Judgement

Preparing for the Civil Services Examination is long, costly, and uncertain, yet little research has listened to aspirants in India's Tier 2 cities. This descriptive survey asked 523 aspirants enrolled in coaching in Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, about their stress, coping, attitudes to professional mental-health support, and the support their institutions offer. More than half (55.8%) called the past month very or extremely stressful, and financial strain, family expectations, and fear of judgement were prominent. Aspirants coped through peers, breaks, and planning, yet 84.3% felt they had not found a strategy that worked. Most (90.6%) thought professional help reasonable, but only 23.9% had used it, mainly held back by fear of peer judgement, cost, and confidentiality worries. Most (84.1%) rated stress-related support from their institutions as inadequate or absent. The findings are descriptive, not causal, and suggest support should change the conditions of preparation as well as strengthen individual coping.

The article examines the potential of mindfulness exercises for promoting students’ well-being and improving the effectiveness of English language teaching in higher education institutions of Ukraine. The relevance of the study is due to the increasing levels of stress, anxiety, emotional exhaustion, and reduced motivation among students, particularly in the context of the ongoing war in Ukraine, which highlights the need for educational approaches that support both academic achievement and psychological well-being. The paper reviews contemporary theoretical and empirical research on mindfulness, outlines its core principles, and analyses their application to the foreign language classroom. Particular attention is paid to the contribution of mindfulness to reducing foreign language anxiety, strengthening emotional regulation, increasing resilience, motivation, self-efficacy, concentration, memory, communication skills, and speaking performance. The article also discusses the pedagogical principles underlying effective mindfulness instruction, including intention, attention, attitude, inquiry-based learning, and the creation of a supportive and non-judgemental learning environment. Furthermore, the principles of non-judgement, acceptance, beginner’s mind, patience, non-striving, trust, letting go, and compassion are interpreted in relation to English language learning. Based on the analysed literature, the paper proposes a set of practical mindfulness activities that can be integrated into English language lessons, including mindful breathing, listening, writing, conversations, body scanning, movement, grounding, visualisation, art practices, and savouring. These activities may be used as lesson warm-ups, fillers, transitions, or independent learning tasks to foster students’ emotional well-being while simultaneously developing their communicative competence. It is concluded that mindfulness represents a valuable pedagogical approach capable of creating psychologically safe and engaging learning environments that support both language acquisition and personal development.

Counselling researchers have spent decades arguing about why counselling works. One philosophical camp locates the active ingredient in specific techniques tied to specific disorders. The other locates it in factors common to all bona fide therapies, chiefly the relationship between counsellor and client. This article develops a process-based perspective on the debate, examining how relational and technical elements are used within an unfolding therapeutic interaction. Drawing on the equivalence findings, the contemporary alliance literature, the unresolved question of causal mediation, the routine outcome monitoring evidence, and Australian decolonising scholarship, I propose a culturally situated responsive calibration model. The model reframes the therapist’s continuous, feedback-informed adjustment of relational and technical elements, made within the client’s cultural frame of wellbeing, as a proposed proximal mechanism of change. Calibration is not a new observation about good practice. Building on established responsiveness theory, the proposed contribution is to organise testable episodes of clinical judgement around feedback, action, and the client’s definition of wellbeing. Four testable propositions are advanced, including tests of whether calibration adds explanatory value beyond established process and treatment measures. Implications for practice, training, and measurement are outlined. The model is offered as a conceptual framework awaiting empirical testing, not as an established finding.

Nature-based extreme sports are often framed through sensation seeking, thrill, and voluntary exposure to risk, yet this framing can obscure the meanings participants attach to prolonged engagement with demanding natural environments. This study explored how experienced South African participants interpreted the relationship between nature-based extreme sport participation and eco-sensitivity. In this article, eco-sensitivity refers to participants' reported environmental attention, affective connection with nature, recognition of ecological dependence, concern about degradation, and efforts to reduce personal impact. A qualitative design using interpretative phenomenological analysis was applied to semi-structured interviews conducted between 29 April and 4 July 2019 with 10 experienced participants, five men and five women, who represented 11 nature-based extreme sport activities and reported two to 22 years of experience. Four interconnected themes were identified: risk as a managed component of participation; connection rather than conquest; sensory sensitivity and experiences consistent with mindfulness and flow; and eco-sensitivity and self-reported pro-environmental orientation. Participants described risk as something to calculate and manage through competence, preparation, and situational judgement. They also described respect for natural forces, heightened bodily and environmental attention, and a stronger sense of ecological dependence. Reported pro-environmental practices were self-reported and were not independently observed. The findings provide an interpretive account of how participants made sense of environmental meanings within prolonged outdoor sport involvement. They do not establish a causal developmental mechanism. The results suggest propositions for athlete education, outdoor recreation management, environmental learning, and future longitudinal research. Keywords: eco-sensitivity; extreme sport; interpretative phenomenological analysis; nature connectedness; pro-environmental behaviour; risk management.

Self-leadership and self-efficacy are theoretically and empirically linked, yet limited research explains how individuals interpret self-leadership experiences as evidence of personal capability. Although self-leadership practices and mastery experiences contribute to self-efficacy, the cognitive process through which performance experiences become evidence of competence remains insufficiently understood. Attribution theory explains how individuals infer the causes of performance outcomes but offers limited insight into how these interpretations inform subsequent judgements of personal capability. This paper proposes responsibility attribution as a cognitive mechanism that may explain how performance experiences are incorporated into self-efficacy beliefs. Responsibility attribution is conceptualised as an evaluative appraisal through which individuals determine whether a performance outcome should be interpreted as evidence of their own capability. Outcomes perceived as personally attributable may therefore acquire psychological significance for subsequent self-efficacy judgements. Integrating self-leadership theory, social cognitive theory, and attribution theory, the proposed framework explains how individuals may transform performance experiences into capability judgements that support self-directed behaviour. The paper contributes to attribution theory by specifying a potentially under-theorised function of attributional processing: evaluating whether interpreted outcomes constitute evidence of personal capability. The framework also offers a theoretical basis for future research into self-leadership development and interventions that strengthen learning from experience.

Social deduction games require people to identify the truth-tellers and liars based on limited and vague information. This exploratory study investigated the relationship between agreeableness, neuroticism and accuracy of deception judgment in a structured social-deduction task. Sixty-three participants aged 15-35 completed a 120-item Big Five personality inventory and then observed the materials from a Werewolf game before making five judgments, three hidden-role judgments and two truth-value judgments. The results showed that neuroticism was negatively correlated with the accuracy of judgment (r = -0.294, p = .019, 95% CI [-0.505, -0.050]), and agreeableness was not significantly related to accuracy (r = -0.128, p = .317, 95% CI [-0.364, 0.124]). Exploratory analysis of trait combinations also showed that the mean accuracy of the agreeableness and neuroticism groups was different. Therefore, it is proposed that neuroticism may be linked to differences in the judgement of deception among individuals, but agreeableness alone was not significantly associated with performance in the current task. As an exploratory correlational study, the results provide an initial indication of personality differences in deception judgment under the circumstances of structured social interaction.

This article reports on a small-scale mixed methods survey, conducted as part of a larger funded project, examining how secondary English literature teachers approach violence and other potentially disturbing material in Shakespeare’s plays. Forty teachers in England completed an online questionnaire comprising both open and closed questions, generating quantitative and qualitative data. Focusing on content warnings, the study reveals considerable variation in teachers’ views and classroom practices. Some routinely employ warnings, while others worry that they may be counterproductive, increasing anxiety or offering limited preparation for difficult material beyond the classroom. While the wider project also gathered data from young people, the present article draws exclusively on the teacher survey findings. Teachers were more likely to provide warnings for modern texts than for Shakespeare, whose historical distance was often assumed to lessen emotional impact. Across responses, a recurring theme was a perceived lack of training and institutional guidance for managing sensitive content, with teachers relying largely on personal judgement and informal strategies.

این مقاله به گزارش یک پژوهش پیمایشی با روش‌های ترکیبی در مقیاس کوچک می‌پردازد که به عنوان بخشی از یک پروژه بزرگ‌تر و دارای حمایت مالی انجام شده است و بررسی می‌کند که معلمان ادبیات انگلیسی متوسطه چگونه با خشونت و سایر مطالب بالقوه آزاردهنده در نمایشنامه‌های شکسپیر مواجه می‌شوند. چهل معلم در انگلستان یک پرسشنامه آنلاین شامل سؤالات باز و بسته را تکمیل کردند که داده‌های کمی و کیفی تولید نمود. با تمرکز بر هشدارهای محتوایی، این مطالعه نشان‌دهنده تنوع قابل توجهی در دیدگاه‌ها و شیوه‌های کلاسی معلمان است. برخی به طور منظم از هشدارها استفاده می‌کنند، در حالی که برخی دیگر نگران‌اند که این هشدارها ممکن است نتیجه معکوس داشته و باعث افزایش اضطراب یا آمادگی محدود برای مواجهه با مطالب دشوار فراتر از کلاس شوند. اگرچه پروژه گسترده‌تر داده‌هایی از جوانان نیز جمع‌آوری کرده است، مقاله حاضر صرفاً بر یافته‌های نظرسنجی معلمان تمرکز دارد. معلمان بیشتر برای متون مدرن نسبت به آثار شکسپیر هشدار ارائه می‌دهند، چرا که فاصله تاریخی شکسپیر اغلب موجب فرض کاهش تأثیرات عاطفی می‌شود. در میان پاسخ‌ها، موضوع تکرارشونده‌ای که مشاهده می‌شود، کمبود آموزش و راهنمایی نهادی برای مدیریت محتوای حساس است و معلمان عمدتاً به قضاوت شخصی و راهبردهای غیررسمی تکیه می‌کنند.

This article examines the proposed implementation of the I-CAN support needs assessment tool within the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). Key concerns relate to the I-CAN being adapted away from a strengths-based, person-centred approach, and implemented within a service-centred paradigm with overreliance on algorithms and the removal of clinical input and clinical judgement. Alternatively, this moment of dramatic redesign of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) could be an opportunity to bring focus to a contribution paradigm, and what value people with disabilities contribute to our society when provided with the right support.

این مقاله به بررسی اجرای پیشنهادی ابزار ارزیابی نیازهای حمایتی I-CAN در چارچوب طرح ملی بیمه ناتوانی (NDIS) می‌پردازد. نگرانی‌های اصلی مربوط به این است که I-CAN از رویکرد مبتنی بر نقاط قوت و فردمحور فاصله گرفته و در قالبی خدمت‌محور با اتکای بیش از حد به الگوریتم‌ها و حذف ورودی و قضاوت بالینی به کار گرفته می‌شود. در مقابل، این لحظه بازطراحی اساسی طرح ملی بیمه ناتوانی (NDIS) می‌تواند فرصتی برای تمرکز بر پارادایم مشارکت و ارزش‌آفرینی افراد دارای معلولیت برای جامعه، در صورت دریافت حمایت مناسب، باشد.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is now part of everyday academic work in higher education, including feedback. However, AI feedback does not automatically lead to learning. It can help students rethink a concept, improve a draft, and notice gaps in their work, but it can also create a false sense of progress when students accept suggestions without understanding them. This Perspective article argues that responsible AI feedback depends on faculty readiness and students’ evaluative judgement. Readiness is not mainly technical. It involves pedagogical judgement: knowing how to design tasks in which students work with feedback, compare it with evidence, revise with purpose, explain their choices, and remain responsible for the final submission. The article focuses on generative AI feedback and uses metacognitive calibration as a central concept. Calibration refers to the relationship between students’ confidence or self-judgement and independently evaluated evidence of performance. Evaluative judgement concerns students’ capacity to judge the quality and relevance of feedback and work, whereas calibration concerns the accuracy of their judgements relative to independently evaluated performance evidence. The article shows how ideas from feedback literacy, evaluative judgement, and self-regulated learning need to be adapted when feedback comes from systems whose accuracy and educational value cannot be assumed. It proposes a conceptual responsible AI feedback design cycle linked to assessment integrity, university policy, and faculty development. Although the cycle requires empirical testing, it offers a practical way to support reflection, calibrated judgement, and accountability without replacing students’ thinking.

هوش مصنوعی (AI) اکنون بخشی از فعالیت‌های روزمره دانشگاهی در آموزش عالی، از جمله بازخورد، است. با این حال، بازخورد هوش مصنوعی به طور خودکار منجر به یادگیری نمی‌شود. این بازخورد می‌تواند به دانشجویان کمک کند تا یک مفهوم را بازاندیشی کنند، پیش‌نویسی را بهبود دهند و شکاف‌های موجود در کار خود را تشخیص دهند، اما همچنین ممکن است حس کاذبی از پیشرفت ایجاد کند زمانی که دانشجویان پیشنهادها را بدون درک آن‌ها می‌پذیرند. این مقاله دیدگاه بیان می‌کند که بازخورد مسئولانه هوش مصنوعی وابسته به آمادگی اعضای هیئت علمی و قضاوت ارزشیابانه دانشجویان است. آمادگی عمدتاً فنی نیست، بلکه شامل قضاوت آموزشی است: دانستن اینکه چگونه وظایفی طراحی شوند که در آن دانشجویان با بازخورد کار کنند، آن را با شواهد مقایسه کنند، با هدف بازنگری کنند، انتخاب‌های خود را توضیح دهند و همچنان مسئولیت ارسال نهایی را بر عهده داشته باشند. این مقاله بر بازخورد مولد هوش مصنوعی تمرکز دارد و از کالیبراسیون فراشناختی به عنوان یک مفهوم مرکزی استفاده می‌کند. کالیبراسیون به رابطه بین اعتماد به نفس یا خودقضاوت دانشجویان و شواهد ارزیابی‌شده مستقل از عملکرد اشاره دارد. قضاوت ارزشیابانه به ظرفیت دانشجویان برای قضاوت درباره کیفیت و ارتباط بازخورد و کار مربوط است، در حالی که کالیبراسیون به دقت قضاوت‌های آن‌ها نسبت به شواهد عملکرد ارزیابی‌شده مستقل مربوط می‌شود. مقاله نشان می‌دهد که چگونه ایده‌های سواد بازخورد، قضاوت ارزشیابانه و یادگیری خودتنظیمی باید زمانی که بازخورد از سیستم‌هایی می‌آید که دقت و ارزش آموزشی آن‌ها مفروض نیست، تطبیق یابد. این مقاله یک چرخه مفهومی طراحی بازخورد مسئولانه هوش مصنوعی را پیشنهاد می‌کند که به سلامت ارزیابی، سیاست دانشگاه و توسعه اعضای هیئت علمی مرتبط است. اگرچه این چرخه نیازمند آزمون تجربی است، اما راهکاری عملی برای حمایت از تأمل، قضاوت کالیبره‌شده و پاسخگویی بدون جایگزینی تفکر دانشجویان ارائه می‌دهد.

This article examines interdisciplinary integration as a means of developing future teachers’ didactic competence within English language teacher education at pedagogical universities in Uzbekistan. Didactic competence is understood as the ability to transform subject knowledge into coherent instruction through informed planning, classroom interaction, assessment, and adaptation to learners’ needs. The article adopts a conceptual and analytical approach to explore connections among linguistics, language teaching methodology, educational psychology, pedagogy, and digital literacy. It considers how these disciplines can contribute to shared instructional problems while retaining their distinct perspectives. The analysis proposes a framework centred on interdisciplinary learning objectives, problem-based lesson design, collaborative microteaching, guided analysis of teaching practice, and reflective assessment. Particular attention is given to tasks that require prospective English teachers to explain language features, anticipate learning difficulties, select appropriate instructional strategies, and interpret evidence of learner understanding. Multilingual classroom contexts and cooperation between university educators and school mentors inform the framework’s intended application. The article argues that interdisciplinary integration can create opportunities for students to connect disciplinary understanding with professional judgement when assignments, feedback, and teaching experiences are coherently organized. The proposed relationships remain theoretical rather than empirically demonstrated.

این مقاله به بررسی ادغام میان‌رشته‌ای به‌عنوان ابزاری برای توسعه شایستگی تدریسی معلمان آینده در آموزش معلمان زبان انگلیسی در دانشگاه‌های تربیت معلم ازبکستان می‌پردازد. شایستگی تدریسی به‌عنوان توانایی تبدیل دانش موضوعی به آموزش منسجم از طریق برنامه‌ریزی آگاهانه، تعامل کلاسی، ارزشیابی و سازگاری با نیازهای یادگیرندگان تعریف می‌شود. مقاله با رویکردی مفهومی و تحلیلی به بررسی ارتباط میان زبان‌شناسی، روش‌شناسی آموزش زبان، روان‌شناسی تربیتی، علوم تربیتی و سواد دیجیتال می‌پردازد. همچنین بررسی می‌کند که چگونه این رشته‌ها می‌توانند به مسائل مشترک آموزشی کمک کنند، در حالی که دیدگاه‌های متمایز خود را حفظ می‌کنند. تحلیل ارائه‌شده چارچوبی مبتنی بر اهداف یادگیری میان‌رشته‌ای، طراحی درس مبتنی بر مسئله، آموزش خرد مشارکتی، تحلیل هدایت‌شده عملکرد تدریس و ارزشیابی تأملی پیشنهاد می‌کند. توجه ویژه‌ای به وظایفی شده است که از معلمان آینده زبان انگلیسی می‌خواهد ویژگی‌های زبان را توضیح دهند، دشواری‌های یادگیری را پیش‌بینی کنند، راهبردهای آموزشی مناسب را انتخاب نمایند و شواهد درک یادگیرندگان را تفسیر کنند. زمینه‌های کلاسی چندزبانه و همکاری میان اساتید دانشگاه و راهنمایان مدارس، کاربرد مورد نظر این چارچوب را شکل می‌دهد. مقاله استدلال می‌کند که ادغام میان‌رشته‌ای می‌تواند فرصت‌هایی برای دانشجویان فراهم آورد تا درک رشته‌ای را با قضاوت حرفه‌ای پیوند دهند، مشروط بر آنکه تکالیف، بازخورد و تجربیات تدریس به‌صورت منسجم سازمان‌دهی شوند. روابط پیشنهادی در این مقاله نظری باقی مانده و به‌طور تجربی اثبات نشده‌اند.

Science education seeks not only to expand learners' knowledge but also to develop scientific ways of explaining natural phenomena. This requires more than transmitting disciplinary information. Learners must recognise why scientific concepts become necessary, how they extend or revise existing explanations, and under what conditions they provide meaningful accounts of the physical world. The educational challenge therefore concerns not only which concepts should be taught, but also the instructional reasoning surrounding their introduction.Science education research has generated substantial knowledge through conceptual change, inquiry-based learning, model-based instruction, learning progressions, productive preparation, and related traditions. These approaches have shown the importance of engaging prior ideas, recognising explanatory limitations, refining representations, and applying knowledge across contexts. Yet one decision connecting many of these processes often remains implicit: the introduction of formal scientific concepts (Duit and Treagust, 2012;Méheut and Psillos, 2004;Steenhof et al., 2020;Minner et al., 2010;Campbell et al., 2015).In this article, formal concept entry refers to the point at which a scientific construct is presented in an explicit disciplinary form, for example as a named concept or definition, symbolic or mathematical representation, law, model, or related formal structure. Such constructs frequently enter instruction through curricular sequence, textbook organisation, or teaching convention. These arrangements may be appropriate, but the educational justification for formal concept entry is seldom examined directly: not whether the construct belongs in the curriculum, but whether its formal presentation is coordinated with the explanatory work Commented [S[1]: 'U' was missing in '.edu'. Now that is included learners are expected to perform. This issue has renewed practical importance as learners increasingly encounter completed definitions, derivations, simulations, and explanations through digital platforms and generative artificial intelligence before instruction has established their explanatory significance. Greater access to formal scientific information does not itself establish when a construct becomes meaningful within learners' developing understanding (Kumar et al., 2026). This Opinion therefore argues that formal concept entry deserves explicit consideration as an instructional decision. The central question is not whether formal scientific concepts should be introduced early or late, but whether their introduction is instructionally justified by the explanatory work learners are expected to perform.To support reflection on this question, I propose the Concept Genesis Framework (CGF). CGF is an instructor-facing conceptual architecture for examining how formal scientific concepts are prepared, introduced, interpreted, and integrated within learning. It neither replaces established educational theories nor prescribes a universal teaching sequence. Its contribution is to provide a coherent language for considering the instructional justification of formal concept entry.CGF does not arise from a single theory of learning. Its design draws on several established traditions that converge on a common instructional concern: learners interpret new scientific ideas through prior understanding, may need to recognise limitations in existing explanations, and require representational and explanatory support to integrate new disciplinary constructs.Conceptual-change scholarship provides one foundation through its attention to existing conceptions, explanatory inadequacy, and the restructuring of understanding (Strike and Posner, 1982;Duit and Treagust, 2012). Nersessian (1989) adds a representational perspective by emphasising that scientific understanding involves the construction and coordination of conceptual and mathematical representations rather than the reception of completed definitions alone. Inquiry and teaching-learning sequence research further situate such conceptual development within deliberately organised instructional activity (Sandoval and Reiser, 2004;Méheut and Psillos, 2004).CGF does not depend on a single philosophical doctrine. Its orientation is epistemic and instructional: scientific concepts are treated as disciplinary resources for explanation, representation, and prediction rather than as isolated verbal or symbolic entities. ThisReviewer comment 1 has been addressed Paragraph beginning -Concepts, equations------and ending (Kumar et al., 2026), has been replaced with the new paragraph-starting -In this article---------and ending (Kumar et al., 2026).orientation is compatible with constructivist perspectives insofar as it recognises prior understanding and active meaning-making. CGF is not, however, proposed as a constructivist theory of learning, nor does it assume that learners independently rediscover disciplinary knowledge. Its narrower concern is whether the instructional conditions surrounding formal concept entry allow a scientific construct to perform meaningful explanatory work within a learning situation.The ten elements of CGF are consequently described as instructional functions rather than whether it can be used across related contexts (Disciplinary Transfer); and how it supports subsequent learning (Forward Linkage). The framework does not claim that these ten functions are empirically invariant or that all must occur in a fixed order. Depending on the concept, discipline, learners, and instructional purpose, they may overlap, recur, be compressed, or be unnecessary.Scientific concepts are not merely definitions, symbols, or equations. They are intellectual tools developed to explain, organise, and predict phenomena. Although learners often encounter them in completed disciplinary form, instruction must determine how they can become meaningful explanatory resources rather than isolated information.CGF organises ten instructional functions around this problem. The number ten reflects this analytical differentiation of instructional work surrounding formal concept entry rather than an assumed set of invariant cognitive stages. These functions describe a flexible educational logic, not fixed learner stages or a mandatory sequence. Depending on the concept, discipline, learners, and instructional purpose, they may overlap, recur, be compressed, or be unnecessary. (Sandoval and Reiser, 2004;Rea-Ramirez et al., 2009). Its educational value lies in orienting learners towards a meaningful explanatory objective.As learners attempt to address the question, they may recognise that their current explanations or reasoning strategies are insufficient. CGF describes this recognition as Cognitive Tension.It is neither required nor sufficient for conceptual change, but it can help learners recognise the limits of their existing explanatory resources (Strike and Posner, 1982;Rea-Ramirez et al., 2009).: correction of the wording in Figure 1 from "comprises of ten instructional functions" to "comprises ten instructional functions." Minor typographical errors identified within the figure have also been corrected.Recognition of these limitations may generate Epistemic Need: an appreciation that an additional scientific construct is required to explain, organise, or predict observations more adequately. Epistemic need differs from curiosity alone because it concerns the perceived explanatory necessity of a new concept. It may emerge spontaneously or through instructional guidance (Lee et al., 2021).Instruction may then examine the boundaries, assumptions, or inadequacies of existing explanations. A model may fail under new conditions, conflict with evidence, or prove too limited for a broader domain (Rea-Ramirez et al., 2009;Sommeillier et al., 2021).Identifying such limitations does not require rejecting earlier explanations entirely. Scientific understanding often develops through extension, refinement, and specification rather than complete replacement.Historical reconstruction can show why concepts emerged, but it is only one route to explanatory necessity. The need for a concept may also become visible through experimental anomalies, engineering constraints, mathematical inconsistency, model comparison, simulation, or unresolved disciplinary questions (Matthews, 1992). The objective is not to reproduce scientific history, but to clarify the explanatory conditions that justify introducing a formal scientific concept.Concept Genesis denotes the instructional point at which the formal scientific construct is explicitly introduced, stabilised, or recognised as an appropriate response to the identified explanatory problem. It does not imply that learners independently reinvent disciplinary knowledge or experience a single moment of discovery. Terminology or representations may appear earlier, but Concept Genesis marks the point at which they acquire coherent disciplinary meaning (Stamovlasis et al., 2005;Cook, 2006).Concepts gain precision through equations, symbols, graphs, diagrams, models, or other disciplinary representations. CGF defines formalisation broadly because representationalPeriod is included, which was missing practices differ across scientific fields. Concept Genesis and Formalisation are analytically distinct but educationally interconnected and may develop recursively.Correctly manipulating a representation does not necessarily indicate understanding (Stamovlasis et al., 2005). Scientific Interpretation connects formal constructs with their explanatory meaning, assumptions, domains of applicability, predictive capacity, and disciplinary significance. It therefore links procedural use with conceptual understanding.Understanding becomes educationally valuable when learners can extend it beyond the immediate instructional setting. Disciplinary Transfer involves applying a concept across related problems, conditions, contexts, or scales. Transfer should not be assumed from success on familiar tasks but treated as an outcome requiring instructional design and observation (Lobato and Hohensee, 2021).Through Forward Linkage, a newly acquired concept becomes a resource for subsequent models, explanations, and disciplinary learning. Formal concept entry is therefore not only about introducing an individual construct, but also about supporting the progressive organisation of scientific understanding across a curriculum.Taken together, these functions enable educators to examine how formal scientific concepts are prepared, introduced, interpreted, extended, and connected. CGF does not prescribe a universal route to learning. It provides a structured language for considering whether formal concept entry is instructionally justified within a particular educational context.CGF is a conceptual lens for instructional planning and reflection, not a new theory of learning, a validated instructional model, or a prescriptive teaching method. It does not replace inquirybased learning, conceptual change, model-based instruction, productive preparation, learning cycles, teaching-learning sequences, or related evidence-informed approaches (Méheut and Psillos, 2004;Minner et al., 2010;Duit and Treagust, 2012;Campbell et al., 2015).Instead, it organises instructional functions recognised across these traditions around the specific question of formal concept entry.The framework does not require all ten functions to appear, nor does it prescribe their order. Scientific disciplines differ in conceptual structure, mathematical demands, representational practices, and curricular constraints. Learners also differ in prior knowledge, educational goals, cognitive resources, and learning contexts. The functions may therefore overlap, recur, or be omitted.CGF also does not advocate delayed instruction. Early introduction of terminology, diagrams, notation, or simplified models may sometimes provide necessary scaffolding (Cook, 2006). In other situations, learners may benefit from first recognising an explanatory limitation. The relevant judgement concerns not timing in isolation, but whether a formal scientific concept can support the explanatory work required within the learning situation.The framework may be especially useful for concepts that are abstract, counterintuitive, mathematically constituted, foundational for later learning, or commonly presented only in completed formal form. It may be unnecessary for straightforward factual knowledge, routine procedural skills, directly observable phenomena, or situations in which immediate explicit instruction is clearly appropriate.Its educational value remains an empirical question. CGF should therefore be treated as a conceptual proposition that invites evaluation across disciplines, educational levels, and instructional settings.Learners may reproduce definitions, derivations, or equations while remaining uncertain about why a construct became necessary, what problem it addresses, or where it applies. Procedural competence remains educationally important, but it does not always develop together with explanatory understanding (Stamovlasis et al., 2005). Formal concept entry should therefore be judged not only by what learners can perform, but also by the understanding that the construct is intended to support.Concept introduction is also rarely a single event. Terminology, qualitative descriptions, diagrams, equations, computational procedures, and canonical explanations need not enter instruction simultaneously. Each may serve a different role. Formal concept entry is therefore better understood as a distributed instructional process whose components can be introduced according to their explanatory function.This perspective also refines the idea of learner readiness. Readiness is not simply the completion of prerequisite activities. It concerns the relationship between the explanatory demands of a learning situation and learners' capacity to integrate a new construct meaningfully. Prior knowledge, representational support, cognitive demands, recognition of limitations, and instructional guidance all shape this capacity (Cook, 2006;Steenhof et al., 2020).Learner difficulty alone does not justify introducing a formal scientific concept. Productive struggle is not an educational goal in itself, and immediate explanation does not necessarily prevent understanding. Effective teaching requires judgement about when exploration, representation, explanation, and direct guidance are most educationally useful (Steenhof et al., 2020).Because these judgements vary across thermodynamics, quantum chemistry, biology, engineering, and other disciplines, CGF remains deliberately flexible. Its purpose is not to standardise concept introduction, but to make the reasoning behind it more visible.The principal contribution of CGF is to make explicit an instructional decision often embedded within broader pedagogy: why a formal scientific concept is introduced at a particular point in learning. This perspective complements existing educational research rather than competing with it. Diverse traditions may organise teaching differently, yet many confront the transition from provisional or intuitive explanations to formal scientific concepts. Treating that transition as an object of reflection may create a useful point of dialogue across approaches.The framework also has implications for curriculum design and educational research. Curricula typically specify what should be taught but provide less guidance about the reasoning supporting the introduction of particular concepts, representations, or mathematical formulations (Méheut and Psillos, 2004). Attention to formal concept entry may help educators align curricular expectations, learner preparedness, explanatory demands, and instructional support. In research, it may offer an additional dimension for describing interventions and interpreting differences across learning environments.Its relevance is heightened by contemporary digital learning. Learners may now encounter formal scientific language and representations before an instructional context has established their explanatory significance (Kumar et al., 2026). The educator's role therefore extends beyond providing information towards helping learners understand when and why formal constructs become useful.Several limitations remain. CGF has not undergone systematic empirical validation and does not claim that explicit attention to concept entry will necessarily improve understanding or transfer. Its functions may not operate uniformly across disciplines, learner populations, or educational levels. Instructional decisions also remain shaped by curriculum, assessment, institutional constraints, teacher expertise, available time, and learner diversity.Future studies may investigate how educators currently justify formal concept entry, how such judgements vary across disciplines, and whether making them explicit influences conceptual understanding, transfer, curriculum design, teacher education, or research reporting. These studies would not seek a universal rule for early or delayed instruction. They would examine whether greater transparency regarding the reasoning behind concept entry contributes meaningfully to science education.In conclusion, the educational significance of a formal scientific concept lies not only in its disciplinary content, but also in the instructional judgement governing when it becomes meaningful within learners' developing explanations of the natural world. CGF offers a conceptual architecture for examining that judgement. Recognising formal concept entry as an explicit instructional decision may help clarify how scientific knowledge becomes meaningful during learning.

آموزش علوم نه تنها به گسترش دانش فراگیران می‌پردازد، بلکه هدف آن توسعه شیوه‌های علمی تبیین پدیده‌های طبیعی نیز هست. این امر فراتر از انتقال صرف اطلاعات تخصصی است. فراگیران باید دریابند چرا مفاهیم علمی ضرورت می‌یابند، چگونه این مفاهیم تبیین‌های موجود را گسترش داده یا اصلاح می‌کنند و تحت چه شرایطی می‌توانند تبیین‌های معناداری از جهان فیزیکی ارائه دهند. بنابراین، چالش آموزشی صرفاً به این محدود نمی‌شود که کدام مفاهیم باید آموزش داده شوند، بلکه استدلال آموزشی پیرامون معرفی آن‌ها نیز اهمیت دارد. پژوهش‌های آموزش علوم از طریق تغییر مفهومی، یادگیری مبتنی بر پژوهش، آموزش مبتنی بر مدل، پیشرفت‌های یادگیری، آمادگی مولد و سنت‌های مرتبط، دانش قابل توجهی تولید کرده‌اند. این رویکردها اهمیت درگیر کردن ایده‌های پیشین، شناسایی محدودیت‌های تبیینی، اصلاح بازنمایی‌ها و به‌کارگیری دانش در زمینه‌های مختلف را نشان داده‌اند. با این حال، تصمیمی که بسیاری از این فرایندها را به هم پیوند می‌دهد، اغلب ضمنی باقی می‌ماند: ورود مفاهیم علمی رسمی (Duit و Treagust، ۲۰۱۲؛ Méheut و Psillos، ۲۰۰۴؛ Steenhof و همکاران، ۲۰۲۰؛ Minner و همکاران، ۲۰۱۰؛ Campbell و همکاران، ۲۰۱۵). در این مقاله، ورود رسمی مفهوم به نقطه‌ای اشاره دارد که یک سازه علمی به صورت صریح و تخصصی، مانند یک مفهوم یا تعریف نام‌گذاری‌شده، بازنمایی نمادین یا ریاضی، قانون، مدل یا ساختار رسمی مرتبط ارائه می‌شود. این سازه‌ها اغلب از طریق توالی برنامه درسی، سازماندهی کتاب درسی یا عرف تدریس وارد آموزش می‌شوند. این ترتیبات ممکن است مناسب باشند، اما توجیه آموزشی برای ورود رسمی مفهوم به ندرت به طور مستقیم بررسی می‌شود: نه اینکه آیا سازه باید در برنامه درسی باشد، بلکه آیا ارائه رسمی آن با کار تبیینی که از فراگیران انتظار می‌رود هماهنگ است. این مسئله با توجه به اینکه فراگیران بیش از پیش با تعاریف کامل، استنتاج‌ها، شبیه‌سازی‌ها و تبیین‌ها از طریق بسترهای دیجیتال و هوش مصنوعی مولد پیش از آنکه اهمیت تبیینی آن‌ها در آموزش تثبیت شده باشد مواجه می‌شوند، اهمیت عملی تازه‌ای یافته است. دسترسی بیشتر به اطلاعات علمی رسمی به خودی خود تعیین نمی‌کند که چه زمانی یک سازه درک معناداری در فهم در حال رشد فراگیران پیدا می‌کند (Kumar و همکاران، ۲۰۲۶). بنابراین، این مقاله بر این باور است که ورود رسمی مفهوم شایسته توجه صریح به عنوان یک تصمیم آموزشی است. پرسش اصلی این نیست که آیا مفاهیم علمی رسمی باید زود یا دیر معرفی شوند، بلکه این است که آیا معرفی آن‌ها با کار تبیینی که از فراگیران انتظار می‌رود، توجیه آموزشی دارد یا خیر. برای حمایت از تأمل در این پرسش، چارچوب تکوین مفهوم (CGF) پیشنهاد می‌شود. CGF معماری مفهومی برای مدرسان است تا بررسی کنند که چگونه مفاهیم علمی رسمی آماده، معرفی، تفسیر و در یادگیری ادغام می‌شوند. این چارچوب جایگزین نظریه‌های آموزشی موجود نیست و توالی تدریس جهان‌شمولی را تجویز نمی‌کند. سهم آن ارائه زبانی منسجم برای تأمل درباره توجیه آموزشی ورود رسمی مفهوم است. CGF از یک نظریه واحد یادگیری نشأت نمی‌گیرد. طراحی آن مبتنی بر چند سنت تثبیت‌شده است که بر یک دغدغه مشترک آموزشی تمرکز دارند: فراگیران ایده‌های علمی جدید را از طریق فهم پیشین تفسیر می‌کنند، ممکن است لازم باشد محدودیت‌های تبیین‌های موجود را شناسایی کنند و برای ادغام سازه‌های تخصصی جدید به حمایت بازنمایی و تبیینی نیاز دارند. پژوهش‌های تغییر مفهومی با توجه به تصورات موجود، ناکافی بودن تبیین‌ها و بازسازی فهم، یکی از بنیان‌ها را فراهم می‌کنند (Strike و Posner، ۱۹۸۲؛ Duit و Treagust، ۲۰۱۲). Nersessian (۱۹۸۹) با تأکید بر اینکه فهم علمی مستلزم ساخت و هماهنگی بازنمایی‌های مفهومی و ریاضی است و نه صرفاً دریافت تعاریف کامل، دیدگاه بازنمایی را می‌افزاید. پژوهش‌های یادگیری مبتنی بر پژوهش و توالی تدریس-یادگیری نیز این تحول مفهومی را در فعالیت آموزشی سازمان‌یافته قرار می‌دهند (Sandoval و Reiser، ۲۰۰۴؛ Méheut و Psillos، ۲۰۰۴). CGF به یک مکتب فلسفی خاص وابسته نیست. رویکرد آن معرفت‌شناختی و آموزشی است: مفاهیم علمی به عنوان منابع تخصصی برای تبیین، بازنمایی و پیش‌بینی تلقی می‌شوند، نه صرفاً موجودیت‌های لفظی یا نمادین منفرد. این رویکرد با دیدگاه‌های سازنده‌گرایانه تا جایی سازگار است که فهم پیشین و ساخت فعال معنا را به رسمیت می‌شناسد. با این حال، CGF به عنوان نظریه سازنده‌گرای یادگیری پیشنهاد نمی‌شود و فرض نمی‌کند که فراگیران به طور مستقل دانش تخصصی را بازکشف می‌کنند. دغدغه محدودتر آن این است که آیا شرایط آموزشی پیرامون ورود رسمی مفهوم اجازه می‌دهد یک سازه علمی در یک موقعیت یادگیری کارکرد تبیینی معنادار ایفا کند یا خیر. به همین دلیل، ده عنصر CGF به عنوان کارکردهای آموزشی توصیف می‌شوند، نه اینکه آیا می‌توان آن را در زمینه‌های مرتبط به کار برد (انتقال تخصصی) و چگونه از یادگیری بعدی حمایت می‌کند (پیوند رو به جلو). این چارچوب ادعا نمی‌کند که این ده کارکرد به طور تجربی ثابت یا همه باید به ترتیب مشخصی رخ دهند. بسته به مفهوم، رشته، فراگیران و هدف آموزشی، ممکن است این کارکردها همپوشانی، تکرار، فشرده یا غیرضروری باشند. مفاهیم علمی صرفاً تعاریف، نمادها یا معادلات نیستند. آن‌ها ابزارهای فکری هستند که برای تبیین، سازماندهی و پیش‌بینی پدیده‌ها توسعه یافته‌اند. اگرچه فراگیران اغلب آن‌ها را به صورت کامل و تخصصی دریافت می‌کنند، آموزش باید تعیین کند که چگونه می‌توانند به منابع تبیینی معنادار تبدیل شوند، نه اطلاعات منفرد. CGF ده عنصر را سازمان می‌دهد.

Introduction Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly used by students to obtain explanations, generate ideas, improve written responses and prepare assessment tasks. However, limited evidence exists on how students in open-distance alternative-access programmes experience GenAI in mathematics assessment. Methods This qualitative study examined how 27 Higher Certificate students at a South African open and distance learning institution described the role, benefits and limitations of GenAI while preparing fraction-related portfolio activities. Data were collected via a single open-ended questionnaire item, completed voluntarily after all assessment activities had been submitted. The responses were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results Four overlapping themes were identified: support for understanding and approaching tasks, support for constructing written responses, conditional trust and evaluative engagement, and non-use, resistance and ambiguous engagement. Students reported that GenAI assisted with clarification, examples, organisation, and language, but they also described outputs they perceived as inaccurate, overly general, or insufficiently explained. Ten participants expressed concerns about reliability or described checking, adapting, limiting or rejecting GenAI use, although the study did not verify the quality of these practices. Discussion The findings suggest that the educational value of GenAI is shaped by students' capacity to exercise judgement and retain responsibility for the reasoning represented in their work. Verification is therefore positioned as a potentially important epistemic practice in GenAI-supported mathematics assessment. The study recommends explicit discipline-specific guidance and assessment designs that make students' mathematical reasoning visible.

مقدمه: هوش مصنوعی مولد (GenAI) به طور فزاینده‌ای توسط دانشجویان برای دریافت توضیحات، تولید ایده‌ها، بهبود پاسخ‌های نوشتاری و آماده‌سازی وظایف ارزیابی مورد استفاده قرار می‌گیرد. با این حال، شواهد محدودی درباره تجربه دانشجویان در برنامه‌های دسترسی جایگزین آموزش باز و از راه دور در زمینه استفاده از GenAI در ارزیابی ریاضی وجود دارد. روش‌ها: این مطالعه کیفی به بررسی نحوه توصیف نقش، مزایا و محدودیت‌های GenAI توسط ۲۷ دانشجوی Higher Certificate در یک مؤسسه آموزش باز و از راه دور در آفریقای جنوبی هنگام آماده‌سازی فعالیت‌های پرتفوی مرتبط با کسرها پرداخت. داده‌ها از طریق یک سؤال بازپاسخ در پرسشنامه که به صورت داوطلبانه پس از اتمام تمامی فعالیت‌های ارزیابی تکمیل شد، جمع‌آوری گردید. پاسخ‌ها با استفاده از تحلیل تماتیک بازتابی مورد بررسی قرار گرفتند. نتایج: چهار تم همپوشان شناسایی شد: حمایت برای درک و رویکرد به وظایف، حمایت در ساخت پاسخ‌های نوشتاری، اعتماد مشروط و مشارکت ارزیابانه، و عدم استفاده، مقاومت و مشارکت مبهم. دانشجویان گزارش دادند که GenAI در زمینه شفاف‌سازی، ارائه مثال، سازماندهی و زبان کمک‌کننده بوده است، اما همچنین خروجی‌هایی را توصیف کردند که آن‌ها را نادرست، بیش از حد کلی یا فاقد توضیح کافی می‌دانستند. ده نفر از شرکت‌کنندگان نگرانی‌هایی درباره پایایی ابراز کردند یا به بررسی، تطبیق، محدودسازی یا رد استفاده از GenAI اشاره نمودند، اگرچه این مطالعه کیفیت این اقدامات را تأیید نکرد. بحث: یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهد که ارزش آموزشی GenAI توسط توانایی دانشجویان در اعمال قضاوت و حفظ مسئولیت نسبت به استدلال ارائه‌شده در کارشان شکل می‌گیرد. بنابراین، راستی‌آزمایی به عنوان یک عمل معرفتی بالقوه مهم در ارزیابی ریاضی با حمایت GenAI مطرح می‌شود. مطالعه حاضر راهنمایی صریح و خاص رشته و طراحی ارزیابی‌هایی که استدلال ریاضی دانشجویان را آشکار می‌سازد، توصیه می‌کند.

In this paper, the novel The Remains of the Day is used as a framing device to explore government policy for initial teacher education in England. Referring to the lack of freedom to ‘act in and with the world’, we draw on Biesta’s work on subjectification and Heidegger’s concept of Being to argue that teacher educators’ freedom to use their professional judgement and expertise is being stifled by an overly technicist policy framework, making teacher educators themselves the ‘missing subject’ in teacher education. In the empirical section of this philosophically driven piece, we present comments from 13 teacher educators who were interviewed to investigate the extent to which they believe the current policy framework provides a sufficient basis for teacher education. The paper offers original insights into the cost of policy constraints at an ontological level, which lead to the detriment of pre-service teachers and ultimately the pupils they teach. The paper concludes with a call, as in the novel, to ‘seize the remains of the day’ and seek redemptive possibilities for change.

در این مقاله، رمان «باقی‌مانده‌های روز» به عنوان ابزاری مفهومی برای بررسی سیاست‌های دولتی در آموزش ابتدایی معلمان در انگلستان به کار رفته است. با اشاره به فقدان آزادی برای «عمل کردن در جهان و با جهان»، با استناد به آثار Biesta درباره فاعلیت و مفهوم هستی نزد هایدگر، استدلال می‌شود که آزادی مربیان معلم برای استفاده از قضاوت حرفه‌ای و تخصص خود، توسط چارچوب سیاستی بیش از حد فن‌محور محدود شده است و این امر موجب شده است که خود مربیان معلم به «فاعل غایب» در آموزش معلمان بدل شوند. در بخش تجربی این پژوهش با رویکرد فلسفی، دیدگاه‌های ۱۳ مربی معلم که مورد مصاحبه قرار گرفته‌اند، ارائه می‌شود تا میزان اعتقاد آن‌ها به کفایت چارچوب سیاستی فعلی برای آموزش معلمان بررسی شود. این مقاله بینش‌های نوینی درباره هزینه‌های محدودیت‌های سیاستی در سطح هستی‌شناختی ارائه می‌دهد که به زیان معلمان پیش‌خدمت و در نهایت دانش‌آموزان آن‌ها منجر می‌شود. مقاله با دعوتی، همانند رمان، برای «بهره‌گیری از باقی‌مانده‌های روز» و جست‌وجوی امکان‌های رستگاری‌بخش برای تغییر به پایان می‌رسد.

Community-engaged Work-Integrated Learning (WIL) is increasingly positioned as a mechanism for advancing graduate employability and social responsibility, yet the frameworks used to evaluate it remain anchored to countable proxies: employment rates, satisfaction scores, and placement completions. This provocation argues that these metrics are structurally misaligned with what WIL practitioners actually know about placement quality: knowledge that is relational, contextually rich, and routinely invisible in institutional reporting. As Generative AI enters WIL evaluation, this misalignment becomes urgent. Automating existing frameworks will not resolve their limitations, and risks further marginalising the evidence that most reliably signals whether community-engaged WIL is working. Drawing on research into practitioner agency in learning analytics, this provocation calls for evaluation frameworks that legitimise practitioner judgement, centre community partner perspectives, and deploy GenAI in service of relational knowledge rather than as a substitute for it. Effective WIL evaluation is not primarily a measurement problem, it is a question of whose evidence counts.

یادگیری تلفیقی با کار (WIL) مبتنی بر مشارکت جامعه، به طور فزاینده‌ای به عنوان سازوکاری برای ارتقای اشتغال‌پذیری فارغ‌التحصیلان و مسئولیت اجتماعی مطرح می‌شود، اما چارچوب‌هایی که برای ارزیابی آن به کار می‌روند همچنان به شاخص‌های قابل شمارش مانند نرخ اشتغال، امتیازات رضایت و تکمیل دوره‌های کارورزی متکی هستند. این مقاله استدلال می‌کند که این سنجه‌ها به طور ساختاری با آنچه متخصصان WIL درباره کیفیت دوره‌های کارورزی می‌دانند، ناسازگار است؛ دانشی که رابطه‌محور، غنی از زمینه و اغلب در گزارش‌های نهادی نامرئی است. با ورود هوش مصنوعی مولد به ارزیابی WIL، این ناسازگاری فوریت می‌یابد. خودکارسازی چارچوب‌های موجود، محدودیت‌های آن‌ها را رفع نخواهد کرد و خطر به حاشیه راندن بیشتر شواهدی را دارد که به طور قابل اعتماد نشان می‌دهد آیا WIL مبتنی بر جامعه مؤثر است یا خیر. با استناد به پژوهش‌ها درباره عاملیت متخصصان در تحلیل یادگیری، این مقاله خواستار چارچوب‌های ارزیابی است که داوری متخصصان را مشروعیت ببخشد، دیدگاه‌های شرکای جامعه را در مرکز قرار دهد و از هوش مصنوعی مولد در خدمت دانش رابطه‌ای بهره گیرد، نه به عنوان جایگزین آن. ارزیابی مؤثر WIL در درجه اول مسئله اندازه‌گیری نیست، بلکه پرسشی است درباره اینکه شواهد چه کسانی اهمیت دارد.