Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:29:10 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
01 SES 10 B
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
01. Professional Learning and Development
Paper Video Clubs on Core-Practices in L1, Mathematics and Science: Implications for Teachers’ Professional Meaning-Making and Classroom Practice 1: VIA University College, Denmark; 2: University College Absalon, Denmark; 3: UCL, Denmark Presenting Author:In a longitudinal project (2025–2028), teachers from three Danish lower‑secondary schools collaborate with teacher educators and researchers in subject‑specific video clubs (Sherin & Han, 2024; Sherin & van Es, 2008). The video‑club work centres on core teaching practices (Grossman, 2018; Grossman & Frefel, 2024) within the three largest subject areas—Danish (L1), Mathematics, and Science. Across subjects, the intervention aims to identify, describe, and develop core practices that support meaningful and equitable learning opportunities for all students, drawing on research on student engagement and teacher–student relationships (Cornelius‑White, 2007; Mendez & van Es, 2024). We investigate two research questions: (1) How do teachers make sense of, and act upon, their participation in video‑based collaborative work? and (2) How does their noticing of core practices (van Es et al., 2014, 2017, 2024) unfold within video‑club interactions? We employ a sequential design involving multiple qualitative data sources (Mik‑Meyer, 2020). All video‑club sessions are video‑ or audio‑recorded, followed by semi‑structured focus‑group interviews with pairs of teachers from the same subject. Selected interview prompts are mediated by video clips from the video clubs to elicit stimulated recall. This pattern is repeated across three semesters in the three‑year intervention. In the first semester, participants selected a cross‑cutting core practice: engaging the whole class in investigations. All interview and video‑club audio data are transcribed verbatim. Interview data are analysed inductively using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2022; Braun et al., 2018). Video‑club interactions are analysed deductively using the three components of the noticing framework—Attending, Interpreting, and Shaping (van Es et al., 2024). Analytical processes are iterative: each researcher conducts an initial independent analysis, followed by collaborative cross‑case theme development. This paper presents findings from the first semester, focusing on teacher interviews and the initial video‑club sessions at each school (eight sessions in total). Extended findings from the second semester will be included in the conference presentation. Across the video clubs, teachers report that collaboratively observing and analysing how teacher actions shape students’ opportunities to learn is highly meaningful. This is reflected in two common initial themes emerging across interviews: teachers value watching themselves on video and discussing their instructional decisions, and the clips help them notice student differences, track student progress, and identify ways to support engagement and learning. Several teachers also note that they gain deeper insight into aspects of their pedagogical reasoning that are typically tacit. In addition, the video clubs appear to strengthen trust and depth in collegial discussions. While teachers do not yet describe broader changes in collaboration within their schools, they report drawing on the video‑club focus areas in their everyday teaching. Analyses of the video‑club sessions reveal both challenges and opportunities. Initially, the concept of “core practice” was unfamiliar to most teachers. Accordingly, teacher educators and researchers used the term more frequently in the early sessions. Over time, however, the concept became more meaningful to teachers, who increasingly incorporated it into their own meta‑reflections. Across all video clubs, we identified examples of attending, interpreting, and shaping, with a noticeable progression in the extent to which teachers initiated (intended) shaping. Regarding the core practice of engaging the whole class in investigations, we found discipline‑specific differences. For example, science teachers emphasise the role of disciplinary characteristics in shaping their instructional approaches. Nevertheless, they also experience that insights from other subjects broaden their understanding of what counts as productive investigative work. All teachers refer to a deepened understanding of the core practice. Mathematics teachers, for instance, describe video clubs and core practices as “two sides of the same coin” in their efforts to develop mathematics teaching. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Our multi-method qualitative study (Mik-Meyer, 2020) draws on the following data collected in 2025: 1. Video and audio recordings of eight video club sessions (2 hours each): two sessions focused on Danish, while three sessions each addressed science and mathematics. 2. Audio recordings of six semi structured focus group interviews with pairs of teachers from the same subject area (45 minutes each) (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). Three interviews—conducted before the intervention—explored teachers’ initial understandings of core practices. The remaining three interviews—conducted after the first semester of video clubs—examined teachers’ experiences with the video clubs and their developing understandings of core practices. We used video clips from the video club sessions to prompt stimulated reflections. Over the next two semesters, we will collect additional data using similar methods. Our presentation will include data from spring 2026. Each semester, participants agree on a shared core practice: the first semester focused on engaging the whole class in investigations, while the second will focus on eliciting and responding to students’ thinking. All interview and video club audio data are transcribed verbatim. First, we analyse the interview data inductively using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2022; Braun et al., 2018). Each researcher analyses the interview and develops an initial set of themes. We then compare and discuss these sets and integrate insights from additional qualitative data sources to construct a shared set of themes. This common set is subsequently used as an analytical lens in a re-analysis of the interviews to trace similarities and differences across the three subjects. For example, we developed the theme “Teachers value watching themselves on video and discussing their actions” based on utterances such as: “It was incredibly rewarding for me to see myself on video—and to realize that I speak while I’m thinking” (mathematics teacher). We will apply and refine this shared theme set when analysing the next round of interviews. Second, we analyse the video club data deductively using the three components of the noticing framework—Attending, Interpreting, and Shaping (van Es et al., 2024). While van Es et al. focus on teacher noticing of students’ thinking, our analysis centres on teachers’ noticing of the targeted core practices. Accordingly, we adapted the framework and operationalised, for example, Shaping as teachers’ construction of classroom interactions that enable deeper insights into specific elements of a practice. As before, each author conducts an initial analysis, followed by collaborative refinement. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Based on interview and video club data from the first of three semesters, our preliminary findings indicate that teachers experience substantial value in collaboratively observing and analysing the relationships between teacher actions and students’ learning opportunities. This is reflected in two initial themes that emerged across the post interviews: teachers appreciate watching themselves on video and discussing their instructional decisions, and the video clips help them notice student differences, monitor progress, and identify ways to support students’ engagement and learning. Several teachers also emphasise gaining deeper insight into aspects of their pedagogical reasoning that are typically tacit. Moreover, the video clubs appear to strengthen trust and depth in collegial conversations, and some teachers report drawing actively on insights from the video club in their everyday teaching. Our analyses of the video club sessions reveal both challenges and opportunities. At the outset, the concept of core practice was unfamiliar to most teachers. Consequently, teacher educators and researchers used the term most frequently in the early sessions. Over time, however, the concept became more meaningful to teachers, who increasingly incorporated it into their own meta-reflections. Across all video clubs, we identified instances of attending, interpreting, and shaping, with a clear progression in the extent to which teachers refer to initiating shaping. Regarding the targeted practice of engaging the whole class in investigations, teachers report having developed a more nuanced understanding of what this entails. They note some subject specific differences, yet they also experience that cross disciplinary insights broaden their perspectives on what constitutes productive investigative work. For instance, mathematics teachers describe how the video clubs and the focus on core practices have become “two sides of the same coin” in developing mathematics teaching. References Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis – a practical guide. Sage Braun, V., Clarke, V., Hayfield, N., & Terry, G. (2018). Thematic analysis. In P. Liamputtong, P. (eds), Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences (page 1-18). Springer. Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 113-143. Creswell, J.W. & Clark, V.L.P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. SAGE publications Grossman, P. (red.) (2018). Teaching core-pratices in teacher education. Harward Education Press. Grossman, P., & Fraefel, U. (red.) (2024). Core practices in teacher education – a global perspective. Harvard Education Press Kvale, S. & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. SAGE publications Mendez, J.A., & van Es, E.A. (2024). Examining teachers' relational noticing: promoting equity through positive interactions in mathematics education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, s10857. Mik-Meyer, N. (2020). Multimethod Qualitative Research. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative Research (pp. 357–374). SAGE. Sherin, M.G. & Han, S.Y. (2004). Teacher learning in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 163-83. Sherin, M.G. & van Es, E.A. (2008). Effects of video club participation on teachers’ professional vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 20-37. Stahnke, R. & Blomeke, S. (2021). Novice and expert teachers’ _noticing of classroom management in whole-group and partner work activities: Evidence from teachers’ _gaze and identification of events. Learning and Instruction 74, 101464. Van Es, E.A. & Sherin, M.G. (2002). Learning to Notice: Scaffolding New Teachers’ Interpretations of Classroom Interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 571-596. Van Es, E.A. & Sherin, M.G. (2008). Mathematics teachers´ learning to notice in the context of a video-club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24 (2), 244-276. Van Es, E. A., Cashen, M., Barnhart, T., & Auger, A. (2017). Learning to notice Mathematics instruction: Using video to develop preservice teachers’ vision of ambitious pedagogy. Cognition and Instruction, 35(3), 165–187. Van Es (2014). A framework for the facilitation of teachers’ analysis of video. Journal of Teacher Education 65(4), 340-356. Van Es, E.A. & Sherin, M.G. (2024). Expanding on prior conceptualizations of teacher noticing. ZDM – Mathematics Education 53, 17–27. 01. Professional Learning and Development
Paper Teachers’ Professional Learning by use of classroom videos University of Iceland, Iceland Presenting Author:uilding on established research on effective teacher professional development, sustainable professional learning is understood as a continuous, workplace-based process situated within learning communities. Such learning involves deliberate and systematic efforts by teachers and schools to identify learning needs, address areas for improvement, and organize professional learning activities accordingly (Desimone et al., 2015; Dogan & Adams, 2020; Guskey, 2014). Research further suggests that the use of classroom video aligns well with these principles of effective professional learning. The research project Sustainable Professional Learning: Improving the Quality of Classroom Practice through Classroom Videos was therefore deliberately designed to integrate these two strands of research by using systematic video-based inquiry as a core component of teachers’ professional learning. The project aimed to examine how such an approach could be enacted in practice and to explore its potential for enhancing teaching quality within the Icelandic educational context. Video analysis has been shown to foster professional dialogue and to direct attention to instructional practices, particularly in relation to student learning (Klette et al., 2017). Moreover, video analysis can deepen teachers’ understanding of classroom interactions, make otherwise less visible aspects of teaching observable, and support the identification of critical moments in instruction (Jenset et al., 2024). Directing teachers’ attention to specific classroom events in this way is widely recognized as a central component of teacher learning and professional development, often described as learning to notice or purposeful noticing (Barnhart & van Es, 2015). This presentation synthesizes participants’ accounts of their involvement in the project, with a particular focus on how different components of the project contributed to understanding how teachers’ learning processes manifest through participation. Special attention is given to participants’ initial expectations and their experiences of using video recordings to support the development of their own teaching practice. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Participants were 16 compulsory school teachers from two different municipalities in Iceland. One lesson from each teacher was recorded in the spring, before intervention, followed by another recording one year later. Teachers were also expected to record shorter video clips of their teaching in the intervening period and analyze them with colleagues or their team. During the project, four workshops were held with all participants, beginning with professional input and gradually shifting towards collaborative video analysis and refinement of instructional focus. The teacher formed three teams with one academic leader of different subject areas, mathematics, science and Icelandic. The teams met between and during the workshops to discuss and analyse. Following the first workshop, which provided an introduction to teaching quality as conceptualized in the PLATO observation framework (Grossman et al., 2013), teachers developed individual development plans. The teachers choose PLATO elements as focal points for professional development, forming the foundation for their work throughout the school year. Interviews were conducted with participants at both the beginning and the end of the project. The initial interviews addressed the development plans, teachers’ perceived strengths and weaknesses, their experiences at the outset of the project, their reactions to viewing the first video recording, and the use of video for professional development. Professional support within the school context was also discussed. The final interviews focused on participants’ experiences of the project and its various components, learning outcomes from participation, perceived impact within their schools, and future plans. Teachers were also expected to submit regular written reflections describing their activities within the project, what they were learning, and their experiences with video recordings. Twelve teachers submitted reflections, in varying numbers, resulting in a total of 42 entries. Each teacher presented the project and their work to colleagues in their respective schools. These presentations constituted valuable data, as they reflected teachers’ own syntheses and reflections on their participation. The present study draws on interview data, written reflections, and teachers’ school-based presentations. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Participants expected the video recordings to have a positive impact on teaching quality, while also anticipating challenges related to organization, time management, and obtaining consent from students for recording. Teachers initially focused on aspects of their teaching that could be improved, paying less attention to elements that were successful. Overall, participants’ experiences were positive, giving them valuable insight into their practice. The data highlight the importance of professional dialogue with peers and professional communities. Participants who did not view the recordings, or did so alone, missed opportunities to assess their professional competence and recognize their strengths. This indicates that teachers are more likely to engage productively with video recordings when working collaboratively, as being part of a learning community enhances professional learning and practice (Dogan and Adams, 2020). The workshops were considered useful, providing teachers with ideas and opportunities for discussion about pedagogy, although some participants noted the challenge of leaving classroom teaching to attend them. The teams consisted of teachers teaching the same subject area and the teams became forums for peer reflection and discussing subject-specific pedagogy beyond the PLATO framework, offering opportunities. It was also evident that strong professional leadership within teams had an impact extending beyond the PLATO focus areas. Writing monthly reflections proved challenging, while others recognized its value. Interviewees noted that although they kept PLATO dimensions in mind during teaching, this differed from systematically articulating their thoughts in writing and allocating space for reflection. Many teachers stated that they intended to support colleagues in using video to enhance teaching quality and to continue analyzing their own practice, while recognizing that meaningful change requires time. We conclude that the professional development initiative can be considered sustainable, as participants developed knowledge and skills that can be transferred to other teachers within their schools to improve teaching quality. References Barnhart, T. & van Es, E.A. (2020). Developing a critical discourse about teaching and learning: The case of a \secondary science video club. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(5), 491–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2020.1725724 Desimone, L. M., & Garet, M. S. (2015). Best practices in teachers’ professional development in the United States. Psychology, Society and Education, 7(3), 252–263. Dogan, S. & Adams, A. (2020). Augmenting the effect of professional development on effective instruction through professional communities. Teachers and Teaching, 26 (3–4), 326–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2020.1832064 Guskey, T. R. (2014). Planning professional learning. Educational Leadership, 71(8), 10–16. Jenset, I. S., Tengberg, M., Sigurðardóttir, A. K., Sigþórsson, R., Magnusson, C. G. og Brataas, G. (2024). The benefits of using videos for developing teachers' professional vision. In Using Video to Foster Teacher Development (pp. 17-32). Routledge. Klette, K., & Blikstad-Balas, M. (2018). Observation manuals s lenses to classroom teaching: Pitfalls and possibilities. European Educational Research Journal, 17(1) 129–146. DOI: 10.1177/1474904117703228 01. Professional Learning and Development
Paper Feedback Dialogues to Support Students’ Reflection: Design and Evaluation of a Teachers’ Professional Development Program Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands, The Presenting Author:Introduction Across Europe, education increasingly aims to prepare students for complex, uncertain, and socially relevant challenges (Barr et al., 2022). In the Netherlands, Research & Design (R&D) education addresses this aim by engaging secondary school students in open-ended, real-world STEM design projects. Students work collaboratively in small teams during project cycles of approximately ten weeks, concluding with the presentation of project outcomes to external clients. Each project incorporates reflection tasks, which teachers use for feedback conversations. To bring learning within R&D to a higher level, students need to develop deeper reflection skills. Reflection supports students in making sense of feedback, connecting experiences to underlying concepts, and regulating their learning over time (Moon, 2013). Feedback and reflection are mutually reinforcing processes: feedback invites students to reconsider their actions, while structured reflection supports interpretation and planning of subsequent steps (Carless & Winstone, 2020; Moon, 2013). Reflection skills do not develop automatically. Their effectiveness depends not only on students’ engagement but also on teachers’ ability to scaffold feedback through dialogue and to create structured opportunities for reflective thinking (Korthagen & Nuijten, 2022). When students learn to reflect, teachers play a key role by facilitating feedback dialogues that prompt students to articulate their thinking, evaluate progress, and plan next steps. Despite its recognised importance, many teachers struggle to enact feedback dialogues and embed reflection meaningfully in everyday R&D classroom practices (Görtzen et al., 2025). Feedback is often reduced to one-way information transmission, while reflective activities remain fragmented or superficial, limiting their educational impact (Korthagen & Nuijten, 2022; van der Kleij et al., 2019). Strengthening teachers’ facilitation of feedback dialogues and student reflection requires targeted professional development (PD) that bridges knowing and acting by supporting practice-embedded, sustained enactment rather than mere knowledge transmission (Antoniou & Kyriakides, 2013; Louws et al., 2017) This study addresses these challenges through the design and evaluation of a two-year Collaborative Teacher Reflection (CTR) program aimed at strengthening R&D teachers’ integration of feedback dialogues and student reflection in secondary education. The overarching research question guiding the study was: What elements constitute a professional development program that supports teachers in integrating feedback dialogues with students’ reflection? This contribution examines both the effects and the feasibility of the PD program designed within the broader study.
The CTR intervention An Educational Design Research (EDR) approach guided the design and evaluation of the CTR program through iterative cycles in authentic educational settings (McKenney & Reeves, 2018). The first stage focused on deriving eight design principles for the PD program grounded in both literature and practice: (1) a psychologically safe learning environment; (2) grounding in teacher practice; (3) experiential and iterative learning; (4) video-supported reflection; (5) collaborative teacher learning; (6) sustained duration; (7) explicit theory–practice integration; and (8) differentiated professional learning. Based on these principles, the CTR program was developed with a phased structure. As teachers reported limited experience facilitating dialogic feedback, and in several schools reflection practices were largely absent, the first year focused on feedback dialogues as a foundational practice. The second year built on this foundation by adding guidance of structured student reflection tasks. In both years, the program consisted of five collaborative group meetings. It began with a kick-off meeting to establish a psychologically safe learning community and introduce relevant research. Teachers discussed literature, visualised current practices using mind maps, and formulated personal learning goals through laddering interviews. Subsequently, teachers participated in structured CTR meetings in small learning communities of 3–4 teachers, combining video-supported reflection, peer feedback dialogues, and iterative classroom experimentation. The program finished with teachers’ reflections on their professional growth and how theory-informed insights were enacted in practice. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Design of the study This paper focuses on the second stage of the study, examining the effects of the CTR program on teachers’ learning and students’ reflection, as well as its feasibility for participating teachers. Insights from both strands informed the refinement of the final design principles, integrating scientific and practitioner knowledge to guide the CTR program. Participants Ten R&D teachers from nine Technasium schools responded to an open invitation distributed via a national newsletter from the Dutch Technasium Foundation. Ethical clearance was obtained prior to implementing the two-year CTR program. Each teacher selected one class in which feedback dialogues and, in the second year, guidance of students’ reflection were conducted during the program. Teachers varied in teaching experience and prior familiarity with feedback dialogues and reflective practices. Their students (N = 303) participated indirectly through classroom enactments of feedback dialogues and structured reflection tasks. Data Collection Multiple data sources were used to capture changes in teachers’ learning and students’ reflection over time. Teachers’ professional learning was documented through audio recordings of all CTR meetings, including collaborative discussions, video-supported reflection, and peer feedback dialogues. Students’ written reflection reports, collected at the beginning and end of the second CTR-year, provided insight into the development of reflective depth. To evaluate the feasibility of the CTR program, teachers first completed individual open-ended evaluative questions focusing on workload, relevance, and applicability. These responses were subsequently discussed in a plenary evaluation session involving both teachers and the facilitator, enabling shared reflection on the program’s design and implementation. Data Analysis Audio recordings of the CTR meetings were analysed and transformed into individual teacher vignettes capturing changes in five key aspects of feedback dialogues. For the second year, analyses were extended to include five categories of teacher actions supporting deeper student reflection. Students’ reflection reports were analysed to identify changes in reflective depth. Feasibility data were analysed using Ter Beek et al.’s (2022) framework, distinguishing professional development characteristics, teacher characteristics, and organisational conditions, allowing for a systematic interpretation of teachers’ experiences with the CTR program. Findings from both the effects and feasibility data were triangulated across sources to identify patterns in teacher learning, student reflection, and program implementation, supporting the refinement and confirmation of the CTR program’s design principles. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The effects of the program indicate that nearly all participating teachers, who initially did not employ feedback dialogues, had integrated them into their classroom practice by the program’s conclusion. Teachers’ understanding of feedback evolved, enabling them to interpret students’ responses more effectively and attend to the emotional dynamics occurring in dialogue. This combination of conceptual development and enactment strengthened teacher confidence and teacher–student relationships. Teachers reported increased confidence in facilitating student reflection and greater awareness of their role as facilitators. Student reflections showed increased depth over time. In evaluating the program’s implementation, teachers emphasised the program’s practical relevance, hands-on learning, and strong connection between theory and practice, noting that scientific insights became meaningful when actively translated into classroom activities. They valued collaborative reflection, video-supported exercises, structured personal goal-setting, and iterative enactment over the two-year duration, which allowed concepts and skills to consolidate. Teachers highlighted the essential role of the facilitator, whose guidance and reflective input reinforced constructive dialogue, supported learning, and maintained a psychologically safe, collaborative environment. Teacher and organisational characteristics emerged as key enabling conditions for sustainable implementation (Ter Beek et al., 2022). This study aimed to design for a PD program that supports teachers in facilitating feedback dialogues and guiding student reflection in contextually rich learning environments. The pilot of the CTR program enabled refinement of the design principles and demonstrated that sustained, practice-oriented professional development can foster meaningful changes in teachers’ pedagogical practices and professional understanding. The findings show how theory and practice can be deliberately connected through collaborative professional development, offering evidence-informed insights for teachers, school leaders, and policymakers on developing feedback dialogues that support students’ reflection. Together, these findings highlight the potential of education research to support knowing and acting under changing educational conditions. References Antoniou, P., & Kyriakides, L. (2013). A Dynamic Integrated Approach to teacher professional development: Impact and sustainability of the effects on improving teacher behaviour and student outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.001 Barr, N., Hartley, K., Lopata, J. A., McFarlane, B., & Mcnamara, M. J. (2022). Learning in an uncertain world: Transforming higher education for the anthropocene. In R. A. Beghetto & G. J. Jaeger (Eds.), Uncertainty: A catalyst for creativity, learning and development (pp. 337–357). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98729-9_18 Carless, D., & Winstone, N. (2020). Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(1), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1782372 Görtzen, J. J. H., Stollman, S. H. M., Schellings, G. L. M., Vermunt, J. D., & Nieveen, N. M. (2025). Promoting students’ reflection through process-oriented feedback: Teachers’ conceptions, practices and learning needs. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 86, 101483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2025.101483 Korthagen, F., & Nuijten, E. (2022). The power of reflection in teacher education and professional development: Strategies for in-depth teacher learning. Routlledge. Louws, M. L., Meirink, J. A., van Veen, K., & van Driel, J. H. (2017). Teachers’ self-directed learning and teaching experience: What, how, and why teachers want to learn. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.04.004 McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. (2018). Conducting Educational Design Research. Routledge. Moon, J. A. (2013). A handbook of reflective and experiential learning: Theory and practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203416150 Ter Beek, M., Wopereis, I., & Schildkamp, K. (2022). Don’t Wait, Innovate! Preparing Students and Lecturers in Higher Education for the Future Labor Market. Education Sciences, 12(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12090620 van der Kleij, F., Adie, L. E., & Cumming, J. J. (2019). A meta-review of the student role in feedback. International Journal of Educational Research, 98, 303–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.09.005 01. Professional Learning and Development
Paper Bilingual Education: Is What We Have Enough? A Language Needs Analysis of Faculty Members 1: NTNU, Norway; 2: Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen Presenting Author:Many universities in non-English native countries are under immense pressure to both use English as a lingua franca while maintaining their country’s language as a working language. Yet there are often few language support systems for staff. Mastering the native language can be seen as an implicit goal for international employees, and communicating in English can be challenging for both national and international employees. Understanding language needs in a bilingual academic environment is crucial for fostering inclusive communication, supporting professional development, and ensuring equitable access to institutional resources. This exploratory study investigates the language needs of staff at a Norwegian university, focusing on both Norwegian and English as academic languages.
Research Questions This study investigates how employees at a large European university navigate language demands in an increasingly internationalised higher education sector. While much existing research centres on international staff and English-medium settings, comparatively little is known about the linguistic needs of both majority‑language and international employees within institutions that officially promote parallel or bilingual language use. Addressing this gap, our overarching research question is: How do university employees articulate their language needs in a bilingual academic environment? To examine this question in greater depth, the analysis is guided by three sub‑questions:
These questions enable a nuanced understanding of the multilingual practices and linguistic expectations that shape employees’ everyday work within a university governed by both national linguistic responsibilities and global academic norms. Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Inclusion, Power and Majority–Minority Dynamics Our study applies sociolinguistic perspectives that foreground the power dynamics inherent in multilingual organisations. In universities with high proportions of international staff, national-language speakers often hold structural or social advantages in institutional participation, while international employees may be positioned as linguistic minorities regardless of their academic expertise. Conversely, English-language expectations may place additional demands on majority-language speakers, who are not always conceptualised as having language needs. Concepts such as linguistic capital, gatekeeping, and organisational inclusion help illuminate these dynamics.We explore these concepts and highlight them throughout our analysis. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study is part of the Language Practices in Education research group, which investigates language use patterns, attitudes, and needs among employees and students at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). The present paper focuses specifically on language needs among employees who reported Norwegian or English as an L2. All academic, administrative, and technical staff were invited to complete an online survey in November 2023. The survey included open‑ended and closed‑ended questions and was based on previous Nordic studies (Bukve 2020; Carlshollt Unger 2022; Gujord et al. 2022; Ljosland 2011) Participants A total of 703 employees participated (≈10% response rate). Of these, 493 were academics (70.13%) and 210 administrative/technical staff (29.87%). Participants represented all eight faculties and the University Museum. Slightly more than half were born outside Norway (55.9%). Norwegian was the L1 of 57.18% of participants; English was an L1 for 9.67%. The remainder reported other native languages. Based on the status of Norwegian as L1/L2, participants were categorised as “Norwegian” (57.18%) or “International” (42.67%). Data Analysis Closed questions were analysed through descriptive statistics produced in R (R Core Team 2024). Open‑ended responses were examined using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six‑step thematic analysis. Coding was inductive and iteratively refined across authors. Themes were developed collaboratively to ensure reflexivity and analytical consistency. Research Credibility and Ethics Because the study relies on self‑reported needs, the findings reflect perceived—not tested—proficiency and may therefore be subject to over‑ or underestimation. Ethical considerations include researching workplace colleagues and managing confidentiality within a single organisation. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, and data collection complied with Norwegian research ethics guidelines. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data reveals clear differences in how Norwegian and international employees experience and articulate their language needs in a bilingual university setting. While most participants report high proficiency in English—particularly at the C1–C2 level—both groups still express notable needs for improvement. Norwegian employees consistently report higher English L2 needs than international staff, especially in intercultural communication, vocabulary, academic writing, and speaking fluency. Receptive skills such as reading and listening are generally perceived as less challenging. Qualitative responses show a wide spectrum of perceived abilities. Some employees feel fully competent due to extensive exposure to English, whereas others highlight a lack of confidence and difficulties with fluency, pronunciation, academic writing, and expressing nuance. Norwegian participants especially emphasise challenges in conveying humour, emotions, and subtlety in English, as well as needing more opportunities for oral practice. International employees, while often more confident in English, report challenges with intercultural communication in diverse academic environments. In contrast, international staff report significantly higher needs in Norwegian across all domains—speaking, writing, vocabulary, listening, and reading—with receptive skills posing particular difficulties. Many international employees have limited or no proficiency in Norwegian, highlighting barriers to workplace participation and integration. Overall, the findings demonstrate that language needs are widespread, heterogeneous, and shaped by staff background and institutional expectations. They highlight tensions between practical language demands and the ideals of a bilingual university, pointing to the need for more structured and differentiated language support. References Bukve, T. (2020). Students’ perspectives on English medium instruction within higher education. Exploring gender differences in Norway and Finland. Journal of Applied Language Studies, 14(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.17011/apples/urn.202002272211 Carlshollt Unger, M. (2022). Hvis behov kunne tale! En undersøgelse om narrative konstruktioner af behov i andet- og fremmedsprogsundervisning og behovenes kompleksitet [If needs could speak! An examination of narrative constructions of needs in second and foreign language teaching and the complexity of needs] Globe: A Journal of Language, Culture and Communication, 14, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.54337/ojs.globe.v14i.7331 Gujord, A.-K. H., Molde, E. B., Olsen, A.-M. K., & Wunderlich, I. (2022). Vilkår for læring og bruk av andrespråk i akademia. Internasjonalt tilsette sine erfaringar med språk på norske universitet og høgskular i lys av rådande språkpolitikk [Conditions for learning and using second languages in academia. International employees’ experiences with languages at Norwegian universities and university colleges in light of current language policies]. Bergen Language and Linguistics Studies, 12(1), 113–140. https://doi.org/10.15845/bells.v12i1.3539 Ljosland, R. (2011). English as an academic lingua franca: Language policies and multilingual practices in a Norwegian university. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(4), 991–1004. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.007 R Core Team. 2024. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.cog | ||