Conference Agenda

School development consultancy has become an integral component of system-level support for school improvement in the Austrian education system (Altrichter et al., 2021). School development consultants support schools in phases of intensified development demands, organisational change, and reform implementation, and operate at the interface between educational administration, universities of teacher education, school leadership, and teaching staff. Their work involves process-oriented and facilitative forms of support that structure school development processes and support coordination among multiple actors at the school level (Altrichter et al., 2021; Braun et al., 2025b). In this role, school development consultants act as intermediary actors within school development processes. Their positioning between normative governance expectations and locally situated conditions of action is associated with heterogeneous and partly contradictory role expectations (Braun et al., 2025a).

Consultancy work is frequently embedded in challenging phases of school development, in which schools experience heightened pressure, uncertainty, and increased demands for accountability. In such situations, consultancy is expected to provide orientation, process-related support, and professional reflection, while consultants operate without formal decision-making responsibility (Altrichter et al., 2021; Braun et al., 2025b). International research on advisory and facilitative roles in school improvement indicates that consultancy work in complex governance environments requires consultants to navigate shifting expectations articulated by different actors and governance levels (Odendaal & du Plessis, 2018). These conditions suggest that consultancy work is not only demanding in terms of content, but also structurally prone to situational tensions and experiences of strain (Dadaczynski et al., 2024).

Previous research on school development consultancy has primarily focused on roles, functions, and intended contributions to school improvement, whereas the professional experiences and working conditions of consultants themselves have received comparatively little attention (Altrichter et al., 2021; Braun et al., 2025a). At the same time, research on educational leadership highlights role ambiguity, governance-related pressure, and restricted scopes for action as relevant contextual conditions for professional action (Hallinger, 2016; Leithwood et al., 2020; Dadaczynski et al., 2024). However, there is still limited empirical knowledge about how such conditions translate into concrete, activity-related experiences of strain in the everyday professional practice of intermediary actors such as school development consultants, particularly within system-level support arrangements across different governance contexts.

This paper addresses this gap by examining how experiences of strain emerge in the professional practice of school development consultants in Austria. Rather than conceptualising strain as a stable individual characteristic, the study adopts a situational and activity-related perspective, focusing on concrete constellations in which consultants’ professional knowing, role expectations, and possibilities for action come into tension (Hallinger, 2016; Leithwood et al., 2020). This understanding is further supported by context-responsive approaches that emphasise how professional action is shaped by situational and systemic conditions (Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz & Pashiardis, 2022).

By focusing on the situational emergence of strain in consultancy practice, the paper provides empirical insights into how school development consultancy is enacted as an intermediary practice under structurally demanding governance conditions. In doing so, it foregrounds strain as an analytical lens for examining the relationship between professional knowing and situated action.

Previous research has consistently emphasized that collaboration among teachers plays a central role in supporting teachers’ professional learning, motivation, and ultimately student learning outcomes (e.g., Goddard et al., 2007; Lomos et al., 2011; Muckenthaler et al., 2020; Nguyen & Ng, 2020). Despite its importance, collaborative work within school development cannot be assumed to occur naturally. Studies have shown that fostering teacher collaboration remains a significant challenge (Eisenschmidt et al., 2025; Vangrieken et al., 2015). Factors such as school leadership, clear organizational structures, sufficient time allocation, and a shared vision for collaborative practices have been identified as essential for enabling teachers’ opportunities and willingness to engage in collaborative development work (Ahtiainen & Heikonen, 2024; Rönn-Liljenfeldt et al., 2025).

At the same time, teachers’ perceptions of the elements that enable collaboration in school development are likely to vary. While some teachers may feel that their school provides coherent and supportive practices for collaboration, others may perceive the goals unclear or the conversational climate weak (Ahtiainen & Heikonen, 2023). These differing perceptions are reflected in teachers’ participation: the more positively teachers view the realization of collaborative structures and practices in their school, the more likely they are to engage actively in development activities. Consequently, teachers’ perceptions of collaboration in school development contribute not only to the success of development initiatives but also, indirectly, to student learning outcomes. However, empirical evidence on the variation in teachers’ perceptions of collaborative school development remains limited. This gap restricts our ability to design practices that ensure the participation of all teachers in meaningful school development work.

The school’s capacity to engage teachers in collaborative improvement efforts is crucial for both short‑ and long‑term development of educational practices (Hargreaves & O’Connor, 2017). Although teacher collaboration is essential for active school development, teachers differ in how they interpret and experience this collaboration, influencing both their level of involvement and the ways in which they participate. At the same time, principals have expressed the need for more knowledge on how to promote whole‑school collaboration among teachers (Taajamo & Puhakka, 2019). Despite this need, there remains limited understanding of how teachers themselves perceive collaborative school development within their professional communities.

The aim of the study was to gain a deeper understanding of how teachers differ in their perceptions of collaboration in school development. Specifically, we sought to identify potential subgroups of teachers characterized by different combinations of perceived clarity of development goals, assessment practices, conversational environment, shared responsibility, and student engagement in school development. In addition, we examined whether these differences were associated with (a) teachers’ professional roles (i.e., classroom teachers, subject teachers, special education teachers), (b) membership in the school’s leadership group, and (c) the size of the school.

RQ1. What kinds of profiles can be identified based on teachers’ perceptions of collaboration in school development in terms of clarity of the development goals, assessment practices, conversational climate, shared responsibility, and student engagement?

RQ2. Does the teacher’s role, i.e., whether they are classroom teachers, subject teachers or special education teachers, explain their belonging to a certain profile?

RQ3. Does the teacher’s role in a leadership group explain their belonging to a certain profile?

RQ4. Does the size of the school explain teachers’ belonging to a certain profile?

Context and Research Question

Collaborative professional learning is strongly linked to sustained changes in teaching practice, particularly when it is closely connected to classroom experience and supported by peer interaction (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Webster-Wright, 2009). Research on adult learning also highlights dialogue, reflection, and shared inquiry as central to professional growth, rather than the transmission of predefined knowledge (Knowles et al., 2015). Although these perspectives are well established, the specific processes by which collaboration generates professional learning remain underexplored, especially in contexts where organizational and cultural norms influence professional interaction.

The Indonesian educational context presents unique challenges and opportunities for collaborative professional development. Teacher professional development (TPD) in Indonesia has frequently been implemented through a cascade model of centrally designed programs that emphasizes standardization and scale (Tanang & Abu, 2014; Revina et al., 2020), resulting in predominantly top-down, one-off knowledge transmission. Professional relationships are further shaped by cultural norms, with seniority and formal roles influencing participation in professional spaces (Nilan, 2003). The scale of the education system, which serves approximately four million teachers, limits the feasibility of individualized support for teachers. Consequently, peer-based approaches are increasingly relevant. However, questions persist regarding how collaborative learning operates under these conditions and what factors enable it to become productive rather than merely procedural.

This study investigates collaborative learning processes within a seven-month TPD program focused on digital pedagogy involving twelve Indonesian secondary English teachers. The program consisted of six workshops that integrated structured collaborative activities, classroom experimentation between sessions, and collective reflection. As part of a broader doctoral research project, this study focuses on teachers’ experiences of collaboration and the construction of professional knowledge through peer interaction. Rather than presuming that collaboration inherently leads to learning, the study addresses the following research question:

How did teacher participants construct professional knowledge through peer collaboration? What conditions supported or hindered their collaborative learning?

Understanding these mechanisms is practically significant for designing professional development at scale. If peer collaboration can effectively support teacher learning, it represents a viable strategy for large-scale capacity building. The findings offer empirical evidence relevant to contexts that face similar challenges in developing teacher expertise through scalable and sustainable approaches

The study contributes to the ECER 2026 theme “Knowing and Acting” by examining how collaborative knowing emerges through interaction and how this knowing informs collective pedagogical action. By focusing on the mechanisms of collaboration, the study offers insight into how professional learning can be designed and sustained in large-scale education systems.

Theoretical Framework

This study draws on three theoretical perspectives. Communities of Practice theory conceptualizes professional learning as emerging through participation in shared practices within communities, emphasizing peer interaction as a primary learning mechanism (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998).

Collaborative knowledge construction theory emphasizes epistemic agency and the ways in which groups build understanding through the exchange and refinement of ideas (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). Dialogic learning theory highlights learning through interaction, where multiple perspectives are explored and pedagogical reasoning is made explicit (Alexander, 2018). This literature informs the analysis of how TPD collaborative structures shape knowledge construction in practice, even in contexts where hierarchical traditions might otherwise constrain peer collaboration.

Across all eight Australian education jurisdictions, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania, the Northern Territory, and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), personalised learning is formally embedded within policy frameworks, with each jurisdiction requiring teachers to provide tailored learning support. The Australian Curriculum’s CASE (Content, Abilities, Standards, and Evaluation) steps guide teachers in developing “learning programs based on the Australian Curriculum to meet their students’ diverse needs” (Australian Curriculum Version 9 – Steps to Personalised Learning). Despite these directives, teachers often struggle to reconcile the conceptual coherence among inclusive teaching, differentiation, and personalised learning when addressing equity for all learners (Scarparolo & Porta, 2025; Gunawardena et al., 2024).

Between 2021 and 2023, we collaborated with teachers in a school in the ACT to explore their approaches and understanding of personalised learning, a key objective in their five-year school improvement plan. Following interviews and focus group discussions with 12 teachers, we conducted ad hoc workshops for 80 teachers to help them navigate the complexity of personalised learning and foster innovation in their pedagogical practices. This sparked a strong interest among teachers to learn more and a desire to be creative within their specific learning areas; however, they expressed the need for expert support to refine their knowledge and skills.

From 2023 to 2025, we adopted a generative co-design approach that engaged critical friends (university researchers) and was guided by four tenets for professional learning and development: cultural adaptability, cohesion, sustainability, and teacher empowerment. Through this program, we worked with small groups of teachers across four key learning areas, supporting them in addressing classroom-based challenges and implementing personalised learning within their specific contexts. We analysed data from 23 co-design meetings between critical friends and teachers, 10 meetings conducted by critical friends, 20 teacher interviews from project participants, and selected learner artifacts.

The study revealed a significant transformation in teachers’ knowledge and understanding of personalised learning and its underlying purpose. This shift was not merely conceptual but also practical, influencing how teachers approached curriculum negotiation (Guanawardena et al., 2025) and classroom pedagogy. The transformation was facilitated through four interconnected social practices:

• Reconfiguration – Teachers restructured their existing pedagogical frameworks, integrating personalised learning principles into lessons and assessment strategies. This involved challenging traditional notions of uniformity and embracing flexibility to meet diverse learner needs.
• Humanising – Teachers developed a deeper appreciation for the individuality of learners, prioritising student voice, agency, and well-being. This practice fostered empathy and relational trust, positioning personalised learning as a means to enhance inclusivity and equity.
• Social Calibration – Collaborative dialogue among teachers and critical friends enabled the alignment of expectations, shared language, and common goals. Through iterative discussions, teachers negotiated meaning and refined their understanding of personalised learning within their specific contexts.
• Collective Innovation – Teachers engaged in co-design processes that encouraged experimentation and creativity. By working collaboratively, they generated novel strategies and resources, embedding personalised learning into authentic classroom practices.

These social practices collectively contributed to a cultural shift in the school, moving personalised learning from a policy mandate to a lived, teacher-driven approach that promotes equity and responsiveness.