Conference Agenda

Since the turn of the millennium, curriculum reform across many education systems has shifted from input regulation, focused on specifying content, towards output regulation, where educational quality is judged through attainment data, inspection and performance indicators (Nieveen & Kuiper, 2012). This reorientation reflects a “new curriculum” settlement in which curriculum policy is positioned as a lever for economic competitiveness and system improvement (Priestley & Biesta, 2013; Yates & Young, 2010).
Over the past decade, this accountability landscape has been further shaped by a “knowledge turn” (Deng, 2022), with renewed emphasis on disciplinary knowledge and knowledge-rich curricula in systems such as England and Australia (Magee et al., 2025). In science education, these developments have intensified long-standing tensions between procedural activity, conceptual understanding and assessment accountability (Abrahams & Reiss, 2015; Millar, 2010).

In England, the GCSE science curriculum has undergone sustained reform. The 2012 shift from modular to linear, terminal examinations increased the volume of content students must retain over two or three years (Ofqual, 2015). Reforms implemented from 2016 further reconfigured assessment through the introduction of required practical, mandating recall of up to 24 activities for the written examination (DfE, 2015). Together, these changes heightened concerns about memory, retention and cognitive overload, contributing to the growing prominence of Cognitive Load Theory in science education discourse (Sweller, 1988, 2016; Wiliam, 2017). This study revisits and extends Abrahams and Millar’s (2008) analysis of the effectiveness of practical work for conceptual learning.

This paper draws on doctoral research to examine the effectiveness of practical work under the reformed GCSE science curriculum, focusing on how teachers interpret, enact, and adapt practical activities within increasingly constrained curricular and assessment frameworks. The study is guided by three research questions:
(1) To what extent is practical work effective in enabling students to do what is intended by the teacher and required by awarding-body specifications?
(2) To what extent does practical work enable students to learn the intended scientific ideas underpinning the activity?
(3) What pedagogical strategies do teachers use to enhance the effectiveness of practical work under conditions of curriculum reform?

The analysis is informed by the analytical framework developed by Abrahams and Millar (2008), which conceptualises the effectiveness of practical work across two domains: the doing of practical activity and the learning of underlying scientific ideas. This framework is integrated with Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1988; Sweller, Ayres & Kalyuga, 2011), which provides a theoretical explanation for why practical work often succeeds procedurally while failing to support conceptual learning, particularly when cognitive demands compete with conceptual processing. Methodologically, the study adopts a qualitative multiple-case design involving classroom observations, semi-structured teacher interviews and student focus group interviews. Findings indicate continuity with Abrahams and Millar’s (2008) conclusion that conceptual learning during practical activity itself remains weak, largely due to the high cognitive load students experience while managing procedures, apparatus, and data simultaneously. However, the study extends this analysis by showing that conceptual development is increasingly relocated to post-practical, assessment-oriented instruction. Teachers actively deploy strategies to optimise cognitive load, such as simplifying procedures during practical lessons, increasing scaffolding, and using structured discussion and retrieval practice post-practical, to support learning. Although the reformed curriculum places renewed emphasis on conceptual understanding of practical work, this emphasis is predominantly realised through assessment backwash ​(Au, 2007)​. Acting as street-level bureaucrats (Hall & Hampden-Thompson, 2022), teachers exercise professional judgement to reconcile curriculum intentions, assessment accountability, and classroom constraints. As England enters another proposed curriculum review, this study offers timely insights into the need for greater coherence across curriculum, assessment design, and pedagogical guidance if practical work is to become epistemically, as well as procedurally, effective.

Science education is a curriculum that incorporates scientific knowledge, reasoning, organizing, and problem-solving skills, equipping students to apply scientific knowledge to complex real-life situations and challenges (Noor, 2021). Therefore, science is considered essential for understanding the world around us and fostering innovation (Reiss et al., 2017). Hence, a curriculum that promotes and supports the development of scientific literacy should be central to discussions aimed at strengthening students’ skills to engage critically with the world (Young, 2008). In this regard, the school and learning resources are expected to play a critical role. In 2011, Kosovo drafted its first educational curriculum framework, which it redesigned in 2016 to emphasize competency development and equip students with 21st-century skills (MESTI, 2017). Scientific literacy is considered an important goal of science in our intended curriculum, but it remains desirable whether it is treated as a core topic of content and teaching approach. This becomes even more challenging when we consider that, in our context, books are the primary teaching resources. In this regard, the textbook content and tasks, which are fundamental to assessing students’ learning, do not always meet standards of rigorous research or align with what the curriculum often anticipates (Authors et al., 2025; Kahveci, 2010; Wan et al., 2024). This is partly linked to a broader disregard for epistemological knowledge in national curricular standards, as highlighted by studies in this field (Wan et al., 2024). Results indicate a trend of decline in students' performance in PISA over the years in Kosovo (OECD 2019). Hence, aligning textbook content with the PISA framework requirements can be a vital step toward improving students’ performance in science. As such, textbooks have the potential to support the development of science literacy and related competences (Hatzinikita et al., 2008; Wan et al, 2024). Therefore, analysing the content of science textbooks and the extent to which these questions promote critical thinking is both timely and relevant. Moreover, this analysis aligns with European policies and strategies, particularly the updated EU’s Key Competencies for Lifelong Learning framework (2018), which emphasizes that competencies that foster critical thinking and inquiry-based teaching should be essential for science education curricula and considered foundational global skills for the 21st century.

For Kosovo, textbooks are challenging due to several factors related to educational reforms and teachers limited formal education in science. In addition, teachers ‘poor epistemological knowledge and comprehension of the nature of science (Wan et al.,2024; Zhang & Lamb, 2024) have influenced the fact that they mainly rely on textbooks. Textbook analyses have revealed that science textbooks frequently incorporate questions that emphasise lower cognitive skills, with little emphasis on inquiry-based learning and scientific reasoning (Author et al., 2025) often failing to provide tasks that require scientific reasoning and development of epistemic knowledge (Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004). Inquiry-based tasks are typically guided and procedural, offering few opportunities for students to engage in evidence-based argumentation or reasoning (Yang et al., 2019). Science books should incorporate practical, real-life tasks to engage students and help them apply scientific knowledge in their daily lives.

This study uses the PISA Science Framework (PISA-SF) (2018) to explore the characteristics of end-of-chapter questions in science textbooks, with a focus on scientific competencies as an important dimension for promoting critical thinking. Hence, two research questions are posed:

1. To what extent do the end-of-chapter questions in science textbooks enhance scientific literacy and critical thinking according to the PISA-SF?
2. What insights do the characteristics of end-of-chapter questions give us about the way science education is conceived in our textbooks?

This phenomenological study investigates science high school (SHS) students' classroom experiences in developing scientific attitudes such as curiosity, open-mindedness, skepticism, objectivity, perseverance, and intellectual honesty (Gardner, 1975; Pitafi & Farooq, 2012). Positioned within the didactics of science education, it examines how teaching-learning processes and pedagogical interactions shape scientific dispositions (Osborne et al., 2003). This research reveals gaps between science high schools' stated educational missions and enacted classroom practices (Bal, 2020; Göloğlu-Demir & Kaplan-Keleş, 2021).
The research question is: What are science high school students' classroom experiences in developing scientific attitudes? This question foregrounds the didactic relationship between instructional methods, teacher behaviors, classroom climate, and student attitude formation. Rather than viewing scientific attitudes as fixed traits, this study explores them as dynamic constructs emerging through pedagogical interactions (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011).
Theoretically, the study integrates phenomenology (van Manen, 2016) with Jones and Butts' (1983) tripartite model of scientific attitudes: (1) attitudes toward knowledge (curiosity, open-mindedness), (2) attitudes toward evaluating ideas (objectivity, intellectual honesty), and (3) commitment to scientific beliefs (perseverance). This framework enables systematic examination of how different didactic approaches cultivate specific attitudinal dimensions, directly informing both teaching practice and institutional quality improvement.
From a didactic perspective, the study addresses: Which instructional methods foster genuine inquiry versus memorization (Kuhn, 2002)? How do teacher discourse patterns shape epistemic beliefs? What classroom conditions enable intellectual risk-taking? From a quality assurance lens, it examines whether pedagogical practices align with stated educational goals. The OECD Learning Compass 2030 (OECD, 2019) emphasizes that educational quality must encompass attitudes and competencies beyond test scores, specified as precisely what this research illuminates.
The European dimension lies in comparative insights for science didactics and quality improvement across educational systems. Türkiye's science high schools share structural similarities with European specialized schools (German gymnasium, French lycées) yet face distinct pressures from high-stakes examinations (MONE, 2024). Findings regarding exam-oriented versus inquiry-based instruction resonate with European debates about balancing assessment pressures with formative pedagogy (Black & Wiliam, 2009), making this study relevant for policy and practice across diverse contexts.

Understanding how students engage with learning tasks requires sustained attention to the situational motivational states that arise in authentic classroom contexts. Recent research has emphasized that student engagement fluctuates from moment to moment and is sensitive to how learning activities are framed, how relevant they appear, and how students perceive their own role within them (Ronkainen et al., 2025; Salmela‐Aro et al., 2021; Vilhunen et al., 2022). These momentary fluctuations matter because engagement is not simply a stable trait or a general attitude toward school; rather, it reflects a dynamic process shaped by immediate experiences, affective responses, and perceptions of autonomy and competence. As a result, examining engagement at the situational level provides a powerful lens for understanding why certain tasks elicit deep, sustained involvement while others lead to distraction or minimal participation.

For teachers, this raises a practical question: What kinds of motivational signals in everyday instruction support meaningful engagement, and under what conditions is this engagement most likely to emerge? Addressing this question requires a research approach that links students’ motivations in the moment to their actual experiences as they participate in classroom activities. In this study, we examine how students’ instructional motivation relates to their momentary engagement and whether this relation is mediated by optimal learning moments (Schneider, 2016). More broadly, our aim is to contribute to an evidence base that can inform instructional practice by clarifying how classroom environments may foster the momentary motivational conditions under which meaningful engagement is most likely to occur.

Instructional motivation refers to the specific motivational processes that arise during learning activities in the classroom—moment‑to‑moment feelings, goals, and perceptions that shape how students engage with instruction. We conceptualize instructional motivation through students’ self‑reported reasons for engaging in an activity (“want to,” “had to,” or “had nothing else to do”). These categories align with Self‑Determination Theory (SDT), which differentiates autonomous motivation, controlled motivation, and amotivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000). Optimal learning moments refer to situations in which students experience simultaneously high levels of interest, skill, and challenge. This formulation follows prior work using experience‑sampling methods to identify conditions under which students feel most engaged during science learning (Schneider et al., 2016). In turn, situational engagement is captured through four momentary indicators: enjoyment, cooperativeness, concentration, and perceived success. These map onto commonly recognized dimensions of engagement: emotional, social/behavioral, and cognitive engagement (Finn & Zimmer, 2012; Fredricks et al., 2004, 2019).

Our conceptual model tests three pathways. First, we examine the effect of instructional motivation (i.e., “want to,” “had to,” or “had nothing else to do”) on optimal learning moments (Path A in the mediation model). Second, we investigate whether optimal learning moments predict momentary engagement variables: concentration, enjoyment, cooperativeness, and perceived success (Path B in the mediation model). Third, we assess whether instructional motivation also has direct effects on the four engagement indicators (Path C in the mediation model).