Conference Agenda

Curriculum is one of the key concepts in higher education because it defines where the students have access and what they eventually gain from higher education (Barnett and Coate, 2005). Through the curriculum, the core of the disciplinary & professional field is put into practice in teaching (Bernstein, 2000). However, several studies show that curriculum is not a shared concept in higher education institutions and communities. For some, curriculum is a narrow, technical instrument to direct the study process to reach relevant contents or competencies, whereas for some others, curriculum is a broad concept that includes student’s personal growth, epistemic agency and transformational process through which they could contribute broadly to the world (Ashwin, 2020; Beres, 2025; Fraser and Bosanquet, 2006).

Curriculum is a crossroad where different stakeholders, interests and educational purposes meet. Also today we face negotiations about what it should include or what to exclude, and how it should be implemented, those discussions being connected to values, epistemological choices and power relations. Curriculum enables negotiations of the individual and collective interests; the relation between teaching, research, and students' engagement with knowledge; the administrative, scientific, and pedagogical practices and cultures in different institutions; and, the internal and external objectives for education (Annala, 2023). It also brings forward topical questions: what stance curriculum should take to face the questions of equity, diversity and inclusion, decolonisation of knowledge, and preparation for working life in a world with several challenges like climate change, wars, generative AI, divided societies with fake news and post-truth bubbles. Thus curriculum making always takes place in a certain cultural, historical, societal, economical and political environment (Pinar, 2004).

Currently we are able to identify several interests and tensions shaping higher education curricula (Krause, 2020; Wheelahan and Moodie, 2025). The local and global political and economic forces, through their funding policies, direct which fields of research and teaching are seen of value and which not, raising concerns about autonomy and freedom in teaching. The shift or return to the emphasis of (industry-aligned) learning outcomes raise questions about the broader educational task of higher education for an unknown future (’bildung’). The move towards a more generic curriculum, interdisciplinary programmes and fragmentary microdegrees, raise questions about the lack of systematic disciplinary knowledge that has been a specific feature of higher education.

Additionally, the widening access to higher education with a more heterogeneous student body brings forward the question: are all students offered epistemic access to systematic knowledge? In parallel the expectations for efficient study tracks entails the questions of meaningful learning and student’s journey that may be a messy process with struggles and moments of immersion, that cannot be rushed and should not be mechanized (Hou, 2025; Sarauw, 2023). Within this context student-staff co-creation in and of curriculum (Bovill & Woolmer, 2019) has been featured as a way of avoiding the risk of perpetuating hegemonic forms of knowledge and creating irrelevant curricula that exclude student perspectives.

In this symposium, we discuss these questions by presenting recent studies, including both broader and context specific papers on curriculum, implemented in HE institutions of different types, and in various country contexts. Authors of the papers come from Canada, Finland, Netherlands, Portugal, and the UK, and the discussant is from Ireland.

In the inaugural issue of Studies in Higher Education, Michael Thompson (1976) articulates two contrasting ideologies underpinning curriculum design. The dominant collection curriculum is associated with Homo Hierarchicus, characterised by hierarchical relationships and strong disciplinary boundaries. In contrast, the integrated curriculum aligns with Homo Aequalis, emphasising more egalitarian teacher–student relations and blurred disciplinary divisions. Nearly fifty years later questions of power, equity and the organisation of disciplinary knowledge within curricula remain pressing. What has changed, however, is the societal and global context in which these questions are posed. Massification, international harmonisation, and policy-driven funding regimes have reshaped higher education values and priorities (Alves and Tomlinson 2021; Brøgger 2019). These shifts are manifested in curriculum reforms, which reveal what is deemed valuable and worth preserving, and what is targeted for change, also reflecting changing conceptions of the educational purpose of higher education (Ashwin, 2022; Kandiko and Blackmore 2012; McArthur 2011). The curriculum is inherently value-laden and shaped by educational and political epistemological choices and power relations (Barnett 2009; Barnett and Coate 2005; Bernstein 1996). How the curriculum is researched offers insights into how higher education is influenced, transformed or made resistant to change by educational and political actors. This paper analyses curriculum-related research published in Studies in Higher Education over five decades, from 1976 to 2025. A longitudinal thematic review is conducted to provide a comprehensive overview of curriculum topics and trends across different decades, paying particular attention to how they reflect the educational task of higher education, past debates and future directions. The main research question is: What does research on the curriculum tell us about higher education? The thematic review includes 62 articles approached through linguistic ethnography, exploring what we can learn from scholars’ interpretations of the curriculum in what they write about higher education. The results highlight the breadth of research on the curriculum. The employability, skills, and work readiness agenda has received more attention over the years, but the critique of narrow and technical approaches to the purpose of higher education has also increased. Most articles appear to have local and limited knowledge of theoretical curriculum approaches, and students’ perspectives are often ignored. Broader societal aims, including an inclusive and sustainable society, students’ growth through the curriculum, a decolonising perspective and uniting multiple purposes like employability and sustainability, emerge as new openings in curriculum research.

Alves, M. G., and M. Tomlinson. 2021. “The Changing Value of Higher Education in England and Portugal: Massification, Marketization and Public Good.” Higher Education Policy 34 (2): 171–191. DOI: 10.1177/1474904120967574 Ashwin, P. 2022. “The Educational Purposes of Higher Education: Changing Discussions of the Societal Outcomes of Educating Students.” Higher Education 84: 1227–1244. Barnett, R. 2009. “Knowing and Becoming in the Higher Education Curriculum.” Studies in Higher Education 34 (4): 429–440. DOI: 10.1080/03075070902771978 Barnett, R., & K. Coate. 2005. Engaging the Curriculum in Higher Education. McGraw-Hill Education. Bernstein, B. 1996. Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research, Critique. London: Taylor & Francis. Brøgger, K. 2019. “How Education Standards Gain Hegemonic Power and Become International: The Case of Higher Education and the Bologna Process.” European Educational Research Journal 18 (2): 158-180. DOI:10.1177/1474904118790303 McArthur, J. 2011. Reconsidering the Social and Economic Purposes of Higher Education. Higher Education Research & Development 30 (6): 737–749. DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2010.539596

In higher education, ‘curriculum’ is a term that is as ambiguous in meaning as it is ubiquitous in use. However, few educational researchers have sought to trouble these differences in conceptions held by those working in higher education institutions, and even fewer have examined these differences among those working most closely with the curriculum: the academic staff responsible for teaching it. Often, when this topic has been examined, research has focused on conceptions of subject-specific curriculum rather than on curriculum as a broader concept. This paper examines the various conceptions held by instructional staff teaching in various fields and programs across four polytechnic institutions in Alberta, Canada. Polytechnic institutions occupy a unique space within the higher education sector in Alberta, Canada, offering a range of programs that include vocational, technical, and baccalaureate credentials. This broad range of programs requires an equally broad range of instructional staff credentials, from applied trades journeyperson certificates to technical diplomas and master’s and doctoral degrees. Phenomenographic analysis of transcripts from 18 interviews with instructional staff yielded a hierarchically structured, inclusive outcome space comprising five qualitatively distinct categories of conception that outline the different ways in which curriculum is conceptualized in this unique higher-education setting. Further qualitative analysis of the interview transcripts revealed that while there was no apparent relationship between the academic background or teaching experience of the instructional staff and the degree of complexity of the conceptions of their expressed curriculum statements, there were notable differences in their statements made when describing their teaching experiences than when making prescriptive statements about what curriculum should be. These differences indicate a lack of awareness of the breadth and complexity of curriculum amongst instructional staff, as demonstrated by the simplified and limited prescriptions they express when asked directly about curriculum. Formalized curriculum language, codified through curriculum policies and processes, is presented as a critical influence on instructional staff's conceptualizations of curriculum, acting as a barrier to developing a more complex understanding of curriculum and resulting in negative impacts on student learning and growth through a focus on simplified, prescriptive understandings of curriculum. Professional development directly related to curriculum theory and applied curriculum development is recommended to address this truncated understanding of curriculum.

Annala, J., Lindén, J., & Mäkinen, M. (2016). Curriculum in higher education research. In J. M. Case & J. Huisman (Eds.), Researching Higher Education (pp. 171–189). SHRE Society for Research into Higher Education & Routledge. Beres, J. (2025). Faculty Conceptualizations of ‘Curriculum’ in Canadian Polytechnics. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Lancaster University. Blackmore, P., & Kandiko, C. B. (2012). Strategic curriculum change: Global trends in universities. Routledge. El-Astal, M. (2023). What is Curriculum? Building a Broader Understanding of the Term. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 12(6), 188–196. Fraser, S.P. & Bosanquet, A.M. (2006). The curriculum? That's just a unit outline, isn't it? Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 269–284. Krause, K.-L. D. (2022). Vectors of change in higher education curricula. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 54(1), 38–52. Le Grange, L. (2006). Curriculum: A neglected area in discourses on higher education. South African Journal of Higher Education, 20(2), 189–194. Mäkinen, M., & Annala, J. (2010). Meanings behind curriculum development in higher education. Prime, 4(2), 9–24 Tight, M. (2023). The curriculum in higher education research: A review of the research literature. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 315–328.

In the last decades, the student-centred teaching model became a central element within the changing aims and contents of curriculum in higher education, namely by placing an increasing emphasis on student learning outcomes. In fact, that model is a key element on the higher education policy agenda after the Yerevan Ministerial Summit of the European Higher Education Area in May 2015 (Klemenci, 2017), underlying intended reforms towards enhancing the quality of teaching and learning. In Portugal, the idea of student-centred learning has been paramount since the inception of the Bologna process, given the predominance of the teacher-centred model in the country (Almeida et al., 2024). The widespread of the student-centred teaching model entails the need for further examination of the meaning and significance attributed to a primary focus on student and on learning, instead of on the teacher and on teaching. Is that primary focus aligning with a model of higher education that prioritises students as rational investors in educational credentials and consumers of a service provided by teachers (Alves & Tomlinson, 2021)? Is that primary focus ensuring higher education students' right to learn interlinked with teachers' duty to develop autonomy and critical thinking skills of students (Macfarlane & Han, 2024)? On the one hand, the desired prevalence of the student-centred model might induce a model in which higher education's role is mainly to maximize human capital ensuring private benefits for graduates, namely in what concerns their employability. On the other hand, the prevalence of such a model might mean a broader understanding of higher education outcomes valuing both individual and collective benefits, not only related to employability but also to literacy and citizenship. The tension between these two logics underpins an analytical framework to better understand the changes in higher education (Alves & Tomlinson, 2021). Using that analytical framework, current trends in higher education curriculum in Portugal will be explored. The proposed paper adds to previous research by discussing the meaning and significance of the student-centred model that has been advocated in Portuguese higher education in the last 20 years. To scaffold that discussion, content analysis of both national laws and higher education institutions’ documents concerning undergraduate degrees will be conducted. This approach is expected to clarify if and how the student centred teaching model is as central element within higher education curriculum.

Almeida, L; Gonçalves, S.; Ramos do Ó, J.; Rebola, F.; Soares, S.; Vieira, F. (2022). Inovação Pedagógica no Ensino Superior: cenários e caminhos de transformação. Lisboa: Agência de Acreditação e Avaliação do Ensino Superior. Alves, M. G., Tomlinson, M. (2021). The changing value of higher education in England and Portugal: Massification, marketization and public good. European Educational Research Journal, 20, 2: 176-192. Brogger, K. (2019). How education standards gain hegemonic power and become international: The case of higher education and the Bologna Process, European Educational Research Journal, Vol. 18(2) 158–180 Klemencic, M. (2017). From Student Engagement to Student Agency: Conceptual Considerations of European Policies on Student-Centered Learning in Higher Education, Higher Education Policy, 30: 69–85. Macfarlane, B.; Han, X. (2025). The duty to explain: a positive defence of academic freedom in the social sciences, Teaching in Higher Education, 30, 5: 1208-1220

This contribution reports on a four-year collaborative project involving a consortium of eleven Dutch Higher Education Institutes (HEIs). The project aims to identify principles for designing and implementing sustainable educational configurations that foster transdisciplinary co-learning among students, teachers, and external stakeholders. Transdisciplinary education extends beyond multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches (De Greef et al., 2017). Whereas multidisciplinary approaches bring together disciplinary perspectives and interdisciplinary approaches synthesize disciplinary knowledge, often excluding experiential or non-academic knowledge, transdisciplinary approaches emphasize joint knowledge co-creation across academic and societal domains. Here, students, teachers, and stakeholders collaboratively engage with complex societal challenges, by shaping knowledge, technologies, behaviors, and social structures needed to address these issues (e.g., Fortuin et al., 2024; Knickel et al., 2019). In this project, each participating HEI collaborates with one of its transdisciplinary learning environments (TLEs). In these environments, students work with societal partners across disciplinary and sectoral boundaries, bringing diverse perspectives to local, regional, and global challenges with the ambition to contribute to real-world change. Designing and embedding such configurations into existing curricula is challenging, partly due to differing interests, values, and expectations among participants. The central research question guiding the project is: What principles support the design and implementation of sustainable educational configurations that enable and scaffold transdisciplinary co-learning among students, teachers, and stakeholders, with the aim of contributing to societal transformations? Using a cyclical educational design research approach (McKenney & Reeves, 2012), the project investigates three core challenges: (1) enabling co-learning, (2) scaffolding transdisciplinary learning, and (3) embedding transdisciplinary education sustainably within higher education curricula. This symposium contribution presents results from three phases of the project: Phase 1: Development of a tentative framework of design principles, informed by a literature review, an inventory of national and international initiatives, and participant feedback. Phase 2: Application of the framework in six in-depth case studies of existing higher education configurations. These cases were analysed, adapted, and compared through qualitative and quantitative methods, resulting in a more refined framework. Phase 3: Redesign, enactment, and evaluation of the refined framework in the same six cases, supplemented by six additional higher education cases to further validate and elaborate the design principles. Through iterative cycles of analysis, redesign, and evaluation, the project works towards a validated, context-sensitive framework that identifies effective strategies for fostering transdisciplinary learning across diverse higher education contexts.

De Greef, L., Post, G., Vink, C., & Wenting, L. (2017). Interdisciplinary education: A practical handbook for university teachers. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Fortuin, K. P. J., Gulikers, J. T. M., Post Uiterweer, N. C., Oonk, C., & Tho, C. W. S. (2024). Developing a boundary crossing learning trajectory: supporting engineering students to collaborate and co-create across disciplinary, cultural and professional practices. European Journal of Engineering Education, 49(2), 212–235. Knickel, M., Knickel, K., Galli, F., Maye, D., & Wiskerke, J. S. C. (2019). Towards a reflexive framework for fostering co-learning and improvement of transdisciplinary collaboration. Sustainability, 11(23), 6602. McKenney, S. & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. Routledge.