Conference Agenda

Online learning support is a crucial tool to enhance quality in education for this digital era. The online courses, applications, and learning resources (OCALR) play a critical role in expanding educational opportunities across diverse contexts, particularly when courses are well designed and supported by interactive learning materials (Peltola et al., 2025). By emphasizing flexibility in time and place through digital technologies, Artificial Intelligence (AI) (Wang, 2025), online learning enables meaningful and interactive learning experiences beyond traditional classroom boundaries and has become especially important during periods of disruption and in response to evolving learner needs (Bamrungsin & Khampirat, 2022; Karo & Petsangsri, 2021). Accessible and interactive learning materials further enhance student engagement and motivation by supporting active participation in the learning process (Hu & Xiao, 2025). To support these learning experiences, various online platforms and resources such as open educational resources (OER), open courseware (OCW), and massive open online courses (MOOCs) (Goshtasbpour et al., 2024), have been developed to broaden access to high-quality educational content and enhance learning skills (Cho & Permzadian, 2024). These approaches operate within distributed learning environments enabled by internet-based platforms and communication technologies. Effective online learning environments require the interaction of teaching presence, cognitive presence, and social presence, which together foster meaningful engagement, knowledge construction, and sustained learning (Alshammari & Alrehaili, 2025). In addition, the concept of academic optimism highlights the role of high academic expectations, supportive learning environments, and confidence in students’ learning capacity in enhancing learning effectiveness in online contexts. Accordingly, effective online teaching emphasizes instructional clarity, learner interaction, timely feedback, reliable access to digital learning resources, and a supportive learning environment (Bamrungsin & Khampirat, 2022). Recognizing the potential of online learning and digital resources, the Ministry of Education (MOE) of Thailand has promoted them as a key national strategy to enhance students’ competencies and ensure more equitable access to education, particularly for learners in remote and underserved areas (MOE, 2026). However, despite these initiatives, higher education institutions in remote regions continue to face significant challenges related to geographic isolation, limited digital infrastructure, and unequal access to digital educational resources (KC et al., 2025). These barriers restrict students’ full participation in higher education and underscore the urgent need for innovative instructional approaches, including distance and online learning and the effective use of information and communication technologies (ICT), to support both teaching and educational management in remote contexts (Norman et al., 2022). Moreover, the effectiveness of OCALR is not determined by course design, interaction, or technology usability alone (Goshtasbpour et al., 2024). Contextual factors such as internet connectivity, geographic location, and the availability of digital devices play a critical role in shaping students’ learning experiences, particularly for learners in remote areas where disparities in digital access between urban and rural regions remain substantial (Enciso-Huamani et al., 2025; Jiang et al., 2024). To address these gaps, this quantitative study investigates the effectiveness of OCALR for college students in a remote area near the Khao Phu Luang mountain region in Nakhon Ratchasima Province, Thailand. The findings are expected to provide evidence-based insights to support effective online teaching practices, inform institutional decision-making, and promote more equitable learning opportunities in remote higher education contexts.

Student-Centered Learning (SCL) has become a predominant paradigm in higher education after the Yerevan Ministerial Summit of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) (European Higher Education Area, 2015; Klemenčič, 2017), gaining support from students, researchers, and policymakers (Grøndahl Glavind et al., 2023).

As a key strategic pathway to improve the quality of learning and teaching processes, it is prioritized in the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the EHEA (ENQA, 2015). However, at the institutional level, SCL is often used with multiple meanings (Bremner, 2021), referring to active-learning pedagogies, student participation in decision-making, learning-outcomes approaches, or enhanced support services, without a shared evidential base.

This conceptual looseness makes it difficult for universities and quality agencies to produce reliable and comparable evidence on whether, and for whom, student agency is enabled across programs (Jääskelä et al., 2021). It also limits quality assurance to support curriculum transformation rather than compliance, especially when institutions rely on metrics and administrative “big data” that do not capture the lived conditions of learning (Hooshyar et al., 2023).

Conceptually, SCL is approached as a context-sensitive orientation and culture of quality implemented through an institutional ecosystem (Hoidn, 2020), where student agency is understood as the capability to make meaningful decisions and co-construct learning processes within programme structures, supported by transparent learning outcomes, opportunities for participation and dialogue, coherent curricular pathways, and formative assessment and feedback promoting self-regulated learning (Nicol, 2010).

This contribution is based on the implementation of a research project funded by the Spanish National Research and Development Plan, which addresses this evidence gap by developing and validating an indicator-based framework for improving institutional quality. Its main objective is to make SCL visible, measurable and actionable by capturing student agency and curricular coherence across: (i) teaching and learning design; (ii) assessment and feedback practices; and (iii) student support and guidance arrangements.

Three research questions guide the study: how can SCL be operationalized into a coherent set of evaluative indicators that reflect student agency at program and institutional levels? (RQ1); what patterns of alignment or misalignment emerge between curricular intentions, enacted learning and assessment designs, and support structures across academic units? (RQ2); and how do institutional cultures and governance arrangements mediate the enactment of student agency, including potential differences for diverse student groups? (RQ3).

This national project is being implemented as an institutional case study at a European public comprehensive university (30,000 students, 2,500 professors, 22 faculties, and 13 research institutes, Shanghai Ranking 2025, ARWU, 501-600, and among the 11-14 best of the 100 universities in the country), although the resulting framework of indicators is designed to be transferable to the entire EHEA. Its European relevance lies in grounding the logic of evaluation on shared benchmarks (European Higher Education Area, 2015), and in providing a concrete response to a recurring challenge in quality assurance debates: translating SCL from principle into credible evidence and decision-making practice.

The main output is a multi-source indicator framework that allows universities to examine SCL as an institutional quality issue rather than as isolated classroom innovation. The indicators will be organized around: (a) opportunities for student participation and collaboration; (b) assessment and feedback designs that support self-regulated learning; (c) consistency and flexibility; and (d) the availability and use of support structures that enable students to navigate their learning pathways.

Preliminary mapping conducted at the case institution suggests substantial variability among academic units in how these conditions are met. Differences arise in the extent to which assessment and feedback are designed for learning (rather than just judgement) and in the consistency with which program learning outcomes are connected to assessment regimes and support services.

The increasing digitalisation of educational, professional and social practices has positioned digital citizenship as an emerging field of reflection in higher education (UNESCO, 2020). In this context, debates on the quality and social relevance of university education are progressively incorporating the need to address the educational, ethical and civic implications of digital environments. From a critical perspective, digital citizenship is not understood as a set of technical skills, but rather as a complex competence integrating critical thinking, social participation and ethical responsibility (Choi, 2016; Cabero-Almenara et al., 2019). Under this premise, its integration into higher education can be conceived as an emerging criterion of educational quality, particularly relevant in degree programmes oriented towards social and community intervention.

Within the field of Social Education, the initial training of professionals acquires specific relevance in relation to critical digital citizenship, given their role as mediators, educational agents and promoters of social participation in diverse contexts (ASEDES, 2007). However, previous research has highlighted persistent misalignments between social and professional demands linked to the digital sphere and the dominant training approaches in university curricula, which tend to prioritise instrumental perspectives on digital competence (Mihailidis, 2018; Villar-Onrubia et al., 2022; Guerrero Puerta et al., 2025). From the perspective of educational improvement and internal quality assurance, this situation raises significant questions, particularly in processes of curriculum review and renewal in higher education (Cacheiro-González et al., 2020).

This paper presents the design, theoretical foundations and methodological approach of an ongoing research project aimed at analysing how critical digital citizenship is addressed in the university education of social educators, as well as at generating evidence-informed orientations for the improvement of curricular quality. The study is developed within the framework of a funded research project (Digital Citizenship in University Education: Diagnosis and Proposal from Social Education – CiDiES), supported by the National Distance Education University (UNED, Spain) under the Young Talent Research Projects call (project reference 2025/00207/001). It is explicitly situated in the field of higher education and aligns with approaches to formative evaluation, internal quality assurance and the continuous enhancement of educational programmes (Harvey & Green, 1993; ESG, 2015).

From a theoretical perspective, the research draws on three complementary frameworks: critical digital citizenship (Choi, 2016; Isin & Ruppert, 2015), critical digital literacy (Mihailidis, 2018), and educational quality approaches focused on curricular coherence and alignment between competences, learning outcomes and professional practice (Biggs & Tang, 2011). These frameworks allow quality to be conceptualised not as a static attribute, but as a dynamic process of reflection, evaluation and enhancement of university education.

Methodologically, the study adopts a mixed, sequential and integrative design. In the first phase, the Digital Citizenship Scale (DCS) is administered to undergraduate students in Social Education, using a version previously validated in Spanish (Choi et al., 2017; Lozano-Díaz & Fernández-Prados, 2019). Two open-ended questions are included in order to contextualise the results and enrich their interpretation from a curricular improvement perspective. In parallel, a systematic documentary analysis of the current curriculum and the associated curriculum review process is conducted, with the aim of identifying the presence, absence and treatment of dimensions related to critical digital citizenship from a quality-oriented perspective. Finally, online focus groups are carried out with professionals from the socio-educational field to triangulate findings and incorporate insights from professional practice.

The expected contribution of this work lies in providing analytical evidence to inform curriculum enhancement processes and to strengthen quality assurance in university education in Social Education. As a work in progress, the paper seeks to engage with European debates on educational quality, professionalisation and the social responsibility of universities in increasingly digitalised societies and practice.

On a global scale the school education workforce is under stress. However, staffing issues are heterogenous, multi-dimensional, and localised. Surpluses and shortages can co-exist within systems (Edwards et al., 2025). The consequences of any service disruption are significant for equity, social mobility, economic prosperity and nation level human capital (Bekele et al., 2024; Bi & Li, 2025; Graham & Flamini, 2023; Leoni, 2025). Not surprisingly, there is consensus among governments, policy makers, unions, researchers, and industry experts that the window of opportunity to do something about the teacher workforce is fast closing. What to do about it has proven challenging. Government officials have demonstrated being receptive to empirical evidence on ‘what works’ (Crawfurd et al., 2025), but there remains a dearth of data and evidence that is representative, detailed, and timely (Bleiberg & Kraft, 2023).

The lack of a comprehensive understanding of the determinants of teacher labour supply is a major impediment to developing effective workforce policies. The need to go beyond aggregated supply and demand ratios as a basis for policy intervention has been evident for some time. In addition, the teacher labour is not a single labour market. Accreditation requirements in many jurisdictions mean it is segregated across levels (e.g., primary, secondary) and disciplinary areas (e.g., mathematics, science) with limited substitutability, not to mention, geographic inequities (e.g., urban, rural). The policy challenge for government is therefore how to secure the right qualified teachers where they are most needed by the system. This introduces three key problems, ensuring supply is equal to or greater than demand, the proximal housing of teachers to where they are most needed, and having sufficiently attractive working conditions once you have them to keep them. From an explanatory standpoint, and through a systemic lens, meeting school staffing requirements at a systemic scale can be expressed as:

SS ⟺〖 N〗_((supply ≥ demand) ) ⋀ H_((proximal to need) ) ⋀ 〖WC〗_((attractive))

Where SS is systemic staffing, N represents the total number of available workers with the goal of supply being equal to or greater than demand, H is housing within proximity of where teachers are needed, and there are corresponding working conditions WC that need to be attractive to current and prospective workers. Systemic staffing exists, and only exists, if the three criteria (supply greater than demand, proximal housing, and attractive working conditions) are all met at the same time.

This paper asks the deceptively simple question, how sustainable is the school education workforce? More specifically, it asks ‘What areas are under the greatest workforce stress’

Working with the previously outline explanatory logic, this work makes three contributions. Initially, to the best of our knowledge, it is the first state-wide generalisable approach to measuring systemic staffing sustainability including endogenous (supply and demand, working conditions) and exogenous (proximal housing) measures. Second, empirically the paper provides new evidence on workforce sustainability within a specific site (the Australian state of Victoria). Third, the ‘Teacher Workforce Sustainability’ (TWS) matrix and its underlying explanatory logic, represent a viable data product capable of being deployed in other jurisdictions (assuming access to similar data) to provide a comprehensive multi-dimensional measure capturing the complexity of workforce sustainability. Mindful of enduring issues with scaling up interventions (Banerjee et al., 2017), the TWS matrix meets the need for improved data systems capable of balancing the systemic aggregation and the localised nature of teacher shortages (Nguyen et al., 2024).