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 | ||
10 SES 06 E: Theory and Methodology in Research on Undergraduate Thesis Supervision from the Supervisors’ Perspective: A scoping Review
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
10. Teacher Education Research
Paper Developing Grade 9 Students’ Research Skills through Case Study Methods in History Education Nazarbayev Intellectual school, Kazakhstan Presenting Author:In contemporary history education, increasing attention is paid to developing students’ research skills, including critical source analysis, formulation of research questions, and evidence-based reasoning. International educational discourse emphasizes inquiry-based and student-centred approaches as effective alternatives to traditional fact-based instruction, particularly in secondary education. Within this context, the case study method is viewed as a pedagogical approach that situates learning within authentic, complex historical problems and encourages active student engagement. At Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools (NIS), inquiry-based learning constitutes a core instructional principle aimed at fostering students’ independent thinking, analytical reasoning, and collaborative problem-solving skills. The Grade 9 World History curriculum provides rich opportunities for implementing case study methods through topics such as World War I, the collapse of empires, the Versailles–Washington system, and socio-political transformations in Western societies. These topics allow students to work with diverse historical sources and to engage in structured historical inquiry. The main research problem addressed in this study is how the case study method can be used to develop research skills in Grade 9 World History students. The study seeks to explore the pedagogical potential of case-based learning when combined with structured source evaluation tools in classroom practice. The study is guided by the following research questions:
The primary aim of the study is to examine the role of the case study method in fostering key research competencies among secondary school students in history lessons. By analysing classroom practices and students’ engagement with historical inquiry, the study aims to identify instructional strategies that effectively support the development of transferable research skills. This research contributes to the broader international discussion on developing students’ research competencies through inquiry-based approaches in secondary education. While much of the existing literature addresses case studies in higher education, fewer studies focus on their systematic application in school-level history education within non-Western contexts. By examining classroom practices in Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools, this study provides insights relevant to international audiences interested in comparative education, curriculum design, and inquiry-based pedagogy. The theoretical framework of the study is grounded in constructivist and social constructivist learning theories. Constructivist perspectives emphasise that learners actively construct knowledge through interaction with content and reflective thinking (Piaget, 1970), while social constructivism highlights the role of social interaction, scaffolding, and collaborative learning within the Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978). In history education, these theoretical perspectives align with research on historical thinking, which underscores the importance of source analysis, contextualisation, and evidence-based reasoning as core components of disciplinary learning (Wineburg, 2001; Seixas, 2006). Within this framework, the case study method is understood as a pedagogical approach that situates learning in meaningful historical contexts, encouraging students to analyse multiple sources, evaluate competing interpretations, and collaboratively construct historical explanations. The study assumes that structured scaffolding tools embedded within case study activities can support students’ progression from guided inquiry toward more independent research practices. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study adopts a qualitative research design to explore how the case study method supports the development of research skills among Grade 9 World History students. A qualitative approach was selected as it allows for an in-depth examination of classroom practices, student engagement, and the processes through which research competencies are developed within authentic educational settings. The research was conducted at a Nazarbayev Intellectual School during the first term of the academic year. The participants included 32 Grade 9 students and six subject teachers, comprising three history teachers and three geography teachers, who formed the research group. Students worked collaboratively in small groups during case study activities, enabling peer interaction and collective inquiry. Teachers facilitated learning by providing structured guidance and scaffolding throughout the research process. Case studies were designed in alignment with the Grade 9 World History curriculum and focused on key historical topics, including World War I and the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian, Russian, and Ottoman empires, the Versailles–Washington system and post-war political stability, and socio-political developments in Western societies. These case studies required students to analyse primary and secondary historical sources, formulate research questions, and construct evidence-based interpretations. To support students’ inquiry, structured source evaluation tools were integrated into the case study activities. These included sourcing analysis guides, contextualisation checklists, close reading frameworks, corroboration matrices, and a case study evaluation rubric. The use of these tools aimed to scaffold students’ analytical thinking and gradually promote greater independence in historical inquiry. Data were collected using multiple qualitative methods. Classroom observations were conducted to examine student participation, collaboration, and engagement during case study activities. Students’ learning artefacts, including presentations, written reports, annotated sources, and visual materials, were analysed to assess the development of research skills. In addition, semi-structured interviews with participating teachers were conducted to capture professional reflections on the effectiveness of the case study approach and the interdisciplinary collaboration between history and geography teachers. Data analysis was carried out using thematic analysis, following the principles outlined by Braun and Clarke. Observational notes, student work, and interview transcripts were coded inductively to identify recurring patterns related to students’ source analysis, question formulation, and evidence-based reasoning. Triangulation of data sources enhanced the credibility of the findings and allowed for a comprehensive understanding of how case study methods contribute to the development of research skills in history education. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This study is expected to demonstrate that the systematic use of the case study method, supported by structured source evaluation tools, contributes to the development of Grade 9 students’ research skills in history education. In particular, the findings are anticipated to show improvements in students’ ability to critically analyse historical sources, formulate focused and meaningful research questions, and construct evidence-based historical arguments. The study is also expected to highlight the importance of scaffolding in inquiry-based learning. The integration of structured tools within case study activities is likely to support students’ transition from teacher-guided inquiry to more independent research practices. Through repeated engagement with authentic historical problems, students are expected to develop greater confidence in evaluating sources, synthesising information, and justifying interpretations using evidence. From a pedagogical perspective, the study is expected to provide insights into how collaborative learning and interdisciplinary cooperation between history and geography teachers can enhance students’ engagement and analytical thinking. The involvement of teachers from different subject areas is anticipated to enrich the learning process by supporting the transfer of research skills across disciplinary contexts. In terms of originality, this research contributes to the limited body of studies examining the application of case study methods in school-level history education within non-Western educational contexts. By focusing on classroom practices in Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools, the study offers empirical insights relevant to international discussions on inquiry-based pedagogy and research skill development in secondary education. The expected outcomes of the study have practical implications for teachers, curriculum designers, and school leaders. The findings may inform the design of history and social science lessons that aim to develop students’ research competencies through structured inquiry. In addition, the study may support the wider implementation of case-based and interdisciplinary approaches in secondary education, contributing to the development of transferable skills essential for academic success and lifelong learning. References Abeysekera, L., & Dawson, P. (2015). Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: Definition, rationale and a call for research. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.934336 Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. International Society for Technology in Education. Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools. (2025). NIS-Programme educational programme overview (in cooperation with Cambridge Assessment International Education). https://www.nis.edu.kz/en/page/nazarbaev-ziiatkerlik-mektepteri-dbbu-nis-programme-bilim-beru-bagdarlamasy Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. New York: Orion Press. Seixas, P. (2006). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 10. Teacher Education Research
Paper Theory and Methodology in Research on Undergraduate Thesis Supervision from the Supervisors’ Perspective: A scoping Review Linnaeus University, Sweden Presenting Author:Supervision of undergraduate thesis writing is a core academic practice with substantial consequences for students, supervisors, universities, and society. Agricola, Prins, van der Schaaf, and van Tartwijk (2021) show that supervisors’ pedagogical decisions during thesis meetings are directed toward supporting student understanding, revealing supervision as a dynamic, interactive, context‑specific practice. Bradshaw, O’Sullivan, and Creaven (2025) further describe supervision as a continual negotiation of academic identity shaped by institutional structures, personal values, and relational demands. The significance of supervision is especially clear in research by Mårtensson and Söderström (2024), who demonstrate that different supervisory emphases—such as support, control, content focus, process orientation, and supervisory format—relate distinctly to student outcomes including timely completion, deep learning, scientific curiosity, and thesis quality. From the student perspective, Roberts and Seaman (2018) find that students value supervisors who are supportive, empowering, communicative, and aligned with their research interests, while concerns often center on power dynamics and inconsistent guidance. Yet, the empirical research base—particularly from the supervisor’s perspective—remains comparatively limited and dispersed across disciplines and national contexts. Besides, the fragmentation in theoretical usage is highlighted by Bradshaw et al. (2025) while Agricola et al. (2021) and Freeman et al. (2020) observe that methodological transparency and paradigm articulation are often limited in studies of academic supervision. These perspectives bring out the need for theoretically explicit syntheses that illuminate how supervisors conceptualize and enact their roles. This review therefore asks: Which theoretical and methodological patterns characterize empirical qualitative studies on supervisors’ perspectives on undergraduate thesis supervision, and what gaps and opportunities emerge from a systematic scoping of this literature? Addressing this question involves four objectives: to conduct a systematic search for published, peer‑reviewed empirical literature on supervision of undergraduate thesis from the supervisor perspective; to chart the range of aims, theories, and methodologies used in these studies; to analyze characteristics of theory use via the notion of “theory work” (Hamann & Kosmützky, 2021); and to appraise methodological characteristics using the Approach‑Based Model that distinguishes Big‑Q qualitative from small‑q qualitative research (Nicmanis & Spurrier, 2025). Two conceptual frameworks guide the analysis in this review, each addressing a different dimension of how research on supervisors’ perspectives is constructed and justified. The first is a theory‑work lens, which draws on Hamann and Kosmützky’s (2021) articulation of three core dimensions of theory work in higher education research. This lens enables a systematic examination of how studies position themselves theoretically by considering: (i) the range of theories they mobilize—whether they rely on broad, universal theories or highly contextual, case‑specific conceptual tools; (ii) their mode of engagement with theory, including whether theory is being tested, applied, modified, or built; and (iii) the degree of epistemic autonomy demonstrated, that is, whether studies develop theoretical contributions independently or primarily borrow from adjacent fields. The second framework is an alignment lens, which evaluates the coherence between a study’s stated (or implied) ontological and epistemological commitments and its methodological choices, data collection strategies, analytic procedures, and interpretive claims. This lens is informed by Nicmanis and Spurrier’s (2025) distinction between interpretive Big‑Q qualitative approaches, which are grounded in explicit paradigmatic commitments, and method‑driven small‑q qualitative approaches, which treat qualitative methods primarily as technical tools. The alignment lens is particularly relevant in this field because many studies on undergraduate thesis supervision rely on interviews, thematic analysis, or discourse‑oriented methods while omitting explicit paradigm statements. Such omissions create uncertainty about whether methodological choices are philosophically grounded or merely procedural. Together, these two frameworks allow the review not only to map theoretical and methodological patterns but also to interrogate the conceptual coherence and scholarly positioning of the field. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Methodologically, the review follows the scoping framework introduced by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and later refined by Levac, Colquhoun, and O’Brien (2010), as well as the extraction and reporting recommendations of Pollock et al. (2023). Database searches will include ERIC, PsycInfo, Scopus, and Web of Science, supplemented with reference and citation chaining as recommended by Pollock et al. (2023) and the JBI Manual chapter by Peters, Godfrey, McInerney, Munn, Tricco, and Khalil (2024). Inclusion criteria for this publication focus on empirical qualitative studies representing supervisors’ experiences; exclusions include mixed methods designs and studies blending supervisor and student perspectives without distinguishing between them, consistent with the pragmatic guidance of Levac et al. (2010). The final corpus consists of 12 qualitative studies published between 1998 and November 2024, with nine published after 2015, indicating a recent uptick in supervisor‑focused research on undergraduate thesis supervision. Studies were conducted across nine countries (e.g., UK, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Spain, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Indonesia) and span disciplines including health sciences, psychology, education, business, sport studies, and law, with three studies involving multi‑disciplinary samples. This breadth underscores both the growing interest and the cross‑context heterogeneity of supervisory practice. Data extraction covered study demographics (country, discipline, year), stated aims, theory/concepts, methodological stance and methods, analytical approach, and ethical reporting. Analytical work comprised (a) a descriptive synthesis of aims, theories, and methodologies range and (b) a deductive appraisal using the theory‑work lenses (Hamann & Kosmützky, 2021) and the Approach‑Based Model (Nicmanis & Spurrier, 2025). Reporting followed JBI guidance by Pollock et al. (2023) and Peters et al. (2024), using narrative synthesis supported by structured comparison. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Across the corpus, studies consistently explore supervisors’ experiences of dilemmas, negotiations, and challenges embedded in the daily practice of undergraduate thesis supervision. In terms of theory use, seven of the twelve studies incorporate theories or sensitizing concepts to guide inquiry or deepen interpretation. Much of this theoretical scaffolding is imported from adjacent domains: concepts such as “dilemmatic space,” “teacher noticing,” and “teaching dilemmas” derive from pedagogical research, while “chaos/cosmos” originates in learning theory. Studies also draw on repertoires of supervisory roles and quality dimensions developed in other supervision contexts, and one employs systemic functional linguistics to analyze tenor and relational positioning. The remaining studies rely mainly on case specific interpretations, using theory more as a reflective or comparative tool during the discussion stage than as a primary analytic driver. Methodologically, the studies predominantly align with interpretivist or constructivist paradigms, whether explicitly acknowledged or implicitly conveyed through research questions and analytic choices. Designs span exploratory qualitative studies, case studies, hermeneutic approaches, and grounded theory influenced analyses. Semi structured or unstructured interviews constitute the primary method of data collection, supplemented occasionally by focus groups or qualitative questionnaires. Analytic strategies range from reflexive and latent thematic analysis to discourse analysis, phenomenological accounts of lived experience, and constant comparison coding. Notably, several studies that otherwise align with Big Q qualitative values introduce positivist leaning quality metrics—such as inter rater reliability or coding agreement—suggesting that methodological reporting may at times reflect disciplinary or editorial norms rather than paradigmatic congruence. Analyzed through Hamann and Kosmützky’s theory work lenses and the Approach Based Model, the corpus reveals both conceptual breadth and methodological inconsistency, underscoring the need for clearer theoretical articulation and stronger paradigm method alignment in future research. References Agricola, B. T., Prins, F. J., van der Schaaf, M. F., & van Tartwijk, J. (2021). Supervisor and student perspectives on undergraduate thesis supervision in higher education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 65(5), 877–897. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1775115 Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 Bradshaw, D., O’Sullivan, Í., & Creaven, A. M. (2025). Negotiated identity: A systematic review of the experiences and perceptions of supervisors of undergraduate academic supervision. International Journal for Academic Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2025.2538626 Freeman, L., Brooks, J., Crowley, C., Elmi Glennan, C., Gordon Finlayson, A., McDermott, H., & Seymour Smith, S. (2020). Beyond the comfort zone: A guide to supervising qualitative undergraduate psychology dissertations for quantitative researchers. Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5, 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 Mårtensson, M., & Söderström, J. (2024). How does supervision shape student thesis outcomes? Expanding the theory and measurement of supervision and its impact. Journal of Political Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2024.2446940 Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Tricco, A. C., & Khalil, H. (2024). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis: Scoping Reviews (Chapter 10). https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-24-09 Pollock, D., Peters, M. D. J., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Alexander, L., Tricco, A. C., Evans, C., de Moraes, É. B., Godfrey, C. M., Pieper, D., Saran, A., Stern, C., & Munn, Z. (2023). Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 21(3), 520–532. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-22-00123 Rietig, K. (2023). Supervising dissertations. In Innovative Social Sciences Teaching and Learning (Chapter 8). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41452-7_8 Roberts, L. D., & Seaman, K. (2018). Students’ experiences of undergraduate dissertation supervision. Frontiers in Education, 3, 109. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00109 10. Teacher Education Research
Paper Development of Students' Research Skills in World History Lessons through the Organization of Work with Written Sources Nazarbayev Intellectual school, Kazakhstan Presenting Author:In current history education, priorities have shifted from memorization of dates, facts and events to development of learners’research, analytical and critical thinking skills. Students now in history classes are expected not only to acquire factual knowledge but also to engage with historical sources, evaluate evidence, and build coherent, evidence-based arguments (VanSledright, 2014).
Primary documents, letters, archival materials, and contemporary accounts are classified as written sources, which are valuable tools for fostering students’ analytical and research skills(Lee, 2011). However, many 10th-grade students struggle to evaluate source credibility, interpret complex texts, and synthesize multiple perspectives. Thus, history teachers play a critical role in designing structured activities that scaffold students’ engagement with historical sources, helping them progressively develop independence and historical reasoning skills. This study aims to explore how structured work with written sources in world history lessons can enhance students’ research skills, focusing on guided source analysis, collaborative research, and scaffolded individual tasks. This main research problem addressed in this study is: How does structured engagement with written sources influence the development of research skills in 10th-grade world history students?
This study focuses on the following research questions: How does structured engagement with written sources affect 10th-grade students’ development of historical research skills?
How do guided source analysis, collaborative projects, and scaffolded inquiry tasks support students in evaluating and synthesizing historical information? What challenges do 10th-grade students face when working with written sources, and how can structured guidance help overcome them? Literature Review Research skills in history involve a set of competencies that enable students to locate, analyse, and synthesize information across multiple sources(Bain, 2005).Fostering these competencies is aligned with modern educational frameworks that focus on higher-order thinking, problem-solving, and evidence-based reasoning (Wineburg, 2001). Developing these competencies aligns with contemporary educational frameworks, which emphasize higher-order thinking, problem-solving, and evidence-based reasoning (Wineburg, 2001). Working with written sources promotes the development of historical literacy by encouraging students to critically evaluate content, understand historical context, and compare diverse perspectives (Lee, 2011). Nevertheless, effective skill development often relies on pedagogical strategies such as scaffolding, the modeling of analytical processes, and guided questioning of sources (VanSledright, 2014).Scholarly research suggests several effective strategies for developing research skills in history, including guided source analysis, collaborative research projects, and scaffolded inquiry tasks.Guided source analysis provides a structured framework for students to evaluate authorship, context, perspective, and reliability, while collaborative projects foster discussion, synthesis, and peer learning. Scaffolded inquiry tasks guide learners to formulate research questions, gather evidence, and construct coherent arguments step by step. A growing body of research confirms that combining these instructional strategies leads to significant improvements in students’ engagement, critical thinking, and historical reasoning (Bain, 2005; Lee, 2011; VanSledright, 2014). Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study employed a single-group pre-test/post-test design to investigate the development of research skills in 32 10th-grade students (ages 15–16) over an eight-week intervention focused on structured engagement with written sources. During weeks one and two, students participated in guided source analysis using structured questions to promote critical thinking and source evaluation. Weeks three to five involved small-group collaborative research projects, analyzing multiple sources to answer inquiry-based questions and presenting findings. Weeks six and seven included scaffolded individual research tasks, where students formulated research questions, selected sources, and constructed evidence-based arguments. The final week focused on presentations and reflection. Data collection included pre- and post-tests (measuring source interpretation, comparative analysis, and argumentation), classroom observations, student questionnaires, and evaluation of written tasks using a rubric. Quantitative data were analyzed with paired t-tests, and qualitative data were examined through thematic content analysis to identify patterns of engagement, collaboration, and critical thinking. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings 1.How does structured engagement with written sources affect 10th-grade students’ development of historical research skills? The findings reveal that structured engagement with written sources substantially increased 10th-grade students’ research skills. A comparison of pre- and post-test results shows significant improvements: source interpretation increased by 35%, comparative analysis by 28%, and evidence-based argumentation by 40%. Guided source analysis helped students systematically evaluate authorship, perspective, context, and reliability, thereby improving their critical engagement with both primary and secondary documents (VanSledright 2014). 2.How do guided source analysis, collaborative projects, and scaffolded inquiry tasks support students in evaluating and synthesizing historical information? Classroom observations demonstrated that students displayed high engagement during collaborative research tasks, actively questioning, supporting one another, and reflecting on their learning. Participation in collaborative projects enhanced students’ ability to synthesize knowledge and confidently justify evidence-based conclusions (Lee, 2011). Scaffolded inquiry tasks guided students in designing research questions, selecting appropriate sources, and constructing coherent arguments, supporting the development of autonomy and analytical thinking (Bain, 2005). 3.What challenges do 10th-grade students face when working with written sources, and how can structured guidance help overcome them? Questionnaire data and evaluation of written research tasks demonstrated that students effectively synthesized multiple perspectives, critically evaluated source reliability, and produced coherent, evidence-based arguments. These findings indicate that structured engagement with written sources strengthens cognitive and metacognitive skills in historical reasoning, encourages independent and critical inquiry, and highlights the effectiveness of integrating guided source analysis, collaborative projects, and scaffolded inquiry in modern history classrooms (Bain, 2005; Lee, 2011; VanSledright, 2014). Conclusion This study highlights that structured engagement with written sources effectively develops students’ research skills, critical thinking, and historical reasoning. Incorporating guided analysis, collaborative projects, and scaffolded inquiry supports independent learning and evidence-based argumentation, emphasizing the value of source-based approaches in modern history education. References Bain, R. B. (2005). Into the Breach: Using Research and Theory to Shape History Instruction. Harvard Education Press. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Longmans, Green. Lee, P. (2011). Historical Literacy and Source Work in the Secondary Classroom. Routledge. VanSledright, B. (2014). Assessing Historical Thinking and Understanding. Routledge. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press. Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts. Temple University Press. | ||