Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 8th Sept 2026, 23:20:25 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
99 ERC SES 03 F: Negotiating Trajectories in Curriculum
Paper Session
| ||
    | ||
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper Continuity in Transition: Comparing Practices across School Types University of Padova, Italy Presenting Author:It is widely recognised that the early years of life lay the foundation for future development and learning abilities. For this reason, it is necessary to ensure a gradual and continuous transition between the different stages of the educational pathway in order to promote harmonious development and sustain the learning gains achieved in early childhood (OECD, 2017). The concept of transition is closely linked to “school readiness”, understood as children’s preparation for primary education. In the international debate, this concept has been increasingly questioned as a unidimensional construct focused solely on children’s skills. More recent studies adopt a holistic approach, emphasising that readiness concerns not only children, but also schools and families (Bruner, Floyd & Copeman, 2005). Readiness should not be limited to “ready children” but should also include “ready schools” and “ready families” (UNICEF, 2012). This highlights the need for continuity practices that address educational environments and relationships. Educational continuity can be defined as the set of strategies and educational practices aimed at these goals, implemented through projects that promote dialogue and pedagogical mediation during transitions. It is considered a structural principle of the right to education at the European level, as stated in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (art. 14, 2000). Continuity is often discussed in relation to the concept of transition. The transition between ECEC and primary school is defined as a critical moment of change that requires collaborative pedagogical practices, aligned curricula, and attention to children’s experiences in order to sustain the benefits of early education (OECD, 2017). The term “transition” is not widely used in Italy and is often replaced by “continuity”. In Italy, continuity is assumed as a normative and foundational principle structuring the educational system, and it is mentioned in key educational policy documents (e.g., National Guidelines, Pedagogical Guidelines for the Integrated 0–6 System). Despite the strong pedagogical principles established, continuity manifests itself in very different forms. The practical implementation of continuity varies across the Italian context. On the one hand, it depends on schools’ choices and resources, as well as on leadership decisions and teachers’ engagement. On the other hand, it faces the constant risk of sliding into a mere bureaucratic drift, transforming a moment of educational reflection into a sterile administrative task (Balduzzi, 2021). This variability reflects different interpretations of educational continuity, which remain underexplored. This raises the question of how continuity is actually understood and enacted in everyday school practices. The present study aims to explore teachers' conceptions and declared practices of educational continuity, examining whether and how these differ across educational contexts and school levels in Italy. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used A semi-structured questionnaire was developed (Piccioli, 2019). The survey aimed to identify patterns across broader contexts (González-Moreira, A., Ferreira, C., & Vidal, J., 2023) and to map the distribution of continuity practices identified during the interviews, analysing these practices in relation to different types of schools and identifying patterns and differences across contexts. The structure of the survey combined closed-ended questions, multiple-choice questions, and open-ended questions. The first section of the survey collected professional and contextual information about the participants. The second section investigated teachers’ conceptions of educational continuity. The third section focused on continuity practices implemented by schools, including tools used, activities carried out, and the timing and forms of continuity practices. The fourth section addressed the roles and forms of participation of the different actors involved in the transition process: children, teachers, and families. Finally, the questionnaire included open-ended questions allowing participants to share personal reflections and examples of significant practices. The survey was administered online to nearly 400 preschool and primary school teachers in the Veneto Region, Italy. Participants worked in public schools, state-recognised private schools, and schools adopting specific pedagogical approaches (e.g. Montessori, Reggio Emilia-inspired, and Waldorf). Participation in the questionnaire was voluntary and anonymous. Participants provided informed consent. Anonymity was ensured, and data were handled in accordance with GDPR requirements. Responses were analysed in relation to school type and educational level, with the aim of identifying differences, convergences, and recurring configurations of practices. The findings are described in the next paragraph. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The questionnaire identified two main categories of educational continuity. Using the terminology proposed by Balduzzi (2021), these two categories can be described as “tools for building networks and alliances” (such as meetings between teachers, assemblies, and interviews with parents) and “tools for designing and implementing activities” (such as shared projects between schools and operational tools). The data reveal a gap between declared conceptions and enacted practices. High levels of agreement emerged regarding core conceptions of continuity, particularly the importance of sharing educational visions, building a vertical curriculum, and defining common goals. However, informative, organisational, and guidance-oriented practices are more widespread, while forms of active participation, co-design, and shared reflection remain less consolidated. Family engagement appears to be predominantly understood as school-to-family communication rather than active participation, and children's involvement tends to be oriented towards listening to their experiences rather than more active forms of co-construction. The most relevant differences emerged between preschool and primary school teachers. Preschool teachers tend to interpret continuity in relational and pedagogical terms, emphasising everyday educational processes and children's involvement. Primary school teachers show greater attention to readiness, adaptation, and family-oriented practices during the transition. Schools adopting specific pedagogical approaches do not appear as radically alternative models, but show some differences in their pedagogical conceptions of continuity and in the attention attributed to family involvement. In conclusion, the findings suggest that educational continuity is recognised for its value but enacted differently in school practices. Continuity should be understood as a context-dependent pedagogical process shaped by institutional cultures, professional practices, and educational orientations. An important implication emerging from this study is that continuity activities should not concern only teachers and families but also involve children. As Fabian and Dunlop (2007) argue, transitions should support children’s agency, recognising them as agents of change rather than subjects of transition. References Balduzzi, L. (2021). Pronti per cosa? Innovare i servizi e la scuola dell’infanzia a partire dalle pratiche di continuità educativa. FrancoAngeli. Bruner, C., Floyd, S., & Copeman, A. (2005). Seven things policymakers need to know about school readiness: Revised and expanded toolkit. Des Moines, IA: State Early Childhood Policy Technical Assistance Network. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000). Official Journal of the European Communities, C 364, 18 December 2000. Fabian, H., & Dunlop, A. W. (2007). Outcomes of good practice in transition processes for children entering primary school. The Hague, Netherlands: Bernard van Leer Foundation. González-Moreira, A., Ferreira, C., & Vidal, J. (2023). Review on research methods for studying transition from early childhood education to primary education. Education Sciences, 13(3), 254. OECD (2017). Starting Strong V: Transitions from Early Childhood Education and Care to Primary Education. OECD Publishing. Piccioli, M. (2019). Educational research and mixed methods: Research designs, application perspectives, and food for thought. Studi sulla Formazione, 22(2), 423–438. UNICEF (2012). School readiness: A conceptual framework. New York, NY: United Nations Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’UE, 2000. 99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper Challenges to the Enactment and Sustainability of Curriculum Negotiation The Uiniversity of Melbourne, Australia Presenting Author:Currently, there are calls for approaches that honour student agency and support the development of 21st century skills to reflect the ever-changing society in which we live (Bron et al., 2022; Green, 2021; Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development [OECD], 2019). Student agency is evident in education policies globally and is explicitly featured within the OECD Learning Compass 2030. The placement of student agency at the basis of this framework demonstrates its global and future-focused importance. The OECD describes agency as students “acting rather than being acted upon” as they “play an active role in deciding what and how they will learn” through “co-construction” of learning with their teachers (2019, p. 1). Despite this strong endorsement, education researchers assert that there are barriers to the enactment of student agency in schools and a paucity of empirical accounts on how co-construction of learning can be realised. This presentation draws on the findings of a study conducted in Melbourne Australia, where student agency was investigated in the form of negotiating the curriculum. Boomer (1992) articulated negotiating the curriculum as a pedagogical process where teachers purposefully plan to co-construct the learning journey with students. The curriculum is then a “jointly enacted composition” (p. 32). In doing so, the traditional power that operates in a classroom is redistributed and the curriculum is undertaken as a process, termed as “curriculuming” (p.32). When curriculuming occurs, students are positioned as active co-creators of curriculum rather than passive recipients, aligning closely with current policy rhetoric and the OECD’s conceptualisation of student agency. While Boomer’s ideas provide a process for curriculum co-construction to occur, they have not been widely adopted in mainstream schooling. Despite this, education researchers continue to write about the importance of his theoretical principles on teaching and learning (eg. Brennan, 2022; Bron et al., 2022; Green, 2022; Mockler, 2018). Within the current educational policy landscape, curriculum negotiation provides a way to support teachers in co-constructing learning with students. However, these aspirational ideas currently sit within a broader global policy environment shaped by the Global Education Reform Movement (GERM) (Sahlberg, 2023). GERM is signified by neoliberal logics of standardisation, datafication and quasi-marketisation that have intensified accountability and narrowed conceptions of curriculum and pedagogy (Sahlberg, 2023). GERM’s effects in Australia have been widely documented (Lingard et al., 2017; Mockler & Groundwater-Smith, 2018; Mockler & Stacey, 2021) and the rise of instrumentalist discourses and reductionist approaches to teaching and learning because of these global trends can present significant challenges to curriculum negotiation. Within the context of this study, student agency is referenced in key curriculum and policy documents at state and national levels, signalling alignment with global priorities and potential opportunities for curriculum negotiation. However, these are mediated by assessment regimes, accountability frameworks, and public perception which can either enable or constrain opportunities for curriculuming with students. Against this backdrop, this study investigated how a primary school enacted and sustained a negotiated curriculum for over 25 years, and what supported or challenged this important work. The presentation will summarise findings regarding the tensions teachers and leaders navigate in reconciling negotiated approaches with policy and accountability requirements, particularly in today’s policy landscape. Possible implications for supporting student agency in policy and practice will be illuminated. Given the international attention to student agency and the current global impact of GERM, this situation may resonate with education researchers in other contexts. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study investigated the research question: How does a whole school enact and sustain the process of negotiating the curriculum by ‘curriculuming’ with students? A social constructivist epistemology and relativist ontology was adopted to explore subjective meanings of participants (Guba & Lincoln, 2018). Qualitative methods were used to garner a deep understanding of multiple perspectives from participants (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Cohen et al., 2018). The study design comprised two phases. In Phase 1, semi structured expert interviews were conducted via Zoom to provide an orientation to the field and triangulate later findings. Experts were selected using criteria which included their teaching experience, commitment to curriculuming, and influence on teacher practice. Phase 2 was an instrumental case study undertaken at a primary school that was chosen purposively based on its 25year history of negotiated, inquirybased integrated curriculum. The data collection methods consisted of collating school documents, observations, and interviews with leadership staff, teachers, and students to explore their real-world lived experiences and perspectives on how negotiating the curriculum is enacted and sustained over time. Data analysis was conducted using an iterative, inductive thematic approach (Braun & Clarke, 2022). Four major themes were identified as having an impact on the enactment and sustainability of negotiating the curriculum. These will be connected to sample data and explored in this presentation: *the impact of standardised testing and practices linked to GERM; *the effect of curriculum negotiation on teacher workload and time; *the influence of persistent myths and the media; *the power of the traditional grammar of schooling. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The findings from this study indicate that opportunities for negotiating the curriculum are dependent upon the beliefs, dispositions and actions of teachers and school leaders. Teacher agency emerged as a key enabler of curriculum negotiation, contributing to a supportive school culture that can sustain these practices over time. The evidence also suggests that traditional educational practices and power dynamics, which position teachers over students and systems over teachers, are pervasive and continue to challenge both teacher and student agency. Notably, the study indicates that the current policy climate, dominated by performative accountability and standardisation associated with GERM, has generated negative public discourse around progressive approaches and can erode teacher professional judgement and autonomy. The findings highlight that school leadership plays a pivotal role in mediating these pressures, buffering staff from external demands and creating conditions in which curriculuming with students is possible. The study concludes that if policy makers value the inclusion of student agency, contradictions between espoused aims and other policy mechanisms that constrain agency at all levels need to be addressed. This study provides an important exploration into understanding how negotiating the curriculum offers a concrete way to position students as co-constructors of their learning while demonstrating that this requires the professional judgement and agency of teachers are actively recognised, protected and supported. References Boomer, G. (1992). Curriculum composing and evaluating: An invitation to action research. In G. Boomer, N. Lester, C. Onore, & J. Cook (Eds.), Negotiating the curriculum: Educating for the 21st century (pp. 32–45). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203975381 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE. Brennan, M. (2022). Teachers and students as researchers: Rebuilding curriculum inquiry for the future. Curriculum Perspectives, 42(1), 85–89. Bron, J., Bovill, C., & Veugelers, W. (2022). Students experiencing and developing democratic citizenship through curriculum negotiation: The relevance of Garth Boomer’s approach. Curriculum Perspectives, 42(1), 39–49. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge. Creswell, J., & Creswell J. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed). SAGE. Green, B. (2021). Re-negotiating the curriculum? Curriculum Perspectives, 41(2), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297–021–00143–7 Green, B. (2022). Understanding curriculum as practice, or on the practice turn(s) in curriculum inquiry. Curriculum Perspectives, 42(1), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297–022–00160–0 Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (2018). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln, Y (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1-26). SAGE. Lingard, B., Sellar, S., & Lewis, S. (2017). Accountabilities in schools and school systems. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Mockler, N. (2018). Curriculum integration in the twenty-first century: Some reflections in the light of the Australian curriculum. Curriculum Perspectives, 38, 129–136. Mockler, N., & Groundwater-Smith, S. (2018). Questioning the language of improvement and reform in education: Reclaiming meaning. Routledge. Mockler, N., & Stacey, M. (2021). Evidence of teaching practice in an age of accountability: When what can be counted isn’t all that counts. Oxford Review of Education, 47(2), 170–188. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2019). OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 Conceptual Learning Framework: Student Agency for 2030. Sahlberg, P. (2023). Trends in global education reform since the 1990s: Looking for the right way. International Journal of Educational Development, 98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2023.102748 99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper Academic and Professional Orientation of Degree Programs in Higher Education Palacky University Olomouc, Czech Republic (Czechia) Presenting Author:Higher education worldwide is undergoing significant transformation, driven by massification (Trow, 1970, 1972, 1973; Pabian, 2008) and increasing expectations regarding graduate practical skills. Higher education institutions face the challenge of balancing academic knowledge with professional preparation to produce work-ready graduates (Gardner & Perry, 2023). Across countries, government policies and labor market needs promote transferable skills such as problem-solving, critical thinking, and communication. Work-Integrated Learning (WIL), which has become a prominent feature of higher education over the past two decades (Ferns et al., 2025, p. 371), provides a pedagogical framework for integrating professional experience into curricula. In this context, it is essential to examine how different degree program profiles are reflected in curricula and how these choices influence graduates’ professional preparedness. In several national contexts, including the Czech Republic, these debates have been institutionalized through formal distinctions between academically and professionally oriented degree programs. In the Czech case, this formal profiling (into academic and professional) was introduced by the 2016 amendment to the Higher Education Act. The legislation defines academically oriented programs as emphasizing theoretical knowledge and creative scholarly activity, while professionally oriented programs are expected to prioritize practical skills underpinned by essential theoretical foundations. Therefore, both profiles are defined as combining academic and professional components, differing primarily in their emphasis. This study examines whether the formal differentiation translates into substantively distinct curricula or remains largely symbolic, assessing the extent to which the system is conceptually coherent. The present research; thus, addresses this issue by analyzing the intended curricula of selected bachelor’s degree programs to examine whether, and to what extent, declared program profiles are reflected in curriculum design. Intended curricula refer to the overt curricula articulated in policy statements as the goals that schools or other educational institutions aim to achieve (Kridel, 2010, p. 489). In this study, degree programs are understood in close relation to the concept of curriculum, which the scholarly literature often treats as a synonymous term (O’Neill, 2015, p. 8); however, the term degree program is used as an overarching label because it denotes a formally named and institutionally defined entity. The following research questions are addressed: RQ1: To what extent is the allocation of academic and professional components aligned with the formally declared academic or professional profile of bachelor’s degree programs? RQ2: How do program guarantors perceive and interpret the differences between professional and academic degree programs based on their experience with program implementation? The theoretical framework draws on Bernstein’s (1999) distinction between vertical discourse, characterized by abstract and hierarchically organized knowledge, and horizontal discourse, which is context-bound and oriented toward practical problem-solving. This distinction provides a basis for conceptualizing differences between academically and professionally oriented degree programs. These profiles are examined through the process of knowledge recontextualization (Bernstein, 2000), understood as the transformation of disciplinary knowledge into application- and profession-oriented forms. Professional orientation is further operationalized through the concept of Work-Integrated Learning (WIL), a pedagogical approach based on authentic, work-related learning experiences that integrate theory and practice (Zegwaard et al., 2023, p. 39). The theoretical background provides a basis for coding curriculum elements along an academic–professional continuum and assessing how declared program profiles are reflected in curriculum design. The relevance of this research extends beyond the Czech context. Across Europe (and beyond), higher education systems face similar challenges related to program differentiation, massification and the growing emphasis on employability. By offering an empirically grounded analysis, the study contributes to international discourse on curriculum governance, policy implementation and the conceptual clarity of academic and professional pathways in higher education. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study employs a mixed-methods research approach, centered on a content analysis of curriculum documents (Bos & Tarnai, 1999), examining the orientation (professional or academic) of selected curriculum elements at the course level. Curriculum documents consist primarily of study plans and course syllabi (Posner, 1992), acquired from accreditation materials and institutional information systems. The unit of analysis (Bryman, 2012, p. 68) is the individual course included in the intended curriculum. Following Rata (2021, p. 450), the course level is conceptualized as an intermediate level situated below the program and above the topic level; therefore, the course is understood as an organized body of content taught over a defined period. The sample consists of 40 bachelor’s degree programs systematically selected from the Czech Register of Accredited Degree Programs across three Fields of Education (Non-Teaching Pedagogy, Philology, Teaching). Programs with identical or highly similar names but differing in their declared profile (academic vs. professional) are paired to enable comparative analysis. The content analysis focuses on four curricular elements: (1) graduate profile, (2) thematic focus and nature of content, (3) assessment methods, and (4) learning outcomes. The orientation of these elements is assessed through systematic text coding (Bryman, 2012, p. 299) using a coding manual derived from the theoretical framework, which provides explicit criteria for identifying academic, professional, and mixed orientations. Coded segments are subsequently aggregated at the course level, assigning it an overall orientation on a three-point scale (1 = predominantly academic, 2 = mixed, 3 = predominantly professional). For quantitative comparison, a researcher-developed Orientation Index aggregates course orientations weighted by ECTS credits, producing an overall program-level score for each program within the academic–professional pair. This enables systematic comparison of degree programs with identical or similar names and assessment of whether their curricula exhibit substantive differentiation, as would be expected in a conceptually coherent system. Graduate profiles are coded at the program level only. Additionally, the volume of practical training is analyzed as a supplementary indicator. Coding reliability is ensured through independent double coding. To complement the content analysis, the qualitative component consists of semi-structured interviews (Bryman, 2012, p. 470) with program guarantors. Interview data are analyzed using open coding (Šeďová, 2007, p. 211), with the number of interviews determined by data saturation (Guest et al., 2006) – at least eight interviews with program guarantors, ensuring that each Field of Education is represented. This qualitative component supports data triangulation and deeper interpretation of the findings. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Preliminary findings from the content analysis (in response to RQ1) indicate that differences between academically and professionally oriented bachelor’s programs are less pronounced than implied by their formal classification. The results suggest that the primary distinction lies in the volume of formally designated practical training, while overall curriculum design and the balance of academic and professional components remain largely similar. The calculated Orientation Indices reveal only a modest average difference between academic and professional programs. Academically oriented programs: average index – 1.90 (values close to 1 indicate strong academic orientation). Professionally oriented programs: average index – 2.08 (values close to 3 indicate strong professional orientation). Observed distance: 0.18 (2.08 − 1.90). With a possible distance ranging from 0 to 2, the observed value of 0.18 indicates weak differentiation between curriculum models. Programs with identical names but different declared profiles often show very similar structures. Although professional programs include more compulsory practical training, this emphasis is usually limited to that component and rarely extends to other parts of the curriculum. As a result, professional programs often resemble only slightly modified versions of academic ones, though further analysis is needed to confirm these patterns. Although the qualitative phase has not yet been conducted, the findings already raise questions about the coherence and practical meaning of program profiling. The planned interviews with program guarantors will explore how differences between academic and professional programs are understood. Professional degree programs are also subject to lower requirements for academic staffing and research activity under the Czech accreditation standards. The reduced thresholds create the possibility that institutions might strategically select program profiles to simplify the accreditation process; this issue will be also explored through interviews with program guarantors and may contribute to broader discussions on quality assurance in European higher education. References •Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and Horizontal Discourse: An Essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 157–173. •Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity (2nd Ed.). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. •Bos, W., & Tarnai, Ch. (1999). Content analysis in empirical social research. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(8), 659–671. •Bryman, A. E. (2012). Social Research Methods (4th Ed.). OUP. •Ferns, S. J., Zegwaard, K. E., Pretti, T. J., & Rowe, A. D. (2025). Defining and designing work-integrated learning curriculum. Higher Education Research & Development, 44(2), 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2024.2399072 •Gardner, P., & Perry, A. L. (2023). Adapting to an accelerating, disruptive future: Melding work and learning through the role of the T-professional. In K. E. Zegwaard, & T. J. Pretti (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of work-integrated learning (3rd Ed., pp. 492–509). Routledge. •Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How Many Interviews Are Enough?: An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. •Kridel, C. (2010). Intended curriculum. In C. Kridel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of curriculum studies (pp. 489–489). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412958806.n262 •O’Neill, G. (2015). Curriculum Design in Higher Education: Theory to Practice. UCD Teaching & Learning. •Pabian, P. (2008). Od elitního přes masové k univerzálnímu terciárnímu vzdělávání: Koncepce Martina Trowa. AULA, 16(1), 31–40. •Rata, E. (2021). The Curriculum Design Coherence Model in the Knowledge-Rich School Project. Rev Educ, 9(2), 448–495. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3254 •Švaříček, R., Šeďová K., Sedláček, M., Novotný, P., Nedbálková, K., Miková, M., Janík, T., Kaščák, O., & Zounek, J. (2007). Kvalitativní výzkum v pedagogických vědách: pravidla hry. Portál. •Trow, M. (1970). Reflections on the Transition from Mass to Universal Higher Education. Daedalus, 99(1), 1–42. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20023931 •Trow, M. (1972). The expansion and transformation of higher education. Int Rev Educ, 18(1), 61–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01450272 •Trow, M. (1973). Problems in the Transition from Elite to Mass Higher Education. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. •Zegwaard, K. E., Pretti, T. J., Rowe, A. D., & Ferns, S. J. (2023). Defining work-integrated learning. In K. E. Zegwaard, & T. J. Pretti (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of work-integrated learning (3rd Ed., pp. 29–48). Routledge. | ||