Conference Agenda

Sustaining changes in teaching practice after professional development (PD) remains a persistent challenge, particularly for inclusive pedagogies that require teachers to make consequential day-to-day design decisions under real classroom constraints. Although Universal Design for Learning (UDL) offers a framework for inclusive and accessible instructional design, short-course PD may be insufficient to support successful enactment and sustained classroom implementation (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Desimone, 2009). Consequently, follow-up support mechanisms are critical.

Mentoring, especially when designed as an ongoing, practice-close support structure, is often positioned as a mechanism for sustaining teacher learning beyond short-term PD (Hudson, 2013). In parallel, UDL continues to gain traction as a promising framework for inclusive pedagogy (King-Sears et al., 2023). However, research remains inconclusive regarding the nature and effectiveness of mentoring, and robust evidence on how mentoring contributes specifically to inclusive implementation is still developing (Luong, 2025; Radlick & Mevatne, 2023). Moreover, design-based insights on scalable online mentoring models are still emerging.

This study addresses these gaps by examining the added value of an online group mentoring model implemented after a foundational UDL PD course in Turkish public schools, focusing on both implementation outcomes and teachers’ motivational beliefs.

RQ1. Do teachers who completed UDL Basic PD plus online group mentoring differ in UDL implementation fidelity scores from those who completed UDL Basic PD only?
RQ2. Do teachers who completed UDL Basic PD plus online group mentoring differ from those who completed UDL Basic PD only in expectancy for success, task value, and perceived cost related to classroom implementation of UDL?
RQ3. How do teachers who participated in online group mentoring describe the mentoring processes and conditions that supported or constrained their implementation of UDL?

The study is anchored in (a) UDL as a framework for inclusive instructional design and (b) expectancy–value–cost theory as a motivational lens for teachers’ engagement in PD-related implementation. Expectancy–value–cost distinguishes beliefs about the likelihood of successful enactment (expectancy), perceived importance/utility (task value), and perceived resources required or sacrificed (cost).

The study is relevant to European and international PLD systems seeking feasible, scalable mechanisms to support sustained uptake of inclusive pedagogies—particularly as digitally mediated and hybrid PD models are increasingly used to extend learning beyond one-off training. It is expected to inform the design of online group mentoring programs to better support sustained implementation.

Whole-school approach anti-bullying interventions have become a prominent strategy for addressing bullying and improving students’ well-being, inclusion, and learning environments (Gaffney et al., 2021; UNESCO, 2024). These programs typically rely on sustained professional learning among teachers and school leaders and are often implemented with the support of external facilitators. While evaluative research shows that many such programs are effective in reducing bullying (Gaffney et al., 2019; Gaffney et al., 2021), comparatively little attention has been paid to how professional learning is supported during implementation, and in particular to the role of external mentors in shaping teachers’ and leaders’ learning practices.

Across national contexts, these external facilitators are described using a wide range of terms, including mentor, consultant, advisor, or trainer. Despite their centrality, their work is often treated as a technical or logistical support function rather than as professional learning. Moreover, the concept of mentoring itself remains loosely defined in this context (Aspfors & Fransson, 2015). Building on research that conceptualises mentoring as a socially situated professional learning practice—where knowledge, norms, and judgments are negotiated in and for practice (Goldshaft & Sjølie, 2024; Kemmis et al., 2017; Langelotz, 2017; Orland-Barak, 2016) —this paper foregrounds mentoring as more than delivery support. We also recognise that mentoring practices vary along a directive–dialogic continuum (Aspfors & Fransson, 2015) and can be contested in their purposes and power dynamics (Kemmis, Heikkinen, et al., 2014).

This paper presents a planned qualitative, comparative study that examines mentoring practices as forms of professional learning embedded in the implementation of whole-school anti-bullying interventions. The study draws on five research-based interventions: Free from Mobbing (Fri for Mobberi [Denmark]); KnowBullying (Slovenia/Croatia); KiVa (Finland); the Learning Environment Project (Læringsmiljøprosjektet [Norway]); and the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (worldwide). These cases offer a unique opportunity to examine how mentoring supports professional learning across different institutional arrangements, policy contexts, and traditions of teacher professionalism.

The study is theoretically anchored in the Theory of Practice Architectures (TPA) (Kemmis, Wilkinson, et al., 2014), which conceptualises professional learning as occurring in and for practice (Salo et al., 2024) rather than as the transmission of knowledge. From this perspective, mentoring is understood as a practice composed of sayings (professional language and discourses), doings (activities, routines, and tools), and relatings (social relationships, power, and trust), all of which are shaped by broader organisational factors: cultural-discursive, material-economic and social-political arrangements (Kemmis, Heikkinen, et al., 2014). This framework allows for a close examination of how mentoring mediates professional learning and of how school personnel (including teachers, leaders, and non-pedagogical staff) engage with new knowledge during implementation.

The study addresses the following research questions:

1. How are mentoring practices operationalised in the different interventions?
2. In what ways might practice architectures enable or constrain mentoring as a form of professional learning?
3. How do mentoring-based professional learning practices vary across intervention programs and national contexts?

Although data collection is ongoing, the study is expected to show that mentoring practices range from directive, program-driven approaches to more dialogic and inquiry-oriented forms of professional learning that can expand professional agency (Edwards & Protheroe, 2004). The paper contributes to the Professional Learning Network by offering a practice-theoretical analysis of mentoring as situated professional learning in large-scale school reform.

Across many OECD and European jurisdictions, under-resourced schools face persistent challenges in accessing scalable, evidence-based professional learning (PL) models that improve both teaching quality and student learning (Hofmann & Ilie, 2022). These challenges are exacerbated by teacher shortages, high student diversity, varying levels of institutional autonomy, and uneven capacity for implementation. The Momentum Schools Extension project addresses these shared systemic concerns through the design, validation, and evaluation of an instructional coaching model for Australian schools serving low socioeconomic and vulnerable communities. The study is situated within a broader international discourse on evidence-based instruction, inclusive education, and mechanisms for sustainable workforce development, with strong potential for adaption to European contexts where comparable educational inequities and policy priorities exist.

The primary research questions guiding this study are:

1. How can coaching instruments—developed from evidence-based instructional progression maps—support teacher growth from novice to expert?
2. How does targeted and sustained online professional learning and one-to-one coaching influence teacher practice, school-wide instructional change, and student perceptions of learning over time?
3. What differences emerge between treatment and Business as Usual (BAU) groups regarding teacher practice and student learning outcomes?
4. How do school leaders, teachers, and students experience the intervention, and which contextual factors enable or hinder sustained instructional change?
5. How can a sustainable model of evidence-based instructional practice be developed and scaled in vulnerable school communities?

The theoretical framing integrates three major bodies of scholarship. First, the learning sciences (or science of learning) underpin the instructional practices targeted in the coaching intervention, including cognitive load theory, explicit instruction, retrieval practice, and structured literacy. These practices are increasingly referenced in policy and curriculum reforms across international schooling systems (e.g., Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2022; Pellegrini &Vivanet, 2020; Teacher Education Expert Panel [TEEP], 2023), particularly in literacy, where structured pedagogies and early intervention are linked to reduced attainment gaps (Gath et al., 2025; Hanford et al., 2025; Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2022). Second, the study draws on scholarship in inclusive education and equity-oriented pedagogy, recognising that many low socioeconomic schools serve culturally, linguistically, and socially diverse learners. Inclusive education is both a pedagogical and policy priority across the European Union and aligns with broader reforms intended to mitigate structural disadvantage and support multilingual learners. As such, inclusive practices form the third coaching focus, along with explicit instruction and structured literacy to broaden the intervention’s applicability across varied educational systems. Third, the study is theoretically grounded in research on professional learning, instructional coaching, and implementation science. Effective PL is characterised by sustained duration, alignment with classroom practice, iterative cycles of feedback, and student-centred impact measures. Limited longitudinal and quasi-experimental evidence exists on how PL influences both teacher behaviour and student outcomes over time—particularly in vulnerable schools. By adopting a Difference-in-Differences (DiD) quasi-experimental design, the project fills a methodological and empirical gap within the PL literature.

This presentation details the process of development and validation of the research instruments and practical coaching materials relating to knowledge, skills, behaviours and attributes related to explicit instruction. In addition, the preliminary findings of the pilot study data are presented, revealing initial insights into school leader and teacher perceptions and experiences with the instructional coaching program.

This study examines how professional legitimacy is constructed and negotiated in teacher professional development (PD), focusing on the interactional work of an external PD facilitator and teachers’ differentiated responses across career stages. In many contemporary PD systems—across Europe, Asia, and other international contexts—external facilitators are increasingly relied upon to introduce reform-oriented pedagogies, support teacher learning, and bridge policy and practice. However, facilitator influence cannot be assumed. Its effectiveness depends critically on whether teachers recognise the facilitator as legitimate, credible, and worthy of professional engagement. Despite this, existing research has paid limited attention to the relational processes through which facilitator legitimacy is established and interpreted within PD settings, particularly among teachers with contrasting professional trajectories.

Guided by this concern, the study addresses two research questions. First, it asks how the PD facilitator established and enacted professional legitimacy in the process of leading teacher professional development. Second, it investigates how teachers with different professional backgrounds—specifically senior and younger teachers—responded to and interpreted the facilitator’s legitimacy. By examining both enactment and interpretation, the study moves beyond treating legitimacy as an individual attribute of the facilitator and instead conceptualises it as a dynamic, relational accomplishment shaped through ongoing interaction.

The analytical framework is grounded in the Integrative Model of Organizational Trust (IMOT) proposed by Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995), which offers a well-established theoretical basis for understanding trust as a process linking perception, relational behaviour, and outcomes. IMOT conceptualises trust not as a static state but as a dynamic relationship influenced by both the trustor’s disposition and the perceived trustworthiness of the trustee. The model integrates six interrelated components—trustor propensity, perceived trustworthiness, trust, perceived risk, risk-taking in the relationship, and outcomes—thereby capturing how individuals move from perception to action under conditions of uncertainty.

Central to this framework is the construct of perceived trustworthiness, which comprises three core dimensions: ability, benevolence, and integrity. Ability refers to perceptions of professional competence and expertise; benevolence refers to perceived goodwill and concern for others’ interests; and integrity refers to value alignment, fairness, and consistency with shared norms. In this study, these three dimensions are used to analyse how the facilitator’s actions, discourse, and positioning were interpreted by teachers and how such interpretations shaped their willingness to engage in professional risk-taking, such as experimenting with new pedagogies or exposing instructional uncertainty.

Professional legitimacy is thus conceptualised as an outcome of teachers’ trust judgements across these dimensions. Importantly, IMOT allows for systematic examination of variation in these judgements across career stages. Senior teachers, with accumulated experiential authority and established professional identities, may evaluate facilitator legitimacy primarily through integrity and professional alignment, while younger teachers may be more responsive to demonstrations of technical ability or instructional support. The framework therefore enables a nuanced analysis of how legitimacy is differentially constructed and contested within heterogeneous professional communities.

Although the empirical study is situated in the Chinese context, its contribution is explicitly international. Teacher professional development programmes are widespread globally, and recent research has demonstrated that the credibility and trustworthiness of PD facilitators constitute one of the most influential factors shaping PD effectiveness (Harper-Hill et al., 2022). By theorising facilitator legitimacy through an internationally recognised trust framework, this study speaks directly to European and international debates on external expertise, professional learning leadership, and relational governance in education. It offers transferable insights into how facilitator–teacher relationships can be designed and supported to enhance meaningful professional learning across diverse policy and cultural contexts.