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, 21:28:38 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
01 SES 05 D
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
01. Professional Learning and Development
Paper Learning and Development within CHAT and Implications for the Interventionist Researcher in School NTNU, Norway Presenting Author:In this article, we take our starting point in the ideas of Vygotsky (1978, 2000), commonly referred to as sociocultural theory in the United States and other Western contexts (Wertsch, 1991; Wertsch et al., 1995). From this theoretical foundation, we trace the development of Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) through Leont’ev and further to Engeström’s contributions. This means that we start by emphasizing individual perspectives, then move toward learning and development as a shared, collective process. We also shift the focus from children to the collective processes of adults.
Vygotsky was concerned with the developmental process of growth and its origins, rather than with “fossilized behavior” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 63). Genetic analysis, in this context, means that the focus is placed not on the end product of development, but on the very process through which higher mental functions are formed. Artifacts hold a prominent place in sociocultural theory and are even regarded as extensions of the individual (Prawat, 1996). However, Vygotsky (2000) regarded language as the “tool of tools,” and was convinced that communicative processes are the primary medium through which individuals form their consciousness. Leont’ev (1981) expanded Vygotsky’s theory by shifting the focus from the individual to the collective, introducing the concept of division of labor. He exemplifies this through the activity of hunting for food or skins, demonstrating how various goal-directed actions contribute to fulfilling a shared collective motive related to the object of the activity.
Leont´ev (1978) defined the object concept in the following way: ‘[…] The object of the activity is twofold: first, in its independent existence as subordinating to itself and transforming the activity of the subject, second; as an image of the object, as [a] product of its property of psychological reflection that is realized as an activity of the subject’ (p. 52). The object is therefore both material and ideal. Leont’ev (1978) noted that “the meeting of need with the object is an extraordinary act” (p. 54) and later emphasized that “the object is the real motive” (Leont’ev, 1981, p. 59), meaning that in educational settings, practitioners must at least understand, or ideally share, a collective motive to act meaningfully on the object. When this happens, the object becomes “invested with meaning and motivating power” (Sannino et al., 2016, p. 602).
Engeström (1987) expanded activity theory by introducing a graphical model and adding the concept of expansive learning, which he and Sannino (2010) define as “learning something that is not yet there.” (p. 2). According to Vygotsky (1978), learning is a process starting at the social and external level before it is internalized on the internal level, and furthermore, good learning is ahead of development. He states that a person’s learning should be supported in his or her zone of proximal development by a more capable peer or adults (p. 86), thus facilitating progress beyond the learner’s current developmental stage. Engeström (1987) has expanded on this definition of the concept for the individual and explains the zone of proximal development in this way: ‘It is the distance between the present everyday actions of the individuals and the historically new form of the societal activity that can be collectively generated […]’ (p. 174).
With this theory as the frame for the research and development work we pursued the following research question:
How are learning and development conceptualized within cultural-historical activity theory, and what implications does this have for the interventionist researcher who supports and investigates these processes in whole schools? The purpose of this study is to explore the challenges and opportunities that an interventionist researcher may encounter when employing CHAT as the theoretical framework. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study is defined as a case study, following Creswell (2013) stating that such studies are bounded in time and place. The paper takes part of the ongoing four-year research project (2023-2027) Leadership and Learning for the Development of Teachers’ Professional Digital Competence (LeadDig), funded by the Norwegian Research Council. The underlying idea for the project is to develop schools that learn by focusing on teachers’ professional digital competence to enhance the pupils’ learning environment and learning in all together six schools. This study focuses on the meetings between the interventionist researchers, and the schools collaborating intensively for a year. The purpose of the study is to analyze and understand the interventionist researcher’s role when CHAT is used as the theoretical framework. We collected data by recording all the meetings in the research group focusing on the meetings with the schools, and furthermore, writing logbook entries after the meetings with the schools. Additionally, we conducted a focus group interview (Czarniawaska, 2004) with the whole research group, consisting of eight researchers. We have analyzed the data material by using the constant comparative method of analyses (Strauss & Corbin, 1998; Corbin & Strauss, 2013). So far, we have developed categories that provide headings for the processes about two and a half years into the project. These are: “How do we start”, “The necessity of being patient and navigating chaos”, “How to model dialogue to promote development and learning” and “Relations and horizontal learning”. The first category includes a tension between researcher-led classroom instruction and the effort to facilitate a collaborative process that enables teachers to define a shared development question based on their own needs before moving toward concrete changes in teaching. The second category concerns the tension between the traditional role of the researcher as a provider of knowledge to teachers, and the role of the researcher in structuring processes that enable teachers to identify their own developmental needs. The third category addresses how we as researchers can model what a learning dialogue between teachers might look like, and how such dialogue can contribute to both a sense of recognition and constructive criticism. The fourth and final category explores how we collaborate with teachers to build a supportive relationship and how we, as researchers, learn together with them. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The preliminary findings indicate that varying levels of familiarity with CHAT can create tension among interventionist researchers. Furthermore, previous experience with development work may both facilitate the process and, at the same time, generate tension regarding how such work is carried out within a CHAT framework, where the researcher is expected to act as a collaborative partner rather than an expert. Starting out with CHAT as a framework requires that teachers have the time and opportunity to identify both individual and shared needs for development. Such a starting point is unusual for teachers, and as researchers, we must therefore demonstrate resilience in navigating a chaotic process while maintaining confidence that this process will eventually help teachers understand its purpose. In addition to structuring processes that helped teachers identify their needs by formulating development questions, we also participated in teaching practice by observing lessons together with teachers and the principal, followed by structured joint analyses of these lessons, modeling language use to support development. The teachers expressed that this structure made them feel secure and helped raise their awareness of their own practice. In this project, we learned that a supportive climate between researchers and teachers must be characterized by genuine, equitable collaboration in which all partners learn from one another. References Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2013). Basics of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, Inc. Creswell (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd edition). SAGE Publications Inc. Czarniawaska, B. (2004). Narratives in social science research. SAGE. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Orienta-Konsultit Oy. Leontèv, A.N. (1978). Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. Prentice-Hall. Leontèv, A.N. (1981). The Problem of Activity in Psychology. In J.V. Wertsch (ed.), The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology, p. 37-71. M.E. Sharpe, Inc. Prawat, R.S. (1993). The value of ideas: Problems versus possibilities in learning. Educational Researcher, 22(2), 5-16. Sannino, A., Engeström, Y., & Lemos, M. (2016). Formative interventions for expansive learning and transformative agency. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 599–633. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1204547 Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002 Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage Publications, Inc. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L.S. (2000). Thought and Language. MIT Press. Wertsch, J.V. (1991). Voices of the Mind. A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wertsch, J.V., Rio, D.P. & Alvarez, A. (1995). Sociocultural Studies: History, Action, and Mediation. In J.V. Wertsch, D.R. Pablo & A. Alvarez (eds.), Sociocultural Studies of Mind, p. 1-34. New York: Cambridge University Press. 01. Professional Learning and Development
Paper Research Engagement in a Community of Practice - A Case Study University of Stavanger, Norway Presenting Author:Research engaged schools promote enquiry stances by teachers, and the use of published research and other school evidence; they are outward looking and connect to the research community (Godfrey & Brown, 2019). In these schools, research is integrated into the lives of teachers and school leaders, as part of the structures and cultures of the organization. In this qualitative case study, a research engaged school is studied to address the following questions:
To analyze this, two separate theoretical lenses will be used. First, the research engagement will be seen through the optics of Etienne Wenger’s (1998) social theory of learning, conceptualizing the school as a community of practice. This entails an exploration into how the research engagement is reified in the organizational culture, as well as how participation enhances and reproduces a research rich culture. Second, the culture and structure of the case school will be analyzed using a framework for multi-level mechanisms of research use (Hagevold et al., under review), in an effort to understand how trust, skills development, sustainable structures, and relationships shape and affect research use in practice. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used To select the school for this single-case study, a purposive, criterion-based sampling method was employed, leveraging the expertise of a municipal school leader with deep institutional knowledge of the municipality’s schools. This leader identified a specific case that met five key benchmarks for research engagement: the promotion of practitioner research, a commitment to interpreting published studies, active participation in external university-led programs, the integration of research into decision-making at all levels, and an outward-looking orientation sustained through research-based partnerships. This expert-led approach ensured the selection of an information-rich case where research engagement is deeply embedded in the school’s professional culture. The identified school accepted to participate in the case study. Case studies can be defined as “an in-depth investigation of a specific real-life project, policy, institution, program or system from multiple perspectives in order to catch its complexity and uniqueness” (Cohen et al., 2017, p. 375). In its nature, a case study is eclectic, and can include multiple methods to investigate and answer the research questions. The research questions in this case study will be addressed through three types of data gathering: 1. Group interviews of teachers and school leaders. (Conducted autumn 25) 2. Field notes from observations of staff meetings, leader team meetings, and team meetings. (to be carried out spring 26) 3. Document analysis of the school's strategies, and visible artefacts in the school environment (to be carried out spring 26) Data from all three sources will be analyzed using both inductive and deductive approaches. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This case study is currently in early stages of data analysis. The expected outcome of this case study is a deeper understanding of how teachers and school leaders in research engaged schools perceive, understand, value and practice research use. Furthermore, it is expected that we find that trust, skills development, sustainable structures, and relationships are important mechanisms that govern this use. Finally, seeing research engagement as a product of reification and participation in a community of practice, can highlight that its sustainability is rooted in the shared artifacts and the collaborative processes of the professional community itself. References Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison. Keith. (2017). Research Methods in Education (8th ed.). Routledge. Godfrey, D., & Brown, C. (2019). An eco-system for research engaged schools: Reforming education through research. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge Core. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932 Hagevold, C.G., Forsström, S.E, & Keles, S. (under review). Research on research use in schools: A systematic review with framework synthesis 01. Professional Learning and Development
Paper Positioning Teachers as Active Co-researchers in STEM PBL Education: Challenging Academic Assumptions, Practices and Roles 1: RMIT University, Australia; 2: Monash University, Australia Presenting Author:Internationally, research into teacher professional learning has increasingly explored how teachers and academics can work successfully together to bring about educational change. Recent literature underscores the importance of working with, rather than on teachers, and highlights the inherent complexities of changing teacher practice (Admiraal et al, 2021; Opfer & Pedder, 2011). In this paper, we critically examine our assumptions and practices as education academics engaged in a longitudinal project with in-service teachers, co-designing and implementing problem-based learning (PBL) in school-based STEM education. While the teachers led the implementation in their schools, co-design and evaluation was pursued as an authentic partnership with us, the academic researchers. As the project evolved, we began to question both our strategies for positioning teachers as co-researchers, and our assumptions about co-design and research. While research on co-design from the perspective of teachers is a growing field, this study is unique in its focus on the professional learning and reflexive shifts experienced by us, the academic researchers. Accordingly, our guiding research question is: How does the intention to position teachers as authentic co-researchers in a school-based PBL project challenge and reshape the practices, assumptions and roles of academic researchers?
The study is theoretically framed by concepts of co-learning and co-design, which together provide a lens for examining collaborative knowledge production and role negotiation within teacher-academic partnerships. Jaworski (2001) conceptualises teacher-academic collaboration in terms of co-learning partnerships, drawing on Wagner’s (1997) notion of co-learning whereby researchers and practitioners actively participate in the learning process engaging in shared action and reflection. Through this shared relationship each not only learns “something about the world of the other” but also “each may learn something more about his or her own world and its connections to institutions of schooling” (Wagner, 1997, p. 16).
Complementing this perspective is the concept of co-design, which adds a practical dimension to collaborative partnerships. Roschelle et al. (2006) define co-design as a “highly-facilitated, team-based process in which teachers, researchers, and developers work together in defined roles to design an educational innovation, realize the design in one or more prototypes, and evaluate each prototype’s significance for addressing a concrete educational need” (p. 606). In this study, we utilise a theoretical framework informed by co-design and co-learning to examine the dynamics of our interactions with teachers as we sought to position them not only as implementers but as co-designers and co-researchers of a STEM PBL educational innovation in their schools. In previous research aiming to position teachers as co-researchers, tensions emerged for researchers related to different professional contexts, roles and expectations related to timelines, aims and workload (Bevins & Price, 2014; Roschelle et al, 2006). Tensions also exist around role asymmetry, such as perpetuating the ‘researcher as ‘thinker’, teacher as ‘doer’’, even when researchers strive for egalitarian approaches (Bungum & Sanne, 2021). Valuing different knowledge types (Bungum & Sanne, 2021) and differing goals, such as teachers’ orientations towards clearly defined and measurable outcomes aligned with curricular realities, as compared to researchers’ desire for innovation and open-ended tasks that involve ambiguity (Bevins & Price, 2014; Schafer, 2025) create further tensions. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study adopted a qualitative, collaborative research approach situated within a multi-year PBL in STEM project. Participants included five university-based academics from two Australian Universities and 35 in-service, elementary and middle school teachers from 15 schools across two Australian states. Central to the research was a co-design methodology, based on the assumption that teachers would engage as equal partners alongside academics in the design, implementation and evaluation of PBL practice within their respective schools. Teachers were positioned this way because they were valued as the professionals best placed to understand the complexities of the primary and secondary schooling environments (Smith, 2017). Teachers’ active involvement in gathering data from their classrooms was therefore integral to the project. Teachers participated in 5 professional learning (PL) workshop days across three years, which were designed to introduce participants to the project, establish their views and understanding about PBL and STEM Education and facilitate the development of an Action Plan which teachers implemented, refined and evaluated within their schools. Academics introduced research about PBL, facilitated collaborative discussion and shared feedback throughout the process. Data for the study reported in this paper were drawn from three main sources: (1) academics’ reflective journals and meeting transcripts for planning and debriefing the PL workshops across the three years (2) a final interview with three of the academic team, and (3) artefacts from PL days, such as teacher interviews and working documents. Data were analysed using a grounded approach (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) utilising open and axial coding to organise data into conceptual categories. Researchers worked collaboratively applying a constant comparative method across each stage of data analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Data analysis was triangulated as all researchers worked collaboratively across all data. A single category was created from similar categories representing a higher degree of abstraction (Robson, 2002). These core categories began to capture the main ideas or concepts that were central to understanding the facilitation process. Through reiterative data analysis the properties and features of each category became further dimensionalised because of “the conditions which gave rise to it; the action/interaction by which it was expressed, and the consequences that it produces” (Corbin & Strauss, 1990, pp. 7–8). Finally, findings were synthesised into a coherent theoretical framework that explains the relationship between the intention to actively position teacher researchers as co-researchers and University academic thinking and actions, including behaviors, strategies, challenges, and outcomes. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Data analysis is proceeding. We report preliminary Findings here. Initially, teachers appeared to resist the co-researcher role, preferring to remain as implementers, rather than designers, or researchers. This apparent reluctance promoted a re-examination amongst the academic team regarding their facilitation approaches as well as the assumptions, both implicit and explicit about teachers’ capacity and willingness to act as equal partners in the way the academics envisaged. As the program progressed, we came to understand that we needed to: 1. Challenge and reshape our assumptions about our ability to position teachers as co-researchers, to something that must be initiated by teachers themselves. Our role was to support them in adopting a critical research stance towards their practice. 2. Challenge and reshape our practices to more effectively support teachers to move from being passive and leader-dependent to actively engaging in the co-design and learning process, recognising that this shift ultimately depended on their own initiative. 3. Challenge and reshape our roles to partner with, rather than lead, teachers to see research as an integral part of their teaching identity. Realising that true change must be initiated by teachers themselves highlighted the complexities of collaborative efforts to shift teacher thinking and practice. Our change in thinking revealed how our assumptions about research and the researcher role, both conscious and unconscious, had become obstacles making it difficult for teachers to adopt new ways of thinking and working. As academic researchers, while our intentions were to achieve codesign, shared ownership, and co-research, by accepting responsibility for these changes we continued to work on teachers rather than with them. Our findings shed light on the dynamics of co-design highlighted by Roschelle et al. (2006), in particular the tensions associated with assumptions concerning goals, roles and contributions of team members, as well as different workplace norms. References Admiraal, W., Schenke, W., De Jong, L., Emmelot, Y. & Sligte, H. (2021). Schools as Professional Learning Communities: What Can Schools Do to Support Professional Development of Their Teachers? Professional Development in Education 47: 684–98 Bevins, S., & Price, G. (2014). Collaboration between academics and teachers: a complex relationship. Educational Action Research, 22(2), 270-284. Bungum, B., & Sanne, A. (2021). Conditions for the Active Involvement of Teachers in a Design-Based Research Project. Designs for Learning, 13(1), 44-54. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. SAGE. Jaworski, B. (2001). Developing mathematics teaching: Teachers, teacher-educators, and researchers as co-learners. In F.-L. Lin, & T. J. Cooney (Eds.), Making sense of mathematics teacher education (pp. 295–320). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Opfer, V. D. & Pedder, D. (2011) Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(3): 376-407, 10.3102/0034654311413609 Roschelle, J., Penuel, W., & Shechtman, N. (2006). Co-design of Innovations with Teachers: Definition and Dynamics. In Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., & Hickey, D. T. (Eds.), The International Conference of the Learning Sciences: Indiana University 2006. Proceedings of ICLS 2006, Volume 2 (pp. 606-612). Bloomington, Indiana, USA: International Society of the Learning Sciences. Schäfer, L. (2025). Reflective dialogues in negotiating the research-practice nexus: A case study of an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teacher-researcher collaboration. System (Linköping), 133, 103757. Wagner, J. (1997), The unavoidable intervention of educational research: A framework for reconsidering research-practitioner cooperation, Educational Researcher 26(7), 13-22 01. Professional Learning and Development
Paper Professional Learning Through Action Research and Supervision In Multilingual Schools 1: Private University of Education of the Diocese Linz, Austria; 2: University of Klagenfurt, Austria Presenting Author:Building on the theoretical contribution on supervision as a catalyst for professional and organisational learning in schools (presented at ECER 2025: Oberreiter & Zehetmeier 2025), this empirical study examines the enabling conditions for an innovative process architecture in which teachers and school leaders participate in supervisory settings while conducting their own action research projects. These projects are continuously accompanied and supported through supervision. Particular attention is paid to trust within the group and to the preconditions for professional development and organisational learning, with a specific focus on how linguistic diversity and educational equity are discursively negotiated. The study draws on interviews with key actors (parents, teachers, and school leaders) conducted as part of the action research process. In addition, student- and organisation-centred surveys are used to capture how language-related issues are addressed in school practice. This study examines how reflection-based professionalisation formats, particularly supervision and action research (Altrichter et al., 2018), contribute to professional development and organisational learning in schools. It focuses on the interplay of these formats in supporting professional learning and development and situates them within broader collaborative and leadership-related school development processes (Oberreiter & Zehetmeier, 2025). Research on teacher collaboration indicates that joint professional practices among teachers have positive effects on students, teachers, and schools as organisations, while emphasising the importance of a supportive and trust-based collaborative atmosphere (Vangrieken et al., 2017, p. 57) and can thus contribute to the demand for language-related professionalisation of teachers in various contexts (Amberg et al., 2022; García & Kleyn, 2016; Hélot, 2011; Vetter et al., 2022; Wegner & Vetter, 2014). The format chosen for this study is the interplay between Professional Learning Communities (Lave & Wenger, 1991) and Organisational Learning (Oberreiter, 2021), implemented through an innovative approach combining action research and supervision in schools. Supervision, understood as a counselling and reflection format for individuals, groups, teams, or organisational units (Pühl, 2017), complements action research by enabling reflexive distance from professional practice. By fostering reflective dialogue and perspective-taking, supervision supports both individual and collective professional learning and contributes to the development of a reflective organisational culture. Against this background, the study is situated in schools deeply influenced by broader societal transformations, with a particular focus on multilingual realities and the complex challenges they pose for teachers, teams, and school organisations. Linguistic diversity, shaped by migration, language policies, and power relations, profoundly influences students’ educational trajectories and teachers’ professional decision-making (Horner & Weber, 2018). Multilingualism is conceptualised as a complex discursive field in which meanings, norms, and hierarchies are negotiated. Acknowledging both its potential benefits and the associated “emotional hardships” (Jessner & Kramsch, 2015, p. 6) is crucial for supporting teachers and schools in areas such as language policy development, classroom management, and the language-sensitive organisation of teaching. Tensions and controversies emerging in multilingual schools and classrooms are thus understood as potential triggers for systemic learning, provided that schools can translate them into cooperative and reflective practices. The study advances the hypothesis that agile ways of working, characterised by iterative learning cycles, shared responsibility, transparency, and adaptability, constitute a key enabling condition for professional development and organisational learning. It is assumed that such agile practices, when combined with supervision and action research, foster conditions under which reflective cooperation, experimentation, and learning from tensions become possible. Furthermore, the study explores transformational leadership as a critical contextual factor that supports these processes by articulating shared visions, encouraging professional autonomy, and creating psychologically safe spaces for reflection and innovation. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Methodologically, the project investigates how reflection-based professionalisation formats, particularly supervision and action research (Altrichter et al., 2018), contribute to professional development and organisational learning in schools, with a specific focus on multilingual classrooms. Teachers systematically examine their own practice by formulating practice-related questions, engaging in observation and reflection, and developing individual and collective strategies for further action and for professional and organisational growth. The project is explicitly grounded in a double-loop learning perspective, as it not only supports changes in practice but also invites reflection on underlying assumptions, norms, and organisational routines (Argyris & Schön, 2018). Empirically, the study employs a mixed-methods design. Qualitative interviews are conducted with various school actors, including teachers, school leaders, and parents, to capture perspectives on professional learning, organisational conditions, and the handling of linguistic diversity. In addition, student surveys are administered to explore students’ perceptions of how language-related issues are addressed in everyday school practice. Organisational surveys conducted after the supervision sessions are used to reconstruct the organisational cultures of two schools and to analyse how schools address language-related challenges and the modes of collaboration they use, including emerging agile forms of working. Data are analysed using a summarising, code-based qualitative content analysis following Kuckartz (2014), integrating qualitative and quantitative data to identify patterns of professional and organisational learning. Methodologically, the project operates in a dual role: it supports and guides teachers’ professionalisation processes while simultaneously researching and refining the architecture of supervision-based action research itself. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Supervision and action research play complementary roles in professional learning and development. Supervision offers structured support and guidance through reflective practices, helping professionals develop skills, tackle challenges, and grow professionally. In contrast, action research involves practitioners systematically investigating their practices to generate new knowledge and improve outcomes. When combined, supervision provides the reflective framework and support necessary for action research projects. Supervision helps professional teachers critically examine their actions and decisions, while action research provides practical tools to investigate and enhance them. This synergy creates a dynamic in which reflective insights drive practical change, leading to more effective professional learning and development. Integrating action research and supervision introduces innovative elements for integrated reflective practice. By incorporating reflective practices from supervision into the action research process, practitioners engage in a continuous cycle of self-examination. This ongoing reflection fosters deeper self-awareness and more informed decision-making, resulting in sustained improvements in professional practices. Schools are learning spaces through language, in which classroom communication, linguistic biographies and language-related insecurities are equally taken into account. Structured reflection through supervision and action research provides the social and organisational conditions required to anchor these processes sustainably within the school as an organisation. By linking action research and supervision in multilingual contexts, the study demonstrates how reflective and cooperative practices foster professional development, strengthen organisational learning and open up new possibilities for action in complex and diverse school settings. References Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (2018). Die lernende Organisation: Grundlagen, Methode, Praxis [The learning organization: Foundations, methods, practice]. Schäffer-Poeschel. Altrichter, H., Posch, P., & Somekh, B. (2018). Teachers investigate their work: An introduction to action research across the professions. Routledge. Amberg, I., Furch, E., & Wiedner, M. / Vetter, E., Imamović-Topčić, E., Schwarzl-Cataldo, L. (2022). THESE XII: Nur mit gut ausgebildeten Pädagoginnen lässt sich der Schatz der Mehrsprachigkeit heben. In: O. Gruber & M. Tölle (Eds.), Fokus Mehrsprachigkeit : 14 Thesen zu Sprache und Sprachenpolitik : Beiträge aus Österreich und Europa (301–333). ÖGB Verlag. García, O., & Kleyn, T. (2016). Translanguaging with multilingual students : learning from classroom moments (1st ed.). Routledge. Hélot, C. (2011). Language policy for the multilingual classroom : pedagogy of the possible. Multilingual Matters. Horner, K., & Weber, J.-J. (2018). Introducing multilingualism: A social approach. Routledge. Jessner, U., & Kramsch, C. (2015). The Multilingual Challenge. De Gruyter. Kuckartz, U. (2014). Mixed methods: Methodology, research designs, and data analysis. Springer VS. In H. Pühl (Ed.), Das aktuelle Handbuch der Supervision: Grundlagen – Praxis – Perspektiven (pp. 81–94). Psychosozial-Verlag. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. Luhmann, N. (1991). Soziale Systeme: Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie [Social systems: Outline of a general theory] (4th ed.). Suhrkamp. Luhmann, N. (2004). Einführung in die Systemtheorie [Introduction to systems theory]. In D. Baecker (Ed.), Einführung in die Systemtheorie (2nd ed.). Carl-Auer. Maturana, H. R. (1985). Erkennen: Die Organisation und Verkörperung von Wirklichkeit [Knowing: The organization and embodiment of reality]. Vieweg+Teubner. Oberreiter, E. (2021). Die Wirkung von Supervision für die Organisationsentwicklung von Schulen [The impact of supervision on the organizational development of schools] (Doctoral dissertation, University of Klagenfurt). Oberreiter, E., & Zehetmeier, S. (2025, September 10). Organisational learning and supervision in schools: Current findings and future perspectives for professional learning and development [Paper presentation]. European Conference on Educational Research (ECER 2025), Belgrade, Serbia. Pühl, H. (2017). Was Supervision auszeichnet [What characterises supervision]. In H. Pühl (Ed.), Das aktuelle Handbuch der Supervision: Grundlagen – Praxis – Perspektiven (Unchanged reprint of the 2nd ed., pp. 12–24). Psychosozial-Verlag. Vangrieken, K., Meredith, C., Packer, T., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Teacher communities as a context for professional development: A systematic review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 47–59. Wegner, A., & Vetter, E. (2014). Mehrsprachigkeit und Professionalisierung in Pädagogischen Berufen : Interdisziplinäre Zugänge Zu Aktuellen Herausforderungen Im Bildungsbereich. Budrich UniPress, Limited. | ||