Curriculum for Excellence has been in place in Scotland for around 15 years, and its implementation has faced a number of challenges (see Humes & Priestley, 2021, Hizli Alkan, 2023). In response to these challenges, and following OECD recommendations (2021), Scotland has initiated a Curriculum Improvement Cycle (CIC), led by Education Scotland. A central feature of the CIC is the co-constructive nature of curriculum making, involving a range of stakeholders, including Steering Groups, Core Groups, Collaboration Groups and National Networks. These groups are working to develop subject purpose statements, sets of Big Ideas, key concepts, and the Know and Do layer of the curriculum framework (Education Scotland, 2025).

Mathematics is the first subject to undergo this process. The proposed Big Ideas approach is intended to build on the Experiences and Outcomes of Curriculum for Excellence while addressing issues encountered by teachers during the implementation. In this research, we explore how educators across school phases begin to make sense of this evolving mathematics curriculum, with a particular focus on the emotional landscape of their sense making and how this may be connected to the type and level of engagement they experienced within the CIC. To explore this, we address the following research questions:

1. How do educators currently feel about the early stages of the Curriculum Improvement Cycle in mathematics?
2. What underlying mechanisms might generate these feelings?

We understand sense making as a crucial element of curriculum reform, enabling educators to make meaning of what is (and is not) changing and the implications for their practice (Soini et al., 2018; Spillane et al., 2002). Drawing on socio-cultural perspectives, we conceptualise sense making as an emotional experience of co-constructing meaning within socio-cultural, political and material environments (Anttila et al., 2022; Datnow, 2018; Hargreaves, 2005; Oatley, 2000; Schutz et al., 2006).

While existing literature has begun to explore what Anttila et al. (2022) describe as the ‘emotional landscape of curriculum making’, less is known about the range of emotions that emerge during the early stages of curriculum reform and how these may relate to educators’ engagement in curriculum co-construction. In line with Datnow and Hubbard (2018), this study moves beyond discourses of ‘buy-in’ to develop a more nuanced understanding of how educators engage with reform processes. This focus has relevance for education systems beyond Scotland that are undergoing curriculum change.

The paper reports findings from the first phase of a two-stage study, drawing on 13 online focus group interviews with 29 educators and seven education stakeholders across school phases. Focus groups were organised in two configurations: some included mixed participants across school phases, while others brought together education stakeholders working within the same context, allowing for both cross-phase dialogue and role-specific discussions to emerge. Focus groups were conducted via MS Teams, with transcripts downloaded and edited for accuracy. Participants were first invited to imagine encountering a staffroom poster about the CIC and to discuss their initial impressions. This was followed by discussions of their understandings of the proposed Big Ideas in mathematics and the emotions associated with engaging in the CIC. Drawing on Anttila et al. (2022), emotions identified in their research were used as a starting point for discussion, while participants were encouraged to articulate additional emotional responses arising from their own experiences. Adopting a critical realist stance (Bhaskar, 1978; Archer, 1995), our data analysis explores possible underpinning mechanisms shaping educators’ emotional responses and sense making processes. This approach enable us to move beyond describing emotions to consider the contextual and structural conditions that may give rise to them, while recognising that such mechanisms are not directly observable. Analysis involved iterative engagement with the data, moving between participants’ accounts and theoretical concepts to develop explanations for variations in emotional responses and sense-making.

Findings indicate a range of emotions, with hope, enthusiasm and frustration reported more frequently than others. Greater engagement in the CIC was associated with fewer negative emotions, while minimal or no involvement was linked to feelings such as cynicism, apprehension, insecurity and exhaustion. We discuss possible underpinning mechanisms shaping these emotional responses, including level of involvement in the CIC, previous experience with CfE, assessment culture and school phase. This first phase provides initial insight into educators’ early sense making and informs the focus and design of the second stage of the study, which involves a large-scale survey.

Anttila, H., Tikkanen, L., Soini, T., Pietarinen, J., & Pyhältö, K. (2023). The emotional landscape of curriculum making. Curriculum Journal, 34(2), 178–192. https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.172 Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge University Press. Bhaskar, R. (1978). A realist theory of science. Routledge Datnow, A., & Hubbard, L. (2018). Extending educational reform: Understanding implementation and change. In A. Datnow & L. Hubbard (Eds.), Extending educational reform (pp. 1–xx). Routledge. Education Scotland. (2025). Working together to make change happen. Retrieved from https://blogs.glowscotland.org.uk/glowblogs/public/cices/uploads/sites/10666/2025/04/01103754/020425-CIC-Working-Together-to-Make-Change-Happen-V1.0.pdf Oatley, K., Keltner, D., & Jenkins, J. M. (2006). Understanding emotions (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J., & Soini, T. (2018). Dynamic and shared sense‑making in large‑scale curriculum reform in school districts. The Curriculum Journal, 29(2), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2018.1447306 Schutz, P. A., Hong, J. Y., Cross, D. I., & Osbon, J. N. (2006). Reflections on investigating emotion in educational activity settings. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9030-3 Soini, T., Pietarinen, J., & Pyhältö, K. (2018). Shared sense-making strategies in curriculum reform: District-level perspective. Improving Schools, 21(2), 111–126. doi:10.1177/1365480217744290 Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431. doi:10.3102/00346543072003387