Conference Agenda

In 21st-century design education, affective and ethical competencies centered on understanding users have become as critical as technical proficiency (Norman, 2004). Interior architecture, in particular, has evolved from a purely aesthetic and functional discipline into a deeply ethical and social practice. Design educators must now equip students not only with spatial and technical skills, but also with the capacity to empathize with diverse users and translate that empathy into inclusive, socially responsible design decisions.

However, a persistent challenge in studio-based design education is what researchers term the empathy gap, which refers to the disconnect between abstract user data, such as accessibility standards and universal design guidelines, and the lived, bodily experiences of users with diverse abilities. Traditional 2D drawings and screen-based 3D modeling tools often fail to bridge this gap, leading to scale illusions and a detached understanding of accessibility (Story et al., 1998). Students frequently design spaces that appear compliant on screen but fail ergonomic standards when experienced at full scale.

This pilot study is grounded in the theory of embodied cognition (Shapiro, 2019), which argues that cognitive processes are deeply rooted in the body's interaction with the environment. By integrating Extended Reality (XR) as an embodied learning environment into the design studio, this research aims to examine whether XR functions as a didactic intervention that cultivates empathy and inclusive design reasoning, rather than serving merely as a visualization tool, moving beyond passive representation toward active pedagogical support (Shapiro, 2019).

The theoretical framework also incorporates Kolb's (1984) experiential learning cycle to position XR within the pedagogical process. Specifically, the XR experience is situated at the "active experimentation" phase, where students test spatial hypotheses through embodied avatar navigation, followed by structured reflective observation during post-XR interviews. Additionally, the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991) is applied to examine why increased empathy does not always translate into design revisions — a phenomenon this study terms the Awareness-Action Gap.

The European and international dimension of this study lies in its applicability to universal design standards and inclusive education frameworks, both of which are central to EU policy on accessibility and equal participation. The findings contribute to a broader understanding of how immersive technologies can support socially responsible pedagogy across design disciplines in higher education.

The study addresses three primary research questions:

RQ1: Does an XR-based embodied experience significantly change the cognitive and affective empathy levels of design students compared to their pre-intervention baseline?

RQ2: How does embodied interaction in a 1:1 scale virtual environment affect students' ability to diagnose accessibility barriers in their own designs?

RQ3: To what extent does increased empathy awareness translate into concrete design outcomes, and what role do group dynamics and motivational factors play in mediating this relationship?

In light of the proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) in daily lives and in educational and professional contexts, the significance of AI literacy — defined as the competencies, skills and abilities to comprehend, critically evaluate, utilise, and, in certain instances, create AI (Long and Magerko, 2020; Ng et al., 2021) — is growing exponentially. In the aftermath of the publication of ChatGPT in 2022, substantial discourse, debate and negotiation have ensued concerning the development and cultivation of AI literacy among students and academic staff within higher education institutions (Bond et al., 2024; Laupichler et al., 2022a). Consequently, a plethora of pedagogical approaches designed to foster AI literacy emerged, and the incorporation of (generative) AI into academic curricula has increased (Ma et al., 2025; Southworth et al., 2023).

Current research investigates students’ AI literacy in specific areas of study, such as, for instance, archival science (e.g. Dong et al., 2025), medicine (e.g. Laupichler et al., 2024b) or pre-service teacher education (Ayanwale et al., 2024). It also focuses on the development of AI literacy frameworks (e.g. Öner, 2024; Zhou & Schofield, 2024), or measures AI literacy’s influence on multiple variables, such as fear of innovation (Polat, 2025), classroom engagement (Wang et al., 2025), academic performance (You et al., 2024) or complex problem-solving skills (Promma et al., 2025). However, the actual alignment between the learning objectives (LOs) formulated as goals of AI literacy interventions, and the pedagogical approaches implemented to foster said competencies and skills, has thus far received insufficient attention.

Learning objectives describe the intended learning outcomes, competencies, knowledge, and skills that learners will have acquired upon completion of an educational offering (Anderson et al., 2001; Gogus, 2012b). The principle of constructive alignment, introduced into higher education teaching and learning by Biggs (1996), emphasises the systematic coherence between intended learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities, and assessment formats. As learning objectives address more complex levels, such as analysis or creation (Anderson et al., 2001), so does the assessment format, as well as the pedagogical approaches and teaching and learning activities to promote the achievement of these objectives (Biggs et al., 2022). Such alignment ensures that what students (are expected to) do in their learning processes is directly linked to what they are expected to learn, thereby supporting deep rather than superficial approaches to learning (Biggs et al., 2022).

Focusing on the complex layers of AI literacy and respective learning objectives associated with its different facets, the present study applies the principle of constructive alignment (Biggs, 1996) and Bloom’s revised LO taxonomy (Anderson et al., 2001) to investigate the pedagogical design of teaching and learning settings in higher education aimed at fostering students’ AI literacy. Accordingly, this study addresses the following research questions:

• How can facets of AI literacy be described in terms of Bloom’s revised LO taxonomy in the context of acquiring and fostering AI literacy in the higher education classroom?
• Which pedagogical approaches were selected and evaluated for the purpose of promoting these objectives?
• Are the pedagogical approaches developed and investigated commensurate with the postulated learning objectives?

Purpose and research question

This presentation aims at digital creativity and coding in language 1 (mother tongue): New genres and text functions have increasingly become part of the L1 subject domain, including microblogs, podcasts, digital stories, memes, and AI-generated content (Mills, 2015; Vee, 2017). The purpose of the project we present is to develop learning designs that challenge how an expressive and creative digital culture can enable participation and empowerment for students in secondary school and high school. The background is a social semiotic theoretical approach combined with a perspective on computational literacy.

As a baseline, we conducted a scoping review on computational literacy in L1 (Lorentzen et al., in review 2026). The review investigated connections between computational literacy and language one in the Nordic countries and internationally. The main result is a lack of knowledge on computational literacy in L1 (Holo et al 2023; Nygaard & Skaftung 2020). Furthermore, the role of coding in L1 Danish raises fundamental questions about which semiotic resources contribute to meaning-making and which representations best support the core content and competencies. (Sharin & Warschauer, 2018, Tate et al. 2020, Burriss et al. 2024, Hachmann & Slot, 2024).This leaves room for empirical studies investigating learning objectives for coding within the subject of L1 Danish. Vee suggests coding as a relevant textual practice: “we need a concept of literacy that abstracts away from its specific tools. I often use the term computational literacy alongside coding literacy […] I believe it’s about more than thinking, it’s also about reading and building and writing” (Vee, 2017, p 11). Accordingly, our aim is to address a new textual practice by designing interventions with coding activities as a core curricular content.

On this ground we formulate the following research question:

What characterizes students’ activities with computational textual practices, with particular attention to coding, in Danish in secondary school and high school?

Theoretical framework:
Our point of departure is an integrated pedagogical approach that enable students to engage in multimodal and creative production with digital texts (Kress, 2010; Selander & Kress, 2012) as a dimension of contemporary literacy practices (Barton, 2007). In addition, we draw on the notion of digital empowerment (Mechelen, 2021), which in the Danish school context is framed as a key component of students’ bildung. Taken together, these perspectives create a foundation for an emerging literacy practice which embraces the ability to understand, engage with, and shape new genres and text functions.

Our analytical framework for understanding computational text practices and coding are three perspectives: cognitive, material and social dimensions (diSessa, 2001). Our hypothesis is that coding activities contribute to the expressiveness and material understanding among students and support digital empowerment (Mechelen, 2021). Material expressiveness is a central concept and for diSessa this constitutes a computational medium or artefact: It is the capacity to express something new or reveal aspects of expressiveness that enable humans to think in new ways (diSessa, 2001: 111). We are interested in computational things as a foundation for text-based practices that can contribute to digitally formative and empowering education (diSessa, 2001: 20).

In March 2020, the COVID‑19 pandemic transformed the operations of schools within just a few days. In Iceland, schoolwork took on a new form: distance learning replaced on‑site teaching, and homes across the country became classrooms. In Icelandic upper secondary schools emergency remote teaching dominated from the middle of March until the end of the school year (Gestsdóttir et al., 2020). When students returned, they were met with constantly changing restrictions during the next schoolyear. The health authorities in Iceland took the position that school closures should be “an absolute last resort” (Möller, 2020), and the education authorities shared this view. Schools emphasized student welfare and well‑being but nevertheless the challenges were significant and the impacts far‑reaching.

This presentation draws on a four‑year research project that followed the work of upper secondary schools throughout the crisis and its aftermath. The aim of the current study was to investigate in particular the experiences of upper secondary school teachers in regard to both the teaching and learning taking place during COVID-19 and the long-term effects of the pandemic on education. Numerous international studies have demonstrated the adverse effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on student learning, but thus far, none have investigated the issue in Iceland.

Many reasons, including social and economic factors, lay behind the view that school closures should be avoided (Jourdan, 2021). Attention soon also turned to the potential learning loss that students might experience when school buildings were closed. The concept of learning loss has been used to describe situations in which the educational process does not progress at the same pace or in the same manner as before. It is assumed that students acquire certain knowledge and skills within a given timeframe, and when this fails due to a disruption in learning, it is referred to as learning loss (The Glossary of Education Reform, 2013; Pier o.fl., 2021).

Research conducted internationally has shown that learning loss was particularly evident in subjects that rely heavily on prior knowledge, such as mathematics and the natural sciences (Pier et al., 2021). Numerous studies on learning loss during the pandemic have also focused on reading and mathematics among primary school students (see, for example, Molnár and Hermann, 2023; Schult et al., 2022). Different research methods and data have been used to measure learning loss, and the findings do not always align. However, a large-scale study in The Netherlands revealed that an eight‑week school closure resulted in learning loss equivalent to one‑fifth of a school year, that is, eight weeks (Engzell et al., 2021). Dozens of studies have highlighted a direct link between the length of school closures and the extent of learning loss (Marshall & Pressley, 2024, bls. 28).

Our study shows that various adverse effects resulted from the pandemic. Some teachers had difficulty delivering the material under new conditions, some omitted specific topics, and others changed their focus. Moreover, online learning did not work for all students, and some lacked the support at home to fully participate in their studies during this period. These consequences can be described as learning loss. Changes in teaching made during the COVID-19 pandemic ruptured the organisation and rhythm of upper secondary school education. Teachers lessened the academic requirements; they indicated that their students had more absences from school and were more inactive than prior to the pandemic. In addition, students reported looking more towards their social network during this period for assistance in learning and many said they did not get the help they needed. These results indicate that learning loss is a likely consequence of the COVID-19 period in Iceland.