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).
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
99 ERC SES 08 O: Opening Pathways to Knowledge
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper Illuminating the STEM Social Inheritance Gap by Accounting for Differences in Adolescents´ STEM Capital Equipment 1: Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany; 2: University of Regensburg, Germany Presenting Author:From an early age, children learn from their parents and within an environment that is shaped by them. Parents usually influence what toys and objects are in the home, what topics are discussed at dinner, how children spend their free time, and what developmental paths are even considered for their offspring. Parents are not neutral, but influence their children based on their own interests, values, and preferences – including familiarity and affinity for STEM-related content. We assume that family influences and experiences have a lasting effect and even in adolescence are linked to whether young people consider themselves to be STEM persons. Our research seeks to uncover, to what extent and how parents´ value beliefs regarding STEM shape their children´s identification with STEM. STEM identity is a powerful concept for the explanation of persistence and choices in STEM. It emerges from the personal identification as a STEM person, together with recognition from others (Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Vincent-Ruz & Schunn, 2018). Experiences relevant to the development of a STEM identity can be gained as early as childhood as shown in research from the U.S. (Cohen et al., 2021; Dou et al., 2019). That family background is still relevant even in adolescence, showed Pfeuffer et al., (2025) with data from Germany: Adolescents from families that reported STEM occupations for their parents reported higher STEM identity values than adolescents of the control group . The idea of a shared identity reflects in the term family habitus that captures shared dispositions within a family (Archer et al., 2012). Our first research question aims to determine whether and to what extent parental value beliefs regarding STEM impact adolescents´ identification with STEM: RQ1: Do mothers´ and father´s value beliefs predict adolescents’ STEM Identity? Our second set of research questions aims to identify mechanisms. We draw conceptually on science capital, that is a theoretical tool to capture one´s cultural, social and economic resources that matter for access to and participation in science (Archer et al., 2015). Parents' values, knowledge and dispositions towards science are one facet of science capital alongside other dimensions (DeWitt et al., 2016; Jones, et al., 2021). In our study, we seek to analyse whether parents´ value beliefs shape adolescents´ equipment with further dimensions of science capital. In this way, we want to find out, to what extent relevant aspects of STEM educational participation are related to the parental home and its attitude towards STEM. RQ2a: Does the relationship between parents' STEM background and higher identification with STEM result from increased STEM activities? RQ2b: Does the relationship between parents' STEM background and higher identification with STEM result from increased social capital? RQ2c: Does the relationship between parents' STEM background and higher identification with STEM result from increased individual value beliefs?
Finally, building on theoretical reasoning on gendered socialization in families (Eccles, 2015), child-specific value beliefs or parents´ endorsed gender stereotypes might reflect in the upbringing of children and therefore shape girls´ and boys´ STEM activities, STEM-related social surrounding and individual value beliefs regarding STEM differently.
RQ3: Does the expected relationships regarding parents´ value beliefs, hypothesized mechanisms and STEM identity account for both boys and girls? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The data originates from a longitudinal study conducted at secondary schools in Germany. The schools in the sample share an emphasis on STEM education, that reflects in a broad range of opportunities to participate in in-school STEM activities and out-of-school STEM cooperation programmes. The variables of analyses were collected at the third measurement point at the end of the school year in summer 2025. Students attended year 9 or 10 depending on the regular duration of the secondary school. This cross-sectional dataset comprises data of about 500 students with an average age of approximately 15,5 years (SD ≈ 0.5). To capture parental value beliefs, we adapted items of the measurement of perceived family science achievement value by Jones et al., (2021). We asked the items separately for both parents and used the term STEM instead of science. Example items are: (1) `My father/mother thinks it is important for me to learn STEM.´, (2) `My father/mother knows a lot about STEM.´ Our measurement of STEM identity goes back on the Science Identity Scale by Vincent-Ruz and Schunn (2018), that we adapted to the term STEM. Example items are (1) `I am a STEM person.´, (2) `My family thinks of me as a STEM person.´, To assess social capital we asked students about the number of persons they know they could potentially speak to about STEM outside of school and to how many persons they have spoken about STEM in the past year. STEM activities were measured with eleven items based on Stoeger et al., (2013). Example items are: (1) `I have already read a book, an e-book or an article about STEM.´, (2)`I have already watched or listened to a programme about STEM subjects.´ To assess individual value beliefs, we aimed to capture different dimensions as described by Gaspard et al. (2017). Example items are: (1) ` I simply like STEM subjects.´ (2) `The contents of STEM subjects will help me in my life.´ To answer the research questions, we estimate structural equation models. To find out whether the hypothesized relationships apply to both girls and boys, the models are estimated separately by gender. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Preliminary analyses based on (measured variable) path analyses indicate that both maternal and paternal value beliefs related to STEM are linked to young people's self-image as STEM individuals even if we control for parents' STEM occupations. However, no significant relationship was found between father's value beliefs and daughters´ identification with STEM. Conversations about STEM in the last school year and further STEM activities were found to partially mediate the relationship between parents´ value beliefs and STEM identity. Instead, adolescents´ value beliefs fully mediated the relationship. On the one hand, the results emphasize that parents´ affinity is related to adolescents´ sense of self which implies unequal access to the self-image of a STEM person and dependence on origin. Adolescents who have little exposure to STEM in their families seem to be at a disadvantage here. This means, sharing a STEM identity is socially inherited to a certain extent. On the other hand, our research points to reasons that explain the identity advantage of students from families with STEM interest. The results therefore convey a constructive message, because they point out possible starting points for encouraging girls and boys to consider STEM as a field that aligns with their selves. Both STEM conversations and activities represent opportunities to gain recognition, experience STEM and to perceive fit with the field. However, the most important factor in closing the identity gap seems to be strengthening young people's own value beliefs regarding STEM. Even though promoting these mechanisms in educational settings among less STEM familiar young people may be challenging, we underscore that considering these mechanisms as milestones can be worthwhile to exert influence on inherited identities. References Archer, L., Dawson, E., DeWitt, J., Seakins, A., & Wong, B. (2015). “Science capital”: A conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(7), 922–948. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21227 Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2012). Science aspirations, capital, and family habitus: How families shape children’s engagement and identification with science. American Educational Research Journal, 49(5), 881–908. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211433290 Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187–1218. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20237 Cohen, S. M., Hazari, Z., Mahadeo, J., Sonnert, G., & Sadler, P. M. (2021). Examining the effect of early STEM experiences as a form of STEM capital and identity capital on STEM identity: A gender study. Science Education, 105(6), 1126–1150. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21670 DeWitt, J., Archer, L., & Mau, A. (2016). Dimensions of science capital: Exploring its potential for understanding students’ science participation. International Journal of Science Education, 38(16), 2431–2449. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1248520 Dou, R., Hazari, Z., Dabney, K., Sonnert, G., & Sadler, P. (2019). Early informal STEM experiences and STEM identity: The importance of talking science. Science Education, 103(3), 623–637. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21499 Eccles, J. (2015). Gendered socialization of STEM interests in the family. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 7(2), 116–132. Gaspard, H., Häfner, I., Parrisius, C., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2017). Assessing task values in five subjects during secondary school: Measurement structure and mean level differences across grade level, gender, and academic subject. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 48, 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.09.003 Jones, M. G., Ennes, M., Weedfall, D., Chesnutt, K., & Cayton, E. (2021). The development and validation of a measure of science capital, habitus, and future science interests. Research in Science Education, 51(6), 1549–1565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09916-y Pfeuffer, J., Stoeger, H., & Ziegler, A. (2025). Amplified social inheritance in STEM: Parental careers shape adolescent identity and choice intentions. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 30(1), 2551107. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2025.2551107 Stoeger, H., Duan, X., Schirner, S., Greindl, T., & Ziegler, A. (2013). The effectiveness of a one-year online mentoring program for girls in STEM. Computers & Education, 69, 408–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.032 Vincent-Ruz, P., & Schunn, C. D. (2018). The nature of science identity and its role as the driver of student choices. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), Article 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0140-5 99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper Science Museum Educators’ Discursive Moves Middle East Technical University, Turkey (Türkiye) Presenting Author:Informal science education has critical importance in lifelong learning and supporting science learning and scientific literacy (Falk & Dierking, 2010). Science museum educators (SMEs) get into interaction with students in various ways in an informal learning setting (Shaby et al., 2019). Studies on informal learning settings mainly focused on how science teaching takes place in these settings, but very few examine the science museum educators’ (SMEs) role in the learning process (Tal, 2012; Plummer et al., 2021). Yet, the pedagogical choices and the ways of interactions with students in these settings has influence on the learning experiences (Tran, 2007). The studies pointed out the variation in informal educators’ teaching practices (Tal & Morag, 2007; Castle, 2006) and suggested that there is a need to examine how science teaching in these environments is socially mediated by focusing on the discursive moves of SMEs. Social constructivism addresses that knowledge is constructed in social environments, which is constructed through language and discourse in science classrooms, underlining that social interaction takes place before scientific learning is internalized for individuals (Vygotsky, 1978). Classroom discourse is the specific verbal strategies that teachers utilize to facilitate teaching, which is critical for meaning-making of students (Mortimer & Scott, 2003). The discursive moves have been explored in the literature due to their influence on the social construction of knowledge (Chin, 2007; Soysal & Yılmaz-Tüzün, 2021). Chin (2007) examined how teachers utilize questioning in classroom discourse and how they scaffold science learning and the construction of scientific thinking. Six teachers were observed through 36 lessons, and a causal comparative method was implemented to reveal categories. The categories were found as Socratic, verbal jigsaw, semantic tapestry, and framing. By using Socratic questioning, the teachers aimed to facilitate students’ learning, use of framing helps teachers to make a summary and give a direction. Bansal (2018) examined teachers’ discursive moves and their aims in utilizing them. Observation and interview data were collected, and three dialogic moves were identified: foundation, initiation, and perpetuation, which were used for establishing classroom culture, eliciting students’ perspectives, and fostering idea exchange, respectively. There were other studies examining discursive moves more in depth. Soysal (2019) examined discursive moves of science teachers during argumentation-based inquiry. The data were collected by videotaping, and the analysis of the lessons revealed six main higher-order categories of discursive moves: (1)knowledge providing/evaluating, (2)observe-compare-predict, (3)communication and framing, (4)evaluating-judging-critiquing, (5)challenging, and (6)managing discourse flow. The most frequently used discursive move was “challenging,” which was used to direct students to challenge in argumentation. In another study, Soysal and Yılmaz-Tüzün (2021) examined the association of teachers’ use of discursive moves and students’ cognitive contributions. In an argumentation-based inquiry teaching approach, chemistry activities were implemented in seventh-grade science classrooms, revealing that teachers were able to integrate variety of discursive moves, particularly communicating, evaluating-judging-critiquing, monitoring, and knowledge-providing-evaluating. The study underlined the importance of the relationship between the discourse of the teacher and the developing students’ understanding of scientific concepts. In short, the studies of discourse in science classrooms show the factor of communication as an effective tool for science learning. These moves are used for diverse purposes, such as summarizing ideas (Bansal, 2018), facilitating thinking processes (Oh, 2010; Soysal, 2019; Chin, 2007), and elaborating on reasoning (Pimentel & McNeill, 2013). While numerous discursive moves have been identified within formal education learning environments, their application in informal learning settings remains underexplored. Therefore, the present study investigated the discursive moves of SMEs during the implementation of museum activities. This specific research question has guided the study:
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This instrumental case study (Yin, 2018) is designed to explore the discursive moves of SMEs during educational activities in a science museum. The qualitative approach enabled researchers to have an in-depth examination of SMEs’ practices in their natural settings (Creswell, 2007), which makes discursive moves an appropriate phenomenon to be examined. The activity implemented in the center was used as the case of the study. The unit of analysis was the SMEs’ discursive moves. Context and Participants Two science museum educators working in a science center in Ankara were selected via purposeful sampling as they were actively working in a science museum and offering educational activities in the museum. One of the activities of SMEs is observed, which focuses on recycling and Göbekli Tepe. These activities were selected as they offer rich opportunities for examination of the discursive moves of SMEs. Data Collection Two of the researchers collected data during these activities as non-participant observers. Data were collected using an observation protocol developed by researchers to record SMEs’ interactions and discursive moves systematically. The protocol consisted of two main sections: (a) contextual information part, such as covering duration, number of participants, and (b) discursive moves part, listing predetermined moves to enable the recording of them systematically. Data were collected simultaneously by the researchers. During the observations, SMEs’ interactions, questions, explanations, and answers were recorded on the protocol. Data Analysis The discursive moves were analyzed with the framework provided by Soysal (2019). With the codebook (Soysal, 2019), discursive moves were divided into ten higher-order categories considering their uses and functions in learning and teaching. Observations were examined individually based on predetermined categories. After the initial coding, the researchers compared their codes and reached consensus on the differences in the coding. Identified discursive moves and their subcategories were analyzed in detail, and the full codebook and its descriptions were presented in the results section. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Among 10 higher-order categories (Soysal, 2019), five of them were observed in the science museum, including knowledge providing and evaluating, communication, observe–compare–predict, monitoring and framing, and seeking evidence. Unique to this study, some new discursive moves emerged in this setting. A total of 127 discursive moves were detected and categorized in the scope of two activities observed. The “knowledge providing and evaluating” category was the most frequently observed discursive move (f=49; 38.58%). This category is used mostly for “presenting logical expositions” (f =41; 32.28%), whereas “direct affirmation” was the least frequent discursive move (f=3; 2.36%), indicating science museum knowledge transmission was used frequently. Communication was the second most frequent category (f=28; 22.05%). “Requesting clarification” and “reformulating” were not observed in this setting, but two new sub-categories (or discursive moves) emerged: “asking for definition” (f=6; 4.72%) and “asking for example” (f=2; 1.57%). “Probing” (f=11; 8.66%) and “embodying” (f=8; 6.30%) were also present, being positive indicators of communication, supporting engagement in science learning. The observe–compare–predict category was used more infrequently (f=17; 13.39%). “Making observations” dominated this category among the discursive moves (f=13; 10.27%), compared to “asking for comparison” (f=2; 1.57%) and “making predictions” (f=2; 1.57%), showing that children are encouraged to make observations very often in this setting. The monitoring and framing category (f=25, 19.69%) was mainly used for “prospective monitoring” (f=15; 11.81%). The other discursive moves were used much less, such as “monitoring (retrospective)” (f=5, 3.94%), “focusing” (f=3, 2.36%), “monitoring (on-moment)” (f=2, 1.57%), and “summarizing (consolidating)” (f=1, 0.79%), implying SMEs mainly focused on guiding learners’ thinking. For the seeking for evidence category (f=8, 6.30%), “asking for attachment” was used (f=5; 3.94%), and an additional sub-category emerged: “referring to visual evidence” (f=3, 2.36%). This highlights the role of visual materials in supporting evidence use in science museums. References Bansal, G. (2018). Teacher discursive moves: conceptualising a schema of dialogic discourse in science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 40(15), 1891–1912. Castle, M. C. (2006). Blending pedagogy and content: A new curriculum for museum teachers. Journal of Museum Education, 31(2), 123–132 Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 815–843. Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage. Falk, J.H., & Dierking, L.D. (2010). The 95% solution. American Scientist, 98(6), 486–493. McMahon, K. (2012). Case Studies of Interactive Whole-Class Teaching in Primary Science: Communicative approach and pedagogic purposes. International Journal of Science Education, 34(11), 1687–1708. Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning-making in secondary science classrooms. Open University Press. Oh, P. S. (2009). How can Teachers Help Students Formulate Scientific Hypotheses? Some Strategies Found in Abductive Inquiry Activities of Earth Science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 541–560. Pimentel, D. S., & McNeill, K. L. (2013). Conducting talk in secondary science classrooms: Investigating instructional moves and teachers’ beliefs. Science Education, 97(3), 367–394 Plummer, J. D., Ozcelik, T. A., & Crowl, M. M. (2021). Informal science educators engaging preschoolage audiences in science practices. International Journal of Science Education, 11(2), 91–109 Shaby, N., Assaraf, B. Z. O., & Tal, T. (2019). An examination of the interactions between museum educators and students on a school visit to science museum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(2), 211–239 Soysal, Y. (2019). Fen öğretiminde öğretmenin söylemsel hamlelerinin öğrenenlerin akıl yürütme kalitelerin eetkisi: Söylem analizi yaklaşımı. Egitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi – Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 7(3), 994-1032. Soysal, Y., & Yilmaz‑Tuzun, O. (2021). Relationships between teacher discursive moves and middle school students’ cognitive contributions to science concepts. Research in Science Education, 51, 325–367. Tal, T., & Morag, O. (2007). School visits to natural history museums: Teaching or enriching? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 747–769 Tal, T. (2012). Out-of-school: Learning experiences, teaching and students’ learning. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tran, L. U. (2007). Teaching science in museums: The pedagogy and goals of museum educators. Science Education, 91(2), 278–297 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage. 99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper Understanding Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning in Practice: Perceptions from Teachers and Students in a Master’s Course on Sustainability 1: Leiden University, the Netherlands; 2: Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway Presenting Author:Interdisciplinary teaching in higher education is increasingly recognised for its potential to prepare students to address complex problems that cannot be solved within single disciplines alone (Blackmore & Kandiko, 2012; Boix Mansilla, 2006; Boix Mansilla & Duraisingh, 2007; Spelt et al., 2009). Prior research suggests that interdisciplinary approaches are associated with the development of students’ collaborative, problem-solving, and communication skills (Finlay, 2019; Klein, 2006; Lyall et al., 2015; Manathunga, Lant, & Mellick, 2006; Yang et al., 2024). However, much of the existing literature has concentrated on curriculum design and learning outcomes rather than on the instructional processes through which interdisciplinary teaching and learning are enacted in the classroom. As a result, educators often lack empirically informed guidance about how interdisciplinary learning is constructed through interaction between teachers and students (Spelt et al., 2009; Oudenampsen, 2024). This study addresses this gap by exploring the research question “How are interdisciplinary teaching and learning enacted in practice?” from both teacher and student perspectives. The research is conducted within a single classroom context in a master’s programme on sustainability at a research-focused university in the Netherlands. The course forms part of a interdisciplinary master’s programme focusing on the governance of sustainability, jointly offered by two different departments. The course is taught by lecturers from diverse disciplinary backgrounds and is designed around an integrated group assignment, where interdisciplinary student teams should integrate knowledge while collaboratively analyzing real-world sustainability problems. The study adopts a qualitative case study design, drawing on interviews with teachers and students as well as systematic classroom observations. Following data collection, thematic analysis was conducted to identify teachers’ understandings and goals of interdisciplinary teaching, their instructional practices and collaboration with colleagues, as well as students’ perceptions of instruction, learning experiences, and the challenges encountered by both teachers and students in classroom practice. The findings indicate that interdisciplinary teaching and learning in this course unfold through dynamic and challenging processes involving sustained teacher collaboration and student peer learning. In teachers as well as students, these processes are shaped by reciprocal knowledge exchange, engagement with uncertainty, and ongoing negotiation between disciplinary diversity and instructional coordination. As teachers and students work to integrate disciplinary knowledge, coordinate instruction, and respond to open-ended interdisciplinary tasks, challenges related to uncertainty, knowledge integration, and collaboration become part of how interdisciplinary teaching and learning are enacted in practice. By providing a detailed empirical account of how interdisciplinary teaching and learning unfold in classroom practice, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of the instructional and interactional processes of interdisciplinary education. The findings offer practical insights for educators and programme designers seeking to create more coherent, supportive, and sustainable interdisciplinary learning environments. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study adopts a qualitative case study design situated within an authentic higher-education context. The case is a course within an interdisciplinary master’s programme on sustainability at a research-focused university in the Netherlands. Data were collected across the duration of the course using three complementary methods: Firstly, semi-structured interviews were conducted with teachers to explore their understanding of interdisciplinary teaching, instructional goals, instructional strategies, and experiences of collaboration with other teachers. Secondly, the researcher conducted classroom observations focusing on instructional practices and teacher–student interaction during lectures. These observations served as supportive contextual data for supporting the interpretation of interview findings. Thirdly, after course completion, semi-structured interviews were conducted with students to examine their learning experiences, teamwork processes, perceptions of instructional support, and encountered challenges. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and anonymized. —three lecturers primarily responsible for delivering course lectures and two instructional staff members who supported the integrated group assignment by providing guidance and follow-up during weekly 20-minute meetings with student teams outside class— as well as fifteen master’s students representing diverse disciplinary backgrounds, from a cohort of sixty-three students total. Student participants were recruited across all eleven interdisciplinary project groups to ensure broad representation. Data analysis followed an iterative thematic approach. Initial open coding was followed by the development of themes related to teachers’ understanding and goals of interdisciplinary teaching, instructional practices and students’ perceptions of instruction, teacher collaboration, student teamwork, and encountered challenges. These preliminary themes are being reviewed, refined, and compared across data sources through repeated engagement with the data. Triangulation across interviews and observations enhanced the credibility and robustness of the findings. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The findings indicate that interdisciplinary teaching and learning in this course are enacted through dynamic and challenging processes involving teacher collaboration and student peer learning. From the teacher perspective, interdisciplinary teaching is enacted through discipline-based integration, sustained collaboration within teaching teams, and ongoing instructional collaboration, as teachers navigate challenges related to disciplinary heterogeneity, structural misalignment, and balancing pedagogical demands. These processes require continuous adjustment of teaching strategies, shared sense-making among instructors, and responsiveness to emerging student needs. From the student perspective, interdisciplinary learning is enacted primarily within heterogeneous project teams, where peer learning, negotiation of disciplinary differences, and collective problem-solving support meaningful learning, while also generating uncertainty, difficulties in knowledge integration, and interpersonal tensions. Engagement with open-ended tasks often involves trial-and-error processes, shifting roles within teams, and the gradual development of confidence in working across disciplinary boundaries. These teaching and learning processes are mutually reinforcing. Teacher collaboration shapes the conditions under which students engage in interdisciplinary learning, while students’ questions, project work, and disciplinary perspectives, in turn, contribute to teachers’ professional learning and inform instructional decision-making. Importantly, the findings indicate that these challenges are not minor or incidental but persist throughout interdisciplinary teaching and learning in practice. Learning often develops as teachers and students work with and negotiate these challenges, rather than only after such tensions have been fully resolved. References Boix Mansilla, V., & Duraisingh, E. D. (2007). Targeted assessment of students’ interdisciplinary work: An empirically grounded framework proposed. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(2), 215–237. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2007.0008 Boix Mansilla, V., Navakas, F., & Fiscella, J. (2006). Interdisciplinary work at the frontier: An empirical examination of expert epistemologies. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies, 24, 1–31. Blackmore, P., & Kandiko, C. B. (2012). Strategic curriculum change in universities: Global trends. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203111628 Finlay, J. M., Davila, H., Whipple, M. O., McCreedy, E. M., Jutkowitz, E., Jensen, A., & Kane, R. A. (2019). What we learned through asking about evidence: A model for interdisciplinary student engagement. Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, 40(1), 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701960.2018.1428578 Klein, J. T. (2006). A platform for a shared discourse of interdisciplinary education. Journal of Social Science Education, 5(2), 10–18. Lyall, C., Meagher, L., Gill, J. B., & Kettle, A. (2015). Interdisciplinary provision in higher education: Current context and future challenges. Higher Education Academy. Manathunga, C., Lant, P., & Mellick, G. (2006). Imagining an interdisciplinary doctoral pedagogy. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600680954 Oudenampsen, J., Das, E., Blijlevens, N., & van de Pol, M. (2024). The state of the empirical evidence for interdisciplinary learning outcomes in higher education: A systematic review. Review of Higher Education, 47(4), 467–518. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2024.a930107 Spelt, E. J. H., Biemans, H. J. A., Tobi, H., Luning, P. A., & Mulder, M. (2009). Teaching and learning in interdisciplinary higher education: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 21(4), 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9113-z Yang, B.-H., Lo, K.-W., Li, Y.-S., & Chao, K.-Y. (2024). Effects of integration interdisciplinary learning on student learning outcomes and healthcare-giving competence: A mixed methods study. BMC Nursing, 23, Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02260-w 99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper Towards Powerful Musical Knowledge? Curriculum Coherence and Epistemic Access in Primary Music Education in Cyprus (2010–2023) University of Cyprus Presenting Author:Abstract
Introduction and Rationale Over the past 20 years (2008-2026), the primary school curriculum in Cyprus has undergone multiple reforms, reviews, and updates. These reforms highlight the tension between the rhetoric of professional autonomy and strong centralised control (Philippou & Tsafos, 2024). The 2004 reform and the subsequent 2010 curriculum texts promoted a child-centred orientation. The curriculum was restructured in 2016 to align detailed ‘success indicators’ with ‘efficiency indicators’ in each subject area. These shifts reflect broader European policy trends towards accountability and standardisation, influenced by competence-based frameworks such as the European Qualifications Framework (EQF). The 2023–2026 curriculum revision left the ‘technical form’ unchallenged (Philippou, 2025), prioritising content reduction and the cross-curricular integration of the EU’s eight key competences, particularly in digital, critical thinking, and interpersonal domains. Curricula reflect shifting priorities between experiential discourses and attempts at conceptual structuring (McPhail, 2018). These shifts mirror broader international curriculum trends (Hordern & McPhail, 2023) and offer insight into how curriculum policy mediates between pedagogical intentions, symbolic control, and epistemic conditions for learning (Bernstein, 2000). Aligned with the ECER 2026 theme “Knowing and Acting,” the study explores how socio-political conditions shape curriculum development (Chrysostomou & Philippou, 2021), professional practice and educational opportunity (Ball, 2012), situating Cyprus within broader European debates on curriculum coherence and knowledge-led reform. Theoretical and Conceptual Framework The study adopts an interpretive–critical stance informed by social realism, which viewing knowledge as socially produced yet structured, differentiated, and specialised (Young, 2008; Young & Muller, 2016; Maton, 2025). Two interrelated theoretical strands underpin the analysis. Powerful Knowledge refers to disciplinary knowledge that enables learners to transcend everyday experience and engage with abstract, generalisable understanding (Young & Muller, 2013; Rata, 2024). In music education, this perspective challenges the positioning of music as primarily experiential or skills-based, arguing instead that it constitutes a specialised domain with conceptual, historical, and analytical structures (McPhail, 2020). Powerful musical knowledge does not oppose creativity; rather, it provides the conceptual resources that enable informed and reflective musical practice (McPhail, 2025), contributing to debates on disciplinary access and epistemic equity in arts education. The Conceptual–Developmental–Curricular (CDC) Model provides analytical tools for examining curriculum coherence, sequencing, and conceptual progression (McPhail & Rata, 2021; Hordern & McPhail, 2023). It enables analysis of whether curricula support cumulative learning trajectories or rely on fragmented, activity-based approaches, and how conceptual density and developmental continuity are articulated—or obscured—within policy texts across reform phases. Research Questions include: 1.1. Which experiential and conceptual knowledge forms are prioritised and/or marginalised? 1. 2. How are students and teachers positioned as knowers and agents within these curricula? 2. How does the “technical form” of the curriculum texts relate to forms of knowledge? 3. How is this knowledge legitimised through policy? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Methodology The research adopts a qualitative, multi-method design oriented towards depth, interpretation, and epistemological critique (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). Primary data consist of official Primary Music Curriculum documents (2010, 2016, 2023), alongside related policy texts such as circulars and pedagogical guidelines. Using Fairclough’s three-dimensional CDA model (1992, 2001), the analysis focuses on linguistic constructions of musical knowledge, conceptual hierarchies, sequencing principles, and the alignment between pedagogical rhetoric and regulatory mechanisms. The model also situates curriculum reforms within their broader socio-political and policy contexts (Ball, 2012). Additionally, to examine the internal coherence and epistemic structuring of curriculum knowledge, the study draws on the CDC Model (McPhail & Rata, 2021) as an analytical heuristic to explore how musical knowledge is conceptualised, sequenced, and developed across grade levels, with attention to progression from experiential engagement to conceptual understanding. This supports analysis of epistemic density, coherence, and alignment between curriculum aims, the intended learning outcomes, and the forms of assessment. Data is thus analysed thematically using theoretically informed codes derived from Social Realism, the CDC Model, and CDA. Systematically and comparatively tracing these across different reform phases over nearly two decades allows for the identification of continuities, shifts, and contradictions in the construction of curriculum knowledge. Together, these frameworks enable a holistic analysis of music curricula as policy discourses, knowledge structures, and pedagogical regulators (Luke, Woods, & Weir, 2012). Reflexivity and Researcher Positioning The study explicitly acknowledges my prior involvement in curriculum reform processes and current institutional positioning as a Music Inspector in Primary Education. Rather than treating this as bias, the research adopts a reflexive stance that recognises insider knowledge as a methodological resource subject to systematic critical scrutiny (Berger, 2015). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Conclusions and Expected Outcomes Preliminary analysis suggests a progressive shift towards learner-centred, experiential, and creativity-oriented discourses across curriculum reforms. While these shifts foreground inclusion and engagement, they are often accompanied by a weakening of explicit conceptual progression. Musical concepts appear, in several instances, as activities or outcomes rather than as elements of a cumulative knowledge structure. Learning outcomes and achievement indicators tend to emphasise observable behaviours, offering limited teacher guidance regarding the development of conceptual understanding. From a CDC perspective, this may contribute to fragmented sequencing patterns, where progression is implied through repetition rather than conceptual deepening. Preliminary findings also suggest that curriculum design may shape conditions of epistemic access, professional practice, and educational equity in music education, although these interpretations remain provisional as the analysis is ongoing. By conceptualising music curricula as sites of epistemological contestation and policy enactment, the paper tentatively explores whether access to powerful musical knowledge may constitute not only a curricular concern but also a broader political and equity-related issue within contemporary education systems. This paper seeks to contribute to curriculum studies and music education through an exploratory and reflexive examination of primary music curriculum policy, drawing on contemporary debates around Powerful Knowledge. From the perspective of an emerging researcher, and with the study still in progress, the paper’s anticipated contribution lies primarily in the conceptual and methodological interrogation of the integration of the Curriculum Design Coherence (CDC) model with Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as a potential analytical framework for examining how curriculum design may mediate forms of epistemic access, professional practice, and educational equity. Rather than advancing predetermined conclusions, the paper aims to open a space for theoretical and methodological reflection on how knowledge, coherence, and regulation can be empirically analysed within the field of music education, particularly within small-state and policy-sensitive educational contexts such as Cyprus. References References Ball, S. J. (2012). Global education inc.: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. Routledge. Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219–234. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique (Rev. ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. Chrysostomou, N., & Philippou, S. (2021). Knowledge types in the official religious education curricula (1996, 2010, 2016/2019) of primary education in Cyprus: Continuities, shifts and ambivalences. *Comparative and International Education Review*, 27, 143–178. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Polity Press. Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed.). Longman. Hordern, J., & McPhail, G. (2023). Powerful knowledge, curriculum coherence and the future of education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 55(2), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2022.2141849 Luke, A., Woods, A., & Weir, K. (Eds.). (2012). Curriculum, syllabus design and equity. Routledge. Maton, K. (2014). Knowledge and knowers: Towards a realist sociology of education. Routledge. Maton, K. (2025). Building powerful knowledge: Studies in social realism and education. Routledge. McPhail, G. (2018). Music curriculum reform in Aotearoa New Zealand: Framing the knowledge debate. Curriculum Matters, 14, 58–77. McPhail, G. (2020). Knowledge, curriculum and powerful pedagogy in music education. British Journal of Music Education, 37(3), 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051720000203 McPhail, G. (2025). Conceptual progression and curriculum coherence in music education. In J. Hordern & K. Maton (Eds.), Curriculum, knowledge and social justice (pp. xx–xx). Routledge. McPhail, G., & Rata, E. (2021). Comparing curriculum types: ‘Powerful knowledge’ and music education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 69(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2020.1766691 Philippou, S. (2025). The view from the Republic of Cyprus. Research Intelligence, 165, 32. Philippou, S., & Tsafos, V. (2024). Recontextualising Stenhouse: Instantiations of the “teacher as researcher” metaphor in Greece and Cyprus. The Curriculum Journal, 35(4), 567–585. https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.286 Rata, E. (2012). The politics of knowledge in education. British Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 103–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2011.615388 Rata, E. (2024). Knowledge, power and education: The sociology of powerful knowledge. Routledge. Young, M. (2008). Bringing knowledge back in: From social constructivism to social realism in the sociology of education. Routledge. Young, M., & Muller, J. (2013). On the powers of powerful knowledge. Review of Education, 1(3), 229–250. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3017 Young, M., & Muller, J. (2016). Curriculum and the specialisation of knowledge. In M. Young & J. Muller (Eds.), Knowledge and the future school (pp. 12–29). Bloomsbury. | ||