Dominika Majewska

Jin, C., Constantinou, F., Majewska, D., & Greatorex, J. (2026). What influences curriculum developers’ decisions during the curriculum-making process? Cambridge University Press & Assessment.

Brady, J., Majewska, D., & Greatorex, J. (2025). Wanted dead or alive: Canonical authors for literature in English curricula. Research Matters: A Cambridge University Press & Assessment publication, 40, 7-27. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.121934

Our study explored 250 international teachers’ definitions of the English-language literary canon. Questionnaire respondents defined the literary canon, rated the aesthetic value of 22 prose texts, and gave the 22 texts a “canon rating” to indicate the extent to which they thought the text was canonical. We found that teachers find some value in the literary canon, as defined by them, whereas others called for the canon to be expanded or disbanded. We report that perceived aesthetic quality appears to be a dimension of canon, and that authors seem to be admitted to the canon posthumously. The work provides a rare insight into teachers’ definitions of canon – information that helps those who set curricula, and those in the wider education ecosystem, to understand the complex meanings underpinning requests for students to study more or fewer canonical texts.

• Foreword Gill Elliott
• Editorial Victoria Crisp
• Wanted dead or alive: Canonical authors for literature in English curriculaJude Brady, Dominika Majewska and Jackie Greatorex
• Comparing open-book and closed-book exams in international literature in English assessmentsEmma Walland
• Highlights from research on the progression of Key Stage 4 and 5 cohorts impacted by the COVID-19 pandemicCarmen L. Vidal Rodeiro and Carmen H.J. Lim
• The ethics of deploying Large Language Models in high-stakes automarkingFrank Morley and Emma Walland
• Filled with skills: An analysis of four International AS and A LevelsIrenka Suto, Sarah Nelson, Judith Roberts, Aman Sidhu and Lesley Spence
• Research NewsLisa Bowett

Majewska, D., & Ireland, J. (2024, September 11–12). Is there evidence of learning theories influencing the development of the Ontario and New Zealand curricula? [Paper presentation]. Psychology of Education Section Annual Conference, British Psychological Society (BPS), Cambridge.

Majewska, D., & Johnson, M. (2024). Uncovering the landscape of cross-national UK education research: An exploratory review. Educational Research, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2024.2334751

Rushton, N., Majewska, D., & Shaw, S. (2024). How do approaches to curriculum mapping affect comparability claims? An analysis of mathematics curriculum content across two educational jurisdictions. Research Matters: A Cambridge University Press & Assessment publication, 37, 40-56. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.106032

Curriculum mapping is a comparability method that facilitates comparisons of content within multiple settings (usually multiple jurisdictions or specifications) and enables claims to be made about those curriculums/jurisdictions. Although curriculum maps have been published, there is little academic literature about the process of constructing and using them. Our study extends the literature by considering the different types of comparisons that can be made from curriculum maps: content coverage, placement, depth, and breadth. We also consider how these comparisons are affected by structural differences in the curricula or using a sub-set of the content.

We use our mapping of mathematics in the US Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the national curriculum in England to explore this. The CCSS for mathematical practice are common to all grades; we mapped these standards against the content for individual years in the national curriculum. The CCSS for mathematical content are set out by grade; we mapped a subset of this content to the national curriculum.

Our mapping shows that it is possible to map curricula and make meaningful comparisons despite structural differences and content limitations. However, this affected the types of comparisons that we could carry out and the claims that we could make.

• Foreword Tim Oates
• Editorial Tom Bramley
• Extended Reality (XR) in mathematics assessment: A pedagogical visionXinyue Li
• Does ChatGPT make the grade?Jude Brady, Martina Kuvalja, Alison Rodrigues, Sarah Hughes
• How do approaches to curriculum mapping affect comparability claims? An analysis of mathematics curriculum content across two educational jurisdictionsNicky Rushton, Dominika Majewska, Stuart Shaw
• Exploring speededness in pre-reform GCSEs (2009 to 2016)Emma Walland
• A Short History of the Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring (CEM)Chris Jellis
• Research NewsLisa Bowett

Johnson, M., & Majewska, D. (2023, September 12–14). Formal, informal and non-formal learning: Key differences and implications for research [Paper presentation]. Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, Aston University, UK.