Conference Agenda

Secondary teachers in Kazakhstan have pursued the realization of the Updated Curriculum since 2016 reform. The updated programme requires teachers to teach innovative content and differentiate it to meet the needs of every learner. The most widely-accepted definition of differentiated instruction (DI) belongs to Tomlinson (2017). DI is a way of teaching to reach diverse learners who have diverse needs and employ a variety of ways to engage them sin learning. Being aware of the students’ learning needs will prompt teacher’s instructional practices (Heacox, 2012). There is a variety of differentiated instruction models which mainly focus on differentiating the learning content, process and products (Tomlinson, 2000). Interestingly, Kazakhstani teachers tend to associate DI with the levels of task complexity, however, the discussed approach may provide a great variety of tools (Makoelle, 2020). An explanation for that may lie in the methodological recommendations from the National Academy of Education which monitored the implementation of the new curriculum and as a result issued recommendations. They recommend using levelled assignments from simple to advanced. The methodological recommendation state that Via DI teachers aim to include every learner in the process which makes the education process inclusive and is built on inclusive values. The spread of inclusive education philosophy has become a pushing factor to devise the principles of differentiated instruction and strategies of differentiated learning. Inclusive values are also among universal human values (UN General Assembly, 1948) that guarantee non-discrimination towards human nature. Further on, Booth and Ainscow (2016) underpin the significance of values in achieving school improvement as its driving force and name them “deep-seated beliefs” indicating their profound connection with human actions to create inclusive culture (p.11). They also conceptualized crucial inclusive values for education such as equity and equality, respect, community and collaboration, sustainability, participation and support. As teachers are more involved in the professional development paths and communities in their schools, they tend to welcome inclusive values and practices in such countries as the USA, Canada, Finland, Australia, India etc

The research explored how Kazakhstani teachers translated inclusive values in science classes to meet learners’ individual needs and constructed the link between values and pedagogy to respond to student diversity. Equity and equality are considered to be change-making values in the development of the inclusive school environment. The principles of equity in inclusive education regard the access to education, provision of quality conditions, such as space and pedagogies to enhance students’ growth and achieve more social justice in the society (UNESCO, 2017). Inclusive schools relate diversity to a wider range of human characteristics than merely ability, which means gender, age, culture, ethnicity, socio-economic background and religion. (Ainscow, 2007). Booth and Ainscow (2016) consider all kinds of support to be well-planned when peers learn from each other. And school support policy should embrace not only interaction among children, but also among teacher community to make sure they plan, teach and reflect collaboratively.

The main research question is: what are teachers’ perceptions towards inclusive values for implementing differentiated instruction in science lessons? Sub-questions:

What are science teachers’ perceptions towards inclusive vales in education?

What are science teachers’ perceptions towards DI?

What DI strategies are used for translating inclusive values in science classes?

What challenges do teachers face in DI implementation?

This research is a subset of a broader doctoral study examining conditions for education in second language education in Sweden. The first study examines teachers’ beliefs about teaching newly arrived students Swedish in middle school (Kuksa et. al, 2021) and the second study analyzes the content of L2 textbooks for newly arrived middle school students, as textbooks play a crucial role in shaping learning conditions, language development, and integration into Swedish society. This presentation is about the second study and the aim is to examine how the language development and needs of newly arrived middle school students are addressed in L2 textbooks by answering the following questions: a) What are the characteristics of the textbook content and tasks? b) Are certain reader constructs present in the textbooks, and if so, how can these be described? c) Do the textbooks reflect different beliefs about the Swedish as a Second language as a schoolsubject and if so, in what ways?

Previous studies have highlighted that the primary challenge in teaching newly arrived students is to develop a functional language through ability to speak and understand in daily life, while also building their proficiency in academic language (Cummins, 2000). Textbooks can be a useful resource in language education for, but the lack of resources and skills among teachers to provide explicit language instruction can result in an over-reliance on textbooks. However, L2 textbooks do not always align with the findings of successful second language development as identified by L2 research (Tomlinson, 2017) due to a lack of communication between theorists and practitioners and the use of specialized terminology in publications not accessible to teachers and textbook authors. This results in L2 textbooks providing plenty of activities like filling in blank spaces, transforming sentences, and practicing language under strict guidance. Often they do not provide opportunities to use the language in interactive, communicative activities that would encourage students to express their opinions and intentions (ref?).

The study draws on UNESCO's Agenda 2030, which places a strong emphasis on high-quality education for all as a key aspect in achieving a sustainable society. The theoretical point of departure for this study is Vygotsky's theory of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZDP) combined with the idea of the model reader as proposed by Eco (1979), which posits that the meaning of a text is not only determined by the author, but also by the reader and the context in which the text is read. The model reader is a hypothetical reader who is able to understand the text fully without any misinterpretations or ambiguities and is assumed to have all the necessary background knowledge, cultural references, and linguistic skills. According to Eco, every written text requires the author to create a mental image of the intended reader, which the author subsequently addresses through various linguistic strategies. This means that a textbook has certain expectations of its reader and assumes certain experiences, abilities, and prior knowledge of the intended reader. Relating this to Vygotsky's thoughts on ZPD, it could be argued that the ZPD of the intended model reader should be addressed in teaching materials in order to achieve successful L2 development.

A point of departure is also that all teaching materials convey a certain understanding of knowledge, students, and subject, and through the selection of content and the design of tasks, the Swedish language instruction for newly arrived students is conditioned. The concept of school subject perception, (p. x) or paradigm (as described by Malmgren, 1996), is used to explore how the content, intended readers, and task characteristics are represented in these materials.

Motivation is a critical determinant in student outcomes, including achievements (Vansteenkiste et al., 2009), well-being (Gagne et al., 2015; Ryan & Deci, 2017), creativity, and learning (Vansteenkiste et al., 2009). It influences whether an individual embraces the opportunity to learn or resists (Siegle et al., 2017, 2018), sustains oneself through failures or abandons the task (Subotnik et al., 2011) and reaches their potential or falls short (Siegle et al., 2017). It is a universal construct, meaning that it is essential for all students within the increasingly diverse classrooms that comprise schools today. Recent studies (e.g., Martin et al., 2017) suggest that no single motivation leads to substantial change and that different motivations relate in various ways to outcomes (e.g., well-being vs. ill-being [Ryan & Deci, 2017], creativity vs. uninspired thinking [Csikszentmihalyi et al., 2018], and vitality vs. fragmentation [Orsini et al., 2018]). This variation in student outcomes implies that educators must be familiar with various motivational constructs (Worrell, 2018) to develop adaptive motivational patterns in students. In other words, more motivation is not necessarily better if the motivation is poor quality and associated with detrimental outcomes (e.g., cheating, stress).

Additionally, it is essential to understand the combined effects of different types of motivation at the individual level (Litalien et al., 2019). For instance, self-determination theory posits that motivation comprises specific beliefs (interests, values, pressures, rewards) and a global self-determined motivation which may configure in ways to form patterns within individuals. Studies have examined motivational patterns (or profiles) across a range of contexts, including employment (Graves et al., 2015; Howard et al., 2021), university (Litalien et al., 2019), exercise (Lindwall et al., 2017) and school (Vansteenkiste et al., 2009). Findings suggest patterns of autonomous motivations (e.g., interests, values) are associated with better outcomes than controlled (e.g., ego, rewards, punishments) motivations. However, there is yet to be a clear answer on the benefits of a combined profile typified by autonomous and controlled motivations.

Additionally, most studies still need to integrate global and specific dimensions in research instead of focussing on specific motivations (i.e., interests, values, ego, rewards) at the expense of the global motivation (e.g., Corpus & Wormington, 2014) or vice versa (e.g., Ommundsen & Kvalø, 2007). An exception, Howard et al., (2021) simultaneously considered global and specific motivations and reported profiles that differed across each of these dimensions, with the global dimension representing the most influential factor in employee motivation. Thus, there remains a need to understand further the relative importance of global and specific motivations in characterising profiles and predicting student outcomes.

To the researcher’s knowledge, no studies have explored motivational profiles in a high-achieving population. Instead, there is an ipso facto assumption that high-achieving students are all highly motivated – a myth this study intends to address. Moreover, this study accounts for the dual nature of motivation proposed by self-determination theory to understand how high-achieving students differ quantitatively (global self-determination) and qualitatively (interest, value, ego, rewards). An area that remains unexplored. Surprisingly, few studies have explored motivational profiles at a domain-specific level (i.e., within a single subject), with most considering general motivations towards studying (e.g., Vansteenkiste et al., 2009) college (e.g., Litalien et al., 2019), or employment (e.g., Graves et al., 2015; Howard et al., 2021). Considering how motivational patterns are situated within a specific context is essential. One’s motivations towards science may differ from one’s motivations towards history, and this study intends to address this by investigating profiles within the context of science.

The following research questions emerged:

• Which motivational profiles emerge in high-achieving students?
• How do perceptions of the climate of the classroom predict motivational profiles?
• How do motivational profiles predict student engagement?

This paper reports on an exploratory secondary analysis of classroom observations to inquire patterns of instructional features. These features are explored within and between lesson segments to reveal patterns of instruction, which could provide further knowledge on didactical aspects of teaching and on internal structures of lessons. Insights into these patterns can serve as grounds for further exploration, both between different specific subject contexts and also across different school subjects. The paper aims to answer the following research question: What is the relationship between instructional features within and between different lesson segments.

Observation systems focus on specific dimensions of teaching to deepen understanding and improve teaching (Bell et al., 2019). Although wording, conceptualisation and instrumentalization differ between frameworks, common dimensions include aspects such as instructional clarity, cognitive activation, discourse features and supportive climate (Klette et al., 2017),. Cognitive activation, a concept used in several frameworks (Bell et al., 2019; Klette et al., 2017; Praetorius & Charalambous, 2018), includes practices that “encourage students to engage in higher-level thinking” (Lipowsky et al., 2009, p. 529) by utilizing appropriately challenging tasks, activating previous knowledge and students are expected to explain and challenge their reasoning (Praetorius et al., 2014). Instructional clarity is related to explanation of subject matter and includes aspects of modelling strategies and ways of working (Bell et al., 2019; Klette et al., 2017; Praetorius & Charalambous, 2018). This can be included in the way that Cohen (2018, p. 324) conceptualise explicit instruction as practices that “makes learning processes overt and clear with detailed models, strategies, and examples of the skills students are expected to demonstrate”.

The dimension of cognitive activation and instructional clarity (or degree of explicit instruction) are of special interest for this paper as they are identified to be important aspects of teaching quality, and part of core processes within and across school subjects, and salient in several frameworks. Comparative as well as specific subject didactic research has identified commonalities and differences within and between subjects (Cohen, 2018; Praetorius et al., 2014; Tengberg et al., 2021) regarding these dimensions. For cognitive activation, Praetorius et al. (2014) identified challenges in measuring. They underline the importance of further understanding since cognitive activation might be different depending on the stage of the instructional sequence, or whether it is as the start or end of a lesson. Thus, it is of importance to further explore how instructional features are related within lessons.

The Linking Instruction and Student Achievement (LISA) project is based on the four dimensions previously mentioned as a perspective on instructional quality (Klette et al., 2017). In the LISA-project, instructional features in classrooms was observed and rated following the Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observation (PLATO) protocol. PLATO revolves around four central domains which are divided into elements (see Grossman et al., 2014, 2015) of which the following are of interest for this paper: modelling (MOD), Strategy Use and Instruction (SUI), Feedback (FB), Intellectual Challenge (IC), Classroom Discourse (CD), Representations of Content (ROC), Connections to Prior Knowledge (CPK), Purpose (PUR). Additionally, the main instructional format was observed, distinguishing between whole class, group work, pair work and individual seat work. Cognitive Activation is mainly related to IC and CD whereas instructional clarity is related to MOD, SUI and ROC.