22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Teaching Difficult Knowledge: Exploring UCL’s Eugenics History and the Implications for Educational Development in Higher Education
Helen Knowler1, Victoria Wright2
1UCL, United Kingdom; 2UCL, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Knowler, Helen;
Wright, Victoria
This paper will present the work of the Eugenics Legacy Education Project (ELEP) at University College London (UCL) and explore the theoretical and practical tensions of reckoning with problematic legacies in higher education contexts. In 2018, UCL's then President & Provost, Professor Michael Arthur, commissioned an inquiry to look at UCL’s historical role in and the current status of the teaching and study of the history of eugenics. On 7 January 2021, UCL issued a formal public apology for its history and legacy of eugenics and a response group of people with diverse lived experience and professional expertise examined the inquiry recommendations. This group presented their proposals for how these recommendations could be best be enacted in July 2021. The Eugenics Inquiry Response Report acknowledged the complexity of developing teaching and learning activities that might redress problematic legacies in educational settings. Preparing staff and students to work with this complex focus provides a range of challenges and barriers to educational development, as well as opportunities for innovation and the potential for meaningful cross disciplinary collaboration between departments and faculties. Between 2022-2025 ELEP aims to:
- Develop a set of guidelines, staff resources, and learning opportunities that embed visibility and awareness of UCL’s history of eugenics in teaching and learning activities across the organisation.
- Support the ability of students, staff, and the wider community to engage with UCL’s eugenics legacy in educational activities.
- Investigate sustainable and inclusive teaching and learning approaches that continues to develop capacities of the UCL community to understand and address the legacies and ongoing consequences of eugenics thinking today.
The project is theoretically anchored within the field of Difficult Knowledge studies. Britzman (1998) developed the concept of ‘difficult knowledge’ in education contexts to investigate the ways that experiences of education and learning can be problematic, traumatic, uncomfortable, and even harmful when encountering controversial or complex curriculum areas. While there is more thinking to be done around this aspect of the project, the concept of ‘difficult knowledge’ offers a productive starting point for thinking together about aspects of our education work that are vital for our education community as part of UCL’s mission around disruptive and radical thinking. This theorisation of the eugenics legacy also offers space for reflection around ideas about implication and accountability, necessary for addressing the harms caused by eugenics in the past
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedSince the project is in its early stages a key aim is to use a flexible and generative methodological strategy so that we can be systematic about data collation while remaining flexible and open to possibilities generated in practice. We utilise Winter’s (2003) metaphor of the patchwork - and while originally intended to relate to student assessment we think the gradual building of evidence from a range of data sources is appropriate. We offer examples of key project activities that aimed to encourage engagement with core issues in justice sensitive approaches to education, such as difficult knowledge (Britzman, 1998), affective solidarity (Hemmings, 2012), counter storytelling (Bell, 1987), education and harm (Love, 2019), inclusive education (Morina, 2017), and productive pedagogies (Zembylas, 2022). We address the following questions in this paper:
What tensions, dilemmas and/or discomfort do educators experience as they introduce difficult topics into their classrooms?
What are the pedagogical strategies mobilised to counter the challenges of working with difficult knowledge?
How successful do educators think they have been when introducing difficult knowledge into their classrooms? How do they know?
Using four case study examples of project activities, we consider the relationship between reckoning and reparation (Sriprakash, 2022) for educators under the following themes: object-based learning, authentic assessment, staff/student partnership and education for socially just futures. Each case study will contain a range of data such as staff planning and evaluation, recordings of reflexive conversations about teaching, student feedback, artefacts created in the course of developing teaching methods. We will employ a Reflexive Thematic Analysis on the data patchwork within each case study. This enables us to look in depth at the opportunities and mechanisms for negotiating difficult knowledge in higher education classroom, but also to offer an overarching analysis across all four case studies.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsEugenics is undoubtedly an example of a ‘difficult knowledge’ and through the development of staff learning opportunities, student engagement and resource development this project will explore how UCL’s eugenics legacy can be positioned within educational activities in sustainable and meaningful ways. This paper will necessarily focus in on eugenics histories at UCL, but we also aim to prompt reflection on the broader implications for working with other types of problematic legacies within higher education institutions.We aim to be able to say something about the experiences of educators confronting challenging and complex legacies in the course of their work. This leads to an important consideration of the implications for professional learning and support - reckoning with legacies like eugenics is more than simply teaching historical facts. It requires a serious engagement with the affective and relation dimensions of teaching in higher education contexts. We suggest some further avenues for education research and scholarship into the role of reparative pedagogies. We argue this is vital to support wider institutional policies related to inclusion and belonging. We welcome feedback from members of our academic community as part of our continuing dialogue with educators and to share our experiences of going beyond the process of de-naming buildings.
ReferencesBell, D. (1987) And we are not saved: The elusive quest for racial justice. New York. Basic Books
Britzman, D. P. 1998. Lost Subjects, Contested Objects: Toward a Psychoanalytic Inquiry of Learning. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Davies, L. (2017) Justice-sensitive education: the implications of transitional justice mechanisms for teaching and learning, Comparative Education, 53:3, 333-350, DOI: 10.1080/03050068.2017.1317999
Hemmings, C. (2012). Affective solidarity: Feminist reflexivity and political transformation. Feminist Theory, 13(2), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700112442643
Love, B. (2019) We want to do more than survive: Abolitionist Teaching and the Pursuit of Educational Freedom. Boston. Beacon Press.
Moriña, A. (2017) Inclusive education in higher education: challenges and opportunities, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 32:1, 3-17, DOI: 10.1080/08856257.2016.1254964
Rothberg, M. (2019) The implicated subject: beyond victims and perpetrators. Stanford. Stanford University Press.
Sriprakash, A (2022) Reparations: theorising just futures of education, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, DOI: 10.1080/01596306.2022.2144141
Zembylas, M. (2022) Ethics, politics and affects: renewing the conceptual and pedagogical framework of addressing fanaticism in education. Ethics and Education 17:3, pages 261-276.
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Personal Predictors of Inclusive Practices among University Teaching Staff
Jose-Luis Alvarez-Castillo, Gemma Fernandez-Caminero, Hugo Gonzalez-Gonzalez, Luis Espino-Diaz
University of Cordoba, Spain
Presenting Author: Alvarez-Castillo, Jose-Luis;
Gonzalez-Gonzalez, Hugo
Teachers are a key component of the university community when it comes to creating an inclusive culture through their research, and especially through their teaching and the use of inclusive pedagogies (Stentiford & Koutsouris, 2021). In these professional practices, it is likely that the relevant competencies are not only those specific to their teaching and research functions, but also those related to the personal sphere (Moral-Mora et al., 2021). Thus, the beliefs, attitudes, personality, and life experience of university teachers would be associated with inclusive professional performance, which would require a theoretical exploration of the profile of competencies that is not limited to technical-professional dimensions. This is the thesis that the paper presented here sets out to confirm through a model that considers a set of personal variables, predictive of the teachers' inclusive actions in teaching and other areas of practice.
The Dual-Process Motivational Model developed by John Duckitt (2001; Duckitt & Sibley, 2017), which explains attitudes of prejudice, may be suited to understanding the inclusive beliefs, attitudes, and practices of teachers insofar as prejudice negatively predicts inclusive judgements and behaviours (Kende et al., 2021), as well as attitudes towards immigrant students (Pace et al., 2022). Specifically, Duckitt's model states that openness is a personality trait that negatively anticipates the ideological attitude of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) which, in turn, would have a relevant explanatory effect on prejudice toward groups perceived as threatening. Agreeableness would be the trait that predicts, at low levels, social dominance orientation (SDO), which, in turn, would anticipate prejudice towards groups who are devalued in terms of status and power. In both pathways, the direct influence of personality on prejudice is weak, but has a more important indirect effect through attitudes (Duckitt & Sibley, 2017). What differentiates these two paths is the perception of the group, which has been found to be associated with certain covariables of prejudice (Bergh & Brandt, 2022). Within higher education, greater attention is paid to women, persons with disabilities, those belonging to ethnic minority groups, and to students from a low socio-economic background (Alvarez-Castillo et al., 2021), groups considered to be disadvantaged or vulnerable. This perception of vulnerability reinforces the path of agreeableness and SDO as part of the cognitive, attitudinal, and behavioural process of university teachers with respect to social minorities.
Along with personality and ideological attitudes, another personal characteristic that might be related to inclusive practices is the perception of discrimination that many teachers themselves may experience. In certain minority groups that perceive a conflict between their identity and that of the majority group, perceived discrimination is positively associated with the intent to avoid contact or to act aggressively against the outgroup. However, university teachers in Spain, although they may feel discriminated against in one of their identities, enjoy a good level of autonomy in the exercise of their profession and a prestigious social status, in addition to a normative environment favourable to inclusion, which could reverse the sense of negative reactivity in the case of perceived discrimination. Results from the study by Chung et al. (2017), who took Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour (1991) and used a sample of professionals from the general population, supported a certain positive association between perceived discrimination and attitudes towards diversity.
According to the aforementioned evidence and theoretical models, the current study hypothesised that the path of agreeableness and SDO, as well as perceived discrimination, will predominantly anticipate the beliefs, attitudes, and practices with which teachers address diversity.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedDESIGN. The study was cross-sectional, survey-based, and aimed at confirming the predictive relationships between personality, ideological attitudes, perceived discrimination, and diversity beliefs, attitudes and behaviours by means of structural equation modelling in order to account for the percentage of variance explained in the teaching staff's inclusive practices, as well as the dominant predictive path.
SAMPLE. The final sample consisted of 613 university lecturers from eight Spanish public university institutions (universities of Cordoba, Valencia, Seville, Complutense de Madrid, Pablo de Olavide, Cadiz, Jaen, and UNED) who agreed to respond to all the survey instruments. The sample composition was relatively gender-balanced, with 47.3% of men and 52.6% of women, and a mean age of 46.30 (SD = 11.00). The average length of employment in the institution was 14.30 years (SD = 11.18).
INSTRUMENTS. All the instruments and the data collection procedure were approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Córdoba. The battery of questions consisted of five sections: 1) Socio-demographic information and perceived discrimination (ad hoc instrument); 2) Scale of Beliefs, Attitudes, and Practices of Attention to Diversity for University Teachers (Ramos-Santana et al., 2021); 3) Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (Altemeyer, 1981); 4) Social Dominance Orientation Scale (Pratto et al., 1994); 5) Neo-Personality Inventory-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992/2008).
PROCEDURE. An invitation was sent to the teaching staff of the eight public universities mentioned above in a mass e-mail that included a link to the survey. Before administering the self-reporting instruments, informed consent was obtained, presenting the survey and requesting voluntary participation, informing the participants about the research, that they were free to leave at any time, assuring them their participation was confidential and voluntary, and informing them of the scientific use to which the research findings would be put. The battery of tests was designed with the free software application LimeSurvey. Two weeks after the first message, the invitation was reiterated as a reminder. The data collection process was closed five weeks after the first submission.
DATA ANALYSIS. Once the data were transferred to SPSS (v28), preparatory, descriptive and correlational analyses were performed on the variables. Subsequently, the hypothesised model was tested by means of structural equations analysis with Amos, using bootstrap sampling procedures together with the maximum likelihood estimation method. The decision on the goodness of fit of the model to the data was made on the basis of a joint assessment of five indices (CFI, NNFI, SRMR, RMSEA, χ2/df).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe results confirmed the predictive capacity of certain personal variables on beliefs and attitudes towards diversity, and of these on the inclusive practices of university teachers, particularly in relation to research activities, teacher training, and innovation in addressing diversity, to the point of explaining 53% of its variance, solely on the basis of personal characteristics.
In accordance with the predictions of the Dual-Process Motivational Model (Duckitt, 2001; Duckitt & Sibley, 2017), a dual path of personality and ideological attitudes effects on beliefs, attitudes, and practices of diversity was identified, with one of the pathways being dominant. The Duckitt's model associates the path of agreeableness and SDO with prejudice towards low-status/disadvantaged groups, and this is precisely the route that is confirmed as dominant in the study, having collected data in a university setting, a context in which the majority of minority groups are considered to be disadvantaged, and not as threatening or dissident.
In the case of perceived discrimination, the results showed that teachers who had felt discriminated against informed on the adoption of more inclusive practices and, at the same time, expected more committed leadership than they perceived in their institutions.
The results obtained would suggest two applications immediately. The first of these concerns the competency profile of university teaching staff. More holistic competency frameworks are needed to go beyond specific teaching competencies and include personal characteristics associated with attitudes and practices for addressing diversity. A second pedagogical application would refer to diversity training, an area in which consistent knowledge is not yet available (Devine & Ash, 2022). Certainly, diversity predictors as personality and ideological attitudes are fairly stable characteristics, but there is also evidence in favour of some intra-individual variability caused by contextual stimulation that produces state changes. Therefore, predictors of inclusive practices are also trainable.
ReferencesAjzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.
Bergh, R., & Brandt, M. J. (2022). Mapping principal dimensions of prejudice in the United States. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 123(1), 154-173. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000360
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2008). Inventario de Personalidad Neo Revisado (NEO PI-R). Inventario Neo Reducido de Cinco Factores (NEO-FFI) [Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) (3ª ed.; Spanish adaptation by A. Cordero, A. Pamos & N. Seisdedos). TEA Ediciones. (Original work published 1992)
Devine, P. G., & Ash, T. L. (2022). Diversity training goals, limitations, and promise: A review of the multidisciplinary literature. Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 403–429. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-060221-122215
Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41–113). Academic Press.
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2017). The dual process motivational model of ideology and prejudice. In C. G. Sibley & F. K. Barlow (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of prejudice (pp. 188–221). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.009
Kende, A., Hadarics, M., Bigazzi, S., Boza, M., Kunst, J. R., Lantos, N. A., Lášticová, B., Minescu, A., Pivetti, M., & Urbiola, A. (2021). The last acceptable prejudice in Europe? Anti-Gypsyism as the obstacle to Roma inclusion. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(3), 388-410. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220907701
Moral-Mora, A. M., Chiva-Sanchis, I., & Lloret-Catalá, C. (2021). Faculty perception of inclusion in the university: Concept, policies and educational practices. Social Inclusion, 9(3), 106-116. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v9i3.4114
Pace, U., D’Urso, G., Zappulla, C, di Maggio, R., Aparici Aznar, M., Soler Vilageliu, O., & Muscarà, M. (2022). Ethnic prejudice, resilience, and perception of inclusion of immigrant pupils among Italian and Catalan teachers. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 31(1), 220–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-021-02098-9
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741–763. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
Ramos-Santana, G., Pérez-Carbonell, A., Chiva-Sanchis, I., & Moral-Mora, A., (2021). Validation of a scale of attention to diversity for university teachers. Educación XX1, 24(2), 121-142. https://doi.org/10.5944/educXX1.28518
Stentiford, L., & Koutsouris, G. (2021). What are inclusive pedagogies in higher education? A systematic scoping review. Studies in Higher Education, 46(11), 2245-2261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1716322
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Teachers' Role in Supporting Students in Higher Education - a Student Diversity Perspective
Lone Krogh Kjær-Rasmussen, Annie Aarup Jensen
Aalborg University, Denmark
Presenting Author: Kjær-Rasmussen, Lone Krogh;
Jensen, Annie Aarup
General description
The diversity among students in HE generally is high regarding social background, ethnicity, age, gender, educational and experiential background. Further, research shows that the number of students in Higher Education (HE) who suffer from stress and anxiety is increasing in Denmark (Uddannelses- og forskningsministeriet, 2019), which is equivalent to the development worldwide. In the Nordic countries, well-being problems have become the most important health problem for young people (Kolouh-Söderlund et al. 2016). Empirical research shows that university students are a 'high-risk population' for psychological disorders and mental health problems, with up to 1/3 of all HE students suffering from these kinds of problems, (e.g. Baik, Larcombe & Brooker, 2019)
Mental health/well-being problems may interfere with student life in various ways, and not least students’ ability to and experience of belonging to their education (Wulff-Andersen et al. 2023). According to Tinto (2015), it is important for students to feel belonging to their education as valued members of their study group. In HE institutions, teachers meet the students in teaching and supervision and are in principle those in the educational system, who might be able to discover, if students are not feeling well and therefore be in a position to support students in handling some of their difficulties. Teachers may also be able to organize teaching in ways that makes it easier for them to see and acknowledge the individual students and perhaps facilitate experiences of community among students.
However, Danish HE institutions are changing these years. Many national reforms and changing economic frameworks have been implemented during the last decades (Wulff-Andersen et al., 2023; Sarauw & Madsen, 2017) and teachers themselves are being pressurized from requirements regarding performance and teaching (less resources generally, more and diverse students), research being measured and requirements to bring in more external funding. Therefore, many teachers are also suffering from stress (Arbejdsmiljø og Helbred, 2018; Caddell & Wilder, 2018, Krogh, Jensen et al). Because of this, it may be difficult for teachers to overcome to accommodate and make the extra effort both in general regarding teaching and organizing safe learning communities and specifically in relation to the students who may need some extra support. For instance, teachers may feel, that it is not their job to detect and help students with problems that are not directly academically related. The problem is that HE risks losing engaged, bright and resourceful students if they do not receive the support they need when their study life becomes difficult for different reasons (Wulff-Andersen 2023, op. cit.).
Theoretical framework
During our data analyses several thematic topics emerged, and among these the question of the role of the teacher in relation to the student with well-being or other kinds of problems. Selected data was analyzed in particular drawing on the categories of self-efficacy and sense of belonging as areas where teachers and supervisors could make a difference regarding the organization of teaching and the creation of supportive study environments. In elaborating on this we are drawing on Danish and international research on the student perspective: students’ encounters with educational institutions, teachers, supervisors, fellow students and counsellors (Ulriksen, 2009; Lowe & Cook, 2003), students’ failure to thrive (Hermann, Jensen & Lassesen, 2012; Thomas, 2012; Qvortrup, Smith, Lykkegaard, & Rasmussen, 2018; Ulriksen, Holmegaard, & Madsen, 2011), student engagement (Wimpenny & Savin-Baden, 2013), and research on the teacher’s role in supporting students in general (Ramsden, 2003), in student directed, collaboratory study environments, students as partners (Bovill, Cook-Sather, Felten, Millard & Moore-Cherry,2016, Jensen & Krogh, 2017), and university teachers’ work conditions (Caddell & Wilder, 2018; Pedersen, 2016; Sarauw & Madsen,2017)
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedMethods
Our presentation will take its point of departure in the Study Life Project (2019-2022), a three-year research project carried out by educational researchers from Roskilde and Aalborg Universities, Denmark. The project followed 47 students with different kinds of well-being problems from 7 Danish HE institutions (universities and university colleges). Some of them had a mental health diagnosis when they started their study, some experienced problems during their study, which were either initiated or strengthened by structural frame works, pedagogical organization and/ or personal relations or lack of them (teachers – fellow students . The aim of the research project was to achieve knowledge and understanding of students’ experiences during their study life and give voice to their point of view on the kind of help and support that might or could have prevented the problems or supported them better in their study life.
The study was a qualitative and longitudinal study using ethnographic methods incl. semi-structured biographic interviews and a visit to a place of importance to the individual student. We interviewed most of the students three times during the project. The interviews were transcribed and analysed through several iterations generating several themes and sub-themes. Based on the findings in our research and inspired by Tinto’s institutional integration theory incl. categories of self-efficacy and belonging (Tinto, 2015) as areas where teachers and supervisors may support students. we discuss the implications for the teachers’ role in HE.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsSome conclusions
Research findings in the Study Life project show a varied picture: some students report on having experienced demeaning or stigmatising behavior from teachers and fellow student and not having received any kind of support from teachers, while others report on having experienced all the support they needed from teachers and support centers, which made all the difference to their ability to pursue an academic education. Some of the conclusions in our research are that changing conditions and time structures, and expectations from the system is difficult. Systems, rules and regulations are rigid and accommodate the students who follow the norm, i.e. are self-directed and responsible, thus being “the good student”. Many students have high expectations to themselves in order to be able to live up to norms about the perfect student they think they should be. Generally, students are struggling in so many ways in order to be able to stay in the study and to handle the educational challenges they encounter. As teachers have an important position in education they should and could be able to create positive, supportive study environments and take initiatives where students feel safe and are able to participate even when they are not feeling well. (Qvortrup, Lykkegaard & Rasmussen, 2018; Ramsden, 2003; Tinto,, 2015; Wulf-Andersen et al. 2023).
The presentation is based on research in a Danish context by drawing in international research and experiences, and the scope of the problem is international.
ReferencesArbejdsmiljø og Helbred (2018). https://arbejdsmiljodata.nfa.dk.
ACHA (2016). American College Health Association & National College Health Assessment.
Baik, C. et al (2019). How universities can enhance student mental wellbeing: the student perspective. Higher Education Research and Development, Volume 38. 2029. Issue 4.
Bovill, C., A. Cook-Sather, P. Felten, L. Millard & N. Moore-Cherry, N. (2016). Addressing potential challenges in co-creating learning and teaching: Overcoming resistance, navigating institutional norms and ensuring inclusivity in student-staff partnerships. Higher Education, 71(2): 195-208.
Caddell M. & K. Wilder (2018). Seeking Compassion in the Measured University: Generosity, Collegiality and Competition in Academic Practice. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice. Vol. 6/Issue 3 (2018). Pp. 14-23.
Hermann, K.J., Jensen, T.K., Lassesen, B. (2012). Hvilke faktorer i studiemiljøet fremmer trivsel? Dansk Pædagogisk Tidsskrift. Årgang 7 Nr. 13, 2012
Jensen A. & L. Krogh (2017). Re-thinking Curriculum for 21st-Century Learners: Examining the Advantages and Disadvantages for Adding Co-creative Aspects to Problem-Based-Learning. In Chemi T. & L. Krogh (eds.). Co-Creation in Higher Education. Students and Educators Preparing Creatively and Collaboratively to the Challenge of the Future. Sense Publishers.
Lowe, H. & Cook, A. (2003). Mind the Gap: Are students prepared for higher education? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(1). 53-76.
Qvortrup, A., Smith, E., Lykkegaard, E. og Rasmussen, F. (2018) Studiemiljø og frafald på videregående uddannelser: Betydningen af undervisning, faglig identifikation og social integration. Dansk Universitetspædagogisk Tidsskrift. Årgang13, nr. 25. 2018. 151-178.
Ramsden P. (2003). Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London & New York. NY: Routledge Palner.
Sarauw, L.L. & Madsen, S.R. (2017) Risikonavigation i fremdriftsstormen. Når studerende oversætter fremdriftsreformen ud fra nye risikologikker. Dansk Universitetspædagogisk Tidsskrift, 2017, Vol 12, Issue 22, p. 141-152.
Studielivsprojektet. https://ruc.dk/studielivsprojektet
Kolouh-Söderlund L., H. Lagerkranz (2016). Mental health among young people. Nordic Centre for Welfare and Social Issues.
Tinto, V.(2015) Through the Eyes of Students. Journal of College Student Retention:
Research, Theory & Practice, 0(0) 1–16
Uddannelses- og Forskningsministeriet (2019) ) https://ufm.dk/uddannelse/videregaende-uddannelse/universiteter/om-universiteterne/reformer-pa-universitetsomradet-1
Uddannelses- og Forskningsministeriet (2013). https://ufm.dk/uddannelse/videregaende-uddannelse/universiteter/om-universiteterne/reformer-pa-universitetsomradet-1
Ulriksen, L. (2009). The implied student. Studies in Higher Education, 34(5), 517–532.
Wimpenny, K. & Savin-Baden, M. (2013) Alienation, agency and authenticity: a synthesis of the literature on student engagement, Teaching in Higher Education, 18:3, 311-326
Wulff-Andersen L., L. Larsen, A. A. Jensen, L. Krogh, A. B. Stigemo, M.H. Kristiansen (2023). Students’ Experiences of Psychosocial Problems in Higher Education. Battling and Belonging. Routledge.
|
