Conference Agenda

Global trends of increasing inequalities, decreasing citizen participation, pandemics, climate or technological change all have a profound impact on education. At the same time education is a critical site for change-making that can empower citizens to shape their future, but also those of communities and societies. Educational literature and policies increasingly suggest that teachers can act as ‘agents of change’ for addressing the challenges, such as increasing diversity of student populations that result from migration flows, or those related to the spread of artificial intelligence.

The idea that teachers can be key actors for leading and responding to change has reflected in the increasing number of empirical studies of teacher agency in relation to inclusion and social justice (Li & Ruppar, 2020; Pantić, 2017), school transformations (Reinius et al., 2022), climate change (Andrzejewski, 2016) and responses to pandemic (Ehren et al., 2021). These and other studies have started to show how teachers exercise agency for different purposes, pointing to the importance of relationships and collaboration, accounting for diversity of perspectives, opportunities for reflection. However, teachers’ capacity to act as agents of change is still under-researched, especially with regards to their impact on change and its mechanisms amidst other powerful influences. How do they make a difference that really matters to their students, professional and wider communities? And how can they be prepared and empowered to exercise agency to enact, shape or at times challenge change?

Agency is often described as a slippery concept. Different philosophical, sociological, psychological and educational theories emphasise differently individual and social aspects of agency. Questions about the nature and purposes of change are at the heart of understanding teachers’ roles and ways of responding to various, often external, agendas. Studies begin to show how educators’ own understanding of change might position them as both agents of change and of continuity. For example, they might embrace or resist technological change depending on its impact on their practice and availability of support to develop relevant skills. Teacher agency is highly contextualised and dependant on other actors in complex institutional, political and cultural dynamics (Berliner, 2002; Vongalis-Macrow, 2007).

Taking into account its relational and contextual nature, this symposium considers manifestations of teachers’ agency for different purposes and across different contexts, and its implications for teacher education and development, as follows:

1) The first paper considers interaction between teachers’ relational agency and structural conditions in three schools in Scotland, focusing on the patterns of teachers’ collaboration around support for migrant students.

2) The second paper considers the impact of the accessibility of artificial intelligence on Italian teachers’ agency focusing on their own beliefs, expectations, and fears.

3) The third paper highlights the importance of collaborative learning for development of teacher agency in Collaborative Action Research (CAR) programmes in six schools in Serbia.

4) The fourth paper considers the internationalisation of teacher education programmes in Sweden as a way of broadening student teachers’ perspectives that can make a difference towards addressing global challenges, such as diversity and inclusion.

Together these papers aim to unpack the concept of teacher agency for change in relation to the different areas of change and relative to the specific opportunities and constrains afforded by different school and country contexts. Central to these considerations is the role of schools and educators in shaping rather than simply responding to and coping with change. The symposium also considers opportunities for teacher education and development to collectively, together with learners and other actors, shape the kind of education that reflects the needs of their communities and for learning across different school and policy contexts.

This study aims to connect the dots between policies and practices in teachers' support for migrant students in Scotland. A universalist approach to integration of migrants in schools requires teachers to collaborate with specialists such as English as Additional language to support students withing the mainstream provision. In doing so they exercise a form of relational agency (Edwards, 2010) to mobilise the knowledge that exists within the school community. While contexts matter for the formation and dynamics of collaborative relationships and networks in schools, which contexts matter and how, however, often remains unestablished. Our study observes how teachers in three different schools collaborate with specialists to enact policy guidelines. The research questions are: 1) how the forms of teachers' collaboration reflect the policy arrangements within their school culture, and 2) in students’ perceptions. The study is informed by the principles of inclusive pedagogy, which sees diversity as the norm. In particular, the principle of inclusive collaboration among teachers and school staff is used as an interpretative lens for interactions that underlie teachers’ relational agency (Pantic & Florian, 2015) to codify the intensity and nature of teachers' collaborations and networks supporting migrant students, especially in their interactions with specialists. The study triangulates data collected with mixed methods, including social network and policy analysis, with qualitative fieldwork data collected in three schools in Scotland - Juniper, Beech, and Rowan (pseudonyms) - over the course of three years, from 2020 to 2023. The findings show how schools operating in the same policy setting have taken different approaches to addressing student diversity in their internal policies and to inform their daily practice. Teachers in different schools have used specialist support, such as the English for Additional Language teacher, differently in ways that are more or less aligned to the principles of inclusive pedagogy. Findings also show that policies largely focus on academic learning, with little to no mention of socialization and a sense of belonging, which is also reflected in students’ perceptions. Migrant students are primarily seen as speakers of a different language, flattening the heterogeneity of the group. Overall, this study unveils teachers’ relational practices in the support of migrant students at the intersection between the prevailing approach in Scotland and school-specific cultures of collaboration.

Edwards, P. A. (2010). Relational Agency: Working with Other Practitioners. In Being an Expert Professional Practitioner (pp. 61–79). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3969-9_4 Pantić, N. & Florian, L. (2015). Developing teachers as agents of inclusion and social justice. Education Inquiry 6(3), 333-351.

The recent global emergence of freely accessible Artificial Intelligence (AI) platforms has marked a radical turning point in the field of education as well. However, while some analysts magnify the potential beneficial effects of AI on student learning, others highlight the risk that AI may impoverish the social and emotional aspects of teaching and, more broadly, deprofessionalize teachers (Holmes, 2023; UNESCO, 2021). This tension also permeates research on AI in Education (AIED), which highlights the potential of such tools in promoting student learning (e.g., by providing personalized learning content and intelligent feedback), but overlooks the crucial role played by teachers in facilitating this enhancement (Lameras, 2022). In light of this, it is pivotal to investigate the effects that the introduction of AI in schools has on teacher agency, as a key dimension of their professionalism. To this end, this contribution adopts a notion of agency as an ecological and relational dimension, which emerges through dialogue among actors within the structural and cultural context they are part of (Edwards, 2015; Pantić, 2015). In this sense, the literature emphasizes that teacher beliefs are instrumental in achieving professional agency (Priestley et al., 2015). Consequently, it is important to understand whether they also play a relevant role in shaping their approach to AI in education. This theme has been investigated through an exploratory study that examined the perceptions and orientations of primary school teachers towards AI through two research questions: - RQ1: What are the beliefs of primary school teachers regarding the use of AI in education? - RQ2: What are their expectations and fears in this regard? The study used a mixed methods approach through a survey that included both closed and open-ended questions directed at primary school teachers in Italy. The participants were a convenience sample, contacted through bulk email invitations, totaling 327 respondents. The quantitative data were processed through a descriptive analysis using SPSS, while the open responses were examined using thematic analysis supported by NVivo. The analysis of the survey results offers an initial interesting overview of teachers' beliefs regarding the potential impact of AI on their professional agency. The findings and their related implications in terms of ethics, inclusion, and social justice will be presented and discussed during the symposium.

Edwards, A. (2015). Recognising and realising teachers’ professional agency. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 779-784. Holmes, W., & Kharkova, I. (2023). The Challenge of Artificial Intelligence. Anthem Publishing. Lameras, P., & Arnab, S. (2021). Power to the teachers. An Exploratory Review on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Information, 13(1), 14. Pantić, N. (2015). A model for study of teacher agency for social justice. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 759-778. Priestley, M., Biesta, G., Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. Bloomsbury. UNESCO (2021). AI and Education: A guidance for policymakers. UNESCO Publishing.

Over the years, various approaches to addressing what teachers need to know and how they should be taught to address differences between learners have been promoted. With traditional in-service training proving ineffective, there's been a push for alternative methods of professional development (PD) (UNESCO, 2020). Effective PD, as suggested, should be school-based, collaborative, embedded in teachers' daily routines, and offer follow-up support (Bull & Buechler, 1997). This has led to the development of different forms of collaborative PD, including frequently used action research (Waitoller & Artiles, 2013). Action research, especially collaborative action research (CAR), has shown promise in enhancing teachers' sense of agency, redefining professional roles, and fostering competencies (Angelides et al., 2008; Jovanović et al., 2017). So, how come many teachers still report feeling unprepared or lacking confidence in addressing learning differences (Cochran-Smith et al., 2016), despite the promise and widespread implementation of CAR? We aim to present a cross-case analysis of CAR in six primary and secondary schools in Serbia. The analysis explores how teachers and researchers perceive their learning through CAR, while also identifying system-level barriers to CAR as a PD. Since May 2022, researchers and school practitioners in six schools in Serbia have collaborated to develop inclusive practices and foster inclusive school communities. They've utilised a CAR design involving planning, acting, observing, reflecting, and revising (Zuber-Skerritt, 1996). The planning phase included a two-day workshop devoted to situation analysis, problem definition, and collaborative planning of action research. The acting and observing stage is followed by joint reflection on the process and outcomes of CAR. The reflection process is further supported through communities of practice, which engaged participants from all six schools. Six case studies, one from each school, will be prepared using various data sources - focus group discussions with school practitioners and researchers, research products (e.g., research plans), and written communication between practitioners and researchers. The cross-case analysis will be approached inductively using reflexive thematic analysis. The findings will be discussed from a systemic perspective (Senge, 2020), attempting to identify patterns, system structures, and underlying beliefs that hinder the use of CAR as a tool for strengthening teachers’ competencies for inclusive education. The work is part of the project “Enhanced Equal Access to and Completion of Pre-University Education for Children in Need of Additional Support in Education” implemented by UNICEF Serbia and Ministry of Education of the Republic of Serbia, supported by the Delegation of EU.

Angelides, P., Georgiou, R., & Kyriakou, K. (2008). The implementation of a collaborative action research programme for developing inclusive practices: social learning in small internal networks. Educational Action Research, 16(4), 557–568. Bull, B., & Buechler, B. (1997). Planning together: Professional development for teachers of all students. Indiana Education Policy Center. Cochran-Smith, M., A. M. Villegas, L. Abrams, L. Chavez-Moreno, T. Mills, & R. Stern (2016). Research on Teacher Preparation: Charting the Landscape of a Sprawling Field. In D. Gitomer & C. Bell (eds.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 439–546). AERA. Jovanović, O., Plazinić, L., Joksimović, J., Komlenac, J., & Pešikan, A. (2017). Developing the early warning system for identification of students at risk of dropping out using a collaborative action research process. Psihološka istraživanja, 20(1), 107-125. https://doi.org/10.5937/PsIstra1701107J Senge, P. (2020). Commentary: Why practicing a system’s perspective is easier said than done. Applied Developmental Science, 24(1), 57–61. UNESCO (2020). Global Education Monitoring Report. Inclusive teaching: preparing all teachers to teach all students. Available at: Waitoller, F. R., & Artiles, A. J. (2013). A Decade of Professional Development Research for Inclusive Education: A Critical Review and Notes for a Research Program. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 319-356.

Internationalisation is now integrated into the policies and curricula of most universities in the world, and increasingly embedded within education courses. It is valued for contributing to the quality of education and for broadening students’ experiences during their studies (Beelen & Jones, 2015). But, initial teacher education programs are still nationally-oriented, and internationalisation questions are often marginalised (Alexiadou et.al., 2021; Bamberger & Yemini, 2022). Our presentation reports findings from a research that investigates internationalisation of initial teacher education in a Swedish university. We focus on dimensions of internationalisation from the perspectives of the curriculum for K4-6 and students. Our research questions are: (a) How does the teacher education curriculum engage with internationalisation? (b) What are the perceptions and experiences of teacher education students in relation to internationalisation? Our empirical research consists of (a) content document analysis of the Primary Teacher Education programme curriculum; (b) review of core documents that frame teacher education in the specific university, and, (c) interviews with ten teacher education students. Our analysis suggests that despite the aspirations in the university-level policies, internationalisation does not emerge as an apparent agenda at the syllabi level. Explicit references of internationalisation are quite scarce. There are however (a) student skills and attributes connected to internationalisation such as critical thinking and global citizenship, and (b) whole syllabi that deal with interculturality and inclusion (themes of social justice, democracy, diversity, multilingualism, human local and global ecosystems). Nevertheless, the syllabi appear to be mostly situated in local and national than global narratives, which reflects the dilemma of universities, and Teacher Education, in their internationalisation process: balancing between national/local needs and those from internationalisation agendas. The students’ interviews suggest very positive attitudes towards further internationalisation of the curriculum. Students critique the relatively low engagement with internationalization questions, and propose that this could be better integrated into the pedagogical practice.

Alexiadou, N., Kefala, Z., Rönnberg, L. 2021. Preparing education students for an international future? Connecting students' experience to institutional contexts. Journal of Studies in International Education, 25:4, 443-460. Bamberger, A., Yemini, M. 2022. Internationalisation, teacher education and institutional identities: A comparative analysis. Teachers and Teaching 0:0, pages 1-19. Beelen, J., & Jones, E. 2015. Redefining internationalisation at home. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi & P. Scott. (Eds.) The European higher education area. Between critical reflections and future policies (pp. 59–72). Springer Open.