Conference Agenda

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.

In every educational setting, there are established ‘rules of the game’ that determine the knowledge and competencies that students must acquire and demonstrate to achieve success (Maton, 2014). For students to excel, they must not only recognise the expectations of their teachers but also be able to enact practices that align with these expectations (Ellery, 2019). However, these expectations are not always explicit, especially in interdisciplinary education. As interdisciplinary education seeks to integrate different knowledge structures and social practices across disciplines, teachers and students are often unaware of situations in which expectations diverge (Annala, 2022). ‘Knowledge structures’ refers to the organising principles governing how knowledge is created and communicated within a discipline, whereas ‘social practices’ refers to the specific ways of thinking and acting within a discipline. In interdisciplinary education, both knowledge structures and social practices tend to be less explicit than in single-discipline education (Spangler, 2025). There is variation in what students are expected to understand and express, as disciplines interact in distinct ways within these interdisciplinary contexts (Trowler, 2012). Taking the opening quote as an example, teachers and students on an interdisciplinary undergraduate programme can easily become confused about what counts as success. The stated goals, such as ‘broadening perspectives’ and ‘developing capacities’ remain abstract, creating ambiguity about whether they should focus on cultivating personal attributes or expanding their knowledge bases.

What constitutes the basis of success may also differ among curricula and courses, as well as among and within courses, primarily because teachers can flexibly interpret curricula and propose their own courses, and they rarely receive sufficient institutional guidance and support (Lindvig et al., 2019). Compared with the official rhetoric, teachers may have differing perceptions of what is valued in and necessary for interdisciplinary undergraduate education, and hence their emphases may vary when designing their own courses (Spelt et al., 2015). Focusing on the expectations revealed by curriculum documents and course syllabi can heighten awareness of the tensions between the official discourse and enacted practices. Without clarifying expectations, the curriculum risks sending conflicting messages about what constitutes success in interdisciplinary undergraduate education.

This study explores these ongoing ‘knowledge debates’ (Shay, 2015) in interdisciplinary undergraduate education. Reconsidering the opening quote highlights the instrumental emphasis on shaping students as interdisciplinary knowers and preparing them for their futures. However, Ripley, Markauskaite, & Goodyear (2025) argue that these instrumental goals are insufficient for describing the epistemological aspects of interdisciplinary education, such as understanding and reflecting on various ways of creating and validating knowledge. Consequently, how success is defined in interdisciplinary undergraduate education may be driven by a more complex set of epistemological logics.

This study examines whether, to attain success in interdisciplinary undergraduate education, students are expected to learn specific theories, concepts, and methods from various bodies of disciplinary knowledge (interdisciplinary knowledge – ‘what you know’), or to internalise particular personal and social characteristics and dispositions when engaging with various disciplines, such as a willingness to innovate, the ability to self-reflect, and the ability to develop collaborative and teamwork skills (interdisciplinary knower – ‘who you are’).

Our study examines the basis on which achievement is legitimised in interdisciplinary undergraduate education. In simpler terms, we focus on what constitutes success, namely, what students are expected to know and demonstrate in this context. We focus on an empirical case of an interdisciplinary undergraduate programme by analysing both the course documents and course syllabi. Two research questions guided this study:

1. Are there differences between curriculum documents and course syllabi regarding the basis of legitimacy for undergraduate interdisciplinary education?
2. Does the basis of legitimacy for undergraduate interdisciplinary courses vary according to their degree of interdisciplinarity?

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.

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.