Exploring teacher learning through a hybrid cross-cultural lesson study in China and the United States

Le résumé fourni par la source

Purpose This study aimed to explore teachers' learning processes through a hybrid cross-cultural lesson study (LS) because little is known about the learning process through this novel and promising LS approach. Design/methodology/approach This cross-cultural LS lasted over six months focusing on developing a research lesson (RL) related to linear functions/equations by addressing a commonly concerned student learning difficulty. The data collected were lesson plans, videos of RLs, cross-culture sharing meetings and post-lesson study teacher interviews. A cultural-history activity theory (CHAT) perspective (Engeström, 2001) was used as a theoretical and analytical framework, and contradictions were viewed as driving forces of teachers' learning. The data were analyzed to identify contradictions and consequent teachers' learning by resolving these contradictions. Findings The results revealed four contradictions occurring during the hybrid cross-cultural LS that are related to the preferred teaching approach, culturally relevant tasks, making sense of the specific topic and enactment of the RL. By addressing these contradictions, the participating teachers perceived their learning in cultural beliefs, pedagogical practice and organization of the lesson. Research limitations/implications This study details teachers' collaborative learning processes through hybrid cross-cultural LS and provides implications for effectively conducting cross-cultural LS. However, how the potential learning opportunity revealed from this case could be actualized at a larger scale in different cultures and the actual impact on local practices by adapting effective practices from another culture are important questions to be investigated further. Originality/value This study expands teacher learning through cross-cultural LS by focusing on contradictions cross-culturally as driving forces.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.