Teachers handle different kinds of didactical dilemmas in their everyday classroom practices. For example, teachers need to decide on what content to teach, what manners of teaching to use and how they will work together with the students in their classes. Research on teaching traditions and learning show that these and similar examples does not have any clear or obvious solution, but rather needs to be handled in one way or another by the teachers (i.e. Forest, 2017; Lidar et al., 2017; Marty et al., 2018). In this paper I will illustrate and discuss how teaching traditions can be used as an analytic framework in working together with teachers in their dealing with educational dilemmas. In a framework developed in the project – Didactical Development Dialogue – the studies of teaching and learning take dilemmas identified and formulated by teachers as starting point for studies and development of teaching practices (Almqvist et al., 2017). This model is inspired both by studies in educational action research (cf. Kemmis, McTaggart & Nixon, 2014), and didactical research involving researchers and teachers together (cf. Sensevy et al., 2013; Wickman; 2012). The framework contributes to research in comparative didactics by using the variations and patterns identified in various practices as a base for reflection (cf. Ligozat et al., 2015). A didactical development dialogue always ends with concluding remarks and reflection by the teacher who formulated the dilemma in the first place. Comparative didactic research can be seen as a part of the wider field of comparative education (cf. Manson, 2011), but with the specific ambition to focus on issues about teaching, learning and educational content (Ligozat & Almqvist, 2018). In the study presented in this paper comparisons are used to clarify and discuss things taken for granted in various practices and to search for knowledge about teaching and learning beyond the cases studied. The study show how results from research on teaching traditions and learning may be used for dealing with didactical dilemmas, with the challenges they may result in for teachers in their teaching practices, and how they can be used for teachers’ development of didactical competence and professional judgment.

Almqvist, J., Hamza, K & Olin, A. (Eds.)(2017). Undersöka och utveckla undervisning [Investigating and developing teaching]. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Forest, E. (2017). Interroger les “manièrs d’ensigner” l’édication physique en France à la lumière d’une comparaison France- Suéde. Toulouse: University of Toulouse. Kemmis, S.; McTaggart, R. & Nixon, R (2014). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research. Singapore: Springer. Ligozat, F. & Almqvist, J. (2018). Conceptual framworks in didactics – learning and teaching. Trends, evolutions and comparative challenges. European Educational Research Journal, 17(1), 3-16. Ligozat, Florence; Amade-Escot, Chantal & Östman, Leif (2015). Beyond subject specific approaches of teaching and learning: Comparative didactics? Interchange, 46(4), 313-321. Marty, L., Venturini, P., Almqvist, J. (2018). Teaching Traditions in Science Education in Switzerland, Sweden and France: A comparative analysis of three curricula. European Educational Research Journal, 17(1): 51-70. Manson, M. (2011). Comparative education. The construction of a field. New York: Springer. Sensevy, G., Forest, D., Quilio, S. & Morales, G. (2013). Cooperative engineering as a specific design-based research. ZDM, The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(7), 1031-1043. Wickman, P.-O. (2012). How can conceptual schemes change teaching? Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7. 129-136.