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 04 T (P): Posters
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Poster Teacher’s perspectives of Creativity as a Starting point, Process or Outcome Kobe University, Japan Presenting Author:This study examines how Japanese teachers construct the meaning of creativity in their narratives of ideal education, with particular attention to creativity as an expression of teachers’ hopes for children’s personal growth rather than as a means of social contribution. Recent policies in many countries have emphasized the importance of the concept of creativity. In OECD report (2025) frames creativity as a key skill for students to prepare for the future and to discover their potential. Also, creative thinking is seen as having huge benefits not only individuals but also society that needs to progress in an era of rapid change. There are many definitions for creativity but here I align with researchers who see creativity requiring both originality and effectiveness, ranging from genius-level to ordinary-level (Runco&Jaeger,2012; Kaufman,2016). When it comes to using creativity in policies, Japan and many European countries share the same aim of giving back to society. Creativity is positioned as a transversal skill underpinning lifelong learning and identified as one of the key competences necessary for individuals to participate effectively in contemporary society (Council of the European Union, 2018). In Japan, creative thinking, ‘souzousei,’ is conceptualized as a competency required for solving modern issues (MEXT,2021). It is positioned as a core element of the broader framework of “qualities and abilities” called ‘shishitsu・nouryoku’ (lit. competencies and skills) that school education is expected to cultivate through subject learning and cross-curricular activities. Within this political framework, Both of Europe and Japan think that creative thinking is not treated as a domain-specific talent but as a general capacity to generate ideas, solve problems, and respond flexibly to complex and changing social conditions. However, since policies do not enact themselves, it is important to focus on what happens on schools level and what teachers do in the classrooms. At the level of educational practice, teachers may attach different meanings to the concept that what is suggested by the policies. Furthermore, meaning can also differ between different countries. Such differences can be understood in relation to cultural contexts that shape how creativity is interpreted and enacted in classrooms. As Lubart (2010) argues, creativity is cultivated and differentiated through culture, rather than representing a universally shared construct. This suggests that the same term may generate different educational discourses across cultural settings. When the same words are understood with different meanings, mistakes occur when creating international standards. To understand how Japanese teacher perceive the word “Creativity”, it is important to consider the dimension of teacher thinking. Teacher thinking can be defined as integrated concept of knowledge, belief, attitude and other elements, and used by teachers to plan, interact and reflect in their work (Elbaz-Luwisch,2005; Levin,2015). When a new policy is introduced, teacher thinking always enters the process; it is used to interpret the purposes of a policy, justify it through personal practical knowledge and then put into practice. Teacher’s thinking influences their how they interpret policies and pedagogical concepts. The tension between systematic “must-do” tasks of teaching and teacher's hopes to “raise children like this” is present in their thinking. It is also essential to consider Japan's cultural characteristics. In Japan, teachers tend to place greater emphasis on effort (Matsumura, 2016) and it has been pointed out that they do not sufficiently evaluate learner potential and influences of social hierarchy (Kariya,2000). Public education aims to provide equal education for all children according to their abilities, but such differences in ability are attributed to effort. Analyzing the range of teachers' responsibilities regarding what public education should provide can help identify characteristic teacher thinking. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used In my research, I employed a narrative approach, which is an appropriate methodology for this study because teachers’ views of creativity are not always explicitly stated but are embedded in stories of practice, hopes, and ideal images of education. This approach assumes that narratives do not merely reflect social reality but are actively constructed through the act of storytelling (Riessman, 2008). Narrativity, constructed data, allows analysis of how teachers interpret educational policies and key terms and how they justify these interpretations based on their personal practical knowledge (Clandinin & Connelly,2000). I conducted semi-structured interviews with two Japanese public elementary school (grades 1 through 6 in the K–12 system) teachers, Ono-sensei and Ito-sensei. Each interview lasted approximately 1 hour. One teacher had just one year of teaching experience who is teaching fourth grade in the rural area, and the other was a teacher with eighteen years of teaching experience and teaching sixth grade in a middle-sized city in Kansai. Although the number of participants is limited, this study is designed as an exploratory, depth-oriented qualitative inquiry that aims to capture the richness and complexity of teachers’ narratives rather than to achieve statistical representativeness. The interview protocol was designed to elicit teachers’ narratives of ideal education and teacher images. Interviews begin by asking about participants’ professional backgrounds and teaching experiences, followed by prompts encouraging reflection on their ideals as teachers and classroom practices needed to realize those ideals. Rather than asking directly about creativity at the outset, the interviews are structured to allow the concept to emerge naturally within teachers’ stories of practice and aspiration. The analysis followed a thematic narrative approach. First, the narratives that relate to ideal education and desired forms of teaching practice are identified. Second, episodes in which creativity is explicitly or implicitly referenced are told according to two analytic dimensions. The first dimension concerns the temporal positioning of creativity within teachers’ narratives: whether creativity is framed as a starting condition, a learning process, or an educational outcome. The second dimension focuses on the perceived purpose of creativity: whether it is oriented toward individual children’s growth and self-realization or toward broader social contribution and societal progress. Through these analytical lenses, I examined how creativity is positioned within teachers’ professional thinking and how this positioning reflects underlying cultural values, such as egalitarianism and effort-based conceptions of ability. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings “Above all, I want to be a teacher who allows each child to reflect autonomously on what they have learned. (Ono-sensei)” Like this, narratives make it possible to show that the creativity described by Japanese teachers is positioned primarily as a process that supports children’s growth, rather than as an outcome oriented toward success or achievement. Regarding the social contributions outlined in educational policy, Japanese teachers do not strongly frame creativity in terms of societal benefit. Instead, they prioritize children’s growth within their immediate educational practice. In this sense, creativity is perceived in Japan as a gap between policy discourse and teachers’ actual practice. While policy documents emphasize creativity as a competence for contributing to society, teachers’ narratives rarely refer to such societal or economic aims, focusing instead on the present experiences of children. For teachers, creativity occupies a rather contradictory position. It is described as something difficult to define and evaluate within existing assessment frameworks, while at the same time being something they strongly wish to nurture. This ambivalence highlights how creativity is valued at the level of teachers’ beliefs yet remains implicit and unstable in practice. The findings further suggest that creativity functions as a moral and relational concept in teachers’ narratives, rather than as a tool for innovation or economic contribution, reflecting culturally specific ways of understanding educational aims. This result leads to implications that teachers may not need to consider social benefit so much, less than policies say. Instead, teacher should pay attention to the children before them. However, this study focused on only the teachers in public school, so there is a possible that the thinking of teachers in private school differs from them because school policies can differ from the national standards. References ・Clandinin, D. J. & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bas. ・Elbaz-Luwisch, F. (2005). Teachers’ voices: Storytelling and possibility. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing ・Kariya T.（2000）. gakusyû jikan no kenkyû-doryoku no fubyôdô to meritokurashî- [Research on Learning Time: Inequality of Effort and Meritocracy]. The Journal of educational sociology, 66, 213-229 ・Kaufman, J. C. (2016). Creativity 101. Springer ・Levin, B. (2015). The development of teachers’ beliefs. In H. Fives & M. Gregoire Gill (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs (pp. 48–65). New York and London: Routledge. Taylor & Francis. ・Lubart, T. I. (2010). Cross-cultural perspectives on creativity. In J. C. Kaufman, R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity: 265–278. Cambridge University Press. ・Matsumura, N. (2016). Virtual gifted education in Japan. In D. Y. Dai & C. C. Kuo (Eds.), Gifted education in Asia: Problems and prospects (pp. 121–145). IAP Information Age Publishing. ・Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Sage Publications, Inc. ・Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The Standard Definition of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. ・Council of the European Union. (2018). Council Recommendation of 22 May 2018 on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning. Official Journal of the European Union, C 189, 1–13. ・Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2021). “’kobetsu saiteki na manabi’ to ‘kyôdôteki na manabi’ no ittaika no jûjitsu” [Enhancing the integration of individualized learning and collaborative learning] ・OECD (2025). “Creative minds in action: Students’ imagination and ideas in storytelling, design and problem solving tasks on the PISA test”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 120, OECD Publishing, Paris 99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Poster Beyond Knowledge Transmission: Cultivating Critical Environmental Literacy in Future Biology Teachers Through Research-Based Learning 1: Kazakh National Women's Teacher Training University, Kazakhstan; 2: Nazarbayev Intellectual School Presenting Author:Proposal Information We live in an age of intertwined ecological and social crises—from climate change to biodiversity loss. These challenges demand more from education than the passive transfer of facts; they require fostering teachers who can nurture critically minded, engaged citizens. Biology educators stand at the forefront of this shift. Yet, conventional teacher training, often focused on reproductive learning, falls short of developing the deep, critical environmental literacy (CEL) future educators must possess and, in turn, cultivate in their students. In this study, we understand CEL not just as knowledge about ecosystems, but as a multidimensional capacity. It involves analysing complex socio-ecological systems, reflecting on the values and assumptions that shape our understanding, and moving towards informed decision-making and action. Consequently, our central aim is to move beyond theoretical appeal and identify the concrete pedagogical conditions under which Research-Based Learning (RBL) becomes an effective methodology for building CEL in pre-service biology teachers. We seek to ground our approach in empirical data from an actual classroom intervention. This aim breaks down into three guiding questions:
Our thinking is anchored in a deliberate dialogue between three conceptual frameworks. First, we draw on the сritical еnvironmental дiteracy model (McBride et al., 2013), which explicitly ties ecological understanding to critical thinking, ethics, and civic engagement. Second, the pedagogy of research-based learning (Healey & Jenkins, 2009) provides our core method, treating students not as vessels but as co-inquirers in a process that mirrors authentic knowledge construction. Finally, the overarching education for sustainable development (ESD) paradigm, aligned with UN SDG 4.7, supplies the normative "why"—the urgent competencies needed for a sustainable future, as outlined in frameworks like the UNECE (2012) competencies. Preparing teachers for ESD is a stated priority across the EU (e.g., the European Education Area) and globally. Our work engages directly with international debates on re-imagining teacher education. By analysing practices from institutions like the University of Gothenburg and Leuphana University Lüneburg, and by aiming to produce an adaptable pedagogical model, this study seeks to contribute a tangible resource to the shared European project of creating innovative, competence-driven teacher education. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Methodology or Methods/ Research Instruments To capture both the measurable outcomes and the nuanced, personal dimensions of learning, we have chosen a convergent mixed-methods design set within a quasi-experimental structure. The intervention is a specially designed RBL module focused on local and global socio-ecological issues, delivered to one cohort of a Master's programme in Biology Teacher Education (intervention group, N≈25). A parallel cohort following the standard curriculum will serve as a comparison group (N≈25). Data collection will be twofold. Quantitatively, we will use pre- and post-intervention questionnaires with adapted, validated scales to track shifts in CEL components. Qualitatively, we will delve deeper through: 1) semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of intervention participants (n≈10-12) to hear their stories of change; 2) a detailed thematic analysis of the students' own reflective portfolios and research reports; and 3) participatory observation of seminar discussions to capture interactive learning in real-time. We will triangulate these data streams to strengthen validity. Statistical analysis (using non-parametric tests like the Wilcoxon signed-rank test) will handle the quantitative data. The rich qualitative material—interview transcripts, written reflections, observation notes—will be analysed through reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), allowing key themes about the development of CEL and the lived experience of RBL to emerge from the data itself. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Conclusions We anticipate this project will yield four interconnected outcomes. Primarily, it will result in a practical, empirically-informed model for using RBL in biology teacher education, moving from principle to practice with examples like tackling "wicked" real-world problems. Secondly, it will outline a set of actionable pedagogical conditions—such as rooting learning in tangible local issues, fostering a classroom culture of respectful debate, and weaving ethical reflection into every research stage—that make this model work. Third, and crucially for impact, we will produce a ready-to-use, open-access resource for teacher educators: a detailed module blueprint complete with case studies, activity guides, and assessment rubrics. Finally, on a theoretical level, the study aims to clarify the relationship between the pedagogical process of RBL and the development of complex competencies like CEL, offering insights that may resonate across disciplines in higher education. This contribution aims to bridge the gap between innovative pedagogy and the pressing goal of fostering sustainability-oriented agency in future generations of teachers. References References Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2009). Developing undergraduate research and inquiry. The Higher Education Academy. McBride, B. B., Brewer, C. A., Berkowitz, A. R., & Borrie, W. T. (2013). Environmental literacy, ecological literacy, ecoliteracy: What do we mean and how did we get here? Ecosphere, 4(5), 1-20. UNECE. (2012). Learning for the future: Competences in Education for Sustainable Development. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. 99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Poster Bridging Curriculum and Practice in PISA Countries: OECD 2030 Transformative Competencies in Middle School Mother Tongue Education Gazi University, Turkey (Türkiye) Presenting Author:The rise of automation and artificial intelligence has fundamentally altered the labor market, shifting demand from routine cognitive tasks to complex, non-replicable human capabilities. This transition compels education systems to move beyond traditional knowledge transmission toward fostering "Transformative Competencies"—specifically Creating New Value, Reconciling Tensions and Dilemmas, and Taking Responsibility—as defined by the OECD Learning Compass 2030. Yet, a critical gap often remains between the ambitious "intended curriculum" articulated in policy documents and the actual "implemented curriculum" within classrooms. While mother tongue education serves as the primary instrument for thought and identity construction, comparative literature examining how these global competencies translate into national vernacular curricula and teacher practices is notably limited. Theoretically, this research is anchored in the OECD Learning Compass 2030 (OECD,2019) framework to analyze transformative competencies. Furthermore, to interpret the pivotal role of teachers in bridging this gap, the research draws upon the "Ecological Teacher Agency" perspective (Priestley et al., 2015), which frames agency not merely as individual capacity but as a phenomenon shaped by structural conditions such as curriculum flexibility and professional autonomy. Addressing this gap, the study examines the representation of OECD Transformative Competencies in middle school mother tongue curricula and their reflection in teacher practices across diverse contexts. The research focuses on four PISA-participating countries—Estonia, Italy, Turkey, and Azerbaijan. These cases were specifically selected for their distinct PISA performance profiles and educational cultures, allowing for a comparative analysis of how a global educational vision is recontextualized locally. Specifically, this research answers the following sub-questions: 1. What is the status of the inclusion of OECD transformative competencies in the final year middle school mother tongue curricula in different PISA-participating countries? 2. What are the views and practices of middle school mother tongue teachers regarding the process of acquiring OECD transformative competencies? 3. How are the OECD transformative competencies included in the curricula reflected in teacher practices? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Methodologically, this research was designed as a qualitative multiple case study, allowing for an in-depth examination of each country's curriculum within its specific context. The study group was determined using criterion sampling, a purposive sampling technique. Consistent with the research focus, the primary data sources comprised the official middle school final-year mother tongue curricula of Estonia, Italy, Turkey, and Azerbaijan. These countries were selected to represent diverse PISA performance profiles and educational structures. Additionally, the study group included eight mother tongue teachers (two from each country) actively teaching at this grade level. To ensure data triangulation, two complementary instruments developed based on the OECD Learning Compass 2030 framework were employed: 1. Document Review Form: Utilized to identify the representation of transformative competencies in the official curricula. 2. Semi-Structured Interview Form: Conducted with teachers to explore their perceptions and classroom practices regarding these competencies. Data analysis was facilitated using MAXQDA qualitative analysis software through a systematic two-stage process. First, a "within-case analysis" was conducted for each country independently, utilizing descriptive and content analysis techniques to code data under OECD 2030 themes. Second, a "cross-case analysis" was performed using the matrix coding query feature of the software. This process revealed common patterns, divergences, and the relationships between the documents and teacher views across the four different national contexts. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The research findings revealed that the integration of OECD transformative competencies into mother tongue education is not a linear transfer process from policy to practice; rather, it is heavily reshaped by national educational structures and teacher agency. A significant implementation gap was identified regarding the Reconciling Tensions and Dilemmas competency. Although this competency was highly represented in the official curricula of Italy and Azerbaijan, it was found that teachers across all cases struggled to implement it in classrooms. Conversely, while Creating New Value was the least represented competency in official policy documents, teachers in systems characterized by high professional autonomy like Estonia and Italy, frequently enacted this competency, effectively acting as curriculum makers to transcend policy limitations. The cross-case analysis highlighted a stark contrast driven by structural factors. In contexts characterized by high-stakes testing pressure and rigid curriculum structures such as Turkey and Azerbaijan, teacher agency appeared restricted, limiting the integration of transformative competencies. In contrast, in systems prioritizing professional trust and flexibility such as Estonia, it was observed that teachers utilized their autonomy to enrich the curriculum beyond written standards. Consequently, the study concludes that merely updating curriculum documents with 21st-century skills lists is insufficient for genuine educational transformation. Instead, the study suggests that successful implementation necessitates an ecological approach that reduces standardized testing pressure and grants teachers the professional autonomy and flexible pedagogical spaces required to foster these complex human capabilities. References Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Sage. OECD. (2019). OECD Future of education and skills 2030: OECD Learning Compass 2030. OECD Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. Bloomsbury. Van den Akker, J. (2003). Curriculum perspectives: An introduction. In J. van den Akker, W. Kuiper & U. Hameyer (Ed.), Curriculum landscapes and trends (pp. 1-10). Kluwer Academic. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1205-7_1 99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Poster Tutor Perceptions of the Number Interview for Informing Instruction in Year7 Online Mathematics Tutoring University of Melbourne, Australia Presenting Author:This study presents findings from semi-structured interviews with two tutors of the Learning+ program, illustrating how diagnostic assessment data, generated through the Number Interview, informed mathematics tutoring for Year 7 students performing below standard expectations. Using reflexive thematic analysis, three data-driven themes were identified, ordered by their frequency and explanatory power: the diagnostic utility of the Number Interview (what information illuminated students’ mathematical understanding), critical factors in differentiating teaching (how tutors enacted and adapted instruction), and guiding student progression (why particular instructional decisions were made in response to learner needs and program goals). These themes collectively portray tutors’ ongoing cycles of curriculum enactment, the ways they drew on evidence, and the purposes underpinning their decisions, supported by verbatim accounts and analytic vignettes that illustrate theory–practice connections. Theme 1 highlights tutors’ perceptions of the Number Interview as a tool with notable breadth, depth, and adaptability. They valued the multiple grade-banded versions that provided developmental continuity and a clear trajectory of mathematical growth. The adaptive nature of the assessment enabled real-time adjustments, ensuring students were appropriately challenged. Its hierarchical structure functioned as a visual representation of conceptual progression, clarifying next instructional steps in number and early algebra. Implementation guidelines supported consistent administration, and one tutor even reported using adapted versions of the tool outside the Learning+ program because of its diagnostic precision. Although they recognised constraints, particularly limited follow-up probing compared with external assessments such as NAPLAN or TIMSS, and a narrow focus on number, they viewed this focus as pedagogically justified, given the centrality of numeracy to broader mathematical achievement. Extended student responses offered insight into reasoning processes, enabling tutors to select activities that strengthened conceptual understanding while promoting more efficient strategies. Examples included facilitating the transition from additive to multiplicative reasoning using arrays, reinforcing equivalence, and structuring spaced review for durable learning. Theme 2 depicts tutors’ dynamic orchestration of planning, monitoring, and reflection. Instruction was intentionally student-centred, with continual adjustments made in response to observed strategies and indicators of confidence. Correctness, speed, and justification of reasoning served as formative markers of understanding. Tutors accelerated instruction when responses demonstrated fluency and paused when less efficient strategies, such as skip-counting, signalled evolving understanding. They designed tasks aligned with assessment evidence by maintaining the structural features of the Number Interview while varying numerical values, and they layered explicit instruction, visual models, and distributed practice across sessions. Professional learning, including master classes and professional learning communities (PLCs), further strengthened their pedagogical content knowledge and provided a shared framework for refining instructional choices. Their reflections revealed deliberate attempts to build conceptual clarity prior to procedural fluency while maintaining student motivation and confidence. Theme 3 situates tutoring within a broader goal of accelerating student progression. Tutors emphasised the value of flexibility to depart from year-level pacing to address foundational gaps, viewing the one-to-one online format as a unique opportunity. Their responsibilities mirrored those outlined in the Learning+ handbook, including administering diagnostic assessments, planning targeted sessions, communicating progress, and nurturing students’ confidence and self-advocacy. Two engagement contingencies were identified. First, some students initially misunderstood the program’s purpose, expecting homework assistance rather than targeted teaching. Second, motivation varied with some learners embracing challenge, while others were error-averse and required careful support to take intellectual risks. These contingencies shaped goal setting, pacing, and opportunities for consolidation, prompting tutors to balance progression with reassurance and revisit prior understandings to secure equitable continuity of learning for students across the ten-week program. Overall, the analysis provides an empirically grounded account of how diagnostic assessment and differentiated instruction support progression in number and algebra while fostering student efficiency, confidence, and self-advocacy. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study draws on semi-structured interviews with two Learning+ tutors to examine how the Number Interview, a criterion-referenced diagnostic assessment in number and early algebra, was interpreted and acted in planning and teaching. Prompts invited tutors to describe session structures; review short video excerpts of their tutoring; explain how they read and acted on the Number Interview evidence; and comment on program resources, PLCs, student motivation, goal setting, and perceptions of Learning+ aims. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed for analysis. In keeping with the study’s practice orientation, questioning probed concrete decisions (task choice, sequencing, representations) and rationales tied to specific episodes of student work. Analytically, reflexive thematic analysis was employed. Coding proceeded inductively from transcripts, privileging in vivo codes that retained tutors’ phrasing. Content and thematic analysis was conducted on qualitative data analysis software, NVivo version 15. An initial codebook was developed, compared with an AI-assistent (Spark AI) for convergence and divergence, and refined through constant comparison. To respect empirical salience, themes were sequenced by frequency and prominence rather than by a priori pedagogical chronology. The final themes were: diagnostic utility of the Number Interview; critical factors in differentiating teaching; and guiding student progression. Each theme consolidated subcodes concerning monitoring and adjustment, elicitation of reasoning, curriculum alignment and task sequencing, professional learning, program responsibilities, and student engagement contingencies. The analysis privileged tutors’ meaning-making while attending to the interaction between assessment evidence, pedagogical content knowledge, and program affordances. Where relevant, short analytic summaries linked quoted episodes to specific instructional moves. Trustworthiness was supported through thick description with extended quotations, transparency about coding decisions and theme ordering, and analytic memos linking pre-assessment evidence to instructional moves and perceived outcomes. Visual artefacts (coding schemes) communicated analytic structure. Direct quotations were lightly edited for readability while preserving meaning. Given the small, information-rich sample focused on depth rather than breadth, claims are analytic-general, illuminating how diagnostic evidence can inform tutoring decisions in similar intervention contexts rather than estimating prevalence. Ethical practice included de-identification of participants and attention to role relationships given the researcher’s collegial proximity within the program. Reflexivity was maintained through memoing on positionality and by distinguishing descriptive reporting from evaluative commentary; a short audit trail documented coding revisions and theme naming. Procedures adhered to institutional guidelines for secure data handling, storage, and consent. A brief member-check of descriptive summaries ensured accuracy without constraining reflexive interpretation. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Targeted online mathematics tutoring arose where tutors could diagnose precisely, sequence instruction developmentally, and adjust responsively based on strategy use, accuracy, and confidence. The Number Interview functioned as an organising source of evidence, providing clear starting points, surfacing misconceptions, and aligning instructional choices with curriculum expectations and learning progressions. Professional learning and PLCs participation enhanced assessment literacy and mathematical language, which in turn strengthened explicit teaching, selection of tasks, and the transition from additive to multiplicative reasoning using visual models. Tutors’ reflective adjustments, including pacing changes and strategic use of representations, supported movement from fragile methods toward more efficient strategies. Program affordances mattered. The structure legitimised departures from year-level pacing so tutors could address foundational gaps and sustain distributed practice until efficient strategies consolidated. Two tensions warrant attention: resourcing, tutors sometimes desired more built-in follow-up items linked to interview constructs; and scope/communication, the interview’s focus on number aligns with developmental priorities but leaves other strands under-assessed, and some students initially misunderstood the intervention’s purpose as homework help. Addressing these tensions could amplify impact through clearer messaging, supplementary item banks keyed to interview constructs, and explicit onboarding that frames Learning+ as targeted intervention rather than general tutoring. These findings offer an empirically grounded account of data-informed, differentiated instruction that guides progression in a ten-week intervention. It underscores that effective tutoring is not delivering more of the same, but evidence-led orchestration: eliciting thinking, sequencing tasks against a developmental continuum, calibrating support and challenge to motivation and confidence, and communicating progress purposefully. These conclusions prime the study to connect with literature on formative assessment, differentiation, and progression, consider scalable design elements, and outline professional learning that sharpens decision-making where multiple gaps co-occur while sustaining student confidence and agency. References Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2020). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238 Byrne, D. (2022). A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Quality & Quantity, 56, 1391–1412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y Department for Education. (2021). Learning+ tutor handbook. Government of South Australia. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House. Griffin, P. (2018). Assessment for learning: An action guide for school leaders. Corwin Press. McAllister, M., & McKinnon, J. (2009). The Griffith University Affective Learning Scale: Confirmatory factor analysis. Nurse Education Today, 29(3), 276–282. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). ASCD. Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). ASCD. | ||