Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:30:05 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
22 SES 02 B: Curricul and Student Study
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper Who Owns the Map? Uprooting the University and Letting the Curriculum Go Wild The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong S.A.R. (China) Presenting Author:The rapid integration of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in education constitutes a critical dimension of the poly-crisis facing higher education institutions, threatening trust in the value of its knowledge production function. Dominant institutional response to GenAI has been defensive and arborescent, rooted in surveillance, bans, or a retreat to invigilated examinations to protect the status quo of credentialing (Tsao, 2025). This paper argues that such attempts to out-design or police AI are futile, and defends a transactional and inherently neoliberal view of education that the technology can already simulate with increasing efficiency. This submission reinvigorates pivots toward affirmative rhizomatic pedagogies, grounded in the philosophy of Deleuze and Guattari (1987). The concept of the rhizome aims to rethink teaching and learning in a post-digital, AI-saturated contemporary and how pedagogical and assessment practices could change when knowing is about becoming. Furthermore, this paper positions the rhizome as a necessary decolonial intervention, which has no centre, resists hierarchy, and values the periphery. The concept challenges the homogenising force of algorithmic bias that privileges epistemological colonisation, enforcing a statistical consensus derived primarily from Global North data and English-centric corpora, and the centralisation of epistemic power among technological elites. Contrasting arborescent structures (hierarchy, linearity, and tracing) against rhizomatic networks (non-linearity, heterogeneity, and mapping), the paper posits that while GenAI outputs appear rhizomatic, the underlying architecture behind transformer or diffusion technology is fundamentally arborescent because they operate through probabilistic adjacency, error minimisation, and consensus-seeking, thus functioning as powerful engines of reproduction rather than novelty. This research responds to the global urgency of redefining human learning, aligning with the European Union’s Digital Education Action Plan which prioritises critical digital literacy and human agency. The paper asks: How can we design learning that works in productive tension alongside AI? By applying the six principles of the rhizome—connection, heterogeneity, multiplicity, asignifying rupture, cartography, and decalcomania—this proposal outlines a transdisciplinary nexus (Gibbs, 2026) for education that secures the future of academia by cultivating “nomadic” learners capable of traversing the uncertain terrains that AI cannot map: the embodied, the situated, and the semantic. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This paper uses Deleuze and Guattari’s geo-philosophy and conceptual methodology through a “diffractive reading” to interrogate learning and architecture of GenAI. The inquiry proceeds in two analytical stages. First, it performs an ontological critique of GenAI capabilities and identifies the asymmetries between algorithmic processing and human learning. It argues that AI operates through tracing (reproducing deep structures and statistical patterns) and probabilistic adjacency (connecting tokens based on likelihood). In contrast, rhizomatic human learning relies on mapping (constructing new realities) and semantic novelty. Second, the paper operationalises these theoretical distinctions into pedagogical design principles. It maps the six principles of the rhizome against specific assessment challenges posed by AI. This involves a synthesis of recent critical educational technology scholarship (Selwyn, 2024; Gašević et al., 2023) and post-digital learning theories (Fawns, 2022). The conceptual framework critiques current assessment practices and speculates on and prototypes new rhizomatic approaches designed to be AI-resilient not by exclusion, but by requiring inputs that AI cannot access—specifically embodied experience, material heterogeneity, and the “n-1” dimensions of the learning process. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The paper concludes that higher education must move more towards three specific pedagogical pivots. The first and most apparent is the shift from assessment of static products to the “n-1” dimensions of the process. Teachers can evaluate the genealogy of ideas, including concept sketches, prompt logs, discarded drafts, and the iterative dialogues between student intent and AI output. Second, the shift from semiotics to heterogeneity; since AI processes representations rather than reality, rhizomatic assessment must anchor learning in heterogeneous assemblages by connecting text to the material world, embodied experience, and localised contexts where human “flesh” (Merleau-Ponty, 1968) retains epistemic purchase. Third, a movement from tracing to mapping, with the teacher assuming the role of cartographer-guides, supporting students taking AI outputs as tracings (consensus baselines) that must be returned to the map for critique and reterritorialisation. Ultimately, this work suggests that the poly-crisis that includes AI is an opportunity to shed archaic, transactional educational models. By (re)centring rhizomatic principles, universities can foster learning that is not about replicating established hierarchies, but about navigating rupture and uncertainty, ensuring that universities remain spaces of pluralistic, democratic inquiry rather than echo chambers of automated consensus. References Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. University of Minnesota Press. Fawns, T. (2022). An Entangled Pedagogy: Looking Beyond the Pedagogy—Technology Dichotomy. Postdigital Science and Education, 4(3), 711–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-022-00302-7 Gašević, D., Siemens, G., & Sadiq, S. (2023). Empowering learners for the age of artificial intelligence. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, 100130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100130 Gibbs, P. (2026). Transdisciplinary emergence: Public universities seeking to provide common good. In G. Kochhar-Lindgren, W. Sims-Schouten, & J. Tsao (Eds), Transdisciplinary Experiments. UCL Press. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1968). The visible and the invisible. Northwestern University Press. Selwyn, N. (2024). On the Limits of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Education. Nordisk Tidsskrift for Pedagogikk Og Kritikk, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.23865/ntpk.v10.6062 Tsao, J. (2025). Trajectories of AI policy in higher education: Interpretations, discourses, and enactments of students and teachers. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 9, 100496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100496 22. Research in Higher Education
Paper Towards Accomplishing Change in Higher Education Through the Co-creation and Enactment of Curriculum and Education Frameworks 1: Maynooth University, Ireland; 2: University of Limerick, Ireland; 3: Technological University Dublin, Ireland; 4: Independent Researcher Presenting Author:Year-on-year more is being asked of education at every level and higher education is no exception. The recently published EUA ‘TRENDS 2024’ highlights this move noting that contemporary universities need to ‘embrace multiple missions’ thus raising questions on ‘strategy, priority-setting and resources’ (Gaebel and Zhang, 2024, p. 36). The curriculum or education experience, broadly understood, offers institutions an organising structure within which values can be expressed, educational priorities enacted and educational outcomes achieved. In practical terms, as Tight suggests, the curriculum in higher education ‘links the details of course design with the student experience of entering, moving through and transitioning beyond higher education’ and ‘offers a broader, and potentially more integrated, perspective on the teaching/learning function of higher education’ (2024, p. 324). Clarifying through an agreed framework what we mean by curriculum or the education experience, provides a coherent foundation for institution-wide development, enhancement and leadership (Fung, 2017).
This session, which is organised in two parts, presents learning from the shared experience of colleagues from one institution engaged in developing an education framework, and members of an expert external panel advising on that framework development. This collaborative aspect of an institutional, government funded, enhancement initiative involved colleagues from five different European university settings and evolved into an opportunity for all to reflect on framework development and enactment more broadly.
In Part 1, we present an aspect of the answer to the practical question ‘how do you build an education framework’. This was the overarching question we considered together in a series of conversations which took place over approximately 12 months where we explored topics such as: the process of developing an education framework – the who, what, when, how, why; the nuts and bolts of a framework - agreeing framework elements such as priorities, hallmarks, principles etc.; navigating challenges and setbacks; changes you would make and what you wish you had known then that you know now. Our shared conversations benefitted particularly from the range of experience across the group where each of us from an institutional perspective was a different stage of development and/or enactment of our framework. The conversations were elucidated by a comprehensive literature review of the recent scholarship in this area (Ramputh, Farrell and O’Regan, 2025), a review of existing frameworks, a review of context, and ongoing work on campus with an Advisory Group and Student Ambassadors by the organising institution.
In Part 2, we present our discussions as a group in answer to the question ‘how do you accomplish change through the co-creation and enactment of curriculum and education frameworks’. In order to address this second question, we are using Trowler’s work on accomplishing change in teaching and learning regimes. In this regard we are particularly drawing on the idea of a ‘practice sensibility’ or ‘practice-focused perspective’ and how it might be used as a way of seeing ‘three key elements of any change process … [namely] context of change … the nature of any proposed innovation … [and] the relationship between context and innovation’ (Trowler, 2019, p. 121). Specific topics we are considering together include: entering into dialogue and feedback about the framework principles; developing supports for framework enactment; encouraging flexible and various ways of integrating the framework into disciplines and interdisciplinary work in line with a non-prescriptive approach; surfacing resource and other challenges associated with making the framework a reality. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used While the research dimension of this work has evolved from its inception, the overarching approach is the use of three of Brookfield’s four lenses of critical reflection, namely, colleagues’ perceptions, personal experience and theory/scholarship. Designed for examining teaching practice, we have found Brookfield’s approach beneficial as ‘a process of intentional and continual scrutiny of … assumptions’ in our iterative work on framework development and enactment particularly where there is a focus on the possibilities for change (Brookfield, 2017, p. 19). Attempting to explain these lenses as entirely distinct belies their inextricable nature where personal and colleagues’ perceptions were influenced by their knowledge of theory and scholarship, and personal perceptions were discussed with colleagues’ perceptions helping to clarify both. Thus, the approach involves ongoing interaction between the three lenses which optimises the fact that reflection ‘is best practiced as a collective endeavour, a collaborative process in which people gather to ferret out assumptions, challenge groupthink and consider multiple perspectives’ (2017, p. 115). In turn, this reflective methodology suited the evolving, participatory nature of curriculum development, where leadership, learning and institutional context dynamically shape one another. Practically the work involved: • a series of online one-to-one conversations (n=12 at date of proposal submission) on agreed topics, the notes of which were analysed to produce digests which captured shared themes and advice. In addition, colleagues met together, for an all day in-person workshop to deepen dialogue, build relational trust and explore the diversity of institutional experiences regarding education framework development • regular documented meetings by the framework developing institution team (approximately every 2-3 weeks since October 2024) to discuss the process of framework development and to reflect on the framework development • the development of Open Education Resources based on analysis of context and other frameworks • comprehensive literature review The next stages of the research dimension of the work will involve data-gathering through • a further series of one-to-one conversations (n=4) and an additional 1-day in-person workshop • weekly journaling regarding the refinement of the framework and the experience of making the steps towards enactment • continued engagement with the scholarship particularly around curriculum development approaches. We will use the Trowler concepts to explore the data in order to address the question of how do you accomplish change through the co-creation and enactment of curriculum and education frameworks. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Part 1 findings using the aforementioned approach include the importance of: • clarifying and communicating the purpose of the framework and what it can and cannot do; allowing for the framework to be actionable and aspirational • building on existing good practice, optimising the expertise within the community and being informed by the relevant scholarship • adopting a co-creative (students and staff) cross-disciplinary approach throughout • focusing on a developing a simple, pragmatic output which influences both processes and practice, is non-prescriptive and allows for situated enactment • anticipating the strategies, systems, processes and resourcing within which the framework will operate • achieving the support of senior leaders • planning for implementation and evaluation as part of design stage • living and reinforcing the trustworthiness of the development process including through ongoing two-way communication • expecting that there will be roadblocks and remembering to take time to pause and reflect. These findings highlight the value of a developmental and dialogic approach, rooted in critical reflection and shared ownership. Findings from Part 2 will be presented at the conference however based on the literature considered to date regarding how change is accomplished through the co-creation of education/curriculum frameworks it is anticipated that the following will feature: • The role of relational trust and inclusive dialogue in enabling change (Advance HE, 2025; Gano & Oxendine, 2023; Healey & Healey, 2024) • The importance of flexibility in enactment to account for local context (Evans, 2024; Osika et al., 2025; Ryan et al. 2020; Sahni et al., 2025) • The challenges of aligning strategic aspirations with disciplinary practices (Davies & Fung, 2018; Fung, 2017; Nugent et al., 2019) • The need for ongoing engagement, iteration and evaluation to sustain momentum (Kidman et al., 2019; Yang, 2015) References Advance HE. (2025) Framework for leading in higher education [online]. Available at: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/ Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. 2nd ed. London, England: Jossey-Bass. Evans, C. (2024) Shaping society for tomorrow: the role of higher education in bringing about positive change. In: Wood, L. and Zuber-Skerritt, O., eds. (2024) Shaping the future of higher education: positive and sustainable frameworks for navigating constant change. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 25–44. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/jj.21154984.9?seq=1 Fung, D. (2017) A Connected Curriculum for Higher Education. London: UCL Press. Gaebel, M. and Zhang, T. (2024). TRENDS 2024. European higher education institutions in times of transition. Brussels: European University Association. Available at: https://www.eua.eu/publications/reports/trends-2024.html Gano, B.C. and Oxendine, S.D. (2023) ‘Being an appreciative educator in today’s world: unknowingly and knowingly using appreciative frameworks in higher education’, New Directions for Student Services [online], 2023(184), 11–17. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20489 Healey, M. and Healey, R.L. (2024) ‘The role of academic developers in initiating, developing and supporting student–staff partnerships in learning and teaching in higher education: a systematic narrative literature review and a new framework’, International Journal for Academic Development [online]. Available at:https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2024.2338487 Kidman, G., Chang, C.-H. and Wi, A. (2019) Defining education for sustainability (EfS): a theoretical framework. In: Chang, C.-H., Kidman, G. and Wi, A., eds. (2019) Issues in teaching and learning of education for sustainability: theory into practice [online]. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis Group. Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nuim/detail.action?docID=5904711 Nugent, A., Lodge, J.M., Carroll, A., Bagraith, R., MacMahon, S., Matthews, K.E. and Sah, P. (2019). Higher education learning framework: an evidence-informed model for university learning [online]. Brisbane: The University of Queensland. Available at:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328943978_Higher_Education_Learning_Framework_An_evidence-informed_model_for_university_learning Ramputh, T., Farrell, A. and O’Regan L. (2025). Enhancing Teaching, Learning and Curriculum Design through Education Frameworks: Literature Review. Maynooth: Maynooth University. Ryan, B., Fleming, A., Deegan, C.M., McAvinia, C., O’Kane, C., Williams, D., Nevin, E., Bates, E., Darby, F., Harvey, J., Murphy, L., Coleman, M., O’Donoghue, M. and Duffy, N. (2020). CoCREATE: collaborative curriculum reimagining and enhancement aiming to transform education [online]. Dublin: Technological University Dublin. Available at: https://arrow.tudublin.ie/totalarcreptf/1 Tight, M. (2024). ‘The curriculum in higher education research: A review of the research literature’, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61:2, 315-328, DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2023.2166560 Trowler. P. (2019). Accomplishing Change in Teaching and Learning Regimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yang, M. (2015). ‘Promoting self-sustained learning in higher education: the ISEE framework.’, Teaching in Higher Education, 20(6), 601–613. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13562517.2015.1052785 22. Research in Higher Education
Paper Teacher and Student Experiences of Student Workload: Design and Practice University of Oulu, Finland Presenting Author:The importance of an appropriate student workload for successful higher education (HE) has been widely recognized in research (e.g., Thornby et al. 2023; Lachance et al., 2026). That said, there is no clear conceptual consensus on what constitutes student workload (Deon & Yasinian, 2022; Impola, 2025; Kyndt et al., 2014). In HE policy and administration contexts, as well as in curriculum work, it is often measured by the study time required to achieve learning outcomes, as in academic credit systems such as the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) (European Commission, 2022; Wagenaar, 2019). Equaling study time with workload has been considered a problematic practice, and recent contributors have stressed more holistic approaches to student workload, emphasizing students' own experience and agency regarding workload (Impola, 2025c; Waage & Geirsdóttir, 2026). Finally, whereas much of the research on student workload has prioritized students’ perspectives, a fairly limited amount of research has recognized the importance of teachers' approaches to student workload determination (SWD) in their curricular and course planning (For exceptions, see Impola, 2025b; Waage & Geirsdóttir, 2026). The presentation is based on a currently ending PhD study on higher education time practices and a new postdoctoral project on the individual and societal contributors to HE student workload in the Finnish context. While Finnish students appear to be spending less time studying than many of their European counterparts (Hauschildt et al., 2026), their experiences of workload and exhaustion have been on the rise (Parikka et al., 2025). Against this background, the current study aimed to investigate sources of student workload from both teacher and student perspectives, focusing on factors beyond time-based workload estimates. Research questions specific to teacher and curriculum work were: 1) How are HE teachers determining student workload for their courses, 2) Which factors do they find challenging in this work, and 3) Which factors do they consider important for establishing appropriate workload estimates for their courses? The corresponding questions concerning the student perspective were 1) What factors did students consider relevant for their workload experience in studies, 2) How did they perceive the appropriateness of the current course workload frameworks, and 3) What kind of differences were there between students regarding these views? In the current study, these questions were addressed through a series of online surveys administered to a sample of Finnish HE teachers and students. Data was received from 208 teachers and 684 students in Spring 2024. The results, though specific to Finnish contexts, can be valuable for similar settings and studies in other European countries as well, especially given their relevance to the development and application of the ECTS system as the central time-based framework for defining and regulating workload within European HE. The mixed-methods setting that uses qualitative, open-response data and blends it with statistical analysis (See below) is a rare and potentially valuable methodological approach to a topic that has thus far relied heavily on quantitative approaches, with some happy exceptions (e.g., Kyndt et al., 2014), and could thus benefit the work of colleagues working on similar matters in other contexts, as well. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used A set of online surveys was conducted among teachers and students in two Finnish higher education institutions, including one research-intensive university and one polytechnic university, in Spring 2024. Teachers’ surveys collected information on relevant professional background variables, including prior educational level, potential teacher-training status, and academic work experience. Besides, the survey included Likert-scale items concerning teachers’ SWD attitudes. In addition to quantitative measures, open-response items enabled teachers to specify their approaches, challenges, and anticipated strengths in SWD. Correspondingly, students’ surveys included relevant background variables, such as age, gender, disciplinary background, degree level, and duration of degree studies. In addition, students reported their weekly time use and workload throughout a 10-week study period, along with their learning outcomes. Open-response items enabled students to freely describe sources of their workload experience and attitudes concerning SWD. While most results relevant to the quantitative data have been reported in previous work (Impola, 2025a; 2025b), the current study utilized the qualitative, open-response data via a mixed-method approach. First, open-response data on SWD practices and students’ workload experiences were coded using a theory-driven content analysis in Lumivero’s NVivo software. The established categories themselves yielded an initial set of results to address questions about teachers’ and students' SWD and workload attitudes in general. However, the formed categories were then coded numerically and combined with the survey's quantitative measures in the same dataset in MS Excel. The data were then transferred to IBM SPSS Statistics for relevant group- and means-difference analyses (Chi-square, t-tests, and Mann-Whitney) to identify which teacher and student characteristics, as well as students’ study patterns, may be relevant to their SWD and workload attitudes. After initial bivariate tests, potential multivariate models (e.g., loglinear modelling, multivariate ANOVAs) may be used to control for confounding effects and to develop hypothetical models for future research. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Statistical analyses are still in progress when this abstract is written, yet some preliminary results may be outlined. From the teachers’ perspective, common challenges in determining appropriate workload concerned students, especially their varying skill levels and background knowledge upon entering courses. Factors related specifically to course design concentrated primarily on criticizing institutional standards and rules, binding workload estimation, and, on the other hand, colleagues’ varying and inconsistent practices in defining workload for their courses. Teachers often built their course workload estimates on some predefined guidelines, blended with their own experience and estimates, and possibly complemented by student feedback. Many comments focused on how workload frameworks could be improved to help students learn better study practices, though there were also pleas for clearer standards and collegial collaboration. Factors that had increased students’ workload were divided into education-related, personal, and time-related categories, and these were often intertwined in the respondent-specific data. As for educational factors, the most prevalent issue increasing students’ workload in the responses was the study format, especially excessive group work or independent study. Other main education-related workload factors were related to teaching (especially appropriate organization and scheduling) and course-specific factors (especially to the amount of work involved). Typical workload factors related to students’ lives included work-life balance, financial problems, family and social relations, and personal health issues. The biggest concerns related to time often involved both the perceived temporal intensity of studies and competing demands from study, work, and other life. Surprisingly, the most frequently cited factors for decreased workload were related to personal life, like being in an appropriate phase of studies, or having supportive social relations, rather than being related directly to studies. The most common criticism of workload determination practices concerned the inconsistency in workload across courses, periods, and study subjects. References D’Eon, M., & Yasinian, M. (2022). Student work: A re-conceptualization based on prior research on student workload and Newtonian concepts around physical work. Higher education research & development, 41(6), 1855-1868. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1945543 European Commission. (2022). European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS). European Education Area: Quality education and training for all. Retrieved 23. January 2026 from https://education.ec.europa.eu/education-levels/higher-education/inclusive-and-connected-higher-education/european-credit-transfer-and-accumulation-system Impola, J. (2025a). European credit transfer and accumulation system as a time-based predictor of student workload. Higher Education Research & Development, 44(2), 417-430. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2024.2406490 Impola, J. (2025b). Teachers’ and students’ views on higher education workload determination practices. European Journal of Higher Education, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2025.2542152 Impola, J. (2025c). The Relationship of ECTS Credits with Study Time, Workload, and Achievement in Higher Education. European Education, 57(4), 279-293. https://doi.org/10.1080/10564934.2025.2547918 Kyndt, E., Berghmans, I., Dochy, F., & Bulckens, L. (2014). ‘Time is not enough.’Workload in higher education: a student perspective. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(4), 684-698. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.863839 Lachance, S., Chichekian, T., Bélisle, M., Bertrand, Y., & Lavoie, P. (2025). Pedagogical Practices to support Student Workload Management: A Collaborative Study with Nursing Educators. Nurse Education in Practice, 104698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2025.104698 Hauschildt, K., Gwosć, C., Netz, N., Mishra, S., Orr, D., Liedtke, M., & Dick, V. (2015). Social and economic conditions of student life in Europe. Eurostudent V 2012–2015. Synopsis of Indicators. wbv Media GmbH & Company KG. https://www.eurostudent.eu/download_files/documents/EVSynopsisofIndicators.pdf Parikka, S., Ikonen, J., Pohjola, V., Koskela, T., Kilpeläinen, H., Sarttila, K., & Lundqvist, A. (2025) KOTT 2024 -tutkimuksen perustulokset 2024 [KOTT2024—Study main results 2024]. Finnish Institute of Health and Welfare. https://www.thl.fi/kott_verkkoraportit/taulukot_2024/index.html#tutkimuksen-kuvaus Thornby, K. A., Brazeau, G. A., & Chen, A. M. (2023). Reducing student workload through curricular efficiency. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 87(8), 100015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpe.2022.12.002 Waage, E. R., & Geirsdóttir, G. (2026). The Becoming of Student Workload: A Posthuman and Actor-Network Theory Approach. European Journal of Educational Research, 15(1), 149-163. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.15.1.149 Wagenaar, R. (2019). A history of ECTS, 1989–2019: Developing a world standard for credit transfer and accumulation in higher education. International Tuning Academy. 22. Research in Higher Education
Paper Thinking about Theory in Postgraduate Education: Perspectives from Students and Educators University of Sheffield, United Kingdom Presenting Author:This paper reports on a research project that explores how theory is taught, learned, and enacted within postgraduate research education. Responding to persistent concerns about the abstract and opaque nature of theory in doctoral study, the study aims to deepen postgraduate researchers’ (PGRs) engagement with theoretical frameworks through a multi-phase, collaborative, and reflexive research design. The study is theoretically framed by Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT), which conceptualises teaching and learning theory as an activity system shaped by mediating tools (e.g. texts, concepts, pedagogical practices), institutional rules, disciplinary norms, and historically developed expectations. CHAT provides an analytic lens for examining how academics and doctoral students construct the object of “theory,” how responsibilities for teaching and learning are distributed, and how contradictions emerge between institutional expectations and everyday pedagogical practices. The project emerged from an initial survey conducted with PGRs and academic staff in a School of Education at a UK university, which highlighted a shared recognition of the importance of theory alongside a strong demand from PGRs for more explicit illustrations of how theory operates in practice. While many PGRs reported confidence in using theory rhetorically, they expressed uncertainty about its application, purpose, and value within research and professional contexts. These findings revealed a gap between the centrality of theory in doctoral education and the pedagogical practices through which theoretical engagement is supported. Building on this survey, the larger study employed semi-structured interviews with academic staff and doctoral students. Data were analysed thematically through a CHAT-informed lens to identify key tensions, contradictions, and pedagogical challenges in the teaching and learning of theory. Understanding and applying theory is a recognised challenge for doctoral students across national and institutional contexts. By foregrounding theory as a socially mediated and historically situated activity, this paper contributes an internationally relevant framework for examining doctoral pedagogy and opens up cross-context dialogue about how theory can be taught and learned more explicitly, collaboratively, and meaningfully in postgraduate research education. Guided by CHAT, the study addresses the following research questions:
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study adopted a multi-phase qualitative research design. Data generation occurred across two phases. Phase one involved an online questionnaire distributed to postgraduate researchers and academic staff, which explored participants’ engagement with theory, perceived challenges, and views on the relevance of theory in postgraduate education. The survey captures both descriptive quantitative data (e.g. academic role, level of study, disciplinary engagement with theory) and qualitative accounts of experiences of teaching and learning theory. The study adopted a multi-phase qualitative research design. Data generation occurred across two phases: an online survey, semi-structured interviews. Phase one involved an online questionnaire distributed to postgraduate researchers and academic staff, which explored participants’ engagement with theory, perceived challenges, and views on the relevance of theory in postgraduate education. The survey captures both descriptive quantitative data (e.g. academic role, level of study, disciplinary engagement with theory) and qualitative accounts of experiences of teaching and learning theory. Phase two comprised of semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of survey respondents. Interviews were conducted online or face-to-face and explored participants’ perspectives on theoretical teaching and learning practices, expectations, and challenges in greater depth. The final data set included transcripts from 11 PGRs and 6 academics. Across phases, data was analysed thematically through a Cultural-Historical Activity Theory lens, enabling examination of mediating tools, rules, division of labour, and emerging tensions within the activity system of postgraduate theoretical learning. Ethical approval was granted by the research institution in which the study took place. Pseudonyms are used across the data set to ensure anonymity and all participants were required to give written consent. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The findings demonstrate that challenges in engaging with theory are not primarily individual deficits, but are shaped by historically developed pedagogical practices, disciplinary norms, and institutional rules. By conceptualising theory as a socially mediated practice, the study reveals common challenges across academic and national contexts, highlighting the need for pedagogical spaces that make theoretical reasoning visible, dialogic, and collaborative. These insights are expected to support internationally relevant discussions on doctoral pedagogy and theoretical learning. References N/A | ||