Post Lesson Discussion of the Research Lesson: Analysis and Findings

Abstract

One core component of Lesson Study is the post-lesson discussion, during which observing teachers collectively examine the taught lesson, propose improvements, and synthesize key insights. In practice, however, recurrent pitfalls include criticizing the instructor and offering comments grounded in impressions rather than evidence. To investigate—and ultimately enhance—the quality of such discussions, this article presents an analytical methodology for post-lesson discussions and reports findings from its trial application. In 2024, we transcribed and analyzed the discussion following a primary-school mathematics research lesson. A distinctive feature of this case was its scale and composition: more than one hundred participants, including Lesson Study specialists and representatives from general education schools and universities.
Verbatim video and audio recordings were transcribed and coded using a three-phase scheme: (1) Representing (describing lesson events; descriptive explication), (2) Explaining (articulating causal accounts—impressionistic, evidence-based, and inquiry/discussion), and (3) Constructing (drawing conclusions, proposing solutions, articulating general methods, and outlining future directions). Each comment was assigned to the relevant code(s), allowing non-mutually-exclusive categorization, and quantitative analyses were conducted in QDA Miner.
The results indicate that 63.3 percent of contributions were coded as opinion-based, 56.7% as evidence-based, and 43.3 percent as descriptive accounts of lesson events, whereas the lowest proportions appeared at the levels of drawing conclusions and setting future directions. Lexical analysis showed that the most frequent words during the discussion were “teacher,” “lesson,” “students,” and “good.” Although participants focused primarily on the teacher, overt criticism was limited and several strengths were also identified. By analyzing post-lesson discussions in this manner, facilitators can diagnose which phase(s) require greater emphasis and thereby guide future discussions more effectively, underscoring the practical value of the proposed methodology.