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: 19th Aug 2026, 21:28:36 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
27 SES 16 B: Objectives and Objects as Didactic Challenges
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper Educational Artefacts matter: Revailing Invisibilities of the Obvious Objects of Teaching and Learning 1: UC Leuven-Limburg, Belgium; 2: KU Leuven, Belgium; 3: VUB, Belgium Presenting Author:Classrooms are by definition material worlds where tangible objects play a pivotal role (Röhl, 2012): without globes, rulers, pencils, notebooks, scissors, chairs and chalkboards, tablets and projectors, classrooms would not be classrooms. Despite their omnipresence in schools, objects are generally overlooked in educational research and their position remains often invisible or subordinate to human cognition and agency (Fenwick & Landri, 2012). Moreover, objects are ascribed only or mainly a secondary role of means to a predefined end and are regarded as an optional, temporal vehicle for thought, likely to be of a greater interest to educators than to cognitive scientists (Sfard & McClain, 2002). This study challenges the taken-for-granted (omni)presence of materials in schools by questioning how and with what consequences tangible educational artefacts appear and interact with pupils and teachers in learning spaces. Informed by theoretical developments in sociomateriality and cognitive archaeology, we adopt the concept of 'educational artefact' and suggest the dual characterization as being made and make. We investigate the types and origins of artefacts, pupils’ and teachers' selection, creation and implementation, and the emergent learning activities that artefacts configure. Building upon prior international and interdisciplinary theorizing in sociomateriality and archeology, we emphasize the centrality and possibilities of educational artefacts in classrooms and their inherent entanglement with humans (Wouters et al., 2026). Informed by sociomaterial scholarship (Fenwick et al., 2011; Sørensen, 2009) the study conceptualizes classroom objects as educational artefacts or materials inherently entangled with human purposes, practices, and intentions. Besides, the Material Engagement Theory from cognitive archaeology provides the concept of ‘thinging’: we think with and through things, not simply about them (Malafouris, 2020). With this theorizing, we align with the material turn in educational research. This renewed interest into schools’ materiality has highlighted the importance of understanding how objects are entangled in and shape educational practices. The common educational use of tangible objects and written curriculum materials hinges on a conventional understanding of the term ‘object’: it suggests a fixed entity, created and used by a discrete human subject. The term ‘object’ even requires a detached person who actively constructs and (mis)uses objects who seem to have no agency of their own. This results in a problematic ontological dualism between human actors and material objects. In previous conceptual work, we seek to overcome this dualism by addressing ‘the things of learning and teaching’ as educational artefacts (Wouters & Vansteenhuyse, 2025). This study directly addresses the Network 27 special call’s focus on examining interactions in class and the joint negotiation of meaning. The current lack of theoretical understanding on classroom’s materiality is equally problematic for teachers navigating complex decisions about material selection and implementation without clear frameworks about their choices. We document the dynamic, moment-to-moment interactions among pupils, teachers, and materials, revealing how educational artefacts enable joint negotiation of meaning through embodied engagement (pointing, manipulating, verbalizing). The findings have implications for European teacher education, curriculum development, and educational publishing industries navigating material-digital transitions. By transforming traditional notions of artefacts as passive tools, this study redefines their role as pivotal agents in the complexity of a classroom, highlighting their co-construction of learning situations. This reconceptualization has not just a theoretical consequence for researchers. It equally appeals to a practice-oriented shift in how teachers approach educational artefacts, positioning them as central to the design of learning spaces Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used To explore how educational artefacts interact with learning spaces, how pupils and teachers engage with them, and what consequences their use entails, this study employs an iterative qualitative methodology. Collaborative ethnography (Lassiter, 2019; Menezes & Smaniotto Costa, 2024) and abductive reasoning (Timmermans & Tavory, 2022) are both adopted as complimentary approaches for observation, analysis, and theorization (Wouters et al., 2025). Collaborative ethnography provides a framework for analyzing interactions between educational artefacts and their use in real-world contexts by positioning participants as co-researchers contributing expertise and insights. Abductive reasoning guides the analytical process, beginning with surprising observations that challenge expectations and searching for plausible explanations through iterative engagement with diverse scholarship. The research context is a Belgian primary and middle school supporting pupils with diverse learning needs. Participants included 95 pupils across six classrooms (K2-K8), their teachers, and 32 transdisciplinary observers. Observers were educational experts (teachers, school leaders, teacher educators, researchers) with minimum five years experience, recruited from professional networks to bring diverse disciplinary perspectives. Their unfamiliarity with the specific school context helped mitigate confirmation bias. Forty lessons were observed over four days using two observation tools: (1) a structured tool organized around the Activity Centred Analysis and Design (ACAD)-framework dimensions (set, epistemic, social design, and activity, informed by Goodyear e.a. 2021), guiding observers with specific foci including knowledge building, knowledge structures, and tasks; (2) an open observation tool inviting observers to document surprising or noteworthy aspects, integrating their expertise through notetaking, sketches, and drawings. This yielded 64 observation sheets and immediate post-observation reflections, followed by individual interviews one to two weeks later. Empirical material was archived and coded through iterative procedures. Abductive analysis focused on episodes (meaningful sentences or paragraphs mentioning educational artefacts). Coding involved manual tagging followed by text searches for analogous episodes. Trustworthiness was ensured through member checking with teachers and observers, intermediate meetings with co-authors questioning analytical decisions, and iterative returns to unparsed data. Teachers received intermediate summaries enabling verification; follow-up conversations with observers deepened collaborative analysis. Informed consent was obtained from teachers, parents, and observers. Relational safeguards addressed the vulnerability inherent in being observed and reflecting on observations. The school leader facilitated communication throughout. Research ethics also stated that taking pictures was permitted if images of pupils were excluded. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The major findings of this study are (1) Educational artefacts exist in diverse, often re-purposed forms and originate from multiple sources; (2) Teachers embodily (re)consider material properties, domain knowledge, and pupil interactions simultaneously when selecting and using artefacts; (3) Pupils dynamically engage with artefacts in the momentum through "thinging", thinking with and through materials; (4) Educational artefacts facilitate differentiation to individual needs by providing multiple material pathways to common learning goals. These findings challenge traditional views of artefacts as passive tools, repositioning them as active agents co-constructing learning activities. The study illuminates teachers’ choice of topics and materials and demonstrates how artefact selection and implementation involves complex, embodied reasoning about domain knowledge, material properties, and anticipated pupil interactions. Perhaps most remarkable, we found that educational artefacts enable differentiated pathways to common learning goals, without the stigmatization that can accompany individualized tasks. If thinking emerges through material engagement, then restricting access to materials restricts access to thinking itself. The common practice of removing concrete materials as pupils "advance" may inadvertently exclude those who continue to benefit from educational artefacts. Our observations suggest that maintaining rich material environments supports not only struggling pupils but enhances thinking possibilities for all. References Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P. (2011). Emerging Approaches to Educational Research: Tracing the Socio-Material. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203817582 Fenwick, T., & Landri, P. (2012). Materialities, textures and pedagogies: Socio-material assemblages in education. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 20(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2012.649421 Goodyear, P., Carvalho, L., & Yeoman, P. (2021). Activity-Centred Analysis and Design (ACAD): Core purposes, distinctive qualities and current developments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(2), 445–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09926-7 Lassiter, L. E. (2019). Collaborative Ethnography. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526421036766518 Malafouris, L. (2020). Thinking as “Thinging”: Psychology With Things. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419873349 Menezes, M., & Smaniotto Costa, C. (2024). The Role of Collaborative Ethnography in Placemaking. Humans, 4(3), 284–297. https://doi.org/10.3390/humans4030018 Röhl, T. (2012). Disassembling the classroom – an ethnographic approach to the materiality of education. Ethnography and Education, 7(1), 109–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2012.661591 Sfard, A., & McClain, K. (2002). Guest Editor’s Introduction: Analyzing Tools: Perspectives on the Role of Designed Artifacts in Mathematics Learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(2–3), Article 2–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2002.9672135 Sørensen, E. (2009). The Materiality of Learning: Technology and Knowledge in Educational Practice. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge Core. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511576362 Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2022). Data analysis in qualitative research. Theorizing with abductive analysis. The University of Chicago Press. Wouters, R., Cox, A., & Raes, A. (2025). Co-producing knowledge in and about education by combining collaborative ethnography and abductive reasoning. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 1405. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05721-y Wouters, R., & Vansteenhuyse, K. (2025). An archaeology of educational artefacts: Revealing invisibilities of the obvious objects of teaching and learning. Ethnography and Education, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2025.2591769 Wouters, R., Cox, A., & Raes, A. (2026). Educational artefacts matter. A collaborative inquiry into the complexity of classrooms. Learning in Context, 3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lecon.2026.100023 27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper Teachers' Opinions on Aspects Related to the Choice of Learning Materials 1: University of Tartu, Estonia; 2: Tallinn University, Estonia Presenting Author:Teachers’ autonomy in selecting learning materials is widely acknowledged as important, yet the process of making such choices is often complex. Decisions regarding learning materials are shaped by teachers’ professional backgrounds, including their teaching experience and pedagogical knowledge (Karabon, 2021). At the same time, research indicates that many teachers feel insufficiently informed about the quality of learning materials and their pedagogical significance (Christensen et al., 2023; Iversen, 2014). When selecting materials, teachers are expected to take into account the diverse needs of their pupils (Griffith et al., 2013; Noni, 2016). However, their choices may also be influenced by external factors, such as parental expectations or recommendations from colleagues, even when these do not optimally support learning objectives (Karabon, 2021). This highlights the need to better understand the factors shaping teachers’ decisions in order to support more deliberate and child-centred choices. Learning materials used in pre- and primary education share certain common features, yet they also differ in important ways. At both educational levels, games are commonly employed as learning tools. While play-based learning is considered central in preschool education (Fisher, 2021; Riley & Jones, 2010), educational games have become increasingly prevalent in primary school classrooms as well (Mitton & Murray-Orr, 2022; Parker et al., 2022). In addition, educational texts such as ABC books, textbooks, workbooks, and worksheets are used across both contexts. A key distinction, however, lies in the emphasis on academic instruction, which typically characterises primary education, whereas preschool education traditionally prioritises learning through play. Recent researches have raised concerns about a growing focus on academic instruction and materials in preschool settings (children aged 6–7), both internationally (e.g., Murphy, 2022; Patton & Winter, 2022). This development has been discussed in terms of the “schoolification” of preschool education, underlining the importance of balancing play-based approaches with the gradual introduction of academic content (Ackesjö & Persson, 2019). Against this background, the present study addresses the limited understanding of how pre-and primary school teachers select learning materials. Across European education systems, teachers are increasingly expected to navigate a wide and diverse range of learning materials while responding to curricular demands and learners’ needs. Developing a coherent approach to material selection is therefore essential, not only to support teachers’ professional decision-making but also to facilitate smoother transitions for children between educational stages. This study examines, first, whether teachers perceive that they have autonomy in choosing learning materials. Second, it explores the goals and principles guiding their selection processes. Finally, it investigates how teachers themselves understand the factors influencing their choices, including the role of policy frameworks, colleagues, and pupils. The aim is to determine the opinions of pre- and primary school teachers on aspects related to the choice of learning materials. Based on that aim, the following research questions were posed: 1. What are the opportunities for pre- and primary school teachers to decide which learning materials to choose? 2. What is the opinion of pre- and primary school teachers on the goals that learning materials should fulfil? 3. Which principles do pre-and primary school teachers consider important for choosing learning materials? 4. Which principles do preschool teachers follow when choosing language learning games for teaching Estonian as a second language? 5. What are the factors that, according to pre- and primary school teachers, influence their choice of learning materials at macro-, meso-, and micro-level? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study was conducted over a period of six years (2019-2025) in three studies, and its aim was to determine the opinions of pre- and primary school teachers on aspects related to the choice of learning materials. The research adopts a mixed-method design that systematically integrates quantitative and qualitative approaches, enabling the phenomenon to be examined from multiple perspectives and methodological angles. The first study examined the extent to which pre- and primary school teachers perceive that they have opportunities to make decisions about learning materials, as well as the goals they believe such materials should serve. Data were collected through a questionnaire administered to a large sample of teachers. Questionnaires were chosen as an effective means of gathering independent responses from a wide group of participants, enabling statistical comparisons between the two educational levels. The quantitative analysis focused on identifying similarities and differences in teachers’ perceived autonomy and their views on the intended purposes of learning materials. The second study investigated the principles teachers apply when selecting learning materials, with a particular focus on language learning games. Data collection consisted of two stages. In the first stage, teachers were asked to freely list three principles they consider important when choosing learning materials. Open-ended responses were used to capture teachers’ own conceptualisations without directing or constraining their answers. The frequency of the principles mentioned was analysed to determine which considerations teachers regarded as most significant. In the second stage, the questionnaire was extended to include questions specifically related to language learning games. This focus was motivated by the increasing need for appropriate language learning materials, particularly games, in early education contexts. The third study explored the factors influencing teachers’ choices of learning materials through semi-structured interviews with pre- and primary school teachers. Given the limited prior research on this topic, interviews were selected as a suitable method for gaining in-depth understanding. Semi-structured interviews allowed flexibility in questioning and enabled participants to elaborate on their experiences and perspectives, thereby revealing nuanced and context-specific influences on their decision-making. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Among the various aspects of a teacher’s professionalism, decision-making, and the ability to choose the learning materials are essential. The findings showed that preschool teachers have almost complete freedom to choose learning materials. Primary school teachers do not have the same freedom, but they do have the opportunity to choose learning materials to some extent. Cognitive and affective goals are central to the choice of learning materials, and were considered equally important by both preschool and primary school teachers. Metacognitive goals were considered more important by primary school teachers than by preschool teachers. Teachers mentioned different principles for choosing materials, which could be divided into four groups: following the curriculum, diversity of content and tasks, clarity and comprehensibility of content and tasks, and external factors. Teachers did not attach importance to playfulness when choosing learning materials. Preschool teachers emphasised the principles for selecting language learning games, focusing on the development of second language skills, consideration of the child’s individuality, and fostering knowledge. When choosing language learning games, teachers find it important to consider children’s different language levels and interests, and help develop other areas of learning. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model was used to determine the factors that pre- and primary school teachers believe influence their choice of learning materials. Macro-level factors included adherence to the curriculum and the use of publishers. The meso-level concerned the influence of surrounding individuals (e.g., management, colleagues, and students). Micro-level factors were related to teachers’ knowledge and experience, where teachers believed that work experience mainly influenced their choice of learning materials. References Ackesjö, H., & Persson, S. (2019). The schoolarization of the preschool class – policy discourses and educational restructuring in Sweden. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 5(2), 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2019.1642082 Christensen, A. S., Mortensen-Buan, A. B., Nordberg, K. H., & Roos, M. (2023). Teachers’ judgement, learning materials and curriculum: Navigating in a changing educational landscape. IARTEM e-journal. 15 no. 2. https://doi.org/10.21344/iartem.v15i2.981 Fisher, J. (2021). To play or not to play: teachers’ and headteachers’ perspectives on play-based approaches in transition from the Early Years Foundation Stage to Key Stage 1 in England. Education 3-13, 50(6), 803–815. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2021.1912136 Griffith, R., Massey, D., & Atkinson, T. S. (2013). Examining the Forces That Guide Teaching Decisions. Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts, 52(4), 2. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol52/iss4/2. Iversen, J. V. (2014). Knowledge of teaching resources in the training of primary and lower secondary school teachers. IARTEM e-Journal, 6(2), 44–70. Karabon, A. (2021). Examining how early childhood preservice teacher funds of knowledge shapes pedagogical decision making. Teaching and Teacher Education, 106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103449 Mitton, J., & Murray-Orr, A. (2022). Exploring the connection between playfulness and learning: Making learning memorable in a culturally and economically diverse grade 5 classroom. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 43, 101005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101005 Murphy, D. (2022). Caring about Early Childhood Education. In Early Childhood Education-Innovative Pedagogical Approaches in the Post-modern Era. IntechOpen. Noni, N. (2016). Primary School Teachers’ Perceptions of and Practices in the Selection and Development of English Learning Materials. LITERA (Jurnal Penelitian Bahasa, Sastra, dan Pengajarannya), 15(2). Parker, R., Thomsen, B. S., & Berry, A. (2022). Learning through play at school – A framework for policy and practice. Frontiers in Education, 7, Article 751801. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.751801 Riley, J. G., & Jones, R. B. (2010). Acknowledging learning through play in the primary grades. Childhood Education, 86(3), 146–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2010.10523135 27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper Common Objectives as a Didactic Challenge: Curriculum Renewal and Teaching in Slovenia Zavod RS za šolstvo (National education institute of the Republic Slovenia) Presenting Author:One of the most significant innovations of the ongoing Slovenian curriculum reform (2022–2026) is the introduction of Common Objectives as explicitly transversal curricular orientations intended to be realised across all subject areas. Defined in the national policy document Common Objectives and Their Integration in Curricula and Curriculum Catalogues (Ahačič et al., 2024), Common Objectives function as an overarching curricular category integrating competences, values and dispositions that respond to contemporary societal, cultural, environmental and technological challenges. Common Objectives are not conceived as additional or separate curricular elements. Instead, they are intended to be integrated into subject-specific objectives, standards of knowledge and didactic recommendations. This integrative logic aims to strengthen curriculum coherence, support interdisciplinary approaches and ensure vertical alignment across educational levels. In contrast to additive models of transversal competences, the Slovenian reform explicitly emphasises the embedding of shared educational aims within subject teaching. From a didactic perspective, this shift raises fundamental questions concerning teaching and learning. While curriculum documents stress interdisciplinarity, integrative learning and problem-oriented approaches, Common Objectives are formulated at a relatively high level of abstraction. Their realisation therefore depends largely on teachers’ professional judgement and their capacity to interpret and translate transversal aims into subject-based teaching. This creates potential tensions between disciplinary knowledge and transversal goals, between curriculum coherence and subject autonomy, and between societal expectations and learners’ individual needs. These tensions are not merely practical but didactic in nature. They concern assumptions about how learning occurs, how knowledge from different domains can be meaningfully connected, and how responsibility for curriculum coherence is distributed between curriculum design and classroom practice. The introduction of Common Objectives thus reconfigures the relationship between curriculum prescriptions and teachers’ professional autonomy, positioning teachers as key mediators of transversal educational aims. The objective of this paper is to analyse how Common Objectives are conceptualised and positioned within the Slovenian curriculum renewal and to examine the didactic assumptions and implications embedded in this approach. The paper addresses the following research questions:
Conceptually, the paper draws on contemporary didactic theories addressing curriculum coherence, integrative curriculum design and the relationship between societal demands and educational practice. By focusing on curriculum documents as normative texts, the paper contributes to broader discussions on didactics, teaching and learning in times of uncertainty. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The paper is based on a qualitative document analysis of key Slovenian curriculum policy documents developed within the framework of the curriculum reform (2022–2026). The primary source is the national policy document Common Objectives and Their Integration in Curricula and Curriculum Catalogues (Ahačič et al., 2024), which defines the conceptual framework, structure and intended didactic role of Common Objectives. This document is complemented by selected draft curricula and supporting materials that illustrate how Common Objectives are embedded across subject areas. The analysis focuses on how Common Objectives are defined, structured and positioned in relation to subject-specific objectives. Particular attention is paid to the language used to describe learning outcomes, competences and didactic expectations, as well as to explicit and implicit assumptions concerning interdisciplinarity, curriculum coherence and assessment. Methodologically, the study treats curriculum documents as normative and didactic texts that articulate expectations about teaching and learning rather than as descriptions of actual classroom practice. Analytical categories are informed by didactic frameworks concerned with the integration of transversal goals, the relationship between subject knowledge and broader educational aims, and the distribution of responsibility between curriculum design and teachers’ professional judgement. The paper does not evaluate implementation outcomes. Instead, it focuses on the didactic implications embedded in curriculum design, examining the demands placed on teachers and the conditions required for meaningful integration of Common Objectives into teaching and learning. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The analysis is expected to show that Common Objectives represent a significant conceptual shift in Slovenian curriculum thinking, moving beyond subject-based fragmentation towards a more integrated and competence-oriented understanding of education. At the same time, this shift entails substantial didactic challenges. First, Common Objectives are expected to emerge as conceptually ambitious but only partially operationalised at the level of teaching and learning. While curriculum documents strongly emphasise interdisciplinarity and coherence, they leave considerable interpretative responsibility to teachers, who must translate transversal aims into subject-based practice. Second, the findings are likely to reveal persistent tensions between transversal objectives and subject-specific didactics. These tensions concern content priorities, assessment practices, time allocation and the balance between curricular prescription and teachers’ professional autonomy. Third, the analysis is expected to underline the importance of systemic and didactic support. Achieving Common Objectives in everyday classroom practice requires time for teacher collaboration, opportunities for professional learning and concrete didactic guidance. Without such support, there is a risk that Common Objectives remain aspirational rather than operational. Overall, the paper contributes to discussions on didactics, teaching and learning in times of uncertainty by clarifying how transversal curriculum innovations reshape expectations of teaching practice and by identifying conditions under which such innovations can meaningfully support both societal goals and individual learners’ development. References Ahačič, K. et al. (2024). Skupni cilji in njihovo umeščanje v učne načrte in kataloge znanj. Ljubljana: Zavod RS za šolstvo. CIDREE. (2025). Developing Curriculum in and for a Changing World: Conducting Curriculum Review. CIDREE Yearbook 2025. Dublin: National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. https://www.cidree.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/cidree-yearbook-2025.pdf 27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper Bridging the Classroom and the Museum: Developing Historical Thinking at the Matenadaran Museum in Armenia Paradigma Educational Foundation, Armenia Presenting Author:Over the past 50 years, theoretical approaches to history pedagogy have shifted from viewing history as a mere reproduction of the past toward more active learning models. In Canada and England, the concept of developing historical thinking and historical consciousness has emerged (Gómez-Carrasco et al., 2022). This approach to history education posits that learning history involves not only acquiring knowledge of the past but also developing an understanding of history as a discipline and how to make history. While historical thinking and historical consciousness have been researched a lot over the years, the main focus of that research is mostly school and classroom-based, focused on curriculum and textbooks (Gómez-Carrasco et al., 2022). However, innovative history education can be organized within and outside of the classroom and this project aimed at exploring the development of historical thinking skills through museum-based education developed through a multi-stakeholder partnership. High-quality museum education serves as an alternative for transforming history instruction and fostering active historical thinking skills (Marovah and Ncube, 2024). According to Leftwich (2016, p. 146), the objective of history museums is "finding new ways to make history meaningful, developing modifications for a range of learner needs and stages, … and facilitating personal connections to content". Museums possess physical resources (artifacts, dedicated spaces, exhibitions) and human expertise (researchers, curators) that are often inaccessible within the standard school framework (Marcus et al., 2017). The presence of researchers and their scholarly work allows for a more multiperspective study of history than is typically available in schools, where narratives may be one-dimensional or unexamined in textbooks. Museum education also complements teacher-facilitated schooling by addressing its limitations. While museum education is a relatively nascent field, Falk and Dierking were among the first to study the museum experience proposing a seminal model for museum learning and updating it over time. According to their Contextual Model of Learning, learning in museums is situated within three main contexts, the personal, the sociocultural, the physical, and evolves over time (Falk and Dierking, 2013) To ensure a museum visit or educational program constitutes a successful learning experience, one must account for the three contexts mentioned, their interactions and their interplay over time. In 2025, within a project funded by the Hovnanian Family Foundation, the Paradigma Educational Foundation partnered with the Matenadaran museum in Armenia to develop an educational program grounded in the above-mentioned theoretical approaches and aiming at enriching the history education of schoolchildren through museum pedagogy. The process lasted for 1 year and 3 months, and included collaboration between historians, education specialists, museum guides and public schools. The topic for the educational program was chosen based on its inclusion in the public education history curriculum and based on the available museum research and objects related to that topic: the program concerned the coronation of King Levon the Second in the context of the Cilician Kingdom’s relationship with the European Kingdoms of its time. Through the geopolitical contextualization, the program explored how museum pedagogy can facilitate intercultural historical understanding and targeted program relevance (Simon, 2016) in relation to contemporary issues. We conceptualized the joint program as a research-practice partnership (Sjölund et al., 2023) that includes a partnership between education specialists, museum pedagogic staff, museum scientific researchers, and school teachers. Throughout program implementation, we used a research-based approach to make iterations and explore the program impact and effectiveness. There were two main research questions:
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study adopts a convergent mixed-methods design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018), seeking to triangulate quantitative data regarding student learning outcomes and engagement with qualitative insights into the pedagogical process and second-order thinking. Overall, 20 sessions were conducted, with over 300 students from Grades 7 to 11, from schools in Armenia. The schools were sampled based on a first-come, first-served basis to an online invitation to participation issued by the Museum. The empirical phase utilized four primary instruments: - Pre- and Post-Session Questionnaires: These were used to measure student engagement, interest and subjective experience. The questionnaire focused on self-reported learning outcomes, interest in the program and similar other programs, and specific questions related to session design and structure. - Structured Observations (Wragg, 2011): A total of 20 sessions were observed using a standardized rubric developed around historical thinking concepts and museum education components. These observations focused on student cognitive engagement with the historical themes, on their interactions with the museum resources, and on their engagement during the sessions. - Artifact Analysis and Gamified Assessment: Classroom-level data was collected to provide a direct measure of learning outcomes and knowledge constructions. These included student worksheets, group work outputs and real-time Kahoot! assessment results. - Semi-structured Focus Groups (Krueger and Casey, 2015): To address the organizational and partnership dimensions (RQ2), an in-depth focus group discussion was conducted with the Matenadaran guides and educators. This discussion explored their experiences as partners within the project and their observations around program development.. A focus group was also run with the funder organization’s main contact. The study adhered to ethical guidelines, obtaining informed consent from school administrations and ensuring participant anonymity. Quantitative data derived from the questionnaires and digital assessments were subjected to descriptive and inferential statistical analysis. Simultaneously, qualitative data from observations and focus groups underwent thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2022). Using an inductive-deductive approach, data were coded into thematic clusters corresponding to historical thinking concepts and the barriers to multi-stakeholder collaboration. This dual-track analysis ensured data triangulation, enhancing the internal validity of the findings and providing a holistic view of the program’s impact within the Armenian educational landscape. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings 20 experimental sessions took place. After each session, the museum and foundation staff held a debrief to discuss observations and make changes to the program before the next session. Based on the collected data and ongoing experimentation, this paper reports on three areas of outcomes. Student engagement: students report a high level of engagement and interest in the program. They report a high NPS score, a high interest in future similar programs. They also report thorough enjoyment of the group work and digital learning involved. Observation data also shows a high level of engagement with museum objects, and with primary sources. Student learning outcomes: The initial review shows that while students are engaged and show first-order learning, the development of second-order concepts is quite difficult for them. Based on the questionnaire data, for many students this was their first experience of working with primary sources. Observation data during the practical work and their interaction with museum sources and objects also showed that students had a hard time engaging with the objects independently. During the program iterations, multiple changes were made to the activities to scaffold students through their first interaction with primary sources. Questioning strategies were also used to guide their interaction with museum objects. In other words, data showed that for many students this program served as a basis to begin engagement with primary sources and develop second-order concepts. Partnership principles: Based on our first-hand involvement in the project and on the qualitative data collected, we have co-constructed three main principles of partnership with the Museum staff: - Inclusion of museum teaching staff / guides in the program pedagogy development process, - Direct communication with school teachers to guide pre-session and post-session learning, - Iterative experimentation before program finalization, to ensure student perspectives are taken into account. References Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE. Creswell, J. W., and Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. Falk, J.H., & Dierking, L.D. (2013). The Museum Experience Revisited (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315417851 Gómez-Carrasco, C. J., Rodríguez-Medina, J., López-Facal, R. & Monteagudo-Fernández, J. (2022). A review of literature on history education: An analysis of the conceptual, intellectual and social structure of a knowledge domain (2000–2019). European Journal of Education, 57, 497–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12508 Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2015). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (5th edition). SAGE. Leftwich, M. (2016). New Intersections for History Education in Museums. Journal of Museum Education, 41(3), 146–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/10598650.2016.1198133 Marcus, A.S. & Stoddardy, J.D. & Woodward, Walter. (2012). Teaching History with Museums: Strategies for K-12 Social Studies. Teaching History with Museums Strategies for K-12 Social Studies. 1-192. 10.4324/9780203136416. Mariruth Leftwich (2016) New Intersections for History Education in Museums, Journal of Museum Education, 41:3, 146-151, DOI: 10.1080/10598650.2016.1198133 Marovah, T., & Ncube, H. (2024). The Pedagogical Value of Museums in the Teaching and Learning of Secondary School History: A Historical Thinking Perspective. The Social Studies, 115(2), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2023.2259834 Simon, N. (2016). The art of relevance. Museum 2.0. Sjölund, S., Lindvall, J., Larsson, M., & Ryve, A. (2023). Mapping roles in research-practice partnerships – a systematic literature review. Educational Review, 75(7), 1490–1518. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.2023103 Wragg, T. (2011). An Introduction to Classroom Observation (Classic Edition) (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203357279 | ||