Conference Agenda

Higher education is widely regarded as a natural setting for active and critically stimulating teaching and learning, drawing on a wide range of instructional practices that support deep learning and students’ critical engagement (Hermann, 2013). In recent years, increasing attention has been paid in higher education to students’ active engagement in the teaching and learning process as one of the key prerequisites for high-quality learning and professional development. From this perspective, good teaching is understood as teaching that encourages students to actively discuss subject matter, thereby providing them with sufficient opportunities to practise sophisticated communicative skills that may become their cognitive habits (Šeďová, Šalamounová, Švaříček, et al., 2019). This emphasis is particularly significant in the context of pre-service teacher education (Simpson, 2016), where university teaching not only mediates disciplinary knowledge but also models pedagogical approaches that future teachers may later transfer into their own instructional practice.

This study focuses on how university teachers create opportunities for student participation through their interactional practices and on how students themselves actively contribute to the teaching and learning process. Teaching and learning are understood as a process of co-creation, in which knowledge, meanings, and learning opportunities are jointly constructed through dialogic interaction between teachers and students, rather than being unilaterally transmitted from expert to novice. The study is grounded in sociocultural and dialogic perspectives on learning, which conceptualize learning as a socially situated process emerging through interaction. Drawing on Nystrand’s (2001) concept of mutual reactivity, productive classroom dialogue is understood as a sequence of interconnected exchanges in which participants respond to and build upon each other’s contributions, rather than merely reproducing predetermined answers. Examining mutual reactivity in higher education classrooms is important because it illuminates micro-level interactional mechanisms that enable or constrain student engagement. By focusing on how teachers and students respond to one another in real time, research on mutual reactivity moves beyond static descriptions of participation and captures the dynamic, co-constructed nature of pedagogical communication. Understanding these interactional processes is particularly relevant in university teaching, where dialogic practices are often assumed but not systematically examined to the same extent.

The findings of this study contribute to a deeper understanding of how dialogic and responsive teaching is enacted in practice and how specific interactional strategies support students’ active involvement in learning. From a practical perspective, the findings may contribute to the professional development of university teachers by offering empirically grounded insights into communicative practices that promote student participation, support deeper learning, and model dialogic approaches that future teachers can transfer into their own pedagogical practice.

In the contemporary landscape of higher education, the production and distribution of professional knowledge are increasingly conditioned by what may be termed a "poly-crisis": a confluence of diminishing clinical placement opportunities and heightened trainee-to-trainer ratios. As clinical placements become scarce due to socio-economic and geographic peripheries, higher education institutions must innovate to ensure the development of "situated" professional competence. This study investigates the effectiveness of clinical simulations—a high-fidelity pedagogical tool—in fostering professional efficacy and managing the psychological dynamics of stress among students in Communication Disorders (CD).

Drawing on Bandura’s (1997) theoretical framework, professional efficacy is defined as a student’s belief in their ability to master professional tasks and meet clinical challenges. Scientific knowledge in clinical fields is not merely an abstract set of rules; it is a lived, "time- and place-bound" performance. Simulations provide a "safe" yet realistic ecosystem where this knowledge is taken up by its users through cycles of experience, feedback, and reflection. This research explores whether these simulations successfully mediate the transition from academic theory to clinical readiness, particularly regarding interpersonal therapeutic skills and professional identity, and thus is relevant to all CD practitioners, regardless of their institution of learning.

This investigation employed a mixed-methods design involving 64 first- and second-year CD students. Quantitative data were gathered via a customized Professional Efficacy Questionnaire (adapted from the SLP-CSEI) and self-reported stress scales administered pre- and post-simulation. The qualitative dimension utilized semi-structured interviews with 21 participants, analyzed through phenomenological content analysis to capture the "lived experience" of the simulation.

Quantitative results indicated a robust and statistically significant increase in both general and simulation-specific professional efficacy. For general efficacy, mean scores rose from M=3.59 to M=3.99 (p<.001,d=0.73), demonstrating a large effect size. Interestingly, while the quantitative data showed no significant reduction in immediate stress levels, the qualitative findings revealed a more nuanced reality. Students described simulations as "emotionally charged" threshold experiences. Six core themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: the emotional response to participation, observation as a form of "embodied learning," the instructor as an affective-cognitive scaffold, navigating complex communication with families, the emergence of professional identity, and the development of empathic communication.

The findings suggest that simulations serve as a "lived crucible" where theoretical knowledge merges with practice. Crucially, the study highlights that observation is not a passive act but a deeply "embodied" form of learning where students experience vicarious stress and rehearse emotional regulation. Furthermore, the role of the moderator as a "scaffold" was identified as essential for transforming raw experience into reflective insight. Despite the high economic cost—estimated at three times the cost of traditional placements—the study justifies simulations as a necessary intervention in a shifting academic ecosystem. By fostering professional identity and empathic dialogue in a controlled environment, simulations address the need for creative and caring education research that prepares professionals for a complex, fluctuating world.

In recent decades, political, practical, and scholarly interest in teaching methods that aim to activate students has grown significantly. These methods are commonly referred to as active learning (AL). This doctoral dissertation explores AL within the context of engineering higher education (EHE).

AL is a complex concept. It has been used to refer to two distinct aspects: learning (including psychological and social constructs) or teaching (including instructional pedagogies, strategies, and design principles) (Drew & Mackie, 2011; Lombardi et al., 2021). Scholarly discussions on AL as teaching in HE have primarily focused on three viewpoints. First, definitions of AL as teaching emphasize its distinction from lectures and its role in promoting students’ participation (Doolittle et al., 2023; Prince, 2004). Second, AL is theoretically linked mainly to constructivism (Driessen, 2020; Prince, 2004) although humanist ideals are also evident (Misseyanni et al., 2018). These perspectives have inspired student-centered teaching principles often associated with AL (Doolittle et al., 2023). Third, there is significant interest in the outcomes of AL—both its effectiveness in achieving intended learning outcomes (Pasquinelli, 2011) and its role in fostering graduate attributes valued by employers and society (Drew & Mackie, 2011). Consequently, encouraging students to be active in learning is now almost universally accepted (Dall’Alba & Bengtsen, 2019). However, there is no shared understanding of how AL should be defined (Drew & Mackie, 2011; Watters, 2014), and many scholars do not define AL at all (Doolittle et al., 2023; Driessen et al.; 2020). Therefore, further research is needed on the conceptualization of AL.

In addition to conceptual issues, the widespread adoption of AL has practical implications for students. Although previous research has shown promising evidence of AL’s effectiveness in supporting desired learning outcomes (e.g., Freeman et al., 2014), not all studies have found positive results (e.g., Kapur et al., 2022). Additionally, many findings suggest that AL is not always a pleasant experience for students, but can enhance anxiety (Cooper et al., 2018), resistance (Shekhar et al., 2020) or feelings of incompetence (Chen et al., 2023; Shekhar et al., 2020). Additionally, group work in AL introduces several emotional and social difficulties, such as social loafing and interpersonal conflicts (Borrego et al., 2013). Consequently, understanding how students experience AL as a learning process is of great importance. This dissertation shifts the focus from students’ learning outcomes to their learning processes. Student experiences of these processes are investigated through two theoretical lenses: Control value theory (CVT) of achievement emotions (Pekrun, 2006; Pekrun et al., 2023) and basisc psychological need theory (BPNT) from self-determination theory (SDT) (Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2017). CVT emphasizes students’ appraisals of control and value as antecedents of emotions that influence performance and achievement (Pekrun et al., 2023). BPNT identifies three psychological needs, autonomy, competence, and relatedness, that drive more autonomous forms of motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Exploring students’ experiences of AL through these theories provides insights into how AL shapes learning processes, particularly through perceived control and autonomy and competence satisfaction.

The research has two main aims. First, it seeks to provide an overview of the state of AL research in EHE. The second aim is to develop a deeper understanding of how AL shapes students’ learning processes. The research questions are:

1. How is active learning defined and rationalized in engineering higher education research?

2. How is active learning experienced by students with respect to emotions and motivation?