Confronted with the need to bridge the divide between academic research and school reality, teacher-led research has been placed at the core of many professional learning (PL) initiatives. Diverse forms and models of research-related practices have been implemented globally, such as in the US, UK, Finland, Sweden, China and Australia (e.g., Dunn et al., 2019; Goodnough, 2010; Huang et al., 2025; Lewis, 2016). This represents a transformative shift from passive and top-down training towards collaborative, practice-oriented and enquiry-based designs, which empowers teachers to take ownership of their professional practices by integrating learning, practice and research (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2015; Putnam & Borko, 1997).

Despite the significance of teacher research and its worldwide implementation, significant challenges persist that hinder its effectiveness. A primary problem lies in teachers’ insufficient research-related literacy due to the absence of formal training, specifically regarding the employment of theories, data collection and analysis. This not only hinders the quality of teacher research but also undermines their motivation to conduct research (Berger et al., 2005). This problem is rooted in initial teacher education, where pre-service teachers report inadequate preparation for their enquiry efforts and writing requirements before their capstone projects (Van Katwijk et al., 2022). To address this challenge, efforts have been made to support teachers in doing research through different types of research-related learning activities, ranging from competence development to the introduction of current research findings (Healey & Jenkins, 2009; Van Katwijk et al., 2022). Although these initiatives facilitate the development of teachers’ research-related knowledge and skills, teachers continue to encounter complex contradictions throughout their research processes, which act as both constraints and affordances for their professional learning (Huang et al., 2021, 2025).

Therefore, this study aims to characterise language teachers’ professional learning through a teacher research programme supported by university scholars, with a specific focus on the contradictions that occur during their research processes, and how these contradictions hinder or facilitate their professional learning. Three key research questions involve: (i) What contradictions emerge during language teachers’ research processes? (ii) In what ways do these contradictions manifest as barriers or affordances for teachers’ research? (iii) How do the solutions of these contradictions shape language teachers’ professional learning?

Adopting an expansive learning perspective, this study conceptualises teacher professional learning in the context of teacher research as a process of “expansion” across interactive activity systems. Within this framework, contradictions within and across the activity systems constitute the fundamental driving force of expansive transformation. Rather than equivalent to problems or conflicts in the traditional sense, contradictions refer to the structural tensions that occur within or between all components within or across different activity systems that can bring about changes and development (Engeström, 2001).

These contradictions are inherently dynamic and continue emerging, as the adoption of new elements within an activity system often brings about new forms of contradictions between the new elements and the old ones. Engeström and colleagues (2001; 2010) identified four types of contradictions: (i) primary contradiction within any components of an activity system; (ii) secondary contradiction between two or more components within a single activity system; (iii) tertiary contradiction across activity systems; (iv) quaternary contradiction between an activity system and external systems.

This study adopts a case study design centred on a provincial government-funded PL programme in China. The programme is featured by a teacher-researcher partnership where participating teachers were mentored by a group of university-based researchers to conduct comprehensive enquiries into their educational epistemology and relevant classroom practices. The programme involved approximately 50 teachers with around 30 years of teaching experience, and the leadership team involved 10 university scholars specialised in teacher education. The PL programme involved: (i) collective lectures and workshops designed to introduce theoretical foundations and research skills, (ii) group sessions focused on research design, progress catch-up and reflection, and (iii) implementation sessions where teachers play the role of principal investigators and lead their own research teams within their respective school contexts. The research participants were selected through purposive sampling method (Denzin et al., 2023). The final sample involved three English language teachers and one Chinese language teacher. The selection criteria included: (i) engagement with the programme’s core sessions, (ii) active implementation of an independent research project within the programme framework, and (iii) consent to be involved, observed and recorded during their research processes. The research data were collected from multiple sources to ensure a holistic understanding of the participants’ professional learning during their research. All sessions conducted at the programme site were video- and audio-recorded to capture teachers’ interactions with peers and university scholars. To document teachers’ transition from theory to practice, site visits were organised where university scholars visited teachers’ school contexts to observe their research implementation. Upon completion of the programme, one-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with three teacher participants and six university researchers, each lasting for half to one hour. All documents associated with teachers’ research processes were collected, including their research proposals, implementation plans, instructional artefacts and presentation materials. To navigate the contradictions that emerge during language teachers’ research processes, thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was employed to identify a comprehensive group of themes representing various types of contradictions and their roles as either affordances or constraints for teachers’ professional learning. The analysis process involved open, focused, axial, and theoretical coding stages (Mirhosseini, 2020), through which we identified: (i) the contradictions that emerge during teachers’ research processes, (ii) the roles of these contradictions as either barriers or affordances, and (iii) the transformative resolutions of these contradictions.

The analysis revealed three types of contradictions that characterised the language teachers’ research processes. These contradictions presented both barriers and affordances for teachers’ research and professional learning. First, tertiary contradictions emerged between the teachers’ established practical discourse and the university scholars’ academic discourse. These contradictions initially hindered teachers’ understanding of basic research-related concepts, such as “conceptualisation” and “epistemology”. However, these contradictions also brought about communication opportunities between teachers and university scholars. Teachers sought clarification on meanings and practical pathways, while university scholars provided contextualised examples from the literature that closely related to teachers’ daily practices. This contributed to teachers’ reconstruction of the meaning, therefore contributing to their internalisation of complex concepts and integration of these concepts in their research processes. Second, secondary contradictions were observed between teachers representing diverse professional backgrounds. These contradictions emerged across different grades (e.g., primary and secondary), different regions (i.e., different districts) and different subjects (i.e., English and Chinese languages). While diverse backgrounds occasionally reduced the efficiency of group discussions due to teachers’ diverse research focuses and priorities, these tensions also contributed to providing teachers with diverse insights that broadened the scopes of their individual enquiries. Third, teachers also experienced primary contradictions during their own research processes. After thirty years of established practice, many participants perceived a significant disconnection between daily classroom instruction and the newly introduced research activities. These internal contradictions initially led to teachers’ confusion about the significance of teacher research. However, they gradually developed connections between research and practice through systematic enquiries. For one thing, they derived research questions and epistemological insights from classroom observations and practical experiences. For another thing, they also applied the academic framework and concepts to their practices to refine instructional approaches and strategies.

[1] Berger, J. G., Boles, K. C., & Troen, V. (2005). Teacher research and school change: Paradoxes, problems, and possibilities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(1), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.11.008 [2] Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [3] Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2015). Inquiry as Stance: Practitioner Research for the Next Generation. Teachers College Press. [4] Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S., Giardina, M. D., & Cannella, G. S. (2023). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. In 9781071836743. Sage Publications Inc. (Textbooks). [5] Dunn, R., Hattie, J., & Bowles, T. (2019). Exploring the experiences of teachers undertaking Educational Design Research (EDR) as a form of teacher professional learning. Professional Development in Education, 45(1), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2018.1500389 [6] Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747 [7] Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002 [8] Goodnough, K. (2010). Teacher Learning and Collaborative Action Research: Generating a “Knowledge-of-Practice” in the Context of Science Education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(8), 917–935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9215-y [9] Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2009). Developing undergraduate research and inquiry. Higher Education Academy. [10] Huang, X., Lai, M. Y., & Huang, R. (2021). Teachers’ learning through an online lesson study: An analysis from the expansive learning perspective. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 10(2), 202–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLLS-09-2020-0076 [11] Huang, X., Shen, J., & Huang, R. (2025). Chinese mathematics teachers’ expansive learning in a cross-cultural lesson study. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-025-09687-1 [12] Lewis, C. (2016). How does lesson study improve mathematics instruction? ZDM - Mathematics Education, 48(4), 571–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11858-016-0792-X [13] Mirhosseini, S. A. (2020). Doing Qualitative Research in Language Education. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56492-6 [14] Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher Learning: Implications of New Views of Cognition. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds), International Handbook of Teachers and Teaching (Vol. 3, pp. 1223–1296). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4942-6_30 [15] Van Katwijk, L., Jansen, E., & Van Veen, K. (2022). Development of an Inquiry Stance? Perceptions of Preservice Teachers and Teacher Educators Toward Preservice Teacher Inquiry in Dutch Primary Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 73(3), 286–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871211013750