The ECER 2024 workshop, “How do we develop teachers’ flow in the process of curriculum making across the continuum of their career?" identified supportive semiotic, material, and social flows teachers need in order to engage in the process of curriculum making across the continuum of their career.  Participant group discussion focussed on (1) different pathways chosen by teachers, (2) curriculum perspectives as curriculum makers, and (3) what supports  fluidity between and across the semiotic, social and material flows (Deleuze & Guattari, 2003).  The viscosity and resistance between and across each of the flows (Dempsey, Doyle & Looney, 2021) was also considered. Findings from the workshop proffered that, across the different sites of curriculum making (Priestley, Alvunger, Philippou and Soini, 2021), the design expertise of teachers demanded curriculum literacy (semiotics), spaces for networking and collaboration (social) and resources, artefacts (materials).

The ECER 2025 workshop proposes to build on last year’s workshop. Firstly, drawing on the work of Leat, Livingston and Priestley (2013) and Kuiper & Nieveen (2013), an input/output (de)regulation framework will be used to obtain a sense of possible opportunities teachers/leaders have to manoeuvre in relation to curriculum making. Curriculum regulation reflects a government’s intention to prescribe the high-fidelity implementation of directives at input level (goals and contents, in terms of ‘goals to attain’ or ‘goals to strive for’) and at output level (modes of assessments and examinations; surveillance by the inspection; governance). These prescriptions imply that room for site-specific curricular choices are restricted. Curriculum deregulation reflects a government’s intention to refrain from prescription and control at input and output level by stimulating school-based decision-making.

Secondly, drawing on Nieveen et al., (2024), the team will input on curriculum design expertise from an understanding that curriculum design is, next to a multi-layered social practice (Priestley, 2019), also a substantive and technical professional practice.

Finally, building on the work of Kuiper (2009), the concept of infrastructuring will be introduced and the question of how the whole system can support teacher/leader curriculum making will be considered. The concepts of professional development (PD) and professional learning (PL) will be introduced - the former associated with educational activities and processes; the latter conceived as a form of expertise and internal knowledge creation emerging from such activities (Timperley et al., 2007). PD is regarded as the delivery of information designed to influence teachers’ practice whereas PL infers that teachers are agentic and agents of their own learning.

Taking account of the above input, participants will consider the following questions:

1. In your country’s educational system, where are the spaces for teachers to design curriculum? 

2. What factors enable or restrain teachers in designing curriculum?

3. What design expertise do teachers need to build their curriculum making flow? To what degree do teachers need to develop curriculum understanding and awareness?

4. How can design expertise/flow be fostered? What supports are required to tailor and innovate curricula while maintaining a common sense of direction and safeguarding quality? What PD/PL do teachers need?

The proposed workshop is built upon a Design Based Research (DBR) (Brown, 1992; Plomp & Nieveen, 2013) approach. The activities will build on last year’s discussion and expand the understanding of the curriculum design expertise of teachers and required supports. The information gleaned from this activity will reflect European / International experience as described by the participants. The frame of the DBR activity will assist with our understanding of curriculum design practices across the different countries present and the generation of a deeper understanding of the needs and supports of the teacher as curriculum maker, thus adding to the generation of new theory. The Workshop schedule will operate as follows: Stage 1: 20 Minutes Presentation, incorporating: Brief explanation of last year’s Workshop to accommodate anyone who was not present. Sharing of last year’s group feedback on the semiotic, material & social flows. Input on Design Expertise (Nieveen et al., 2024; Nieveen, van den Akker & Voogt, 2023). Stage 2: 15 Minutes Formulation of groups for group work. Nomination of facilitator; recorder; timekeeper Instructions relating to group activity Individual reflection on the space for teachers to design curriculum in each country represented. (See question one above). Share results in the small groups Stage 3: 25 Minutes Activity: Each group to work on the next three questions: What factors enable or restrain teachers in designing curriculum? What design expertise do teachers need to build their curriculum making flow? To what degree do teachers need to develop curriculum understanding and awareness? How can design expertise/flow be fostered? What supports are required to tailor and innovate curricula while maintaining a common sense of direction and safeguarding quality? What PD/PL do teachers need? Stage 4: 30 Minutes Feedback and discussion

From the Workshop last year, it was clear that across the different sites of curriculum making (Priestley, Alvunger, Philippou and Soini, 2021), the design expertise of teachers demanded curriculum literacy (semiotics), spaces for networking and collaboration (social) and resources, artefacts etc (materials). As the career path of the teacher developed, they needed support in developing an expanding design expertise capacity and consistency (Huizinga, Handelzalts, Nieveen & Vooght, 2014). Whilst continuous professional development is always proposed as important (Boulay et al. 2018; Venista & Brown, 2023), this workshop will hopefully provide a common sense of direction allowing for the co-design of a shared understanding of the teacher as curriculum maker across the continuum of a teacher’s career. This workshop hopes to delve deeper into the design expertise needed for the teacher to become part of a design team and how the system itself might support them to understand their nestedness in that design (Becker & Jacobsen, 2020). It recognizes curriculum as a highly complex landscape (Connolly, 2013) for the teacher as a curriculum maker, and notes the specific context and culture that can enable or restrain them and the multiplicity of types of spaces and practices across the world. The emerging themes from this discussion will help to clarify the needs of the teacher as curriculum maker across their career and impact not only Initial Teacher Education but the design of any programme by meso or macro agencies that will help support their needs.

Becker, S. & Jacobsen, M. (2020). Becoming a Maker Teacher: Designing Making Curricula That Promotes Pedagogical Change. Frontiers in Education 5(83). Brown, A. (1992). ‘Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings.’ Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2):141–78. Connelly, M. (2013). Joseph Schwab, curriculum, curriculum studies and educational reform. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(5), 622-639. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2003). A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. University of Minnesota Press. Dempsey, M., Doyle, A., & Looney, A. (2021). The craft of curriculum making in lower secondary education in Ireland. In M. Priestley, T. Soini-Ikonen, S. Alvunger, & S. Philippou (Eds.), Curriculum making in Europe: Policy and practice within and across diverse contexts (pp. 199-222). Bingley: Emerald. Huizinga, T., Handelzalts, A., Nieveen, N. & Voogt, J. M. (2014). Teacher Involvement in curriculum design: need for support to enhance teachers’ design expertise. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 46(1). Kuiper, W. (2009). Curriculum evaluation and responsible reform of science education.] Inaugural lecture. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Universiteit Utrecht. Nieveen, N. & Kuiper, W. (2012). Balancing Curriculum Freedom and Regulation in the Netherlands. European Educational Research Journal. 11 (3). Leat D, Livingston K & Priestley M (2013) Curriculum deregulation in England and Scotland - Different directions of travel?. In: Kuiper W & Berkvens J (eds.) Balancing Curriculum Regulation and Freedom across Europe. CIDREE Yearbook, 2013. Enschede, the Netherlands: SLO Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development, pp. 229-248. Nieveen, N.M., van den Akker, J.J.H., Voogt, J.M. (2023). Curriculum design. In: R.J. Tierney, F. Rizvi, K. Erkican (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education, vol. 7 (pp. 198–205). Nieveen, N., Van Der Veen, J. & Ventura-Medina, I. E. (2024). Pathways to Innovative STEM Education. Inaugural Lecture, March 7, 2024. Eindhoven University of Technology. Plomp, T. & Nieveen, N. (2013) (Eds.). Educational design research: Introduction and illustrative cases. Enschede: SLO. https://slo.nl/publish/pages/4474/educational-design-research-part-a.pdf Priestley, M, Alvunger, D., Philippou, S. & Soini, T. (eds.) 2021. Curriculum making in Europe: policy and practice within and across the diverse contexts. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited. Timperley, H., Wilson A., Barrar H. and Fung, I. (2007) Teacher Professional Learning and Development: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration, Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Venista, O. M. & Brown, C. (2023). Teachers’ professional learning and its impact on students’ learning outcomes: Findings from a systematic review. Social Sciences & humanities Open. 8:1