Conference Agenda

Digital learning and higher distance education programmes have surged in popularity, almost tripling from 10.6 million students worldwide in 2017 to 27.4 million by 2023, and predicted to rise further to 46.5 million by 2028 (Statista, 2023). The entry into the realm of distance learning for the first time is marked by complexities, as highlighted by Mittelmeier et al. (2019), making the initial experiences, study approaches, and adaptation strategies not straightforward or clear-cut. On the one hand, students acknowledge benefits, such as high flexibility and easy integration with other commitments (Belousova et al., 2022). At the same time, they also report facing a host of challenges, including motivational hurdles and limited student interaction (Brown et al., 2015).

The transition phase into higher education is pivotal for successful learning, whether students are studying in person or digitally (Coertjens et al., 2017). Navigating the initial study requirements effectively allows students to cultivate essential study skills, laying the foundation for successful academic pursuits (Trautwein & Bosse, 2017). However, the study start is often challenging for many students. In general, retention rates at the end of the first year of higher education show up to a quarter of students leaving their degree (see e.g., Van Herpen et al., 2020). Notably, distance learners exhibit lower success rates compared to their on-campus counterparts, as evidenced by Fojtík’s (2018) study, where only 39% of distance learning students in a computer science program successfully completed their first semester courses, compared to 64% of in-person students. For distance learners, establishing a sense of belonging to the university and course of study proves particularly troublesome, contributing to higher attrition rates than those observed among on-campus students (Canty et al., 2020).

Focusing on the period of transition into higher education is important because the more positive the experience of this period, the more likely students are to remain enrolled and persist (Haktanir et al., 2021). However, in general, there is still little international research on the transition specifically into distance education and digital learning environments, leaving gaps in our understanding of student experiences, expectations, needs, and challenges during this crucial phase and in this specific context. To consolidate existing knowledge on this topic, we are undertaking a scoping review aimed at consolidating existing knowledge on the transition into distance education in higher education settings. Our research question, “What is known about the transition into distance education in higher education settings?” will guide a methodical exploration of published sources, aiming to discern insights into this transitional process within distance education. Key concepts will be identified and classified, theoretical and empirical insights will be gathered, and content boundaries will be defined. Our ultimate goal is to translate these findings into practical guidance for distance education providers, lecturers, study advisors, and prospective students, contributing to more effective digital learning. This urgency is underscored by the growing global importance of distance education and the pivotal role the start of studies plays in fostering successful learning.

One of the most significant processes that has established Kazakhstani higher education in the global arena was entering the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and joining the Bologna Process (BP) in 2010. Being the first Central Asian country, Kazakhstan became the forty-seventh member of the EHEA. After signing the Bologna Declaration, Kazakhstani higher education switched to the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) and adopted the National Qualifications Framework (IQAA, n.d.).

The impact of the Bologna Process on Kazakhstani education is undoubtedly significant. In 2011, Kazakhstan replaced the Soviet two-tier system for training researchers, comprising the Candidate of Science and Doctor of Science degrees, with the PhD system, aligning with the European Bologna Process (OECD, 2017). This had a great impact on faculty promotion and remuneration policies in Kazakhstani universities. Awarding titles like professor and academic professor signifies the research and academic pursuits of faculty members subsequent to earning their academic degrees. The process for accrediting scientific and educational staff is a critical step in advancing within the academic sector. In the years following independence, the criteria and approach for conferring these titles, especially regarding research activities, have been modified. From 2011 onwards, a key requirement for receiving an academic title has involved publishing in globally acknowledged peer-reviewed journals featured in Scopus and Web of Science. Additionally, career policies and management processes in universities are steered by principles of accountability and transparency. The tradition of producing annual reports, accessible to the public and authored by rectors of national universities, has been established and recently expanded to include all universities in Kazakhstan (IAC, 2022). Consequently, faculty in higher education are increasingly driven to demonstrate their research effectiveness to align with the modern standards of higher education.

Even within the local policy context of Kazakhstan, there is a dearth of empirical critical research on faculty performativity in regional universities. Much research has been done in major cities and megalopolises of the country (see for example, Kuzhabekova & Mukhamejanova, 2017). This study specifically focuses on regional universities located in three provinces of Kazakhstan.

The proposed study has explored how faculty members at regional public universities adapt to and experience neoliberal reforms in the post-socialist context of higher education. The study pursued the following research question: (1) What are the changing patterns of the academic profession in regional public universities in Kazakhstan?

Numerous studies have examined the academic profession globally (Cummings, 2008; Teichler et al., 2013), but post-socialist higher education contexts remain less explored (Lee & Kuzhabekova, 2019). Notably, the prominent “Changing Academic Profession”study primarily focuses on leading educational systems, overlooking post-socialist regions (Teichler et al., 2013).

Overall, this study makes an effort to bring attention to underrepresented voices in academia, inform policy reforms that better cater to the needs of regional public universities, and contribute to the professional development and recognition of faculty members in Kazakhstan’s higher education landscape. Moreover, the study aims at contributing knowledge about changing academic professions to international literature by shedding the light on the Central Asian region as the survey had been adapted to the Kazakhstani/Central Asian post-socialist context.

In the current educational landscape, the Learn to Learn (LtL) competence stands out as a crucial element in the academic and personal formation of university students, highlighting the urgent need for curriculum design that promotes its development. This study, which is part of a broader research project focusing on the design and curricular development of this competence in university programmes, presents the results of the implementation of two methodological proposals aimed at promoting and assessing this competence.

The LtL competence, conceptualised as a personal, social and learning skill according to the guidelines of the European Competence Framework (CE, 2018), has gained crucial importance in the contemporary educational context. Its definition has evolved over time, expanding beyond the cognitive, metacognitive and affective-motivational dimensions initially considered (Pintrich, 2004; Weinstein, Husman & Dierking, 2002; Zimmerman, 2000). Additional dimensions such as the social-relational (Hadwin, Wozney & Pontin, 2005; Järvelä, Järvenoja & Malmberg, 2019; Zimmerman, 2000) and, more recently, the ethical dimension (Gargallo-López et al., 2020) have been included, enriching its understanding and scope.

Given the intrinsic complexity of LtL competence, this intervention phase includes experiences aimed at validating methodologies focused on the development of specific dimensions and sub-dimensions. In particular, this study focuses on the cognitive dimension, emphasising effective information management and the use of information and communication technologies (ICT), and the metacognitive dimension, with a particular emphasis on problem solving as a fundamental strategy for developing critical and reflective skills in students.

The strategies implemented took place in specific subjects of two different university programmes. Firstly, the first year course in Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Heritage (CRBC) addressed the specificities of this discipline and its multidisciplinary context, where problem solving is essential for academic and professional success. Secondly, attention was drawn to a second year course in the Dual Degree in Food Science and Technology / Business Administration and Management (CTA/ADE), highlighting its intrinsic relationship with information management and analysis.

The main relevance of this research lies in its contribution to the design of specific interventions that address the cognitive and metacognitive dimensions of learning-to-learn competence. The results obtained will not only provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of these strategies in different university environments, but will also provide a solid basis for future research and curriculum improvement. In this context, it is expected that this study will not only benefit the academic community involved, but will also have a positive impact on society at large by promoting the holistic development of students and preparing them for the changing challenges of the contemporary world.

In recent years, the service-learning (SL) methodology has experienced an unprecedented boom in the countries within our political and cultural sphere, creating a challenging terrain for researchers interested in studying its impact, measuring its outcomes, and even effectively developing its implementation. This pedagogy, which integrates academic learning with community service, fosters deep and meaningful educational experiences for those involved, surpassing the cognitive-social expectations of more conventional educational strategies.

The inherited university model from the past (20th century and earlier), sometimes referred to as the "ivory tower," has recently faced significant criticism from both civil society and the academic sphere due to its perceived detachment from social reality. In our immediate context, this underlying issue influenced efforts to adopt the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), the seed of more comprehensive views on learning and competency development (Santos Rego, Mella-Núñez et al., 2020).

We are talking about a paradigm shift, as the central idea promoting it is that knowledge, dynamically linked to human activity, should ideally resonate with the notion of (social) change. Therefore, it is not surprising that SL has become a significant strategy for bridging the university-community gap. However, it seems clear that its scope and effectiveness will depend largely on the quality of experiences, and it is the responsibility of the research community to discover the best strategies for these purposes.

In summary, we could discuss two predominant approaches in research on SL (Bringle, 2003): on the one hand, the comparison of subjects where the methodology is applied with those using more conventional strategies, and on the other hand, the evaluation of how different course configurations impact better or worse outcomes.

It is evident that when delving into the study of SL implementation, we encounter a rich diversity of experiences, interventions, and contexts reflecting the adaptability of the methodology. However, it is precisely in this variety where difficulties arise in evaluating the quality of courses accurately and coherently. Thus, energizing a homogeneous method to study them becomes a challenge of great relevance.

It should not be surprising, therefore, that due to this added difficulty, many studies point out the lack of research on the conceptual and operational quality of the methodology itself. Most analyze the results obtained by participants, ignoring other issues related to the form of participation (Imperial et al., 2007). Sufficient reason to consider quality evaluation a promising research line, especially if we want to ensure that SL courses achieve their goals and intensify benefits, naturally including the necessary emphasis on civic engagement.

Historically, we attribute to Sigmon (1979) the merit of establishing the first quality principles in Service-Learning. Since then, we have witnessed a sufficiently constructive dialogue that would impact future SL courses and the deliberative axis around what are, or should be, best practices in using the methodology. Despite the emergence of multiple classifications to elucidate quality programs, what matters is to show dimensions with a real impact on results.

However, the study we have conducted primarily aims to analyze the most relevant quality criteria in Service-Learning. To achieve this, we carried out a systematic literature review, specifically focusing on understanding how criteria affected real experiences. The goal is to illuminate 'key factors' that can contribute to good methodology practices, helping - in the process - to better understand the positive impact of SL in those circumstances.

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).

Learning to Learn (LtL) is one of the eight key competences that the European Commission proposed for education systems (EC, 2006) and this competence was described as follows:

“Learning to learn” is the ability to pursue and persist in learning […], to organise one’s own learning, including through effective management of time and information, both individually and in groups. […] awareness of one’s learning process […] identifying available opportunities […] overcome obstacles in order to learn successfully. […] gaining, processing and assimilating new knowledge and skills. […] to use and apply knowledge and skills in a variety of contexts […]. Motivation and confidence are crucial to an individual’s competence. (p. 16)

Later, the European Council reformulated this competence, setting out the “Personal, Social and Learning to Learn Competence” (EC, 2018), which places more importance on social aspects than in the earlier definition:

Personal, social and learning to learn competence is the ability to reflect upon oneself, effectively manage time and information, work with others in a constructive way, remain resilient and manage one’s own learning and career. It includes the ability to cope with uncertainty and complexity, learn to learn, support one’s physical and emotional well-being […] empathize and manage conflict. (p. 5)

The definition of LtL relies mainly on the scientific literature on Strategic Learning (SL) (Weinsten, 1988) and Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) (Pintrich, 2004; Zimmerman, 2002).

Based on a literature review, our research team developed a model on LtL, including the three classical dimensions coming from the theory about SL and SRL: Cognitive, Metacognitive and Affective-Motivational, an also the Social-Relational dimension, rooted in the social-cognitive theory (Thoutenhoofd & Pirrie, 2013). These ideas clearly influenced the current proposal of the EU (2018), who has renamed LTL as ‘personal, social and learning to learn competence’ (Caena, 2019); Sala et al., 2020).

We added to these four dimensions a fifth one, an Ethical dimension (Gargallo et al. 2020). It is necessary, to handle the learning to learn competence well, that students respect ethical codes and contribute to create an increasingly equitable society (Cortina, 2013; Buxarrais & Conceiçao, 2017).

The European Union aimed for students to achieve an adequate mastery of LtL at the end of compulsory schooling. Generally speaking, we tend to think that students manage it quite well when they start university, and that this management will improve as they continue their university studies. However, this assumption needs to be verified. It is not proved that university students handle this competence with an adequate skill, and there are some researchers who defend that they need specific training (Cameron and Rideout, 2020; Viejo and Ortega-Ruiz, 2018).

So, we believe that is very important to establish whether university students manage LtL well and to analyse its impact on academic achievement, given that there are few studies available on the topic in higher education. For this purpose, we have collected data from the research Project we are developing[1].

The aim of this work is to concrete the level at which this competence is managed, and also to delimit profiles of LtL use by university students and their relation to academic performance.

Based on these data, we are developing in our current research project an intervention model for teaching this competence, which may be useful for European researchers and university teachers.

[1] ‘The learning to learn competence in the university, its design and curriculum development. a model of intervention and its application in university degrees’ Project PID2021-123523NB-I00, funded by the MCIN/AEI /10.13039/501100011033 and by ERDF A way of making Europe.

Higher education is essential for economic and social mobility (Brown, 2013). First-generation college students (FGCS) are students who are the first in their families to pursue higher education (Garriott & Nisle, 2018). For FGCS, being a college student means having to contend with more potential stressors throughout their higher education (Garriott & Nisle, 2018). Furthermore, FGCS are more likely to drop out than non-FGCS (Fletcher et al., 2022). Compared to non-FGCS, FGCS are disadvantaged in terms of academic achievement and sense of belonging at college (Wilbur & Roscigno, 2016). A notable percentage of FGCS come from ethnic minority groups (Longwell-Grice et al., 2016). This combination, of being FGCS and an ethnic minority, is associated with adversities in terms of academic achievement, wellbeing, and academic stress (Williams et al., 2024). Additionally, it highlights the importance of targeted interventions for ethnic minority FGCS as underrepresented group (Gehringer et al., 2022).

There is a growing recognition regarding psychosocial resources with which a student can manage the challenges required for successful integration into academic studies (Phillips-Berenstein et al., 2023). The Psychosocial Readiness for College (PRC) model and measure (Phillips-Berenstein et al., 2023), describes six psychosocial resources that ease the challenges of academic performance and enable academic persistence: (a) academic self-efficacy; (b) educational commitment; (c) social comfort; (d) campus engagement; (e) self-discipline; and (f) resilience. Based on the research of Robbins et al. (2004), we aimed in the present research to add an additional factor: (g) institutional commitment, referring to a student’s commitment to study in the current higher education institution and their preference for the current institution over others. Phillips-Berenstein et al. (2023) found that FGCS were higher than non-FGCS in educational commitment and self-discipline. Additionally, they found that students with low levels of educational commitment, social сomfort, and campus engagement are two to three times more likely to dropout of college (Phillips-Berenstein et al., 2023).

An additional factor that may affect optimal college integration is the meaning individuals ascribe to higher education. The Higher Education Orientations model and measure (HEO; Willner et al., 2023) is conceptualized with five distinct purposes for attending college: (a) gaining a profession; (b) gaining knowledge; (c) external pressure; (d) prestige; and (e) social networking. Willner et al. (2023) used the HEO questionnaire among deliberating young adults and college applicants to see how these factors affected their career decision making process. According to their research individuals seeking to gain profession and knowledge were found to use productive coping strategies and were further along the decision-making process. Contrary, individuals leaning more towards the social, prestige, and external orientations faced more career decision-making difficulties, used nonproductive coping strategies, and were farther behind the decision-making process (Willner et al., 2023).

The Present Research

The intersection of being an ethnic minority and a FGCS may lead to heightened levels of disadvantages. This highlights the importance of understanding two essential factors concerning integration and persistence in higher education: psychosocial readiness for college and higher education orientations. Despite their importance, they have not been studied among ethnic minority FGCS and non-FGCS. Thus, the first goal of this study is to test differences in psychosocial readiness for college and higher education orientations among FGCS and non-FGCS Arab ethnic minority first year college students in Israel. The second goal is to test how these factors predict academic satisfaction one year later. Examining these factors enriches the knowledge about ethnic minority FGCS and non-FGCS, which may contribute to other ethnic minorities. Considering the contribution of academic satisfaction to college persistence, understanding the link between the studied factors and academic satisfaction can enrich the knowledge about college attrition.