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, 21:29:42 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
04 SES 08 C: Interprofessional Collaboration and Communities of Practice for Inclusion
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
04. Inclusive Education
Paper Interprofessional Teamwork to Support Inclusive Education 1: University of Iceland, Iceland; 2: University of Akureyri Presenting Author:This qualitative case study explores how a comprehensive school in Iceland has restructured its internal organization to enhance interprofessional collaboration and knowledge construction. The study aims to understand how professional knowledge is co-constructed at the boundaries of different roles and practices. Specifically, it identifies key factors that foster and sustain interprofessional collaboration and examines how such collaboration contributes to the development of inclusive practice withing the school. The research question is: What conditions and practices support sustained interprofessional collaboration and knowledge construction within a school context? The focus is on inclusive education and interdisciplinary teamwork. We argue that interdisciplinary teamwork and common knowledge construction through work at the boundaries of different professions is necessary for inclusive education to be successful, not only at the student level but for the school community. Inclusive education focuses on three key elements: presence, participation, and achievement of all learners (Ainscow, 2016). Presence refers to where students are educated and how consistently they attend. Participation reflects the quality of their daily school experiences and includes their personal perspectives. Achievement encompasses all learning outcomes across the curriculum, extending beyond standardized tests and exam scores. These elements together support the goal of delivering high-quality education and outcomes for all children and young people. Requiring schools to strengthen their ability to remove obstacles that hinder students’ access and presence (Ainscow, 2016; Slee, 2018). According to Ainscow (2016) “schools know more than they use” which suggests that efforts to enhance a school’s ability to address learner diversity should begin with encouraging staff to share and build on existing practices through collaboration and developing joint practice. In this research the focus is on examining interdisciplinary teamwork and common knowledge construction through the lens of Anne Edwards’s theory on relational agency (Edwards, 2005). According to her theory, relational agency strengthens professional agency, which ultimately will benefit the object of practice - the object of practice being inclusive education. Edwards has long applied a cultural-historical approach (CHAT) to her research on institutional and professional development, and in this context has introduced three professional development concepts that she calls “gardening tools” (Duhn et al., 2016; Edwards, 2011). The “gardening tools”: relational expertise, common knowledge, and relational agency, are conceptual tools for analyzing and facilitating collaborative work, particularly in boundary-crossing situations (Edwards, 2011). These tools help understand how diverse individuals and groups work together to achieve common goals, especially when their perspectives, knowledge, and practices differ. In the context of CHAT, relational agency refers to the ability to collaborate with others to broaden and develop the focus of one’s work. This involves acknowledging and drawing on the knowledge and resources that others contribute as they interpret and engage with the shared objective. It requires recognizing that others can serve as valuable resources, and that active effort is needed to identify, understand, and negotiate the use of these contributions in pursuit of coordinated, collective action. Relational agency represents an expanded form of personal agency—one that can be cultivated and learned over time. This concept is closely linked to the ideas of distributed intelligence and distributed expertise. Distributed expertise, a more practice-oriented subset of distributed intelligence, highlights how knowledge is spread across individuals in a group. It brings attention to important issues in professional contexts, such as the nature of expertise, collaboration, teamwork, and the negotiation of professional roles, boundaries, and identities (Edwards, 2005, 2011). Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This is a qualitative case study looking at one comprehensive school in Iceland that is restructuring its internal organization towards increased emphasis on interprofessional collaboration. The case study approach was chosen as it enables an in-depth exploration of interprofessional teamwork and knowledge construction within a real-life school setting, allowing for a nuanced understanding of complex social processes in context (Yin, 2018). Prior to fieldwork, semi-structured interview guides were developed, drawing on previous research findings in relation to inclusive education. These guides were partially tailored to the different roles of participants, which were the principal and administrative team, project leaders for personalized learning, teachers, special needs teachers, social educators and learning support assistants. Data collection was carried out between May 2022 and January 2023. The primary method of data collection was individual and group interviews, ranging in duration from 36 to 105 minutes. These interviews were designed to be interactive, allowing for both differing and shared perspectives to emerge. Focus group interviews enabled participants to engage with colleagues, where one person’s comments could spark insights from others—revealing information that might not have surfaced in one-on-one interviews (Taber, 2013). Most interviews were conducted on-site at the school, though a few were conducted remotely via Teams due to travel and weather-related constraints. In total, there were 21 interviews, amounting to approximately 18 hours of recorded data. The analysis is informed by Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT), which provides a useful lens for examining the implementation of new ideas that require shifts in organizational structures and practices—characteristics that define the case under study. CHAT is particularly suited to exploring the tensions that may emerge when innovations disrupt established ways of working, potentially hindering the routine functioning of an institution or system (Ingólfsdóttir, 2024). Rather than focusing on individual cognition, activity theory directs attention to the dynamic interactions between individuals, tools, and the objects of their activity, emphasizing how shared, goal-directed practices are collectively carried out and transformed (Sannino & Engström, 2018). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The findings illustrate how interprofessional collaboration is enacted and experienced within the activity system of a compulsory school in Iceland undergoing internal restructuring to support inclusive education. The findings are structured around key themes that capture enabling conditions, shared planning tools, and ongoing challenges, including unequal access to resources and limited time for collective reflection. Redefining roles to support inclusive practice: This theme illustrates how the school has addressed a secondary contradiction within its activity system—specifically, the tension between a hierarchical division of labor and the collective object of fostering inclusive education. Traditionally, different levels of specialist education among staff have contributed to status distinctions and power imbalances. In this case, the school actively disrupts such hierarchies by referring to all individuals involved in support roles, whether formally trained specialists or unlicensed support staff—as specialist support staff. Stability, shared responsibility and the role of tools: The findings further show that the school’s team-based structure contributes to both organizational stability and continuity in student support. Unlike traditional models where support staff are frequently reassigned across classes and year levels, this school maintains consistent team compositions. This approach not only strengthens collaboration among staff but also fosters trusting relationships and predictability for students. Clarity of roles and cross-boundary collaboration: While the school’s discourse emphasizes collective identity, referring to all staff as either teachers or specialist support staff, the findings show that the individual expertise of each team member remains clearly recognized and valued. Structural Constraints and Emerging Contradictions: Despite the strengths of the team-based and inclusive approach, the findings also reveal structural challenges that introduce tensions into the activity system. A key issue relates to limited access to tools. Learning assistants are not allocated individual computers, which restricts their ability to access teaching plans, search for resources, or document observations independently. References Ainscow, M. (2016). Diversity and Equity: A Global Education Challenge. Ainscow, M. (2016). Diversity and equity: A global education challenge. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 51, 143-155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-016-0056-x Duhn, I., Fleer, M., & Harrison, L. (2016) Supporting multidisciplinary networks through relationality and a critical sense of belonging: three ‘gardening tools’ and the Relational Agency Framework. International Journal of Early Years Education, 24(3), 378-391, https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2016.1196578 Edwards, A. (2005). Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research, 43,168–182, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2006.06.010 Edwards, A. (2011). Building common knowledge at the boundaries between professional practices: Relational agency and relational expertise in systems of distributed expertise. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(1), 33–39, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2011.04.007 Ingólfsdóttir, J. G. (2024). Fjölskyldumiðuð þjónusta innan og utan leikskólans: Staða, viðhorf og reynsla fagfólks í flóknu starfsumhverfi. Tímarit um uppeldi og menntun, 33(2), 103-122, https://doi.org/10.24270/tuuom.2024.33.18 Sannino, A., & Engeström, Y. (2018). Cultural-historical activity theory: Founding insights and new challenges. Cultural-historical psychology, 14(3), 43-56. Slee, R. (2018). Defining the scope of inclusive education. Think piece prepared for the 2020 Global Education Monitoring Report. UNESCO. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications. 04. Inclusive Education
Paper Case-Oriented Professional Reflection and Inclusion: Communities of Practice in the Induction Phase of Teaching Universität Wien, Austria Presenting Author:This study presents a qualitative empirical study examining case-based professional learning within a university master's seminar in teacher education. The study focuses on how pre-service teachers collectively engage with pedagogical cases arising from school practice, particularly in contexts where inclusive educational aspirations encounter structurally non-inclusive school conditions. In doing so, it situates professional learning within ongoing debates on inclusive pedagogy as a normative and practical challenge for teacher education (Ainscow, 2005; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011). The seminar was designed as a case-oriented community of practice rather than a mentoring or skills-based induction format (Wenger, 1998). This design reflects approaches to teacher education that conceptualise professional learning as a situated, collective, and interpretive process rather than as the acquisition of predefined competencies. Pre-service teachers worked with Critical Incidents drawn from their own experiences, which were collaboratively analysed, discussed, and revisited over time, building on established case-based and incident-based approaches in teacher education (Tripp, 1993). The empirical material comprises written case narratives, group discussions, collective case analyses, and individual reflective texts produced throughout the seminar.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Using an interpretative qualitative approach, the analysis investigates how pre-service teachers registered in this master's level seminar construct what counts as a pedagogical case, how meanings are negotiated collectively, and how professional judgement develops through shared reflection (Fenwick, 2010). Participants of the study were pre-service teachers who were relatively advanced in their master's studies. The master's program in teacher education, in the country where research was conducted, is a two-year program that should be completed within 8 years after graduation from Bachelor degree to get the full title of teacher profession. However, the graduation from a master's degree is not a requirement to start a teaching profession, and several master's degree students already work as teachers and have exposure to real-life classroom experience. In the seminar, 16 students, 10 of whom work in schools as teachers, worked in groups of four, and special attention was given to the point that groups are heterogeneous in terms of teaching experience. The students with and without teaching experience worked in groups together over a semester. Also, particular attention is paid to shifts in interpretive patterns across the seminar trajectory, especially in relation to how inclusive pedagogical concerns are articulated, problematised, and reframed over time. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The findings indicate a gradual move away from individualising and deficit-oriented explanations of professional challenges towards relational, structural and context-sensitive interpretations (Cochran-Smith et al., 2016). Pre-service teachers increasingly framed critical situations not as personal inadequacies, but as expressions of systemic tensions inherent to schooling, especially during the transition from teacher education into professional practice (Pillen et al., 2013). Collective case work supported participants in tolerating ambiguity, articulating uncertainty, and maintaining professional agency under conditions of normative and institutional contradiction, which are characteristic of inclusive educational contexts (Biesta, 2015; Edwards, 2010). Rather than generating solutions or prescriptive guidance, the community of practice functioned as a space for shared sense-making and for re-orienting professional commitments, including sustained engagement with inclusive principles understood as a pedagogical stance rather than a set of techniques (Florian, 2012; Wenger, 1998). The study contributes to research on teacher education and early career professional learning by conceptualising case-based communities of practice as a form of professional support that complements established induction and mentoring models (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011). The paper discusses implications for teacher education programmes aiming to prepare new teachers for complex, contradictory, and structurally constrained school environments, and reflects critically on the limits and tensions of collective case-based professional learning in relation to inclusive pedagogical aspirations (Darling-Hammond, 2017; Zeichner, 2010). References Ainscow, M. (2005). Developing inclusive education systems: What are the levers for change? Journal of Educational Change, 6(2), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-005-1298-4 Biesta, G. (2015). Teacher education for judgement: The role of judgement in teacher professionalism. Oxford Review of Education, 41(4), 557–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2015.1071215 Cochran-Smith, M., Villegas, A. M., Abrams, L., Chavez-Moreno, L., Mills, T., & Stern, R. (2016). Research on teacher preparation: Charting the landscape of a sprawling field. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(4), 262–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487116660154 Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international practice? European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1315399 Edwards, A. (2010). Being an expert professional practitioner. Springer. Fenwick, T. (2010). Re-thinking the “thing”: Sociomaterial approaches to understanding and researching learning in work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 22(1/2), 104–116. Florian, L. (2012). Preparing teachers to work in inclusive classrooms: Key lessons for the professional development of teacher educators. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(4), 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487112447112 Florian, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(4), 513–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2011.625001 Ingersoll, R. M., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 201–233. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311403323 Pillen, M. T., Beijaard, D., & den Brok, P. J. (2013). Professional identity tensions of beginning teachers. Teachers and Teaching, 19(6), 660–678. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2013.827455 Tripp, D. (1993). Critical incidents in teaching. Routledge. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347671 04. Inclusive Education
Paper Whose Knowledge Counts in Inclusive Education? Building Equitable Teacher-SLT Partnerships through Interprofessional Communities of Practice 1: Dublin City University, Ireland; 2: DCU Centre for Inclusive Pedagogy; 3: DCU Centre for Literacy Research, Policy and Practice Presenting Author:Interprofessional collaboration between teachers and speech and language therapists (SLTs) is widely recognised as a critical enabler of inclusive education. Addressing diverse learning needs requires coordinated expertise that extends beyond the capacity of any single profession working in isolation. Interprofessional collaboration, defined as sustained partnerships in which professionals from different disciplines work collectively, drawing on complementary expertise to enhance outcomes (Skyberg & Jenssen, 2023), has therefore become central to inclusive education agendas across Europe and internationally (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2022). This study is situated within the changing conditions of knowledge production and use highlighted in the ECER 2026 theme, Knowing and Acting. Inclusive education is inherently knowledge-intensive, requiring the integration of pedagogical, linguistic, clinical, and contextual expertise. As education systems increasingly rely on interdisciplinary collaboration and practitioner-led knowledge, questions arise regarding whose knowledge is valued, how it is shared, and how it informs action. Interprofessional collaboration between teachers and SLTs offers a productive lens for examining these questions, particularly at the interface of education and health, where professional epistemologies and institutional priorities may differ (Kazmierczak-Murray et al., 2025). In Ireland, these issues are especially timely. SLTs are increasingly working in school settings, with recent policy developments proposing a substantial expansion of in-school therapeutic provision through the National Council for Special Education’s Therapy Service in Schools (NCSE, 2024). Similar developments internationally reflect the expanding scope of SLT practice and the growing recognition of the centrality of language to literacy, academic achievement, and participation in schooling (Serry & Levickis, 2021; Stephenson et al., 2023). While these developments offer potential to strengthen inclusive provision, they also raise questions about how interprofessional collaboration is structured and whether it supports equitable participation across professions. Without attention to equity, these expanding models of school-based provision risk reinforcing traditional professional hierarchies, with collaboration reduced to consultative rather than genuinely shared practice (Skyberg & Jenssen, 2023). Research across health and education contexts identifies equality of relationships, shared decision-making, and non-hierarchical knowledge exchange as central to collaboration (Armstrong et al., 2023). In teacher-SLT partnerships, inequitable collaboration has been shown to contribute to role ambiguity, fragmented practice, and reduced impact on learners with additional needs (Archibald, 2017). In our previous work, we proposed that literacy, and in particular structured literacy, offers a promising and equitable domain for interprofessional collaboration between teachers and SLTs in Ireland (Kazmierczak-Murray et al., 2025). Literacy is inherently cross-disciplinary, requiring pedagogical expertise alongside specialist linguistic knowledge. Widely recommended for supporting learners with dyslexia and literacy difficulties, structured literacy foregrounds the interdependence of pedagogy and linguistics through its focus on the linguistic foundations of reading and writing (IDA, 2023). As such, it represents a domain in which neither profession can claim sole authority, enabling shared ownership, reciprocal learning, and joint problem-solving. This paper reports on the implementation of an online interprofessional Community of Practice (CoP) for Irish teachers and SLTs, focused on structured literacy as a shared and equitable domain of practice. By examining how interprofessional learning is enacted within this virtual space, the study contributes empirical insight into how equitable partnerships can be developed to support inclusive education. In doing so, the study responds to the Inclusive Education Network’s emphasis on collaborative and systemic approaches to diversity and participation by examining how teachers and SLTs jointly enact literacy practices that support curriculum access for students with literacy difficulties. It also aligns with ECER’s broader focus on Knowing and Acting by foregrounding interprofessional CoPs as sites of knowledge production and mobilisation, where disciplinary, practitioner, and research-based knowledge are negotiated and translated into inclusive educational practice within changing policy and institutional contexts.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The interprofessional CoP was developed to support collaborative professional learning in structured literacy for teachers and SLTs. The rationale drew on social learning theory and professional learning literature, which emphasises that effective learning is social, situated, and reciprocal, enabling participants to share expertise and solve problems collaboratively (Brennan & King, 2022; Kennedy, 2014; Wenger et al., 2002). The CoP aimed to foster equitable interprofessional partnerships and enhance inclusive literacy practices for students with diverse learning needs. Proctor et al.’s (2011) taxonomy of implementation outcomes was used to guide this study. The taxonomy identifies intermediate outcomes, including acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, and sustainability, that shape whether an initiative achieves its intended objectives. This framework provided a structured lens for evaluating the CoP and for analysing how implementation processes influenced interprofessional learning and collaboration. Six of the ten CoP participants, comprising three SLTs and three teachers, took part in exit interviews conducted via an institutionally licensed Zoom platform. Participants were selected to represent a balanced mix of professions and experiences within the CoP. These interviews, together with post-CoP qualitative surveys, formed the data corpus for evaluation. Framework analysis, a structured qualitative approach, was employed to generate actionable insights by categorising codes according to Proctor’s Taxonomy while also allowing inductive identification of emergent themes (Gale et al., 2013). This approach provides systematic outputs, supports comparison across professions, and is both efficient and transparent. Each transcript and survey response was independently analysed by two members of the research team. Deductive coding identified examples aligning with Proctor’s implementation outcomes, while codes not directly captured by the taxonomy were analysed inductively, allowing identification of additional factors relevant to interprofessional collaboration. This combined deductive-inductive approach ensured the analysis was both theory-informed and open to emergent insights. Applying Proctor’s framework enabled systematic evaluation of the CoP, including whether intended interprofessional learning processes were achieved, how participants engaged across disciplinary boundaries, and which factors facilitated or constrained collaboration. By linking implementation outcomes to inclusive literacy practice, this method demonstrates how structured, theoretically grounded evaluation can inform the design of equitable interprofessional initiatives and guide future inclusive professional learning programs in education. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This study demonstrates that an interprofessional CoP can provide an acceptable, appropriate, and feasible model for interprofessional learning between teachers and SLTs, with potential to influence practice (penetration). Evaluated through Proctor et al.’s (2011) implementation outcomes, the findings show that structured interprofessional learning can move collaboration beyond consultative models towards more equitable, shared forms of professional practice within educational contexts. Crucially, the findings indicate that equitable interprofessional collaboration does not emerge organically but depends on intentional and carefully designed learning structures. Three interrelated elements were central to the success of the CoP: a clearly defined topic-based focus in structured literacy, the use of shared and enduring resources that supported continued professional learning, and active facilitation that enabled research translation and sustained engagement. Together, these elements supported reciprocal knowledge exchange, strengthened role clarity, and fostered mutual recognition of professional expertise. As a result, the CoP created conditions in which teachers and SLTs could collaborate as equal partners rather than as hierarchical experts and consultees. These findings speak directly to the Inclusive Education Network’s emphasis on collaborative and systemic responses to learner diversity. Literacy difficulties represent a significant barrier to participation for many learners and require coordinated pedagogical and linguistic expertise to be addressed effectively. By positioning structured literacy as a shared domain of practice, this study contributes to understanding how interprofessional learning can be intentionally designed to foster equitable collaboration between teachers and SLTs in support of inclusive education. More broadly, this research responds to ECER 2026’s focus on Knowing and Acting by illustrating how interprofessional CoPs function as sites of knowledge production and mobilisation. As therapeutic supports are increasingly integrated within school systems internationally, the study highlights the importance of interprofessional learning structures that enable knowledge to be jointly constructed, critically examined, and situated within educational contexts. References Armstrong, R., Schimke, E., Mathew, A., & Scarinci, N. (2023). Interprofessional practice between speech‑language pathologists and classroom teachers: A mixed‑methods systematic review. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 54(4), 1358–1376. Archibald, L. M. (2017). SLP-educator classroom collaboration: A review to inform reason-based practice. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments, 2. https://doi.org/10.1177/2396941516680369 Brennan, A., & King, F. (2021). Teachers’ experiences of transformative professional learning to narrow the values–practice gap related to inclusive practice. Cambridge Journal of Education, 52(2), 175–193. European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. 2022. Agency Position on Inclusive Education Systems (2nd ed.). Gale, N. K., Heath, G., Cameron, E., Rashid, S., & Redwood, S. (2013). Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13, 117. International Dyslexia Association. 2023. “Structured Literacy: An Approach Grounded in the Science of Reading.” Perspectives on Language and Literacy 50 (1): 12–15. Kazmierczak-Murray, S., Lehane, P. & Hannify, C. (2025). Literacy for Equitable Interprofessional Learning: Implementation Protocol for an Online Community of Practice for Irish Teachers and Speech and Language Therapists. Irish Educational Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2025.2523299 Kennedy, A. 2014. "Understanding Continuing Professional Development: The Need for Theory to Impact on Policy and Practice." Professional Development in Education 40 (5): 688–97. Proctor, E., H. Silmere, R. Raghavan, P. Hovmand, G. Aarons, A. Bunger, R. Griffey, and M. Hensley. 2011. "Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda." Administration and Policy in Mental Health Services Research 38 (2): 65–76. Serry, T., & Levickis, P. (2021). Are Australian speech-language therapists working in the literacy domain with children and adolescents? If not, why not? Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 37(3), 234-248. Skyberg, H., & Jenssen, D. (2023). What professionals say and do: The tension between egalitarianism and hierarchy in interprofessional teamwork. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 38(2), 200–208. Stephenson, C.F., Serry, T.A., Snow, P.C., 2023. Teachers’ perspectives on the role and scope of practice of speech-language pathologists working to support literacy in the early years of school. International Journal of Speech and Language Pathology, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2023.2250934 Wenger, E., R. McDermott, and W. M. Snyder. 2002. "Seven Principles for Cultivating Communities of Practice." In Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge, 4. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press. | ||