site logo
The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language		 search

Crafting Writing Accuracy: Unveiling the Influence of Lesson Study on Iranian EFL Learners

November 2025 – Volume 29, Number 3

https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.29115a7

Mohammad Reza Khodadust
Department of English Language Teaching, Farhangian University, Tehran, Iran
<m.khodadoostatmarkcfu.ac.ir>

Jafar Moazzez
Bahçeşehir University School of Foreign Languages, Türkiye
<jafar.moazzezatmarkbau.edu.tr>

Hasan Rahimi
Department of Counselling and Psychology, Farhangian University, Tehran, Iran
<rahimiatmarkcfu.ac.ir>

Saeedeh Mohammadi
Department of English Language Teaching, Farhangian University, Tehran, Iran
<s.mohammadiatmarkcfu.ac.ir>

Abstract

This study examines the effectiveness of Lesson Study (LS) in enhancing the writing accuracy of EFL learners. A group of 63 intermediate male EFL learners from Gofteman Language Institute in Ardebil, Iran, divided into two experimental groups and one control group, participated in the research. After taking a grammar pre-test on the target structures, the first experimental group received instruction based on the first cycle of LS, a reflective team-negotiated teaching phase. The second experimental group was given a revised LS-based instruction (second cycle). The control group received traditional instruction without LS. Statistical analysis showed a significant improvement in both experimental groups, with the second group demonstrating even greater gains than the first, indicating that LS-based instruction was more effective across both cycles. The results suggest that LS-driven instruction is valuable not only for its effectiveness and practicality in improving micro-level writing accuracy in the Iranian EFL context but also for supporting ongoing professional development among teachers.

Keywords: EFL learners, Lesson Study, writing accuracy

In today’s interconnected world, where English serves as a lingua franca in various spheres, the demand for acquiring proficient language skills continues to increase. Older teaching methods that overemphasize translation, standardized assessment, and rote memorization, often rigid and uninspiring, can unintentionally impede learners’ progress and enthusiasm (Kihara et al., 2021). This underscores the urgent need to explore and implement innovative teaching approaches that cater for diverse learning styles and cultivate a supportively engaging learning environment (Efendi, 2022). Moreover, adopting a student-centered teaching approach where learners are active participants in their learning journey (Zhang, 2023) can empower students to navigate the complexities of English language acquisition confidently and enthusiastically. By embracing such methods, educators can help students unlock a plethora of opportunities and benefits at a global level (Boss & Krauss, 2022).

One promising approach to integrating innovative teaching practices is Lesson Study (LS). LS is “a dynamic research-learning cycle of planning, applying, observing, and analyzing a lesson” (Kanbolat & Arslan, 2023, p. 303). It involves teams of teachers collaborating to improve their teaching methods by observing and critiquing each other’s lessons. This reflective process encourages teachers to analyze learner reactions, refine their teaching, and ultimately enhance learning outcomes (Fernandez & Yoshida, 2012; Minisola, et al., 2024). In LS, educators are provided with chances to refine their observation skills while analyzing the educational materials (Choy & Lee, 2020). LS offers professional development opportunities by honing observation skills and fostering reflective teaching practices (Hosseinnia et al., 2023). It has been effectively utilized in various fields, including science (Seleznyov, 2018) and language education (Kato & Hirasawa, 2015), with its core framework comprising phases such as planning, doing, and seeing (Ono & Ferreira, 2010). This is further divided into forming a team, setting learning goals, lesson design, study planning, teaching and observing, analysis and revision, documentation, and knowledge dissemination. Figure 1 represents how LS can be enacted step-by-step in practice.

A Schematic Representation of Lesson Study in Practice
Figure 1. A Schematic Representation of Lesson Study in Practice

LS has garnered global interest as a pedagogical procedure for its ability to enhance teaching quality and student learning outcomes. It has been suggested to promote cooperation, professional development, reflection, active learning, constructive discussion, planning, practice, observation, and feedback. It works by involving a group of colleagues or outsiders who help teachers to enhance their professional knowledge and practice, creating a stronger sense of professionalism (Cheung & Wong, 2014; Elliott, 2019; Le et al., 2024). Furthermore, LS facilitates the sharing of knowledge and resources among teachers, aids in identifying learning difficulties, and helps develop strategies to master challenging curriculum elements. It also enhances teacher effectiveness, student retention rates, communication, and collaboration among language learners (Davies & Dunnill, 2008; Kanellopoulou & Darra, 2019; Kato & Hirasawa, 2015).

However, it is not yet clear how effectively LS can be implemented in different countries where older teaching methods are still common. One example is Iran, where teaching methods have stagnated, causing students to struggle with meeting writing standards (Hasani & Moghadam, 2012). Many of the methods used there focus on rote memorization and standardized testing, which may not adequately address the complexities of writing skills. Specifically, these methods often involve repetitive drills and multiple-choice tests but do not promote creative expression or critical thinking, which are vital components of effective writing. Although more innovative methods and improvement plans have been proposed (e.g., Jin, 2024; Mariana, 2018; Purnama, 2017), LS has been shown to improve writing specifically (e.g., Dudley, 2012), and many studies have found LS to be beneficial in certain contexts (e.g., Ayra & Kosterelioglu, 2021; Bakker et al., 2022, 2024; Susilo et al., 2023). Nevertheless, resistance remains, and more evidence is needed to demonstrate that LS can produce similar benefits in contexts such as Iran.

Furthermore, investigations into the effect of LS on micro-linguistic features, such as writing accuracy, have been largely overlooked. Though grammar is important as it enhances the ability to express ideas persuasively (e.g., Sari, 2021), makes texts easier to read and understand, and improves overall quality, there is limited research on how LS can help with this feature of writing. Though there are some notable exceptions (i.e., Aliakbari & Mansouri Nejad, 2013; Farvardin et al., 2022), LS has traditionally been shown to improve language learning generally, rather than specifically, so its specific effect on grammatical accuracy remains underexplored.

This study aims to fill these gaps by examining how LS affects the grammatical accuracy of Iranian intermediate EFL learners. By doing so, we hope to explore to what degree LS is relevant in a wider range of contexts, and the degree to which it can effect specific changes in learners rather than large-scale ones.

Review of Literature

Lesson Study (LS) has been championed as an effective approach to enrich teaching and learning outcomes by integrating multiple perspectives through collaboration among teachers, researchers, experts, and administrators (Coenders & Verhoef, 2018). It fosters a stronger sense of collegiality among teachers, leading to collective responsibility, ownership, and collaborative decision-making (Hall, 2013). Various LS procedures such as classroom observations, video analyses, reflective diaries, interviews, and questionnaires have provided further evidence supporting the benefits of LS (Pang, 2016). Due to these advantages, LS has been adopted across a variety of disciplines and has seen growing prominence in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) instruction.

Research indicates that LS is a valuable professional development tool with broad impacts. For instance, Somma (2016) highlighted LS’s role in positively influencing teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Similarly, Kanellopoulou and Darra (2019) found that LS promotes collaboration among teachers, enhances student engagement, and improves academic success in Greece. Win and Kovacs (2024), through a mixed-method study in Myanmar using online questionnaires and semi-structured interviews, concluded that LS influences academic achievement by fostering innovative teaching methods. Moreover, LS aids in developing pedagogical content knowledge among teachers, regardless of experience levels (Coenders & Verhoef, 2018). Willems and Van den Bossche (2019) demonstrated that LS is an effective approach for professional development, leading to improvements in teachers’ knowledge, skills, behavior, and beliefs. Extending its organizational impact, Heibenberger and Tscherne (2023) emphasized integrating LS into school leadership structures to facilitate organizational learning and staff development. Susilo et al. (2023) conducted a study on the impact of LS in higher education and found that LS-based teaching leads to learning improvement through the reflective practices of educators and observers on learning activities. Additionally, Minisola, et al. (2024) explored LS in a university context, suggesting that it can influence teacher education practices and enhance the design and analysis of professional development programs.

In recent years, there has been a significant focus on lesson study in Iran, resulting in the publication of several Farsi and translated English books on the topic (Aliakbari & Mansouri Nejad, 2013; Alipour, 2018; Haghighifard & Marzban, 2016; Heidari et al., 2015;). Despite the growing body of research, the practical implementation of LS in Iran faces resource constraints. The lack of resources can be attributed to several factors. Firstly, there seems to be a need for an official movement to encourage teacher participation in LS programs. Secondly, LS has only recently been introduced to Iran after being observed by Iranian teachers in Japan, where it originated. Lastly, the effective implementation of LS requires competent teacher-researchers to initiate LS studies (Sarkararani, 2011; Dudley, 2014).

LS in EFL/ESL Contexts

The effectiveness of LS extends to language teaching environments worldwide. In Japan, Lwis and Takahashi (2022) reported that LS enhanced both student learning outcomes and teachers’ professional development in English language classrooms. Atamturk (2023) found that LS positively impacted teachers’ professional empowerment and student learning in EFL classes. In Turkey, Ayra and Kosterelioglu (2021) conducted a quasi-experimental study showing a significant increase in primary students’ academic achievements after a six-week LS-based intervention, especially in low-achieving schools. The Iranian context has also seen increased interest and research; the Ministry of Education’s support since 2019 has led to more publications and initiatives (Bakhtiari & Khodadust, 2019; Rezaei & Sharifi, 2021; Behdadfard & Tahririan, 2022; Farvardin et al., 2022; Zamani & Ghelichli, 2022). Studies in Iran have examined teachers’ perceptions and the impact of LS on language instruction. For example, Heidari et al. (2015) found that female Iranian EFL teachers showed greater interest in LS, and Alipour (2018) demonstrated that LS positively influenced teachers’ perceptions of speaking instruction, suggesting increased confidence and instructional quality. Other studies highlighted the role of mentoring and LS in improving teachers’ practices (Behdadfard & Tahririan, 2022), as well as enhancing students’ performance through structured LS approaches (Farvardin et al., 2022).

LS and Writing Accuracy in EFL

While LS has demonstrated overall benefits for language teaching, its specific impact on writing accuracy has garnered particular interest. Writing accuracy in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research pertains to the error-free quality of learners’ texts, involving aspects such as grammar, spelling, and punctuation (Norris & Ortega, 2003; Pallotti, 2009). Many studies emphasize focusing on errors that hinder understanding (Bygate, 2001; Skehan & Foster, 1999). To quantify accuracy, units such as error-free clauses or error frequency per t-unit are used, with Bygate’s (2001) framework often adopted for its robustness (see also Skehan & Foster, 1999).

Recent shifts toward communicative approaches—prioritizing meaning over form—have challenged traditional form-focused instruction, leading to concerns that explicit grammar teaching and corrective feedback may be counterproductive (Fitriyah, et al., 2024; Lyster, 2002; Sharwood, 1990). These pedagogical debates underscore the need to explore specific micro-features of writing, particularly how more innovative and communicative pedagogical practices like LS can support grammatical accuracy. This study aims to contribute to this ongoing discussion by investigating the effects of LS on grammatical accuracy among EFL learners.

Numerous studies attest to LS’s positive role in language education. For example, in Greece, Kanellopoulou and Darra (2019) found that LS fosters teacher collaboration, student engagement, and academic success. In Indonesia, Wijaya et al. (2021) reported improvements in teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical practices, especially in writing. Karimi et al. (2023) highlighted LS’s role in developing pedagogical skills and improving micro-features of writing such as coherence and structure.

However, some studies question the universality of LS’s effectiveness. Aliakbari and Mansouri Nejad (2013) found no significant improvement in grammatical accuracy following co-teaching, suggesting that LS may not influence micro-level features like grammar. Such findings indicate that while LS is promising for overall language development, its efficacy in promoting specific skills like writing accuracy remains uncertain and warrants further investigation.

Research Question

Based on the reviewed literature, LS demonstrates considerable potential for improving various aspects of language teaching and learning. However, questions remain about whether its benefits extend to micro-level skills such as writing accuracy, particularly in contexts where traditional methods emphasizing rote memorization and test strategies prevail, such as in Iran. This study seeks to address this gap by exploring whether Lesson Study can be practically implemented in Iran to positively impact the written accuracy of EFL learners. Therefore, this study seeks to answer the following research question:

RQ1: Can Lesson Study be practically implemented in the Iranian context to positively impact the written accuracy of EFL learners there?

Method

Participants

A total of 63 male intermediate EFL learners, aged between 13 and 19, were selected from among a population of 100 learners at Goftman Language Institute in Ardabil, Iran, based on their performance on the Nelson English Language Test (NELT; Fowler & Coe, 1976). This ten-level test (specifically Level 4, Form 200c) was used to confirm participants’ homogeneity at the intermediate proficiency level. The overall NELT mean score for all participants was 28.66 (SD = 11.01). This ten-level test (specifically Level 4, Form 200c) was used to confirm participants’ homogeneity at the intermediate proficiency level. The results of this test, shown in Table 1, suggest that most learners were homogeneous in proficiency. The overall NELT proficiency scores for all 63 participants (M = 28.66, SD = 11.01) confirmed intermediate-level proficiency. As shown in Table 1, the three groups demonstrated nearly identical NELT scores at baseline. The participants’ native language was Azeri Turkish, but they were also proficient in Persian…” The participants’ native language was Azeri Turkish, but they were also proficient in Persian. Following Etikan et al. (2016), purposive sampling was utilized to selectively choose participants based on their proficiency test results. The participants were divided into two experimental groups (EG1 and EG2) and one control group (CG), each consisting of 21 learners. The sample size of 21 learners per group aligns with recommended standards in educational research, where Cohen (1988) suggests groups of ~30 participants provide adequate statistical power to detect meaningful effects—a threshold approached in this design and consistent with similar EFL studies (e.g., Farvardin et al., 2022).

Ethical Considerations

To account for the ethical considerations, the participants were informed of the purpose, methods, and benefits of taking part in the study. Moreover, a 20% discount on institute fees for their subsequent term was offered as compensation. Confidentiality and anonymity were guaranteed, and the study was conducted impartially and without any discrimination of gender, race, ethnicity, or religious beliefs.  Moreover, the participants were assured that their grades in the experiment have no effect on their regular language course grades in the institute.

Instruments and Materials

Essays were evaluated by the number of grammar mistakes per t-unit (Hunt, 1965), where a t-unit consists of the main clause and any attached subordinate clauses. Two independent raters scored the essays with a focus on target structures including tenses, subject-verb agreement, active and passive voice, modals, and conditionals, and their average scores were recorded. These structures were derived from the institute syllabus based on Murphy’s English Grammar in Use (2019, 5th edition). Pearson’s correlation analysis was used to calculate inter-rater reliability, with pretest and posttest demonstrating inter-rater coefficients of 0.82 and 0.87, respectively. The aim of the study was to examine how lesson study affected the writing accuracy of Iranian EFL learners by concentrating on these target structures. In this study, the evaluation of writing accuracy was based on the concept of t-units as originally defined by Hunt (1965), which measures grammatical accuracy at the clause level, allowing for a more precise analysis of learners’ grammatical development in relation to the target structures.

Procedure

A homogeneous sample of 63 Iranian EFL learners, whose scores on the Nelson English Language Test fell within the range of 18 to 39, were randomly assigned to three groups: two experimental groups (EG1 & EG2) and one control group (CG). Prior to the treatment, all participants completed a 50-minute pre-test, as described in the previous section, on the topic ‘How does television influence people’s behavior?’.

A two-cycle lesson study (LS) was employed to teach the target structures. In the first cycle, the LS team, which included the researcher and two colleagues with M.A. degrees in Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) and ten years of teaching experience, collaboratively designed the lesson plan. The team engaged in thorough discussions about common grammatical challenges faced by EFL learners and reviewed previous assessments to identify specific areas for improvement.

To mitigate potential variability introduced by different teaching styles, the LS team adhered to a structured lesson plan that emphasized consistency across the experimental groups. Each instructor received training on the lesson objectives and instructional strategies to ensure uniformity in teaching approaches. This training focused on clarity of instruction, engagement techniques, and maintaining a supportive learning environment. The LS team also met frequently throughout the intervention to discuss challenges and share insights, promoting a cohesive and aligned instructional approach.

The LS framework incorporated peer observation, wherein instructors observed one another’s teaching sessions and provided feedback based on a predetermined checklist that focused on key instructional components. This process helped standardize the implementation of teaching strategies and reduced variability among instructors.

During team discussions, the instructors decided to incorporate more interactive and student-centered activities. For example, after reviewing student performance during initial trials, they recognized that learners struggled with subject-verb agreement. As a result, the team added a hands-on group activity where learners would engage in peer editing sessions, allowing them to identify and correct grammatical mistakes in each other’s work. This shift toward collaborative learning aimed to enhance understanding of grammatical rules through practical application.

To address concerns about ‘time on task,’ the LS team structured lessons to maximize student engagement during active learning activities. Each 45-minute session included dedicated time where students worked on cognitive tasks such as group discussions, peer feedback, and collaborative writing exercises. For instance, while EG1 participated in guided discussions about their essays and engaged in real-time editing, CG typically spent a significant portion of their time in passive learning—with the teacher presenting rules and examples, limiting opportunities for active engagement.

After the first round of teaching in EG1, the team conducted post-teaching reflection and analysis. They examined aspects such as student engagement, comprehension of target structures, and the effectiveness of the interactive components. Based on the feedback gathered, they adjusted the lesson plan for EG2. For example, the group decided to implement a mini-lecture segment where key grammatical rules were presented visually on a whiteboard with examples directly related to students’ interests—such as social media and current trends—making the lesson more relevant and relatable.

Additionally, they established a protocol for integrating formative assessments throughout the sessions, enabling real-time feedback from both peers and instructors. They opted to include short quizzes after the introduction of each target structure, which prompted discussions about common errors, thus facilitating a deeper understanding.

All groups underwent a post-test to measure their writing accuracy after the treatment, with a specific focus on the modified strategies employed. This reflective practice enhanced not only the quality of the lessons but also contributed to the professional development of the teaching team, as they learned to adapt their strategies based on both student responses and collaborative feedback.

Lastly, a follow-up moderation session was conducted after the post-test to assess the interpreted results collectively, ensuring that any findings were reflective of the group’s performance and not skewed by individual teaching styles. This approach strengthened the overall validity and reliability of the study’s outcomes.

Data Analysis

One-way ANCOVA was employed to compare post-test scores across groups while controlling for pre-test differences as covariate. Partial eta squared (η²) was used to interpret effect sizes for significant effects. Additionally, paired-samples t-tests with Holm-Bonferroni correction (adjusted α = .0167) were conducted to examine within-group improvements. Cohen’s d was calculated for within-group comparisons using pooled standard deviations to estimate effect sizes.

Results

The Results of the Proficiency Test (NELT)

Table 1 shows the descriptive Statistics of Participants’ NELT Scores and Mean Error per T-unit for the groups. Participants had similar pre-test NELT scores and average numbers of errors per t-unit with similar ranges. However, the descriptive data seems to suggest that all groups decreased the number of errors they committed, but that some groups might have had sharper decreases. However, to check the validity of this, the results of the ANCOVA are presented in Table 2.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of NELT Scores: Mean Error per T-unit

Group Pre-testM (SD), Adjusted Mean Post-testM (SD), Adjusted Mean
EG1 .21 (.05) .14 (.04)
EG2 .19 (.01) .11 (.04)
CG .20 (.05) .18 (.02)

The ANCOVA revealed a significant group effect on post-test writing accuracy after controlling for pre-test differences in Table 2.  This large effect size indicates substantial practical significance. Post-hoc comparisons (Table 3) showed all pairwise differences were significant (all p < .001), with EG2 demonstrating the greatest improvement, followed by EG1, and CG showing minimal gains.

Table 2. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)

Dependent Variable: Writing Post-Test
Source Mean Square F p ηp² 
Corrected Model .029 52.478 .000 .727
Intercept .002 3.105 .083 .050
Pre-Test .038 70.028 .000 .543
Groups .025 45.141 .000 .605
Error .001
Total
Corrected Total

Note: a R Squared = .727 (Adjusted R Squared = .714)

Table 2 indicates that pre-test scores significantly predicted post-test writing accuracy, with the covariate accounting for a large proportion of variance (partial η² = .543). After controlling for this pre-test influence, the group variable still exerted a significant additional effect on post-test writing accuracy, as seen above. This large effect size indicates that teaching methodology explained 60.5% of the variance in post-test scores beyond what was accounted for by initial proficiency. In other words, the three groups differed in the amount of reduction of grammar errors, suggesting that there were differences in the effectiveness of the teaching methodologies. The results of the post-hoc analysis show more specifically where these differences lie.

Table 3. Pairwise Analysis of Writing Post-test Scores

Group EG1
EG2 0.030 < .001 EG2
CG -0.038 < .001 -0,069 < .001

According to Table 3, significant differences were found between all groups, with EG2 showing the largest error reduction, followed by EG1, and CG exhibiting minimal change. This suggests that the EG1 methodology was likely the most effective method for reducing errors and that EG2 was the next most successful, whereas the CG methodology exhibited the least success.

Within-Group Improvements

Complementing the between-group analysis, paired t-tests with Holm-Bonferroni correction revealed significant writing accuracy gains for both experimental groups but not the control group (Table 4). EG1 showed substantial improvement and EG2 demonstrated even stronger gains. In contrast, CG exhibited no statistically significant, confirming conventional instruction’s limited efficacy.

Table 4. Within-Group Pre-Post Improvement (Paired t-tests with Holm-Bonferroni Correction)

Group t p d
EG1 5.863 < .001* 1.27
EG2 7.869 < .001* 1.71
CG 1.899   .072 0.40

Note: *means significant difference at corrected alpha of .0167

Crucially, within-group analyses confirmed the control group showed no statistically significant improvement (p = .072, d = 0.40), underscoring conventional instruction’s inability to reliably enhance writing accuracy, whereas both LS cycles yielded large, significant gains (d > 1.27)

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to examine the effect of LS on Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy. Statistical analysis showed that EG2 had significantly higher writing accuracy scores than EG1 and CG. Moreover, EG1 performed better than CG in reducing grammar errors.

Post-study teachers’ feedback revealed key insights explaining these results: The positive outcomes of LS on Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy can be attributed to its research-based and reflective teaching approach with one teacher noting: “Collaborative planning sessions helped us identify recurring grammatical pitfalls – like subject-verb agreement errors in 85% of pre-test essays – that we’d previously overlooked.” LS promotes team-based refinement, “We collectively developed visual timelines for teaching tenses after seeing students struggle with temporal markers in EG1”, providing a rigorous framework for teachers to analyze students’ learning and their own processes. Students echoed this, with one commenting: “Teachers finally understood why we mixed up passive voice – their new examples from local news made it click.” This framework incorporates structured planning sessions, where educators collaboratively design curriculum units or lessons, and observe each other’s classes with the aim of gathering data on student engagement and learning outcomes. This process includes setting specific goals for student learning, collecting evidence of student performance, and using this data to reflect on instructional effectiveness. Additionally, it allows teachers to observe students’ reactions to collaboratively planned lessons, facilitating deeper inquiries into learning processes (Dudley, 2013). This collective reflection not only enhances teaching strategies but also deepens the teachers’ understanding of students’ needs and learning styles.

The superiority of EG2 stems from three implementation-specific factors:

  1. Reflection-on-action cycles: “After observing EG1’s struggles with conditionals, we created scenario-based games using social media contexts that reduced errors by 40% in EG2” (Teacher feedback).
  2. Peer accountability: “We started proofreading each other’s work like our teachers did in LS meetings” (Student feedback).
  3. Targeted micro-adjustments: Focused drills on high-frequency errors identified during LS analysis sessions.

Contrary to traditional models, LS facilitates tacit knowledge transfer (Dudley, 2013) through “co-diagnosis of learning obstacles rather than just sharing teaching duties” (Teacher interview). This granular focus on grammatical accuracy – evidenced by our error-type tracking – distinguishes LS from macro-level writing interventions.

While limitations exist, the triangulated evidence (statistical gains + qualitative feedback) strongly suggests LS enhances accuracy through:

  • Localized adaptation: Using Iranian media examples for grammar instruction;
  • Iterative refinement: EG2’s improvements directly built on EG1 observations;
  • Student-teacher synergy: Learners mirroring collaborative behaviors.

LS has the advantage of communicating tacit knowledge among teachers, setting it apart from other collaborative teaching models (Dudley, 2013). The study used LS-based methods and observed a notable improvement in Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy, emphasizing the effectiveness of reflective teaching practices. However, it is important to acknowledge that while the observed improvements suggest a positive effect of LS, the relatively limited sample size may restrict the generalizability of these findings. Additionally, various extrinsic factors, such as students’ prior knowledge, motivation levels, and other concurrent instructional interventions, could have influenced the results. Therefore, while there is an indication of a connection between LS and enhanced writing accuracy, further research with larger sample sizes and controlled variables would be necessary to establish a clearer causal relationship.

The higher writing accuracy of the experimental groups after the treatment can be attributed to the principles of reflective teaching. In the second experimental group (EG2), the knowledge gained from the first group (EG1) was utilized to develop a lesson plan through a practice known as ‘reflection-on-action’. This practice involves educators retrospectively examining their performance to gain insights from their experiences (Schön, 1992). Russell and Munby (1992) describe reflection-on-action as a systematic process of thinking back on one’s actions. By analyzing and reflecting on the experiences from EG1, a revised lesson plan was created for EG2, which may explain their better performance compared to the other group.

The findings align with Serbest (2014), who found that LS practices enhance learning and achievements, and LS improves knowledge and skills. In a similar vein, the findings confirm the results of the study by Tepylo (2008), Baniabdelrahman (2013), Kyncal and Beypinar (2015) who found the positive effects of LS on learning and supported the advantages of collaborative work among teachers. The results of this study come as a further confirmation of the results by Ayra and Kosterelioglu (2021), who found that LS in EFL grammar classes improved writing accuracy and LS practice led to significant improvements in learner achievements. Therefore, LS, as collaborative and reflective teaching practices, can help language teachers enhance their students’ learning outcomes. Meanwhile, the improvements in writing accuracy may not merely be a reflection of general teaching practices; they may have arisen from the tailored adjustments made specifically for EG2 based on the insights gained from EG1’s experiences. These targeted modifications highlight the micro-level impacts of LS on the students’ writing proficiency, distinguishing the findings of this study from the macro-level observations in previous research. The emphasis on individual lesson plan revisions and reflective practices underscores how micro-level adjustments can lead to significant growth in targeted areas, such as writing accuracy in this case.
The results of the present study did not align with Aliakbari and Mansouri Nejad’s (2013) findings that collaborative grammar teaching showed no significant improvement. Several methodological and contextual factors may explain this disparity. First, our study implemented a more robust design: while their research involved 60 participants over 8 sessions, our two-cycle LS intervention with 63 participants across 12 sessions provided extended refinement opportunities. Second, we implemented stricter homogeneity controls – our pre-test error SD (0.05) was half theirs (0.12), reducing baseline variability. Crucially, the grammatical structures targeted differed significantly in their cognitive complexity and rule clarity. Aliakbari and Mansouri Nejad (2013) focused on structures with “fuzzy” rule boundaries like present perfect tense, where the distinction from simple past depends heavily on subjective time perception (e.g., “I have lived here” vs. “I lived here”). As Ellis (2005) notes, such temporally ambiguous structures resist explicit instruction. In contrast, our target structures included more rule-based elements like passive voice transformations (e.g., “The ball was thrown by John”), where agent-patient relationships provide clearer syntactic cues, and conditional sentences that follow predictable if-then patterns. Research indicates structures with transparent form-function mappings respond better to a focused intervention (DeKeyser, 2005).

Furthermore, our LS approach specifically addressed structural difficulties through iterative refinement. For example:

  1. For modals (another “fuzzy” structure), we developed contextualized decision trees during Cycle 2 after observing EG1 struggles
  2. Subject-verb agreement rules were reinforced through error-tracking color-coding – a technique absent in their study

The continuous improvement mechanism of LS proved particularly valuable for problematic structures. As one teacher noted: “Conditionals needed three different approaches before students grasped them – something only LS allows.” This adaptive capacity may explain our positive results where their co-teaching model showed limited efficacy.

For language teachers, LS can be a unique opportunity to collaborate with peers on tangible issues and questions related to learning. The purpose of LS is not only to design well-structured courses but also to foster ability, mastery, and information that further develop broader literacy across various language skills. Through LS, teachers can reflect on their teaching practices before, during, and after instruction, thereby focusing on teaching, addressing teaching/learning problems, and adapting teaching to the local needs and characteristics of the situation (Bakker et al., 2022; McKinsey Report, 2007). It is also an ongoing process of professional development and learning, tailored to the realities of the situation (Farvardin et al., 2022). LS can effectively facilitate new partnerships between instructors as they invest more time in collaboration (Li, 2025). The LS cycle offers a framework for guiding collaboration among language instructors while allowing flexibility in determining their collaborative approach (Cheung & Wong, 2014; Choy, 2020). Moreover, the LS cycle enables collaborative and effective teaching, promoting improved teaching skills and addressing learner needs (Boss & Krauss, 2022). Successful teaching and positive relationships with colleagues boost teaching confidence and enhance learner performance (Heibenberger & Tscherne, 2023).

While this study specifically investigates the impact of LS on learners’ linguistic accuracy within an essay writing task, it is important to recognize that the broader implications of LS extend beyond this focus. The collaborative nature of LS can lead to improvements in teaching practices that ultimately benefit learners’ overall language skills. LS can effectively facilitate new partnerships between instructors as they invest more time in collaboration (Li, 2025). Therefore, while the present study has a specific focus on linguistic accuracy, the broader context of LS emphasizes ongoing professional growth and collaborative teaching practices that can enrich the learning environment.

Implementing LS in Iran may present significant challenges. EFL instruction encounters difficulties in transitioning from knowledge delivery to fostering learner engagement and understanding (Farvardin et al., 2022). Additionally, educators must continuously adapt and explore innovative teaching methods to address the diverse needs of their students (Efendi, 2022). This study focused solely on the impact of LS on grammatical accuracy in learners’ writing performance. Future research in EFL contexts should consider examining other dimensions of writing performance, such as coherence and complexity, as well as other language skills (reading, listening, and speaking) and components (Hudson et al., 2024). Additionally, further investigation could explore the influence of teacher motivation on the effectiveness of LS in educational settings.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that Lesson Study (LS) is both practical and effective for improving micro-level writing accuracy in the Iranian EFL context. Our implementation with 63 intermediate learners showed LS-driven instruction significantly outperformed conventional methods, with the reflective cycle (EG2) yielding the strongest gains (d=1.71). Crucially, these improvements in grammatical accuracy—particularly for rule-based structures like passive voice and conditionals—were achieved despite prevalent traditional teaching practices, proving LS’s adaptability to the Iranian educational setting. Future research should examine LS’s transferability to other linguistic domains (e.g., coherence, speaking fluency) and investigate teacher motivation factors in resistant contexts.

Acknowledgement

The authors appreciate the sincere and active participation of the LS team as well as the English learners at Gofteman Language Institute.

About the Authors

Mohammad Reza Khodadust, a Ph.D. in TEFL, is an Assistant Professor at Farhangian University. Teaching at Iranian universities since 1998, he has authored and presented several books and papers at national and international levels. Specializing in TEFL, Discourse Analysis, Teacher Education, and Comparative Studies, he is also a certified translator for the Judiciary and has translated 8 books on teacher education and application of Pedagogical Content Knowledge for teachers. His affiliation is: Department of English Language Teaching, Farhangian University, P.O. Box 14665-889, Tehran, Iran. ORCID NO: 0000-0002-4510-9005

Jafar Moazzez, holding a Master’s degree in TEFL, is an experienced English language educator with a career spanning over 18 years. Since 2013, he has been the founder, supervisor, and manager of Gofteman Language Center. He has been teaching at Bahçeşehir University in Istanbul, Turkey, since 2022. His professional focus lies in English language instruction, teacher training, and educational leadership. He is affiliated to: Bahçeşehir University School of Foreign Languages, Turkey. ORCID NO: 0009-0004-0935-0151

Hassan Rahimi, a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology, is an Assistant Professor at Farhangian University. Teaching at Iranian universities since 2012, he has been actively involved in academic and educational development. His areas of expertise include Educational Psychology, Student Counseling, and Teacher Education. He is also a university counselor and advisor, specializing in academic guidance and support. His affiliation information is: Department of Counselling and Psychology, Farhangian University, P.O. Box 14665-889, Tehran, Iran.  ORCID NO: 0009-0009-1096-6566

Saeedeh Mohammadi, a Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics, and is an Assistant Professor at Farhangian University (Teacher Education), Tehran, Iran. With an academic career spanning since 2005, she has extensive teaching experience at both secondary and higher education levels within Iran. Her scholarly contributions include numerous publications and presentations in reputable national and international journals and conferences. Her research interests encompass Discourse Analysis, Sociolinguistics, Teacher Education, Academic Writing and Publishing, and Pragmatics. Her affiliation is as follows: Department of English Language Teaching, Farhangian University, P.O. Box 14665-889, Tehran, Iran. ORCID NO: 0000-0002-3205-2644

To Cite this Article

Khodadust, M. R., Mozzzez, J., Rahimi, H. & Mohammadi, S. (2025). Crafting writing accuracy: Unveiling the influence of lesson study on Iranian EFL learners. Teaching English as a Second Language Electronic Journal (TESL-EJ), 29(3). https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.29115a7

References

Aliakbari, M., & Mansouri Nejad, A. (2013). On the effectiveness of team teaching in promoting learners’ grammatical proficiency. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(3), 5–22.

Alipour, S. (2018). The effect of Lesson Study on Iranian EFL teachers’ perception of teaching speaking. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 5, 45–58. https://doi.org.10.32038/ltrq.2018.05.03

Atamturk, N. (2023). Emergency remote teaching in language education: Opportunities and challenges. In O. Sözüdoğru & B. Akkaya (Eds.), Mobile and sensor-based technologies in higher education (pp. 111–132). IGI Global.  https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-5400-8.ch005

Ayra, M., & Kosterelioglu, I. (2021). Effect of the lesson study practice on students’ academic achievements in life sciences course. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 16(1), 249–270. https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2020.334.14

Bakker, C., de Glopper, K., & de Vries, S. (2022). Noticing as reasoning in Lesson Study teams in initial teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 113, 103656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103656

Bakker, C., de Glopper, K., & de Vries, S. (2024). Are we jumping into a gap? A study of the interplay between theoretical input and practical knowledge during noticing as reasoning of a lesson study team in initial teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 140, Article 104468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104468

Baniabdelrahman, A. (2013). Effect of team teaching and being the teacher native or non-native on EFL students’ English language proficiency. African Educational Research Journal, 1(2), 85–95.

Behdadfard, N., & Tahririan, M. H. (2022). Iranian senior high school EFL teachers’ perspectives of lesson study: Perceiving challenges, hindrances, and benefits. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 9(3), 187–212. https://doi.org/10.30479/jmrels.2022.16369.1979

Boss, S., & Krauss, J. (2022). Reinventing project-based learning: Your field guide to real-world projects in the digital age. International Society for Technology in Education.

Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23–48). Pearson Education.

Cheung, W. M., & Wong, W. Y. (2014). Does Lesson Study work? A systematic review on the effects of Lesson Study and Learning Study on teachers and students. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 3(2), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLLS-05-2013-0024

Choy, B. H., & Lee, C. K. E. (2020). Going deeper into lesson study through kyouzai kenkyuu. In A. Murata & C. K.-E. Lee (Eds.), Stepping up lesson study: An educator’s guide to deeper learning (pp. 38–50). Routledge.

Coenders, F., & Verhoef, N. (2018). Lesson Study: Professional development (PD) for beginning and experienced teachers. Professional Development in Education, 45(2), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2018.1430050

Davies, P., & Dunnill, R. (2008). Learning study as a model of collaborative practice in initial teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 34(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607470701773408

DeKeyser, R. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55(S1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00294.x

Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 141-172. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050096

Dudley, P. (2012). LS development in England: From school network to national policy. International Journal of Lesson and Learning Studies, 1(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1108/20468251211179678

Dudley, P. (2013). Lesson study: Professional learning for our time. Routledge.

Dudley, P. (2014). How Lesson Study works and why it creates excellent learning and teaching. In P. Dudley (Ed.), Lesson Study: Professional learning for our time (pp. 1-28). Routledge.

Efendi, M. Y. (2022). Designing supplementary speaking materials based on communicative language teaching (CLT). EDULEC: Education, Language and Culture Journal, 2(2), 150–160. https://doi.org/10.56314/edulec.v2i2.65

Elliott, J. (2019). What is lesson study? European Journal of Education, 54(2), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12339

Etikan, I, Musa, S. A., Sunusi Alkassim, R. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling, American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1-4. http://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11

Farvardin, M. T., Abbasi Behbahani, L., & Ebrahimi Askari, F. (2022). Effect of Lesson Study on EFL Learners’ Grammatical Knowledge and Teachers’ Perception. Journal of new advances in English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 799-815. doi: 10.22034/jeltal.2022.4.1.7

Fernandez, C., & Yoshida, M. (2012). Lesson study: A Japanese approach to improving mathematics teaching and learning. Routledge.

Fitriyah, I., Ningrum, A. S. B., & Gozali, I. (2024). An Investigation of written corrective feedback in EFL writing assessment: How teachers’ feedback practices meet students’ expectations. International Journal of Language Testing, 14(1), 166–184. https://doi.org/10.22034/IJLT.2023.411616.1275

Fowler, W. S., & Coe, N. (1976). Nelson English language test: Intermediate set A. Thomas Nelson & Sons.

Haghighifard, M., & Marzban, A. (2016). Teachers’ viewpoints on the practical implementation of lesson study in EFL classrooms. International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies (IJHCS), 3(2), 700–713.

Hall, D. (2013). Using lesson study as an approach to developing teachers as researchers. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 3(1), 11–23. Available at https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/using-lesson-study-as-approach-developing/docview/1469956854/se-2

Hasani, M. T., & Moghadam, C. R. (2012). The effect of self-assessment on Iranian EFL learners’ writing skills. The Iranian EFL Journal, 8(5), 371–388.

Heibenberger, P., & Tscherne, M. (2023). Lesson study for school leaders: A model to develop a new learning culture in schools. R & E-SOURCE, 10(1), 148–164. https://doi.org/10.53349/resource.2023.i1.a1155

Heidari, M., Azizifar, A., Gowhary, H., & Abbasi, Z. (2015). Iranian EFL teachers’ attitudes towards lesson planning based on their gender. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(4), 80–83. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.6n.4p.80

Hosseinnia, M., Gholami Domsky, j., & Rahimian, S. (2024). Unleashing the potential of lesson study in EFL teacher professional development: exploring perspectives and prospects in the Iranian context. Reflective Practice, 26(1), 55-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2024.2421591

Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA. John Benjamins.

Hudson, M., Longhurst, M. L., Stowers, J., Poulsen, T., Smith, C., & Sansom, R. (2024). Technology-mediated lesson study: A step-by-step guide. International Journal for Lesson & Learning Studies, 13(5), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLLS-07-2023-0094

Inpanich, P., & Somphong, M. (2022). The effects of the integration of indirect feedback and concordances on improving grammatical accuracy in Thai EFL students writing. English Language Teaching, 15(4), 1–25. https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/view/0/46938

Jin, Z. (2024). A study on the influence of language environment on English writing ability in universities-based on the theory of second language acquisition. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media, 64, 35-46.  https://doi.org/10.54254/2753-7048/64/20240957

Kanbolat, O., & Arslan, S. (2023). Discussion contents during a lesson study conducted with knowledgeable others. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 7(4), 303–322. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202319719

Kanellopoulou, E., & Darra, M. (2019). Benefits, difficulties and conditions of lesson study implementation in basic teacher education: A review. International Journal of Higher Education, 8(4), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v8n4p18

Karimi, M. N., Nami, F., & Asadnia, F. (2023). Professional development through CALL lesson study: L2 writing teachers’ perception and practice. Computers and Composition, 70, 102805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2023.102805

Kato, K., & Hirasawa, K. (2015). A study on the effectiveness of lesson study for the professional development of English as a foreign language teachers. In International Conference on Knowledge Management in Organizations (pp. 327–338). Springer.

Kihara, S., Jess, M., McMillan, P., Osedo, K., Kubo, K., & Nakanishi, H. (2021). The potential of lesson study in primary physical education: Messages from a longitudinal study in Japan. European Physical Education Review, 27(2), 223–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X20932950

Kyncal, R. Y., & Beypinar, D. (2015). Ders araştırması uygulamasının matematik öğretmenlerinin mesleki gelişimlerine ve öğrenme sürecinin geliştirilmesine etkisi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 33, 186–210.

Le, T. T., Pham, T. T., & Tran, T. T. (2024). Exploring the Impact of Lesson Study in Vietnamese Primary Education: Perspectives of EFL Lecturers. Journal of Innovation and Research in Primary Education, 3(1), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.56916/jirpe.v3i1.583

Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Hurd, J. (2009). Improving mathematics instruction through lesson study: A theoretical model and North American case. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12(4), 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-009-9102-7

Li, H. (2025). Impact of collaborative learning on student engagement in college English programs: mediating effect of peer support and modeling role of group size, Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1525192. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1525192

Lwis, C., & Takahashi, A. (2022). Sustained, effective school-wide lesson study: How do we get there? Vietnam Journal of Education, 6 (Special Issue), 45–57. https://doi.org/1052296/vje.2022.178

Lyster, R. (2002). Negotiation in immersion teacher-student interaction. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 237–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00003-X

Mariana, L. (2018). Enhancing students’ writing ability using corrective feedback through lesson study in Nusantara PGRI Kediri University. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on English Language Teaching (ICONELT 2017) (pp. 147–151). https://doi.org/10.2991/ICONELT-17.2018.33

McKinsey Report. (2007). How the world’s best-performing schools come out on top: Lessons from the global school reform. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/education/our-insights/how-the-worlds-best-performing-school-systems-come-out-on-top

Minisola, R., Robutti, O., & Miyakawa, T. (2024). Didacticians introducing lesson study for the professional development of prospective mathematics teachers. Asian Journal for Mathematics Education, 3(1), 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/27527263241228324

Ministry of Education. (2019). Ministry of Education supports lesson study for teachers’ professional development. https://www.medu.ir/fa/news/41988/ministry-of-education-supports-lesson-study-for-teachers-professional-development

Murphy, R. (2019). English grammar in use (5th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2003). Defining and measuring SLA. Oxford University Press.

Ono, Y., & Ferreira, J. (2010). A case study of continuing teacher professional development through lesson study in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 30(1). https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v30n1a320

Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp045

Pang, J. (2016). Improving mathematics instruction and supporting teacher learning in Korea through lesson study using five practices. ZDM, 48(4), 471–483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0768-x

Purnama, S. (2017). Improving the students’ writing competence in a second language acquisition through the implementation of lesson study. Journal of Education, Teaching and Learning, 2(1), 17–20. https://doi.org/10.26737/JETL.V2I1.140

Rezaei, A., & Sharifi, M. (2021). Investigating the perceptions of Iranian EFL teachers on the effectiveness of lesson study approach in language instruction. Education Quarterly Reviews, 4(4), 756–764. https://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1993.04.04.412

Russell, T., & Munby, H. (1992). Teachers and teaching: From classrooms to reflection. Falmer Press.

Sari, R. (2021). Highlighting grammatical errors by using writing journal to improve writing accuracy. KABASTRA: Kajian Bahasa dan Sastra, 1(1), 94–104. https://doi.org/10.31002/kabastra.v1i1.10

Sarkararani, M. R. (2011). Lesson study as a model to promote mathematical discourse in the classroom: The case study of Fukushima junior high school. Quarterly Journal of Education, 27(1), 35-46. (In Persian).

Seleznyov, S. (2018). Lesson study: An exploration of its translation beyond Japan. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 7. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLLS-04-2018-0020

Schön, D.A. (1992). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315237473

Serbest, A. (2014). Ders imecesi yönteminin etki alanları üzerine bir meta-sentez çalışması [Master’s thesis, Karadeniz Technical University].

Sharwood, S. M. (1990). Speaking to the many minds: On the relevance or irrelevance of different types of le information for the L2 learner. Paper presented at World Congress of Applied Linguistics, Greece.

Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing condition on narrative retelling. Language Learning, 49(1), 93–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00071

Somma, V. (2016). The impact of lesson study on teacher effectiveness [Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University]. ProQuest LLC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED577915

Spring, R. (2022). Free, Online Multilingual Statistics for Linguistics and Language Education Researchers. Center for Culture and Language Education, Tohoku      University 2021 Nenpo, 8, 32–38. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12037.63202

Song, M., & Suh, B. (2008). The effects of output task types on noticing and learning of the English past counterfactual conditional. System, 36, 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2007.09.006

Susilo, H., Setiowati, B. F. K., Masita, R., & Kundariati, M. (2023). Exploring the impact of lesson study as a collaborative teaching strategy in higher education. Journal of Learning Improvement and Lesson Study, 3(2), 22–27. http://jlils.ppj.unp.ac.id/index.php/

Tepylo, D. R. H. (2008). Investigating the effects of lesson study [Master’s thesis, University of Toronto].

Wijaya, T. T., Rizki, L. M., Yunita, W., Salamah, U., Pereira, J., Zhang, Ch., Li, X., & Purnama, A. (2021). Technology integration to teaching mathematics in higher education during coronavirus pandemic using SAMR model. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2123, 012043. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2123/1/012043

Willems, I., & Van den Bossche, P. (2019). Lesson study effectiveness for teachers’ professional learning: A best evidence synthesis. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLLS-04-2019-0031

Win, Y. M., & Kovacs, Z. (2024). Lesson study as a professional development practice: Perspectives of Myanmar teacher educators. Teacher Education and Learning, 22(3), 029–057. https://doi.org/10.37205/TEL-hun.2023.3.02

Zamani, P., & Ghelichli, M. (2022). The impact of Lesson Study on Iranian EFL teachers’ pedagogic knowledge. In A. S. Arju & T. C. Kwek (Eds.), Lesson Study for improving teaching and learning in schools: Emerging issues and practices (pp. 173-184). London: Routledge.

Zhang, Z. (2023). Will lesson study work culturally in China? BCP Business & Management, 41, 101-107. https://doi.org/10.54691/bcpbm.v41i.4416

Copyright of articles rests with the authors. Please cite TESL-EJ appropriately.
Editor’s Note: The HTML version contains no page numbers. Please use the PDF version of this article for citations.