Conference Agenda

This paper examines how teachers in Swedish compulsory schools understand and respond to the demands of their work when supporting students with complex academic, social, and emotional needs. It focuses on care and discretion as central features of everyday teaching, through which teachers exercise professional judgement, decide how far their responsibility extends, and sustain their capacity to remain in the profession over time. The study approaches care as a form of practical and moral work that develops through experience within specific organisational and policy conditions.

Across Europe, inclusive education policies have expanded teachers’ responsibilities, while increasing expectations, and resource constraints shape how these responsibilities can be realised in practice (Haug, 2017). Under such conditions, changes in teachers’ professional judgement, priorities, and sense of responsibility often emerge through situated decision-making. In Sweden, teachers are expected to translate broad national policy aims into classroom practice within a highly decentralised education system. Responsibility for inclusion and student wellbeing is widely distributed, while access to specialist support, planning time and resources varies substantially between schools (Westerholm & Lindqvist, 2024). As a result, teachers must continually decide which student needs can be prioritised, how deeply they can engage, and where limits must be drawn. These decisions shape how teachers’ professional roles and orientations take form over time.

The paper draws theoretically on Nel Noddings’ ethics of care (2013) and Michael Lipsky’s theory of street-level bureaucracy (2010). From an ethics of care perspective, teaching involves attentiveness and moral responsiveness to students’ lived realities and is sustained through ongoing relational work. From a street-level bureaucracy perspective, teachers are viewed as frontline public servants who must exercise discretion in interpreting policy, allocating time and emotional energy, thus, prioritising needs under conditions of scarcity and ambiguity (Taylor, 2007). Bringing these perspectives together, the study uses the term discretionary care to capture the routine, judgemental labour through which teachers translate ethical attention into feasible action within organisational constraints. This framing gives attention to the conditions under which teachers’ professional judgement occurs and highlights how boundary-setting, emotional regulation, and prioritisation are practiced and shaped by organisational context.
The aim of this study is to show how teachers come to recognise limits, adjust their engagement with students, and develop ways of working that allow care to be sustained over time. The study addresses the following research questions:

1) How do teachers understand the responsibilities in their professional role for meeting the diverse needs of students?

2) What do teachers’ narratives reveal about the relationship between discretion, care and the structural conditions in the school environment?

3) How do teachers narrate their experiences of balancing care and discretion in their everyday work with students’ academic, social, and emotional needs?

The European relevance of the study lies in its contribution to understanding how teachers’ professional judgement and practices of care are shaped within inclusive education systems in decentralised contexts, highlighting how everyday organisational conditions and expanding expectations structure teachers’ capacity to negotiate responsibility, sustain care, and remain in the profession over time. By conceptualising care as a discretionary and relational practice, the study offers an analytical lens for examining how teachers navigate tensions between ethical commitments and organisational constraints. In doing so, it shifts attention away from individual resilience towards the institutional conditions under which care can be sustained as part of teachers’ professional work. The findings, thus, contribute to European debates on inclusion, teacher professionalism, and teach workload by foregrounding the everyday labour through which inclusive education is enacted.

Over the past two decades, shifts in the production and circulation of scientific knowledge have transformed universities from sites of knowledge transmission internationally. The growing dominance of English in academic publishing and increased student and researcher mobility have encouraged higher education institutions not only to teach English as a foreign language but also to adopt it as a medium of instruction for content courses (Wächter & Maiworm, 2014). For many countries, English is viewed as a key resource for international collaboration and scientific visibility. At the same time, the expanding role of English in academia has raised critical debates from cultural, linguistic, and pedagogical perspectives (Airey, 2020).

The expansion of English-Medium Instruction (EMI) in Europe accelerated following the Bologna Process, as universities began to adopt English strategically to enhance student mobility and align programs with international standards (Breetvelt, 2018). Since the late 1990s, the number of English-taught programs has increased substantially, with similar trends reported beyond Europe (Kirkpatrick, 2017). While EMI has strengthened universities’ international profiles and widened access to global academic resources, it has also introduced significant pedagogical challenges for both students and instructors.

The benefits and challenges of EMI are well documented. While students may gain access to international academic resources, develop academic English skills, and enhance future employability (Ahmed, 2025; Phuong & Nguyen, 2019), EMI has also been associated with comprehension difficulties, reduced classroom participation, and lower academic performance (Lasagabaster, 2025). From the instructor perspective, challenges include limited linguistic resources, difficulty explaining complex concepts, reduced interaction, and uncertainty in assessment practices (Airey, 2020; Helm & Guarda, 2015). To address these challenges, lecturers may engage in pedagogical strategies such as code-switching to the first language (Sánchez García, 2018), which can support comprehension (Pun, 2023) but may be constrained by institutional English-only policies. Overall, research suggests that effective EMI depends not solely on language choice but on pedagogical competence and institutional support.

In response, most institutions have introduced professional development (PD) initiatives for EMI lecturers. However, existing PD programmes largely reflect institutional or teacher-centred perspectives and tend to focus on language proficiency and general teaching techniques, which may not fully prepare lecturers for the pedagogical demands of EMI (Dafouz & Smit, 2020). While such initiatives are essential, they often overlook how students experience EMI teaching and how instructional practices shape students’ access to learning.

Research on student voice and inclusive pedagogy highlights students’ unique position in providing insights into teaching quality, learning conditions, and inclusion. Student voice scholarship conceptualises learners not merely as evaluators of teaching but as legitimate contributors to knowledge about educational processes, particularly in relation to participation, recognition, and equity (Cook-Sather, 2006; Bovill & Woolmer, 2019). From an inclusive education perspective, teaching quality is closely linked to students’ access to learning opportunities, their ability to participate meaningfully, and the extent to which classroom practices respect linguistic and cultural diversity.

This study reframes EMI lecturer professional development through student experiences, using inclusive pedagogy as an analytical lens. with the following research questions: (1) How do students describe their learning experiences in EMI courses with regard to language use, pedagogy, interaction, and classroom climate? (2) Which EMI teaching practices do students identify as enabling or constraining their access to learning and participation? (3) How can student-identified experiences be translated into design-relevant implications for inclusive professional development for EMI lecturers? The primary aim is to explore how student perspectives can contribute to a more inclusive and pedagogically grounded understanding of EMI lecturer PD.

Since independence in 1962, the Medium of Instruction (MOI) in the Rwanda education system has shifted multiple times. In 2008, a cabinet resolution from the Rwandan Ministry of Education announced a shift to English as the language of instruction from lower primary school onwards (Government of Rwanda, 2008; MINEDUC, 2019). This transition has posed significant challenges for both teachers and learners due to limited English proficiency (Sibomana, 2022). For example, only 38% of primary school teachers met the required English standard for teaching in 2018 (World Bank, 2018). Likewise, nearly 90% of grade 3 students have been found unable to read and understand a grade-level text in English (UNICEF, 2014). Consequently, Kinyarwanda remains the predominant language used in classroom interactions (UNESCO, 2022). A recent situational analysis concluded that accelerated improvement in teachers’ English proficiency is needed to enable teachers to effectively support learning in the official MOI (UNICEF, 2024). The 2024 Foundational Learning Strategy also highlights that teachers need ‘sufficient fluency in English, good subject matter knowledge, continuing professional development and support, and access to resources’ (MINEDUC, 2024: 8).

In 2023, the British Council launched the Secondary Teachers’ English Language Improvement Rwanda programme (STELIR), funded by the Mastercard Foundation and implemented with the Rwanda Basic Education Board (REB). STELIR aims to strengthen the English language proficiency of both in-service and pre-service teachers across all subjects through blended learning, including: intensive face-to-face sessions led by English Teacher Trainers, online sessions (including self-study and live sessions on Webex) led by international e-trainers and eTeacher/Moderators, and school-based professional development sessions supported by school-based mentors (British Council, 2024).

In 2024, Ecctis was commissioned to assess the procedural implementation quality of STELIR’s online component through an equity and inclusion lens. The study explored in-service and pre-service teachers’ experiences of participating in STELIR’s online provision, with particular attention to in-service and pre-service women teachers and in-service teachers with disabilities. A focus on teachers with visual impairments, was chosen since visual impairment is the most prevalent disability type in Rwanda (NISR, 2023). The analysis was informed by Moser’s (1993) gendered triple‑role framework and Oliver’s (2004) social model of disability, enabling the study to examine teachers’ experiences through both gender and disability perspectives.

Given that little is still known about how different groups of teachers – particularly women teachers and teachers with visual impairments – experience blended CPD models, despite their growing use in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and beyond, this study contributes to the emerging literature on equity and inclusion in digital learning environments. Our presentation will report and analyse key themes emerging from interviews, focus groups, and surveys with these groups, drawing lessons for future research, programme design, and practice. In total, 110 participants were engaged through interviews and focus groups, alongside 192 participants who contributed via online and paper surveys. By integrating gender and disability frameworks into an evaluation of blended CPD in a low-resource setting, the study offers one of the few empirically grounded analyses of digital teacher professional development in SSA that foregrounds equity and inclusion.

The study centred around four research questions:
1. What barriers do women teachers and teachers with visual impairments face in participating in blended CPD, and how can these best be addressed?
2. What is the perceived quality and value of the STELIR blended CPD experience, including the extent to which all participants are treated equitably?
3. In a culture where face-to-face interaction is preferred, what effect does the introduction of remote forms of learning have on engagement in CPD programmes? How well do teachers, particularly women teachers and teachers with visual impairments, adjust to this new learning modality?

Confronted with the need to bridge the divide between academic research and school reality, teacher-led research has been placed at the core of many professional learning (PL) initiatives. Diverse forms and models of research-related practices have been implemented globally, such as in the US, UK, Finland, Sweden, China and Australia (e.g., Dunn et al., 2019; Goodnough, 2010; Huang et al., 2025; Lewis, 2016). This represents a transformative shift from passive and top-down training towards collaborative, practice-oriented and enquiry-based designs, which empowers teachers to take ownership of their professional practices by integrating learning, practice and research (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2015; Putnam & Borko, 1997).

Despite the significance of teacher research and its worldwide implementation, significant challenges persist that hinder its effectiveness. A primary problem lies in teachers’ insufficient research-related literacy due to the absence of formal training, specifically regarding the employment of theories, data collection and analysis. This not only hinders the quality of teacher research but also undermines their motivation to conduct research (Berger et al., 2005). This problem is rooted in initial teacher education, where pre-service teachers report inadequate preparation for their enquiry efforts and writing requirements before their capstone projects (Van Katwijk et al., 2022). To address this challenge, efforts have been made to support teachers in doing research through different types of research-related learning activities, ranging from competence development to the introduction of current research findings (Healey & Jenkins, 2009; Van Katwijk et al., 2022). Although these initiatives facilitate the development of teachers’ research-related knowledge and skills, teachers continue to encounter complex contradictions throughout their research processes, which act as both constraints and affordances for their professional learning (Huang et al., 2021, 2025).

Therefore, this study aims to characterise language teachers’ professional learning through a teacher research programme supported by university scholars, with a specific focus on the contradictions that occur during their research processes, and how these contradictions hinder or facilitate their professional learning. Three key research questions involve: (i) What contradictions emerge during language teachers’ research processes? (ii) In what ways do these contradictions manifest as barriers or affordances for teachers’ research? (iii) How do the solutions of these contradictions shape language teachers’ professional learning?

Adopting an expansive learning perspective, this study conceptualises teacher professional learning in the context of teacher research as a process of “expansion” across interactive activity systems. Within this framework, contradictions within and across the activity systems constitute the fundamental driving force of expansive transformation. Rather than equivalent to problems or conflicts in the traditional sense, contradictions refer to the structural tensions that occur within or between all components within or across different activity systems that can bring about changes and development (Engeström, 2001).

These contradictions are inherently dynamic and continue emerging, as the adoption of new elements within an activity system often brings about new forms of contradictions between the new elements and the old ones. Engeström and colleagues (2001; 2010) identified four types of contradictions: (i) primary contradiction within any components of an activity system; (ii) secondary contradiction between two or more components within a single activity system; (iii) tertiary contradiction across activity systems; (iv) quaternary contradiction between an activity system and external systems.