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 | ||
03 SES 12 B: Interdisciplinary and Project - Based Curriculum
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
03. Curriculum Innovation
Paper Investigating the Impact of an Authorial Program on High School Students’ Research and Project Skills Through Interdisciplinary Text-Based Learning 1: Nazarbayev Intellectual School of Science and Mathematics in Medeu Dis, Kazakhstan; 2: Nazarbayev Intellectual School of Science and Mathematics in Nauryzbay Dis, Kazakhstan Presenting Author:Recent assessments of 10th-grade students indicate a notable gap between content mastery and the ability to conduct complex research and project-based tasks. Despite adequate knowledge in core subjects, students demonstrated deficiencies in critical source analysis, hypothesis formulation, information synthesis, and evidence-based reasoning, as revealed by the Research Skills Questionnaire (RSQ) and the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI). These findings underscore a broader pedagogical challenge: students are acquiring declarative knowledge without developing the higher-order skills necessary to apply it in interdisciplinary and real-world contexts. The present study investigates the potential of an authorial, text-based program to enhance these competencies through structured, interdisciplinary learning experiences. The central research question guiding the inquiry is: How does participation in an authorial, text-based interdisciplinary program influence students’ critical analysis, hypothesis generation, information synthesis, and evidence-based reasoning? The theoretical framework integrates contemporary research on cognition, learning, and interdisciplinary education. Hattie (2009) emphasizes the impact of diverse learning materials, structured feedback, and visible learning strategies on cognitive development and achievement, suggesting that content mastery alone is insufficient for higher-order skills. Perkins (2009) and Davidson (2011) argue that interdisciplinary tasks and engagement with multiple sources cultivate complex cognitive structures, problem-solving capacities, and reasoned argumentation, aligning with the program’s goals of promoting both knowledge acquisition and analytical skill. Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (2000) reinforce the importance of integrating knowledge across contexts, supporting problem- and project-based approaches that require students to synthesize and apply information actively. Conversely, Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) caution that minimally guided discovery learning often fails without structured scaffolding, highlighting the necessity of carefully designed teacher-led interventions in fostering research skills. Boix Mansilla (2017) and Repko & Szostak (2021) further demonstrate that interdisciplinary approaches enhance the ability to transfer knowledge across domains, while Wineburg (2018) and Mann (2012) underscore the role of disciplinary literacy and historical thinking in cultivating evaluative and analytical competencies. Empirical studies on pedagogical strategies provide additional justification for the program’s design. Hernández and Gómez (2019), Hmelo-Silver (2004), Barron et al. (1998), and Gijbels et al. (2005) show that project- and problem-based learning promotes critical thinking, metacognition, and collaborative inquiry. Schraw and Dennison (1994) emphasize that metacognitive awareness is essential for self-regulated learning, while Kuhn (2005) and Bruner (1961) highlight discovery and reflective thinking as foundational to cognitive development. OECD reports (2018, 2020) further stress the international imperative for cultivating interdisciplinary competence, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills, situating this program within a broader global educational context that demands preparation for complex, multifaceted challenges. Drawing on this theoretical and empirical foundation, the authorial program Working with Texts: Methods and Learning Strategies was implemented to strengthen high school students’ research and project competencies. The program integrates literature, history, and science through text-centered, problem-based projects that require hypothesis formulation, critical evaluation of sources, and synthesis of information across disciplinary boundaries. Students engage in self-assessment, peer feedback, and iterative project development to foster metacognition and self-regulated learning. Comparative analysis of relevant literature indicates that structured interdisciplinary approaches, when combined with active synthesis and guided inquiry, effectively bridge the gap between knowledge acquisition and higher-order cognitive skills. Ultimately, this study contributes to understanding how carefully designed, authorial, text-based programs can cultivate critical thinking, research literacy, and evidence-based reasoning in secondary education. By combining rigorous scaffolding, interdisciplinary integration, and reflective practices, the program addresses both local curricular needs and global educational priorities, offering a replicable model for enhancing 21st-century research and project competencies in high school students. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The research methodology was designed as a comprehensive, analytically structured approach to developing Grade 10 students’ research and project skills through the author-designed program. Its goal was to progressively increase cognitive and metacognitive demands by integrating literature, history, art, physics, chemistry, and biology. In the first stage, Karipbek Kuyukov’s painting Explosion served as a visual stimulus to generate open-ended research questions linking historical, ecological, and psychological contexts. Students formulated hypotheses such as: “How do the physical processes of an atomic explosion affect biological systems and the environment?” These tasks were selected based on Davidson (2011), emphasizing multiple perspectives, and Wineburg (2018), demonstrating that critical source analysis is a learned, systematic skill. During the second stage, students collected and critically analyzed sources across disciplines, following the algorithm: identify facts → verify credibility → perform interdisciplinary comparison → formulate intermediate conclusions. For example, in examining atomic explosion physics, students constructed causal models linking scientific data with historical destruction and literary accounts of trauma. Comparative tasks included countries and sites of atomic explosions: Japan (Hiroshima, Nagasaki), the USA (Alamogordo, Bikini Atoll), the USSR (Semipalatinsk Test Site), and France (Mururoa Atoll). Students analyzed ecological, demographic, cultural, public health, and psychological consequences, noted similarities and differences, drew conclusions on long-term effects, and proposed alternative solutions. These assignments fostered analytical thinking, information synthesis, and identification of cause-and-effect relationships, aligning with Perkins (2009) on interdisciplinary integration as a mechanism for cognitive transfer.The third stage focused on constructing evidence-based hypotheses and synthesizing conclusions. Students integrated literature, historical, and scientific sources to build models of atomic explosion consequences across ecological, biological, historical, and psychological dimensions. Tasks included: “Compare historical and artistic sources on atomic explosions in different countries and identify patterns,” “Develop a hypothesis on radiation’s impact on ecosystems and populations supported by data from at least three disciplines,” and “Analyze social perceptions of atomic testing in Japan, the USSR, the USA, and France.” These activities tracked students’ abilities to construct causal chains, evaluate sources, and integrate interdisciplinary information.In the fourth stage, students engaged in metacognitive reflection and peer assessment, reviewing their own work and that of peers, identifying areas where argumentation was insufficient or where source integration strengthened hypotheses. Comparing ecological consequences in Japan and Bikini Atoll refined conclusions on radiation’s impact, while studying Semipalatinsk and Mururoa Test Sites expanded understanding of long-term social and psychological effects. This process documented development of planning, monitoring, and adjustment skills. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The implementation of the author-designed interdisciplinary text integration program led to measurable growth in Grade 10 students’ research and project skills over the academic year. Reflexive analysis of classroom observations, RSQ and MAI questionnaires, and student artifacts revealed several key outcomes. Students improved their ability to formulate problem-oriented research questions and justify hypotheses with evidence, integrating historical, ecological, biological, and psychological perspectives. Comparative tasks on atomic explosions in Japan, the USA, the USSR, and France fostered analytical thinking, synthesis of information, and identification of cause-and-effect relationships. Students examined ecological, demographic, and social consequences, noted patterns and differences, and formulated reasoned conclusions, reflecting growth in cross-disciplinary reasoning. Metacognitive skills—including planning, monitoring, and reflection—also improved. Peer assessment and self-reflection helped students identify gaps in argumentation, evaluate sources critically, and refine reasoning, promoting collaborative learning and deeper engagement with research processes. Interdisciplinary group projects strengthened these competencies by requiring teams to integrate historical, literary, scientific, and artistic sources into coherent presentations. Visualizations and multimedia reports demonstrated stronger argumentation, better evidence integration, and clearer cause-and-effect connections. The methodology combined structured assignments, guided analysis, and iterative reflection. Tasks progressed from observation and question formulation to source evaluation, causal reasoning, and synthesis of interdisciplinary evidence. Assignments were designed to gradually develop cognitive and metacognitive skills, following research emphasizing structured inquiry, multiple perspectives, and reflective practice (Davidson, 2011; Wineburg, 2018; Bransford et al., 2000; Perkins, 2009). This approach encouraged systematic analysis, integrative thinking, and sustained development of research competencies. Despite progress, some students struggled to synthesize complex data consistently and plan extended research projects, highlighting the need for continued scaffolding and reflective guidance. Overall, the findings indicate that a structured interdisciplinary approach effectively develops research competence, integrative thinking, and higher-order reasoning skills. This methodology fosters research and project skills in upper secondary education through knowledge, reflection. References Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta‑Analyses Relating to Achievement. Routledge. Perkins, D. N. (2009). Making Learning Whole: How Seven Principles of Teaching Can Transform Education. Jossey‑Bass. Davidson, B. (2011). Now You See It: How the Brain Science of Attention Will Transform the Way We Live, Work, and Learn. Viking. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem‑based, experiential, and inquiry‑based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. National Academies Press. Boix Mansilla, V. (2017). Interdisciplinary learning: From theory to practice. Interdisciplinary Education Journal, 12(1), 23–45. Repko, A. F., & Szostak, R. (2021). Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory (3rd ed.). SAGE. Wineburg, S. (2018). Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts: Charting the Future of Teaching the Past. Temple University Press. OECD. (2018). The Future of Education and Skills: Education 2030. OECD Publishing. OECD. (2020). Innovating Education and Educating for Innovation: The Power of Digital Technologies and Skills. OECD Publishing. Hernández, R., & Gómez, L. (2019). Project‑based learning and critical thinking development in secondary education. Journal of Educational Research, 112(3), 305–321. Hmelo‑Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem‑based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475. Mann, M. J. (2012). Inquiry learning and the development of disciplinary literacy. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(5), 655–678. Gijbels, D., Verpoest, L., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. (2005). The relation between student‑centred teaching practices and outcomes: Social science perspectives. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 559–575. Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21–32. Barron, B., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem‑ and project‑based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3–4), 271–311. Perkins, D. N., Jay, E., & Tishman, S. (1993). Beyond abilities: A dispositional theory of thinking. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39(1), 1–21. Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H., & Haake, J. M. (2007). Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives. Springer. Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). Project-based learning. Cambridge University Press. 03. Curriculum Innovation
Paper The Emotional Landscape of Educators’ Sense Making in Scotland’s Evolving Mathematics Curriculum 1: Anglia Ruskin University, United Kingdom; 2: Anglia Ruskin University, United Kingdom Presenting Author:Curriculum for Excellence has been in place in Scotland for around 15 years, and its implementation has faced a number of challenges (see Humes & Priestley, 2021, Hizli Alkan, 2023). In response to these challenges, and following OECD recommendations (2021), Scotland has initiated a Curriculum Improvement Cycle (CIC), led by Education Scotland. A central feature of the CIC is the co-constructive nature of curriculum making, involving a range of stakeholders, including Steering Groups, Core Groups, Collaboration Groups and National Networks. These groups are working to develop subject purpose statements, sets of Big Ideas, key concepts, and the Know and Do layer of the curriculum framework (Education Scotland, 2025). Mathematics is the first subject to undergo this process. The proposed Big Ideas approach is intended to build on the Experiences and Outcomes of Curriculum for Excellence while addressing issues encountered by teachers during the implementation. In this research, we explore how educators across school phases begin to make sense of this evolving mathematics curriculum, with a particular focus on the emotional landscape of their sense making and how this may be connected to the type and level of engagement they experienced within the CIC. To explore this, we address the following research questions:
We understand sense making as a crucial element of curriculum reform, enabling educators to make meaning of what is (and is not) changing and the implications for their practice (Soini et al., 2018; Spillane et al., 2002). Drawing on socio-cultural perspectives, we conceptualise sense making as an emotional experience of co-constructing meaning within socio-cultural, political and material environments (Anttila et al., 2022; Datnow, 2018; Hargreaves, 2005; Oatley, 2000; Schutz et al., 2006). While existing literature has begun to explore what Anttila et al. (2022) describe as the ‘emotional landscape of curriculum making’, less is known about the range of emotions that emerge during the early stages of curriculum reform and how these may relate to educators’ engagement in curriculum co-construction. In line with Datnow and Hubbard (2018), this study moves beyond discourses of ‘buy-in’ to develop a more nuanced understanding of how educators engage with reform processes. This focus has relevance for education systems beyond Scotland that are undergoing curriculum change. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The paper reports findings from the first phase of a two-stage study, drawing on 13 online focus group interviews with 29 educators and seven education stakeholders across school phases. Focus groups were organised in two configurations: some included mixed participants across school phases, while others brought together education stakeholders working within the same context, allowing for both cross-phase dialogue and role-specific discussions to emerge. Focus groups were conducted via MS Teams, with transcripts downloaded and edited for accuracy. Participants were first invited to imagine encountering a staffroom poster about the CIC and to discuss their initial impressions. This was followed by discussions of their understandings of the proposed Big Ideas in mathematics and the emotions associated with engaging in the CIC. Drawing on Anttila et al. (2022), emotions identified in their research were used as a starting point for discussion, while participants were encouraged to articulate additional emotional responses arising from their own experiences. Adopting a critical realist stance (Bhaskar, 1978; Archer, 1995), our data analysis explores possible underpinning mechanisms shaping educators’ emotional responses and sense making processes. This approach enable us to move beyond describing emotions to consider the contextual and structural conditions that may give rise to them, while recognising that such mechanisms are not directly observable. Analysis involved iterative engagement with the data, moving between participants’ accounts and theoretical concepts to develop explanations for variations in emotional responses and sense-making. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Findings indicate a range of emotions, with hope, enthusiasm and frustration reported more frequently than others. Greater engagement in the CIC was associated with fewer negative emotions, while minimal or no involvement was linked to feelings such as cynicism, apprehension, insecurity and exhaustion. We discuss possible underpinning mechanisms shaping these emotional responses, including level of involvement in the CIC, previous experience with CfE, assessment culture and school phase. This first phase provides initial insight into educators’ early sense making and informs the focus and design of the second stage of the study, which involves a large-scale survey. References Anttila, H., Tikkanen, L., Soini, T., Pietarinen, J., & Pyhältö, K. (2023). The emotional landscape of curriculum making. Curriculum Journal, 34(2), 178–192. https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.172 Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge University Press. Bhaskar, R. (1978). A realist theory of science. Routledge Datnow, A., & Hubbard, L. (2018). Extending educational reform: Understanding implementation and change. In A. Datnow & L. Hubbard (Eds.), Extending educational reform (pp. 1–xx). Routledge. Education Scotland. (2025). Working together to make change happen. Retrieved from https://blogs.glowscotland.org.uk/glowblogs/public/cices/uploads/sites/10666/2025/04/01103754/020425-CIC-Working-Together-to-Make-Change-Happen-V1.0.pdf Oatley, K., Keltner, D., & Jenkins, J. M. (2006). Understanding emotions (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J., & Soini, T. (2018). Dynamic and shared sense‑making in large‑scale curriculum reform in school districts. The Curriculum Journal, 29(2), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2018.1447306 Schutz, P. A., Hong, J. Y., Cross, D. I., & Osbon, J. N. (2006). Reflections on investigating emotion in educational activity settings. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9030-3 Soini, T., Pietarinen, J., & Pyhältö, K. (2018). Shared sense-making strategies in curriculum reform: District-level perspective. Improving Schools, 21(2), 111–126. doi:10.1177/1365480217744290 Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431. doi:10.3102/00346543072003387 | ||