Author: Education and Childhood Research Group

Welcome to the School of Education and Childhood blog, as part of the Education and Childhood Research Group (ECRG).

Project Zulu pedagogy conference and workshops – August 2026

Author Education and Childhood Research Group | Posted on

Photo credit: Darcey Baker

By Nick Latham, Senior Lecturer in Initial Teacher Education

Do you ever get that feeling in an airport where you’re trying to find out which flight on the screen is yours? You’re staring at the screen and there’s an announcement about looking after your bags, the café nearby has had a large and excited group (probably on a hen do) arrive and your phone has decided that now is the time that it wants to run an update as you check the time? No? Well, I certainly did when leaving Johannesburg airport after delivering sessions to teachers in KwaZulu Natal Province, ironically about the very thing I had just experienced: cognitive overload.

I have experienced cognitive overload both as a student and a teacher (and now at OR Tambo airport) as I’m sure we all have. This meant delivering these sessions to keen (if a little chilly – it’s winter in South Africa) teachers from schools in Madadeni Township with awareness of their cognitive load and not bombarding them with too much information too quickly. Like most teaching in education, teaching such a subject can get very self-referential; you are constantly aware that you should be doing the thing you are teaching whilst teaching it. Facilitating the cognitive load of the learners in our session was at the forefront of our minds when planning this session and it went down well according to the feedback we received both informally in the session and via our reflection forms.

The main content of these sessions focused on ways to reduce the cognitive load of students during the teaching of new material. We had structured the sessions in a way that we were introducing strategies in the order that they would be in lessons. We began with recall strategies and effectively activating students’ prior knowledge to prepare them for their new learning today. In South Africa, this is referred to as ‘from the known to the unknown’ (a phrase that many of the educators joined in with when we said it – clearly a popular one). We then focused on the gradual release model that is being utilised in many schools across England: I do, we do, you do. This involved me putting on my teaching hat and modelling the process as if the educators were my students – a process that, despite the cold, they engaged with as enthusiastically as I’d have hoped. The gradual release model helps students to engage with new learning without causing cognitive overload as the thinking responsibility moves gradually from the educator to the student. We then finished with a section on effective consolidation and how to aid the process of moving new learning from working memory into long term memory (which hopefully our sessions will!).

Another element we had to consider was our environment. Ben had taught sessions in South Africa before whereas I hadn’t been south of the Equator until our arrival. When discussing what elements of learning could lead to learners experiencing cognitive overload, the teachers across all sessions put forward that the children learning in a language that wasn’t their mother-tongue (for most in Madadeni, this is isiZulu) absolutely added to their cognitive load.

Another meta experience for us as this was also the case of the majority of the educators in the room despite their proficiency in English, it could not be ignored that we were not instructing in the language many would use amongst each other or when at home. We ensured that we had added a section about strategies to introduce new vocabulary at the start of lessons to learners as even when they are taught in their first language, new technical and subject specific words can add to a learner’s cognitive load. Our South African colleagues shared with us experiences and examples of these challenges: one science teacher informed us that the English words ‘energy’ and ‘force’ both translate to ‘amandla’ in isiZulu – adding an extra layer of difficulty to teaching about kinetic energy.

Throughout the sessions, the educators were able to give us insights into how they could apply the strategies into their own practice and still keep to the demands of the curriculum in South Africa. This was a wonderful experience working with some dedicated colleagues from a place where they face some similar and yet some very different challenges to teachers in England. This was my first involvement in the wonderful work that Project Zulu does and participating in it was a truly memorable, rewarding and challenging experience that has helped me to reflect more on my own practice.

Teaching, rights, and reality: reflections on Malmö and Lund Universities and the shifting landscape of Swedish education

Author Education and Childhood Research Group | Posted on

Above: Lund University Library

By Dr Karan Vickers-Hulse, Dr Jane Carter and Dr Sarah Whitehouse

The relationship between education, democracy, and social justice is never static. During our recent ECRG delegation visit to Malmö and Lund Universities, conversations with postgraduate teacher‑education students and staff revealed a system grappling with profound political, demographic, and ideological shifts. These insights offer a powerful lens for thinking about how educators can navigate contested spaces, particularly when issues of critical literacy, anti-racism, and children’s rights are under pressure.

The changing context of Swedish schooling

Sweden’s education system is often internationally associated with equity, inclusion, and child‑centred practice. Yet the picture emerging from conversations with colleagues at Malmö and Lund Universities suggests a sector in transition with demographic shifts reshaping the workforce. Immigration has been halted and birth rates are falling so teacher training numbers are shrinking and yet at the same time, the need for 80% more SEN(D) teachers is rising due to increasingly complex learner profiles. Teacher training students we spoke to describe a system where children “know their rights but are not necessarily independent,” raising questions about how reasonable adjustments are conceptualised. For example, a child whose adjustment is “not speaking” may be protected but not supported towards independence or participation.  These tensions echo debates in the UK, where parental advocacy, funding structures, and the route to a diagnosis can unintentionally shape classroom dynamics and teacher workload.

Teacher identity, retention and the weight of policy

Much like in England, Swedish teachers are expressing a desire to leave the profession. Trainee teachers at Malmö spoke about the profound influence of their mentors-how a single supportive person has the power to shape their sense of belonging in teaching. Policy changes are also reshaping professional identity. Currently, there is a compulsory course on social relations and core values within teacher education in Malmo, but the 2028 curriculum reforms propose removing human rights, children’s rights, and even critical literacy. One student summarised the government’s stance starkly: “We (Swedish) don’t care about critical thinking.”  This shift has implications far beyond the classroom as the influence of social media rises, the removal of critical literacy from the curriculum risks leaving young people without the tools to navigate misinformation or interrogate power. Students we spoke to at Lund shared similar views but also reflected on the open discrimination of the indigenous Sami people in Sweden (one of the students was Sami) as well as the fact that being openly racist on teacher education courses was not always challenged.  One student reflected that there was a student on their course who was open about the fact that he supported Nazi views and when students raised the issue, the common response was that everyone is “entitled to their opinions”.  

Critical conversations: racism, silence, and the Swedish context

Perhaps the most striking theme was the difficulty of naming and addressing racism within Swedish institutions.  Colleagues described a university culture where racism is “not discussed,” and there is a national reluctance to use the word racism at all with one colleague stating that “it would be impossible to identify as a structurally racist institution” after we shared that our Vice-Chancellor identified UWE Bristol as institutionally racist.  Colleagues highlighted a fear that equality data could be misused, resulting in a system where ethnicity cannot legally be recorded. Instead, categories such as “Swedish,” “Non-Swedish”, “immigrant,” or “born outside Europe” act as proxies. Despite this, young people themselves appear to be shifting the narrative. Many now identify as Swedish and Iranian, Bosnian, or Arab suggesting a more self‑defined sense of belonging than previous generations.

Curriculum, values, and the politics of knowledge

Sweden’s highly standardised system requires students to study social sciences and humanities until age 18, with schooling continuing until 19. Social science teachers described teaching students to evaluate sources but also acknowledged the need to explore perspectives and voices; a task that becomes harder when political discourse narrows. In both UK and Sweden, the challenge is not simply what we teach, but how we create conditions for students to question, interpret, and imagine differently.

Navigating hope and responsibility

Despite the challenges, trainee teachers at Malmö University and Lund University expressed a desire to focus on how to hold critical conversations, how to support independence and how to navigate tensions between policy and practice. Their reflections suggest that even in restrictive climates, educators can cultivate spaces of inquiry, empathy, and resistance.  These conversations with colleagues in Sweden remind us that anti‑racist practice requires language, courage, and institutional support and that critical literacy is not optional but foundational to democracy. One educator noted that schools’ practice, grappling with the realities of migration, identity and inequality, was developing at a more rapid pace than in the university, saying “the university is often behind the schools.”

The conversations at both universities highlight the need for continued dialogue across borders. Whether in Sweden or the UK, educators face shared challenges: rising polarisation, shrinking civic spaces, and the erosion of critical thinking in public life.  Yet there is also shared possibility. Young people are redefining identity and teachers in schools are seeking deeper pedagogical understanding. And universities, when they choose to, can become spaces where difficult truths are spoken and new futures imagined. At ECRG, we’ll continue to do this work.

Reflections on receiving the Tilda Gaskell Emerging Researcher Award

Author Education and Childhood Research Group | Posted on

By Abigail Green

When I learned that I had been selected to present at the UALL/SCUTREA Tilda Gaskell Emerging Researcher Symposium, I was genuinely surprised. The award, jointly hosted by UALL (the Universities Association for Lifelong Learning) and SCUTREA (the Standing Conference on University Teaching and Research into the Education of Adults), recognises early career researchers whose work demonstrates originality, critical engagement and a meaningful contribution to adult learning. It also celebrates the legacy of Tilda Gaskell, a scholar known for championing inclusive, critically reflective and socially engaged approaches to lifelong learning.

Receiving the invitation meant more to me than simply having the opportunity to present my research. As a child, I was often made to feel that I wasn’t “particularly academic”, and although I have spent many years teaching in higher education, those early messages never disappeared completely. Like many learners, I carried them quietly into adulthood, occasionally questioning whether I truly belonged in research. Being invited to present alongside researchers whose work I admired already felt like an achievement. Winning the award was something I simply hadn’t imagined.

The symposium itself was exceptionally well organised and offered a welcoming space to exchange ideas with researchers from universities and adult learning institutions across the UK. Presenters were invited to share work that demonstrated innovation and change, and I felt honoured to present alongside four other talented emerging researchers. Throughout the event, I was struck by the generosity of conversations, the willingness to engage with new ideas and the genuine encouragement shown towards early career scholars. At the gala dinner, the winner of the Tilda Gaskell Emerging Researcher Award was announced. Hearing my name was completely unexpected, particularly given the breadth and quality of the presentations delivered by my fellow finalists.

My presentation, “Art Isn’t Easy”, explored how principles of motor learning might inform and enhance the andragogy of undergraduate Musical Theatre singing. Using musical theatre lyrics as section titles, I introduced the theoretical foundations of my study before focusing on a methodological question that has become central to my doctoral research.

Motor learning theory has been widely applied in fields such as sport, physical education and rehabilitation, yet its application within Musical Theatre singing remains relatively underexplored. My research examines how these principles might inform singing pedagogy while remaining grounded in an interpretivist approach. Rather than testing motor learning principles experimentally, I explore how students experience practice, feedback and motivation within a redesigned curriculum. This has led me to grapple with an important methodological question: can ideas developed largely within positivist research traditions function as sensitising concepts within an interpretivist study concerned with meaning‑making and lived experience?

Sharing this methodological tension prompted thoughtful discussion with the panel and audience. Rather than viewing the different research paradigms as incompatible, the conversation explored how interdisciplinary thinking might enrich educational research. For me, this has become one of the most intellectually rewarding aspects of my doctorate: learning to navigate complexity rather than searching for simple answers.

The judges commented on both the originality of the research and the clarity with which complex theoretical ideas had been communicated. Their feedback was unexpected and deeply encouraging. What made the award particularly meaningful was their recognition of the interdisciplinary nature of the project. Musical Theatre andragogy often occupies the space between artistic practice and educational research, and bringing together insights from motor learning, adult education and performance training has become one of the most rewarding aspects of my doctoral journey. Having that synthesis recognised by established scholars in lifelong learning felt significant, not only for my own research, but also for the wider visibility of Musical Theatre education within educational research.

I remain immensely grateful to my supervisors, Dr Sarah Chicken and Dr Laura Manison, whose encouragement, thoughtful challenge and unwavering support have been instrumental throughout my doctorate. Their guidance has helped me navigate the complexities of practitioner research while giving me the confidence to trust my own thinking, even when it crossed traditional disciplinary boundaries.

Receiving the Tilda Gaskell Emerging Researcher Award is something I will always treasure, not simply because of what it acknowledged, but because of what it represented. It marked a point in my doctoral journey where curiosity, criticality and interdisciplinary thinking converged in a way that surprised even me. For someone who once believed she wasn’t clever enough to belong in academia, this award has become a powerful reminder that we are not defined by the stories we are told about ourselves. Research has certainly changed the way I think about teaching and learning, but perhaps its greatest gift has been changing the way I think about myself. More than anything, this experience reminded me that research is not only about generating new knowledge; it is also about becoming comfortable with uncertainty and allowing ourselves to be transformed by the process of inquiry.  I will continue to work with ECRG on this journey.

Being curious and creative about the role of artificial intelligences (AI) in primary education

Author Education and Childhood Research Group | Posted on

By Dr Claire Osborne, Senior Lecturer in Education

In an interview with the journalist Faisal Islam on BBC Newsnight (broadcast June 2026), Jack Clark, co-founder of the artificial intelligence (AI) company ‘Anthropic’ which built the AI software program ‘Claude’, suggested that the people who will benefit most from AI and have the advantage are those that think creatively, are curious, and have broad interests. These remarks were in response to growing concerns around the acceleration of AI technologies without human input. Hence Clark’s call for individuals to ‘indulge in curiosity’ and creativity and even take up a hobby as this may benefit how people use technology.

As the capabilities of generative artificial intelligences (Gen AI) advance and AI systems learn from and with other machines, humans will most likely become ever more reliant on AI generated outputs to inform collective knowledge and our understanding(s) of the world. However, it could be argued that an over reliance on AI outputs without question, or critical evaluation may inhibit original thought and defer our abilities to think for ourselves. Moreover, whose and what knowledge is being constructed and re-produced by artificial intelligences is a matter of contention, whilst issues around ethics, bias, and AI safety are real concerns.

As a professional educator with a background in the arts and humanities, I have begun to ponder on what it means to be in the age of AI. Moreover, I have been thinking about the role of schools in enhancing a state of curiosity in young learners and how teachers are well positioned to foster children’s creative and critical thinking skills across a range of subject disciplines. Developing such learning dispositions may enable us to engage well and responsibly with AI tools now and in the future, so we gain the most from this fast-evolving technology.

Fostering curiosity

The state of being curious is a cognitive activity which can be liken to the creation of thought. According to Loewenstein (1994, p.75), curiosity is “a form of cognitively induced deprivation that arises from the perception of a gap in knowledge or understanding”. To be curious means being interested in the world around you and asking questions. It’s about being inquisitive, seeking out gaps in knowledge, thinking deeply about what we think we know (or do not know) and finding out more. The state of curiosity can help us imagine a wealth of possibilities as we contemplate life and what it means to be. Moreover, being curious about the world can enable us to produce creative and innovative solutions to human problems. Whether or not Gen AI has (or will have) the capacity to think creatively (or be curious) was a question alluded to by Jack Clark in the afore mentioned interview. It was therefore of note, that during the interview Clark suggested that studying the liberal arts, including philosophy – which by design, are subjects that stimulate curiosity and creative thinking – may be especially useful to young people and provide them with an advantage in the age of AI.

The capacity to be mindfully curious will undoubtedly be a powerful human resource much needed in the years ahead as we engage with an ever-changing world. Notwithstanding, as AI becomes a ubiquitous presence in many people’s daily lives, humans will need to learn how to utilise these digital technologies well whilst being curious and critical about how, what, and whose knowledge is circulated in society. Moreover, humans will need to question whether Gen AI outputs are accurate, representative, and contribute to knowledge growth and a better world.

The role of primary schools

Primary school classrooms are unique places where human curiosity can be encouraged and nurtured. As Cross et al., (2016) asserts: “Primary teachers are in a particularly powerful position to stimulate or encourage curiosity through the learning contexts they develop and the ways they scaffold learning with challenges, explanation and invitations to think and act”. These fundamental pedagogical principles can be applied to a range of subject disciplines in the primary years, including the arts and humanities. They can also be applied to how AI systems based on large language models (LLM) are used to generate knowledge whilst encouraging children to think and respond to what is being produced. Evaluating how outputs are created could increase critical dialogue and deepen understanding around how Gen AI can be used effectively as one of many pedagogical tools in the box to advance learning. However, a UK government report into the risks and opportunities of Gen AI (DfE, 2024) conducted by The Open Innovation Team (OIT), suggests that there are some key barriers to AI adoption in education. This includes a lack of knowledge, poor digital skills, and limited infrastructure which could impact on teacher’s digital capabilities (DfE, 2024, p.5). That said, the report contends that Gen AI has the potential to transform education. It goes on to outline the many stated benefits of Gen AI usage among teachers. This includes automating tasks resulting in time efficiency, assisting with lesson content, and helping teachers generate new ideas to enhance creative and engaging teaching (DfE, 2024, p.16).  Moreover, the OIT report suggests that adapting to Gen AI technology could change how and what people learn because of the way in which ‘information is synthesised and presented’ (DfE, 2024, p.8).

As people’s digital capabilities grow, and learning communities become more curious about the functionalities of AI systems, primary classrooms have the potential to be and become enabling and creative places where students can play with big ideas using appropriate digital tools as and when needed to advance learning across a broad and balanced primary curriculum (DfE, 2013). Presently, the government seem keen on supporting safe and effective Gen AI adoption in education (DfE, 2024). In addition, last year, the UK government produced an AI Action Plan (DfSIT, 2025) with the intent to increase AI take up across society so Britain can benefit economically and socially from the opportunities AI has to offer. While the English education system undergoes curriculum reform (DfE, 2025a) and the government declares its commitment  to supporting primary and secondary schools in England teach a knowledge-rich computing curriculum (DfE, 2025b) it will be of interest to see whether AI education will be high on the curriculum agenda as we face the changes and challenges ahead. As Rachel Arthur, chief learning officer at the independent charity ‘Raspberry Pi’, stresses in a recent interview, every young person needs to digitally upskill, learn how to code, and understand how AI systems work whilst being able to evaluate outputs, especially with regards to bias, ethics, and security (Arthur, 2026). If the UK government is strongly committed to ‘ramping up AI adoption across the UK’ (DfSIT, 2025) and augmenting AI in education, they will need to continue to invest in developing students and teacher’s digital capabilities whilst emphasising the risks and opportunities of AI at the earliest stages in our learning journeys.

Looking forwards

AI will undoubtedly transform (and possibly disrupt) how we work, think, and learn. However, the capacity to think creatively and philosophically whilst remaining curious about the world in which we have been ‘thrown’ (Heidegger, 1927) will be central to human advancement with or without AI. That said, as AI systems become more sophisticated, all knowing, and all doing, humans will need to learn how to use this fast-evolving technology well and to our advantage, whilst critically evaluating the information being generated by the machines we have created. Moreover, teachers and students will need to continually upskill to keep a pace with change so that, together, we can explore new ways artificial intelligences can enhance excellent learning and teaching and enable curious and creative learners of the future to thrive and become active, not passive, participants in shaping the world. I will continue to ponder this as a research project with ECRG members in the 4 strands of research during the next academic year.

References

Arthur, R., (2026) Interview with Aleks Krotoski and Kevin Fong, Will AI replace the people who built it? The Artificial Human, BBC Radio Four, 17 June.

Clark, J. (2026) Interview with Faisal Islam, Newsnight, BBC Two, 04 June.

Cross, A., Borthwick, A., Beswick, K., Board, J. and Chippindall, J. (2016). Introduction. In: A. Cross., A. Borthwock., K. Beswick., J. Board., J. Chippindall ed. (2016) Curious Learners in Primary Maths, Science, Computing and DT [online]. London: SAGE Publications, pp. 1-12 [Accessed 18 June 2026]

DfE (Department for Education) (2013) The National Curriculum in England: Key stages 1 and 2 framework document.  Runcorn: DfE. Available from:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-primary-curriculum [Last accessed 22 June 2026].

DfE (Department for Education) (2024) Generative AI in Education: Educator and Expert Views (Gov. UK) Available at: Generative AI in education: educator and expert views – GOV.UK [Accessed 18 June 2026].

DfE (Department for Education) (2025a) Curriculum and Assessment Review Final Report: Building a world class curriculum for all. Gov. UK.  Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/curriculum-and-assessment-review-final-report  [Accessed 12 November 2025].

DfE (Department for Education) (2025b) Generative AI in Education: Educator and Expert Views. Updated 12 August 2025 (Gov. UK). Available at: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) in education – GOV.UK [Accessed 18 June 2026].

DfSIT (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (2025) AI Opportunities Action Plan: Ramping up AI adoption across the UK to boost economic growth, provide jobs for the future and improve people’s everyday lives. Independent Report. Gov. UK. Available at: AI Opportunities Action Plan – GOV.UK [Accessed 18 June 2026].

Heidegger, M. (2003 [1927]). Being and Time. Oxford: Blackwell.

Loewenstein, G. (1994) The Psychology of Curiosity: A Review and Reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin. Volume 116 (1) pp, 75-98.

Zineing in the in-between: Making zines in your research practice

Author Education and Childhood Research Group | Posted on

By Ronnie Houselander Cook

Throughout my EdD, I have often felt that my work sits between different worlds. I have moved between different expectations, roles and ways of working, and this has sometimes made me wonder which room my work belongs in. However, through the unwavering support of my supervisors, Dr Tim Clark and Professor Jane Andrews, and the wider ECRG community, I have been able to depart from convention and embrace hybridity. This has mattered deeply because my creative practice has become a way to represent not only my research but also myself. Through zines and zineing, I have been able to remain in that in-between position, rather than feel pressured to make my work fit neatly into one space. 

What is a zine?

A zine can be understood as a self-published, often handmade publication, frequently characterised by a cut-and-stick aesthetic [main image – Figure 1 and Figure 2]. Zines have long histories in DIY, activist, feminist, queer and subcultural communities, where they have been used to share ideas, circulate stories and create space for voices that might sit outside more formal publishing structures (Duncombe, 1997). 

Figure 2

Zines first existed in my life outside of research. They were things I read for pleasure, bought, traded with friends, or picked up from sellers at comic book fairs. So, when I began working with zines in my doctoral project, I did not initially approach them as a formal method. Their value seemed to come from the opposite of what I thought research was supposed to be. Zines offer a space where humour, secret-telling, oversharing, mess and contradiction are not problems to be corrected, but part of the joy. 

In my research, I have used zines throughout every stage of my project. I have used them to invite participants into my project, to collect their responses to my research provocations, and perhaps more unusually, to keep my supervisors informed of my progress. I have done this by sending zines in the post, and this circle of exchange has been central to forging relationships and establishing a connection to my methods and wider practice. 

On the surface, a zine and a doctoral thesis might appear as different publications, but I have come to understand them as sharing important qualities [Figure 3]. Both respond to context, hold the maker’s voice and make space for special interests. Of course, the differences matter too, and not just in terms of page numbers, but noticing their similarities has helped me understand zineing not as something outside research, but as a practice that can sit alongside and within it. 

Figure 3

I use the term zineing to describe the practice of making a zine (Jones, 2024; Wong, Mishra, Quyoum, 2026). This distinction matters because it shifts attention away from zines as finished objects and towards what happens through the act of making. 

In more conventional research writing, there can be pressure to know what we mean before we write it. But research is full of ideas that circulate before they settle: uncertain thoughts, unfinished connections, feelings, doubts and half-formed questions. I believe these moments can hold just as much value as the ideas we eventually decide to keep. 

This is where zineing becomes significant. Zineing welcomes ambiguity and recognises that meaning and understanding unfold through process. Cutting, folding, arranging, layering, and obscuring can become ways of thinking. The page becomes a space where ideas can be tested, placed beside one another, interrupted or reconfigured. Zineing can offer an invitation into writing or visualising without the pressure of commitment. 

Zineing can be particularly valuable for researchers working with complex, personal or practice-based material because not everything we know arrives in a linear sequence. Some forms of knowledge are felt, embodied, visual, relational or difficult to name. Because of this, zineing can offer a way of staying with those forms of knowing without forcing them too quickly into conventional academic shape. 

Figure 4

Below are a few provocations to help you try making a zine in your own practice.

  1. What images, words or materials are already around you? 
  2. What would happen if you only had eight pages for your literature review? What would you take forward? 
  3. Include a quote, image or object that keeps returning to you. 
  4. Write a note to your future self.

In this blog, I draw from my EdD thesis,  All bugs are insects, but not all insects are bugs: Making meaning while zineing as an artist-teacher in further education, due to be completed in May 2027. 

References

  • Duncombe, S. (1997) Notes from Underground: Zines and the Politics of Alternative Culture. London and New York: Verso. 
  • Jones, D.P. (2024) ‘Anti-frontiers in zineing: Zines as process & the politics of refusal’, GeoHumanities, 10(2), pp. 407–422.   
  • Wong, M., Mishra, A. and Quyoum, A. (2026) ‘Zine-ing research otherwise: care, joy, and creative co-design with racially marginalised communities’, Bristol University Press, Early View, pp. 1–34.  

A new book for Earth Day: Taking A Close Look at Microfibres

Author Education and Childhood Research Group | Posted on

Earth Day (22 April 2026) saw the launch of a new children’s book, Taking a Close Look at Microfibres. Co-created by school pupils and researchers from UWE Bristol’s Science Communication Unit (SCU) and Education and Childhood Research Group (ECRG), the book supports children and teachers to explore an often invisible aspect of air quality: airborne microfibres.

The book is part of the Schools Under the Microscope project, a child-led citizen science project that invites pupils aged 9–14 to take part in real environmental research. Through hands-on investigation, creative inquiry, and collaboration with university researchers, children from England and Wales helped generate new knowledge while shaping an engaging educational resource for use in schools.

Exploring what’s in the air we breathe

While microfibres are increasingly well documented in water systems, far less is known about fibres in the air we breathe – particularly in school environments. The Schools Under the Microscope project set out to explore whether established citizen science methods, previously used in homes, could work meaningfully in classrooms.

Following an initial pilot with 90 pupils at May Park Primary School, Bristol the project expanded to include around 400 children across four schools. Together, pupils designed investigations, made predictions, prepared petri dishes, and positioned them around their schools for a two‑week sampling period. After collection, pupils used microscopes to count fibres, while researchers at UWE Bristol carried out further analysis and shared findings back with the schools.

This marked the first time data on airborne microfibres has been collected within school environments, offering valuable insights into both indoor air quality and the potential of citizen science in education settings.

Learning through participation and enquiry

The findings showed that microfibre levels in schools were similar to those found in homes, including a mix of natural and synthetic fibres – some even matching the colours of school uniforms. More importantly, pupils and teachers reported high levels of engagement and enjoyment throughout the research process.

The team found that although air pollution is often invisible, it becomes meaningful through hands-on activities.

From research to a children’s book

Children’s questions, observations, and reflections directly shaped the storyline and content of Taking a Close Look at Microfibres. The book is designed to open up discussion rather than provide simple answers, encouraging curiosity, critical thinking, and dialogue about environmental issues that affect everyday life.

Page from the book, Taking A Closer Look at Microfibres.

The illustrations were created by Luci Gorell Barnes, a socially engaged artist and arts-based researcher. Recycled plastics, fabrics, card, and paper were used to make the images – all materials known to shed microfibres. These materials were scanned and transformed into digital collages, visually reinforcing the book’s themes of materiality, pollution, and reuse.

The book is accompanied by free teacher notes and ten lesson plans, supporting cross-curricular learning in science, geography, citizenship, and sustainability education.

Launching on Earth Day – and beyond

The project also connects with wider work at UWE Bristol around sustainability and social justice. The research team is partnering with the Global Goals Centre to support the Better Uniform Campaign, which seeks to develop a more socially and environmentally just system for school uniforms across Bristol.

Access the free book and resources

Schools, teachers, and partners can access a free e‑copy of Taking a Close Look at Microfibres with resources for lessons and learning.

The team

Dr Margarida Sardo, Dr Ben Williams, Dr Verity Jones and Jacqui Warner.

What have you learned from rivers?

Author Education and Childhood Research Group | Posted on

By Emma Thomas, Terra Glowach, Kalpa Ghelani and Dr Verity Jones

Over the coming months, we will host public workshops, school sessions, family river walks, creative encounters, and online opportunities to contribute to our river work – join us!

What have you learned from rivers?

As Channel 4’s Dirty Business casts national attention on the shocking scale of water pollution in the UK, many are asking how we arrived at a point where our rivers are now frequently unsafe to enter, fish from, or even walk beside. The documentary drama makes visible what community activists, swimmers, anglers, and ecologists have long understood: our waterways are in crisis, and the crisis is human‑made.

However, while the national conversation focuses on what we have done to rivers, we – Emma Thomas, Terra Glowach, Kalpa Ghelani and Verity Jones at UWE Bristol – are asking a different kind of question:

“What if rivers are not passive victims of mismanagement but teachers, collaborators, and agents of a shared environmental future?”

This blog launches our forthcoming public engagement work to co‑create a plurifesto- a plural manifesto – for river‑aligned action across schools, families, and communities.

Rivers are speaking – but what are they telling us?

Rivers appear to be signalling distress. Across the UK, the health of rivers has been jeopardised by intersecting pressures: sewage pollution, agricultural runoff, climate‑change‑driven storms, and increasing flood risk. Recent data paints a consistently stark picture:

  • Raw sewage was discharged into England’s rivers and coastal waters for 3.62 million hours last year, according to Environment Agency data. [theguardian.com]
  • 4.7 million hours of sewage were dumped into UK waters in 2024. [sas.org.uk]
  • In some protected areas, pollution has been extreme. Wessex Water discharged raw sewage for 36 consecutive days at Chesil Beach, a site with multiple environmental designations. [theguardian.com]

Projects to improve the ecological health of rivers are underway. For example, in our city, the Bristol Frome Restored Project focuses on improving the ecological health of the river through farm interventions, in‑stream habitat works, and efforts to remove barriers to fish migration. The Frome Gateway Regeneration initiative treats the River Frome as a key environmental and spatial asset within a wider urban transformation aimed at providing new homes, workspaces, and improved public and green spaces shaped through community consultation.

These projects aim for compliance with frameworks, strategic coherence and alignment with planning and policy outcomes. Having watched Dirty Business, it is clear we need more than box ticking against success criteria. We need to value plural knowledge, coexisting truths and embrace ambiguity, sensory experiences and relational ethics. We need to harness opportunities for rivers to teach all of our communities about resilience and regeneration. 

A different kind of response: Learning with rivers, not just about them

While monitoring data, modelling, and policy reviewns give us vital information about rivers and contribute to neighbourhood renewal – whether related to contamination, flooding or drought –  they cannot answer some important questions on their own:

  • How do we live with rivers in ways that honour their agency?
  • How do we teach the next generation a river‑attuned ethics?
  • How do we understand what rivers themselves “say” through flow, shape, silt, flood, drought, smell, and sound?

Our project begins by placing agency with the river- not as metaphor, but as a methodological and ethical commitment.

Inspired by new materialist, ecological, and pluriversal frameworks, we recognise rivers as more than resources, landscapes, or leisure sites. They are alive with histories, stories, sediments, currents, and relationships – and these can help us re‑imagine more just environmental futures.

Introducing our plurifesto for river‑led action

Over the next year, out team will work with:

  • Families
  • Primary and secondary schools
  • Youth groups
  • Community networks
  • Anyone who has ever walked beside, paddled in, or worried about a river

Together, through creative, embodied, and relational methods, we’ll collect responses to a shared provocation:

What have you learned from rivers?

From these stories, drawings, encounters, sounds, and reflections, we will co‑create a plurifesto – a collective document that does not aim for consensus, but for multiplicity. A plurifesto that:

  • holds children’s river truths alongside adults’
  • honours scientific knowledge alongside sensory, cultural, and ancestral knowledges
  • includes what rivers tell us through flood, pollution, rest, and resurgence
  • supports actions at policy levels, school levels, and family practices

This plurifesto will be a guiding compass – not a static manifesto but a living, evolving expression of our shared commitments with rivers.

Why act now?

The release of Dirty Business has intensified national outrage about sewage and corporate misconduct. But outrage alone will not reshape relationships with rivers.

We want to help transform this moment of anger into a moment of attunement, collaboration, and community‑based river justice.

Rivers are not only victims of industrial malpractice. They are teachers in the climate crisis, showing us:

  • how environments respond to pressure
  • how ecosystems hold memory
  • how water connects communities, species, and generations
  • how resilience emerges from movement, not stasis

If we are willing to listen, rivers may guide us toward new forms of ecological responsibility.

Join us

Over the coming months, we will host public workshops, school sessions, family river walks, creative encounters, and online opportunities to contribute to our river work.

If you’d like to take part – or if your school, community group, or organisation would like to host a river‑listening session – please get in touch.

Let’s build a plurifesto that honours what rivers already know, and what they are asking of us now.

When rivers speak – through contamination, through flood, through flow – we must listen. Because the future we’re trying to secure is one in which rivers can thrive – and in thriving, teach us to thrive too.

Thinking about death for the future

Author Education and Childhood Research Group | Posted on

By Dr Verity Jones, Associate Professor in Education

Recently, much of my thinking, particularly in collaboration with Chris Bear (Cardiff University), has led me to think more deeply about death as an ecological, educational and ethical concept that demands a futures lens. In our work on food systems, we ask what it would mean to attend to the deaths of non-human animals and plants –  not as abstractions but as lived relations.

In February, I attended the Centre for Sociodigital Futures, Immersive Public Futures Symposium, where themes of loss, endings, disappearance and possibility threaded through discussions of how societies imagine, design and negotiate futures.

International perspectives on imagining futures

Contributions from international speakers underscored that futures – thinking is rarely a smooth trajectory of progress.

  • Fabio Rubio Scarano (Federal University of Rio de Janeiro/Museum of Tomorrow) foregrounded planetary change and regeneration through anticipating and paying attention both to memory and tomorrow.
  • Lisa Bailey (Museum of Discovery, University of South Australia) explored how museums can engage diverse publics with complex and uncertain futures.
  • Andrea Bandelli (Woven Foundation for Creative Climate Communication) challenged us to recognise immersion not as a technical medium but as a condition – a relational mode that shapes how we encounter the world and its potential futures and agencies.
  • Mandy Rose (UWE Bristol) discussed documentary and digital cultures as tools for imagining post‑carbon possibilities through planty immersion.
  • Justin McGuirk (Design Museum, London) examined design-led approaches to futures and the need to construct possible future buildings to imagine within.
  • Dan Lockton (Norwich University of the Arts) reflected on how lost futures can help people collaboratively reimagine alternative futures.
  • Johannes Stripple (Lund University) used speculative ecology and storying  to unsettle fixed narratives of crisis and change.

Across these contributions, there was an insistence that imagining futures requires attending to what is disappearing, threatened or already lost.

Connections

The symposium strongly resonated with work with my own research. Whether supporting young women in imagining near-future careers in construction and engineering, examining ecological timescales in food ethics, or analysing how children’s literature either narrows or expands temporal imagination, much of my work is centrally concerned with how learners inhabit and negotiate time.

This sits alongside collaborations with colleagues at the Global Goals Centre and SPARKS Bristol, where we co-create learning experiences that are research‑informed, inclusive, socially engaged and committed to widening imaginative possibility.

Looking ahead

The symposium has sharpened my thinking on how endings and futures coexist – and how education must hold both. Several publications drawing on this work, including research on identity making, children’s literature and sustainable education, are currently in preparation and will be shared later this year.

Education, curriculum reform and the canary in the mine

Author Education and Childhood Research Group | Posted on

By Dr Sarah Whitehouse, Programme Leader for the International Doctorate in Education, and Senior Lecturer : Education and Humanities

I was reflecting on a keynote lecture delivered by Caroline Daly at the UCET (Universities’ Council for the Education of Teachers) conference in November 2025. In her address, Daly offered a powerful metaphor for the current education system, suggesting that education is often treated like “a canary down a mine.” Too frequently, when outcomes are uneven or disappointing, attention is directed towards pupils or teachers – the canary – rather than towards the wider education system that shapes what is possible. This framing invites a necessary shift away from individual blame and towards systemic critique.

This observation resonates strongly in the context of the recent Curriculum Review led by Becky Francis, which raises fundamental questions about curriculum content, curriculum making and equity. The review marks a notable shift in emphasis and sits in contrast to developments in the other three nations of the United Kingdom. As someone who has taught in Wales, and who has experienced the rapid pace of policy change within its education system, I am particularly interested in how curriculum reform – whether radical or incremental – creates both opportunities and challenges for teachers.

The Welsh context offers an important case study. The rapid introduction of the Curriculum for Wales has afforded teachers significantly greater freedom to design locally responsive, bespoke curricula. In principle, this represents a progressive move away from prescriptive content towards professional trust, creativity and innovation. Teachers are positioned as curriculum makers rather than curriculum deliverers, with greater scope to respond to local contexts and pupil needs.

However, recent research by Estyn and the Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research, Data and Methods (WISERD) suggests that this increased autonomy is not without risk. Their findings indicate that the new curriculum may be exacerbating existing inequalities, particularly in relation to attainment and access to disciplinary knowledge in some subjects. While some schools and teachers are thriving within this flexible framework, others are struggling to ensure coherence, progression and equity.

A key tension emerges here. Many teachers in Wales have not historically been prepared – through initial teacher education or ongoing professional development – to act as curriculum designers. Innovation requires time, subject expertise and sustained support, yet these resources are unevenly distributed across schools. At the same time, schools continue to be held accountable through inspection and assessment systems that have not fully adapted to the scale and ambition of curriculum reform.

This raises critical questions for curriculum change more broadly. Freedom and flexibility alone do not guarantee equity. Without systemic investment in teacher education, subject knowledge and collaborative curriculum development, innovation risks deepening rather than narrowing inequalities. Daly’s metaphor reminds us that if the canary is struggling, the problem may not lie with the canary at all—but with the conditions of the mine.

Building capacity, community, and climate literacy – reflections from the CCPERN January meeting

Author Education and Childhood Research Group | Posted on

By Dr Verity Jones, Associate Professor in Education

The Climate Change Primary Education and Research Network (CCPERN) began 2026 with an energising and thought‑provoking meeting that reaffirmed why this community matters so deeply. Bringing together teachers, researchers, practitioners, and organisations committed to sustainability education, CCPERN continues to offer a vital space for sharing practice, fostering collaboration, and exploring the urgent challenges facing climate and sustainability learning in primary education.

Our January meeting welcomed two speakers whose work, though distinct in focus, revealed powerful synergies: Kate Colechin, from UWE Bristol’s careers and widening access team, and Mark Whittaker, headteacher at a North Yorkshire primary school. Together, they helped us consider not only what children need to learn about climate change, but how education systems can better prepare young people for a rapidly changing world.

Green careers and early aspirations

Kate Colechin opened the session by offering insights from her work training careers practitioners and supporting young people in schools. Speaking from both a higher‑education and school‑engagement perspective, she highlighted how central sustainability has become to contemporary careers work.

Kate shared that, within UWE Bristol’s postgraduate careers guidance programme, sustainability and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are embedded across modules, shaping how future advisors support both young and old to think critically about the environmental impacts of work, and to recognise that “every job is a green job”. Her reflections on working with school pupils were particularly resonant: young people, she noted, are increasingly worried about AI, future employment, and the state of the planet – and they respond powerfully to opportunities that spark curiosity and broaden their sense of what is possible.

A key takeaway was the importance of early career‑related learning in primary school, especially as research shows that children’s assumptions about jobs often solidify between the ages of 7 and 17. Challenging stereotypes, expanding horizons, and linking learning to real‑world sustainability issues can shape dispositions that stay with children throughout their lives.

Whole‑school climate education and the power of place

From a practitioner’s standpoint, Mark Whittaker shared the work underway across Northern Star Academies Trust to embed sustainability in curriculum, culture, and community. His school’s context added important nuance to discussions about equity, engagement, and what climate education looks like in practice.

Mark described how participation in the CAPE (Climate Adaptation Pathways in Education) programme had been transformative for both him and his staff, helping them articulate the “why” of climate education and recognise the need to thread sustainability throughout the curriculum rather than bolt it on. His examples of outdoor learning, river‑themed curriculum design, and farm twinning illustrated how powerful experiential learning can be for building ecological awareness and student wellbeing.

He also emphasised the challenges: staff confidence, parental perceptions, and political sensitivities around climate issues. Yet his school’s work shows how partnerships – with RHS, the National Education Nature Park, and particularly Jamie’s Farm – can offer life‑changing experiences for children who may have limited access to green spaces.

Shared threads and looking ahead

Across both presentations, a clear message emerged: climate education is not a single subject, but a holistic endeavour. Whether helping young people imagine future green careers or enabling primary pupils to build connections with their local environments, the work must begin early, be embedded meaningfully, and involve whole communities.

CCPERN remains committed to cultivating these conversations, sharing practice, and supporting educators and researchers navigating this shifting landscape. We look forward to continuing this momentum at our next meeting on 25 March 2026, when we will explore international data on environmental education with Professor Jennie Golding from UCL and hear from Green Schools about their work across England.

Interested in joining CCPERN? Please get in touch with Verity Jones (verity6.jones@uwe.ac.uk).

Back to top

Follow this blog

Get every new post delivered right to your inbox.