Conference Agenda

In recent decades, science education has faced a persistent and widely acknowledged challenge: a lack of conceptual coherence stemming from overloaded curricula and the fragmented presentation of scientific topics. Such fragmentation limits students’ opportunities to develop deep, connected, and transferable understanding and can distance learners from science while hindering efforts to relate scientific ideas to real-life contexts (Harlen, 2010, 2015). In response, “big ideas” have been proposed as a conceptual framework for structuring science learning. Big ideas in science learning are the fundamental, generative, and explanatory concepts that help learners make sense of a wide range of phenomena within a coherent meaning system and across developmental time (Plummer & Krajcik, 2010; Perkins, 2014). Empirical research suggests that big-ideas-based curriculum design can strengthen both horizontal and vertical coherence, facilitate integration across scientific domains, and enhance student engagement (Bell et al., 2018; Chalmers et al., 2017), and that teachers may use big ideas to strengthen links between school science and students’ everyday experiences (Bravo & Reiss, 2021).

Despite this prominence, two gaps remain in the literature. First, there is still limited consensus regarding what constitutes a big idea and how its scope, boundaries, and criteria for identification should be defined (Siemon, 2022; Nosrati, 2025). Second, it remains unclear which features of big ideas are generalizable across educational contexts and which are shaped by cultural, structural, and curricular traditions within particular education systems (Nosrati, Talaee, Hatami, & Mehrmohammadi, 2025). Recent work suggests that overarching ideas can be framed through different disciplinary lenses for sense-making, reinforcing the need for comparative investigations of how big ideas are interpreted across educational ecosystems (De Boer, Janssen, Van Driel, & Dam, 2019). In the Dutch context, curriculum developments such as Curriculum.nu (2019) further underscore expectations for science teaching that combine conceptual understanding with societal relevance, illustrating how national frameworks may align with big-idea thinking.

Against this backdrop, the present study investigates how science education experts in two contrasting educational systems, Iran and the Netherlands, interpret and operationalize the Big Ideas of Energy, and how these interpretations relate to broader cultural, linguistic, and structural characteristics of the systems. The central research question guiding the study is: Which characteristics of big ideas and conceptual coherence are context-dependent, and which possess a more universal, cross-cultural nature? The study’s objectives are (a) to map expert conceptualizations of coherence in relation to Energy as a curriculum topic; (b) to identify convergences and divergences in how big ideas are understood as curriculum organizers across contexts; and (c) to generate implications for context-responsive curriculum design and implementation.

The theoretical framing positions big ideas as curriculum organizers that support conceptual coherence by connecting ideas within and across domains (Cartier & Pellathy, 2009; Plummer & Krajcik, 2010). Conceptual coherence is treated as learner-centered, acknowledging that what appears coherent to disciplinary experts may not necessarily support student understanding. The study also draws conceptual contrasts with Threshold Concepts to clarify the status of big ideas as organizers of learning progressions rather than gateways tied to individual conceptual transformation. Building on Nosrati’s (2025) typology, big ideas are approached through core features related to intradisciplinary and interdisciplinary coherence, while recognizing that their interpretation and implementation are mediated by local educational ecosystems (Nosrati, 2025).

SSI have been used extensively in science education to help students develop their ability to argue, reason ethically, and make decisions (Zeidler et al., 2005; Sadler, 2004). Additionally, SSI-based instruction supports students' responsible actions and helps them relate science to their daily life (Zeidler & Nichols, 2009). However, studies indicate that the existing curricular structure presents difficulties for science teachers implementing SSI (Kilinc et al., 2013; Tidemand & Nielsen, 2017). For instance, the centralized and content-heavy structure of the science curriculum provides limited opportunity for interdisciplinary, ethical, and open-ended argumentation. To address these difficulties, teacher education programs should support PSTs to critically examine the science curriculum and develop skills to integrate SSI-based teaching to existing science curriculum. Therefore, this study examined how PSTs' beliefs regarding science curriculum were influenced by SSI-based instruction.

Hodson (2003) identifies four primary goals of science education: learning science (content acquisition), learning about science (understanding the nature of science), doing science (inquiry practice), and connecting with science in society (addressing SSI). Leung (2022) categorized curriculum models as linear, circular, or multidirectional. Linear models reflect a sequential and discipline-based approach, often aligning with traditional science curricula (Profile A). Circular models indicate interconnected yet unidirectional perspectives across disciplines (Profile B). Multidirectional models, used by Profile C teachers, represent dynamic, non-linear structures that integrate ethical reasoning, real-life contexts, and SSI. These models are pedagogically meaningful, as they align with the aims of SSI-based instruction to promote holistic and flexible curriculum thinking. Moreover, these profiles were in parallel with science education goals (Hodson, 2003) accepted for this study. These objectives and curriculum profiles provide a useful perspective for interpreting the science curriculum profiles of PSTs and understanding change in PSTs’ science curriculum during SSI based instruction.

The purpose of the study was to investigate the beliefs of PSTs about socioscientific issues (SSI) science curriculum and how their beliefs changed during SSI-based instruction. The study's goal was to understand how PSTs' curricular models and components for science curriculum changed through SSI-based instruction. In line with this purpose, the following research question was asked:

How do preservice science teachers’ beliefs about SSI science curriculum change through SSI-based instruction?

According to the study's findings, PSTs used curriculum design tasks to develop their beliefs about SSI science curriculum. This is consistent with the idea that teacher beliefs are not static but can change through organized tasks, dialogic reflection, and authentic teaching environments (Luft & Roehrig, 2007). In particular, they developed their skills to develop science curriculum and changed their beliefs from discipline-based and traditional to a more interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approach to science curriculum. These findings are noteworthy because they demonstrate how teacher education programs can give PSTs the opportunity to gain a deeper comprehension of the science curriculum and incorporate characteristics of SSI teaching into science curriculum and instruction. By participating in ongoing curriculum design and microteaching tasks, PSTs were able to test, update, and negotiate their understanding about science curriculum and how and why to integrate SSI teaching to science curriculum within a supportive learning community. This study makes a methodological and practical contribution by extending Leung's (2022) curricular profile approach to investigate shifts across time. It offers insight on how PSTs’ curriculum decisions change during SSI-based instruction, and how these decisions represent epistemic beliefs that go beyond surface-level content selection. The study also adds to the body of knowledge regarding curriculum beliefs and how instructional design and reflective practices might alter them. It also provides empirical evidence for how curriculum design activities can be valuable instruments for redesigning science teacher education programs in line with SSI and interdisciplinary science teaching goals.

Research has not established a clear relationship between laboratory experiences and student learning (Hofstein & Mamlok-Naaman, 2007), nor have popular learning theories of the past few decades demonstrated a necessary or rational connection between body and mind (Roth, 2018). Reflecting on the limitations of stylized laboratory work and traditional "hands-on" learning, science education now views authentic scientific practice as the ideal framework (García-Carmona, 2020; NGSS Lead States, 2013), advocating that students should reason and act like scientists (Ford, 2015). However, while the field emphasizes balancing "conceptual, epistemic, and social" learning goals (Duschl, 2008), substantial research has focused on the mechanisms of "thinking processes and verbal interactions"—such as argumentation and explanation (Newton et al., 1999; Tang et al., 2020)—while paying little attention to the heavily embodied aspect of "doing science." Consequently, while the field has effectively answered how students "think" and "speak," it has largely overlooked the equally important question of "how they do"—that is, how the student's body engage with science practices.

This oversight may stem from historical scientific, philosophical, and cultural traditions that privilege "reason" and perpetuate a mind-body dualism (Almqvist & Quennerstedt, 2015; Alsop, 2011; Hardahl, 2019). When discussing science, associations are more readily made with "mind," "logic," and "truth" rather than "body," "emotion," and "process." Educators often ignore bodily engagement or view "doing" merely as evidence for conceptual learning, while researchers tend to emphasize disembodied and immaterial aspects of learning (Kersting et al., 2024; Ross, 2004). Yet, can school science truly "liberate the mind from the body to see the world as it is" (Descartes, 1990)?

In doing and learning science, bodily participation in the material and socio-cultural world is ubiquitous (Kersting et al., 2024). Studies in the philosophy of science and anthropology emphasize that bodily engagement is indispensable in core scientific practices such as producing phenomena, experimentation, and engineering (Goodwin, 1997; Hardahl et al., 2019). Beyond book knowledge, a scientist requires the personal understanding that comes only from rich, focused sensory experience; their senses must be sharpened, and their hands disciplined (Sibum, 2004). Indeed, scientific epistemology can be described as performative (Pickering, 2010). Empirical studies confirm that, like scientists, the body plays a crucial role in students' observational and experimental practices (Almqvist & Quennerstedt, 2015; Hardahl, 2019; Kersting et al., 2021; Orlander & Wickman, 2011). As Jaber and Hammer (2016) note, while there is growing attention to engaging students in scientific practice, "there is much to learn about how students step into and sustain those practices."

Therefore, this study adopts a student-centered and process-oriented perspective to examine "how they do" through the lens of the body. It aims to open the "black box" of the body in "practicing like a scientist," expanding our understanding of the body's role and significance in science education (Kersting et al., 2024), and deepening insights into what can be learned within the act of "doing."

In school science, the body is often presented as an invisible locus of learning (Alsop, 2011), an object to be disciplined, rather than a source of meaning-making. However, phenomenologically, the body is our primary perspective on the world, the zero-point that gives meaning to all other coordinates (Zahavi, 2019), not an object we observe from a perspective. This study posits the student's body as the source of meaning-making—the zero-point—rather than an object or isolated coordinate, thereby avoiding dualistic traps. As Merleau-Ponty (2013) states, to understand a subject, we must seek it not in its pure form, but at the intersection of its dimensions. Starting from the body as the zero-point, we uncover its intersecting dimensions: tacit knoing, mind, speech, affect.