Conference Agenda

Establishing a career in higher education depends on several factors, key among them are an academic’s level of knowledge and expertise in their field as well as their research and teaching experience (Oliveira, Nada, & Magalhães 2024). Many HEIs value the research role above all others, due to the funding it usually is attached to, the publications and citations it produces, and the impact it can create for the institution and the academic at reputational and prestige levels. Therefore, becoming an academic necessitates research training to achieve a PhD academic credential (Oliveira et al. 2024). A PhD demonstrates that a doctoral graduate has reached a certain level of expertise in their field of study and has acquired skills that will allow them to be an independent researcher (IUA 2021). However, teaching related skills such as didactics and pedagogy often do not enjoy the same level of prominence among the professional skills early career academics need to be equipped with in order to be good teachers, even though it is the most visible role academics engage in (Cassuto 2022).

Due to the rapid technological advancements of the last few decades especially in terms of educational/assistive technologies, teaching has become more complex (Hyde, Clarke, & Drennan 2011). Despite academia’s best efforts to improve teaching, these efforts have been initiated largely by individual academic’s level, which has hindered the professionalization of teaching at HEI. It therefore comes as no surprise that academic teaching has been described as amateur in nature (Zimmerman 2020), which can be attributed to academics’ notion that good teaching is less about skills and more about personality and charisma (Cassuto 2022).

Universities in some countries have addressed the need for faculty training on teaching related topics and skills through formal programmes, Certificates, Diplomas or Masters in Teaching in higher education (e.g., UK, Ireland, Netherlands). In some cases, those (or comparable) qualifications are becoming increasingly expected from the HEIs. PhD training on teaching is unfortunately lagging, and few HEIs are requiring their PhD students to take a credit barring course on teaching (Rifkin, Natow, Salter, & Shorter 2023) even though doctoral students in some countries are expected to develop professional skills such as teaching and mentorship (e.g., IUA 2001 - Ireland). The case study presented in this paper is from a doctoral training programme at an Austrian HEI on didactics and pedagogy called “Certificate of Teaching in Higher Education”.

This paper presents the design and development of a teaching observation process that integrates professional, peer and student feedback, implemented in an introductory / foundational course of the Certificate. We will detail how the pedagogy and didactic experts (professionals) engaged with PhD students (aspiring lecturers) taking the foundational course through a three-step teaching observation process: pre-observation, session observation and post-observation reflection and debrief. This process was concurrently carried out by fellow PhD-students enrolled in the course, providing both student (peer) and lecturer feedback to the observee. This paper will elaborate on the process and the form developed to support the professional development and growth of both the observees and observers.

Classroom management (CM) is widely recognised as a key determinant of teaching quality, student engagement, and learning outcomes (e.g., Sabornie & Espelage, 2023). Decades of research in primary and secondary education demonstrate that effective classroom management extends far beyond maintaining order; it encompasses relational, instructional, and organisational dimensions that jointly shape classroom climate and learning processes (Wubbels, 2011). In contrast, classroom management in higher education (HE) has received relatively little empirical attention and is often treated implicitly or narrowly framed as a behavioural or procedural issue (Albayrak & Ateskan, 2022). This limited focus is partly rooted in persistent assumptions that HE students are autonomous, intrinsically motivated learners and that behavioural regulation is therefore less relevant in university classrooms. However, declining attendance (Credé et al., 2010), increasing digital distraction (DePryck et al., 2020), and heterogeneous student populations (Juang & Schachner, 2020) challenge these assumptions and raise questions about how HE teachers experience and conceptualise classroom management in practice.

The present study aims to identify and conceptualise the classroom management challenges experienced by higher education teachers and to examine how these challenges are structured in terms of perceived importance and perceived control. Rather than imposing school-based frameworks onto HE contexts, this study adopts an exploratory, participatory approach to capture teachers’ own perspectives. Using Group Concept Mapping (GCM), a mixed-methods methodology designed to structure complex, practice-based knowledge, we engaged HE teachers in generating, organising, and evaluating classroom management challenges drawn from their daily teaching practice.

Participants were 93 teachers from universities and universities of applied sciences in the Netherlands. In the GCM brainstorming phase, teachers generated statements in response to the prompt: “A classroom management challenge I face in my face-to-face or online classes is…”. After refinement, 82 statements were retained. In subsequent phases, a panel of content experts (N=7) sorted the statements into thematic groups, while a larger group of teachers (N=35) rated each statement on perceived importance and perceived control. Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis produced visual concept maps representing the shared structure of teachers’ perceptions.

The analysis yielded five coherent clusters of classroom management challenges: (1) Relational dynamics, (2) Classroom diversity and complexity, (3) Off-task behaviour, (4) Attention and engagement, and (5) Disruptive behaviour.

Teachers perceived behavioural and ecological challenges, such as off-task behaviour and managing diverse classrooms, as most important, while relational dynamics and attention and engagement received comparatively less emphasis. Interestingly, teachers reported the greatest sense of control over disruptive behaviour, whereas challenges related to student attention and engagement were perceived as both less important and less controllable. Spatial proximity in the cluster maps further suggested that attention and engagement, off-task behaviour, and disruptive behaviour are closely interconnected, pointing to a continuum of engagement-related behaviours rather than distinct problem categories.

The data allows to perceive classroom management as relational regulation: a continuous process of aligning interpersonal, instructional, and environmental factors to sustain engagement and learning. This conceptualisation challenges the narrow, reactive framing of classroom management that currently dominates HE practice and highlights the underutilised role of relational teacher behaviour in preventing disengagement and disruption. By providing an empirically grounded map of classroom management challenges in higher education, this study contributes to bridging the gap between school-based classroom management theory and HE contexts. The findings have implications for teacher professionalisation, suggesting the need to explicitly address classroom management as a relational-didactic competence in higher education teaching development.

The spread of English as the dominant language of academia has increased demand for English proficiency, leading to rising enrolment in pre-sessional and in-sessional English for Academic Purposes (EAP) courses in English-speaking countries such as the UK (Hyland, 2018). UK universities rely heavily on fee-paying international students; therefore, tuition fees have become a central source of income, transforming EAP into a “major industry” (Hyland, 2012, p. 30) and increasing demand for EAP practitioners (Green, 2016; Ding & Bruce, 2017; Ding & Campion, 2016).

Despite its strategic and financial importance, EAP practitioners and their professional development remain under-researched (Ding & Campion, 2016; Kaivanpanah et al., 2021a; Fitzpatrick et al., 2022). In many UK institutions, EAP units are situated outside academic departments, for example within student services or libraries, reflecting their ambiguous academic status (Davis, 2019). Accordingly, practitioners’ roles, qualifications, career pathways, and access to professional development vary widely, and despite EAP’s recognition as a specialised field, entry routes remain informal, with many practitioners transitioning from general English language teaching backgrounds (Alexander, 2007).

Research on EAP practitioners’ professional development has largely focused on “expanding circle” contexts (Ding & Bruce, 2017), where English is taught as a foreign language (e.g., Kaivanpanah et al., 2021a; Kaivanpanah et al., 2021b; Tan & Tan, 2024). By contrast, empirical research in “inner circle” English-speaking contexts such as the UK remains limited (e.g., Fitzpatrick et al., 2022), and existing studies offer little insight into how professional growth is shaped, sustained, or constrained in institutional practice. Consequently, the professional trajectories of university EAP lecturers and the conditions that support or hinder their development remain poorly understood (Kaivanpanah et al., 2021b).

This study addresses this gap by foregrounding the largely absent voices of UK university EAP practitioners (Ding & Bruce, 2017). It examines how EAP lecturers experience professional growth, the forms of support available to them, and the institutional and interpersonal conditions shaping their development. Accordingly, the study is guided by the following research questions:

1. What drives university EAP lecturers’ professional growth in the UK?
2. How do these factors interact to shape UK-based EAP lecturers’ professional growth?

The study draws on Self-Determination Theory (SDT), which explains human motivation and the innate tendency toward growth (Ryan & Deci, 2000). SDT distinguishes intrinsic motivation, driven by interest and enjoyment, from extrinsic motivation, driven by external demands or rewards, and also accounts for amotivation, characterised by a lack of intention to act due to perceived incompetence, low value, or disconnection (Ryan & Deci, 2020). Extrinsic motivation comprises four regulatory forms: external and introjected regulation, which are more controlled, and identified and integrated regulation, which are more autonomous. Although the latter are not inherently enjoyable, they involve personal endorsement and choice, placing them closer to intrinsic motivation in terms of autonomy. Central to SDT is the claim that sustained motivation and high-quality performance depend on the fulfilment of three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Burn et al.’s (2010) model of professional learning highlights how professional growth emerges from the interaction between individual orientations and working environments, emphasising collaborative practices and personal factors. Building on this view, this study integrates Self-Determination Theory with Burn et al.’s model to examine how institutional structures and collaborative practices shape EAP lecturers’ experiences of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and support sustainable professional growth in UK university contexts.

The proposal presented here is part of a broader research project: "Study of the initial training of education professionals at the University of Malaga: analysis and proposals for improvement" (funded by the University of Malaga's Plan Propio, 2022-UMAPR 00009), which is being carried out by the Institute for Research in Education Professional Training. The aim of this project is to analyse and understand the training processes of education professionals, with the intention of providing evidence for the process of improving and transforming their syllabus. To this end, we have worked with different groups within the centre: teaching staff, students, academic managers and graduates from the last five years.

In this paper, we present the work carried out with academic managers at the faculty at different levels of management: Dean's Office, departments and degree coordination. The institutional framework for this training, the University, offers a rigid and highly structured model in Spain, often far removed from pedagogical advances (Martínez Bonafé, 2018). In this context, the academic leaders of the faculties that train education professionals are subject to the tensions inherent in this scenario, exacerbated by their own pedagogical beliefs, which do not always coincide. These tensions are manifested in political changes (national and international) and their consequences for education and management models, the demands of international assessments and the conditions they establish for ways of governance, and the inertia of the individualistic, commercialised and utilitarian practices in which we are entrenched. Academic leaders thus translate this situation in particular ways, highlighting the different sources of pressure at work.

In this regard, it is important to question the exercise of democracy in the context of management, governance models and their performativity, the educational and pedagogical content of their actions, and their impact on the possibilities for generating alternatives for change and transformation of the system. Technical management would seem to lead us to immobility and the reproduction of political and/or administrative slogans, while participatory democratic management could guarantee processes of transformation.

We are therefore concerned with knowing, analysing and understanding the role that these academic leaders are playing in the construction of the institutional frameworks in which the training of education professionals takes place. From our point of view, little attention has been paid to this focus in research on teacher training. Rather, the focus has been on training processes, overlooking the institutional framework in which they take place. That is why, in this research, educational leaders constitute one of the relevant axes that is offering relevant elements for understanding the existing pedagogical model in education professional training centres. The current socio-political scenario requires addressing new complexities that largely fall into the hands of managers; or at least, they are not unrelated to their actions.

To this end, we have taken into account the three levels of management that operate in these centres. On the one hand, the dean's office, as the main management body, and the figures that comprise it. Mainly, the dean and the person responsible for organising teaching, the vice-dean of Academic Planning. Secondly, the department heads, as they are directly responsible for the teaching staff and the subjects in the curriculum. And finally, the degree coordinators, who are responsible for ensuring the proper development of the studies.