Conference Agenda

Teaching in today’s dynamic landscape is marked by complexity (Parsons, 2012). With evolving curricula, emerging organisational systems, and escalating demands for continuous adaptation, educators are compelled to constantly assess their professional growth in the realms of learning, teaching, and knowledge (Hammond & Bransford, 2007). Consequently, adaptive expertise has become fundamental to effective teaching (Hatano & Iganaki, 1988; Vogt & Rogalla, 2009). Pedagogical adaptivity entails tailoring lesson assignments to match learners' cognitive levels, facilitating their progression within their zone of proximal development (König et al., 2020), achieved through preplanned or spontaneous adjustments (Beltramo, 2017).

Adaptive teachers are exemplary in their teaching (Soslau, 2012) and possess pedagogical content knowledge that is flexible and creatively employed in instruction (Hattie, 2012). Within this construct teachers use a range of cognitive, motivational strategies, and identity components to adapt their practice (Crawford et al., 2005). However, classrooms present unpredictable landscapes, with students from diverse backgrounds, cultures, and experiences, as well as varying proficiencies, interests, and abilities (Parsons et al., 2018). Adaptive experts prioritise the impact of their methods on these students, seeking new skills and knowledge when their routines prove ineffective (Timperley, 2011), thereby selecting innovative strategies to accommodate diverse contexts (Vagle, 2016). Consequently, pedagogical adaptability is an ongoing, contextual, and multifaceted process (ibid.).

During periods of change, external factors like curricular reform can disrupt a teacher’s pedagogical adaptivity. In such swiftly evolving environments, adaptivity—characterised by flexibility, reflexivity, and innovation—is pivotal for navigating change (Tan et al., 2017).

The scholarly literature suggests that a teacher's disposition is fundamental to their pedagogical adaptivity. The capacity for effective and thoughtful adaptivity is closely intertwined with teachers' beliefs, vision, sense of belonging, and identity (Fairbanks et al., 2010). Fairbanks et al. (2010) delineate a thoughtful adaptive teacher as one possessing both declarative and procedural knowledge, as well as conditional knowledge. They comprehend not only the what and how of teaching but also possess a profound understanding of the most efficacious instructional approaches tailored to the intricate needs of their students (Ankrum et al., 2020; König et al., 2020). When teachers possess a clear awareness of their beliefs, a guiding vision for their practice, a sense of belonging, and can envision identities for both themselves and their students, they are more likely to exhibit thoughtful adaptivity and thereby become more effective educators (Fairbanks et al., 2010).

Through this lens this study adopts an interpretive epistemological stance to investigate the impact of curricular reform at the lower secondary level in Ireland on teachers' vision, beliefs, sense of belonging, and identity, and consequently, how this affects their agentic capacity to use pedagogical adaptivity within a classroom. The research specifically focuses on in-service teachers working within immersive Irish language contexts across the Republic of Ireland. The objective is to explore the pedagogical adaptivity of these teachers, examining their characteristics and assessing how intrinsic and extrinsic factors influence their ability to address the diverse needs of their students during periods of change.

Strong expectations are associated with education in terms of preparing the next generation for social and technological change. Globally, curriculum documents are therefore being reviewed/revised (or developed where they have not yet existed) at the national level. In previous decades, however, curriculum changes were investigated mainly at the school level. My goal is to contribute to knowledge about the meso curriculum making (meso level) and its research reflection – for definition of site of activities in curriculum making see Priestley et al. (2021, p. 13).

The Czech curriculum for primary education and lower secondary education is currently being reviewed, too. In my doctoral research I analyse this process using case study conducted on the meso curriculum making. In continental Europe (as well as in the Czech republic) there is typical to have commissions (or committees) selected by the state which are reviewing national curriculum (Sivesind & Westbury, 2016).

We want to determine causal processes in physics (science education is divided into physics, chemistry and biology in the Czech Republic) subject curriculum committee because these processes appear to be under‑theorized (Dvořák, 2023). That is why we think about our case study “as the opportunity to shed empirical light on some theoretical concepts or principles” (Yin, 2018, p. 38).

Main research question of case study is “How is the process of curriculum review at the meso level in the Czech Republic carried out?”. Some possible theoretical frameworks have been already identified. The theoretical framework is based on curriculum making, which changes the understanding from ‘level’ (e. g. school or teacher) to ‘social practices‘ (e. g. production of resources) (Priestley et al., 2021). Other models describing the process of curriculum making/reviewing include Curriculum Design Coherence Model (Rata, 2021) or Modelling of Curriculum (Hajerová Műllerová & Slavík, 2020). The question arises whether and how are these models being applied.

To expand already found theories and models I have conducted a literature review. In this review I am going to looking for curriculum theories or models used on meso level in reviewing science education (ISCED levels 1–3). My goal is to continue in a work of my colleagues from Charles University in Prague (Žák & Kolář, 2018). They found in primary studies very strong criticism of traditional approach to curriculum. On the other hand, they also identified innovative approaches (e. g. Active Physics) as a reaction on traditional approach.

The main research question of the literature review is “How is the processes of curriculum reviews for primary and secondary science education at the meso level being researched or described recently?”. More specific research questions focus on 1) terminology used to describe processes; 2) theoretical frameworks of researchers; 3) research study designs. According to number of founded studies I will restrict these questions by more criteria.

The theory and theoretical propositions in case studies can be helpful in defining the appropriate research design and data to be collected. Therefore, this literature review aims to find theoretical as well as methodological aspects of studies on curriculum reviews. Based on these findings I can better develop propositions (“qualitative hypotheses”) to be examined through the case study. At the same time, I want to contribute to discovering the terminology related to curriculum reviewing/making, which appears to be inconsistent.

The adoption of Active Methodologies (AM) in higher education is strongly recommended for preparing students to live and work in the 21st century (Michael, 2006). In this sense, the European University Association (2019) indicates that promoting active learning in universities is fundamental, given the role of these institutions in training critical, creative and collaborative citizens and professionals, capable of contributing to a complex and ever-changing world. Active learning should therefore be part of universities' strategies to fulfil their social mission and promote education geared towards sustainable development. In addition, various studies have shown that student-centred teaching approaches are more effective than passive, teacher-centred teaching approaches (Freeman et al., 2014; Hsieh, 2013; Michael, 2006).

Active learning consists of involving students in activities that encourage them to reflect on ideas and how they are applied when speaking, listening, writing, reading and/or reflecting (Hsieh, 2013; Michael, 2006). It also implies students being consciously involved in the process of constructing, testing and refining their mental models while dealing with problems, challenges or concepts in a particular discipline (Freeman et al., 2014; Michael, 2006). From this perspective, teachers are charged with acting as facilitators or mediators of learning and students present a participatory and central role in the pedagogical process.

This understanding has led universities to invest in the development of learning environments that support the adoption of Active Methodologies. In this sense, Flexible Learning Spaces (FLS) have emerged, i.e. innovative environments intentionally designed to promote the implementation of AM and collaborative pedagogical approaches (Van Horne & Murniati, 2016). Corroborating this definition, the authors Li et al. (2019) understand these spaces to be physical classrooms geared towards the development of active learning processes, in combination with advanced forms of educational technology and flexible furniture, to provide personalised and dialogical learning experiences.

This situation makes the implementation of FLS widely indicated and considered as one of the main trends in technological strategies to be adopted in higher education currently (European University Association, 2019). This orientation has led several Portuguese universities to invest in FLS in recent years. Given this scenario, there is a need to train university teachers to work in these spaces. This is because the structuring of Flexible Learning Spaces alone is not enough to guarantee the implementation of pedagogical practices centred on students' active learning. The teaching and learning process needs to be explicitly geared towards taking advantage of the pedagogical potential of the space (Becker et al., 2018). Furthermore, different studies have reported barriers faced by professors in the use of FLS, which may have an impact on their choice to continue using transmissive teaching methods or even choose not to adopt this type of space in their work (MacLeod et al., 2018; Van Horne & Murniati, 2016; Wetzel & Farrow, 2023).

The aim of this research is therefore to develop, implement and evaluate a training model for higher education teachers that promotes the critical and reflective adoption of Active Methodologies in Flexible Learning Spaces. To this end, the first phase of the research sought to identify and systematise the training principles that should guide this model, based on the following research questions:

Q1. What assumptions should guide the training of higher education teachers to adopt Active Methodologies in their classes?

Q2. When specifically considering the implementation of Active Methodologies in Flexible Learning Spaces, what premises should guide the training processes for higher education teachers in these spaces?