Conference Agenda

Recent technological advancements have significantly impacted higher education, expanded access, and created new learning opportunities. This transformation is reflected in the changing demographics of university students, as seen in the consistently rising enrolment numbers and the emergence of more diverse student groups (EUROSTUDENT, 2018; Ólafsdóttir & Jónasson, 2017).
As a result, the task of designing courses that effectively meet the needs of all students has become more challenging. Recognizing the crucial role of engagement and motivation in student success, it has become evident that designing courses to address the expectations and needs of a diverse student body at the university level is a complex process. In this context, actively involving students in the course design process has been identified as a key factor in enhancing their interest and promoting success in learning (Bovill & Woolmer, 2019; Cook-Sather et al., 2014; Jones, 2009; 2018; 2019).
Curriculum serves as the foundational structure for educational experiences, encompassing the entire educational planning spectrum, from design to implementation and program evaluation. The intended curriculum sets educational goals and content, acting as a guide for student learning. The translation from intended to attained curriculum is influenced by instructional methods, interactions, and the learning environment, with student participation crucial in bridging this gap (Bovill & Woolmer, 2019; Thijs & van den Akker, 2009). 
Cook-Sather et al., (2014) have developed a ladder of active student participation in curriculum design, which delineates levels of student involvement, ranging from passive reception to active collaboration. They argue that empowering students along this ladder fosters motivation, a sense of ownership, and enhances the likelihood of achieving the intended curriculum (Cook-Sather et al., 2014). The implemented curriculum reflects the dynamic interplay between educators, students, and the learning context, where active student participation contributes to co-creating knowledge and enriching the educational experience (Cook-Sather et al., 2014). 

In conjunction with the Ladder, the MUSIC model of motivation identifies five key elements—eMpowerment, Usefulness, Success, Interest, and Caring—that collectively contribute to a motivational learning experience. Thus, by incorporating these elements into course design and teaching practices, educators can enhance student motivation (Jones, 2009; 2018; 2019). 

Addressing these aspects of curriculum design and implementation calls for teachers’ continuous development of academic knowledge and teaching skills. The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) ideology integrates teaching and research, providing a framework to cultivate these competencies (Gurung and Swartz, 2013). Thus, SoTL assists higher education teachers in meeting the increasing demands of teaching quality for diverse student groups (Ólafsdóttir & Geirsdóttir, 2022).  SoTL encompasses concepts, research, and knowledge defining professional teaching, involving theoretical framework development, reflective practices, and dialogues with colleagues and students about teaching and learning (Boyer, 1990; Groccia, 2023; Potter & Kustra, 2011). 
The study presented here focused on student participation in curriculum development in higher education and used the MUSIC model of motivation as a conceptual framework when analyzing the data collected from the students participating in the study. Its primary aim was to explore students' experiences of being actively involved as curriculum co-creators in three courses on the digitalization of education, part of a teacher education study program in a public university in Iceland. The central question guiding the research was: How do students perceive being actively included as co-creators of the curriculum, and how does this perception relate to the foundational principles of the MUSIC model of motivation? 

The study aligns with international trends in research on learning and teaching development in higher education, emphasizing the active involvement of students in the curriculum design process. It contributes to the understanding of how collaboration between students and teachers positively impacts the quality of education. 

Higher education institutions are increasingly developing professional development (PD) programs for university academics as part of an increased international focus on teaching and learning (Hundey et al., 2020). In this regard, research has called for approaches addressing theories of social learning, experiential learning and collaborative learning for professional growth (Laksov, 2022). In the same manner Mentorship in PD is equally gaining attention (Ince, 2017, Cree-Green et al., 2020). Despite recognition of its benefits, the literature has not conclusively defined the theoretical foundations, duration, or approaches and outcomes of optimal mentorship in PD (Hallman et al., 2020). While several studies have discussed mentorship for early career academics (ECAs), few have been embedded in a context of institutionalized approaches focusing on pedagogical development, and most studies are based on small sample sizes or conducted with no subsequent empirical analysis (Hundey et al., 2020; Pleschova & McAlpine, 2015). Recent literature has thus called for further research to explore mentorship using diverse methodologies, larger samples, and longer-term studies (Pleschova & McAlpine, 2015).

In the higher education literature, several terms such as mentoring, coaching, tutoring, facilitating, and supervising refer to a similar goal of supporting inexperienced educators. Rather than trying to distinguish between these concepts, we find that they all share a common set of imbedded beliefs and practices. Thus, this study adopts the operationalized definition of mentoring used in Pleschova and McAlpine (2015), which emphasises long-term cooperation between teachers and colleagues with more teaching experience and expertise with the aim of educational development and the enhancement of teachers’ pedagogic practice.

The study took place at a Danish University, that provides an institutionalized long-term (12 month) PD program for ECAs. The program is multi-tiered, based on social constructivist theories of adult learning, and follows principles of problem and project-based learning. It comprises participant-centred workshops, collaborative teamwork, individual project work, and mentorship. Uniquely, it employs a collaborative approach to mentorship through a two-mentor setup: a subject mentor from the mentees’ close environment, and a pedagogical mentor from the Centre for Teaching and Learning. While the pedagogical mentor supports the ECA by providing generic pedagogical knowledge, the subject mentor provides support regarding discipline-related teaching and interaction within the immediate work environment (the study program or department). Considering the unique structure of mentorship, this study explores how both mentors perceive their roles by drawing on their experiences, guided by the research question:

What are the views of mentors—both subject-focused and pedagogy-focused—on their role of supporting ECAs in a long-term academic development program?

Conceptual framework

Recent literature calls for a systems-thinking approach to supporting academics’ professional learning (Arnesson & Albinsson, 2017; Hundey et al., 2020; Hallman et al., 2020; Ince, 2017). On this basis, this study conceptualizes the mentor’s role as a situated, contextualized, erratic, enacted, and practiced along three interrelated dimensions: the mentor’s individual characteristics, dynamic relations through collaboration, and contextual interaction.

The individual characteristics dimension describes the congruence between values and practices (Ince 2017).

The relational dimension focus on how mentors engage with relationship dynamics in groups. Relationship-oriented mentoring is increasingly being reported as an effective PD approach, underlining mutual respect and reciprocal learning (Arnesson & Albinsson, 2017).

The contextual dimension involves mentors’ constant interactions with their environment. Mentorship is recognized as a sustainable resource for ECAs with mentors coordinating organizational activities and supporting community building, facilitating a common language, and building cultures of trust (Laksov 2022).

The proposed framework serves as a conceptual foundation driving the research design and the process of exploring mentors’ subjective views.

Introduction

Global competence is essential for equipping future citizens to effectively participate in sustainable development activities and contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (OECD, 2019). Recognizing the importance of fostering responsible action towards sustainable development, modern higher education institutions are increasingly incorporating it into their educational agendas(Auld & Morris, 2019). Traditionally, higher institutions have focused on providing specialized,professionally-oriented majors meet the professional skill demands of students (Huang & Chen, 2013). However, developing courses oriented towards fostering students’ global competence, which demand interdisciplinary approaches and embrace diversity, poses a significant challenge (Mossman, 2018). While there is extensive literature on developing global competence among university students, most of it is based on Western contexts, with limited research and practice reflecting an oriental perspective. This gap highlights the need for a more inclusive and diverse exploration that incorporates Eastern educational contexts and practices, offering a broader, more balanced insights into how to foster undergraduates’ global competence effectively.

Research objective

This paper introduced an exploratory action research study focused on identifying university-level course design strategies that could substantially elevate the global competence of students from diverse cultural backgrounds. The objective of this research is to explore the pedagogical ways in which the student learning goal of developing global competence can be diffused effectively into the SDG-focused courses. By doing this, this study hopes to offer both theoretical and practical insights into the understanding on the instructional design of university courses, which with a specific focus on addressing undergraduates’ learning needs on global competence.

Theoretical framework:

Global competence emerged as a concept in the context of globalization to address the needs of international cooperation. At the end of the 20th century, the concept of global competence was first introduced from the perspective of enhancing international understanding (CIEE, 2014). Since then, academic discourse on global competence has intensified, with scholars proposing theoretical frameworks to elucidate it. For instance,Olson and Kroeger (Olson & Kroeger, 2001) divided global competence into three dimensions: knowledge, attitudes, and skills.Subsequently, Asia Society suggested adding a dimension of behavioral capability to these three dimensions. Later, the OECD proposed a framework for assessing students’ global competence in its 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).It defines global competence as a multidimensional lifelong learning goal, encompassing an individual’s capacity to examine local, global, and intercultural issues; to understand and appreciate different perspectives and worldviews; to respect others and interact effectively; and to take responsible action for collective well-being.

The 'Integrated Course Design' model, is a globally recognized framework in the field of instructional design, and widely adopted by educators (Fink, 2005; Branch & Dousay, 2015). This model encompasses three key design elements: (1) Learning Goals, which are the expected student learning outcomes; (2) Teaching and Learning Activities; and (3) Feedback/Assessment. The latter involves both students and teachers using appropriate evaluation methods to ascertain whether the anticipated learning objectives have been met. This includes teachers gathering feedback on student learning outcomes, as well as students receiving feedback based on the teacher's feedback. These elements create a closed loop and establish a mutually supportive relationship.

This study references the conceptualization of global competence as proposed by the OECD and employed the 'Integrated Course Design' model as a focused theoretical framework to guide the instructional design in this study. global competence is adopted as one of the learning objectives, integrated with subject-specific goals within the framework of course designs. The design of teaching activities is meticulously structured around the the four dimensions of global competence. Throughout the instructional process, formative assessments are utilized as the evidences for evaluating the course design.

From a perspective of social responsibility, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) cannot remain on the sidelines of the profound changes which are taking place on the planet, such as poverty, inequality, climate change and environmental degradation, among others. Consequently, HEIs have a pivotal role in promoting The United Nation’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and Social Transformation (UN, 2019) with its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) as universities have the ethical duty to train committed citizens, with social awareness and capacity for critical analysis to make appropriate decisions and clearly provide pathways to achieve a better future (Rodríguez-Izquierdo and Lorenzo Moledo, 2023).

In this sense, Service Learning (SL) is anchored in the strategic projects of many universities internationally, committed to enhance students’ academic learning, social responsibility, and citizenship skills, while developing community capacity through service (Rodríguez-Izquierdo, 2021). It is specifically this experiential learning and its ethic and civic dimensions that render SL as a suitable approach to work in the same direction as the SDGs (Rodríguez-Izquierdo, 2023; Ruiz-Corbella and García-Gutiérrez, 2023; Sotelino-Losada et al. 2023). It is worth noting that the SL approach seems to go against the present neoliberal, performative, market driven culture of HE based on other types of indicators such as the labour market and the ranking systems.

This paper seeks to identify and examine the scientific literature (2015–2023) on the interconnectedness between SL and the SDGs in HEIs, to provide knowledge of the state of the art and the advances that have been made in this field. The specific questions that guided the study were defined as follows: How interest in this topic has evolved? What is being researched about SL and SDGs? How do researchers approach the topic? What are the contributions of SL towards the development of SDGs in HEIs? Further, the study will expand the existing literature in sustainability education and provide insights into the impact on the expansion of SDGs through the implementation of SL courses in HE.