’s a clear, usable summary + analysis of the article by Adam Stubbs on sequencing knowledge in a science

curriculum, along with how it links to the other texts you shared.

🧠 1) Core idea of the article

The article argues that how knowledge is sequenced (ordered) in a curriculum strongly affects how well
students understand and remember it.

👉 The central problem:

Teachers are experts—but students are not.

This creates the “curse of knowledge”:

 Teachers see connections easily

 Students cannot yet see those connections

🔑 2) Key concepts explained simply

❗ The “curse of knowledge”
 Teachers design lessons based on expert thinking
 Students need step-by-step, concrete understanding
 Result: poorly sequenced learning → misconceptions

🔄 Concrete → Abstract (the BIG idea)

❌ Common mistake:

 Start with abstract ideas (atoms, electrons)

 Then move to real-world examples

👉 Problem:

 Students don’t understand the abstract ideas yet

 Misconceptions build early and spread

✅ Better approach:

Start with:

1. Concrete (real-world)
2. → then representations/diagrams
3. → then abstract concepts
Example:

 Instead of:
o atoms → bonding → properties ❌
 Do:
o materials & properties → structure → bonding ✅

🌊 “Semantic waves” (important concept)

From Karl Maton

Good teaching moves:

 Down: abstract → simple/examples

 Up: examples → abstract concepts

👉 Students need BOTH directions to truly understand

🧩 Core vs Hinterland knowledge

From Christine Counsell ideas

Core knowledge:

 Essential facts and concepts

 Needed for exams and progression

Hinterland knowledge:

 Stories, context, enrichment

 Makes learning meaningful

⚠️“Seductive details effect”

 Interesting extras at the wrong time distract learning

👉 Best practice:

 Teach core first

 Add hinterland after

⏳ Spacing effect
From Margaret Gluckman (research cited)
  Learning improves when revisited over time
 Curriculum structure (e.g., timetabling) matters

⚠️3) Key risks in curriculum design

 Starting with abstract ideas too early
 Reinforcing misconceptions through repetition
 Poor sequencing due to teacher expertise bias
 Overloading lessons with “interesting but irrelevant” content

✅ 4) Practical implications for teaching

Good curriculum design should:

 Begin with concrete experiences

 Carefully build toward abstraction
 Revisit ideas (spacing)
 Move between abstract and concrete (semantic waves)
 Prioritise core knowledge first
 Identify and address misconceptions early

🔗 5) How this connects to your other texts

With the Walldén & Nygård Larsson article
Both emphasise:

Stubbs (science) Walldén & Larsson (history)

Concrete → abstract sequencing Everyday → disciplinary language
Semantic waves Discursive mobility
Misconceptions from poor sequencing Misunderstanding from poor explanations
Role of representation Role of images

👉 Same idea:
Students must be guided carefully from simple to complex meaning

With the Ofsted curriculum report

Strong overlap:

Stubbs Ofsted
Sequencing knowledge carefully Curriculum intent (design)
 Stubbs Ofsted
Implementation matters (misconceptions) Curriculum implementation
Impact = understanding & retention Curriculum impact

👉 Ofsted provides the framework, Stubbs explains the cognitive science behind it

Final takeaway (very important)

👉 A curriculum is not just what you teach
👉 It’s when and how ideas are introduced

Poor sequencing =

 confusion
 misconceptions
 weak learning

Good sequencing =

 deeper understanding
 better retention
 ability to think like an expert

<<

You’ve pasted two substantial academic/policy texts. Instead of repeating them, here’s a clear, structured
comparison and summary to help you actually use them (for essays, revision, or analysis).

1) Article: “Can you take a wild guess?” (Walldén

& Nygård Larsson, 2021)
🎯 Core focus

How images + classroom talk affect students’ understanding of history concepts, especially in
linguistically diverse classrooms.

🧠 Key ideas

 Learning history isn’t just facts—it involves disciplinary language (abstract, technical terms).
 Teachers often try to support understanding using:
o images
o oral discussion
 But this doesn’t always work as intended.

🔍 Main findings

 ❌ Generic or abstract images (e.g., simple icons on blank backgrounds) can:

o confuse students
o reduce participation
  ❌ “Guessing games” (teacher asks students to guess meanings):
o lead to shallow understanding
o especially disadvantage second-language (L2) learners
 ⚠️Overuse of everyday language can mislead students instead of helping them reach academic
understanding
 ✅ Helpful practices:
o linking to students’ prior knowledge
o encouraging creative language use
o repeating and refining key concepts
o explicitly moving between:
 everyday language → academic language (“discursive mobility”)

💡 Big takeaway

Images and talk only help learning if they are:

 carefully chosen
 explicitly connected to disciplinary concepts

2) Report: Ofsted Curriculum Research Phase 3

(2018)
🎯 Core focus

How to assess the quality of education using:

 Intent (what schools plan to teach)

 Implementation (how teaching happens)
 Impact (what students actually learn)

🧠 Key framework
1. Curriculum Intent

 Clear purpose and design

 Thoughtful sequencing of knowledge
 Ambition for all students

2. Curriculum Implementation

 Teaching actually delivers the planned curriculum

 Teachers have subject expertise
 Assessment supports learning

3. Curriculum Impact

 Students gain knowledge and skills

 Learning is retained and builds over time
🔍 Main findings
 ❌ Many schools:
o focus too much on tests/exams
o narrow the curriculum
 ❌ It’s hard to judge curriculum quality from leadership discussions alone
 ✅ Better evaluation requires:
o first-hand evidence (student work, lessons)
o checking if intent matches reality

📊 Research model
 25 curriculum indicators (rated 1–5)
 Includes things like:
o curriculum coherence
o subject knowledge progression
o assessment quality
o leadership and training

💡 Big takeaway
A strong curriculum isn’t just well-designed—it must be:

 implemented effectively
 experienced meaningfully by students

🔗 Key Connections Between the Two Texts

Theme Article (Walldén & Larsson) Ofsted Report
Focus Classroom interaction & meaning-making Whole-school curriculum quality
Language Critical for learning history Embedded in curriculum design
Teaching risk Guessing & vague explanations Misalignment between intent & practice
Evidence Classroom discourse analysis Inspection + data + observation
Key concept Discursive mobility Intent–Implementation–Impact

🧠 Overall Insight (Simple)

Both texts argue the same deeper point:

👉 What teachers plan is not enough—how knowledge is communicated and experienced matters
most.
  The article zooms in on classroom-level interaction
 The report zooms out to system-level curriculum quality

👍 If you want next step

I can:

<<

Here’s a clear, structured summary and explanation of the section you’ve shared. I’ll keep it focused on
the core arguments, theory, and meaning, so you can use it for revision or essays.

📘 Article Summary (Refined)

🎯 What is this study about?
This study investigates:

How images and classroom talk help (or hinder) students’ understanding of key history concepts

It focuses especially on:

 Linguistically diverse classrooms (many second-language learners)

 How students learn subject-specific vocabulary (“power words”)

🧠 Core Argument
The authors argue:

Images are not just “support materials” — they are part of how knowledge is constructed in the classroom.

But:

 If used poorly, they can block learning instead of supporting it

🔑 Key Ideas Explained

1. 📚 Disciplinary Literacy in History
History learning requires students to:

 Understand abstract concepts (e.g. monarchy, heresy)

  Recognise:
o Chronology (time)
o Causality (cause and effect)
o Argumentation

👉 It’s not just facts — it’s thinking like a historian

2. Classroom Talk Matters

There are two main teaching approaches:

A. Structured (text-driven)

 Teacher guides discussion carefully

 Strong scaffolding

B. Open (interaction-driven)

 Students freely share ideas

 “Multivoiced classroom”

👉 Problem identified:

 Open questioning often turns into guessing games, especially for L2 learners

3. 🌊 Semantic Waves / Discursive Mobility

A central concept in the study:

 Downward movement:
Abstract → simple (explaining ideas)
 Upward movement:
Simple → abstract (rebuilding academic language)

👉 Good teaching requires both directions

⚠️But research shows:

 Teachers often simplify concepts

 They don’t rebuild them into academic language

4. 🧠 Language of History is Complex

History uses:

 Abstract nouns (e.g. resistance)

 Grammatical metaphor
 o Turning actions into things:
 “resist” → “resistance”

👉 Students must learn:

 Not just meanings

 But how concepts relate to each other (e.g. bishop → archbishop)

How Images Are Analysed

The study uses a social semiotic approach, meaning:

Images communicate meaning like language does

Key features of images:

1. Degree of abstraction

 Iconic → realistic (photo-like)

 Indexical → simplified
 Symbolic → very abstract (diagram)

2. Context

 Detailed background vs blank

3. Stylisation

 Realistic vs cartoon-like

4. Gaze

 Whether figures “look at” the viewer (engagement)

Important Insight
In history teaching:

 Images must feel historically believable

 Too abstract OR too unrealistic = low meaning

🧪 Method (What they did)

 Observed one Grade 6 classroom (age 12–13)
 Topic: Vasa era in Sweden
o Including Gustav Vasa
  Duration: 10 weeks
 Data:
o 148 pages of classroom talk
o Images used in lessons

🔍 What They Focused On

They analysed:

1. How images were used in teaching

2. How discussion moved between:
o Everyday language
o Academic language
3. Where misunderstandings or tensions occurred

🧩 Examples of Concepts Taught

Students learned terms like:

 Archbishop
 Pope
 Hereditary monarchy
 Revolt
 Heresy

👉 Many were represented with simple, low-detail images

⚠️Emerging Issues (from this section)

1. Images were often too simple
 Stick figures
 No context
 Limited meaning

👉 Result:

 Students couldn’t connect image → concept

2. Vocabulary teaching relied on guessing

 Teacher asks open questions
 Students try to guess meanings
👉 Problem:

 Doesn’t build real understanding

3. Weak links between language and meaning

 Concepts not clearly explained in relation to each other
 Lack of structured explanation

🧠 Big Theoretical Insight

Learning happens when students can:

👉 Move between:

 Concrete understanding (images, examples)

 Abstract understanding (academic language)

This requires:

 Careful teaching
 Explicit explanation
 Structured interaction

🎯 Simple Takeaway
 Images + talk = powerful tools
 But only if:
o Images are meaningful
o Talk is structured (not just guessing)
o Teachers guide movement between simple and complex ideas

🧠 One-Line Summary
Poorly chosen images and unstructured discussion can limit students’ ability to learn and use academic
language in history.

<<

ere’s a clear, structured breakdown of the document you shared (an Ofsted curriculum research report,
Phase 3, 2018) so you can understand the key ideas without the dense formatting.
📘 Overview of the Report
Title: An investigation into how to assess the quality of education through curriculum intent,
implementation and impact
Published: December 2018

👉 The report explains how Ofsted developed and tested a model for judging the quality of education in
schools.

🎯 Purpose of the Research

The main goal was to answer:

How can we reliably assess the quality of education using curriculum intent, implementation, and
impact?

This directly informed the later Education Inspection Framework (EIF).

🧩 The Three Key Concepts

1. Curriculum Intent

 What schools plan and aim to teach

 Includes:
o Curriculum design
o Ambition
o Subject structure
o Rationale

👉 Example: Why a school chooses certain topics and in what order

2. Curriculum Implementation

 How the curriculum is actually taught

 Includes:
o Teaching methods
o Resources
o Teacher expertise
o Classroom practice

👉 Key idea: Does what happens in lessons match the plan?

3. Curriculum Impact
  What pupils actually learn and remember
 Focus on:
o Knowledge gained
o Progress over time
o Long-term learning (not just test scores)

🔍 What Phase 3 Did

 Visited 64 schools
 Used inspectors (HMI) to test a new research model
 Combined:
o Discussions with leaders (intent)
o Lesson/work scrutiny (implementation)
o Pupil interviews (impact)

🧪 The Research Model

✔️25 Curriculum Indicators
These were grouped into:

 Intent indicators (e.g. curriculum rationale, ambition)

 Implementation indicators (e.g. teaching quality, resources)
 Impact indicators (e.g. pupil learning)

📊 Scoring System
Each indicator was rated 1–5:

 5 = very strong / embedded

 3 = adequate
 1 = weak or absent

👉 This allowed more nuanced judgments than simple labels like “good” or “outstanding.”

🏫 What Inspectors Actually Did

They collected evidence by working with:

 Senior leaders → curriculum intent

 Teachers/subject leads → implementation
 Pupils → implementation + impact
 Governors → oversight
They also:

 Looked at student work

 Reviewed 4 subjects per school
 Compared what was planned vs what was taught

🔑 Key Findings (Simplified)

1. Curriculum Matters More Than Exams Alone
 Earlier phases showed schools were:
o Over-focused on test results
o Teaching a narrow curriculum

👉 This research pushes a shift toward deep, broad learning

2. Intent ≠ Implementation
 Schools may plan well but:
o Fail to deliver effectively in classrooms

👉 Inspectors must check both, not just plans

3. Strong Curricula Share Common Features

High-quality curricula often had:

 Clear subject structure (disciplines)

 Thoughtful sequencing of knowledge
 Regular review and improvement
 Strong subject leadership
 Assessment used to support learning (not dominate it)
 Built-in recall and revisiting of knowledge

4. First-Hand Evidence is Crucial

 Talking to leaders alone is not enough
 Inspectors need:
o Lesson evidence
o Student work
o Pupil voice

👉 This improves reliability and validity

5. Curriculum = Progress Model
 Progress should be seen as:

What pupils know and can do over time

NOT just:

 Test scores
 Data metrics

⚠️Limitations of the Study

 Indicators were generic, not subject-specific
 Some were difficult to apply consistently
 Sample size (64 schools) limits generalisation

🚀 Why This Report Matters

This research directly shaped how schools are inspected today:

👉 It led to the Education Inspection Framework (EIF) focus on:

 Curriculum quality
 Knowledge progression
 Depth over performance metrics

🧠 Simple Summary
 Good education = well-designed + well-taught + well-learned curriculum
 Inspectors must look at:
Intent → Implementation → Impact
 Real learning matters more than exam results alone

If you want, I can:

 Turn this into essay paragraphs

 Compare it with other curriculum theories (e.g. sequencing, cognitive science)
 Or create revision flashcards for you

<<
It looks like you’ve pasted an excerpt from an academic text about curriculum design in science education,
but it’s quite dense and unformatted. I’ll break down the key ideas in a clear way so you can understand it.

🧠 Core Idea: Teachers vs. Novice Learners

 Teachers have well-developed mental models (schemas) of their subject.

 Because of this, they:
o Recognize patterns and connections easily.
o May overestimate what students understand (sometimes called the “curse of knowledge”).
 Students (novices) don’t have these schemas yet, so:
o They struggle to see connections.
o They need ideas presented more carefully and explicitly.

👉 Implication: The way teachers naturally organise content is not always the best way for students to learn
it.

📚 Challenge 1: How should science be sequenced?

 A common approach is moving:

Concrete → Abstract
o Example:
Physical circuits → Circuit diagrams → Electron movement
 This helps students build understanding step by step.

But the text argues:

 Learning shouldn’t stop at abstract ideas.

 Students also need to go:
Abstract → Concrete (apply understanding back to real-world situations)

🌊 Key Concept: Semantic Waving

 This is the movement between:

o Concrete ideas (real-world examples)
o Abstract ideas (theories, models)
 Effective teaching involves going back and forth between the two.

👉 Why it matters:

 Builds deeper understanding

 Helps students apply knowledge flexibly
 Develops fluency

⚠️Challenge 2: Misconceptions and Errors

 Students often have common misunderstandings in science.

  Analysing these can help teachers:
o Design better lesson sequences
o Address misconceptions early
o Prevent errors from becoming ingrained

Tools mentioned:

 RADAAR framework
 BEST

👉 These help teachers plan curriculum with misconceptions in mind.

🎯 Overall Takeaways

1. Teachers must be aware that their expertise can bias how they structure learning.
2. Effective sequencing:
o Moves from concrete → abstract → concrete
3. Addressing misconceptions is essential in curriculum design.
4. Good teaching requires intentional planning, not just subject knowledge.

If you want, I can:

 Turn this into revision notes

 Summarise it in fewer bullet points
 Or help you apply it to a lesson plan 👍

<<












































 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<




You’re on the right track—but before you lock into “energy as the organising idea,” it’s worth stress-testing
that idea against current curriculum theory and science education research. Otherwise, it can sound
interesting but lack justification in your viva.

Let’s build you something that is theoretically strong, research-informed, and defensible.

🧠 1) The current research landscape (science

curriculum)
Here are the key theoretical pillars you must draw on for Module 3:

🔑 A. Knowledge-led curriculum (very important for Ofsted)

Strongly influenced by E.D. Hirsch and developed in England through Ofsted thinking.

Core idea:
  Curriculum = structured knowledge over time
 Not just skills or activities

👉 Links directly to:

 Curriculum intent → implementation → impact (Ofsted)

🌊 B. Semantic waves / disciplinary thinking

From Karl Maton

Core idea:

Students need to move between:

 abstract (scientific concepts)

 concrete (real-world examples)

👉 This is GOLD for your viva.

🧩 C. Cognitive science & sequencing

From Paul Kirschner and others

Key principles:

 Working memory is limited

 Knowledge must be sequenced carefully
 Avoid cognitive overload

🔄 D. Concrete → abstract progression

From the Stubbs article you shared

👉 Essential idea:

 Start with real-world phenomena

 Then build to abstract models

🧠 E. Misconceptions in science
Huge body of research:

 Students hold persistent misconceptions

 These must be explicitly addressed
👉 This is critical for:

 your lesson design

 your justification

🧪 F. Disciplinary literacy (from your first article)

Science = a way of thinking and talking

👉 You should reference:

 how students learn to “think like scientists”

⚠️2) Your idea: “energy as the organising

principle”
Honest answer:

It can be powerful—but only if done carefully.

👍 Why it’s a strong idea

Energy is:

 a big unifying concept in science

 appears across:
o physics (kinetic, potential)
o chemistry (reactions)
o biology (respiration)

👉 This aligns with:

 coherent curriculum design

 conceptual progression

❗ The risk (this is what examiners will challenge)

Energy is:

 highly abstract
 one of the most misunderstood concepts in science

👉 If you start with energy:

  you may violate concrete → abstract principles
 increase misconceptions

💡 Better version of your idea

👉 Don’t start with energy
👉 Build towards energy

🧠 3) A stronger curriculum concept you can use

🔷 “From observable phenomena to abstract energy models”

This is much more defensible.

Example sequence (science)

Lesson sequence idea:

Phase 1: Concrete experiences

 heating objects
 moving objects
 simple circuits

👉 Students observe:

 things change
 things move
 things get hot

Phase 2: Describing change

 introduce language:
o transfer
o stores
o movement

Phase 3: Introduce energy (abstract)

 energy as a model to explain observations

Phase 4: Apply across domains

 biology (respiration)
 chemistry (reactions)
 physics (mechanics)

👉 THIS aligns with:

 Stubbs (concrete → abstract)

 Maton (semantic waves)
 Ofsted (coherent progression)

🧩 4) How to structure your Module 3 response

(VERY IMPORTANT)

🎤 Part A (15 min – teaching + theory)

You need to show:

1. Curriculum intent

 Why this sequence?

 Why this concept?

👉 Example:

“I designed a sequence that moves from concrete experiences to abstract scientific models, drawing on
cognitive science and semantic wave theory…”

2. Theoretical justification

You should explicitly reference:

 Cognitive load theory

 Semantic waves
 Misconceptions research
 Concrete → abstract progression

3. Implementation (your lessons)

Explain:
  what happens in each lesson
 how knowledge builds

4. Impact (learning)

Explain:

 how this helps students:

o understand
o remember
o transfer knowledge

🎤 Part B (reflection)
You need to show:

 how your thinking has developed

 what you would improve
 awareness of:
o context (your school)
o learners (EAL, SEND, etc.)

🔥 5) High-impact phrases for your viva

Use these—they signal strong understanding:

 “disciplined knowledge progression”

 “semantic movement between concrete and abstract representations”
 “minimising misconceptions through sequencing”
 “cognitive load considerations in curriculum design”
 “alignment between intent, implementation and impact”

🧠 6) Suggested final direction for your project

👉 Best option:

Title idea:

“Designing a knowledge-rich science curriculum: Sequencing from concrete phenomena to abstract energy
models”


 <<<<<<



You’ve actually got a really strong instinct already — the idea of structuring a science sequence around
energy is not random at all. In fact, it lines up with a serious body of curriculum thinking in science
education. But it needs sharpening so it doesn’t become too abstract or “expert-shaped” (which is exactly the
trap highlighted in the article you read).

Let me help you make sense of the research landscape + theory, and then we can shape your idea into
something viva-ready.

1. What the current curriculum theory landscape

says (science + PGCE level)
A. Knowledge-led curriculum (very influential in the UK)
Key idea: curriculum = carefully selected and sequenced knowledge

 Michael Young → “powerful knowledge”

 Dylan Wiliam → curriculum as progression + assessment
 Ofsted → intent, implementation, impact

Implication for you:

 You must justify why this knowledge, why this order, for these learners

B. Cognitive science & learning theory (very important for

sequencing)
From your article + wider literature:

 Curse of knowledge → experts sequence wrongly for novices

 Cognitive load theory (John Sweller)
 Schema theory → knowledge builds in connected networks

Big takeaway:
👉 Sequence should support how students learn, not just how the subject is structured

C. Concrete → abstract progression (VERY relevant to your idea)

This is directly from your reading (Stubbs):

 Start with observable phenomena

 Move to models
 Then to abstract concepts
This aligns with:

 Jerome Bruner (representation stages)

 Concrete Pictorial Abstract approach

D. Substantive vs disciplinary knowledge

 Substantive = content (e.g., energy transfer)
 Disciplinary = how science works (e.g., modelling, explaining)

This is huge for your viva:

👉 You must show BOTH in your lessons

E. Curriculum as context-dependent
From your reading list (e.g. policy + teacher agency papers):

 Curriculum is shaped by:

o School context
o Learner needs
o Assessment pressures
o Teacher interpretation

👉 This is where you personalise your sequence

2. Now—your idea: “teaching science through

energy”
Reality check (important)

This idea is promising but risky.

If you start with energy as an abstract concept, you fall into the exact problem your article warns about:

students don’t understand it → misconceptions build

So don’t do:
❌ “Lesson 1: what is energy?”

3. A stronger version of your idea (this is where it

becomes excellent)
Option: “Energy as a unifying thread (not starting point)”
Instead of:

teaching energy first

Do:

teaching phenomena first, then revealing energy as the explanatory model

Example 6-lesson sequence (KS3 or KS4 adaptable)

Theme: “Why do things happen?” (energy as explanation)

Lesson 1 – Observable phenomenon

 Why does a rollercoaster speed up and slow down?

 Concrete, visual

Lesson 2 – Energy stores (introduced through examples)

 Not abstract definitions first

 Link to real systems

Lesson 3 – Energy transfers

 Heating, mechanical, electrical

Lesson 4 – Conservation of energy

 Build from previous lessons

Lesson 5 – Efficiency & real-world systems

 Cars, appliances

Lesson 6 – Apply back to real world (semantic wave)

 Explain new phenomena using energy

4. Theoretical justification you can use in your viva

You can explicitly say:

1. Sequencing rationale

 Based on concrete → abstract progression (Stubbs, 2022)

 Avoids misconceptions from abstract-first teaching
2. Cognitive science

 Reduces cognitive load (Sweller)

 Builds schema gradually

3. Semantic wave

 Karl Maton
 Move between:
o real-world examples
o abstract concepts
o back to application

4. Knowledge types

 Core = energy concepts

 Hinterland = real-world examples (rollercoasters, engines)
 Avoid seductive detail effect by placing stories AFTER core teaching

5. How this links to your Module 3 success criteria

You are hitting:

✔ Curriculum design (sequence + rationale)

✔ Theory → practice (cognitive science + curriculum theory)
✔ Learner needs (avoiding misconceptions)
✔ Pedagogical thinking (how you teach it)
✔ Ofsted language (intent, implementation, impact)

6. What you could explore next (good for scite /

reading)
Search for:

 “energy misconceptions students physics”

 “conceptual change science education”
 “schema development science learning”
 “disciplinary knowledge in science curriculum”
 “semantic wave science teaching”

7. A sharper direction for you (honest advice)

Your instinct is good, but refine it to this:
 👉 Don’t build a curriculum about energy
👉 Build a curriculum where energy explains the world students already see

That shift is what turns a decent PGCE idea into a strong, theory-informed one.

If you want, I can:

 turn this into a full 6-lesson plan

 help you write your Part A viva script
 or map this directly onto your TPR tables so you can submit it quickly

 <<<






Claim offer

Yes—you can use the statement as your starting point, but you shouldn’t just copy it
as a search phrase. Think of it like this:

 The viva statement = your argument

 The search sentence = what you use to find evidence to support that argument

They should be aligned, but not identical.

✅ Which statement should you choose?

✔ Option 1 (recommended for you)
Reflecting critically on your journey as a trainee teacher, how have you developed a
coherent pedagogical philosophy that integrates theory, research and professional
experience?

This is the better choice because:

 It directly links to Module 3 (theory + research + practice)

 It allows you to bring in your lesson sequencing work
 It naturally fits curriculum thinking (what you’re already doing with science)
 It is easier to evidence with literature

🧠 What your “core idea” becomes

You are NOT just telling your story.

You are arguing:

My pedagogical philosophy has developed through the integration of cognitive

science, curriculum theory, and classroom experience, particularly in how I sequence
and structure knowledge to support learner progression.

That’s your backbone.

🔍 So what should your search sentence look like?

Don’t reuse the viva question. Instead, break it into researchable ideas:

1. Pedagogical philosophy + evidence-informed teaching

 “evidence informed teaching cognitive science teacher development pedagogy”
 “how trainee teachers develop pedagogical reasoning through experience and theory”

2. Curriculum + sequencing + theory integration (VERY

important for you)
 “science curriculum sequencing concrete to abstract cognitive load theory”
 “curriculum design novice learner misconceptions science education”

3. Teacher development / identity (gold for Part B)

 “teacher professional identity development integrating theory and practice PGCE”
 “how teachers translate educational research into classroom practice”
 ✍️A strong “consensus search sentence” you can
actually use
If you want ONE sentence that captures everything:

“How do trainee teachers develop a coherent pedagogical philosophy through the

integration of cognitive science, curriculum theory, and classroom experience in order
to inform effective curriculum sequencing and classroom practice?”

This is perfect for Scite/Google Scholar because it contains:

 teacher development
 cognitive science
 curriculum theory
 sequencing
 practice integration

🎯 Key idea (important for your viva)

You are not searching for:

“What is my philosophy?”

You are searching for:

“What does research say about how that philosophy is formed and justified?”

If you want to go one level higher

 Your argument could subtly become:

My pedagogy is shifting from intuition-based planning → research-informed curriculum

design grounded in cognitive science and progression models.

That is exactly what examiners like in Module 3.

If you want, I can next:

 turn this into a full 8-minute Part B script

 or map your lesson sequence to this philosophy
 or give you 3–5 key papers you should actually cite (high impact ones)

this is what was referred from tpr podcast.. transcript. Secondary Podcast - Curriculum
Transcribed by TurboScribe. Go Unlimited to remove this message. Welcome to the
Deep Dive. We're here to unpack complex topics and hopefully bring some clarity.
Today, we're zooming in on something that's constantly on the minds of many of you
in secondary education, particularly here in the UK. That's right. We're talking
curriculum development, medium-term planning and, you know, how to sequence
lessons effectively. It really can feel like a bit of a moving target sometimes, can't it?
Yeah. So our aim today is to sift through the research, the insights, and pull out the
really useful bits of knowledge. Those aha moments, hopefully. Exactly, without
making you feel completely overloaded. We want this to be practical. Yeah, definitely.
We've looked at quite a range of sources, analyses of education policy, studies looking
at actual classroom practise, and we've tried to keep a strong focus on the UK context
where we can, or similar systems internationally. So the plan is, look the big picture of
curriculum design and policy first, then really focus on the crucial role teachers play
their agency, and then connect it all back to the nitty-gritty of medium-term plans and
lesson sequences. Consider this your focused briefing, cutting through some of the
noise. You! Let's get started. So one of the first things that jumped out was this idea
that the official syllabus, it's really just the beginning. Right. There was a mention of
Minister Gibb referencing Hirsch's core knowledge and this question of, well, who
actually writes the textbook that kids use? And that's key, isn't it? Because the
detailed knowledge, the stuff that actually lands with students day to day, it often
comes through those resources, the textbooks, yes, but also worksheets, websites, all
that stuff. It really highlights that the syllabus is the skeleton, maybe, but the flesh on
the bones, the actual learning materials students interact with, that's where so much
of the detail comes from. It really makes you think about curriculum development, not
just as writing a document, but shaping that whole learning environment. Yeah, the
whole ecosystem, as you say. And within that, especially in England, you've got this
pretty clear hierarchy of subjects up to GCSE, right? You have English and maths seen
as, well, vital. Absolutely central. Then the other EBAC subjects, sciences, history or
geography, a language, and then, well, everything else. And the sources really raise
questions about the impact of that, not just on timetable space, but also potentially on
student motivation. That's what I was thinking, because subjects outside that EBAC
list, art, music, drama, PE, technology, they can be the very things that ignite a
student's passion for school. Absolutely. And if those subjects get squeezed or
perceived as less important, what does that do to a student's overall engagement? It's
a real consideration. So the takeaway isn't just this hierarchy exists, it's maybe about
how within your own planning, you can consciously champion those non-EBAC
subjects that you know really matter to your students. Finding ways to give them
space and value, even within the constraints, because that motivation piece is huge
for learning. Definitely. And sticking with subjects, there was that data point about the
decline in A-level English uptake in England between 2012 and 2019, a 31% drop
overall. That's quite significant. And the breakdown showed English language and
literature combined took the biggest hit. Yeah. And the suggested reasons are
interesting food for thought, like the perception maybe that language study is less, I
don't know, useful for careers. That perception of practical utility definitely plays a
role in student choices, doesn't it? And also the impact of decoupling A-S and A-levels.
The idea that the A-S level used to be a kind of stepping stone, particularly maybe for
modern foreign languages. That makes sense. Taking away that intermediate step
might have changed the calculation for students deciding whether to commit to the
full A-level, especially in subjects they perhaps found more challenging. It's something
for MFL departments certainly to consider in their long-term planning. Okay, let's shift
gears slightly. There's this concept mentioned in the sources called knowledge
transformation. The idea is that domain knowledge, you know, the expert stuff in a
subject doesn't just get beamed directly into students' heads. Yeah, it gets filtered.
Filtered through things like, well, why are we teaching this? The rationale. How
meaningful are the materials we're using? And what's our picture of what good
learning even looks like? And all of that shapes what actually gets taught the
instructional knowledge and what ends up in the formal curriculum knowledge. It's an
active shaping process. So what students learn isn't just a neat copy of expert
knowledge. It's heavily influenced by the teacher's thinking and the learning
experiences they design. And crucially, as another source points out, student
motivation is key in that transformation process. If they're not engaged, that expert
knowledge just won't stick or become meaningful understanding. It remains inert,
almost. Which brings us nicely to something called powerful pedagogical strategies, or
PPS. I like this idea. Me too. It sounds much more grounded. Yeah, think of them as
like small, adaptable teaching techniques, not these huge top-down curriculum
packages, but specific strategies teachers can actually use and control. The sources
describe them as manageable units of change, things teachers can try out, adapt,
reflect on. They have control. Can you give some examples? What does a PPS actually
look like? Sure. The research mentioned things like taboo. You know, the game where
you describe a word without using certain other words, great for vocabulary and
concepts. Or living story maps, physically acting out narratives or processes. Oh,
interesting. An odd one out, getting students to justify which item doesn't belong in a
set, pushing critical thinking. They're adaptable across subjects, English, geography,
history, even maths, apparently. And the key thing is they're not a whole new
curriculum to learn. They're tools teachers can add to their toolkit. Exactly. And the
feedback mentioned was positive students felt their listening improved, they felt more
collective responsibility, small interventions, potentially big impact. That idea of
teacher control feels really central here. The source contrasted it with those big
curriculum packages, which can sometimes feel, well, restrictive, like you're afraid to
deviate. Yes, that fear of going off script. PPS seemed to offer that permission to
experiment, to own your practise a bit more, which often leads to more effective
professional development anyway, small manageable steps. Now, there's also a more
critical voice in the mix, particularly regarding the Tyler rationale. Ah, yes, the classic
objectives, experiences, organisation, evaluation. Right. Hugely influential for ages,
apparently. But the critique is that it might have become too dominant, leading to a
kind of theoretical vacuum. Too much focus on the how to of planning, maybe. And
potentially not enough on the deeper what and why. Why this knowledge? What's the
bigger educational purpose? The risk is it becomes a technical exercise, ticking boxes
rather than fostering deep understanding. Which links to another idea, seeing
curriculum as policy, not just a document, but something with different contexts.
Yeah, like the context of influence, who shapes it, the context of text production, the
actual writing, the context of practise, how teachers use it, the context of outcomes,
what actually happens and the political context to them, the strategies behind it all.
Viewing it like that gives a much broader picture, doesn't it? It shows it's not just this
neutral technical thing. Absolutely. It's embedded in power relations, different
interests, societal pressures, and it really highlights that gap that often exists
between the grand ideas or aspirations of a curriculum. And how it actually plays out
in schools and classrooms. Yeah. That gap between the blueprint and the building.
Precisely. That ongoing tension between the technical aspects and the deeper
theoretical questions. And just briefly, thinking bigger picture again, globalisation
adds another layer of complexity, especially for subjects like geography. You need a
much more nuanced understanding of what it means and how uneven its effects are.
Definitely. It's not one size fits all. Curriculum need to help students grasp that
complexity, the inequalities involved, not just a simple definition. Okay. So that's the
wider policy landscape. But let's focus now on the teachers. How much real say, how
much agency do they have in practise? Well, one source looked at how schools
actually respond to government policies, especially the softer ones. Yeah. And
interestingly, they often don't just passively accept everything. They pick and choose
a bit. Kind of. They tend to prioritise reforms based on what they see as the interests
of their students, their teachers, the school itself. They interpret and adapt. Makes
sense. There was mention of a three-tier model, principal setting direction,
department heads managing resources. And teachers as the ultimate end users,
making it work in the classroom. It shows how implementation gets negotiated at
different levels. And this idea of curriculum agency exists even within quite
standardised curricula, like the Swedish example mentioned, even when the national
curriculum heavily influences what content is taught. Teachers still have significant
room to manoeuvre in how they teach it, which aspects they emphasise, how they
connect ideas. They're not just delivering a script. And they develop strategies to
cope, especially with overloaded curricula and lack of time, recontextualising things.
Yes. Adapting the curriculum. That happens in department meetings when they plan
collaboratively. It happens when they plan lessons individually. And it happens
dynamically in the classroom, responding to students. And one strategy you
mentioned was focussing on overarching abilities, like analytical skills, critical
thinking, argumentation, using those as a kind of structure. Exactly. Like a higher
level framework that helps them connect different bits of content and assess learning
more holistically without getting bogged down in covering every single detail
exhaustively. It's a practical way to navigate a packed curriculum. Now, switching
focus slightly again, there's this concept of an engaging realist pedagogy. It sounds a
bit academic, but the core idea seems important. It is. It's based on a realist view of
knowledge, basically, that there's real knowledge to be learned, especially academic
knowledge that isn't just everyday common sense. And the teacher's role is central in
guiding students through that, leading their conceptual progression, helping them
grasp the underlying rules and structures of that knowledge. So it emphasises the
teacher actively guiding the learning of abstract ideas. Precisely. Learning is seen as a
social activity, and the teacher is the knowledgeable guide, deliberately structuring
the journey from simpler ideas to more complex ones. The example given was
teaching the apostrophe. That really helped clarify it for me. Yeah. Moving from the
more concrete rule you might know, like for contractions, it is becomes it's to the
more abstract concept of possession, like the dog's bone. Which isn't always intuitive.
You need someone to explain the principle. Exactly. It requires that explicit teaching,
that structured progression. It acknowledges that a lot of academic learning involves
concepts you just don't bump into walking down the street. It requires a deliberate
interruption of everyday thinking managed by the teacher. And to help analyse this
kind of teaching, the source mentioned Bernstein's concepts, classification and
framing, and also Meton's semantic gravity and semantic density. These sound like
useful tools. They can be, yeah. Think of classification as about how strong the
boundaries are between different subjects or topics. Is knowledge kept separate or
integrated? Okay. And framing. That's about control. How much control does the
teacher have versus the student over what's learned and how? And Meton's concepts,
semantic gravity. That relates to how context dependent the knowledge is. Is it tied to
a specific example, strong gravity, or is it more abstract and generalisable, weak
gravity? And semantic density. That's about how much meaning is packed into a
symbol or concept. High density means a term carries a lot of complex meaning
concisely. And all this leads to the idea of semantic waves. Yeah. The idea that
effective teaching often involves moving between the concrete and the abstract,
gravity waves, and unpacking complex ideas, then repacking them, density waves. It
helps build cumulative understanding over time. Using these ideas could really help in
planning how to build knowledge step by step, couldn't it? Definitely. They offer a
language to think more precisely about how you're structuring knowledge and guiding
students towards deeper understanding. Which underlines the importance of what the
source has called teacher's curriculum design expertise. It's way more than just
subject knowledge. Absolutely. It's understanding teaching and learning theories, the
purpose of the curriculum, how to organise content, different pedagogical strategies,
assessment, all of it. Teachers are designers, not just deliverers. It's interesting then
that you see this trend in Europe towards more curriculum autonomy, like a core
curriculum that schools adapt locally. Yes. But alongside that, there's also this push
for a new curriculum focussing on learning outcomes, learner centredness, and
teacher autonomy. Sounds great, but... But it can bring challenges. Yeah. The
Portuguese example highlighted potential pitfalls in large reforms, maybe a lack of
clear theoretical underpinning for teachers, not enough practical templates, maybe
disagreement on the goals. Autonomy needs support structures. Which brings us back
to curriculum work being this interpretive process. It happens at the policy level, the
school admin level, and crucially, the teacher level. And interpretation and
transactions are the key words connecting those levels. Teachers aren't just receiving
instructions, they're actively interpreting the curriculum within their own context.
They're translating the central ideas into classroom reality. Exactly. They elaborate
their own specific understandings. And for any of this to work well, particularly
reforms, teachers need to feel a sense of curriculum ownership, don't they? Hugely
important. The Estonian study finding that many teachers still saw the curriculum
mainly as a mandatory document that limited them. Well, that's a barrier. If you don't
feel you own it, why would you invest your creativity and energy fully into it?
Precisely. Fostering that ownership seems critical for successful change. I also found
the bit about the three sensibilities for culturally nourishing schooling really
interesting horizontality, dialogicality, multiplicity. Yes. Moving beyond just adding a
bit of diverse content here and there, tokenism towards truly relational approaches.
So horizontality is about connecting with local knowledge communities. Yeah.
Dialogicality is about respectful relationships and dialogue. And multiplicity
encourages awareness of different perspectives, challenging biases. It's a deeper way
of thinking about inclusivity. And finally, on teacher agency, this idea of collaborative
curriculum enquiry as an alternative to traditional teacher evaluation. Right. Shifting
away from just high stakes tests or tick box lesson observations towards models
where teachers co-design curriculum and investigate practise together. Using that
process itself as a form of professional development and accountability, it sounds
much more empowering. It recognises teachers' expertise. The key seems to be
creating that space for manoeuvre within whatever regulations exist, allowing
teachers room to lead enquiry. And the example of the language curriculum with
outset vocab lists, trusting teachers to use engaging input strategies that really shows
the potential when you empower teachers, doesn't it? It does. Trusting professional
judgement can unlock really creative and effective teaching. OK. So we've covered a
lot of ground policy, theory, teacher agency. How does all this connect back to the
practicalities, to medium term planning and lesson sequencing, which is what so
many teachers are grappling with week in, week out, especially here in the UK? Well,
firstly, understanding that policy landscape, the national guidelines, your school's
priorities, that's the essential starting point for any realistic medium term plan. You
need to know the framework you're working in. Right. You can't ignore the context.
But then remembering concepts like powerful pedagogical strategies reminds you that
you can build in flexibility. Your medium term plan doesn't have to script every single
second. You can plan to use specific PPS in certain lessons, allowing for variety and
responsiveness. So the plan provides the arc, but individual lessons can have variety
and use these different strategies. Exactly. And thinking about something like the
engaging realist pedagogy helps you sequence concepts logically over the medium
term. How do you build from foundational ideas to more complex applications across,
say, half a term? Moving from the concrete to the abstract, perhaps. Using those ideas
of semantic ways we talk about. Precisely. Thinking consciously about that
progression, how knowledge builds, how concepts connect. Using frameworks like
classification, framing, semantic gravity and density can make your medium term
plan much more coherent and effective. It helps you structure that learning journey.
So it's not just a list of topics, but a planned pathway for developing understanding.
Yes. And crucially, going back to ownership, when teachers feel they have agency and
expertise in designing this, the plans themselves are likely to be more creative, better
tailored to their students and ultimately just work better. And what about balancing
subject specifics with those cross-curricular links? That's always a pressure point in
planning, isn't it? Especially in the UK context, with subject specialism being strong. It
is. Interdisciplinary work can be fantastic helping students make connections. But it
needs careful medium term planning to ensure that core subject knowledge isn't
diluted and that the links are genuinely meaningful, not just superficial. It's a
balancing act. So wrapping this all up then, it seems like effective medium term
planning and lesson sequencing in secondary schools, particularly here in the UK, it's,
well, it's complex. It's definitely dynamic. Yeah. Influenced by policy from above,
school priorities, but fundamentally brought to life by teachers' knowledge, their
expertise and, crucially, their agency. And embracing those pedagogical ideas that
respect the nature of knowledge, while also empowering teachers, giving them that
sense of ownership that seems key to moving beyond feeling overwhelmed. Towards
feeling more informed, more effective, maybe more creative in your planning. Exactly.
Understanding the system, but also recognising the real power you have within it to
shape learning for your students. So maybe a final thought for you, listening in your
specific UK school context, how can you actively spot or maybe even create more
opportunities for your own agency or for collaborative enquiry with colleagues? How
can that help you enhance your medium term planning and build those really
engaging, really effective lesson sequences for your students? Something to reflect
on. We hope exploring these ideas has sparked some thoughts and maybe pointed
towards some of the research if you want to dig deeper. Thanks for joining us.
Transcribed by TurboScribe. Go Unlimited to remove this message.

This transcript is actually really useful for your viva—it basically gives you the exact
conceptual language examiners want to hear.

But you still need to turn it into a research direction, not a summary.

🎯 First: What this podcast is really about

If you strip it down, it’s built around 4 core ideas:

1. Curriculum is not fixed

→ policy → interpretation → classroom enactment

2. Teachers are curriculum designers

→ not deliverers

3. Knowledge needs structuring

→ sequencing, progression, semantic waves

4. Agency matters

→ ownership, adaptation, professional judgement

 🧠 So what is your viva “argument space”?
For Part B Option 1, your strongest possible framing is:

My pedagogical philosophy has developed through understanding curriculum as a

process of interpretation, where teachers actively design and sequence knowledge
using both research evidence and classroom experience.

That is your anchor.

🔍 Now: what should your research search look like?

You do NOT search the podcast idea directly.

You extract 2–3 research tensions from it.

🔑 BEST SEARCH STRINGS FOR YOU

1. Curriculum as interpretation (VERY strong for viva)

Use this if you want high-level theory:

 “curriculum as interpretation teacher agency curriculum making research”

 “teachers as curriculum designers policy enactment classroom practice”
 “curriculum as policy text context practice Looney curriculum theory”

👉 This links directly to:

Looney (2010), Alvunger, Priestley-type literature
 2. Knowledge sequencing + learning progression (your science
strength)

This connects to your Stubbs article:

 “science curriculum sequencing semantic waves concrete abstract progression”

 “cognitive science curriculum design schema development misconceptions science”

👉 This links to:

Kirschner, Sweller, Maton, cognitive load theory

3. Teacher agency + professional identity (perfect for Part B

reflection)

This is gold for your presentation tone:

 “teacher agency curriculum design professional identity PGCE evidence informed

teaching”
 “how teachers develop pedagogical reasoning through experience and research”

👉 This links to:

Alvunger, Swift et al., Hulme et al.

✍️One PERFECT “consensus search sentence” (use

this if you want ONE only)
If you want a single, clean academic search prompt:
 “How do secondary teachers act as curriculum designers through interpreting policy
and applying pedagogical and cognitive science principles to sequence knowledge
and support learner progression?”

This works because it combines:

 curriculum theory
 teacher agency
 sequencing
 cognitive science
 classroom practice

🧭 Important correction (this is viva-critical)

Don’t frame your idea as:

“I am developing a philosophy”

Instead frame it as:

“My practice is being shaped by competing theories of curriculum design, particularly

between curriculum as policy and curriculum as teacher-led interpretation.”

That sounds academic, not reflective diary.

🧩 How this links back to your energy idea (if you

still want it later)
You could still use energy—but only as:

a case study of sequencing a “big idea” across domains

Not as your main philosophy.

 Your stronger core is:
✔ sequencing
✔ cognitive science
✔ curriculum interpretation
✔ teacher agency

🚀 If you want next step

I can help you turn this into either:

1. 8-minute scripted Part B presentation (high grade structure)

2. A 5–6 lesson sequence for your science topic using semantic waves +
misconceptions
3. A viva-ready 1-page “philosophy statement” with citations built in

Just tell me which direction.

for part bii <Q&A on one aspect of Module 3 – 7 minutes These questions won’t be
known to you in advance but you should still prepare in advance – more on this
soon<it has been mentioned set of questions at tpr... even though which specific
question would not be known.. can you please based on following tpr show all possible
set of questions and give reference which tpr you have referred to ...??>>>referred
tpr week 28 Curriculum theory and initial approaches Set date: Thursday 23rd April
2026 Module 3 focusses heavily on the role of curriculum in the life of a teacher. As a
starting point, please listen to the relevant podcast for your own phase. This can be
found within the generic trainee SharePoint folder: 06. PGCE. You may find it useful to
make notes as you listen to the discussions presented to you during the recording.
Please note that there are two different podcasts, one for primary trainees and one for
secondary trainees. Afterwards, please complete the table below – the answers to
these questions will be relevant to support you with a future Curriculum Development
Task on the use of literature to substantiate the planning of a sequence of lessons.
Are there any parts of the discussion which have surprised you? Why? Consider your
own setting and context. What aspects are relevant for your current classroom and
school practices? Are there any aspects which you would like to explore further? The
reference list consulted for the primary and secondary podcasts can be found at the
end of this TPR. Papers consulted for primary-phase podcast Almeida, S. and Viana,
J. (2022). Teachers as curriculum designers: What knowledge is needed? The
Curriculum Journal, 34(3), pp.357–374. [Link] Bradfield, K.Z.
and Exley, B. (2020). Teachers’ accounts of their curriculum use: external contextual
influences during times of curriculum reform. The Curriculum Journal, 31(4), pp.757–
774. [Link] Casal de la Fuente, L. and Gillanders, C. (2021).
Songs and singing songs in early childhood education: A review of Spanish curriculum
policy. The Curriculum Journal, 33(3), pp.478–494. [Link]
Chan, J.K.S. (2012). Curriculum policy implementation: how schools respond to
government’s ‘soft’ policy in the curriculum reform. The Curriculum Journal, 23(3),
pp.371–386. [Link] Hameyer, U. (2007).
Transforming domain knowledge: a systemic view at the school curriculum. The
Curriculum Journal, 18(4), pp.411–427. [Link]
Hodge, S. (2023). Curriculum work and hermeneutics. The Curriculum Journal, 35(1),
pp.6–19. [Link] Hulme, M., Comber, A., Jones, E., Grant, J.
and Baumber, J. (2024). Reclaiming accountability through collaborative curriculum
enquiry: New directions in teacher evaluation. The Curriculum Journal, 35(4), pp.673–
689. [Link] Kneen, J., Breeze, T., Davies-Barnes, S., John, V.
and Thayer, E. (2020). Curriculum integration: the challenges for primary and
secondary schools in developing a new curriculum in the expressive arts. The
Curriculum Journal, 31(2), pp.258–275. [Link] Leat, D. and
Higgins, S. (2010). The role of powerful pedagogical strategies in curriculum
development. The Curriculum Journal, 13(1),
pp.71–85. [Link] Lehner-Mear, R., Dixon, K.,
Xu, Y., Gripton, C. and Cooker, L. (2025). Gender as an issue of curricular (in)justice: A
review of national early childhood education curriculum documents in England from
1996 to 2021. The Curriculum Journal, 36(1), pp.1–19. [Link]
Lim, L. (2015). Critical thinking, social education and the curriculum: foregrounding a
social and relational epistemology. The Curriculum Journal, 26(1),
pp.4–23. [Link] Looney, A. (2010).
Curriculum as policy: some implications of contemporary policy studies for the
analysis of curriculum policy, with particular reference to post-primary curriculum
policy in the Republic of Ireland. The Curriculum Journal, 12(2),
pp.149–162. [Link] Manyukhina, Y. and Wyse,
D. (2019). Learner agency and the curriculum: a critical realist perspective. The
Curriculum Journal, 30(3),
pp.223–243. [Link] Mikser, R., Viirpalu, P.
and Krull, E. (2023). Reflection of teachers' feelings of curriculum ownership in their
curriculum definitions: The example of Estonia. The Curriculum Journal, 34(4), pp.542–
557. [Link] Pietarinen, J., Pyhältö, K. and Soini, T. (2017).
Large‐scale curriculum reform in Finland – exploring the interrelation between
implementation strategy, the function of the reform, and curriculum coherence. The
Curriculum Journal, 28(1), pp.22–40. [Link]
Poulton, P. and Mockler, N. (2023). Early career primary teachers’ curriculum‐making
experiences: Enablers and constraints to knowledge‐led forms of curriculum‐
making. The Curriculum Journal, 35(1), pp.20–37. [Link]
Rata, E., McPhail, G. and Barrett, B. (2019). An engaging pedagogy for an academic
curriculum. The Curriculum Journal, 30(2),
pp.162–180. [Link] Ross, E. (2023).
Teachers’ interpretation of curriculum as a window into ‘curriculum potential’. The
Curriculum Journal, 35(1), pp.38–55. [Link] Scott, D. (2014).
Knowledge and the curriculum. The Curriculum Journal, 25(1),
pp.14–28. [Link] Smith, B. (2023).
Curriculum as invader: Normalising white place in the Australian curriculum. The
Curriculum Journal, 35(1), pp.108–124. [Link] Swift, D.,
Clowes, G., Gilbert, S. and Lambert, A. (2024). Sustaining professionalism: Teachers as
co‐enquirers in curriculum design. The Curriculum Journal, 35(4),
pp.622–636. [Link] Yang, W. and Li, H. (2019). Changing
culture, changing curriculum: a case study of early childhood curriculum innovations
in two Chinese kindergartens. The Curriculum Journal, 30(3),
pp.279–297. [Link] Papers consulted for
secondary-phase podcast Adolfsson, C.H. (2018) ‘Upgraded curriculum? An analysis of
knowledge boundaries in teaching under the Swedish subject-based curriculum’, The
Curriculum Journal, 29(3), pp.
424–440. [Link] Almeida, S. and Viana,
J. (2022) ‘Teachers as curriculum designers: What knowledge is needed?’, The
Curriculum Journal, 34(3), pp. 357–374. [Link] Alvunger,
D. (2018) ‘Teachers’ curriculum agency in teaching a standards-based
curriculum’, The Curriculum Journal, 29(4), pp.
479–498. [Link] Alvunger, D. (2021)
‘Curriculum making and knowledge conceptions in classrooms in the context of
standards-based curricula’, The Curriculum Journal, 32(4), pp.
607–625. [Link] Butt, G. (2011) ‘Globalisation, geography
education and the curriculum: what are the challenges for curriculum makers in
geography?’, The Curriculum Journal, 22(3), pp.
423–438. [Link] Chan, J.K.S. (2012)
‘Curriculum policy implementation: how schools respond to government’s “soft” policy
in the curriculum reform’, The Curriculum Journal, 23(3), pp.
371–386. [Link] Garcia-Huidobro, J.C. (2018)
‘Addressing the crisis in curriculum studies: curriculum integration that bridges issues
of identity and knowledge’, The Curriculum Journal, 29(1), pp.
25–42. [Link] Hameyer, U. (2007)
‘Transforming domain knowledge: A systemic view at the school curriculum’, The
Curriculum Journal, 18(4), pp. 411–427. [Link]
Hodge, S. (2023) ‘Curriculum work and hermeneutics’, The Curriculum Journal, 35(1),
pp. 6–19. [Link] Hulme, M., Comber, A., Jones, E., Grant, J.
and Baumber, J. (2024) ‘Reclaiming accountability through collaborative curriculum
enquiry: New directions in teacher evaluation’, The Curriculum Journal, 35(4), pp. 673–
689. [Link] Isaacs, T. (2014) ‘Curriculum and assessment
reform gone wrong: the perfect storm of GCSE English’, The Curriculum Journal, 25(1),
pp. 130–147. [Link] Kneen, J., Breeze, T.,
Davies-Barnes, S., John, V. and Thayer, E. (2020) ‘Curriculum integration: The
challenges for primary and secondary schools in developing a new curriculum in the
expressive arts’, The Curriculum Journal, 31(2), pp.
258–275. [Link] Leat, D. and Higgins, S. (2010) ‘The role of
powerful pedagogical strategies in curriculum development’, The Curriculum Journal,
13(1), pp. 71–85. [Link] Lenon, B. (2020) ‘The
changing secondary curriculum in England’, The Buckingham Journal of Education, 1,
pp. 5–22. Lim, L. (2015) ‘Critical thinking, social education and the curriculum:
foregrounding a social and relational epistemology’, The Curriculum Journal, 26(1), pp.
4–23. [Link] Looney, A. (2010) ‘Curriculum as
policy: Some implications of contemporary policy studies for the analysis of curriculum
policy, with particular reference to post-primary curriculum policy in the Republic of
Ireland’, The Curriculum Journal, 12(2), pp.
149–162. [Link] Millar, R. (2011) ‘Reviewing the
National Curriculum for science: opportunities and challenges’, The Curriculum Journal,
22(2), pp. 167–185. [Link] Mikser, R.,
Viirpalu, P. and Krull, E. (2023) ‘Reflection of teachers’ feelings of curriculum
ownership in their curriculum definitions: The example of Estonia’, The Curriculum
Journal, 34(4), pp. 542–557. [Link] Pietarinen, J., Pyhältö, K.
and Soini, T. (2017) ‘Large-scale curriculum reform in Finland – exploring the
interrelation between implementation strategy, the function of the reform, and
curriculum coherence’, The Curriculum Journal, 28(1), pp.
22–40. [Link] Printer, L. (2024) ‘Towards a
motivating language acquisition curriculum’, The Curriculum Journal, 35, pp. 727–
731. [Link] Rata, E., McPhail, G. and Barrett, B. (2019) ‘An
engaging pedagogy for an academic curriculum’, The Curriculum Journal, 30(2), pp.
162–180. [Link] Scott, D. (2014)
‘Knowledge and the curriculum’, The Curriculum Journal, 25(1), pp.
14–28. [Link] Sinnanema, C., Nieveen, N.
and Priestley, M. (2020) ‘Successful futures, successful curriculum: What can Wales
learn from international curriculum reforms?’, The Curriculum Journal, 31(2), pp. 181–
201. [Link] Sullanmaa, J., Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J. and Soini,
T. (2019) ‘Curriculum coherence as perceived by district-level stakeholders in large-
scale national curriculum reform in Finland’, The Curriculum Journal, 30(3), pp. 244–
263. [Link] Vass, G., Coombs, D., Woods, A.
and Lowe, K. (2024) ‘Educators engaged in curriculum work: Encounters with
relationally responsive curriculum practices’, The Curriculum Journal, 35(1), pp. 91–
107. [Link] <<<< tpr week 29 • Identify an area of the
curriculum that was observed. What was the substantive and disciplinary knowledge
that was being taught as part of the Year 12 or Year 13 curriculum? How was this
taught? Were there any similarities or differences to the Secondary curriculum and/or
pedagogy and why? • What is your understanding of the curriculum (KS4 to KS5) as
the progression model? How has the curriculum been sequenced to enable children to
develop and deepen the knowledge, understanding and skills? What prior knowledge
will enable the children to access the curriculum, at this stage? You may decide to
focus upon the area of the curriculum observed as a way of exemplifying the
curriculum sequence. • How did the Key Stage 5 visit support your understanding of
the high academic expectations for Key Stage 4 learners, including the development
in literacy and numeracy expectations, if appropriate? ,....• Let’s choose one of the
Key Stage 4 classes you will be teaching this week. Consider the area of the
curriculum that is being addressed from the KS4 Programme of Study. With your
mentor, identify the knowledge, understanding or skills that are being taught and
discuss how these domains are developed from KS4 to KS5 in-order to further
understand the post phase progression. << week 30 All Phases: Explain your
learning regarding the relevance of the subject area *Primary to discuss both
curriculum subjects taught in the core training. How will you promote the relevance
of the subject to the children you teach? How has the evidence base informed your
understanding Secondary: Let’s recap on your understanding of KS5 within your
subject? How has the evidence base informed your understanding? How will you apply
your new learning within your practice? What will be the impact and how will you
know? Planning a sequence of lessons Set date: Thursday 7th May 2026 You have
been given the responsibility to plan a sequence of lessons for your subject/phase.
These are lessons which encompass one topic, module or unit (assume the total
number of lessons required is 5 to 6). 1. What considerations do you need to account
for when planning these lessons? Complete the table by writing down what you ought
to be considering when seeing it from the perspective of a particular stakeholder or
organisation: Teacher Learner School Parents Community Official stakeholders (DfE,
Ofsted) 2. Read the article, which is presented within the generic trainee SharePoint
folder: 06. PGCE Appendix A, entitled: Sequencing knowledge within a science
curriculum. Please do not worry if this is not your subject or phase, as the important
points from this article will still be relevant for all. Take any relevant notes as you do
so. 3. The article focusses on how to best sequence knowledge within a curriculum
(which often encompasses many lesson sequences added together). Are there
additional points, stemming from reading this article, that you wish to add to those on
the table above? Stakeholder Relevant point to consider 4. The article refers to the
difference between core knowledge and hinterland knowledge. Howard and Hill (2020,
49-53) refer to three key types of knowledge as below: Core
Knowledge: Knowledge we want students to retain in their long-term memory.
Hinterland Knowledge: Knowledge used to frame the core knowledge: it refers to the
elaborations, embellishments and flourishes that we use. Substantive Knowledge:
Body of facts, principles, laws, descriptions, concepts, claims or accounts of a
subject and is likely form the basis of much of the core knowledge we teach. An aspect
of any given unit which could be considered to be core knowledge in science (for
example, the chemical composition of a particular rock – marked as topic A below),
may be seen as hinterland knowledge in a different subject, such as a geography. This
is true for both primary and secondary phases. Why is it important to consider both
core and hinterland knowledge when planning a sequence of lessons? Consider the
subject you teach (for Primary, please pick one subject). Select one topic which is core
knowledge in the curriculum that you currently teach and one which could be used as
hinterland knowledge to support the teaching of the core knowledge aspect you
selected. Core knowledge Hinterland knowledge Explanation for picking the hinterland
aspect above 5. The article refers to the seductive details effect (Stubbs, 2022). Have
you used this in any of your lessons taught to date (even if you hadn’t labelled it as
such)? What could be the benefits from applying this effect in your lessons? Suggest a
possible use for this in one of your future lessons. << tpr week 31 Secondary: During
core training, trainees will have had personalised workshops focusing upon varied ITE
curriculum foci. Therefore, this training conversation should focus upon the generic
prompts below: • explain the focus of the core training, linked to the session
objectives • what was the new knowledge and understanding that you gained from
the training? • how did the evidence support your understanding? When thinking
critically, were there any limitations to the evidence and if so, what were these? • how
will you apply the knowledge within your practice and what do you foresee as being
the impact of the implementation and why? Module 3 Preparation Set date: Thursday
14th May 2026 Please do not complete this task if you have not yet watched the
compulsory Module 3 Reading & Writing support session. You will now be engaging
with one of the following articles, according to your phase. The Papers can be found in
the generic trainee SharePoint folder: 06. PGCE. • If you are a Primary 3-7 or Primary
5-11 trainee, please select the paper entitled Dialogic teaching in a Year 5 classroom
during cooperative inquiry-based science (Appendix B). • If you are a Secondary
trainee, please select the paper entitled “Can you take a wild guess?” Using images
and expanding knowledge through interaction in the teaching and learning of history
(Appendix C). 1. Read the paper, ensuring that you annotate any aspects which pique
your interest. Consider reading for critical thinking – focussing on aspects which
resonate with your own practice at primary or secondary level. For ease, focus on the
abstract, introduction, literature review, discussion and conclusions. Only engage with
the methodology and case studies if you are interested to find out more or need to
obtain the paper’s full picture to answer the questions below. 2. Consider the
following questions and answer below: What was this study trying to ascertain? What
were its main conclusions? Did any parts of the study surprise you? If so, why? Which
parts of the article could be used to corroborate aspects worth considering when
planning a sequence of lessons? Are there any limitations which would have to be
considered if you were to use this study as theoretical background to propose a new
rationale for a sequence of lessons?** Are there any questions you would wish to
explore further on the back of this study?*** **You may wish to consider, amongst
other points: the author’s/authors’ affiliation, the year of publishing, the setting and
context, the participants, the subject/phase covered, etc. ***Some of these will have
arisen as you were reading the paper and others may arise from you browsing
through the article’s reference list and looking at the titles of other sources which
were consulted for this article. If any seem to be of interest, you could find that paper
to explore it further, as it may be more tailored to aspects you are more interested in
considering. The exercise completed above is similar to what you will be expected to
engage with, as a starting point, in order to provide a clear rationale for the sequence
of lessons that you will put together to form part of your Part A presentation. 3. Find a
suitable source of evidence for your subject/phase which will be relevant for someone
planning a sequence of lessons in a UK-based school. This does not have to be a
paper but should, as much as possible, be of academic standard and peer-reviewed.
Primary 3-7 and Primary 5-11 trainees should focus on writing. 4. Repeat steps 1 and
2 for the source you have selected in point 3. What was this study trying to ascertain?
What were its main conclusions? Did any parts of the study surprise you? If so, why?
Which parts of the article could be used to corroborate aspects worth considering
when planning a sequence of lessons? Are there any limitations which would have to
be considered if you were to use this study as theoretical background to propose a
new rationale for a sequence of lessons? ** Are there any questions you would wish to
explore further on the back of this study? *** 5. You should now, over the course of
the following weeks, continue to read around planning effectively for your
subject/phase. This will culminate in completing the form below which be the basis of
Part A of your presentation. Medium-Term Planning 5. Year group Subject Unit/topic
Key aims/question(s) for the sequence of lessons Sequence learning objectives (these
can be set as questions) Lesson 1: Lesson 2: Lesson 3: Lesson 4: Lesson 5: Lesson 6:
Links with prior and future learning Anticipated misconceptions Relevant prior
learning – name the year/KS: Links to future learning – name the year/KS: Literacy
curriculum links Numeracy curriculum links Inclusion SEND (additional resources
and/or support) Challenge (additional resources and/or support) Reference list for the
sequence of lessons (Include a full reference list of the sources you cite below here.
Expand this box, if needed, in order to complete this task) Theoretical underpinnings
for the sequence of lessons (This explanation should include your full rationale for why
you have planned this sequence the way you have, including in-text citations to refer
to the theory they derive from. Please ensure that all citations are fully referenced in
the box above. Expand this box, if needed, in order to complete this task) Knowledge
covered in lessons within the sequence (Consider the definitions of core, hinterland
and substantive knowledge and, if you wish to include it, the seductive details which
come from task 17 of this booklet) What is the core knowledge to be addressed?
(Students will know and understand…) What is the hinterland knowledge to be
included? (Students’ learning will be supported and strengthened if…) How will
students demonstrate this? (Learning will be assessed throughout the lesson by…)
Lesson 1 Lesson 2 Lesson 3 Lesson 4 Lesson 5 Lesson 6 <<< tpr week 32 A deeper
dive at other considerations when planning sequences of lessons Set date: Thursday
21st May 2026 Please do not complete this task if you have not yet watched the
compulsory Module 3 Reading & Writing support session. The session can be found in
the generic Trainee SharePoint folder: 06. PGCE. In 2018, Ofsted published the results
of an investigation which aimed to assess the quality of education through its
curricula. It emphasised the need for all teachers planning sequences of lessons to
consider their intent, implementation and impact. If you are interested in finding out
more about this, please visit the following website:
[Link]
Curriculum_research_How_to_assess_intent_and_implementation_of_curriculum_1912
[Link]. Consider the definition and examples of these terms below: INTENT
IMPLEMENTATION IMPACT Definition What you want pupils to know and be able to do.
Not a vision or mission statement. How you teach your intended curriculum The
extent to which pupils have learned what you intended them to learn, and how you
know this Examples • A long-term plan (such as a curriculum map), showing the
knowledge and skills you want pupils to gain at each stage, and by the end of their
time at school • Your rationale for why you've made these choices • Teaching
methods • Classroom resources • Sequencing and structure • Assessment •
Outcomes in externally set assessments • Pupils' destinations (e.g. further or higher
education or employment) • Conversations with pupils that demonstrate they know,
can do, and remember more than they did before 1. Answer the following questions:
How useful can these concepts be when considering my planned sequence of lessons
and Part A of the viva? Write down any questions you wish to investigate or explore
further (if any) on the terms covered by the table above.**** ****This can be by
engaging with further literature or finding out more practical considerations regarding
these, such as how your school and/or department currently produces mid- and long-
term plans by taking these into consideration. This may support your sequence
planning. Often, UK-based schools tend to focus on depth of curriculum when it comes
to individual topics before moving on to another topic. However, you may wish to
choose focussing on an approach which prioritises breadth of curriculum. BREADTH OF
CURRICULUM DEPTH OF CURRICULUM Definition The range of subjects taught across
the whole curriculum, and the span of knowledge within each subject How deeply
specific topics within each subject are studied Examples • A broad curriculum focuses
on all curriculum subjects (for example art, PE, PSHE) not just core subjects (English,
maths and science) • A global history curriculum that spans a wide range of time
periods and places • An RE curriculum that covers many religions (beyond
Christianity, Islam and Judaism) • How deeply a pupil understands key concepts (e.g.
can they explain the concepts in their own words or teach someone else?) • How well
pupils understand the underlying links between different subjects and ideas For
example, it is common that a topic within history could be the Tudors. However,
focussing on breadth of curriculum could feasibly see a topic which focusses on
aspects of history relevant for all time periods but amalgamated together. This would
allow students to see things from a different perspective. For example, a series of
lessons here could look like this: • Lesson 1 – Peace • Lesson 2 – War • Lesson 3 –
Disease • Lesson 4 – Life • Lesson 5 – Home • Lesson 6 – Family 2. Answer the
following questions: How useful can these concepts be when considering my planned
sequence of lessons and Part A of the viva? Write down any questions you wish to
investigate or explore further (if any) on the terms covered by the table above. ****
Substantive knowledge and disciplinary knowledge (often also referred to declarative
and procedural knowledge) can be useful concepts to grasp when considering
adopting and writing new curricula. SUBSTANTIVE DISCIPLINARY Definition The
content that is taught as fact Understanding about how knowledge is established,
verified and revised Examples • Properties of materials • Rules of netball •
Pythagoras' theorem • Events leading up to the First World War • Plot of Romeo and
Juliet • How historians come to conclusions and judgements • Carrying out an
experiment • Writing persuasively 3. Answer the following questions: How useful can
these concepts be when considering my planned sequence of lessons and Part A of
the viva? Write down any questions you wish to investigate or explore further (if any)
on the terms covered by the table above. **** Your sequence of lessons may be
designed to fit within a particular type of curriculum. Even though a curriculum may
contain more than one of these approaches, it could be useful for you to imagine what
“the bigger picture” may look like when designing your sequence of lessons.
Cumulative curriculum Segmented curriculum Spiral curriculum Definition Knowledge
builds on and expands previous learning Adds new skills or knowledge that are related
to current context or events, or separate from existing knowledge Revisits previous
learning and adds new knowledge that is age- or stage-appropriate Examples • New
spelling and grammar concepts are introduced year-on-year • Maths skills and
knowledge building on pre-existing maths skills and knowledge • Skills are developed
as part of a one-off project, e.g. fundraising for Red Nose Day • A one-off topic
reflecting current events, e.g. teaching the history of the Olympics during the
Olympics • Persuasive writing taught each year, with increasing complexity, e.g. from
writing a short letter in year 1 to writing a complex argument in year 6 • The same
religious festivals are returned to each year, with increasingly complex knowledge
taught each year 4. Answer the following questions: How useful can these concepts be
when considering my planned sequence of lessons and Part A of the viva? Write down
any questions you wish to investigate or explore further (if any) on the terms covered
by the table above. ****
 You’re right to think ahead here — Part Bii is less about knowing the exact
questions and more about showing you can think like a teacher-researcher across the
curriculum theory themes in your TPRs.

And no, you shouldn’t just reuse one “search sentence”. Instead, you want
a small set of flexible “thinking stems” that can be adapted to whatever question
comes up.

1. First: What Part Bii is actually testing

From your TPRs (Weeks 28–32), the viva questions will broadly target:

 Curriculum theory (what is knowledge? how is it structured?)

 Curriculum making (teacher agency, interpretation, planning)
 Pedagogy (sequencing, strategies, progression)
 Policy vs practice (DfE/Ofsted vs classroom reality)
 Knowledge types (substantive / disciplinary / core / hinterland)
 Curriculum design (intent–implementation–impact)
 Progression (KS4 → KS5, long-term sequencing)

So the questions won’t be random — they will rotate around these 6–7 conceptual
clusters.

2. A GOOD “search sentence” (what you asked

about)
Instead of one fixed sentence, you use a core research frame sentence.

Example MASTER SEARCH STEM:

“teacher as curriculum designer pedagogical knowledge curriculum theory
implementation agency medium term planning”
 This is your base Google / literature search phrase.

But for viva preparation, you don’t stop there.

3. BEST STRATEGY: 6 “QUESTION STEM FAMILIES”

These are based directly on your TPR readings.

You can mentally group ANY possible viva question into these.

🔵 A. Curriculum as knowledge (Week 28: Scott, Hameyer,

Hodge)

Possible viva questions:

 What is curriculum as knowledge rather than content?

 How is knowledge transformed in teaching?
 Why is curriculum not neutral?

Search / thinking stem:

curriculum knowledge transformation teacher mediation Scott 2014 Hameyer 2007

🟡 B. Teacher agency & curriculum making (Weeks 28–29:

Ross, Alvunger, Poulton)

Possible viva questions:

 How do teachers act as curriculum makers?
 What is teacher agency in curriculum design?
 How do teachers interpret policy?

Search stem:

teacher agency curriculum making interpretation curriculum Ross 2023 Alvunger 2018

🟢 C. Planning, sequencing & progression (Weeks 29 & module

planning task)

Possible viva questions:

 How do you sequence knowledge effectively?

 What is progression in KS4–KS5?
 How do prior knowledge and schemas support learning?

Search stem:

curriculum sequencing progression knowledge building medium term planning

cumulative curriculum

🔴 D. Pedagogy & strategies (Week 28: Leat & Higgins, Rata)

Possible viva questions:

 What are powerful pedagogical strategies?

 How do teaching methods shape curriculum delivery?
 What is an engaging realist pedagogy?

Search stem:
 powerful pedagogical strategies Leat Higgins Rata engaging realist pedagogy
teaching methods curriculum

🟣 E. Knowledge types (Weeks 30–32: core / hinterland /

substantive / disciplinary)

Possible viva questions:

 What is substantive vs disciplinary knowledge?

 Why distinguish core and hinterland knowledge?
 How does this affect lesson planning?

Search stem:

substantive disciplinary knowledge core hinterland curriculum planning knowledge

types

🟠 F. Policy vs practice tension (Weeks 28–32: Looney, Chan,

Ofsted intent/impact)

Possible viva questions:

 How does policy shape curriculum?

 What is the gap between intent and implementation?
 How do teachers respond to national curriculum pressures?

Search stem:

curriculum policy implementation intent impact Ofsted Looney 2010 curriculum as

policy
 ⚫ G. Curriculum ownership & professional identity (Mikser,
Swift, Hulme)

Possible viva questions:

 What is curriculum ownership?

 How do teachers develop professional curriculum identity?
 Why does collaboration matter?

Search stem:

curriculum ownership teacher professionalism collaborative curriculum enquiry Mikser

Swift Hulme

4. IMPORTANT ANSWER TO YOUR ORIGINAL

QUESTION
❌ Don’t do this:
“What is pedagogical philosophy development UK curriculum theory reflection”

That’s too vague.

❌ Don’t memorise one sentence for everything

✅ DO THIS instead:

Use a 3-layer structure:

1. Core frame (always same idea)

teacher curriculum theory agency knowledge pedagogy

2. Add theme layer (depending on question)

 sequencing
 policy
 knowledge types
 pedagogy
 ownership

3. Add 1–2 theorists (from TPR list)

 Scott
 Hameyer
 Leat & Higgins
 Alvunger
 Looney
 Hodge

5. WHAT EXAMINERS ACTUALLY WANT

They are not testing “search skills”.

They are testing whether you can say things like:

 “curriculum is a process of interpretation, not delivery” (Hodge, 2023)

 “teachers mediate knowledge rather than transmit it directly” (Hameyer, 2007)
 “sequencing supports cumulative knowledge building” (Scott, 2014)
 “policy is recontextualised in practice” (Looney, 2010)

6. SIMPLE PREP STRATEGY (what you should

actually do)
Instead of memorising questions, prepare:

✔ 6 themes (above)
 ✔ 2–3 authors per theme

✔ 1 example from your placement experience per theme

If you want, I can next:

 turn this into a ready-to-say 7-minute viva script structure

 or generate mock examiner questions + model answers based exactly on your
TPR list
Teacher agency & curriculum making (Weeks 28–29: Ross, Alvunger, Poulton)
Possible viva questions:

• How do teachers act as curriculum makers?

• What is teacher agency in curriculum design?

• How do teachers interpret policy?

Search stem:

teacher agency curriculum making interpretation curriculum Ross 2023 Alvunger 2018

Ross, E. (2023). Teachers’ interpretation of curriculum as a window into ‘curriculum potential’. The Curriculum
Journal, 35(1), pp.38–55.

Alvunger, D. (2018) ‘Teachers’ curriculum agency in teaching a standards-based curriculum’, The Curriculum Journal,
29(4), pp. 479–498

Poulton, P. and Mockler, N. (2023). Early career primary teachers’ curriculum ‐making experiences: Enablers and
constraints to knowledge‐led forms of curriculum‐making. The Curriculum Journal, 35(1), pp.20–37

///

Planning, sequencing & progression (Weeks 29 & module planning task)

Possible viva questions:

• How do you sequence knowledge effectively?

• What is progression in KS4–KS5?

• How do prior knowledge and schemas support learning?

Search stem:

curriculum sequencing progression knowledge building medium term planning cumulative curriculum

///

Pedagogy & strategies (Week 28: Leat & Higgins, Rata)

Possible viva questions:

• What are powerful pedagogical strategies?

• How do teaching methods shape curriculum delivery?

• What is an engaging realist pedagogy?

Search stem:

powerful pedagogical strategies Leat Higgins Rata engaging realist pedagogy teaching methods curriculum

Leat, D. and Higgins, S. (2010). The role of powerful pedagogical strategies in curriculum development. The
Curriculum Journal, 13(1), pp.71–85

Rata, E., McPhail, G. and Barrett, B. (2019). An engaging pedagogy for an academic curriculum. The Curriculum
Journal, 30(2), pp.162–180

//

F. Policy vs practice tension (Weeks 28–32: Looney, Chan, Ofsted intent/impact)

Possible viva questions:

• How does policy shape curriculum?

• What is the gap between intent and implementation?

• How do teachers respond to national curriculum pressures?

Search stem:

curriculum policy implementation intent impact Ofsted Looney 2010 curriculum as policy

Looney, A. (2010). Curriculum as policy: some implications of contemporary policy studies for the analysis of
curriculum policy, with particular reference to post-primary curriculum policy in the Republic of Ireland. The
Curriculum Journal, 12(2), pp.149–162

Chan, J.K.S. (2012) ‘Curriculum policy implementation: how schools respond to government’s “soft” policy in the
curriculum reform’, The Curriculum Journal, 23(3), pp. 371–386

Ofsted Curriculum Research Phase 3 (2018)

//

G. Curriculum ownership & professional identity (Mikser, Swift, Hulme)

Possible viva questions:

• What is curriculum ownership?

• How do teachers develop professional curriculum identity?

• Why does collaboration matter?

Search stem:
curriculum ownership teacher professionalism collaborative curriculum enquiry Mikser Swift Hulme

Mikser, R., Viirpalu, P. and Krull, E. (2023). Reflection of teachers' feelings of curriculum ownership in their
curriculum definitions: The example of Estonia. The Curriculum Journal, 34(4), pp.542–557

Swift, D., Clowes, G., Gilbert, S. and Lambert, A. (2024). Sustaining professionalism: Teachers as co ‐enquirers in
curriculum design. The Curriculum Journal, 35(4), pp.622–636

Hulme, M., Comber, A., Jones, E., Grant, J. and Baumber, J. (2024) ‘Reclaiming accountability through collaborative
curriculum enquiry: New directions in teacher evaluation’, The Curriculum Journal, 35(4), pp. 673–689