Conference Agenda

In recent decades, international organizations and some relevant scholars have expected to cultivate students' character, morality, and a sense of responsible citizenship through science education (European Commission, 2015; Sjöström, 2025; Lee et al., 2013). Socioscientific Issues (SSI) serve as a powerful anchor for integrating social and ethical issues into science education (Zeidler & Sadler, 2008; Zeidler et al., 2005). While purposes in SSI-based science education like promoting students' moral development and fostering civic awareness are widely advocated, translating them into practice is far more challenging (Sadler et al., 2007). Drawing on the foundational framework of informal reasoning in SSI, Sadler and Zeidler (2005) argued that perspective-taking provides the essential capacity for students to evoke emotive informal reasoning, which allows them to identify with affected individuals and transform abstract moral considerations into a sustained line of care-based reasoning within complex SSI contexts.It is later articulated within the socioscientific reasoning (SSR) framework (Sadler et al., 2007).

Promoting students' perspective-taking within SSI contexts is not a simple task. This difficulty stems from its nature as a distinct theoretical construct. It requires a clear distinction between position, orientation, and perspective. Furthermore, Kahn and Zeidler (2019) distinguish socioscientific perspective-taking (SSPT) from similar psychological concepts, emphasizing that its manifestation requires authentic engagement with issues of personal relevance, an empathic shift from an etic to an emic perspective, and a moral context necessitating ethical reflection (Kahn & Zeidler, 2019; Zeidler et al., 2019). Consequently, developing SSPT goes beyond mere awareness of diverse perspectives and demands intentional and rigorous instructional design. Extant research has already yielded promising results in this area. For instance, Newton and Zeidler (2020) successfully enhanced students' perspective-taking through a modified reading and writing intervention embedded in university science curricula. Similarly, Muchlas Abrori et al. (2025) fostered the abilities of perspective-taking among primary students using meticulously designed educational comics. While these studies provide successful precedents, we argue, however, that lessons derived from unsuccessful attempts are equally worthy of attention. This study speaks to such a case where perspective-taking did not successfully emerge.

In the case of our study, the SSI is whether to support pet cloning, and students engaged in debates on this issue. After learning basic information and knowledge about pet cloning, students first formed their own positions, then were assigned by teachers to argue for different positions based on their seating arrangements. Classroom observations and discourse analysis revealed that some students, despite changing their assigned positions, failed to achieve the shift in perspective-taking. Our analysis focuses on the question: What hinders students' perspective-taking? By this study, we hope to help teachers who prioritize fostering students' ethics and morality avoid injudicious practices when implementing SSl-based instruction.

Qualitative analysis leads us to argue that certain SSI are mismatched with the debate-based teaching model. This mismatch manifests itself in two key aspects: First, an SSI is not inherently or necessarily controversial; non-controversial issues, as defined by epistemic criteria, are not suited to the nondirective teaching model of debate. Second, debate is perceived by students as an activity of taking sides with clear-cut winners and losers, which leads them to conflate their personal identity perspectives with issue-categories perspectives, thus impeding effective perspective-taking.

Introduction and International Context

Globally, civic education is undergoing a paradigm shift toward competency-based learning (e.g., OECD Learning Compass 2030). A central challenge in this shift, particularly for Subject Didactics (Fachdidaktik) in both Europe and Asia, is integrating diverse social science disciplines—Sociology, Political Science, Law, and Economics—into a coherent curriculum that fosters democratic reasoning.

A recurring bottleneck in international civic education is epistemic fragmentation. Textbooks often juxtapose disciplinary content without genuine integration, and teachers trained in single disciplines struggle to navigate conflicting epistemologies (e.g., legal proceduralism vs. sociological critique). This study uses Taiwan’s recent curriculum reform (the "108 Curriculum") as a strategic case study to investigate this universal challenge. It addresses a question central to the international didactics community: How can we move from a multidisciplinary "encyclopedia" to an interdisciplinary "integration" that preserves disciplinary depth while fostering transversal critical thinking?

Research Question

To bridge the gap between high-level curriculum goals and classroom realities, this study poses the following question: How can the implicit epistemic tensions between social science disciplines be decoded and transformed into pedagogical resources for a critical interdisciplinary civics curriculum?

Theoretical Framework

This study employs a dual-layered framework connecting macro-level democratic theory with micro-level cognitive processes:

1.Critical Interdisciplinarity (Macro-level): Drawing on Stoller (2020) and Klein (2010), we challenge "consensus-based" integration which often erases disciplinary differences. Instead, we view "conflict" as a democratic asset. By revealing power relations and epistemic tensions between disciplines (e.g., Economics’ efficiency vs. Law’s rights), the curriculum becomes a site for practicing democratic deliberation.

2. Methodological Integration (Micro-level): To operationalize this, we combine:

(1) Decoding the Disciplines (DtD) (Middendorf & Pace, 2004): A process to interview experts and make their tacit "epistemic moves" explicit, identifying where student understanding breaks down.

(2) Interdisciplinary Research Process (IRP) (Repko & Szostak, 2020): A structural framework for negotiating between experts to "create common ground" and co-construct curriculum modules.

Objectives

Focusing on the educational design phase, this study aims to:

1. Decode mental models of academic experts and expert teachers across the four disciplines regarding shared public issues (e.g., housing justice).

2. Map epistemic conflicts that act as learning bottlenecks.

3. Co-construct a curriculum prototype that uses these tensions as pedagogical tools.

Significance

This research offers the European educational community a methodological blueprint for the didactic transposition of complex social issues, demonstrating how disciplinary conflict can be leveraged to deepen democratic competence.

Scientific literacy is a critical skill in modern science education, enabling learners to understand, analyze, and communicate scientific ideas effectively (Bybee, 2013; Osborne, 2014). In STEM subjects, students often face challenges in articulating scientific explanations and constructing evidence-based arguments, which are essential for academic success (McNeill and Krajcik, 2012). According to studies done by Jiménez-Aleixandre, Rodríguez, and Duschl (2000) and Grace, McNeill, and Resendes (2012), the Claim–Evidence–Reasoning (CER) strategy provides a structured framework for developing these skills. The Grade 9 Chemistry curriculum at Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools (NIS) is designed to foster scientific literacy, requiring students to explain chemical phenomena, justify claims with appropriate evidence, and articulate reasoning using scientific language (NIS Curriculum Framework, 2021).

These expectations are embedded in learning objectives, laboratory activities, and criteria-based assessments, requiring learners to not only know chemical principles but also construct well-reasoned scientific explanations and arguments. At the Nazarbayev Intellectual School, ninth-grade students are required to write constructed explanations based on chemistry experiments. However, evidence from assessment results and classroom observations shows that many Grade 9 students continue to struggle with justifying their claims in chemistry writing using appropriate evidence and coherent reasoning. Common challenges they face include making unsupported claims, summarizing instead of analyzing, selecting irrelevant evidence, and failing to connect evidence to scientific concepts.

As a result, students' written work in open-ended tests, lab reports, and inquiry-based tasks tends to be more descriptive than analytical, showing limited coherence in reasoning and evidence-based justification of chemical principles. The gap is particularly apparent in topics like particle theory, chemical reactions, bonding, and acids and bases, where abstract reasoning and evidence-based explanations are crucial. Although the Claim–Evidence–Reasoning (CER) framework has gained international recognition as a tool for improving students’ scientific explanation and argumentative writing skills, its systematic use and effectiveness in the NIS Grade 9 Chemistry curriculum have not been extensively investigated (McNeill and Krajcik, 2011; Sandoval, 2003).

Thus, the main research problem of this study is the insufficient teaching strategies in NIS Grade 9 Chemistry to foster coherent scientific explanations and argumentation skills, along with the need to evaluate whether the CER framework can develop these skills within the context of the NIS curriculum.

Research Objectives

1. To examine the effectiveness of implementing the CER strategy on ninth-grade students’ conceptual understanding in chemistry.

2. To determine how the CER strategy influences learners’ ability to produce coherent, and evidence-based scientific explanations and arguments.

3. To explore the main barriers students face in constructing scientific explanations and arguments, and to assess the role of CER in overcoming them.

4. To explore students’ experiences and perceptions of learning chemistry through the CER framework.

The CER strategy is a recognized method for enhancing students’ skills in constructing scientific explanations and arguments while also scaffolding their scientific thinking (McNeill and Krajcik, 2012). Grounded in Toulmin’s argumentation model, CER encourages learners to present claims, support them with relevant evidence, and provide reasoning to link the evidence and the claims (Toulmin, 1958; McNeill and Krajcik, 2012). CER has been successfully implemented in various educational contexts to foster scientific argumentation and reasoning. Research articles with early secondary chemistry learners show that CER facilitates the connection of experimental data to chemical principles, resulting in more accurate, evidence-based explanations and stronger argumentation skills (McNeill, Lizotte, Krajcik, and Marx, 2006; Sandoval, 2003). However, empirical studies examining the utilisation of CER in Central Asia, specifically in Kazakhstan, remain limited (NIS Curriculum Framework, 2021). This study addresses the gap by applying CER in grade nine chemistry lessons.

This study proposes to investigate the effects of integrating Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) with Problem-Based Learning (PBL) on university engineering students’ learning motivation and creativity within a dynamics course. Dynamics is a core subject in mechanical, aerospace, and naval engineering, requiring students to understand abstract concepts such as motion, force, and system behavior, and to apply mathematical models to real-world problems. Previous research has demonstrated the effectiveness of PBL in promoting problem-solving skills and engagement, while IBL encourages curiosity, inquiry, and active knowledge construction. By combining these approaches, the study aims to examine the potential synergistic effects of IBL–PBL on student outcomes in a technically demanding course.

The central research question is: How does the integration of IBL with PBL influence engineering students’ learning motivation and creativity in a dynamics course? Sub-questions include: (1) How does the IBL–PBL approach affect intrinsic and extrinsic goal orientation, task value, control of learning beliefs, self-efficacy, and test anxiety? (2) How does it influence overall creativity and sub-dimensions such as curiosity, imagination, adventure, and challenge? (3) How do students perceive the learning processes and benefits of IBL–PBL in relation to motivation, creativity, and problem-solving approaches?

The study adopts a quasi-experimental pretest–posttest nonequivalent control group design, with an experimental group receiving IBL–PBL instruction and a control group receiving PBL-only instruction. Both groups follow the same syllabus and assessment standards, taught by the same instructor, to control for instructional variability. Quantitative instruments include the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) for learning motivation and the Creativity Assessment Packet (CAP) for creativity. Pretest measurements establish baseline equivalence, while posttest measurements assess changes after the intervention. Qualitative data are collected via focus group interviews to explore students’ perceptions of their motivation and creativity in depth.

The conceptual framework is grounded in learner-centered and constructivist principles, emphasizing inquiry, autonomy, problem exploration, and active knowledge construction within authentic engineering contexts. By embedding inquiry processes into problem-based activities, the study links theoretical constructs of motivation and creativity to practical instructional strategies. Methodological triangulation using mixed methods provides a comprehensive understanding of the effects of IBL–PBL, balancing rigor and feasibility in real classroom settings. Overall, this research seeks to provide evidence-based insights into how integrated IBL–PBL pedagogy can enhance motivation, creative thinking, and problem-solving competencies essential for future engineering practice.

Each nation interprets the world through its historical experience, culture, worldview, and language. Language functions not only as a communicative tool but also as a semiotic system that encodes cultural memory and shapes how reality is conceptualised. Within this perspective, the linguistic worldview represents a culturally mediated model of perception, while symbols operate as condensed carriers of meaning. Recent developments in cultural linguistics emphasise that such symbolic meanings emerge from shared cultural conceptualisations rather than isolated lexical units (Farzad Sharifian, 2021).

This paper examines the symbolic function of colours in the linguistic worldview and analyses colour symbolism as a cultural-cognitive code in Kazakh national cognition. The study is positioned within a theoretical tradition that views meaning as culturally grounded and cognitively structured. Contemporary research on metaphor and symbolism argues that colour meanings are embedded in broader conceptual systems shaped by history, emotion, and social practice (Zoltán Kövecses, 2020; Tissari, 2021). From this standpoint, colours function as symbolic resources through which cultures encode values, emotional attitudes, and worldview orientations.

The central research question guiding the study is: To what extent do colour symbols across languages correspond to colour symbolism in Kazakh national cognition, and how can such correspondences be pedagogically applied in language lessons to develop learners’ worldview and cultural awareness? This question aligns with recent intercultural research highlighting that similarities in colour symbolism across cultures often mask significant differences in evaluative and emotional meanings (Istvan Kecskes, 2023).

The analysis focuses on six core colours widely represented in Kazakh cultural-linguistic practice: white, black, red, blue/green, yellow, and brown. White symbolises purity, sacredness, and moral integrity, while black conveys not only grief but also depth, greatness, and national being. Red represents vitality, beauty, and emotional intensity; blue/green is associated with the sky, freedom, eternity, and spirituality. Yellow in Kazakh interpretations often expresses prolonged longing or suffering, whereas in other cultures it may symbolise happiness or intellect, illustrating how identical colours can encode culturally distinct meanings (Wang & Xu, 2022). Brown conveys calmness, naturalness, warmth, and comfort. These symbolic meanings are consistently reflected in phraseologisms, proverbs, and stable expressions, supporting recent claims that phraseology functions as a cognitive map of cultural values (Goddard & Wierzbicka, 2021).

A distinctive contribution of the study lies in its pedagogical orientation. The paper demonstrates how colour symbolism can be integrated into language lessons through culturally meaningful tasks, including reflective writing, colour-based grouping, and symbolic feedback techniques. Such practices correspond with recent scholarship emphasising the importance of culturally responsive pedagogy for strengthening learner engagement and interpretive competence (Sharifian, 2021). Overall, the study positions colour symbolism not only as a linguistic phenomenon but also as an effective pedagogical resource for linking language, culture, and worldview.

This inquiry investigates slow pedagogy as a deliberate didactic design within early childhood education (ECE) by foregrounding micro-temporal outdoor sequences. These sequences are conceptualized as iterative returns to the same environmental phenomena over several days, allowing for a depth of engagement that transcends episodic outdoor activities (Remmen & Iversen, 2023). The research addresses the contemporary pressure to accelerate and "datafy" early learning, which frequently reduces complex pedagogical processes to standardized developmental indicators. By situating the inquiry within the shared European challenges of educational acceleration and performativity, this research offers a trans-local didactic framework that balances international standards with place-responsive ethics. This project explores how carefully paced sequences can generate thick data - qualitative traces that are ethically grounded and professionally auditable, offering a robust, qualitative alternative to prevalent performativity frameworks (Clark, 2023).

The conceptual framework integrates four interlocking dimensions:

• Slow Pedagogies and Temporal Agency: Framing "unhurried" time as a site for agency, where the rhythm of inquiry is co-constructed through child-environment interactions (Clark, 2023).
• Resonance as Counter-Acceleration: Utilizing resonance as a counter-movement to social acceleration, emphasizing relational depth over instructional speed (Rosa, 2019).
• More-than-human Perspectives: Shifting toward ecological relations where materials, weather, and place act as co-participants in the didactic process (Taylor & Giugni, 2012).
• Pedagogical Tact: Orienting the educator’s role toward an "attentively withdrawn" presence, prioritizing noticing and responsiveness (van Manen, 2016).

The argument is sharpened by two European imperatives: the need for epistemic caution against reductive neuroscience-based "truths" (Vandenbroeck, 2017) and a commitment to equity, ensuring children at risk of exclusion are afforded high-quality, place-responsive learning (Peleman et al., 2020).

Research Questions:

How do micro-temporal outdoor sequences afford sustained attention and make learning visible without recourse to reductive assessment metrics? In what ways can minimalist documentation routines function as accountable evidence for pedagogical planning while preserving the "unhurried" nature of the outdoor encounter? How do concerns regarding equity and "slow" practices intersect within the diverse accountability regimes of European ECE?