' attitudes toward the approach. The results showed a notable enhancement in students' English proficiency, and teachers expressed a strong belief in the effectiveness of the model for their PD, indicating its suitability for inclusion in teacher training programs.

A considerable number of LS projects have also been observed in other countries. For example, Tasker (2014) focused on EFL teacher learning through LS in the US, highlighting its role as a conceptual tool for cognitive development and expansive transformation. The inclusion of administrators in the process was deemed essential for school-wide change. In addition to that, Nami et al. (2015) investigated EFL teachers' perceptions of LS in the context of computer-assisted language learning in Iran. Accordingly, LS enhanced teachers' technological knowledge and confidence in using technology for teaching. Goh and Fang (2017) report on a Singapore primary school grade level team's use of LS to mediate the implementation of the English language national curriculum, aiming to explore its impact on teachers' knowledge, beliefs, and learning. Employing an interpretive qualitative study with a case study methodology, data collection included participant observations and individual interviews, with LS discussions transcribed and open-coded. The findings reveal that each stage of the lesson process engaged teachers' discourse differently, fostering a common inquiry stance and challenging shared assumptions. The study identifies various pathways to teacher learning, including justifying pedagogical actions, observing lesson enactment, and redesigning lessons based on new understanding. The insights on teacher learning pathways can inform schools embarking on LS and teacher educators supporting teacher teams.

Ousseini (2019) explores preservice EFL teachers' understanding of LS and factors affecting its implementation in Niger. Four preservice teachers participated in reflective discussions via WhatsApp and face-to-face meetings. Findings indicate that collaborative reflection enhanced their understanding of LS, with key concerns about observer intrusion and the traditional, competitive learning culture in Niger. The study suggests that integrating collaborative strategies and using technology for virtual discussions could support LS implementation. These insights are vital for teacher educators and inform ongoing LS projects in Niger.

Khokhotva and Elexpuru-Albizuri (2021) looked into the use of reflective instruments—a reflective diary and a joint learning protocol—to enhance teachers' knowledge creation in LS. Conducted as a qualitative case study with four EFL teachers in the Basque Country, Spain, the research used narrative inquiry methods. Findings indicate that reflective writing in LS effectively captures and converts tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge, fostering individual and collective learning. Despite initial resistance due to the perceived extra workload, teachers recognized the benefits of “learning keeping” for improving their practice. The results support the use of LS as an effective framework for professional learning communities, improving teaching practices and student outcomes.

Houessou and Ishizuka’s (2020) study examines the impact of LS on EFL context in Benin. English teachers in Benin seek effective methods to enhance their teaching skills and improve students' English proficiency. Given the global adoption of LS, this research evaluates its potential adaptation to Benin's context. A survey of junior high school English teachers in Benin was compared with data from similar studies in Japan. Findings indicate that many Beninese EFL teachers lack professional training, and implementing LS could improve their teaching effectiveness and student proficiency. The study suggests that Benin’s government should consider organising LS training programs, potentially in collaboration with the Japanese International Cooperation Agency.

Zhang and Luo (2022) investigated EFL teachers' development concerning China's recent national English curriculum reform, utilising insights from two LSs and evaluating their impact on student performance and perceptions. The LSs, conducted in the same school three years apart, followed standardised procedures and collected data from lesson plans, reflective journals, discussions, and interviews. Findings show that LSs aided teachers in understanding and implementing the curriculum reform, improving instructional skills for innovative methods, with students' task performance and perceptions supporting the positive impact of teachers' efforts.

The common findings across these studies are the positive impact of LS on PD in ELT. LS implementations, such as those by Gök (2016) and Bayram and Bıkmaz (2021), led to increased pedagogical content knowledge, reflectivity, research skills, collaboration, and collegiality among teachers. Challenges included teachers' busy schedules, lack of necessary observation skills, and insufficient substitute teachers to cover for participants in the LS, selecting appropriate topics, determining lesson designs, and analysing qualitative data. Studies also highlighted positive attitudes toward LS among teachers and its effectiveness in improving teaching practices and student outcomes. Overall, LS appears to be a valuable approach for fostering teacher-led, inquiry-driven, and collaborative PD in ELT contexts.

Over the past decade, LS has gained considerable momentum in the Netherlands, drawing in an expanding community of teachers, teacher educators, and researchers. The Lesson Study NL consortium, founded in 2016 by Goei, de Vries, and Verhoef, has played a key role in promoting the use of Lesson Study to improve education quality both in the Netherlands and internationally. They authored the first Dutch guide on Lesson Study (de Vries et al., 2016) and are actively involved in training Lesson Study facilitators. In addition to organising the annual Dutch National Lesson Study Conference, they maintain strong ties with the international Lesson Study community.

Partner universities within the consortium are engaged in nationally funded projects, utilising Lesson Study as a professional development tool. However, to date, there have been no studies exploring the implementation of Lesson Study within English Language Teaching (ELT) contexts in the Netherlands, particularly in higher education. This study is the first to address this gap, contributing new insights into the application of Lesson Study in ELT in the Dutch educational context.

In this project, we aim to achieve two primary objectives: using Lesson Study (LS) to enhance the tasks developed by Gök and Michel (2021) and simultaneously fostering the PD of teachers within the unique context of EAP courses for highly-educated newcomers (see Figure 1). This dual focus distinguishes our research from other LS studies.

Garton and Graves (2014) argue that current materials design and development (MDD) courses in teacher preparation programs are inadequate. They recommend PD courses that involve practical activities such as material analysis, evaluation, and use, alongside SLA, methodology, and linguistics. Both pre-service and in-service education programs focusing on MDD can significantly impact teachers' material use. Gök (2019) asserts that collaborative reflective practice in PD activities, such as LS projects on task and material development, use, evaluation, and adaptation, can be highly beneficial for teachers. Therefore, educational institutions need to provide in-house PD opportunities for these teacher-led research projects to enhance skills and creativity in task design and materials use. Sharing the outcomes of such investigations would significantly advance the field of ELT. One such study by Stillwell et al. (2010), for example, demonstrated several benefits in both materials development and professional growth following the implementation of the LS approach at a Japanese university. They concluded that use of LS for developing and researching lessons and materials may effectively unite teachers to create student-focused materials while simultaneously offering opportunities for teacher development and research.

3. Methods

3.1 Participants

At the time of the study, the teaching cohort comprised 12 individuals—10 female and 2 male—ranging in age from 21 to 49 years. The educational qualifications of these teachers were diverse: five held Bachelor's degrees, six had Master's degrees, and one possessed a PhD. Their academic backgrounds spanned various disciplines, including Applied Linguistics and Psychology.

The student body consisted of 79 participants: 53 Turkish, 18 Arabic, and 9 from various nationalities, including Afghan, Iranian, Somali, and Kurdish.

Among the teachers, four were assigned to the B1+ level. This group included one PhD student in Applied Linguistics, one Master's student in Applied Linguistics, one Master's student in Public Health, and one Master's student in Psychology who also held a CELTA (Certificate in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) qualification.

Before commencing the study, ethical approval was obtained from the university’s ethics committee. Both the teachers and students participating in the study provided informed consent by signing consent forms.

3.2 Data collection

3.2.1 Data collection tools

This case study employed a qualitative research methodology to achieve its research aims. The data collection methods included post-lesson interviews with the case students as specified in Dudley’s (2014) handbook and written interviews with teachers (see Appendix 1) at the end of the entire process and, non-participant observation of the research lessons, audio recordings of the lesson planning and evaluation meetings, and field notes.

3.2.2 Procedure

At the outset of the study, the first author, who acted as a facilitator and More Knowledgeable Other (MKO), distributed the revised version of the LS Handbook by Dudley (2014) to the participating teachers to acquaint them with the LS approach to professional development. A preliminary one-hour meeting was convened where the first author and the teachers discussed the details of LS, addressing any uncertainties raised by the teachers. Subsequently, the teachers attended a one-hour workshop on TBLT delivered by the second author. Following this input stage, the teachers engaged in the LS cycles as detailed below (see Appendix 2 for further details).

Cycle 1

Four teachers convened to examine and discuss the first pedagogic task for one and a half hours, with the planning meeting being audio-recorded. They selected three case students to be observed: one low-achieving, one average, and one high-achieving. The following day, one teacher delivered the lesson while the other three observed the case students, completing the semi-structured observation form from Dudley’s handbook. After the lesson, two of the three teachers conducted 15–20 minutes interviews with the case students using questions from the handbook, and these interviews were also audio-recorded. An evaluation meeting, lasting one and a half hours, was then held with the teachers and the first author to reflect on the lesson and refine the tasks and lesson plan.

Cycle 2

The same procedure was followed in Cycle 2, with a different teacher delivering the lesson. Additionally, the case students were interviewed by the other two teachers on the team.

The entire process was completed within one month. All recordings and observation notes were submitted to the first author for further analysis. At the conclusion of the implementation, the teachers were interviewed to reflect on their experience with the LS process.

3.3 Data analysis

Qualitative inquiry is inherently inductive and exploratory, with researchers continually reviewing their data to uncover patterns (McKay, 2006). Data analysis involves a dynamic interplay between data and research, wherein researchers engage in an iterative and interactive process to interpret the data (Hopkins, 2008). For this study, we employed thematic analysis, defined as “a method for identifying, analysing, and reporting patterns within data” (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p. 79). ATLAS.ti was utilised to ensure a systematic and organised analysis of the codes and categories. By repeatedly reviewing the transcripts of meetings and interviews and engaging in “analytic circles” (Creswell and Poth, 2018, p. 254), initial codes were identified. To enhance reliability, the AI coding feature in ATLAS.ti was used to improve inter-coder reliability and compared the results with our initial codes.

A second round of coding was conducted to identify “latent themes: the underlying ideas, assumptions, and conceptualizations” (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p. 84). The relationships between codes were then examined, organising the data into coherent chunks. These chunks were labelled in alignment with the research aims and subsequently categorised according to emergent themes and patterns; namely, the effect of LS process on task improvement, the contribution of LS process to teacher professional development and the participating teachers’ view on the LS process.

Throughout the data analysis process, we immersed ourselves in the data, making interpretations concurrently. This approach allowed us to discern meaning beyond the surface-level codes and themes, leading to comprehensive conclusions. Our interpretations were informed by relevant theoretical frameworks, including social constructivism and zone of proximal development (ZPD) by Vygotsky, as well as our personal perspectives, enabling a deeper understanding of the data.

4. Findings

This section presents the findings of the study, which explores the impact of the LS process on task improvement and professional development. Section 4.1 focuses on how the LS process contributed to refining tasks based on student proficiency levels and learning needs. The findings reveal how teachers collaboratively adapted lesson tasks to better suit a mixed-ability classroom, making the tasks more accessible for all students. Section 4.2 highlights the professional growth experienced by the participating teachers, as they engaged in discussions about pedagogical approaches and task implementation. Additionally, Section 4.2 reflects on the teachers' experiences with LS, emphasising its role in fostering collaboration, enhancing lesson plans, and improving teaching practices through continuous reflection and feedback.

4.1 The role of the Lesson Study process on task improvement

The data shows that the teachers frequently engaged in discussions concerning the difficulty and clarity of the tasks in relation to the proficiency level and interests of the students. Although the students were placed at the B1+ level according to the results of a placement test at the beginning of the course, their level of proficiency varied. Because the teachers were dealing with a mixed-ability class, they suggested a number of adaptations to the tasks and language aspects to make them better suited to all three types of students: high-achieving, average and low-achieving.

At the outset of the planning meeting of the first cycle, one teacher (T4) highlighted that the B1+ group comprised students with varying proficiency levels, making it unrealistic to expect uniform learning outcomes from the lesson. This observation was corroborated by the other teachers. Nonetheless, she emphasised that the task offered learning opportunities for every student in the class.

The teachers' efforts to accommodate the diverse needs and learning styles of their students led to several modifications in both the original tasks and their instructional approaches. To illustrate, in the pre-task of Pedagogic Task 1 (Appendix 3), the students were expected to watch an authentic video about “Flipped Classroom” and then work in pairs or groups to discuss what they have understood from it. Analysing the media during the meeting, Teachers 1 and 4 came to the conclusion that some changes such as restructuring and supplementation would provide valuable scaffolding, making the task more accessible and less challenging for the students.

T4: “So I find that when you give students a video to watch, it's better to tell them beforehand to make notes on the main ideas of the video because they pay more attention… and, they actually remember what they saw… because, if you ask them after sometimes, they forget half of it.” (Cycle 1 Planning meeting)

T1: “And for the video… maybe at this phase, we can print the subtitles out, give them, and then they can reflect on the language to use. I think for some students it's just difficult to just pick up some language from others in the class while they hear it if it's totally new.” (Cycle 1 Planning meeting)

A post-lesson interview with the students confirmed the teachers’ concerns regarding the video's difficulty. However, students acknowledged during the post-lesson interviews that the video contained unfamiliar vocabulary, but the subtitles provided during the video significantly facilitated comprehension and made it easier to follow. One average student also recommended that the video be shared before class to allow for better preparation. The teachers welcomed this suggestion.

The teachers also adjusted the time allocated for certain tasks, considering their students’ skills and some anticipated problems. For example, in the first step of the main task in Pedagogic Task 1, where students were expected to discuss the pros and cons of a flipped classroom in pairs or groups, Teacher 1 noted:

T1: “Hmm. It's gonna take a little bit longer if they have very different ideas or they have a problem communicating their ideas in English. There are some, some students like two or three of them. Their oral skills are not strong enough to like… mm-hmm… very fluently explaining what they think. Mm-hmm… So I would give them a little bit more time when they're communicating their ideas, like five minutes for this task.” (Cycle 1 Planning meeting)

However, the data revealed that teachers' observations and assumptions do not always accurately reflect the actual learning situation, as multiple factors influence student performance and learning in the classroom. The LS process highlighted this critical insight for the participating teachers through first-hand experience, shifting their focus from “how to teach” to “understanding learners and learning.” By closely examining the pre-selected case students, the teachers began to consider adjusting their tasks, methods, and techniques to prepare more inclusive and effective learning experiences.

For instance, a student previously identified as low-achieving showed unexpected engagement and performed above expectations. The teachers realised that his low participation and achievement in previous lessons were due to personality traits such as shyness and insecurity, rather than his proficiency level. Consequently, the teachers and the MKO developed a strategy to support students with similar traits.

T1: “(…) Just don't push him. Don't let him be the first one to speak.”

MKO: “He's not very confident, but, when he did the pair work with another student, he responded to questions more confidently. This is because, in the pair work activity, they had already discussed the answers, which gave him more confidence in his responses. He then raised his hand and spoke more confidently, eager to answer the questions. One conclusion from our lesson plan is that pairing students is beneficial, particularly for low-achieving students. They gain confidence from discussing answers in pairs and are more willing to participate in full-class discussions without feeling shy or uncomfortable.”

Another important observation made by the teachers was that this group of students, due to their vulnerable status and external life challenges, might react differently to stressful situations and lose concentration more easily. For example, T2 noticed that one female student struggled during the lesson because she arrived late due to traffic. She had to travel by bus from an asylum seeker centre (ASC) for two hours to attend the course on Tuesdays and Thursdays, like many of her peers. Given the hardships they face and their living conditions at the ASCs, this target group requires additional attention and special care.

4.2 The role of the Lesson Study process in enhancing professional development

The data provides evidence that the two LS cycles contributed to the PD of the participating teachers. This section provides examples of how the teachers engaged in discussions about methodological and pedagogical issues related to the task plans, illustrating how meaningful learning moments were created for them.

During the implementation of Pedagogic Task 1 in the actual classroom environment, most activities proceeded smoothly, as they had been appropriately adapted to the students' proficiency levels and needs following the planning meeting. However, the teacher who conducted the lesson (T1) noted two aspects that were slightly challenging for the students: understanding the concept of “modes of instruction delivery” (see Pedagogic Task 1, Pre-task 1 in Cycle 1) and engaging in the post-task reflection on the language for comparison and contrast as a reflection and noticing activity (see Pedagogic Task 1, Post-task 1 in Cycle 1). The former led to an adaptation in the introduction of the concept, while the latter prompted an interesting discussion on teaching approaches and methods, especially on the question of whether there should be explicit focus on forms (FoFs) when implementing the TBLT method.

T4: “(…) the point of it being an, an implicit task plan. So, that should come from them and not from us. But I can see it. It is doable for the medium to more advanced students, but for the lower achieving ones, it would be like a tiny bit of an issue to, to reflect on the language they used.”

T1: “Then, there's always an explicit language goal in a lesson. But, here, I don't think, apart from being able to discuss and compare pros and cons, we have explicit language goals. There are communication goals in this course and, I think, students are allowed to pick up whatever they can, suitable to their level.”

T2: “(…) just based on the speaking lessons, I think some of them, I mean, even if they are not able to elicit all of them, I think they will be able to elicit some of them. And I think that's also part of the point of seeing what comes naturally to them. What kinds of expressions come naturally to them?”

(…)

T1: “That's a language task. That's not a real-life task, like when you compare the pros and cons as something meaningful in real-life. But when you say, okay, use these specific words, then that's a pure language lesson task.”

T4: “How I see this, that the entire post-task is basically explicitly reflecting on the implicit outcomes. Yeah. So we, we really cannot take the explicit part out of it because they are reflecting on the language they used. Yes. It's a language lesson, but it's an explicit language outcome, right? When to write down the comparatives.”

Indeed, the teacher who executed the lesson (T1) encountered a challenge during the implementation of the post-task in Pedagogic Task 1. However, MKO observed that this difficulty stemmed from unclear instructions rather than the inherent complexity of the task. Consequently, he made the following suggestion during the evaluation meeting.

MKO: “(…) when they (students) are asked to do a really difficult task and instructions are (…) not easy to understand, then you can ask them to repeat what they were going to do. (…) It is called ‘instruction check questions’. ICQ. So, after you have given the instructions, you can ask them what they are expected to do. (…) one or two students can just paraphrase what you have just said.” (Cycle 1 Evaluation meeting)

MKO also highlighted the significance of leveraging critical moments of learning based on the principles of the TBLT approach.

MKO: “Maybe we can prepare a slide where they can see some examples, like ‘more advantageous than’, ‘however’, ‘although’, ‘even though’, etcetera. A couple of examples (…) However, in Task-based Language Teaching, as you know, we should not be doing spoon-feeding. So, the demand should come from the students. When they ask … for example, what ‘phrase’ is (…) It's a moment of opportunity for the students to learn.” (Cycle 1 Evaluation meeting)

The reflections of the participating teachers on the LS process highlight its effectiveness in improving lesson plans through collaborative analysis. Teacher 1 noted that the process facilitates lesson enhancement by allowing teachers to engage in collaborative feedback, learning from their peers, and ensuring that activities are tailored to all students, including those who are quieter or less advanced. Teacher 2 emphasised the value of meetings with fellow teachers and an expert, which provided crucial insights into which activities were most effective and which needed improvement. The feedback from other teachers also helped Teacher 2 improve time management and class preparation. Both teachers found that the planning and review meetings were instrumental in tailoring lessons to students' levels and needs. The students enjoyed most of the activities, and for those that were less successful, the review meetings provided an opportunity for improvement and adjustment. Overall, the LS process fostered a collaborative environment that brought about significant pedagogical improvements and a deeper understanding of student needs.

5. Discussion and implications

This study aimed to achieve two objectives: using LS to enhance the tasks developed by Gök and Michel (2021), and fostering the PD of teachers within the unique context of EAP courses for highly-educated newcomers. The data reveals the effectiveness of the LS process in refining task-based lesson plans to better align with contextual factors and students’ needs. It also demonstrates that the LS process provides a platform for teachers to discuss a wide range of topics, from learner profiles and lesson adaptations to instructional procedures, methods, and techniques. This collaborative environment brings both tacit and explicit knowledge to the forefront, enabling teachers to learn from one another and grow both personally and professionally (Dudley, 2013). More importantly, LS encourages teachers to consistently view lessons from their students’ perspectives rather than focusing solely on their teaching methods.

As stated earlier, this study distinguishes itself from other LS studies through its unique approach. While most LS projects in the field of ELT focus on the benefits and challenges of LS as a professional development tool, our study explores its potential for task and materials development and improvement. Our findings provide evidence that LS can indeed be used for this purpose. Data from both planning and evaluation meetings demonstrated that teachers made numerous decisions regarding the adaptation of tasks, materials, and procedures by considering their students’ needs, proficiency levels, and profiles. This process resulted in significant task improvement and professional learning, facilitated by the “exploratory talk” that helped form “inter-mental development zones (IDZ)” (Littleton and Mercer, 2013). According to Dudley (2013), such processes allow teachers to uncover the elusive and tacit pedagogical content knowledge that resides within the lesson study group. This approach also gradually transforms deeply-rooted, long-held beliefs about pedagogical practices by revealing changes in students' learning in response to the methods tested in research lessons.

In the current study, the teachers' discussions predominantly focused on aiding students in overcoming their challenges, rather than evaluating the teachers' performance. This emphasis on student support resonates with findings from various studies (Lewis, 2009; Cajkler et al., 2014). For instance, recognizing that low confidence hindered the performance and engagement of students initially classified as “low-achieving,” the teachers in this study opted to incorporate more pair work into the lessons during the second cycle. As a result, these students exhibited increased participation and effectively showcased their knowledge and abilities, particularly during collaborative pair work activities. This suggests that collaborative tasks hold promise in enhancing confidence and involvement among students who may initially lack self-assurance (Karabuga, 2021).

This study highlights the transformative influence of the Lesson Study (LS) model, not only on task enhancement and the evaluation of task/materials in use but also on teachers' perceptions, professional development, and instructional methods. It emphasises the significance of collaboration, reflection, and student-centred teaching in driving positive outcomes across these domains.

The findings emphasise the importance of collaborative lesson planning and adaptation based on student needs and feedback. Teachers could engage in collective decision-making processes to adapt tasks and teaching methods that account for students' diverse proficiency levels and learning styles. This practice ensures that tasks are accessible and meaningful for all students, particularly in mixed-ability classrooms. Furthermore, teachers could consistently focus on understanding their students' needs, challenges, and emotional states rather than solely concentrating on teaching techniques. Adjusting lesson plans based on real-time classroom experiences, including pre-task reflections and post-task assessments, can lead to better engagement and outcomes, particularly for students with lower confidence levels. More importantly, teachers working with vulnerable populations, such as refugees or students facing external life challenges, need to pay extra attention to these students' emotional and mental well-being. Instructional strategies should consider external stressors that may impact student performance and engagement.

Future studies could examine the long-term effects of adaptive teaching strategies on student engagement, retention, and performance. This could include exploring how continuous task adaptation affects students’ language acquisition and overall academic success. Additionally, examining the effects of student-centred approaches, such as peer collaboration and scaffolded tasks, on the confidence of low-achieving or insecure learners could provide insights into the effectiveness of these strategies. Research that evaluates whether these methods improve academic outcomes would offer evidence to refine these practices further. Moreover, there is potential for additional research on the role of emotional and psychological factors—such as stress and external challenges—on student performance, especially in vulnerable groups like refugees. Exploring how emotional support can be integrated into teaching methodologies might reveal strategies to better support these learners.

6. Conclusion

LS has proven to be an effective tool for the design and improvement of tasks and materials, serving as a valuable in-use task evaluation and improvement instrument. Its implementation significantly enhances the quality of classroom teaching and learning, contributing to the development of professional knowledge, practice, and overall professionalism among educators. By challenging teachers’ beliefs about teaching and student learning, LS empowers teachers to transition from mere curriculum transmitters to active curriculum developers and makers. This collaborative and reflective practice not only enriches the educational experience for students but also fosters a more dynamic and innovative approach to teaching, ultimately elevating the standards of education.

We thank the English Academy for Newcomers (EAN) and all teachers and volunteers involved for their contributions.

Figure 1

The elements and purpose of the study

[Figure omitted. See PDF]