Navigating facilitation challenges in lesson study of rural primary schools

Lesson Study (LS) is a collaborative, iterative, teacher-led form of professional development (PD) that is student-focused and embedded in classroom practice (Lewis, 2016). Unlike the traditional Irish PD model, where teachers primarily receive expert-delivered knowledge, LS requires teachers to work together in teams to study, design, teach, and refine a research lesson aligned with a school-wide theme (Takahashi and McDougal, 2016; Hourigan and Leavy, 2024). While interest in LS is growing in Ireland, its effective implementation relies on skilled facilitation, yet many teachers lack experience with this approach (Flanagan et al., 2024). In contexts where LS is not yet well established, the “teacher of teachers” often takes on the complex role of LS facilitator, requiring expertise in guiding discussions, supporting content learning, and fostering reflective observation and analysis (Lewis, 2016; Hourigan and Leavy, 2021). However, little research explores how facilitators develop these skills, particularly in settings where LS is still emerging.

To be effective, an LS facilitator typically benefits from a strong understanding of the complexities of school life, curriculum demands, and teaching practices, along with subject-specific knowledge, pedagogical expertise, and the ability to collaborate with both teachers and students (Hourigan and Leavy, 2024). Depending on the context, the facilitator may need to move fluidly between the roles of LS group member and expert, responding to the evolving needs of the group (Lewis, 2016). Rather than prescribing a fixed approach, effective facilitation often involves striking a careful balance between offering guidance and stepping back to support participants in taking ownership of their professional learning (Mynott and Michel, 2022).

This research examines the implementation of LS in a rural Irish primary school, an area not well documented in the literature (Asari et al., 2018; Flanagan et al., 2024). While LS has been studied in various educational contexts, there is a notable lack of research on its application in rural settings and even less on the roles that support LS in these contexts, such as the LS facilitator. This study seeks to address this gap by exploring the nature of the roles assumed by the LS facilitator during the implementation of LS in a rural school. In this research, the first author served as a class teacher, deputy principal, colleague to the other LS group participants, and first-time LS facilitator, assuming the roles of researcher, LS participant, and facilitator. The four functions of a facilitator: convenor, teacher trainer, researcher, and group member (Clivaz and Clerc-Georgy, 2020) are used as a lens to explore the role of facilitator, thus, addressing the following overarching research question and embedded questions “What are the lived experiences of a novice LS facilitator in an Irish rural primary school setting?”

What roles does a novice facilitator assume in rural school's LS?

What challenges does a novice facilitator experience?

Within the LS framework, the literature identifies two key support roles: the More Knowledgeable Other (MKO) and the LS facilitator.

In Japan, the MKO is regarded as central to authentic professional learning (Takahashi and McDougal, 2016). Typically, the MKO is a subject expert external to the LS team who works with teachers across the LS cycle, providing pedagogical input and stability. However, in emerging LS contexts such as Ireland and the USA, the MKO role is inconsistently applied due to structural limitations, especially in rural schools where access to experienced MKOs and facilitators is constrained (Flanagan et al., 2024). The limited success of LS outside Japan has been partly attributed to the absence of this support role (Perry and Lewis, 2009; Takahashi, 2014).

In Japan, LS is deeply embedded in school culture, with teachers possessing extensive experience of its methods. In contrast, primary LS is rare in Ireland and across much of Europe and the USA, where teachers often need extensive support throughout the LS cycle (Hourigan and Leavy, 2021). This highlights the importance of multi-dimensional support systems in non-Japanese contexts. Here, the LS facilitator must take on an extended “teacher of teachers” role, providing pedagogical, logistical, and emotional support throughout the process (Hourigan and Leavy, 2024). Yet, concerns remain about whether the current literature offers sufficient guidance for facilitators in contexts where LS is not well established (Uffen et al., 2025).

Lewis (2016) describes the facilitator's responsibilities as ranging from being a group member to serving as an expert. Clivaz and Clerc-Georgy (2020) categorise the facilitator's functions into four aspects: convenor, teacher trainer, researcher, and group member. These roles are not fixed; they are fluid and context-dependent, evolving dynamically throughout the LS process. Recent research has therefore suggested a two-expert facilitation model (Mynott and Michel, 2022). For example, Clivaz and Clerc-Georgy's (2020) study involved dual facilitators, one specialising in mathematics education, the other in pedagogy. Hourigan and Leavy (2021) also distinguish between the roles of facilitator and MKO, arguing both are needed for robust LS support.

Lewis (2016) describes LS as unpredictable and emergent, shaped by teachers' evolving needs and requiring facilitators to adapt continuously rather than follow a fixed script. Unlike traditional PD, LS demands the co-construction of meaning, with facilitators moving fluidly between guiding and stepping back to foster teacher autonomy. These dynamics apply across contexts and form a conceptual foundation for understanding facilitation. Uffen et al. (2025) further stress the facilitator's role in maintaining a focus on children's learning during teacher dialogue, promoting reflection, mediating differing perspectives, and aligning conversations with curricular aims. This highlights facilitation as a responsive and flexible process that supports professional learning through structured but adaptable interaction. Subject-matter expertise also shapes facilitation: while those with strong disciplinary knowledge contribute directly to pedagogical discussions, facilitators without such expertise tend to guide processes and group collaboration.

Despite these demands, Irish studies show that while primary teachers are novice LS participants, they are generally positive about its collaborative nature (Hourigan and Leavy, 2021, 2024; Holden, 2023; Flanagan et al., 2024). However, practical and cultural obstacles remain. International studies report discomfort with the live lesson element, often due to its association with formal evaluation (Mason, 2002; Akiba et al., 2019; Jhang, 2020; Flanagan et al., 2024). Teachers also cite time pressure, detailed planning demands, and curriculum expectations as challenges to participation (Flanagan et al., 2024).

Hourigan and Leavy (2021) suggest that novice facilitators would benefit from structured support such as communities of practice, shadowing, peer coaching, critical friends' groups, and online forums. However, in countries, such as Ireland, where LS practice is embryonic, it is necessary to for governments to intentionally invest in systematic capacity building (Hourigan and Leavy, 2024).

Another possible form of support is the development of research LS resources, e.g. LS toolkits that would promote LS implementation that includes critical features (Akiba et al., 2019). Guides to facilitation are scarce and highly context specific. While facilitation models have been developed in the Netherlands (de Vries et al., 2016), the UK (Dudley, 2011), USA (Stepanek et al., 2007), and Switzerland (Hoznour et al., 2024) they are shaped by distinct educational cultures and are not directly transferrable. Adapting facilitation frameworks from one system to another is complex, requiring careful consideration of local educational conditions, cultural expectations, and practical constraints.

This presents a particular challenge for novice facilitators in under-researched contexts, such as rural Irish primary schools. At the time of this study, no LS guides existed specifically for the Irish primary sector (Holden, 2020). This study is situated within that gap. By examining the role of the LS facilitator in a rural Irish primary school, it aims to clarify the challenges and affordances of LS implementation in such settings. Developing an understanding of how facilitation and expertise function in context-sensitive ways is crucial for building adaptable LS models that can meaningfully support teacher learning.

This study took place in a rural school in Ireland, where the school (total 69 children age 4–12) was the first author's school. The intention was to introduce a collaborative and sustained model of PD through LS, fostering reflective practice and shared inquiry among teachers. Simultaneously, the project aimed to embed Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education within junior classes, where such integrated approaches were previously limited. This dual focus supported both teacher learning and the early development of children's STEM understanding.

The research employed a Participatory Action Research (PAR) methodology. According to Kemmis et al. (2014), one of the key strengths of PAR is that participants within educational settings can conduct research themselves. There is broad agreement that teachers should take an active role in researching their own practice and identifying ways to improve it (Stenhouse, 1975; Elliot, 2019). Participants using PAR have unique advantages “by virtue of being insiders” (Kemmis et al., 2014, p. 4), which grants them direct access to educational life and work at the local level. PAR is distinguished by its primary aim of fostering positive social change and its emancipatory goals, where participants have the autonomy to determine the most effective strategies for improving practice and to evaluate the outcomes of these strategies (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988). In this study, the research process was democratic. Teacher voice and agency were encouraged through this approach, as teachers shaped and designed each LS cycle. It was hoped that through teachers' involvement they would have a greater awareness of their ability to shape their own PD and adopt a self-critical stance (McTaggart, 1989). It was also hoped that the facilitator's non-expert status, as perceived by colleagues within the school, would support a more democratic process, minimising hierarchical dynamics and fostering a sense of shared ownership in the learning and inquiry.

The LS team comprised of three core members from School 1: the LS facilitator (first author), and two teacher participants. To preserve their anonymity, the two teacher participants were assigned the pseudonyms Gwen and Maria. All three were practising primary teachers in the school. The facilitator was a teacher and researcher, new to LS and integrated STEM education. Gwen and Maria were experienced early years teachers (15–20 years' experience), both teaching multi-grade classes but with no background in either LS or integrated STEM. From Cycle 2 onwards, the team was supported by a MKO, a university-based specialist in primary STEM education and LS who contributed subject expertise and an external perspective during planning and reflection meetings. The MKO's involvement was primarily remote, the LS facilitator regularly communicated with them via email, sending draft lesson plans for feedback. The MKO provided suggested amendments, which the LS facilitator then discussed with the participating teachers during planning sessions. As the project progressed, it was agreed that the MKO would conduct an on-site visit during Teach 1 of the final LS cycle, where they also participated in the post-lesson reflection meeting. This face-to-face involvement deepened their understanding of the school context and allowed for more nuanced feedback during the final stages of the project.

The study took place over eight months and included a pilot (Cycle 1) followed by three full LS cycles (Cycles 2–4). Each cycle followed a structured sequence: two initial planning meetings, a research lesson, a reflection session, a revised second teaching of the lesson (with a different class cohort), and a final reflection. Research lessons were taught in the LS facilitator's own junior class (16 children, aged 4–7) in School 1. In this study, research lessons were retaught, which required the involvement of a second school (School 2) containing a different cohort of children of the same age (23 children age 4–7). School 2 (total 116 children age 4–12) was a rural school, X km away, that had similar demographic and profile (rural location, size, multi-grade). Both schools followed the national primary curriculum and had a strong child-centred ethos but had no experience of integrated STEM education. Teaching was typically an individual pursuit, with few opportunities for peer observation or collaborative planning. While both schools had supportive leadership and a collegial working culture, PD was externally driven. Although teachers from School 2 were invited to participate, they declined, so only the children from School 2 were involved in the study.

Given that neither the LS facilitator nor the other two participating primary teachers had prior direct experience of LS the facilitator relied primarily on “Lesson Study Step by Step” by Lewis and Hurd (2011), which offered an accessible introduction to the LS process. This guide supported the early cycles by offering practical steps for planning, reflection, and focusing on student learning. However, it did not offer detailed guidance on the nuances of facilitation itself, particularly in rural contexts with smaller numbers of teaching staff.

Aside from the later involvement of a MKO from Cycle 2 onwards, the only other source of support available to the LS facilitator was regular consultation with supervisors, who had vast experience in leading LS in the Irish primary context. These supervisory meetings were critical, particularly offering strategic advice about managing the LS facilitation workload, promoting teacher autonomy, and identifying appropriate moments for stepping back or intervening. As such, this account offers a distinctive perspective on LS in the Irish context and provides a rare description of its implementation in primary STEM education.

Three complementary data sources were used to examine the evolving role of the LS facilitator and the challenges of implementing LS in a rural context: (1) semi-structured interviews, (2) fieldnotes from collaborative meetings, and (3) a reflective researcher journal. Together, these sources offered a multi-layered perspective, capturing the functions and challenges experienced by the LS facilitator and the evolving role across four LS cycles.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the two participating teachers, Gwen and Maria, before and after the LS cycles. The initial interviews explored prior PD experiences, expectations of LS, and understandings of STEM, highlighting a shared novice status across the team. These insights informed the facilitator's early decisions, including the need to seek external STEM support. Final interviews examined perceived changes in teaching, collaborative practices, and reflections on LS. One interview was also conducted with the school principal at the end of the study, offering insight into leadership support and structural conditions shaping LS implementation. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed.

All LS planning and reflection meetings were audio recorded. Simultaneously, the facilitator documented fieldnotes during and immediately after each meeting, recording teacher dialogue, planning processes, emerging reflections, and group dynamics. These notes captured how collaboration evolved over time, and how the facilitator supported planning, prompted reflection, and navigated group tensions. Teachers' informal reflections, often shared during meetings, were also captured in the fieldnotes when participant diaries did not materialise.

The facilitator's reflective journal offered a personal, iterative account of facilitation. Journal entries documented challenges, decisions, and tensions inherent in acting as both teacher and LS leader. It also captured the influence of the rural school context, particularly in relation to isolation, logistics, and teacher support needs.

Data analysis followed a mixed deductive and inductive thematic analysis approach, informed by the research questions and relevant LS literature. Given the authors' decision to use Clivaz and Clerc-Georgy's (2020) four functions of a facilitator as a lens to explore the role of facilitator, a deductive approach was initially applied to explore the specific, multifaceted roles of the LS facilitator: the facilitator as convenor, teacher trainer, researcher, and group member. Subsequently, an inductive layer of analysis was conducted to identify and understand the nature of the challenges encountered in fulfilling these roles, allowing unanticipated patterns and issues to emerge from the data itself.

Initially, data from interviews and collaborative meetings were transcribed from audio recordings, while fieldnotes were expanded upon and digitally documented by hand. A preliminary review of the dataset was conducted without coding to develop familiarity with the data and to identify patterns relevant to the predefined themes. A priori codes, such as “organising group discussions” (facilitator as convenor), “introducing inquiry-based learning” (facilitator as teacher trainer), “documenting observations” (facilitator as researcher), and “participating in lesson planning” (facilitator as group member), were derived from the theoretical framework and applied to the dataset during open coding.

Once these thematic codes were applied, a second round of inductive coding identified sub-themes representing the specific challenges within each role, such as time constraints, subject knowledge gaps, or role ambiguity. These findings were then organised thematically to reflect the practical difficulties encountered in enacting them, ensuring alignment with the research questions and theoretical framing of the study.

This section presents the findings on the lived experience of a novice LS facilitator in a rural Irish primary school. The analysis addresses two core areas: the roles the facilitator assumed and the challenges encountered in fulfilling them. Drawing on Clivaz and Clerc-Georgy's (2020) framework, four overlapping roles were identified:

1. Convenor: coordinating logistics, scheduling meetings, and organising the LS process across two school sites.

2. Teacher Trainer: supporting professional learning, guiding lesson planning, and scaffolding STEM pedagogy.

3. Researcher: observing lessons, documenting practice, and facilitating post-lesson reflection.

4. Group Member: collaborating as an equal, contributing ideas and participating in shared decision-making.

These roles were shaped by specific challenges, including rural isolation, limited access to external expertise, and the participants' unfamiliarity with LS and integrated STEM. The facilitator's responsibilities shifted over time, becoming more collaborative as confidence and trust developed across the four LS cycles. The following sections examine each role and its associated challenges.

At the outset, the facilitator's role as convenor involved introducing the LS framework to two rural schools unfamiliar with this form of PD. This extended beyond logistics to include building trust, managing scepticism, and gaining collective buy-in. Tasks included liaising with principals and staff, outlining research aims, addressing concerns, and coordinating schedules across geographically dispersed schools.

Coordinating logistics in a rural context proved particularly demanding. Teachers had to travel between schools for lesson reteaching, requiring carefully arranged class cover. The facilitator worked closely with school leadership to manage these transitions.

This responsibility required sustained relational work with leadership. For example, the principal in School 1 acknowledged the tensions between operational needs and collaborative professional learning, but nevertheless supported the initiative:

Over time, the convenor role evolved from a logistical to a more relational and strategic function. For instance, in later cycles, the facilitator coordinated with a neighbouring school to host external PD, reducing travel demands and fostering cross-school dialogue. This shows how the convenor role in a rural context demands more than organisational competence; it requires leadership, adaptability, and sensitivity to the school's cultural dynamics.

A central responsibility of the facilitator was to develop participants' understanding of LS, STEM education, and PAR. In the absence of external expertise, the facilitator had to adapt LS to suit small, multi-age classes of children aged 4–7. Research lessons were shortened to 30–40 min to suit younger learners, and low-threshold, high-ceiling tasks were designed to support mixed-age differentiation. Older pupils scaffolded younger peers in tasks such as collaborative problem-solving.

Further adjustments were made to the LS structure to suit the rural setting (Flanagan et al., 2024). Each cycle was extended to 6–8 weeks to reduce pressure on staffing and timetables. The facilitator also provided continuous pedagogical support, acting as a mediator during planning and reflection. While most MKO input was relayed by email, one in-person visit took place during Cycle 4 for a live lesson and reflection meeting.

To address these uncertainties, the facilitator organised targeted PD and invited external experts to introduce inquiry-based learning and integrated STEM. This helped anchor lesson design in evidence-informed practices and supported the group's progression.

The facilitator supported planning sessions by working alongside teachers to scaffold lesson design choices and prompt deeper pedagogical dialogue. In the earlier cycles, the facilitator contributed more actively, suggesting possible lesson foci and helping teachers anticipate children's responses. These contributions were positioned not as directives but as starting points for joint discussion. As the cycles progressed, and with the consistent involvement of the MKO, planning became increasingly collaborative. The MKO's subject-specific input gave teachers greater confidence, reducing their reliance on the facilitator and fostering more independent and informed dialogue among the group. This shift marked a deliberate and reflective move by the facilitator towards shared responsibility, reinforcing a democratic approach to facilitation that valued collective expertise and promoted teacher agency.

The facilitator's dual identity as a novice LS practitioner and teacher educator shaped a responsive, collaborative model of facilitation. Rather than adopting an “expert” stance, they created space for inquiry and leveraged external input when needed. This hybrid model proved effective in under-resourced rural contexts, enabling teachers to build confidence and ownership of the process.

The facilitator's dual role as teacher and researcher was central to embedding a culture of inquiry within the LS process. Beyond organising the structure, the facilitator encouraged participants to examine children's learning through observation, reflection, and pupil work analysis. From the outset, teachers were supported in viewing classrooms as research sites, using data such as behaviour, oral responses, and written work to inform planning.

During the pilot cycle, a key incident occurred when a child with additional needs struggled to participate in group tasks. This prompted a discussion about how task design could better support inclusion and engagement:

Over the course of the LS cycles, this issue became a focal point for the group, prompting discussions about how to engage all students more effectively. These strategies included teaming the child with a more competent buddy and adding tactile materials which would draw the interest of the child to explore.

By Cycle 4, adjustments were made, such as differentiated materials, visual prompts, and independent work options. These changes improved participation:

This iterative process exemplified the facilitator's support for practitioner inquiry. Children's verbal and behavioural responses were treated as data, guiding lesson refinements. The facilitator promoted a culture where teachers tested hypotheses about learning and adapted based on evidence. Over time, this fostered a more analytical stance on practice and reinforced LS as a sustained, reflective learning model.

Working in a small school with limited staffing, the facilitator initially found it difficult to participate fully as a colleague. The demands of managing logistics, building buy-in, and leading sessions made it hard to engage as an equal:

After the pilot cycle, and given the dual learning demands of LS and STEM, a MKO was invited to support later cycles. Their presence eased the facilitator's burden and promoted a more distributed model of lesson planning:

By the final cycle, the facilitator was able to actively participate in group discussions and share feedback freely without feeling the pressure of having to lead the process. This shift allowed for a more balanced and collaborative dynamic within the group.

This study identified four key challenges experienced by the novice facilitator in enacting the roles of convenor, teacher trainer, researcher, and group member. These challenges were often overlapping and compounded by the rural and under-resourced context. They included:

1. Role Conflict and Balance

2. Building Trust and Overcoming Resistance to Observation

3. Logistical Constraints in a Rural Setting

4. Gaps in Teachers' Subject Knowledge and Pedagogical Expertise

Each of these challenges is described below, along with their effects on the facilitator's ability to lead the LS process.

1. Role Conflict and Balance

The first major challenge for the facilitator was managing the competing demands of being a practitioner, researcher, and leader of the LS process. Constantly shifting between these roles created role strain and made it difficult to participate as an equal group member. This fragmentation of responsibilities slowed the facilitator's integration into the team and limited their ability to contribute fully to collaborative dialogue in early cycles.

However, as the MKO came on site for the research lesson in cycle 4, the facilitator could step back and contribute more meaningfully to the post lesson discussion. Being viewed as an “insider” fostered trust and familiarity, supporting this shift.

This shift not only enabled the facilitator to participate more authentically as a group member but also reinforced the collaborative ethos of the LS process. It highlights how “insider” status, when combined with external support, can enhance facilitation in context-sensitive ways.

1. Building Trust and Overcoming Resistance to Observation

The second challenge concerned building trust and addressing teachers' discomfort with being observed. As teachers in a small rural school with strong informal ties, participants initially hesitated to critique one another or invite observation of their teaching. This resistance impeded open professional dialogue and limited early opportunities for collaborative learning.

It was made clear from the outset that the purpose of observing lessons was to assess the impact of the co-created research lesson on children's learning, rather than to evaluate the teacher delivering it. However, the participants had never previously engaged in peer observation, and their prior experience of being observed was limited to formal evaluation. As such, the idea of being observed understandably provoked some discomfort and apprehension. The facilitator recognised this and responded by assuming greater teaching responsibility during the initial stages of the LS cycles. By modelling the research lessons, the facilitator aimed to reduce the perceived pressure on participants, allowing them to experience observation in a lower-stakes, supportive context. This helped to reframe observation as a collaborative, developmental process focused on collective learning rather than individual judgement. Over time, the facilitator's intentional modelling led to greater openness and the teachers taught research lessons in the later cycles. Observation shifted from a source of anxiety to a valued practice.

1. Logistical Challenges in a Rural Context

The third challenge related to the logistical demands of implementing LS across two rural schools. Coordinating timetables, arranging class cover, and facilitating travel between sites placed heavy administrative responsibility on the facilitator. These demands slowed progress during early cycles and required continuous negotiation with LS participants and school leadership.

This constant negotiation placed added strain on already limited staffing and required a high degree of flexibility from school leadership to accommodate the LS schedule.

Another key challenge for the facilitator was addressing gaps in teachers' subject-matter expertise, especially in STEM education. The rural context further compounded this issue by limiting access to external PD, teachers often had to travel considerable distances for STEM training, and the MKO also made a lengthy journey to observe a live lesson during Cycle Four.

These conditions underscore how the rural setting added an additional layer of complexity to implementing LS. In the absence of structural supports such as accessible PD and sufficient staffing, much of the responsibility for coordination fell to the facilitator.

1. Gaps in Subject Knowledge and Pedagogical Expertise

The fourth major challenge involved teachers' limited subject knowledge, especially in science, and their unfamiliarity with integrated STEM and inquiry-based learning.

Teachers found it particularly difficult to design integrated STEM lessons and expressed uncertainty about how to include engineering and technology meaningfully. This placed additional responsibility on the facilitator to scaffold lesson design and mediate pedagogical uncertainties, which in turn increased the cognitive and emotional load borne. Most had no prior experience of teaching engineering to young children and initially associated technology with digital tools, rather than recognising simpler tools like magnifying glasses and rulers. Lessons in the pilot and early cycles focused primarily on science with superficial or unclear links to the other disciplines.

In parallel, the pedagogical shift toward inquiry-based learning also posed a significant challenge. While teachers committed to inquiry-based learning from Cycle 2, they struggled to enact it in practice. Gwen's reflection after her first inquiry-based learning lesson captured this discomfort:

Although the group recognised the value of inquiry-based approaches, many lacked experience facilitating open-ended exploration. This dual challenge, gaps in both content knowledge and pedagogy, resulted in an increased burden on the facilitator.

The rural context compounded these issues, with limited access to external PD. These parallel learning curves, teachers developing STEM knowledge and the facilitator guiding a process in a domain that was not their primary area of expertise, required a highly responsive and collaborative approach. The involvement of the MKO and targeted PD helped bridge these gaps and supported the development of more integrated and inquiry-driven STEM lessons.

This study explored the lived experience of a novice LS facilitator in a rural Irish primary school setting. The findings revealed the facilitator's approach to navigating the four overlapping roles of convenor, teacher trainer, researcher, and group member within a rural setting. The discussion below examines two overarching themes that emerged from the findings, the “Multifaceted Roles of the Facilitator” and “Navigating Challenges in a Rural, Collaborative PD Context”. These findings underscore the central role of the facilitator in shaping the success of LS, especially in settings where LS is newly introduced and embedded structures for collaborative PD are lacking (Lewis, 2016; Hourigan and Leavy, 2021).

The novice facilitator assumed responsibilities consistent with the framework developed by Clivaz and Clerc-Georgy (2020) but adapted these to the demands of a rural Irish primary context. As convenor, the facilitator managed not only scheduling and logistics across two school sites but also worked to secure leadership support and build buy-in among participants unfamiliar with LS. This finding aligns with research by Takahashi and McDougal (2016) and Erbilgin and Robinson (2025), who emphasise that school leadership is essential for embedding LS into school culture. Similar to Hourigan and Leavy's (2021) work in the Irish context, the findings show that facilitating LS in small schools involves navigating competing operational pressures, and that sustained negotiation is central to enabling teachers' participation.

As teacher trainer, the facilitator introduced inquiry-based learning and integrated STEM pedagogy. Unlike facilitators in more established LS systems, they did not hold the disciplinary authority or expertise often associated with this role (Clivaz and Clerc-Georgy, 2020). The reliance on MKO support illustrates a move toward a distributed model of facilitation. This hybrid approach, combining local contextual knowledge with external expertise, aligns with Mynott and Michel's (2022) argument for multi-expert facilitation, and the findings extend this work by demonstrating how such an approach can compensate for gaps in local PD infrastructure.

As researcher, the facilitator supported teachers in adopting an inquiry-oriented stance, using pupil data and observation to inform lesson redesign. This analytical approach echoes Murata et al.’s (2012) findings that iterative engagement with children's thinking deepens professional learning. The study suggests that even novice facilitators can foster evidence-informed dialogue when the process is structured and scaffolded over time.

The role of group member evolved over the four LS cycles. Initially hindered by the facilitator's organisational burden, this role became more balanced once the MKO became involved. By the final cycle, the facilitator was able to engage more equally in joint planning and reflection. The “insider” position of the facilitator, already working as a teacher within the school, emerged as an advantage. Familiarity with school norms, values, and informal professional relationships provided a foundation for trust and enabled more responsive facilitation. While previous literature recommends a two-facilitator model to manage LS effectively (Clivaz and Clerc-Georgy, 2020; Mynott and Michel, 2022), this study suggests insider facilitation, when supported by a MKO, may offer an alternative approach in rural or isolated settings. The MKO's contribution, providing validation, pedagogical input, and a broader perspective, helped balance the facilitator's limitations and offered participants exposure to external expertise without diminishing the benefits of local contextual knowledge.

The barriers encountered by the facilitator were multifaceted and interrelated, consisting of identity-based, relational, logistical, and pedagogical challenges. The findings suggest that while these challenges collectively shaped the facilitator's experience, the logistical and pedagogical challenges exerted the greatest practical impact on their professional work.

Identity-based challenges stemmed from role conflict and overload. Balancing the expectations of organiser, teacher educator, researcher, and peer created significant cognitive and emotional demands. These tensions are well-documented in LS literature (Clivaz and Clerc-Georgy, 2020), but the findings extend this work by illustrating how role conflict intensified in a rural context where structural supports were minimal. The facilitator addressed these tensions by redistributing responsibilities through MKO involvement, a strategy that aligns with previous recommendations for shared facilitation but has not yet been widely documented in small-school settings.

Relational challenges, particularly trust-building and discomfort with observation, were prominent in the early stages of LS. The teachers' initial hesitancy reflects Jhang's (2020) findings that cultures associating observation with evaluation present barriers to collaborative learning. The facilitator's response, modelling research lessons, easing teachers gradually into observation, and reframing its purpose, aligns with established LS guidance but offers new insight into how modelling can reduce interpersonal pressure in tightly knit rural schools where professional relationships overlap with personal ones.

Logistical challenges included arranging cover, managing timetables, and facilitating travel between sites. These constraints echo international research identifying time, staffing, and resource limitations as major barriers to LS (Erbilgin and Robinson, 2025; Lewis, 2016), but the present study adds nuance by showing how such constraints accumulate in multi-site rural initiatives. The findings highlight how logistical demands shaped facilitation decisions, for example, extending LS cycles and modifying meeting structures, and demonstrate the need for leadership support and pragmatic adaptation in similar contexts.

Pedagogical challenges centred on gaps in teachers' content knowledge, especially in STEM domains, and unfamiliarity with inquiry-based learning. These challenges are consistent with the broader literature on STEM in early childhood settings, where teachers commonly express low confidence (Flanagan et al., 2024). What distinguishes this study is the dual learning trajectory, teachers building STEM understanding while the facilitator simultaneously learned to guide STEM-focused LS without strong disciplinary expertise. The facilitator responded through targeted PD, external input, and iterative lesson design, demonstrating the value of responsive facilitation strategies in contexts lacking local expertise.

In sum, while identity-based challenges and relational issues were substantial, it was the logistical and pedagogical challenges that most affected the novice facilitator's experience. Addressing these required a sensitive, context-responsive approach that combined insider knowledge, strategic use of external support, and flexible adaptation of LS processes.

This study has illuminated the challenges and opportunities associated with facilitating LS in a rural Irish primary school where both the LS facilitator and participants were new to the process. The novice facilitator's insider position proved valuable in fostering trust, understanding school culture, and managing logistical complexities. However, the demands of the facilitator role, particularly as teacher trainer, exceeded what could reasonably be expected without sourcing external targeted support. The findings affirm that while “insider” facilitators are well placed to act as convenors and collaborators, structured and sustained support is essential, particularly in new LS contexts.

The study confirms and illuminates the multifaceted nature of the facilitator's role, which requires balancing subject expertise, pedagogical knowledge, and the ability to guide adult learning. In this case, gaps in content knowledge around STEM and support for LS prompted collaboration with MKO, highlighting the importance of external expert input in supplementing facilitator capacity. This partnership model enabled the novice facilitator to grow into the role over time while ensuring the integrity of the LS process. It also allowed the facilitator to act more fully as a group member, easing the burden of leadership and supporting more distributed ownership among participants.

The findings have clear implications for LS implementation in similarly rural or resource-constrained settings. This study demonstrates that LS can be successfully enacted in small, multi-age schools when its format is flexibly adjusted to suit contextual realities. In this study, such adaptations included extending LS cycles to align with school calendars, shortening research lessons to suit younger pupils, and modifying planning meetings to accommodate limited staffing and teacher workload. These context-responsive adjustments proved essential for maintaining teacher engagement and ensuring the feasibility of LS.

The study also suggests a need for sustained professional learning support for novice facilitators. The findings indicate that ongoing consultation with external expertise, through the MKO and supervisory dialogue, played a critical role in building facilitator confidence and pedagogical depth. This underscores that facilitator learning must be an integral part of LS implementation, particularly in contexts where both teachers and facilitators are new to the approach.

Furthermore, the study highlights the crucial role of school leadership in enabling LS to take root. Leadership flexibility in adjusting timetables, providing class cover, and valuing collaborative learning was instrumental in overcoming rural logistical constraints. Without such support, LS is unlikely to become embedded in school culture or sustained over time.

Finally, the study suggests that external expertise, when integrated sensitively, can enhance the quality of LS without diminishing local ownership. In this case, the MKO's targeted involvement complemented the insider facilitator's contextual understanding, illustrating how hybrid models of support can strengthen both facilitation and teacher learning in rural settings.

Essentially, effective LS facilitation in rural contexts depends not only on the facilitator's individual skill but on systemic support. This study offers insights for schools and policymakers seeking to develop LS in contexts with limited experience of this type of PD, highlighting the need for a realistic, developmental approach to facilitator preparation. Further research is recommended to explore the experiences of novice LS facilitators across other rural settings in Ireland and internationally, in order to build a broader evidence base to inform policy and practice.