Conference Agenda

This paper will re-examine the widely used term of ‘authentic assessment’ and argue that certain notions and assumptions about it might usefully be re-considered in view of shifting expectations and priorities in higher education. The paper links to the theme of the conference in suggesting that our conceptions of authentic assessment, and applications of it to pedagogic practice, need to shift to account for broader changes, most pointedly social, economic and environmental issues categorised under the heading of sustainability and ESD (education for sustainable development). The paper seeks to offer some new perspectives in response to the following questions:

1. How is authentic assessment understood and used in contemporary higher education?
2. Would there be greater value in re-pivoting our use of authentic assessment, so that it reflects current societal and educational pressures and priorities, such as sustainability, diversity and partnership?

Whilst authentic assessment is a valuable term in that it provides a tool for educating about assessment, it has also become one that is somewhat generalised. It is often used as an explanatory mechanism to promote better practice in assessment; similarly, it is often tied to employability agendas, with the assumption that assessment should focus on preparing learners for the world of work.

But should authentic assessment be about more than these things? In this re-conceptualisation, I will opine that, during their assessment journeys and over the duration of their studies, students should be exposed to wider issues by way of their assessment experiences, through alternative, contemporary lenses. These lenses include:

Authenticity as sustainability - Higher education needs to engage more deeply and urgently with sustainability. Students should graduate as ‘sustainable beings’, which means that environmental and social aspects of sustainability should be embedded in curricula, teaching and assessment. These points are supported in student-based research – see, for example work by ‘Students Organising for Sustainability’ (sos.org.uk).

Authenticity as student-staff partnership and student experience - Students should have the be actively involved in their assessment process as a normal practice. We need to collaborate with students, to provide a more student-centred student experience in assessment.

Authenticity as equality, diversity and inclusion - Assessment cannot be authentic if some learners are disadvantaged. Authentic assessment is that which is fair to all, inclusive of all, and takes steps to mitigate against unconscious bias.

Whilst other factors also need to be addressed in our efforts to develop authenticity, such as the rise and influence of Artificial Intelligence (AI), the above three will be focused on here. Further, given the recognised ‘urgency of sustainability’ the paper will concentrate especially on the first of the above.

The paper will draw on a range of contemporary literature, including that on assessment design (Sambell, 2013; Brown and Sambell, 2020), authentic assessment (and feedback) (Navé Wald and Harland, 2017; Carless et al, 2020; McArthur, 2023), education for sustainable development (UNESCO, 2017; Advance HE, 2021; Smith, 2023); equality, inclusivity and unconscious bias (Agarwal, Mercer-Mapstone and Bovill, 2020, Tai et al, 2023; Sway, 2020) and student-staff partnership (Cook-Sather, Bovill and Felten, 2014; Students Organising for Sustainability – SOS – www.sos-uk.org).

Finally, examples will be given of how authentic assessment has been applied in specific contexts using the lenses advocated.

Recently, there has been considerable research on formative assessment, as evidenced by extensive scientific literature and systematic reviews. Particularly relevant are reviews exploring the evolving relationship between formative assessment (FA) and student self-regulated learning (SRL) (Winstone et al., 2017).

However, the process of self-assessment, which involves internalizing standards to regulate learning effectively, remains somewhat opaque (Lui & Andrade, 2022). Thus, there is a pertinent need to investigate the factors influencing this process, the student processes involved in interpreting and applying feedback, and how they contribute to self-regulated learning.

Feedback, understood here as the process through which students make sense of information to improve tasks and learning (Carles & Boud, 2018), requires both student and teacher’s feedback literacy. Our contribution is part of a new project on internal feedback processes of higher education students, which builds upon two main axes: (A) self-regulation and (B) self-assessment toward internal feedback (Nicol, 2020). Student self-regulation involves appropriating assessment criteria, seeking feedback, and engaging in personal reflection (Yan & Brown, 2017). Advanced self-regulation strategies enhance long-term learning prospects and transferability beyond academia. Yet, a lack of evaluative judgment and self-assessment experience may impede desired learning outcomes.

Students’ production and seeking of internal feedback to bridge performance gaps are crucial for engagement and learning efficacy (To & Panadero, 2019). Understanding students’ cognitive and affective responses to feedback, as well as the mechanisms of feedback processing, is essential for effective feedback utilization (Lui & Andrade, 2022).

Research often focuses on formal feedback experiences, neglecting informal feedback's potential for learning. Investigating how students transform external feedback into internalized feedback and their cognitive processes is imperative. This necessitates a shift towards holistic, transformative theoretical frameworks to comprehend feedback phenomena.

In summary, while various factors contributing to more efficient and higher-quality feedback have been identified, such as active student engagement in the learning and assessment process, feedback literacy, anonymous assessment roles, qualitative formats over numerical ones, provision of examples for comparison, and the integration of technology (Carless, 2019; Henderson et al., 2018; Panadero & ​​Alqassab, 2019), the processes underlying feedback mechanisms remain elusive (Lui & Andrade, 2022).

Moreover, while existing research has explored students' perceptions, emotions, and behavioral responses to feedback, understanding students' internal processes as they receive and internal feedback is crucial. This entails investigating the role of various factors in students' decision-making and behavioral responses to feedback, as well as examining additional elements such as interpretations, significance, and evaluative judgment capacity (Yan y Brown, 2017; Winstone et al., 2017).

Furthermore, there is a need to broaden the scope of feedback research beyond comments provided by evaluators to encompass comparisons with other sources, thus unlocking its full potential for learning. This necessitates an exploration of strategies through which students convert natural comparisons into formal, explicit ones, enabling them to articulate and reflect upon these comparisons independently (Nicol, 2020). Overall, advancing our understanding of how students transform external feedback into internalized feedback, along with its implications for self-regulated learning, could inform the design of effective pedagogical practices and foster improvements in students' academic performance and self-regulatory skills.

In this context, the objective of this paper is investigating students' value attribution to different feedback processes and to share our exploration of formal and informal feedback processes utilized by students, identifying mechanisms of information assimilation from external to internal feedback.Student’s personal voices are of utmost importance here, so that our presentation will focus on the process of co-designing the environment and strategy of data collection during natural learning processes.

In the realm of academic pursuit, the quest for effective learning strategies is perpetual. Among the evolving methodologies, study crafting emerges as a novel paradigm, adapted from the concept of job crafting in occupational health psychology (Tims et al., 2010). Defined as the proactive adaptation of study by students to optimize learning experiences, study crafting represents a transformative departure from conventional strategies centered on reactive adjustments to external demands (Körner et al., 2021). By empowering learners to curate their educational journey, study crafting imbues a sense of ownership, fostering personalized and engaging learning trajectories.

The significance of this proactive approach reverberates profoundly in academic circles, with implications spanning beyond mere scholastic achievements. Extant literature underscores its role in cultivating deeper comprehension, enhancing motivation, and fortifying resilience amidst academic challenges and adversities (Körner et al., 2023; Körner et al., 2021; Mülder et al., 2022). However, despite its potential, the conceptualization and empirical investigation of study crafting remain in nascent stages, warranting a comprehensive framework to elucidate its underpinnings.

In this context, the Integrative Needs Model of Crafting (de Bloom et al., 2020) was recently proposed as a theoretical framework that integrates crafting research. Rooted in the understanding that psychological needs play a pivotal role in the crafting process, this model provides a comprehensive lens through which to explore why and how individuals engage in crafting across various life domains. While extensively applied in occupational health research, the integration of this model into educational discourse remains conspicuously absent. Notably, the prevailing study crafting model (Körner et al., 2021) adopts a demands-resources-based approach, departing from the needs-centric perspective espoused by the Integrative Needs Model of Crafting.

Bridging this gap, the aim of this study is to extend the Integrative Needs Model of Crafting to the student context and develop an instrument to assess students’ needs-based study crafting, which we refer to students’ proactive and self-initiated changes in their study in order to achieve psychological needs satisfaction.

This paper reports on a case study investigating how student-centred learning, an underlying principle of the Bologna Process (EU, 2024, p. 14), can be identified in different master’s programmes at the University of Oslo (Norway) and Salahaddin University (Kurdish region of Iraq). Both universities formally adhere to the standards of the Bologna Process in their education systems. However, in practice, they differ in various aspects, including the length of time the implementation process has been adopted, funding and resources and university ranking—often with wide gaps between them (see, for example, Times Higher Education, 2024). The study focuses on student-centred learning within supervision-related activities, particularly in connection with the master’s thesis. This focus is examined at two levels within master’s programmes: first, the organisation (formalities and guidelines) and the educational design (academic and educational content), and second, the practice of master’s supervision. Based on these examinations, the paper investigates the following research question: How can student-centred learning in master’s supervision be identified in different higher education contexts?

In the past two decades, the Bologna Process, initially promoting ‘universal education in Europe’ (Haukland, 2017, p. 261), has gained attention beyond the continent. Various universities within the Kurdish region of Iraq have recently adopted the Bologna Process, beginning in 2019 (APPRAIS, 2023). In the early 2000s, Norwegian universities, along with many universities in varying countries throughout Europe, began implementing the same uniform standards associated with the Bologna Process as a result of new higher education reform policies (EHEA, 2024). Currently, 49 countries, including non-EU nations such as Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, have all pledged ‘to pursue and implement the objectives of the Bologna Process in their own systems of higher education’ (EHEA, 2024). With numerous countries spanning thousands of kilometres now adopting the same educational standards, it is worthwhile to examine such global policies in universities at the local level. This is especially true because research related to the Bologna Process often tends to concentrate on a macro level, emphasising structures and political issues (Dysthe & Webler, 2010, p. 23).

A guide provided to institutions planning to implement the Bologna Process within their higher education systems characterises student-centred learning as ‘innovative methods of teaching which aim to promote learning in communication with teachers and students and which takes students seriously as active participants in their own learning’ (EU, 2015, p. 76). To examine how student-centred learning can be identified in the two universities, Dysthe’s (2002) supervision models will be used as an analytical tool. Her models comprise three supervision types, each characterised by distinctive features: the teaching model (supervisor-in-focus), the partnership model (student-in-focus) and the apprenticeship model (project-in-focus). The model closest to the description of student-centred learning in this context is the partnership model, which is characterised by a symmetrical relationship between the supervisor and the student. In the partnership model, the master’s thesis is viewed as a joint project between the student and supervisor, involving a dialogical relation between the two parties, with the supervisor aiming to foster independent thinking.

Dysthe (2002, p. 532) explained that the partnership model is based on a dialogical approach to learning (see Wittek, 2023). Within this framework, meaning is created through interactions between different individuals in a real-time context (Linell, 1998). When individuals in a setting share different thoughts and perspectives, their understanding is constructed and transformed (Dysthe et al., 2006, p. 302), facilitating learning opportunities. By using Dysthe’s supervision models, especially the partnership model, we can examine the type of supervision that is set up among different master’s programmes in relation to one of the Bologna Process’s underlying principles: student-centred learning.

Students make varying choices regarding how to allocate their time between a range of activities, which has important implications for their learning and development (Pace, 1981). Some studies find that undergraduate students are not sufficiently engaged in their studies and spend considerable amounts of time partying and other leisure activities (Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013; Arum & Roksa, 2011). In contrast, some other studies indicate that college students fall into a state of "poverty" during the time of independent exploration, spending "all the peak time" studying (Lingo & Chen, 2023), especially students in highly selective universities are facing overwhelming time demands (Haktanir et al., 2021). What is more, it is much harder for firs-year college students to manage time conflicts due to experiencing a critical turning point in knowledge and psychology (Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013).

There is a difference between "natural time" and "social time" according to Adam (1994), the "natural time" is fixed and divisible units that can be measured, while quality, complexity, and mediating knowledge are preserved exclusively for the conceptualization of "social time". The "social time" is organized around values, goals, morals, and ethics, whilst simultaneously being influenced by group tradition, habits, and legitimized meanings, which can explain cross-cultural and historical differences in the allocation of time. At the same time, individuals also allocate their time based on their preferences, rather than allocating their time to comply with the requirements of "social time" (Hartmut, 2010).

The concept of time provides basic theoretical clues for us to describe and understand the possible differences in time allocation among students (Fosnacht, McCormick, & Lerma, 2018; Toutkoushian & Smart, 2001). Compared with students in primary and secondary schools, the time discipline of college is weakened and has the characteristics of flexibility, although college students' time allocation is still subject to compulsory discipline. It is worth noting that flexibility is both an opportunity and a challenge for students. For instance, previous studies suggest that certain groups of students, such as low-income and disadvantaged students from underdeveloped areas, may face more constraints in discretionary time (Jaeger, 2009). Moreover, students with different level of academic performance may differ in their understandings of activities as well as differ in how they make plans and arrange priorities (Cambridge-Williams et al., 2013). In short, previous studies imply that students’ time allocation might be influenced by various factors, such as individual characteristics, family background, previous experiences in high school, and peers’ behaviors in college.

Although previous studies offer valuable insights into the influence factors of time allocation(Crispin & Kofoed, 2019), it remains unclear the characteristics of students' time allocation. Additionally, previous studies simplify comparisons between the duration students spending on different activities in a cluster or discriminant analysis(Innis & Shaw, 1997; Pike & Kuh, 2005), overlooking the push and pull of various activities that force students to make trade-off on time allocation, especially for first-year students from elite or research universities.

This paper attempts to investigate the characteristics of first-year college students’ time allocation and divide students into different types according to their time allocation. Furthermore, this paper will deeply investigate the characteristics of different types of students and analyze what factors affect students’ time allocation.

This presentation discusses the role of the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) as a key instrument for determining student workloads in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) countries. The central premise of the work is the ECTS system's assumption of a predefined amount of study time to achieve certain learning outcomes, usually ranging from 25 to 30 hours per ECTS credit (European Commission, 2015; Wagenaar, 2019). In particular, the aim is to compare the views of teaching staff on the workload determination practices with students' experiences of workload in studies, and their use of time.

An important added value of the project compared to previous research is that it considers the perspectives of both teaching staff and students. In the case of students, there is already an established tradition of research on the subject. However, this literature has been characterized by a particular disagreement on the definition of workload: while in credit systems such as ECTS, workload is mainly understood as a function of time spent studying (Wagenaar, 2019), other literature has emphasised that time spent studying and students’ perceived workload are not the same (Bowyer, 2012; D'Eon & Yasinian, 2022). Despite the broad acceptance of ECTS, the system's performance has faced increasingly serious challenges: firstly, the actual time spent on studies does not seem to correspond to the time allocated to studies as expressed in ECTS (Souto Iglesias & Baeza Romero, 2018). Time use also appears to be weakly related to students' experience of workload in their studies (Kember, 2004; Smith, 2019). Moreover, time itself is an unreliable indicator of learning: instead, both student time use and perceived workload (Herrero-de Lucas et al., 2021) and other relevant factors such as the quality of time use and student ability (Masui et al., 2013) need to be considered if we are to present reliable models of student success in higher education.

As for the teachers' perspective, previous research has been less extensive and more scattered than the interest in the students' perspective. There has been however, some guiding literature on how the workload for studies should be determined (e.g. Bowyer, 2012; Northup-Snyder et al., 2020). In addition, some comparative studies have shown that the study time estimated by teachers does not properly align with the actual time use of students (Alshamy, 2017; Scully & Kerr, 2014). Individual studies have also explored teachers' perceptions of ECTS as part of their work (Gleeson et al., 2021). Beyond these, there seems to have been little attention paid to teachers' specific ways and practices of determining course workloads and, for example, the challenges they perceive to be associated with this work.

In relation to this framework, the current study aims to:

1) map the practices, experiences and perceptions of teaching staff in determining course workloads;

2) map students' perceptions of these practices for determining workload, and their relationship to students' time use, perceived workload, and academic performance; and

3) compare how the views of teaching staff relate to data collected from students on the workload determination practices, time use, and their perception of workload.

In sum, the project aims to build a more holistic and up-to date data and theory on workload determination practices in higher education. As such, the study is part of a wider research project whose main objective is to examine problems of time in higher education theory, policy and practice.

Generative AI (GenAI) is a specific type of Artificial Intelligence that can create new content in the form of text, images, music, code, and various other forms of digital media by using machine learning or ‘training’. ChatGPT is an example of a GenAI application that has been trained on a vast amount of publicly available data. It was made freely available in November 2022, albeit with usage limitations. The launch sparked intense public interest, with initial speculation about what the effects might be for education, jobs, and for society in general.

While ChatGPT was not the first model made available (e.g. GPT-2), it is an advanced model that allows for sophisticated interactions, with the remarkable capability of replicating human-like natural language processing. However, it cannot understand language. It is trained to detect complex patterns and assimilate that information into existing information (Bozkurt, 2023; UNESCO, 2023). As GenAI continues its rapid growth, evolving and improving outputs, there has been a wide range of perspectives, from those who have embraced the technology, those who oppose the technology, and some who are both enthusiastic and/or cautious. Gallant-Torres (2023) identifies the opposing extremes as ‘technophiles who defend it without regard to its risk and technophobes who reject it without considering its benefits.’

Research is beginning to emerge about the affordances and challenges of GenAI use in education. New skills are evolving with the use of GenAI such as ‘prompt engineering’, which is defined as the ‘art of designing, writing and fine-tuning prompts’ to elicit the most accurate and relevant responses from GenAI applications (Eager & Brunton, 2023). There have been significant opportunities that have already been identified as being embraced in higher education settings, such as integrating technology to promote learner-AI collaboration (Tan, Chen & Chua, 2023), personalised feedback and adaptive learning pathways (Eager & Brunton, 2023), automating processes, innovations in teaching and assessment and creating a more inclusive environment (Adiguzel, 2023; Moya & Eaton, 2023). However, the scope and the extent to which these practices have been adopted remain unclear. There are also complex issues emerging, as Farrelly and Baker (2023) highlight that ‘we are already seeing that minority and marginalised students are being accused of breaching academic integrity rules …perpetuating an existing inequitable pattern’.

In 2021, UNESCO released ‘Recommendations on The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence’. The first statement highlights the importance of ‘the profound and dynamic positive and negative impacts of AI on societies, environment, ecosystems and human lives, including the human mind’ (UNESCO, 2021). The call for setting standards relating to AI technologies happened well before the launch of ChatGPT and the numerous other generative AI tools released since then. It is evident that GenAI has now been integrated into higher education settings (Ipek, 2023), amidst concerns about what the potential impacts could be on disciplinary knowledge and the assessment of key knowledge and skills. It is in this context that our research study aimed to examine the use of generative AI by academics and students in higher education, and their perceptions of the impact that the technology would have on teaching and learning.

The key research question is:

• What are the opportunities and challenges associated with using generative AI in higher education?

Recent advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies have sparked discussions within higher education(Kramm & McKenna, 2023; Peters et al., 2023; Popenici, 2023). Among these tools, ChatGPT stands out for its capacity to generate text, provide personalized recommendations, and potentially improve student learning outcomes. However, concerns have been raised about the impact of such AI tools on higher education teaching and academic integrity(Blackie, 2024; Rawas, 2023). This study aims to explore the intersection of artificial intelligence and education, with a specific focus on ChatGPT and its potential applications in higher education. More specifically, this paper seeks to investigate the possibilities of integrating ChatGPT into higher education courses with the goal of enhancing academic literacy and improving students' learning experiences. The study addresses two key objectives: (i) the integration of artificial intelligence tools, particularly ChatGPT, into higher education courses, and (ii) understanding the perceptions of students and their engagement with ChatGPT within the context of their academic activities.

Drawing inspiration from situated/sociocultural perspectives in learning and Gee's (2008) concept of a "mediating device," we explore how learners’ understanding and capabilities are transformed when engaging with ChatGPT. As Gee(2008) suggests, what learners can understand and accomplish with a mediating device differs significantly from what they can do without it. When individuals engage with mediating devices, knowledge becomes distributed—some is manifested in their minds, some in their coordination with tools, and some in the tools themselves. This perspective informs our exploration of the impact of ChatGPT as a mediating device in enhancing students' learning experiences and academic literacy.

The availability to the public of the Generative Artificial Intelligence tool ChatGPT has led to several reactions in society at different levels. Regarding higher education several challenges have arisen, especially in terms of ethics and evaluation, and its integration into teaching and research practices. In this study, we intend to explore mainly the issues related to the integration and ways of using ChatGPT in higher education, especially in initial teacher training, and the implications of this use for education policies and global citizenship.

With the rapid development and widespread accessibility of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen-AI), it is paramount to understand its implications in various areas of society, in terms of knowledge creation and its contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals (UNESCO, 2021), notwithstanding the necessary epistemological reflection on its use (Figueiredo, 2023).

In higher education, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has the potential to completely transform teaching and learning (Rawas, 2023). The potential of ChatGPT shows remarkable benefits in teaching, research support, automated grading, administrative management, and human-computer interaction (Dempere et al., 2023). It can provide individualized recommendations to students, increase collaboration and communication, and further improve their learning outcomes (Rawas, 2023). However, have been identified ethical concerns and implementation issues about security in student assessment and plagiarism, misuse, and the possibility of misinformation, as well as wider social and economic impacts such as job displacement, the digital literacy gap, or decreased human interaction (Dempere et al., 2023; Rawas, 2023).

ChatGPT, as a Gen-AI tool, can help conversationally with writing, learning, solving and assessment, as an assistant for instructors and a virtual tutor for students (Lo, 2023). A literature review highlights measures relating to assessment methods and the necessary institutional policies. Rethinking assessment tasks to reduce the risk of plagiarism by requiring students to demonstrate their skills in real-time and in person, for example. Course content, learning outcomes and assessment methods can also be modified to circumvent ChatGPT, by using it to generate lesson topics, test and exam questions, homework, or product ideas (De Winter, 2023).

On the other hand, from a more constructive and training perspective, it will also be important to promote students' digital literacy in the use of Gen-AI tools. Teaching students about the risks of relying on AI-based technologies is important. These risks include hallucinations, which are false responses generated by AI, presented as facts, not explained by the training data (Dempere et al., 2023). For this reason, it is important to integrate these technologies responsibly, as a supplement to and not a replacement for human interaction (Fuchs, 2023), and there is a pressing need to regulate AI in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs).

As far as initial teacher training (ITT) is concerned, this phenomenon is even more relevant, since these students, as future teachers, will soon be training pupils in education systems. It requires teachers and students develop digital competences and literacies, with a strong focus on critical thinking and fact-checking strategies (Kasneci et al., 2023).

When confronted with Uncertainty and crisis, higher education has historically turned to interdisciplinarity as a means of promoting innovation. This was the case in 1970 when OECD hosted the Interdisciplinarity. Problems of teaching and research in universities conference (Apostel, 1972). In current European higher education policy, interdisciplinarity is an integral part of the green transition, transnational higher education collaboration, and development of competences for an increasingly technologized labor market (Jæger, forthcoming). Many universities respond to such policies by encouraging interdisciplinary collaboration in research and education.

This paper will qualify the debate on interdisciplinarity in higher education by investigating a current case involving an interdisciplinarity project at a Danish PBL university. We ask: which general takeaways emerge from analyzing a current interdisciplinarity project initiated as a catalyst for higher education innovation and SSH/STEM-integration, from a social- and human science perspective?

The case project elements

Collaboration between STEM and SSH programs: As part of the 2022 to 2026 strategy to be a mission-oriented university, the university management encourages educational programs to increase collaboration across disciplinary and departmental boundaries, particularly in the form of collaboration across the SSH/STEM divide.

New skills in focus: The goal of the new interdisciplinarity project is to educate graduates with advanced collaboration skills, phrased as a “focus on holistic thinking”, “ability to work across disciplines” “affect and adapt to the development of society” and “enhance students’ ability to transcend their own disciplinary domain and engage in cross-boundary cooperation” (AAU Strategy 2022–2026).

Transdisciplinarity as the end goal: the university encourages collaboration projects that range from relatively limited interaction between disciplines and programs (but still ensuring that students become familiar with ‘foreign’ disciplines) to collaboration forms that require students to engage in joint problem-solving through integration of disciplinary perspectives and engagement of external partners. Later, cross-program get-to-know activities are likely to become mandatory. Study activities that require individual students to work in project groups composed of students from different disciplines will be arranged as elective modules.

Theoretical-Analytical approaches

Though interconnected, we distinguish between two dimensions of interdisciplinarity (Hultengren 1979) in our analysis:

A) The epistemological dimension relates to the processes of scientific work
The promotion of interdisciplinarity as an institution-wide innovation project may intentionally and unintentionally unsettle disciplinary self-conceptions and question established boundaries between research fields and programs. In order to investigate the implications of such disturbances, the proposed conceptual framework enables an analysis of differences between disciplines (with a particular focus on differences between SSH and STEM disciplines (Bernstein 1999; Abbott 2001)), different levels of interdisciplinarity (we propose a tripartite typology distinguishing between “borrowing” (Klein 2018), “trading zone interdisciplinarity” (Collins, Evans & Gorman 2019) and transdisciplinarity), and the translation of disciplinary knowledge and interdisciplinary integration in teaching and learning (Jensen, Ravn & Stentoft 2019; Brassler 2020).

B) The educational-organizational dimension relates to the formation of certain competences in students

When we preliminarily turn to the existing practices of interdisciplinarity within the case university, we identify shared characteristics by several programs within the SSH faculty. This leads us to inquire into the historical background of these programs. Mostly forgotten today it turns out they share a period in the 1970s where a specific pedagogical tradition, the problem-oriented project pedagogy tradition (Hultengren 1976, Illeris 1974), was very influential. According to this tradition the project work of students is student-directed and problem-oriented, and problem-orientation “entails interdisciplinarity”, because it is the identified authentic problem - and not the traditions of the discipline – that is guiding the choice of theory and methods (Illeris 1981:15,99). The emphasis on interdisciplinarity within the tradition is inspired by the OECD 1970 conference and social critique (Hultengren, 1979).

Currently, the conformation of the European Higher Education Area is the central feature defining universities in Europe. Both methodological innovation and social dimension are two of the key elements within the new university model (Santos Rego et al., 2020). This calls for the adoption of a new formative paradigm centred on the student and the strengthening of the social function, as outlined in the Berlin Communiqué (2005). More recently, the Rome Communiqué (2020) proposes that institutions of higher education commit, along with their communities, to engaging in joint activities that are mutually beneficial and socially responsible.

Therefore, there is an interest in shaping spaces of convergence between these propositions, as pedagogical innovation can and should place students in contact with society. This positioning leads us to discuss University Social Responsibility, an approach promoting social commitment in all spheres and activities of the Academy. Among other things, this requires that teaching seeks the involvement of students with the community, aiming not only to enhance the meaningfulness of learning but also to contribute to the development of groups and communities near the campuses (Coelho and Menezes, 2021).

In this context, service-learning (SL) emerges as a useful methodology to strengthen connections between universities and society. It is defined as "a course-based, credit-bearing educational experience in which students (a) participate in an organized service activity that meets identified community needs and (b) reflect on the service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of course content, a broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of civic responsibility" (Bringle and Hatcher, 1995, p. 112). These experiences promote the university's engagement with the community and vice versa, ultimately leading to improve academic, social, and professional learning, as well as community growth.

In service-learning courses, the balance between universities and social entities or groups is crucial, moving away from positions in which communities are viewed as laboratories where students apply their knowledge (Baker-Boosamra, 2006). However, a significant portion of literature, especially in the European context, has focused on studying the effects of service-learning on student learning (Santos Rego et al., 2021), emphasizing the need to also consider the community in analyses of this methodology (Rodríguez-Izquierdo and Lorenzo, 2023).

Over the past two decades, various studies have confirmed the gains that the community obtains from such projects, with central focuses on knowledge exchange and satisfying the needs of entities and/or groups (Nduna, 2007; Schmidt and Robby, 2002; Van Rensburg et al., 2019). However, to strengthen the ties between the university and the community, with the goal of optimizing benefits for both parties, it is essential that the relationship is established on principles of genuine reciprocity.

Reciprocity is defined as the inclusion of principles such as respect, trust, genuine commitment, balance of power, shared resources, and clear communication between university institutions and community stakeholders (Jacoby, 2015). Using service-learning, the aim is to foster reciprocal relationships and mutual assistance between the university and social actors, exploring the impact on students as agents of social change (Asghar and Rowe, 2017; Martínez-Usarralde and Chiva-Bartoll, 2020).

Therefore, the objective of this study is to analyse whether the type of relationship established with the community in service-learning projects influences the development of transversal competencies in students.

This paper is framed in the Research Projects: “Service-Learning (SL) and employability of university graduates in Spain: competences for employment” (EDU2017-82629-R) and “The impact of the university in the community through service-learning projects. A study focused on reciprocity (SL)” (PID2021-122827OB-I00).

Online learning is often discussed in relation to what happens on the screen of the computer, tablet, or phone, which students are accessing the learning through. This can be seen to reflect ‘Cartesian approaches that separate mind from body’ (Dourish, 2001: 189), reflective of wider education discourses in the western world. The reality is that online learning is happening in a physical place and experienced bodily as well as cognitively, our eyes get tired from computer screens and our backs sore from spending too long sitting. In this critical re-imagining we draw on research which understands learning to be a socially, culturally, and physically, situated practice. We focus on the webinar, a synchronous online teaching activity, in which geographically distributed groups of lecturers and students participate in learning activities together. We teach on an international Master of Education programme, working with diverse groups of students, and have become increasingly aware of the different physical, social, and cultural locations in which they are situated. We take the pedagogic stance that webinars should provide opportunities for collaborative learning and use two conceptual lens’ to critically examine how this can be facilitated.

We use two conceptual lens’ to examine educational practice in webinars: Mediation and Embodied Cognition. A sociocultural understanding of mediation (Wertsch, 2007) allows us to consider the ways in which digital technology enables and constrains the learning experience. For international students’ digital technology enables connection to the university and to the module content, to the lecturer and to other students. The concept of mediation enables us to examine the way digital technology frames and constrains this learning experience. Embodied cognition (Johnson, 2013, Shapiro, 2014) deepens this examination by allowing us to ‘see’ the student as an embodied individual, experiencing education from a specific place. This enables us to explore further than the boundaries of the digital technology and critically consider the physical and cultural spaces which students inhabit as they engage with online learning. When teaching live sessions on international modules different time zones, geographic areas and cultural expectations are juxtaposed. Some students may have stayed up late, while others have got up early. Students in the same webinar may be experiencing extremes of weather or very different cultural environments. It is this juxtaposition that provides the potential for rich learning in webinars but too often not all students fully participate, or even attend. Drawing on both mediation and embodied cognition we consider the experience of the webinar and then highlight the implications of this conceptual framing for practice.

The conceptual analysis we present is grounded in empirical data, collected during an action research style scoping study which tracked the development of a pedagogic intervention. Physical artefacts were introduced to webinar tasks as a means to value the knowledge structures of the students, enable collaborative practice and support the embodied experience of learning. Our reflections imply that the use of artefacts creates sensorimotor experiences which can support learning. In recognising that cognition is embodied, providing sensorimotor opportunities becomes a necessity in supporting individual learners but more than this, by sharing these activities within a group, there is further potential for broader and deeper thinking through the provision of space to ‘offload’. Offloading supports confidence and the creation of new understandings. Where students are able to sense each others’ sensorimotor activity during the use and production of artefacts, motor equivalence and ‘mirroring’ are enabled, generating empathy amongst the group and allowing students to reflect on and add to their own experiences. This suggests that consideration of the embodied experience of the student is pertinent when reflecting on the development of online pedagogy.

The pandemic 2020 drew a “waterline” between two concepts — “Emergency Remote Teaching” (ERT) and “High-Quality (Effective) Online Learning” (Hodges et al., 2020). ERT is considered to be “the temporary transition of learning to an alternative mode of content delivery due to crisis circumstances”. In 2021 Melissa Bond, Svenja Bedenlier et al. captured significant attention worldwide in the review that collected and synthesised the findings of 282 primary empirical studies conducted by 1019 authors from 73 countries during the initial 10 months of the pandemic. The compelling results of their research highlighted crucial insights that resonated across the globe.

One of the negative consequences of ERT was the problem of psychological distress. Therefore, the Yandex conducted a large-scale all-Russian study in 2020, specifically examining the emotional burnout experienced by school teachers. The findings revealed that 75% of participants displayed evident symptoms of burnout, with 38% of teachers being in the acute phase.

The “Hybrid” training format has also made its adjustments to the problem and has become widespread along with such training formats as “Face-to-Face” and “Remote/Virtual” but more than 90% of teachers recognise a digital disadvantage associated with the “Hybrid” format that makes a teaching-learning process more time-consuming. On the other hand, several studies indicate a shift away from the traditional classroom format in the educational process. This trend signifies a decline in the dominant position that the classroom format has held for centuries. In 2022, A.A. Margolis et al. showed that among the students of the Moscow State University of Psyсhology and Education (N = 761), only 10.8% of them preferred the full-time (classroom) study format. The distance learning format ranked first, with 49.5% of participants selecting it, while the mixed format claimed the second position with a preference of 39.7%. The research project led by E.I. Kazakova and I.E. Kondrakova involved students from 30 Russian universities (N = 4558) representing 23 regions of Russia revealed that students perceive distance learning as a means to fulfill their need for personal subjectivity and to take the initiative in educational activities.

Meanwhile, a study conducted by A.V. Filkina et al. on Russian universities students (N = 25400 students, 2021) using the “Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8)” method revealed blended learning is linked to a higher likelihood of experiencing signs of psychological distress among students.

According to the researchers, the analysis of the relationship between the learning format and the occurrence of psychological distress symptoms shows ambiguous results that students who exclusively study in a distance-learning format present the lowest levels of psychological distress. Full-time education slightly increases the likelihood of experiencing distress symptoms. At the same time, most often signs of psychological distress are observed in students studying in a mixed format, when some classes are held full-time, some remotely.

However, the experiences gained during the pandemic and post-pandemic periods indicate that the alternative to ERT in the form of High-Quality Online Learning has the potential to yield excellent educational outcomes and is linked to psychological well-being. An experiment conducted on younger schoolchildren demonstrated that remote synchronous classes aimed at fostering creativity are equally effective, if not superior, to traditional classroom sessions, debunking existing social stereotypes. The experimental group exhibited slightly higher creativity scores compared to the control groups (L.E. Jalalova, R.V. Komarov). Similar positive educational outcomes have been achieved across various levels of education, including distance Master's degree programmes, advanced training courses, and professional retraining programmes. Therefore, the question of utmost importance in the post-pandemic period is what conditions guarantee the success of remote teaching (including digital formats) and promote the students digital well-being.

In Activating Blended Education (ABE), online and in person education are combined (Bowyer & Chambers, 2017) and students have to actively learn through exercises and meetings that are activating in nature, such as tutorials and discussions. ABE has increasingly been applied in higher education since the early 2000s in Europe and the United States (Güzer & Caner, 2014) and increasingly in the rest of the world (Anthony et al, 2020). After the Covid-19 pandemic, it has even been described as a new normal (Cobo-Rendón et al., 2022; Singh et al., 2021).

Multiple meta-analyses have found that ABE leads to better academic results than education that takes place entirely on campus or online (Bernard et al., 2014; Castro, 2019; Vho et al., 2017). Online contents gives students greater flexibility and the opportunity to learn at their own pace (Boelens et al,. 2018) and activating educational methods force students to cognitively engage with teaching materials long before a final exam. ABE can implemented in different ways. An instructor could for example choose for a flipped classroom setting in which instruction takes place via prerecorded lectures and meetings on location are used for clarification and discussion. It is also possible to make a course blended by adding online modules to a courses.

ABE has been extensively studied but most research has focused on detailed analysis of single courses and curricula (Anthony et al., 2022) often given by proponents of ABE. Research into institutional adoption of ABE is rare and often relies on interviews with higher management rather than a measurement of the actual instruction offered in higher education (Graham et al., 2022) As the adoption of ABE becomes more widespread, it becomes necessary to study how ABE is adopted institutionally and measure whether and how ABE is implemented through analysis of the actual education offered to the students.

The Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU) adopted ABE as one of the design principles for its education in 2021. It is yet unclear whether the university truly achieved a greater level of blended and activating education and to ascertain whether this is the case, a mixed method research project has been started. For this study, a stratified sample was taken of Bachelor courses for which the content was analysed through the schedule and online learning environment. Interviews were conducted with course coordinators on the rationale for their course design.

We aim to answer the following research questions. 1) how can we efficiently and validly ascertain whether a course is blended and activating? 2) How is ABE designed? 3) Is there a shift towards more ABE in the period 2019-2024?

With a newly developed measuring instrument, over 150 courses were successfully analysed. The analysed courses were to a great degree activating but to a far smaller degree blended. Apart from a small minority of 10% of the sample, all courses had numerous assignments and meetings that are activating in nature. The courses that were blended were so because of a greater focus on online videos and modules rather than online meetings. In 2019-2020, all instruction took place on campus and during the Covid-19 pandemic all instruction moved online. After the pandemic, in 2022-2023, only a small number of courses had retained online activities. Online meetings were generally limited to one per course and do no constitute a significant part of the instruction. There was also an increase in online videos, quizzes and exercises. In interviews, teachers were generally positive about ABE but at the same time strongly preferred to have in person meetings.

The digital public sphere, comprised of a wide variety of message boards, information outlets, discussion fora and news channels, all enabled via social media and the world wide web, has on paper at least enormous potential to encourage the development of what Habermas referred to as a ‘critical reasoning public’ (1989). This is a public that, just as in the heyday of the 18^th public sphere, held nation states to account and spoke truth to power – the public sphere effectively acting as a check on undemocratic practices. The reality, based on recent evidence, is that the public sphere of the 21st century has squandered this potential, with critical reasoning in short supply and struggling to make itself felt in a world of celebrity gossip and antagonistic behaviour. Online dialogue is a world away from a digital republic of letters and the genesis of a new age of enlightenment.

Much of the blame for this of course rests squarely on some of the usual suspects, the rent-seeking behaviour of modern capitalism chief among them. But blame should also lie at the feet of educational institutions, especially universities whose stated aims include the development of critical reasoning and the search for enlightenment. Their lack of presence in the digital public sphere is a striking feature of modern intellectual life. This is a serious oversight given what is at stake: overcoming the distortions of the digital public sphere, the misinformation, profiteering, commodification, as well as the widespread epistemic injustices and flagrant anti-democratic practices, depends, as Sevignani puts it (2022: 93) ‘on democratic learning processes in publics that foster the flourishing of communicative competences’. Of all the public institutions, universities are uniquely placed to help facilitate these ‘democratic learning spaces’ but have ceded this territory in the informal world of digital communication and opinion formation.

Why such a disconnect between the universities and the public? Given the make-up of the digital public sphere, there are technological and spatial elements at play in this disconnect as well as the commodifying issues mentioned above. While these issues are significant, this paper aims instead to examine a more fundamental concern which is the relation between the universities and the public. Specifically, the paper will explore the extent to which universities engage with the process of intellectualising the public, or public intellectualism. In order to do this, the paper will first of all: provide some historical context for this relation and detail how this relation has been impacted by social transformations; second, identify the mechanisms of public intellectualism (for example, evidential, communicative, pedagogical) and their institutional embeddedness, and third, critically examine the content of public intellectualism – for example, welfare and economic redistribution, justice, knowledge and power, the public good, democracy, voice and representation. The paper concludes by detailing some implications of this for the future of critical reasoning in the digital public sphere.

This study presents a critical reflection on the use of the flipped classroom (FC) method in teaching mathematics and statistics to engineers, focusing on evaluating various aspects of student engagement. We based our analysis on the approach implemented by Lo and Hew [1] in their literature review on student engagement in mathematics flipped classrooms. This conceptual framework is rooted in the multifaceted nature of engagement, including behavioural, emotional, and cognitive aspects [2].

We applied this framework to two different FC formats. The first format follows a traditional approach, where students are provided access to the learning material in advance. The students go through it independently and then participate in learning activities offered in class. This traditional approach has been widely used and evaluated, presenting its own benefits and challenges. The second format is a modernised version of the traditional setting. In line with the traditional approach, students go through the learning material themselves; however, the lecturer summarises a topic in a weekly lecture and goes through examples presented in pre-recorded lectures on the board.

While the FC approach might be considered a well-known method [e.g., 3], it has not been widely used in teaching mathematics until recently. The available analysis of the effectiveness of this method in relation to student engagement doesn’t show consistent results [e.g., 1, 4]. What affects students engagement? What new ideas in implementing FC would be worth developing further?

During the Covid-19 pandemic, the higher education sector had to radically change the ways the majority of courses were taught to accommodate new realities. The vast number of courses went online creating favourable conditions for implementing and advancing the FC teaching method in a variety of subject disciplines, including mathematics-based courses.

Grounded in constructivist learning theories [e.g., 5,6], the FC represents one of the student-centred instructional models. In the FC environment, students are the builders of their knowledge. Initially, students familiarise themselves with new material outside the classroom and then build upon this foundation through adaptation and application of knowledge in in-class discussions, problem-based and project-based learning, and peer learning.

The objectives of this critical reflection are as follows:

• To evaluate the three types of student engagement in studying mathematics and statistics in the FC environment in two settings.
• To analyse the benefits and challenges academic staff face when using the FC in two settings.
• To propose recommendations on using the FC method in teaching mathematics and statistics.

Dropping out of studies is a large issue for the university, society, and often for the individual. While dropping out could be a positive issue for students who find a better-suited profession or study field, it admittedly also has negative effects, such as losing financial aid and time, and experiencing more unemployment and lower incomes than persisters (Davies & Elias, 2003; OECD, 2019). From an institutional perspective, universities’ funding is usually dependent on the number of graduates, so aside from the wasted resources, dropouts have a direct effect on universities’ funding. The drop-out issue is greatest in STEM fields, where the drop-out rates are the highest and where it is especially important to obtain more workforce to answer the needs of the quickly developing technology industry and to solve global issues such as climate change.

Drop-out is a complex phenomenon where both an individual’s internal factors and external factors interact with each other, eventually leading to the decision to drop out. In Heublein’s model of drop-out, the internal factors include aspects such as study behavior and motivation, and external factors for example study conditions and guidance (Heublein, 2014). Heublein argues that for the study programme to be successful, these factors should align and alter respectively. Though plenty of empirical research has been done and theoretical models built, existing empirical evidence still has limitations. Previous research often approaches the issue from a variable-centered perspective, which may prevent the identification of the smaller at-risk subpopulations and understanding the complex interrelations behind drop-out. Existing research also lacks a multi-variable perspective which is vital in a multi-faceted process of dropout. As well, attention should be paid to differentiating between types of dropouts and gaining information from the context of different countries’ education systems. A better understanding of the phenomenon could help the work of reducing dropout rates.

We approach this issue using a person-centered approach to examine the study profiles of first-year university students. We aim to identify distinct patterns of students’ study orientations across dimensions of motivation, learning approach, and experienced stress. In this study, we explore what type of study profiles can be identified from first-year science and mathematics students and whether the profile membership is related to first-year grade point average (GPA). The variables included are interest, self-efficacy, surface learning approach, and academic stress. (Korhonen, 2014; Korhonen & Rautopuro, 2019; Lastusaari, 2018; Widlund et al., 2023). All variables are related to students’ study processes and recognized as being connected to drop-out, and they are malleable variables that the universities have a chance to affect (Condren & Greenglass, 2011; Haarala-Muhonen et al., 2017; Heublein, 2014; Jesús et al., 2022; Kehm et al., 2020; Lastusaari et al., 2016; Parpala et al., 2010). Possible at-risk profiles are observed and discussed.

Identifying plausible profiles helps institutions get a picture of the new students and their support, information, and teaching needs. Intervening with the risk elements at an early stage could prevent dropouts. It also adds important information on the large and yet unclear phenomenon of drop-out, especially from the perspective of the crucial STEM fields and the first study year, and from person-oriented and multi-variable perspectives, also including both self-reported and student register-based variables.

This study investigates the evolution in conceptual understanding of cloud physics among learners from diverse academic backgrounds, using the mathematical framework of graph theory.

Cloud physics is an inherently multidisciplinary area of research, and therefore also of teaching in higher education. Challenges related to the understanding and modeling of clouds influence one of the main uncertainties in climate models [1], as well as a range of other areas, like affect aircraft operations and remote sensing technologies. Cloud physics education therefore represents a key aspect in atmospheric science education and, more widely, in geoscience education [2]. Recent academic efforts have addressed the difficulties encountered by learners in the discipline [3, 4, 5, 6], yet more is to be done to connect these with the conceptual structure of cloud physics.

Graph theory is an established field of mathematics, but the use of graph structures in education is relatively new [7, 8, 9, 10, 11], offering new perspectives to discipline-based educational research. Graph structures are networks of nodes connected with edges, and in our case networks of concepts from cloud physics connected with directed arrows by the participants of our study. The algorithmic power of graph theory affords characterization of both the mathematical graph structure and the role of the nodes that compose it. In this study, participants hand-drew concept maps depicting the life-cycle of a cloud, reflecting their understanding of cloud physics. We coded the maps according to thematic analysis and transformed them into graph structures in Python.

A "map of cloud physics" is created, depicting the joint graph representation of all participants. Studying this representation presents a novel way to look at the field and inspires a series of follow-up investigations to inform the disciplinary teaching and learning practices. We present sub-graphs based on the participants' academic experience. While Novice represents the group with no formal academic exposure to cloud physics, a comparison of the Adept and Advanced groups highlights the main changes induced by an increasing experience in the discipline. We represent the core knowledge of each group, corresponding to the nodes and edges of highest consensus, using a hierarchical structure. We also compute the groups' agreement with regard to the predecessors and successors of the used concepts, and define a new node-level metric measuring these quantities.

The evolution of the computed metrics through the experience-gradient provides a diagnosis of both the changes occurring along a learner's journey in cloud physics, and of the structure of the discipline and its inherent conceptual complexities. Overall, our results both qualify and quantify the epistemological shift in the description of the life-cycle of a cloud, from the general physics of the water cycle to detailed description of cloud microphysical processes, as learners mature in their understanding of the discipline.

Our findings can be used by lecturers to tailor their teaching towards the identified expert-like concepts, and by students to anticipate the main complexities in the field during their learning process.

(As our work in this study is very graphical, for both visualisation and analysis purposes, the above explanations would undoubtedly profit from a few visual inputs, which we would be happy to provide to the reader upon request.)

This paper examines three interventions in three professional programmes in higher education in Europe. The aim of the study is to evaluate the implementation of three learning scenarios that use authentic learning theory to improve professional competence and students’ employability skills. The data come from an Erasmus+ project involving three countries and 120 students. A design-based research approach is used for the first iteration of interventions. The results show how the authentic learning framework was realised in the three contexts and which elements of the framework were challenging. The key findings are that authenticity is not realised in one element of the model in isolation, but through the interaction between several elements, and that some elements of the theoretical model are crucial for realising others.

In today’s rapidly evolving business landscape, marked by a heightened focus on social responsibility and sustainability, management education stands at a crucial juncture (Tahmassebi and Najmi, 2023). Addressing the conference theme, “Education in an Age of Uncertainty: memory and hope for the future,” this paper introduces an innovative approach to conceptualise and categorise Responsible Management Education (RME) by adapting the ‘About/For/Through’ (AFT) framework from Entrepreneurship Education. Following the principles outlined by O’Connor (2013) in “A Conceptual Framework for Entrepreneurship Education Policy: Meeting Government and Economic Purposes” and integrating insights from Lozano et al.’s (2013) “Conceptions of Responsible Management Education,” this adaptation aims to provide a multi-dimensional lens for analysing and structuring RME initiatives, thereby enhancing their efficacy and alignment with global sustainable development goals.

RME, in the context of rapidly changing societal expectations (Laasch and Conaway, 2015; Tahmassebi and Najmi, 2023), confronts the challenge of developing educational strategies that are both practically relevant and theoretically robust. The existing literature on RME, while diverse, often lacks a unified framework for systematic classification and assessment (Nonet at al., 2016), hindering the effective design and evaluation of RME programmes by educational institutions and policymakers. The AFT framework, with its proven success in Entrepreneurship Education as detailed by Fayolle and Gailly (2008) and its potential adaptability to RME emerges as a suitable tool, offering a structured approach to navigate these uncertainties. It categorises education into three dimensions: ‘For’ emphasises practical skills, ‘About’ focuses on theoretical knowledge, and ‘Through’ involves experiential learning and personal development.

Reviewing the current state of RME underscores the need for a structured framework that captures the multidisciplinary nature of responsible management. The AFT framework’s versatility lies in encompassing RME’s diverse facets, including ethical decision-making, sustainability, corporate social responsibility, and stakeholder engagement. In this regard, the ‘About’ dimension is foundational, offering a deep understanding of theories related to responsible management. The ‘For’ dimension translates this knowledge into competencies for responsible management practices. The ‘Through’ dimension, perhaps the most innovative, emphasises transformative learning via methods like service-learning and community engagement, aligning with the conference theme by fostering a future-oriented approach in management education.

This paper asserts that this tripartite framework can serve as a valuable tool for educators and institutions in designing, implementing, and evaluating RME initiatives. It aids in identifying current programme strengths and weaknesses and provides guidance for future development. Moreover, it fosters a nuanced understanding of integrating RME across different educational levels, in line with broader sustainability and ethical leadership goals in business education as emphasised in the United Nations Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME) initiative. This adaptation of the AFT framework promises significant contributions to RME’s evolution, providing a coherent, adaptable, and impactful structure for educators and policymakers.

Synchronous online courses gained popularity during the pandemic and have since become the predominant course delivery format for online courses due to their ability to reduce educational cost while preserving real-time communication and immediate feedback (Bailenson, 2021). The rapid growth of synchronous course prompts questions about improving the quality of online courses at scale (Bettinger et al., 2017; Lowenthal et al., 2019; Russell & Curtis, 2013; Xu & Xu, 2020).. One area of intense debate in this context is the role of class size in online courses. However, limited research has quantitatively examined the effects of class size on student learning outcomes in college synchronous online courses. Assessing these effects is a pertinent issue: If increasing class size in synchronous online courses does not compromise student learning outcomes, it opens up the possibility for departments to consider offering larger synchronous online classes. This approach could help reduce educational costs and enhance accessibility without sacrificing student engagement.

This study addresses this gap by answering three main research questions. First, what is the impact of class size on students’ academic performance and course satisfaction? Second, what are the mechanisms through which class size effects operate? Third, how do class size effects vary along the distribution of class sizes (Non-linear effects)?

We analyzed data from an anonymous research university (ARU hereafter) in China. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all courses in the spring semester of 2020 in ARU were delivered online synchronously, with approximately 82% delivered via ClassIn, which was a popular platform for online course delivery in China at the time. This study focused on undergraduate students enrolled in synchronous online courses for the duration of the semester. Furthermore, this study examined courses categorized as “lecture” sections, excluding physical education and lab courses. As a result, our sample comprised 6,603 undergraduate students enrolled in one of the 638 synchronous online classes offered by 30 departments. We obtained data from two sources: (1) administrative data, which includes students’ and instructors’ demographic characteristics, class enrollment size, students’ academic performance, and instructors’ teaching evaluation, etc., and (2) clickstream data generated by the ClassIn platform, which captured information such as the length of time students were assigned to interact with their peers and instructors, as well as their time spent in the virtual classroom.

We began by estimating the effects of class size on students’ academic outcomes and course satisfaction. Our analyses indicate that class sizes negatively affect course grades and course satisfaction in synchronous online courses. Drawing on the rich clickstream information generated by the online platform, we examined two channels through which class size effects may operate: (i) students’ course attendance and (iii) course interaction opportunities. Our findings suggest that reduced course interaction opportunity is the most robust channel through which larger classes negatively affect students’ academic outcomes and course satisfaction. In addition, we explore non-linearities in the class size effect and heterogeneity by students’ academic preparation, grade level, and course credits. Our findings indicate a consistent negative effect across the entire spectrum of class sizes, with larger class sizes exhibiting increasingly detrimental effects. We also found that the negative relationship between class size and student outcomes is highly robust across different types of students.

Although much has been written on emergency remote teaching occasioned by the circulation of the COVID-19 virus around the world, existing studies tend to hold a somewhat single-dimensional perspective by paying attention solemnly in the initial stages of the pandemic or the post-pandemic period when education started to “normalize”. Moreover, directing more attention towards the unprecedented factor of the situation, existing studies seem to overlook the extent to which students were prepared for education during unexpected pandemics, wars, natural disasters, such as earthquakes, or navigating ethical concerns raised by generative AI, creating blind spots where higher education institutions are not critically evaluated. Departing from this premise, our paper puts a spotlight on the problematic nature of the COVID-19 pandemic and its implications for higher education as a vantage point.

To gain an in-depth understanding of how COVID-19 affected instruction so far and what it brought with it, we believe there is a need to consider both periods (switching to ERT and reverting to face-to-face) simultaneously. Considering the current wars and the possible outbreak of a similar pandemic where education has and might be disrupted again, it becomes much more important to conduct research in this area utilizing metaphorical images that students use to conceptualize themselves during online teaching and face to face teaching. Metaphors are useful in gaining a nuanced understanding of students’ experiences as they offer insight into the process participants go through by providing a conceptual framework through which we can perceive and interpret their experiences in relation to other familiar concepts or ideas (Saban, 2010). Moreover, metaphors can be used for reflection (e.g. Lynch & Fisher-Ari, 2017) as they are a powerful means to reify previous experiences (Zhao, Coombs & Zhou, 2010) or to explore participants' cognition, including identities (e.g. Thomas & Beauchamp, 2011) beliefs (Ulusoy, 2022), as well as experiences (e.g. Craig, 2018) because they not only add a new perspective, generate a discussion of a certain topic (Saban, 2010), also “tease out connections which might not be made use of by direct questions” (Leavy, McSorley, & Bote, 2007, p. 1220).

In this study, we captured undergraduate students’ metaphorical conceptualizations of themselves during COVID-19 not only during online teaching but also in times of face-to-face teaching periods while the pandemic was ongoing. By exerting attention towards understanding university students' cognitive constructs through the use of metaphors, it is hoped that the study will help university students situate their learning context, in this case, ERT, and switch back face-to-face into their own reality. In this sense, it will also guide educators and teacher trainers in designing programs to support university students' learning process and help them be ready for similar scenarios. The findings from this study will also build upon the growing literature on ERT within an international higher education English Medium University (EMI) context and thus shed light on perceptions and needs of undergraduate students particularly during uncertain times and new steps to be taken in designing effective educational programs.With this in the background, the following research questions were developed according to Saban’s (2010) metaphor research question structure:

1. What metaphorical images do undergraduate students use to describe students during the COVID-19 (a) online teaching period and (b) face-to-face teaching period?

2. What are the conceptual themes derived from the metaphorical images regarding undergraduate students’ concept of students during the COVID-19 (a) online teaching period and (b) face-to-face teaching period?

3. Which factors affect undergraduate students’ conceptualizations of undergraduate students during the COVID-19 (a) online teaching period and (b) face-to-face teaching period?

4. What are the implications for online teaching and face-to-face teaching periods during uncertain times?

Networks hold a meeting during ECER. All interested are welcome.

According to a comparison of different occupational groups, academics rank among those with the highest levels of common mental problems: the prevalence of common psychological disorders estimated to be between 32% and 42% among academic employees and postgraduate students, compared to approximately 19% in the general population (Levecque, K. et.al.,2017). The recently experienced worldwide COVID-19 pandemic has also had significant effects on the working conditions in academia related to research, teaching and learning activities, worsening the pre-existing problem. There is significant literature on how researchers, in general, and early career researchers (ECR) in particular, are affected by the pandemic in terms of their research activity and environments, (academic) career development and prospects, and mental health and well-being. There are some reports which showed increase in job-loss fears, interrupted research and anxiety about the future (Woolston, 2020a) and seeking exit plans for leaving academia due to conditions caused by the pandemic (Woolston, 2020b).

The 2021 OECD report on research precarity, examining the policies and practices used to attract the most talented to improve quality of science, highlighted the worsening working conditions of postdoctoral researchers and their detrimental effects on researcher’s well-being encouraging stakeholders to quickly implement actions to prevent a loss of research talent, emphasizing the importance of stengthening the well-being of researchers. In line with this, the World Health Organisation (WHO, 2013), the International Labour Organisation (ILO, 2017), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2021) and the European Commission (EC) have increasingly endorsed governments and organizations to include mental health among their top priorities in the past decade. Many European countries and higher education and research institutions are taking these concerns seriously and have been taking measures to both provide support and to put in place policies to address well being and mental health of researchers. While some countries are slowly developing policies and support infrastructures, there are others who have well established policies in place along with effective support initiatives and practices. Across Europe, under Cost-REMO Researcher Mental Health Cost Action, work is conducted related to the data based determination of well-being and mental health of researchers, identification and dissemination of best practices and raising awareness among policy makers.

Particularly, the Action has built an international network of researchers from 41 European countries and several outside Europe to promote wellbeing and mental health within the research environment. The Researcher Mental Health and Well-Being Manifesto (2021) calls on stakeholders to act to foster mental health and wellbeing, reduce mental health stigma, and empower researchers to ensure well-being in their workplace. ReMO has built a network of researchers, practitioners and institutional stakeholders that support the objectives of the Manifesto through designing actions and initiatives to achieve impact at the policy, institutional, community and individual levels. As part of this work ReMO Cost Action has been coordinating a set of national briefs providing a background descriptionof the mental health and careers situation of researchers within national research environments throughout Europe to help offer critical reflections on how to leverage pan-European networks to advance dialogue on mental health and wellbeing policy across academia at all four levels identified above. With this panel discussion we aim to provide an opportunity to start the much needed conversation on policies and practices in place or lack thereof in relation to researchers’ well-being and mental health across Europe and within theEuropean Educational Research Association community. For the purposes of the panel discussion policy briefs from 4 different countries, namely Germany, Türkiye, Macedonia and Montenegro which differ from each other in significant ways will be presented to start the conversation on researcher well-being and mental health across Europe.