Multiculturalism and multilingualism enable the co-existence of several ethnolinguistic communities in Luxembourg, due in part to the country’s migration history and trilingual status. However, the resulting multilingual learning contexts do not reflect inclusion yet, as it is still to be perceived that not speaking the language of instruction at home can pose challenges to schooling (Siry, 2017; Loureiro, Hadjar, Scharf, & Grecu, 2019; Wilmes, Siry, Fernández, & Gorges, 2018).

In pre-primary and primary school, Luxembourgish, German and French are introduced in different stages within the system. In pre-primary school (ISCED 0), children are mainly exposed to Luxembourgish, as they are before the stage of knowing how to read and write. However, when children enter primary education (ISCED 1) and start to be alphabetized in German, they already have to learn science in German, highlighting diversity aspects to teachers and students.

As part of an ongoing PhD study, focused elementary teacher Continuous Professional Development for science education, this contribution aims to present data from the development of a workshop focusing on Science and Language as an example of the work done within the SciTeach Center at the University of Luxembourg, an umbrella school-university partnership (consisting of researchers and primary teachers), that aims to support primary science teacher professional development in Luxembourg.

Examining video recordings from team meetings, zooming in (Roth, 2005) into the topic of the Science & Language workshop development, we explore the data to answer these research questions:

1. What themes emerge? What unfoldings are bserved?
2. What are the inputs for the development of this workshop?
3. What challenges emerge? Which ones sustain?

By exploring how the team's existing collaborative structure of reflect-dialogue-act (Wilmes, Heesen, Siry, Kneip, & Heinericy, 2018), we are able to see patterns on the team's dynamics that unfolds different perspectives from the different members of the partnership (see also the work of Guerrero & Reiss, 2020).

Considering sociocultural perspectives and using qualitative research approaches to inquiry (Creswell & Poth, 2018), we use participatory research approaches (e.g., Bang & Vossoughi, 2016), as participants of the research include both researchers and collaborating teachers, and critical ethnography (Carspecken, 1996), considering the researcher's notes. By analyzing 11 video recording of team meetings (recorded from January 25th until Aug. 23rd, 2022), focusing on the team's discussion to support the development of the workshop about Science & Language, the analytic memos (Saldaña, 2015) outline several topics (such as school system structures, teamwork, collaboration elements, organization and distribution of the work, translanguaging, interdisciplinarity) that highlight the team collaborative structure reflect-dialogue-act. Layering this data onto the researcher's notes and the team's reflection pieces we use bricolage (Kincheloe, 2001) to retrace and unfold that collaborative structure.

Recommended by the European Commission (Rocard, 2007) and advocated by the members of the school-university partnership, data unveils the teamwork to support teacher professional development toward inquiry-base primary science education (Bybee, 2014). The work within the partnership unpacks the dimensions of a community of practice (Wenger, 1998/2005), the elements of distributed leadership (Woods, Bennett, Harvey, & Wise, 2004), the use of co- structures and multi- perspectives (based on the work of co-generative dialogues – Tobin, 2006; Tobin & Roth, 2005) and the ways the voices are heard (Tobin, 2007). We expect to collect more data directly with the workshop participants to note evidence the transfer of skills (Caffarella, 2002; Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006) and claim how school-university partnership can support sustainable teacher professional development.

Bang, M., & Vossoughi, S. (2016). Participatory design research and educational justice. Cognition and Instruction, 34(3), 173–193. Bybee, R. W. (2014). The BSCS 5E instructional model. Science and Children, 51(8), 10-13. Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research. Routledge. Creswell, J., & Poth, C. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design (4th Edition). Sage. Guerrero, G. R., & Reiss, M. J. (2020). Science outside the classroom: exploring opportunities from interdisciplinarity and research–practice partnerships. International Journal of Science Education, 42(9), 1522–1543. Kincheloe, J. L. (2001). Describing the Bricolage: Conceptualizing a New Rigor in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 7(6), 679–692. Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, J. (2006). Evaluating training programs: the four levels (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Loureiro, K. S., Hadjar, A., Scharf, J., & Grecu, A. (2019). Do students’ language backgrounds explain achievement differences in the Luxembourgish education system? Ethnicities, 19(6), 1202–1228. Rocard, M. (Chair) (2007). Science Education NOW: A Renewed Pedagogy for the Future of Europe. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Roth, W-M. (2005). Doing qualitative research: Praxis of method. Sense Publishers. Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage. Siry, C. (2017). The science curriculum at the elementary level: What are the basics, and are we teaching them? In L. Bryan & K. Tobin (Eds.), 13 Questions: Reframing Education's Conversation: Science (253–266). Peter Lang Publishing. Tobin, K. (2006). Learning to Teach Through Coteaching and Cogenerative Dialogue. Teaching Education, 17(2), 133–142. Tobin, K. (2007). Creating and sustaining productive research squads. In S. Ritchie (Ed.), Research collaboration: Relationships and praxis (43–58). Sense Publisher. Tobin, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2005). Implementing Coteaching and Cogenerative Dialoguing in Urban Science Education. School Science and Mathematics, 105(6), 313–322. Wenger, E. (1998/2005). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity (13th printing). Cambridge University Press. Wilmes, S. E. D., Heesen, K. te, Siry, C., Kneip, N., & Heinericy, S. (2018). The Role of Critical Reflexivity in the Professional Development of Professional Developers: a Co-Autoethnographic Exploration. Educação, 7(1), 13–24. Wilmes, S.E.D., Siry, C., Fernández, R. G., & Gorges, A. M. (2018b). Reconstructing Science Education within the Language| Science Relationship: Reflections from Multilingual Contexts. In L. Bryan and K. Tobin (Eds.), 13 Questions: Reframing Education's Conversation: Science (253–266). Peter Lang Publishing. Woods P., Bennett N., Harvey J., & Wise C. (2004). Variables and dualities in distributed leadership: Findings from a systematic literature review. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 32(4), 439–457.