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 08 E: From Early Career to Leadership: Decision-Making, Feedback, and Teacher Development
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
10. Teacher Education Research
Paper What University Students Want to Read in Feedback University of New South Wales, Australia Presenting Author:Feedback is widely regarded as a central feature of effective learning and teaching in higher education due to its potential to improve student learning outcomes, self-regulation, and academic performance (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Sadler, 1989). Consequently, universities across Australia and Europe invest substantial resources in developing academics’ feedback practices and advancing conceptual models of effective feedback (Boud & Molloy, 2013; Dawson et al., 2019). Despite extensive theoretical and empirical attention, student dissatisfaction with feedback persists, particularly regarding the quality, clarity, and usefulness of the information communicated (Henderson et al., 2019; Price et al., 2011). A key limitation in existing feedback research is the limited exploration of the information students actually want to receive in feedback. While prior studies have examined timing, modality, and uptake of feedback (Carless & Boud, 2018; Winstone et al., 2017), far less attention has been paid to students’ perspectives on the content of feedback information itself. This gap is especially salient in European higher education contexts, where massification, outcomes-based curricula, and employability agendas place increasing pressure on assessment and feedback practices to demonstrate relevance, transparency, and alignment with graduate capabilities. Theoretically, this study is grounded in the principle of constructive alignment (Biggs, 1996; Biggs & Tang, 2007), which emphasises coherence between intended learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities, and assessment. Within this framework, feedback occupies a critical curricular space, serving as a mechanism through which students interpret performance standards, judge quality, and regulate future learning (Boud & Molloy, 2013). However, despite the centrality of feedback within constructive alignment, there remains limited empirical understanding of how feedback information—when viewed from students’ perspectives—supports or constrains this alignment. Existing feedback models provide useful but partial accounts of feedback information. Hattie and Timperley’s (2007) four-level model distinguishes task-level, process-level, self-regulation, and self-level feedback, whereas Sadler (2010) emphasises feedback that identifies strengths, weaknesses, and areas for future improvement. Shute (2007) differentiates between verification and elaboration feedback. Although these frameworks are influential, they are largely theorised from instructional or academic perspectives, with limited empirical grounding in students’ expressed information needs. To address this gap, the present study explores students’ perspectives on feedback using a qualitative approach. By foregrounding students’ voices, the study seeks to reconceptualise feedback information in ways that strengthen constructive alignment, enhance learning-oriented assessment practices, and address persistent dissatisfaction with feedback in higher education. The findings have relevance beyond the Australian context, offering insights for European universities seeking to align feedback practices with employability, transparency, and student-centred learning agendas. This study is theoretically grounded in Constructive Alignment (CA), which conceptualises effective teaching and learning as coherence among intended learning outcomes (ILOs), teaching–learning activities, and assessment tasks. Rooted in constructivist learning theory, CA assumes that learners actively construct meaning through engagement with aligned learning experiences (Biggs & Tang, 2011). Extending this model, the present framework positions feedback as a central mediating mechanism that operationalises alignment across curriculum levels, including program learning outcomes, course design, learning activities, and assessment criteria. High-quality feedback is conceptualised as criterion-referenced and formative, explicitly communicating how students’ work demonstrates expected levels of performance against stated outcomes. In doing so, feedback clarifies standards, supports self-regulation, and enables students to monitor and reflect on their learning (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). From a student perspective, feedback is the primary means by which constructive alignment becomes visible and actionable. This framework, therefore, conceptualises feedback not as a supplementary practice but as a core curriculum process that sustains alignment and promotes deeper learning. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study employed a qualitative descriptive research design to explore university students’ perspectives on the feedback they seek. Qualitative description was considered appropriate given the study’s aim to capture participants’ views in a manner that remains close to their lived experiences and expressed meanings (Kim et al., 2017). Following institutional ethics approval, invitations to participate were circulated across a university campus. Thirty-five students initially expressed interest; 20 completed semi-structured interviews. Participants represented a range of disciplines, including Engineering, Education, Sciences, Mathematics, Business, Social Sciences, and Technology. Students were drawn from different year levels (first year to final year) and age groups, ensuring diversity in academic experience. An interview guide was developed to focus specifically on feedback information, rather than on feedback timing or modality, to maintain conceptual clarity. The guide was piloted with three students to refine the wording and sequencing of questions. Interviews were conducted by the first author, audio recorded, and lasted 20-35 minutes. Data analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s (2022) reflexive thematic analysis. Transcripts were read iteratively to ensure familiarity and accuracy. Initial coding was informed deductively by existing feedback frameworks, particularly Hattie and Timperley’s (2007) levels of feedback, before moving to inductive coding to capture unanticipated themes. Member checking was conducted to enhance credibility (Cohen et al., 2018). Through an iterative analytic process, five overarching themes were identified. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Thematic analysis revealed five dimensions of feedback information that students value. First, students emphasised feedback that connects their performance to future job requirements and employability. Such feedback helped students understand how disciplinary knowledge and skills align with workplace expectations, supporting professional identity development. Second, students valued task-level feedback that clarified their understanding of assessment requirements, identified misconceptions, and explained how marks were awarded. This information helped students interpret performance standards and reduce uncertainty. Third, process-level feedback was highly valued, particularly information about the effectiveness of strategies used to complete tasks and suggestions for alternative approaches. Students reported that this feedback was transferable to future tasks. Fourth, students highlighted the importance of self-regulation feedback, including guidance on goal setting, self-assessment, and action on feedback. This supported students’ capacity to engage productively with feedback over time. Finally, self-level feedback, including praise and affirmation, was valued when directed toward effort, engagement, and improvement, thereby contributing to motivation and persistence. This study extends existing feedback theory by empirically identifying a fifth dimension of feedback information, alignment with future work, alongside established feedback levels. Theoretically, it strengthens the application of constructive alignment by demonstrating how feedback information can make curriculum intentions explicit to students. In practice, the findings provide academics with a student-informed framework for designing feedback that is coherent, meaningful, and actionable. Future research should examine the transferability of these dimensions across European higher education systems and explore their relationship with student engagement and learning outcomes. References Adcroft, A. (2011). The mythology of feedback. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(4), 405–419. Ajjawi, R., Tai, J., Huu Nghia, T. L., Boud, D., Johnson, L., & Patrick, C.-J. (2020). Aligning assessment with the needs of work-integrated learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(2), 304–316. Alonzo, D., Mirriahi, N., & Davison, C. (2019). Standards-based assessment practices. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(4), 636–652. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32, 347–364. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university. Open University Press. Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698–712. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage. Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). Feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144. 10. Teacher Education Research
Ignite Talk The Impact of Differentiated Complex Instruction on Students’ Reasoning and Argumentation in Physics Classrooms Nazarbayev Intellectual school of Science and Mathematics in Shymkent, Kazakhstan Presenting Author:One of the challenges of modern education is the steadily increasing need to plan the learning process with consideration of students’ individual needs, which are becoming increasingly diverse in terms of cognitive, academic, and motivational characteristics. This need becomes particularly acute when students are required to complete tasks involving higher-order thinking skills. In final physics examinations, students particularly struggle with tasks requiring causal explanations, argumentation, and evidence-based justification. Similar difficulties are observed in most international examinations (within IB and AP programmes), as well as in the PISA assessment. This study examines how the integration of the principles of the Complex Instruction method (Cohen & Lotan, 1997) and the principles of Differentiated Instruction (Tomlinson, 2014), combined in the form of Differentiated Complex Instruction (DCI), makes it possible to address different learning styles when working on tasks that require higher-order thinking skills. Within DCI, Complex Instruction supports equitable role distribution in heterogeneous classrooms, while differentiation provides access to tasks through varied formats and levels aligned with students’ readiness, without reducing academic rigor. The DCI method is grounded in L. S. Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, according to which the development of cognitive skills occurs through mediated social interactions. The hypothesis of this study is that, through equitable collaboration and individualized ways of engaging students in tasks, each learner gains the opportunity to make a meaningful contribution by engaging in deeper reasoning within the part of the task for which they are responsible. This approach helps reduce gaps in physics learning by focusing on the development of argumentation and inquiry skills, which often arise when all students are given identical tasks that do not take individual differences into account. Although conducted in Kazakhstan, the study aligns with global educational priorities related to equity and innovation, particularly within the STEAM framework emphasised in European education. Thus, improving argumentation skills represents a universal priority for any educational system, regardless of country or culture, making the findings of this study relevant to the international educational community. The main research question is formulated as follows: how does the Differentiated Complex Instruction method influence the development of students’ reasoning and argumentation skills in physics lessons? To gain a deeper understanding of this main research question, the following sub-questions were examined:
The aim of this study is to determine the impact of Differentiated Complex Instruction on the development of reasoning and argumentation skills among 11th-grade students in the process of learning physics. The study employed a quasi-experimental mixed-methods design over the course of a seven-week academic term at the Nazarbayev Intellectual School of Science and Mathematics in Shymkent. A total of 53 eleventh-grade students participated in the study (experimental group: n = 27; control group: n = 26), with the control group taught using instructional methods standard for the national education system. The intervention was implemented within the “Dynamics” unit, which included two major topics: “Elasticity” (Hooke’s law and Young’s modulus) and “Gravitational Field” (motion of spacecraft and energy conservation). The study used groupworthy tasks that included hands-on laboratory experiments (determination of Young’s modulus) and simulation-based materials (analysis of changes in the orbital altitude of the ISS), with task packages designed for different group roles. An assumption of the experiment was that each participant would perform their assigned role responsibly and that effective interaction within groups would take place. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used To examine the effectiveness of the DCI method, a quasi-experimental design with mixed quantitative and qualitative methods was employed. A sequence of twelve 80-minute lessons using DCI was planned for the experimental group. The control group continued learning according to the instructional approach adopted in the Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools system, without systematic differentiation through role distribution in higher-order tasks. The study involved 53 eleventh-grade students (aged 16–17) from a single school that enrolls students selected through a competitive process from both urban and rural areas. The experimental group consisted of two classes taught by two teacher-researchers (16 and 11 students, respectively). The control group also included two classes of 13 students each, taught by two other teachers. The groups were initially heterogeneous, as they had been formed in advance. Ethical standards were respected at all stages of the study. DCI tasks were designed in a groupworthy-format, requiring interdependent interaction among students. The tasks included experimental comparisons of different methods for determining Young’s modulus, investigations of spring and rubber deformation, calculation-based tasks comparing the elastic properties of two different wires, identifying factors influencing gravitational acceleration on different planets, and analysis of changes in the orbital altitude of the ISS. In each case, students worked in groups of four and were able to choose roles aligned with their interests and strengths. These roles most often included «experimenter», «discussion moderator», «data analyst», and «presenter». Differentiation involved the provision of data in multiple formats (numerical data, graphs, and statements), as well as varying levels of scaffolding (core and supplementary data from which students could select what was necessary and disregard what was not). A key element of the Complex Instruction approach was the allocation of roles among students based on their learning styles, with teacher intervention to ensure a balanced level of contribution from each group member. Pre- and post-testing employed adapted versions of the Lawson test, with the original structure preserved (the first question requiring answer selection, the second requiring selection of justification) within a physics context (Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient α = 0.82). Data sources also included analysis of video recordings of students’ group work with coding of reasoning levels (inter-rater reliability κ = 0.78), teachers’ reflective journals, and teacher-completed checklists assessing the fidelity of Complex Instruction implementation. Quantitative data analysis included ANCOVA to determine changes in reasoning scores. Qualitative analysis was conducted through triangulation of data. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The Differentiated Complex Instruction method demonstrated high effectiveness in two main areas: improving reasoning and argumentation skills, and increasing the equity of active participation within group work. According to the results obtained, a statistically significant improvement in reasoning skills was observed (Cohen’s d = 0.72; p < 0.01). This improvement was most pronounced in the construction of causal relationships, compared with more moderate improvements in the control group. A Lawson test administered one month later showed the stability of improvements in causal reasoning skills, indicating the sustainability of the results. During group discussions, an increase in student equity of 35% was observed, reflected in reduced dominance by initially higher-achieving students and a more even distribution of contributions. The most notable gains were observed among students who initially demonstrated lower levels of engagement. These roles simultaneously served as scaffolds for their responses and participation in discussions. This indicates that the DCI method makes it possible to reduce achievement gaps without lowering academic expectations. Teachers reported more productive discussions during group work, as well as improvements in their own lesson-planning skills when using a differentiated approach. Pedagogical practice showed that during the study, and especially after its completion, teachers began to plan higher-order tasks in advance, organizing group work with explicit status management through role distribution. At the same time, teachers encountered difficulties in selecting high-quality resources and independently designing suitable tasks, pointing to the need for targeted methodological support. The limitations of this study include a relatively small sample size, the focus on a single subject area (physics), and the dual role of the teacher as both researcher and instructor, which may have influenced the accuracy of the results. Further research could examine the long-term effects of DCI and compare its impact across different subject areas. References Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1997). Working for equity in heterogeneous classrooms: Sociological theory in practice. Teachers College Press. Cohen, E. G., Lotan, R. A., Scarloss, B. A., & Arellano, A. R. (1999). Complex instruction: Equity in cooperative learning classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 38(2), 80–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849909543836 Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). ASCD. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Lawson, A. E. (2000). Classroom test of scientific reasoning: Revised paper. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 483–500. OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume I): What students know and can do. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. Routledge. 10. Teacher Education Research
Ignite Talk Early-career Teachers’ Sensemaking of Excellence in an Academically Selective School Context AOO "Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools", Kazakhstan Presenting Author:Academically selective schooling continues to play a visible role in many education systems and is commonly justified through claims of improved instructional alignment and enhanced opportunities for high-achieving students (Jerrim & Sims, 2019). Such schools are therefore positioned as high-performance and high-expectation environments. In Kazakhstan, academically selective education has become institutionalised through the Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools (NIS) network, which represents a national reform initiative aimed at raising the quality of secondary education through high academic standards and competitive, publicly funded access (Bairbayeva, 2023). As a result, NIS schools are positioned as high-status and high-performance institutions within the national education system. Research on early-career teachers shows that the initial years of teaching are characterised by intensive professional learning, identity development and the gradual construction of classroom practice. Although formal induction and mentoring are recognised as important, early-career teachers often experience heavy workloads, additional responsibilities, limited feedback and uneven access to structured support, which can hinder their professional learning (McCormack et al.,2006). Despite the growing prominence of academically selective schooling and the demanding environments in which such schools operate, there is limited empirical understanding of how early-career teachers working in these contexts interpret what it means to be an excellent teacher and how they navigate expectations associated with excellence in their everyday work. This qualitative study addresses this gap through semi-structured interviews with 6–8 early-career teachers working in an academically selective secondary school within the NIS system in Kazakhstan. Research questions: RQ1. How do early-career teachers in an academically selective school make sense of “excellence” in teaching? RQ2. How do early-career teachers translate their understandings of excellence into everyday teaching practices and work-related decisions? RQ3. What tensions do early-career teachers experience when navigating expectations of excellence, and what forms of support help them manage these expectations? Research objectives: The overall objective of this study is to explore how early-career teachers in an academically selective school context make sense of “excellence” in teaching and how these understandings shape their professional practice. Specifically, the study aims to:
Theoretical framework This study is grounded in sensemaking theory developed by Karl E. Weick, which conceptualises sensemaking as the process through which individuals construct meaning in situations of ambiguity in order to guide action (Weick & Weick, 1995). From this perspective, professional expectations are not simply implemented but are actively interpreted and reconstructed in everyday work. The study adopts an educational sensemaking lens by drawing on Cynthia Coburn, who shows that teachers collectively interpret and mediate policy and professional expectations within their communities (Coburn, 2001), and on James P. Spillane, who conceptualises sensemaking as shaped by the interaction between individuals, organisations and institutional contexts, particularly for novices (Spillane & Anderson, 2014). This framework enables the study to conceptualise excellence as a socially constructed and context-dependent concept negotiated by early-career teachers in an academically selective school context. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study adopts a qualitative, interpretive research design in order to explore how early-career teachers make sense of excellence in teaching within an academically selective school context (Wiesner, 2022). Research context and sampling strategy The study is conducted in one academically selective secondary school within the Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools (NIS) system in Kazakhstan. A single-school case is intentionally selected to enable in-depth and context-sensitive analysis of teachers’ sensemaking processes within a shared organisational environment. Focusing on one school allows examination of common routines, leadership practices and professional interactions that shape how meanings of excellence are constructed (Hunziker & Blankenagel, 2024). Purposive sampling is used to recruit 6–8 early-career teachers with up to five years of teaching experience. Participants are drawn from different subject areas to capture variation in professional experience while maintaining a common institutional context. A small sample is considered appropriate because the study prioritises analytic depth and rich accounts of professional sensemaking rather than representativeness (Crouch & McKenzie, 2006). Data collection Data is collected through semi-structured individual interviews. The interview protocol focuses on teachers’ understandings of excellence, perceived expectations from leadership and colleagues, everyday instructional and work-related decisions, experienced tensions, and sources of professional support. This format allows participants to articulate their own meanings while ensuring coverage of issues relevant to the research questions (Brown & Danaher, 2019). Data analysis Interview transcripts are analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. The analysis proceeds through iterative phases of familiarisation, initial coding, theme construction and refinement. Throughout the analytic process, particular attention is paid to how participants describe cues, interactions and organisational practices through which meanings of excellence are formed and negotiated (Braun & Clarke, 2019). Ethical considerations Ethical approval is obtained in accordance with institutional requirements. Participation is voluntary and based on informed consent. Pseudonyms are used, and all identifying information about participants and the school is removed. Data is securely stored and accessed only by the researcher. Care is taken to minimise potential professional risk for participants due to the high-status and performance-oriented nature of the school context. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The study is expected to identify how early-career teachers conceptualise and interpret excellence in teaching in an academically selective school context. In relation to the first research question, the findings will produce empirically grounded categories of how excellence is understood by teachers, for example in terms of student academic outcomes, pedagogical quality, responsiveness to high-achieving learners, innovation, professional commitment and alignment with school culture. The study will also clarify how these meanings are shaped through everyday interaction with colleagues, leadership practices and institutional norms. In relation to the second research question, the study is expected to show how early-career teachers translate their understandings of excellence into everyday teaching practices and work-related decisions. The findings will illustrate how interpretations of excellence inform lesson planning, assessment practices, classroom interaction, use of innovative approaches, allocation of time, prioritisation of tasks and organisation of workload. This will provide insight into how teachers’ sensemaking of excellence guides professional judgement in daily work. In relation to the third research question, the study is expected to reveal key tensions experienced by early-career teachers when navigating expectations of excellence in a high-performance school environment. These are likely to include tensions between academic outcomes and student wellbeing, innovation and workload, institutional expectations and personal professional values, and short-term performance demands and sustainable professional development. The findings will also identify forms of support that teachers perceive as enabling them to manage these tensions, including collegial collaboration, mentoring, leadership practices and informal professional communities. Overall, the study is expected to contribute a coherent understanding of how excellence is constructed, enacted and negotiated by early-career teachers in an academically selective school context, and to inform induction and professional learning practices in similar high-expectation school settings. References Bairbayeva, S. (2023, October). Advancing Equity and Diversity: A Comprehensive Case Study of Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools in Secondary Education. In Publisher. agency: Proceedings of the 4th International Scientific Conference «Reviews of Modern Science»(October 19-20, 2023). Zürich, Switzerland, 2023. 256p (p. 13). Universität Luzern. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806 Brown, A., & Danaher, P. A. (2019). CHE Principles: facilitating authentic and dialogical semi-structured interviews in educational research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 42(1), 76–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2017.1379987 Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective Sensemaking about Reading: How Teachers Mediate Reading Policy in Their Professional Communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145-170. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737023002145 Crouch, M., & McKenzie, H. (2006). The logic of small samples in interview-based qualitative research. Social Science Information, 45(4), 483-499. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018406069584 Hunziker, S., Blankenagel, M. (2024). Single Case Research Design. In: Research Design in Business and Management. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-42739-9_8 Jerrim, J., & Sims, S. (2019). How Do Academically Selective School Systems Affect Pupils’ Social-Emotional Competencies? New Evidence From the Millennium Cohort Study. American Educational Research Journal, 56(5), 1769-1799. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219830965 McCormack, A., Gore, J., & Thomas, K. (2006). Early Career Teacher Professional Learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598660500480282 Spillane, J. P., & Anderson, L. (2014). The Architecture of Anticipation and Novices’ Emerging Understandings of the Principal Position: Occupational Sense Making at the Intersection of Individual, Organization, and Institution. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 116(7), 1-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811411600705 Weick, K. E., & Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3, No. 10.1002). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications. Wiesner, C. (2022). Doing qualitative and interpretative research: reflecting principles and principled challenges. Political Research Exchange, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2022.2127372 | ||