HANNAH OWEN, TEACHING ASSOCIATE AND PHD RESEARCHER, FACULTY OF EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE, UK
The implications of artificial intelligence (AI) use in education are far reaching, potentially enabling new forms of teaching, learning and educational provision, as well as enhancing learning experiences and supporting teachers (Miao and Cukurova, 2024). And while there is much uncertainty about how this version of education will unfold, we can be sure that teachers, as the primary users of these technologies, will be at the centre of this continuous innovation and change.
In a previous article for Impact, I examined what teachers might need to know in order to engage productively and effectively with ChatGPT in lesson and resource planning (LRP), looking not just at the tools and techniques that were employed but also at the metacognitive processes that facilitated their use in the intense, complex reality of classroom life (Owen, 2025). I concluded that embedding AI as a pedagogical tool requires careful consideration. The decisions that I made when navigating the different AI tools and analysing the AI outputs were framed by judgements about what should be done for the good of my students, and so I needed to be able to identify which possibilities should be enacted in order to realise good and meaningful teaching (Biesta, 2015). It would seem, therefore, that the capacity of teachers to determine how and when to make judicious use of this technology is just as important as their knowledge and understanding of AI foundations and applications, and the operational skills required to apply AI tools.
But how can we support teachers to engage critically with generative AI (GenAI) tools and outputs, and integrate the use of GenAI thoughtfully into teaching and learning? In this article, I will draw on my experiences with Lesson Study to explore how this iterative professional development model might provide opportunities for teachers to identify and leverage the pedagogical benefits of AI tools in the planning and resourcing of their lessons (Miao and Cukurova, 2024).
Why Lesson Study as the context for change?
Lesson Study (LS) is an approach to teacher professional development that originated in Japan. It involves a small group of teachers co-planning a series of lessons based on a shared learning goal for the students, with one teacher leading the co-constructed lesson and their colleagues invited to observe student learning in the lesson. From these observations and subsequent reflection, the group uses the evidence to further improve teaching (Murphy et al., 2017).
As a senior leader, I was interested in approaches to professional development that provided teachers not only with a range of ideas and experiences but also the opportunity to develop their skills for systematically and critically examining their practice. Therefore, I signed my school up to a project involving Lesson Study. Not long afterwards, I found myself part of a group where we set out using Research Lesson Study to problematise issues of practice that we were facing, working collaboratively to find solutions before observing and reflecting on the outcomes (Research Lesson Study (RLS) was developed by Pete Dudley in 2005. Further information can be found at www.lessonstudy.co.uk). The act of collectively deliberating, observing and reflecting on teaching not only opened my eyes to new ideas but also facilitated my understanding of how to embed these into my practice.
Of course, we know that professional development is an essential component of change and development within schools (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Sims et al., 2021), but why is it that I am promoting Lesson Study as a means of engaging in purposeful, creative and effective AI integration?
A human-centred approach
Firstly, Lesson Study would facilitate a human-centred approach to GenAI in the classroom. The central premise of Lesson Study is to improve the learning experiences of the students (Yoshida, 2012), and so right at the beginning of the process, focus students are identified. It is their progress that is monitored throughout each lesson. Indeed, by predicting and then observing how these students access and engage with the learning, the teachers move beyond just adapting tasks and activities to meet the needs of individuals and experience the classroom as it might be for the students (Dudley, 2015).
This approach would place students at the centre of decision-making and ensure that any judgements made about which GenAI tools or outputs to use are focused on how best to support student learning. As students are often interviewed at the end of each lesson, teachers would gain a deeper understanding of the issues and challenges that have been uncovered. Therefore, these meaningful interactions would not only support the refinement of the teachers’ tools and skills but also allow the students themselves to contribute to the knowledge held by teachers.
A critical approach
Secondly, Lesson Study would support teachers to engage critically with GenAI when lesson and resource planning. In Lesson Study, the lessons planned act as ‘working hypotheses’; they permit teachers to ‘slow down the action’ so that they can engage in systematic and critical deliberation to improve their knowledge, and develop coherent and sustainable practices that support the student’s understanding (Yoshida, 2012). Furthermore, classroom observation and collective analysis allows teachers to acquire new insights that prompt them to think reflectively and reflexively about the impact of the choices that they made (Dudley, 2018).
This process of deliberation and reflection would not only allow teachers to explore the different ways in which GenAI can be used in the classroom, but also provide opportunities for them to develop their skills for systematically and critically examining AI tools, outputs and practices. Of course, every teacher brings to the Lesson Study experience a unique framework of values, interests and knowledge, but through meaningful interaction, the members of the group could combine their intellectual resources to make joint sense of the challenges of AI integration and to create new understandings that they would not achieve as individuals.
An experimental approach
Thirdly, Lesson Study would create a safe space in which teachers could experiment with AI tools and outputs. Change often requires a process of orientation to a different set of ideas (Fullan, 1993), which can be unnerving, yet research shows that the collaborative nature of Lesson Study can give teachers the confidence to work creatively and to try new approaches by breaking down self-consciousness and lessening feelings of vulnerability (Norwich and Ylonen, 2013). Trust within this ‘learning community’ empowers teachers to value new ideas, develop new practices and engage constructively with innovation. After all, it does not matter if something goes wrong because the lesson belongs to the group, and not to any individual (Dudley, 2015).
This confidence would help teachers to see that innovation is both necessary and practical, and encourage them to be entrepreneurial in experimenting with AI practices in teaching. Moreover, meaningful interactions, which develop a sense of joint ownership and common cause, would increase the social capital of the group, deepening thinking about the use of GenAI and allowing for greater critical engagement than is common in conversations regarding teaching (Owen, 2019).
An agentic approach
Finally, Lesson Study would empower teachers to lead innovation and change, for well-designed Lesson Study provides a significant amount of agency and ownership of learning (Lewis et al., 2012), which is not always evident in more structured and facilitated professional development activities (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). Although not all teachers’ perceptions of GenAI are positive (DfE, 2024), it is possible that the support gained through being part of a professional community, focused on improvement, will be a powerful and sustainable source of motivation (Lewis et al., 2012) to those who perhaps currently lack the knowledge or skills with which to engage confidently with GenAI tools.
This learning environment would provide opportunities for teachers to develop their leadership capacity, by building the professional knowledge needed to influence colleagues and practice in their schools (Frost, 2012). For example, in my own research into Lesson Study, I have observed teachers leading others towards new ideas and practices through acting as role models. Indeed, during planning discussions, individual teachers would showcase teaching by modelling strategies and approaches with which other teachers in the group were less familiar (Owen, 2019). Given that a lack of knowledge about how to use AI in an educational context appears to be the most prominent barrier among teachers not currently utilising GenAI (DfE, 2024), meaningful interactions with teacher leaders from within their setting might provide the necessary support to demystify these new technologies and drive their integration into teaching and learning practices across the school.
Conclusion
Right at the beginning, I asked how we can support teachers to engage critically with GenAI tools and outputs, and integrate the use of GenAI into teaching and learning. Yet before summarising my thoughts, I would like to acknowledge that in schools across the country, there will be teachers who, like me, are interested in the use of GenAI to support their LRP and who have started to experiment with new practices. These early adopters are also already beginning to find ways of sharing their knowledge with colleagues by running training sessions for each other or informally discussing ideas for GenAI use (DfE, 2024). Therefore, what I am proposing is a way of expanding this knowledge-sharing in a deliberate way that values the significant role and influence that teachers can have in educational innovation.
I have argued that Lesson Study is a potential lever for change, for while it is a learning process that is centred in classroom practice, it also has the potential to support continuous improvement at the classroom, school and system level (Dudley et al., 2019). Empowering teachers to master the pedagogical benefits of AI tools in LRP will require significant investment of time and effort, at least in the short term (DfE, 2024). But rather than choosing a traditional top-down model, which often limits the ability of teachers to shape professional practice in their schools (Bangs and Frost, 2011), I am suggesting an approach that moves beyond just extending teachers’ repertoire of strategies and techniques and which engages them in dialogues and practices that will encourage them to develop their judgement of how best to use these technologies. After all, we need to remember that in education, the question is never just about the most effective ways of reaching certain aims or achieving certain ends; it also includes whether the most effective ways are morally acceptable and educationally meaningful (Biesta, 2019).
The examples of AI use and specific tools in this article are for context only. They do not imply endorsement or recommendation of any particular tool or approach by the Department for Education or the Chartered College of Teaching and any views stated are those of the individual. Any use of AI also needs to be carefully planned, and what is appropriate in one setting may not be elsewhere. You should always follow the DfE’s Generative AI In Education policy position and product safety standards in addition to aligning any AI use with the DfE’s latest Keeping Children Safe in Education guidance. You can also find teacher and leader toolkits on gov.uk.
