A paper bridge holds a stack of blocks. The demonstration attracts attention, and the audience applauds. But what have the learners understood?
They might be able to reproduce the structure without explaining why it works. They might have made a useful prediction, identified a weak comparison or revised a mistaken assumption. The finished bridge alone cannot tell us.
That distinction offers a useful lens for COMSTEDA 2026, the 23rd Conference on Mathematics, Science and Technology Education in Africa. The event is announced for November 9–13 at the Adwa Victory Memorial Museum in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
This preview, based on sources checked on October 27, 2026, examines the questions that connect practical STEM activity with scientific reasoning. It is not a report of conference outcomes or Learning Coach participation.
For educators, teacher-development leaders and organisers, the opportunity is to discuss what learners predict, test, explain and revise, alongside the things they build.
What is confirmed about COMSTEDA 23?
CEMASTEA’s July 9 announcement gives the dates and venue above and describes physical and virtual participation. SMASE-Africa’s current COMSTEDA page independently displays the same dates and location.
The announced focus connects STEAM education and innovation with sustainable development and global competitiveness. The published formats include papers, posters, workshops, exhibitions, panel discussion and learner presentations associated with school visits.
These formats could bring different kinds of educational work into conversation. A research paper, a learner’s explanation and an innovation display each offer different evidence and invite different questions.
The announcement does not establish a complete final programme. In particular, older edition labels and links remain on the COMSTEDA website. Readers should use the edition-specific information and confirm participation arrangements with the organisers.
The paper deadline shown in the July notice was September 30, 2026. This article does not present that call as still open.
A successful demonstration is a starting point for enquiry
An activity can be memorable without making its learning purpose clear.
A robot follows a line. A model lights up. A structure carries a load. Each result may demonstrate that something was successfully assembled. It leaves open how the learners contributed, which ideas they used and what they can explain independently.
That is not a reason to dismiss demonstrations. It is a reason to examine them more closely.
A presenter could explain the problem learners were given, their initial predictions and a decision that changed during the work. The audience could then ask which part of the explanation is supported by evidence.
The Learning Coach perspective is that practical STEM learning should make reasoning available for inspection. Participation, enthusiasm and a functioning product can matter, while remaining different from evidence of conceptual understanding.
This is an editorial lens for reading the conference agenda, not a judgement about sessions that have not yet happened.
An illustrative paper-bridge investigation
Imagine a teacher-development workshop in which participants compare two paper-bridge designs. This is a hypothetical example, not a COMSTEDA session or an observed project.
One bridge uses a flat sheet between two supports. Another uses a folded sheet. Participants predict which will support a greater load and explain their reasoning.
The first important educational decision concerns the comparison. Are the sheets the same size and material? Is the gap between supports the same? Are loads placed in comparable positions? What will count as the point at which a bridge no longer supports the load?
If several conditions change together, the demonstration may still be interesting, but its result becomes harder to interpret.
A learner who notices that problem has made a valuable contribution even before constructing a stronger bridge. They are asking what the comparison can establish.
The teacher can then connect practical decisions with scientific language. A variable is something that can change; a fair comparison requires attention to which changes are relevant to the question. Those ideas become meaningful through the choices participants must make.
Mathematics gives the observation a structure
Adding mathematics to a practical activity should do more than decorate the final display with a graph.
In the bridge example, learners might record a load measure and compare repeated attempts. They would need to decide what their measurements represent and how consistently the procedure was followed.
If identical blocks are used as loads, the comparison concerns how many of those blocks each design supports under the chosen conditions. It should not automatically become a claim about every possible bridge, material or loading method.
A graph can make differences visible. The interpretation still requires an explanation of how the data were generated and what uncertainty remains.
This provides several possible discussion points for mathematics and science educators: units, variability, proportional claims, choice of representation and the difference between an observation and a general conclusion.
None requires an invented classroom success rate. The educational question is whether learners can connect their representation with the investigation it describes.
Practical science needs a place in a learning sequence
The Education Endowment Foundation’s Improving Secondary Science guidance, published in 2018, recommends giving practical work a clear purpose, connecting it with a wider learning sequence and using it to develop scientific reasoning.
Its summary also addresses pupils’ prior ideas, models, self-regulation, scientific language and feedback. Practical work sits within a broader account of learning.
The guidance concerns secondary science, particularly the English Key Stage 3 and 4 context. It is not an evaluation of COMSTEDA or evidence that a particular activity will work identically across African education systems.
It nevertheless offers useful questions for examining a practical session. What do learners need to understand beforehand? Which idea does the activity help them investigate? What will they do afterward to consolidate, question or apply their understanding?
In the bridge scenario, a short independent explanation after the group activity could reveal whether a learner can justify the comparison. Another task could change the materials or support distance and ask which earlier conclusions still apply.
The purpose is to connect experience with an idea learners can use again.
STEAM should clarify the contribution of each discipline
The 2026 announcement uses STEAM, adding an explicit arts dimension to the familiar STEM grouping.
An interdisciplinary label does not establish an interdisciplinary learning experience by itself. The design needs to explain how the contributions connect.
In the hypothetical bridge task, visual representation could help participants communicate a design. Design choices could also invite discussion of constraints and alternatives. Mathematics helps describe the comparison, while scientific reasoning helps examine the evidence.
A polished presentation should not conceal an uncertain explanation. Equally, evaluating reasoning need not imply that communication or design is unimportant.
The useful question is what each disciplinary contribution enables learners to understand or accomplish. That question gives an interdisciplinary project a clearer educational purpose than a collection of loosely related activities.
Teacher development can make uncertainty discussable
A workshop can invite educators to experience the difficulty their learners may face.
Participants might disagree about whether a test was comparable or discover that their explanation was more confident than the evidence justified. A facilitator can help them identify the decision behind that disagreement.
This requires more than allowing adults to handle equipment. The professional learning lies in discussing what they noticed, which response they would look for in pupils and how they would support a learner who reached a different conclusion.
Teachers can also compare the practical conditions in their schools. Which materials are available? What preparation is feasible? How can the same intellectual purpose be served through a demonstration, small-group investigation or another format?
These questions preserve the learning aim while recognising differences in resources. They do not assume that one low-cost activity replaces every kind of laboratory experience.
Give each learner access to the reasoning
Group work can distribute physical tasks without distributing intellectual responsibility.
One learner may build, another record and another present. Those roles can be useful, but they do not show that everyone has considered the central question.
A teacher could ask each learner to make an initial prediction, identify one condition that matters or explain a revision after the group discussion. The response format can be adapted to learners’ communication and accessibility needs.
The aim is to obtain meaningful evidence, rather than reward the fastest speaker or the most confident presenter.
Practical activities also require appropriate supervision and attention to materials and equipment. The bridge example illustrates educational planning; it does not replace a teacher’s judgement about suitable classroom arrangements.
AI can supply an explanation without settling the question
An AI system might generate a plausible account of why a folded bridge supports more load. The learner still needs to examine whether that explanation fits the construction and comparison actually used.
They could identify a claim to check, compare the explanation with observations or state what additional evidence would be needed. Treating a generated paragraph as a model to interrogate creates a different task from submitting it as proof of understanding.
Learning Coach’s article on checking understanding when AI gives the right answer explores that assessment issue.
Schools also need consistent decisions about permitted tools, information and responsibility. The guide to moving from AI policy to classroom practice addresses those organisational conditions.
For STEM educators, the central question remains the relationship between a claim and the evidence offered for it.
Questions to take into COMSTEDA
The following framework can help participants discuss a demonstration, learner presentation or workshop.
| Part of the enquiry | Question for discussion |
|---|---|
| Prediction | What did learners expect, and why? |
| Design | Which conditions did they choose to change or preserve? |
| Observation | What did they actually measure or notice? |
| Explanation | How does the evidence support the claim? |
| Revision | What changed in the learner’s understanding? |
| Transfer | What might remain true in a different situation? |
This is an original editorial framework, not an official COMSTEDA assessment tool.
It helps participants move from admiring a product to understanding the learning process behind it. It also creates room for an honest account of an unsuccessful attempt. A result that challenges a prediction can provide something valuable to explain.
An opportunity for education-event organisers
A conference programme can connect research, demonstrations and classroom experience through a common educational question.
A keynote can frame the problem of evidence and understanding. A practical session can make it tangible. Teacher discussion can examine how the same issue appears in different subjects and settings.
For organisers preparing a learning-centred STEM or education event, explore Learning Coach keynotes.
The question worth keeping in view is simple: after the demonstration is over, what can the learner now explain, test or question?
Research limits
The reviewed announcements establish planned dates, venue, participation modes and broad formats. They do not establish future attendance, final sessions or educational outcomes.
The SMASE-Africa page retains some older edition titles, calendar material and links. This preview uses the COMSTEDA 23 body announcement together with CEMASTEA’s edition-specific notice, rather than treating every visible item as current.
No final speaker list or complete programme was verified. No claim of Learning Coach attendance, affiliation or historical delivery is made. The bridge investigation is illustrative.
References
COMSTEDA 23 announcement and call for papers. CEMASTEA, July 9, 2026. Official dates, venue, modes and planned formats; the listed submission deadline has passed.
COMSTEDA conference page. SMASE-Africa. Current COMSTEDA 23 announcement alongside retained older material.
Improving Secondary Science. Education Endowment Foundation, September 21, 2018.
Summary of recommendations. Education Endowment Foundation. Research-informed secondary-science guidance; not an evaluation of COMSTEDA. Sources checked October 27, 2026.
