Conference Agenda

Uncertainty is not a marginal phenomenon in educational practice, but rather a constitutive component of teaching itself. Educational activity aims to enable learning, but cannot operatively produce acquisition; rather, it is characterised by a structural element of openness and unavailability (Herzmann, 2018). This fundamental pedagogical uncertainty is particularly evident in subject teaching, where subject matter is clearly regulated in normative terms, but the path to a correct decision is not immediately apparent and must be developed through comparison, reference to rules and contextualisation in the course of teaching. This proposal takes up this perspective and focuses empirical teaching research on how epistemic uncertainty is dealt with in the classroom.

The teaching of the first language (L1) is considered as an example, specifically in the area of writing and orthography. Language learning objectives are normatively framed in many first languages and associated with high expectations of correctness, while their application remains epistemically demanding. Decisions about correct linguistic forms often cannot be derived directly from perception or intuition, but require knowledge of linguistic structures, principles and rules. The associated uncertainty is not generated by the situation, but is inherent in the subject matter itself. In research-based, discovery-oriented teaching settings, this epistemic uncertainty is exacerbated didactically, as search movements, preliminary interpretations and even inappropriate or ‘abstruse’ explanations must be permitted in principle. At the same time, such open processes conflict with normative expectations of subject-specific accuracy and school order.

To date, little is known about how this epistemic uncertainty is actually dealt with in teaching practice. With regard to specific teaching subjects, the theoretical intertwining of subject didactics and praxeological teaching research is particularly relevant here. Primary school L1 teaching is an area in which the interplay between the subject-specific structuring of the learning material and the situational delivery of teaching has not yet been adequately described empirically. While subject-specific didactic theory formation has long been focused on the systematic description of linguistic subjects and their modelling in a way that is appropriate for acquisition, empirical studies on actual teaching practice have remained rare (Riegler & Wiprächtiger-Geppert, 2016). In particular, there is a lack of studies that reconstruct how subject-specific problems are dealt with in teaching, how epistemic uncertainty is framed, limited or kept open in the process, and how this results in different teaching cultures and forms of subject-specific expertise.

This proposal addresses this tension and focuses on how epistemic uncertainty is dealt with in teaching by examining L1 teaching as the situational implementation of pedagogical practices. This implementation is understood as an expression of different teaching cultures, each of which produces its own ways of dealing with subject-specific uncertainty. On this basis, the article explores the following questions:
(1) How is L1 teaching produced as a teaching culture within the didactic framework of research-based and discovery-based learning, and how is epistemic uncertainty framed in this context?
(2) How is epistemic uncertainty dealt with in different teaching cultures when addressing linguistic action problems, and what forms of subject-specific expertise become apparent?

Revoicing, as an unique classroom discourse strategy, has attracted lots of attention since it was first identified by O’Connor and Michaels in two elementary classrooms. A revoicing move usually occurs after a teacher poses a question and a student responds. Instead of simply evaluating the response as correct or incorrect, the teacher repeats or rephrases part of student’s utterance to acknowledge student’s contribution, and then opening up the next turn for the student to (tacitly or explicitly) agree or disagree with the teacher’s revoicing. It therefore publicly positions students as a holder of productive ideas and credits this contribution to the originating speaker, thereby creating or sustaining a classroom culture that values students’ thinking. Since its identification, a growing body of international research has demonstrated the pedagogical significance of revoicing, showing that this small talk move can amplify and extend students’ voices, position them as active thinkers, and challenge the traditional IRE triadic interaction pattern.

Based on its distinctive functions, some researchers have advocated incorporating revoicing into teacher professional development programs. In particular, the strategy has attracted increasing attention in China since 2024, with emerging attempts to use revoicing to transform the traditional IRE triadic interaction pattern. However, studies conducted across different educational and cultural contexts have also revealed that revoicing does not always produce positive outcomes. In some cases, it may prematurely close down classroom discussion. At other times, instructors may misinterpret or inaccurately revoice students’ intended meanings. Moreover, some variation exists across studies in how revoicing is conceptualized and defined.

Against this tension-filled background, and considering the significant role of teacher talk in students’ development across primary and secondary education, we conducted a scoping review focusing on revoicing in these educational stages and K–12 classrooms. To the best of our knowledge, although some review studies have examined teacher talk more broadly, little review research has specifically focused on revoicing as a distinctive teacher talk move. Therefore, this scoping review aims to map the existing research landscape, refine conceptual understandings of revoicing, and provide meaningful insights for both researchers and practitioners.

The overarching research question guiding this study is:

How have scholars conceptualised and studied “revoicing” in primary and secondary educational research?

It can be further divided into three sub-questions.

First, how do researchers conceptualize “revoicing” in the existing studies?

• This question focuses on how researchers define the concept and whether they attend to discourse markers, forms, and other linguistic features of revoicing.

Second, how is revoicing examined in the existing literature?

• This question concerns the research questions directly related to revoicing, as well as the analytical perspectives, methods, and approaches adopted by researchers.

Third, what are the major findings of these studies?

• This question aims to synthesize the evidence and conclusions regarding revoicing, while also identifying possible contradictory findings within the existing literature.

In recent years, the need to enhance both students’ academic learning and their social skills in primary education has become increasingly apparent. All too many students face challenges to participating in their learning communities, a circumstance that can negatively impact not only their academic development but also their well-being (Brewer et al., 2017; Saggers et al., 2023). At the same time, schools are expected to prepare students for collaborative work and social engagement as part of future educational and societal demands (OECD, 2018; Weidmann & Deming, 2020). Despite this, little research has systematically mapped how interventions that integrate social and academic elements are designed, implemented and evaluated across subjects in primary and lower secondary school.

Reviews have spotlighted academic interventions, but without examining how social factors influence students’ academic outcomes. Mulcahy et al. (2014) highlighted that many interventions have targeted students with emotional and behavioural difficulties, but few have systematically linked social and academic goals. Bowman-Perrott et al. (2016) observed that research often prioritises content-related or cognitive aspects of teaching over the social dimensions of learning. They further point out the lack of methodological rigor in most studies, which frequently overlook social factors that may either support or impede students’ learning.

This paper aims to address these knowledge gaps by examining existing types of socio-academic interventions, how they are defined, implemented and evaluated, and how they measure students’ academic and social development. We map current interventions and analyse how they integrate social and academic elements, while also identifying whether and how their interlinkages are conceptualised and empirically examined in the literature. By incorporating a deeper analysis of these interventions’ social elements, we aim to shed further light on how best to support students’ social and academic growth at school.

Socio-academic Interventions

Schmidt’s (2015) concept of socio-academic learning provides the theoretical foundation for this paper. It builds on social practice theory (Lave & Wenger, 2012), Bourdieu’s notion of social capital (1998) and the concept of socio-mathematical norms (Yackel & Cobb, 1996). Together, these perspectives highlight the mutual and inseparable connection between academic and social participation in learning communities. Socio-academic learning challenges the traditional separation between academic and social inclusion by demonstrating how students’ social positioning and relationships shape their access to learning opportunities.

Socio-mathematical norms refer to the implicit and explicit norms that define what counts as meaningful academic contributions in classroom interactions. Socio-academic learning extends this idea beyond mathematics, suggesting that valuing precise subject-specific language or metacognitive reflection establishes participation norms that structure both social and academic dynamics in the classroom.

In practice theory, learning is situated within social communities where participation is a dynamic process. Bourdieu’s concept of social capital highlights how relational resources support or constrain academic development. Socio-academic norms illustrate how shared understandings of what constitutes meaningful academic participation can directly impact students’ opportunities to engage in learning. Consequently, instructional design should consider social mechanisms that influence their learning opportunities and recognise that academic progress depends on an inclusive, supportive social structure.

In this context, socio-academic interventions refer to instructional approaches that intentionally integrate social and academic goals to promote students’ learning and participation. Such interventions range from collaborative learning activities, where students interact and learn together, to more structured programmes explicitly designed to develop both social competencies and academic skills.

By conducting a scoping review of the existing literature, this paper addresses the following overarching research question: How are the social and academic dimensions of socio-academic interventions in mathematics, literacy and science in primary and lower secondary school (ages 5-15) described, operationalised and evaluated, and in what ways do these dimensions influence one another?

Homework is a common element of the teaching and learning process globally, yet studies on homework are inconclusive as to the value that homework contributes to students’ education. A primary concern of research on homework has been to identify associations of homework with students’ academic achievement. Researchers have both found positive correlations and associations of homework and student achievement (e.g. Cooper et al., 2006; Gustafsson, 2013) or concluded that time spent on homework didn’t result in positive achievement gains (e.g. Kitsantas et al., 2011; Trautwein, 2007). Still, with fewer exceptions when homework has been addressed as a teaching tool (e.g. Epstein & Van Voorhis, 2001), most published research on homework is of quantitative nature employing statistical modelling to capture homework effects on students’ academic achievement. To complement these studies, we want to approach the topic by focusing on qualitative research on homework only.

The aim of the study is two-fold. Firstly, we want to identify ways in which homework has been studied qualitatively by focusing on educational stakeholders, namely students, teachers, and school directors as primary data participants in formal schooling contexts. This strategic choice enables us to examine homework as a pedagogical practice inherent in teaching and learning practices affected by and affecting those closest to teaching and learning contexts. Secondly, and in turn, this approach is conceived to address homework as a pedagogical tool that can have implications for teachers’ teaching and students’ learning above and beyond what is routinely captured when homework is studied as a variable affecting students' academic achievement as a cognitive outcome. To meet the aims of the study, two main research questions (RQ) are addressed, including: 

1. What are the main thematic categories in homework qualitative research over 2000-2024 in formal schooling? 

1. How could homework be reconceptualized as a pedagogical tool in teaching and learning practice in formal schooling?  

The first RQ thus is empirically grounded as we examine study results from a bottom-up approach extrapolating from the main findings of the studies included in our review. The second RQ follows a top-down logic where we interpret the main findings considering the main theoretical concepts employed to frame the review, which relies on an educational and pedagogical framing of homework as a pedagogical tool. Lastly, we want to emphasize the formal schooling context in our study as our primary interest is to examine ways in which homework is both conceptualized and practiced in formal schooling. 

A comprehensive theoretical framework rooted in the general didaktik tradition (Hopmann, 2007; Klafki, 1998, 2000) frames our study. Our initial thesis is that, first, homework, from a didaktik perspective, cannot be thought of outside of the teachers’ work and responsibilities, i.e. outside of teaching. Second, from a didaktik perspective, teaching is primarily shaped by the content in the subject(s) teachers teach, and by extension, homework is also a content-oriented task. Next, we follow Dale’s (1998, 1989) conceptualization of teaching along three core competences rooted in didaktik rationality. According to him, teaching is defined as an organized social system for goal-oriented learning, which involves three competences: “[...] the carrying out of teaching (C1), the construction of teaching programs (C2), and communicating in and constructing of a theory of teaching plans, the act of teaching itself, and the pupils’ process of learning (C3)” (Dale, 1998, p. 256). Dale’s construction of teaching programs is situated at school level, while Klafki’s lesson planning is primarily individualistic with the focus on learners whom the given teacher teaches. Hence, they complement each other and can support our reconceptualization efforts in this study on homework.