Little Red Riding Hood – Lesson Study Process to Challenge and Improve students’ Understanding of Gender The aim of this lesson study is to develop understanding of how teachers can enhance children’s awareness of gender issues through reading fairy tales. The analysis is based on teachers’ collegial discussions before and after the lesson. Research question The specific research question of the study is: what difference of knowledge and understanding is found in the teacher’s collegial discussions before and after their lessons about the student’s understanding and learning of gender and norms through the story of Little Red Riding Hood (LRRH)? Methological and theoretical framework The structure of the study can be described as collective and cyclical processes (Lewis, 2015) to develop an experienced problem (Lewis & Tsuchida, 1997) which is comparable to the lesson study method (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). In order to account for the teachers' statements and experiences of improvement areas in teaching practice, the variational theoretical perspective has been taken into account (Holmqvist, 2006; Lo, 2014; Marton & Lo, 2017) as a lens. The following study includes five teachers and three different preschool classes with each 25 children. The teachers have met on average every second week for two hours during a nine-month period. The data material consists teacher collegial reflections, classroom observations, video documentations, interviews with teachers and roleplay. The teaching design are based on two lesson study cycles. In the first cycle the teachers have recorded a video about the fairytale (with themselves in the roles) where the characters of the story have switched gender roles. The second cycle is a revised lesson and contains three changes: teachers started by read the classic story about LRRH for the students, thereafter the get divided into groups to discuss the story based on the predetermined characteristics: beautiful, courageous, kind, mean, hungry, and pictures of the characters and in the end of the lesson the students roleplayed the story. Result and analysis The evaluating and analysis after the first lesson study highlighted: teacher in role, choice of props and the technical management of the film. One teacher expresses that: "The students wanted to talk about our technical mistake of recording and the choice of props, while we expected them to respond to the switched gender roles in the story." The colleagues who observed the lesson express the possibility to the relationship between teachers “taking for granted” statements about the students’ gender norms and the students' actual values of gender. The revised lesson reveals a slightly different picture. After the first two parts, the analysis showed that students assign gender stereotypical characteristics to the characters, such as " LRRH is beautiful and nice", "The hunter is brave" and "The wolf is mean and hungry". In one of the preschool classes a teacher noticed a critical aspect of the learning phenomenon: "I am surprised that the students express that LRRH is brave and dare to go out into the forest alone, that the wolf is beautiful and the hunter is mean because he cut up the wolfs stomach.” In the final part the teachers’ reflections explored learning aspects that are closely related to the students' status in the classroom. One teachers expressed that: “If the class informal leaders perceive that the LRRH is the bravest character, the majority want to play her, but if the class's informal leaders perceive that the hunter is the bravest, the majority want to play the hunter.” The teachers noted, however, that there was a deviation in one of the preschool classes where some girls defy the gender stereotypical roles and switch between being "the brave hunter" and "the beautiful and beautiful LRRH ". Keywords: Gender issues, Lesson study, Variation theory, Little Red Riding Hood, Professional development Referenser Holmqvist, M. (Ed.). (2006). Lärande i skolan: Learning study som skolutvecklingsmodell [Learning in school: Learning study as school development model]. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur. Lewis, C. (2015). What Is Improvement Science? Do We Need It in Education? Educational Researcher, v44 n1 p54-61 Jan-Feb 2015. 8 pp. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Lewis, C. & Tsuchida, I. (1997). Planned educational change in Japan: The shift to student-centered elementary science. Journal of Education Policy, 12:5, 313–331. Lo, M. L. (2014). Variationsteori: för bättre undervisning och lärande [Variation theory: for better teaching and learning]. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur. Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Marton, F. & Lo, M. L. (2007). Learning from the "Learning Study". Journal of Research in Teacher Education, 14(1), 31-46. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Summit Books.