Conference Agenda

Session

22 SES 05 C: Teaching in HE: agency and attitudes

Time:

Wednesday, 19/Aug/2026:

10:30 - 12:00

Session Chair: Alina Boutiuc-Kaiser

Location: B1096 | Pinni B | 1 Fl.

cap: 100

Paper Session

Presentations

22. Research in Higher Education
Paper

Relational Dimensions of Teacher Agency in University Teaching: Purposes for Exercising Agency

Max Kusters¹, Elizabeth Rushton², Roeland Van der Rijst³, Wilfried Admiraal⁴

1: University of Groningen, Netherlands, The; 2: University of Stirling, United Kingdom; 3: Leiden University, Netherlands, The; 4: OsloMet University, Norway

Presenting Author: Kusters, Max

Introduction

University teaching is a purposeful practice in which academics make judgments about what counts as knowledge, how it should be taught, and how students are invited into disciplinary ways of thinking (Barnett, 2021). These judgments are made in institutional environments shaped by competing priorities (e.g., research expectations, quality assurance, workload pressures), shifting student needs, and evolving professional relationships. In these conditions, academics must act deliberately to shape teaching practices and their working conditions. Teacher agency – understood here as the capacity to act purposefully and make informed choices within particular practices – offers a lens for examining how academics navigate, negotiate, and direct these complexities (Kusters, 2025).

A prominent conceptualisation of teacher agency is the ecological approach, which frames agency as an emergent achievement shaped by past experiences (iterational), present judgments (practical-evaluative), and future aspirations (projective) (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998; Priestley et al., 2015). While this approach has advanced understanding of how agency is achieved, there is less empirical insight into what agency is for: the purposes, motivations, and value-laden orientations that guide academics’ agentic work. Furthermore, relational and emotional dimensions of teaching – such as care, collegial connection, and ethically charged interactions – are often treated as contextual influences rather than constitutive processes through which agency is formed (Rushton & Bird, 2024).

The question guiding this study
For what purposes do academics exercise teacher agency, and how are these purposes constituted through iterational, practical-evaluative, and projective dimensions, with particular attention to relational aspects?

The question is designed to surface in addition to decision-making in constrained environments, the educational and professional goods academics seek to realise (e.g., what they protect, pursue, prioritise, or refuse) and how these orientations are sustained – or disrupted – through relationships with students, colleagues, and institutional actors.

Theoretical framework
This study combines the ecological approach to agency with an interpretive account of meaning-making to explain both purpose and relationality in academics’ agentic work. We draw on the ecological approach to conceptualise teacher agency as a situated and time-sensitive achievement: academics’ actions are informed by professional biographies and accumulated commitments (iterational), involve practical judgment amid material, structural and cultural conditions (practical-evaluative), and are oriented by imagined futures for students, disciplines, and selves (projective). The framework also foregrounds relational and emotional dimensions of teaching as constitutive. Following Rushton and Bird (2024), relationships are approached as sites in which purposes become visible and are negotiated – through care, fairness, inclusion, and collegial responsibility – and where agency is enacted through ethical and affective judgments. To address the question of “agency for what?”, we further bring a hermeneutic perspective to the ecological approach, emphasising how academics’ professional actions are grounded in meaning-making, self-understanding and value-informed judgment (cf. Kögler, 1996). Hermeneutic reflexivity helps account for how academics interpret what is at stake, justify and revise decisions in dialogue with others, and critically engage with dominant institutional narratives about quality, responsibility and “good” teaching.

European and international dimension
This framework speaks directly to European and international debates about higher education teaching because the tensions that make agency consequential – quality assurance regimes, intensified performance logics, widening participation, internationalised classrooms, shifting professional identities, and the relational labour of teaching – are widely experienced across national systems, though differently configured locally. By focusing on purpose-driven agency and its relational constitution, the study offers concepts that travel across contexts and helps clarify what kinds of institutional cultures and professional learning spaces are needed to sustain meaningful teaching in contemporary universities.

Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used
Method
To explore the purpose-driven dimensions of teacher agency, we employed a scenario-based interview design, which is well-suited to eliciting value-laden interpretations and decision-making in authentic professional dilemmas. The interview protocol drew on a set of 23 validated teaching scenarios (Kusters et al., 2024). These scenarios were constructed from “critical moments” reported in interviews with university lecturers across seven European research-intensive universities, capturing recurring challenges such as student preparedness, workload tensions, conflicting expectations, pedagogical dilemmas, online interaction, and curriculum coherence. They were refined through review by expert panels in higher education and teacher agency (assessing recognisability, clarity of dilemma, and capacity to elicit multiple legitimate responses) and further supported through piloting with university lecturers.

Data collection
Data were collected through individual interviews with 12 academics from the Education Division of a Scottish university. Participants were recruited via a voluntary departmental call and contacted the first author directly. Each participant selected scenarios in advance that they found most relevant to their teaching; interviews were then structured around three pre-selected scenarios and lasted up to 60 minutes. For each scenario, participants were invited to explain how they would respond and, crucially, why: how they interpreted what was at stake, what options they perceived, what action(s) they would take, and what considerations (e.g., student needs, collegial relationships, institutional expectations, values, anticipated consequences) shaped their judgment. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were shared with participants for review and amendment; two participants provided additional comments by email, which were incorporated into the dataset. Ethical approval was obtained, written informed consent collected, confidentiality and anonymity procedures followed, and participants were reminded of their right to withdraw within four weeks; participants were also informed about potential indirect recognition within their institutional context.

Data analysis
Analysis followed reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2019). We treated scenario selection as an inherent feature of the interpretive dataset: rather than analysing the scenarios themselves, we analysed how participants reasoned through and interpreted the dilemmas. We familiarised ourselves with the transcripts, generated inductive codes attentive to expressed purposes (why actions were chosen, desired outcomes, positioning in relation to students/institutions), developed and collaboratively reviewed themes, then defined and named themes and produced a synthesis of purpose-driven agency. Priestley et al.’s (2015) ecological dimensions (iterational, practical-evaluative, projective) were used as a sensitising lens during theme refinement and synthesis – supporting, but not pre-structuring, interpretation.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings
Findings and conclusions
Analysis of academics’ scenario responses identified five interrelated purposes for exercising teacher agency in university teaching: 1) responsive adaptation to contextual structures, 2) moral and ethical reasoning, 3) negotiation between personal values and institutional goals, 4) self-directed professional growth, and 5) care and connection. Across these purposes, agency was shown to emerge through ongoing negotiations with students, colleagues, institutional cultures, and disciplinary communities, aligning with a relational understanding of agency as coordinating action with others in order to interpret and respond to complex situations. Participants’ accounts also demonstrated that what can appear as ad hoc decision-making is typically underpinned by accumulated experience and values (iterational), context-sensitive judgments in the moment (practical-evaluative), and future-oriented aims for teaching, learning, and professional identity (projective). Taken together, the themes portray agency as a deliberate, relational, and interpretive act of meaning-making, rather than a simple response to constraint.

This study contributes to a university-specific elaboration of the ecological approach by demonstrating that teacher agency in higher education is fundamentally relational and purpose-driven. Academics do not merely react to institutional demands; they exercise agency as purposeful professional judgment, shaped by professional histories, pedagogical values, and aspirations, and mediated through relationships that carry ethical and emotional weight. Relational dynamics – collaboration, emotional labour, ethical commitments, and care – are not peripheral influences but key spaces in which teacher agency is constituted and enacted. Practically, this implies that supporting teacher agency requires more than skills training: institutions should cultivate collegial spaces for reflective dialogue, scenario-based deliberation, mentoring, and recognition of the relational work that sustains meaningful university teaching.
References
Barnett, R. (2021). The philosophy of higher education: A critical introduction. Routledge.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023. https://doi.org/10.1086/231294

Kögler, H.-H. (1996). The self-empowered subject: Habermas, Foucault and hermeneutic reflexivity. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 22(4), 13–44.

Kusters, M. (2025). Understanding teacher agency in universities: Why and how lecturers shape and navigate university teaching practices [Doctoral dissertation]. Leiden University.

Kusters, M., de Vetten, A., Admiraal, W., & van der Rijst, R. (2024). Developing scenarios for exploring teacher agency in universities: A multimethod study. Frontline Learning Research, 12(2), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.14786/FLR.V12I2.1419

Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. Bloomsbury.

Rushton, E. A. C., & Bird, A. (2024). Space as a lens for teacher agency: A case study of three beginning teachers in England, UK. The Curriculum Journal, 35(2), 254–270. https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.224

22. Research in Higher Education
Paper

University Teachers’ Concepts About Pedagogical Innovation and Students as Partners Roles

Orsolya Kálmán¹, Judit Saád¹, Borbála Kozma^1,2

1: University of Eötvös Loránd, Hungary; 2: Semmelweis University, Hungary

Presenting Author: Kálmán, Orsolya

In higher education, expectations regarding the quality of education are constantly increasing, and the "VUCA world"—with its volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity—regularly presents students and university teachers with new situations, such as the challenges of AI or sustainability. A fundamental question is how all this can be turned into learning opportunities in higher education (Zenk et al., 2024), which requires both teachers and students to be open to pedagogical innovations. Although higher education institutions have recently made rapid progress in supporting the pedagogical preparedness of their teachers in Europe (Zhang, 2025) and in Hungary (Dringó-Horváth, 2024), less attention has been paid to strengthening teachers' knowledge and expertise on higher education pedagogical innovation.

Previous research shows that teachers generally struggle to define educational innovation (Halász, 2018), while diverse understandings of pedagogical innovation in higher education have also been identified. Based on our literature review, we developed a hierarchical framework of higher education pedagogical innovation by identifying interpretations according to their scope and complexity. The simplest understanding of pedagogical innovation was that of non-traditional teaching (Walder, 2017) or disrupting established teaching routines and listening to students’ voices (Elkayam, 2022). The second level is innovating teaching elements such as the application of innovative thoughts, and innovative use of teaching content, methods, resources, and evaluation (Zhu et al, 2013; Fernandez-Cruz & Rodriguez-Legendre, 2022; Elkayam, 2022). In Fraser’s model (2019), this aligns with the ‘innovative deliverer’ type, who are innovative in the way they teach. The third layer highlights the integrative nature of innovative pedagogies (Fraser, 2019) emphasizing goal-orientation in education and the intentional translation of ideas into actions. This approach also reflects the OECD definition of innovative pedagogies (Paniagua & Istance, 2018) centred on critical reflection on pedagogical purpose, the combinations of pedagogies and the potentials for adaptive teaching. The fourth level interprets educational innovation as a systemic change (Fraser, 2019; Fernandez-Cruz & Rodriguez-Legendre, 2022), involving large-scale initiatives, that integrate innovation development, research and dissemination and systemic professional development and learning of teachers (Stevens et al, 2023).

Pedagogical innovation focusing on renewing teaching and pedagogies for developing students’ innovation competence (Keinanen & Kairisto-Mertanen, 2019) are identified as two parallel research fields, although closer integration between the two fields is promising. In our view, adding students’ innovation competence development perspective as a cross-dimension for interpreting pedagogical innovation can help reframe the role of students as active contributors and co-creators of innovation, rather than passive recipients of pedagogical innovations. The students-as-partners model of Healey et al. (2014) was applied to differentiate forms of student engagement in pedagogical innovations ranging from providing opinions, through active involvement and participation in decision-making, to partnership in co-creation, which leads to the development of students’ innovation competences.

Taking part in educational innovations and learning as university teachers are mutually connected phenomena and in many European countries institutional systems have been established to support educational innovations for a longer time (Stevens et al, 2023). However, in Hungary these initiatives are newer and more sporadic. Within these evolving supportive learning environments, our research aim is to identify patterns and diversity in how pedagogical innovation is understood and enacted in higher education, in order to inform the development of more effective support systems for educational innovation and teachers’ professional development, and to strengthen their innovation expertise. The research questions are the following: (1) How do innovative educators in Hungary interpret pedagogical innovations in higher education? (2) How do they perceive students’ roles in pedagogical innovations? (3) What kinds of professional learning and development opportunities can be identified through the perception of educational innovations?

Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used
The study adopts a qualitative research design based on expert sampling and includes semi-structured interviews with 28 innovative higher education educators from Hungary.

In the sample selection process, five experts in educational innovations and higher education research identified the pool of possible participants for the study. The main criteria were the following for inclusion: (1) teachers who work and teach in research intensive higher education institutions (2) teachers identified as innovative based on their active involvement in educational development projects and applications within their institution or externally as well as (3) acknowledged and recommended by academic developers from their institutions as being innovative and forerunner university teachers. From this pool of innovative university teachers, 14 participants from soft science (e.g. business, education, humanities) and 14 from hard science disciplinary areas (e.g. engineering, medical and health sciences) were selected. The participants were coming from 9 higher education institutions from Hungary. Besides ensuring heterogeneity across disciplinary fields (soft and hard sciences), the sample strived to include different age groups, genders, university positions and years of expertise in teaching.

The interview protocol drew on previous interview-based research studies about educational innovation in higher education (Hannan & Silver, 2000). The semi-structured interviews focused on the following topics: the aims of educational innovations, own educational innovation practice and processes, the characteristics of innovative teachers, colleagues and groups, innovation competences of university teachers, institutional facilitators and barriers to educational innovation, supportive community for pedagogical innovation. The interviews were around 60 to 70 minutes long and conducted online in MS Teams in the Spring of 2025. The research study was granted ethical permission (2024/620) from our university.

Data were analyzed applying a collaborative thematic analysis approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Hemphill & Richards, 2018; Delve et al., 2023). The collaborative approach was started with planning the joint work of the three researchers involved in data analysis, then initial codes and themes were generated individually, then discussed and shared together for enriching the interpretations. Based on the jointly agreed main themes, all interviews were analyzed by two researchers, and the main themes were reinterpreted and finalized. For the analysis, MAXQDA 24.7 was used.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings
Our preliminary results show nine key themes for the interpretation of pedagogical innovations in higher education. The themes of innovation as ‘teacher’s self-fulfillment', ‘everyday practice’, and ‘increasing efficiency’ are primarily associated with the understanding of innovation as non-traditional teaching. These interpretations do not consider much student engagement in innovation. If yes, only at the level of consultation. Teachers often frame student resistance and indifference as key drivers of ongoing changes.

A unique theme of educational innovation in higher education, is the ‘flying under the radar’ which is innovating educational practice without formal institutional recognition. This is typically connected to renewing assessment practices, and due to its ‘underground’ nature, it tends to involve students in decision-making.

The themes of ‘experimenting with new solutions’ and ‘facilitating students’ active learning’ were those that connected to innovating teaching elements according to the literature review, the theme of ‘goal-oriented innovation’ was the one which focused on the integrative pedagogical innovation approach. However, teachers perceived student active involvement as weaker within ‘goal-oriented innovation’ than in the less complex approaches focusing on innovating specific teaching elements (e.g. methods or new technologies).

Finally, the themes of ‘innovating through community building’ and ‘complex pedagogical and research innovations' were the most complex interpretations of pedagogical innovations and within these students were perceived as partners (Healey et al, 2014) and co-creators of educational innovations. Perceiving students as co-creators can contribute to the development of their innovation competences; however, university teachers have not recognized and reflected on this opportunity.

Identifying typical patterns of the concepts about pedagogical innovation in higher education can contribute to more targeted and differentiated support for educators’ pedagogical innovation activities. Furthermore, strengthening awareness of the integration of teachers’ and students’ learning through and about pedagogical innovations can have a long-term impact even in evolving supportive learning environments.
References
Braun, V., Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Dringó-Horváth I. (2024). Oktatásfejlesztési innováció és hálózatépítés a magyarországi felsőoktatásban: Trendek, irányadó eredmények, adaptálható jógyakorlatok. L’Harmattan Kiadó. https://doi.org/10.56037/978-963-646-188-1

Elkayam, T.S. (2022): What is pedagogical innovation? Perceptions of teacher educators in Israel, Pedagogies: An International Journal, DOI: 10.1080/1554480X.2022.2106232

Fernandez-Cruz, F. J. & Rodriguez-Legendre, F. (2022). The innovation competence profile of teachers in higher education institutions. In: Innovations in Education and Teaching International (Vol. 59, Issue 6, pp. 634–645). Routledge Journals, Taylor & Francis Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.1905031

Fraser, S. (2019). Understanding innovative teaching practice in higher education: A framework for reflection. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(7), 1371–1385. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1654439

Halász, G. (2018). Measuring innovation in education: The outcomes of a national education sector innovation survey. European Journal of Education: Research, Development and Policy, 53(4), 557–573. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12299

Hannan, A., Silver, H. (2000). Innovating in Higher Education: Teaching, Learning and Institutional Cultures. Open University Press.

Healey, M., Flint, A., Harrington, K. (2024). Engagement through partnership: Students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. Higher Education Academy

Keinanen, M. M., & Kairisto-Mertanen, L. (2019). Researching learning environments and students’ innovation competences. Education and Training, 61(1), 17–30). https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-03-2018-0064  

Paniagua, A. & D. Istance (2018), Teachers as Designers of Learning Environments: The Importance of Innovative Pedagogies, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264085374-en.

Richards, K. A. R., & Hemphill, M. A. (2018). A practical guide to collaborative qualitative data analysis. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 37(2), 225–231. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2017-0084

Stevens, T. M., Indira N.Z. Day, Perry J. den Brok, (...), Jan D. Vermunt (2023): Teacher professional learning and development in the context of educational innovations in higher education: A typology of practices, Higher Education Research & Development, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2023.2246412

Walder, A. M. (2017). Pedagogical Innovation in Canadian higher education: Professors’ perspectives on its effects on teaching and learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 54, 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.11.001

Zenk, L., Pausits, A., Brenner, B., Campbell, D., F.J., Behrens, D.A., Stöckler, E.M., Oppl, S., Steiner, G. (2024). Meta-competences in complex environmens: An interdisciplinary perspective. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 53, 101515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101515

Zhang, T. (2025). Staff development in learning and teaching at European universities. Brussels: European University Association.

Zhu, C., Wang, D., Cai, Y., & Engels, N. (2013). What core competencies are related to teachers’ innovative teaching? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 41(1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2012.753984

22. Research in Higher Education
Paper

‘It’s a Different World’: Nurturing Lecturer Self-efficacy Beliefs During Academic Induction Through Targeted Support and a Psychologically Safe Workplace.

Rachel Minett, Muhamet Halilaj

Anglia Ruskin University, United Kingdom

Presenting Author: Minett, Rachel

This qualitative research project explores the sources of lecturer self-efficacy beliefs in teacher educators new to working in Higher Education (HE), with the aim of understanding how self-efficacy beliefs can be nurtured during a critical career transition. The project is situated within a brand-new teacher education department in an English university, where several lecturers had begun new roles within a period of two years.

Teacher education is a rapidly changing landscape internationally. As policy makers seek to enhance educational outcomes, they have increasingly focused on building standardised teacher education frameworks to enhance the quality of education and support for beginning teachers. However, there still remains great variance in the manner in which teacher education is governed and implemented across European countries (Symeonidis, Hellmann and Laux, 2024) and the professional development and induction of individuals who train, educate and support beginning teachers (teacher educators) is often overlooked (InFo-TED, 2019).

Research recognises the importance of supportive induction processes for all new academics within European HE institutions (King, Roed and Wilson, 2018; Fabriz et al., 2021). Previous research also highlights the importance of providing new teacher educators (who often are transitioning from a practitioner role) with tailored induction support and professional development in order to support their developing professional identity and competence (Murray, Czerniawski and Barber, 2011).

Stemming from social-cognitive theory, individuals with strong self-efficacy beliefs (the belief that they have the ability to implement actions successfully in a specific domain) are more likely to achieve their goals (Bandura, 1997). Previous research has found links between positive lecturer self-efficacy beliefs and job satisfaction, reduced burnout and engagement with student-centred approaches to teaching (Cao et al., 2018; Ismayilova and Klassen, 2019), however there is a lack of qualitative research in this area and a gap in our understanding of the influence of disciplinary, environmental and cultural contexts (Matos, Iaochite and Sharp, 2022).

The first few years of a lecturer’s career in HE is a prime period for influencing positive self-efficacy beliefs (Morris and Usher, 2011) and the context in which lecturers work is an important contribution. Bandura (1997) suggests there are four sources of efficacy beliefs including mastery experiences (successful performance of a task in the given domain) which are theorised to be the most influential source, vicarious experiences (observing others model tasks successfully), verbal persuasion (feedback from others) and an individual’s interpretation of their emotional and physiological states. Although some research has investigated the sources of lecturer efficacy beliefs, with evidence supporting the influence of mastery experiences, verbal persuasion and vicarious experiences in particular (Hemmings, 2012), there is still much to be explored regarding the sources of lecturer self-efficacy beliefs in Higher Education (Matos, Iaochite and Sharp, 2022).

The research questions addressed in this study are:

What sources influence the development of lecturer self-efficacy beliefs in new teacher educators working in HE?
How can lecturer self-efficacy beliefs in new teacher educators be nurtured - what support strategies are most effective?

The focus of this project was examining teacher educators’ own perceptions of the factors which influenced their lecturer self-efficacy beliefs within the context of their new role in HE. The methods chosen to explore the research questions reflect an interpretivist stance, where data collection and analysis align with the notion that knowledge is context-dependant and co-constructed by the participants and researchers.

Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used
Purposive sampling was used to recruit teacher educators in their first two years in role within a newly formed teacher education team in an English university. Participants were invited to take part in the research via email and were provided with information about the purpose and nature of the project. Eight teacher educators agreed to take part and completed an informed consent form. All participants were new to working in HE and had previous experience as primary or secondary school teachers.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted to allow participants to share their experiences and perceptions of the factors which influenced their developing self-efficacy beliefs in their new role. A series of prepared prompt questions were used by the researchers to initiate discussion such as ‘How confident do you feel in your new role on a scale of 1-10? Why is that?’ and ‘Are there any aspects of your role you feel more or less confident about?’ with flexibility regarding follow up questions from the researcher to facilitate exploration of the research aims. Interviews lasted around 30-45 minutes and were conducted via online meeting software. The interviews were recorded for transcription purposes.
Photo-elicitation has been successfully used in previous research into professional transitions (Coverdale and Glazzard, 2024) where sourcing or creating the image prior to the interview helps to initiate participants’ thoughts about their experiences. In this study, participants were asked to bring a photo or image to the interview that represents their experience of their new role – the image could be created by the participant or an existing sourced image. The image was used as a discussion point, to encourage participants to share perceptions of their lecturer self-efficacy beliefs and their experience of transitioning into the role of a lecturer in Higher Education.

Reflexive thematic analysis was applied to generate themes from the data, following the stages outlined by Braun and Clarke (2022). This started with familiarisation and initial coding of the transcripts (a mixture of inductive and deductive coding based on Bandura’s suggested sources of efficacy beliefs), code refinement, clustering codes on a mind map, initial theme generation, followed by theme refinement and naming. Reflexive thematic analysis was chosen as it reflects the interpretivist stance that data is always interpreted by the researcher and understanding researcher assumptions is part of the research process. Reflexive journaling was used throughout the data analysis process to record the researchers’ developing interpretations of the data and support writing up of the analysis.

Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings
All four of Bandura’s suggested sources of self-efficacy beliefs were evident in participants’ accounts of their experiences, with particularly strong influences coming from verbal persuasion (in the form of feedback from line managers, students and colleagues) and mastery experiences (practical experience of successfully completing job-related tasks). The way in which these sources were experienced in the workplace by the participants was important, within formal and informal induction processes. A psychologically safe workplace in which new colleagues are encouraged to learn from experiences and ask for help, are provided with formal opportunities to complete professional development aligned with their role, feel part of a supportive team. and receive regular direction and supervision from line managers have a positive influence on lecturer self-efficacy beliefs and their ability to navigate the ‘new world’ of HE.

The study provides practical insights into the challenges and affordances of inducting several new teacher educators into a university within a short space of time. The research advocates for strategic, context-specific induction processes that prioritise professional learning, peer-support and a culture of psychological safety to foster confident and effective lecturers. The findings have wider implications for Higher Education institutions across Europe and internationally, given that previous research has suggested that academic induction is often ineffective and may contribute to lecturer attrition (King, Roed and Wilson, 2018). The study provides suggestions for effective induction and support of new lecturers, particularly those transitioning from industry and practitioner roles, and how these can benefit lecturer self-efficacy beliefs and ultimately the performance and retention of new academics.

References
Bandura, A. (1997) Self-efficacy : the exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2022) Thematic Analysis. A Practical Guide. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Cao, Y. et al. (2018) ‘Teacher educators’ approaches to teaching and the nexus with self-efficacy and burnout: examples from two teachers’ universities in China’, Journal of Education for Teaching, 44(4), pp. 479–495. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2018.1450954.
Coverdale, L. and Glazzard, J. (2024) ‘“Your Head is on the Chopping Block”: Exploring the Transitions from Primary Trainee Teacher to Early Career Teacher in England’, International Journal of Educational and Life Transitions, 3(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.5334/ijelt.87.
Fabriz, S. et al. (2021) ‘How a professional development programme for university teachers impacts their teaching-related self-efficacy, self-concept, and subjective knowledge’, Higher Education Research & Development, 40(4), pp. 738–752. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1787957.
Hemmings, B. (2012) ‘Sources of research confidence for early career academics: a qualitative study’, Higher Education Research & Development, 31(2), pp. 171–184. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.559198.
InFo-TED (2019) ‘The importance of teacher educators: professional development imperatives’. The International Forum for Teacher Educator Development. Available at: https://info-ted.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/InFo-TED-White-Paper.pdf (Accessed: 23 January 2026).
Ismayilova, K. and Klassen, R.M. (2019) ‘Research and teaching self-efficacy of university faculty: Relations with job satisfaction’, International Journal of Educational Research, 98, pp. 55–66. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.08.012.
King, V., Roed, J. and Wilson, L. (2018) ‘It’s very different here: practice-based academic staff induction and retention’, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 40(5), pp. 470–484. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2018.1496516.
Matos, M. da M., Iaochite, R.T. and Sharp, J.G. (2022) ‘Lecturer self-efficacy beliefs: an integrative review and synthesis of relevant literature’, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 46(2), pp. 225–245. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2021.1905155.
Morris, D.B. and Usher, E.L. (2011) ‘Developing teaching self-efficacy in research institutions: A study of award-winning professors’, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(3), pp. 232–245. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.005.
Murray, J., Czerniawski, G. and Barber, P. (2011) ‘Teacher educators’ identities and work in England at the beginning of the second decade of the twenty-first century’, Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(3), pp. 261–277. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2011.588014.
Symeonidis, V., Hellmann, K. and Laux, M. (2024) ‘The (in)coherence of European Teacher Education: A Comparative Mapping of Policies at National and Institutional Levels’, in G. Doetjes et al. (eds) Coherence in European Teacher Education: Theoretical Models, Empirical Studies, Instructional Approaches. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien, pp. 9–35. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-43721-3_2.

22. Research in Higher Education
Paper

Exploring Teaching Academics’ Attitudes, Intentions, and Future Actions in the Context of GenAI and Educational Change

Lynn Sheridan¹, Elisabeth Duursma², Isabelle Wentworth³, Rebekkah Middleton¹, Sasha Nikolic¹

1: University of Wollongong; 2: University of Western Sydney; 3: Australian Catholic University

Presenting Author: Sheridan, Lynn; Duursma, Elisabeth

Topic

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is accelerating the digital transformation of higher education, reshaping how knowledge is designed, delivered, and assessed in teaching and learning (Samala et al., 2025; Robert & Muscanell, 2025). Compared with earlier educational technologies, GenAI produces novel outputs, responds dynamically to user prompts, and operates across modalities such as text and video (Sengar et al., 2024). This enables personalisation, curriculum innovation, and efficiencies in routine academic tasks (Hughes et al., 2025). Yet rapid adoption exposes unresolved challenges, including bias in model outputs and integrity risks in assessment (Maxwell et al., 2025). The uneven capability among staff and students, present the possibility that established policies and pedagogies become obsolete (An et al., 2025; Nguyen, 2025). In line with ECER 2026’s theme of ‘Knowing and Acting’, this paper explores how teaching academics understand GenAI’s potentials and limits under changing institutional conditions, and how these understandings inform what they intend to do next. The focus is explicitly future‑oriented: moving beyond from current usage to examine how academics anticipate their future integrating GenAI responsibly and effectively across diverse university contexts (Author et al., 2025; Robert & Muscanell, 2025).

Research Questions

RQ1: What are teaching academics’ attitudes and beliefs about how GenAI will shape future teaching and learning, and how do these attitudes influence their intentions to use GenAI?
RQ2: What contradictions or tensions do teaching academics experience as they plan for future integration of GenAI in their teaching?

Objective

The study explores the interconnections between attitudes, intentions, and anticipated future actions of teaching academics regarding GenAI adoption and future use. It seeks to identify the contradictions and tensions teaching academic are encountering as they move towards the embedding of GenAI tools into teaching practices. By foregrounding future intentions rather than only present practices, the research aims to guide institutions move from reactive compliance toward proactive, pedagogically grounded strategies for GenAI. Specifically, the objective is to clarify where academics perceive value (e.g., personalisation, feedback, efficiency) and where they foresee risks (e.g., bias, over‑automation, equity, teacher role), while surfacing the kinds of policy guidance and training academics consider credible and workable within their disciplines (Kangwa et al., 2025). Current research largely examines perceptions and attitudes towards present uses of GenAI, rather than perceptions of future use in higher education teaching. The ineffectiveness of GenAI ultimately depends on policies that align with academics’ anticipated needs and perspectives.

Theoretical Framework

The analysis is guided by the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005). This theory suggests that rational considerations, rather than unconscious impulses, tend to guide actions (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005). According to this theory, attitudes toward a behaviour, subjective norms (perceived uptake and endorsement by peers), and perceived behavioural control (capability and enabling conditions) can jointly shape intentions and subsequent actions (Bosnjak et al., 2020). Applied to GenAI, TPB predicts that academics who hold favourable beliefs about usefulness and trust, observe peer adoption, often feel confident in their capability and are more likely to plan and enact GenAI use (Chiu et al., 2023). However, intentions do not inevitably translate into behaviour; contradictions emerge when capability is uneven, institutional support is limited, or ethical and integrity concerns remain unresolved (Basileo et al., 2024).

From a sociocultural perspective, technology adoption is shaped by institutional culture, disciplinary norms, and policy contexts. Academic uptake of GenAI tools reflects not only individual attitudes but also these broader influences. This study uses the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to examine academics’ future intentions, linking what they know to how they are likely to act (Shata & Hartley, 2025).

Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used
Research Design
This study adopts a qualitative, exploratory design (Young & Diem, 2023) to examine teaching academics’ beliefs, intentions, and anticipated future practices regarding the use of Generative AI tools (GenAI). The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) provides the conceptual lens.
Method
An online questionnaire comprising six validated scales and five open-ended questions. Scales assessed: attitudes toward GenAI (48 items); social norms around its use (16 items; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1970); perceived behavioural control (12 items; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977); authenticity values (12 items; Wood et al., 2008); intended or actual GenAI use (6 items; Ajzen, 1985); and participants’ goals and beliefs (12 items; McElwee & Haugh, 2010). The five open-ended questions (see Table 1) allowed for rich textual data.
Data Collection
Participants were teaching academics in higher education. Recruitment used professional networks and the Prolific platform. The instrument captured demographic data across 20 disciplines in 24 countries.
Table 1. Open-ended questions
Questions Response Nos.
Q1. How might GenAI affect ‘the future of’ academic teaching in a higher education? n=466
Q2. What are your future plans regarding GenAI in your teaching? n=495
Q3. How might current infrastructure, resources, workload and culture in your institution, support or hinder the use of GenAI in your teaching? n=510
Q4. What are the features of GenAI that you feel could assist your teaching? n=508
Q5. If you are resistant to adopting GenAI in your teaching, can you explain your reservations? n=481
Data Analysis (Quantitative)
Using correlations and multiple regressions, attitudes, social norms, and perceived behavioural control significantly predicted intentions to use GenAI (55% of variance) and actual use (61% of variance), with intentions directly predicting behaviour. Individual differences played a nuanced role: future clarity positively predicted favourable attitudes, while fixed mindset and social dominance orientation were unexpectedly positively associated with GenAI attitudes, suggesting these individuals may perceive GenAI as a competitive advantage rather than a threat.
Data Analysis (Qualitative)
Five researchers conducted inductive thematic analysis within an interpretivist epistemology. Each researcher coded responses, generating initial codes as concise keywords. A lead researcher clustered codes into candidate categories, refined through team consensus meetings. An independent researcher then validated categories by assigning responses and counting frequencies. Investigator triangulation produced six overarching categories: 1. Efficiency and automation; 2. Ethics and authenticity; 3. Quality; 4. Customised learning; 5. Institutional policy–practice; and 6. Socio-cultural implications. Salient excerpts were selected to exemplify each category and examine cross-category tensions.

Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings
1. Efficiency and automation (n=737). GenAI could expedite teaching activities and reduce demands of teaching or raise workload and job demands.

"GenAI has the potential to free up educators' time to focus on more meaningful interactions ..."

2. Ethics and authenticity (n=326). The circumvent of academic rules or unethical behaviours.

“It's a great tool but it's so easy to abuse, I worry …”
"Students are paying for my knowledge; they should get my knowledge."

3. Quality (n=424). Improved quality – more extensive knowledge, information, and wisdom; over-reliance might diminish human judgment and experience.

"AI also has its own limitations in terms of accuracy and … its trustworthiness."

4.  Customised learning (n=197). Students’ information – tailored to needs, preferences, or interests.

“Creates personalised study plans based on students' strengths, weaknesses, and progress”.

5. Institutional policy and practices (n=305 comments). Limitations – policies, training, infrastructure, resources, or funding.

"There is no coherent policy on the use of GenAI in my institution …."

6.  Sociocultural implications as well (n=217). The rapid decline of some jobs, and the eroding of the human connection in education.

"I just don’t think [GenAI] should replace the human essence of content creation."

Teaching academics expressed strong, nuanced, and conflicting opinions about GenAI in teaching and a spectrum of perspectives; enthusiasm and optimism to caution and resistance. The attitudes, and perceived behavioural controls are multifaceted and ambivalent. To utilise GenAI in the future, institutions must acknowledge and accommodate complexities. Rational deliberations rather than unconscious impulse will guide future actions.

GenAI’s future use will hinge on academics’ attitudes and institutional conditions. e.g., policy, ethics, and capability. Selective, pedagogically justified integration that safeguards authenticity and relational in teaching is necessary for efficiency and personalisation in teaching. Investment in coherent governance, infrastructure, and discipline‑sensitive professional development will support teaching academics usage of GenAI.

References
Author et al., (2025)
An, Y., Yu, J. H., and James, S. (2025). Investigating the higher education institutions’ guidelines and policies regarding the use of generative AI in teaching, learning, research, and administration. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 22(1), 10. 10.1186/s41239-025-00507-3
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Ajzen, I., and Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson Hughes, L., Malik, T., Dettmer, S., Al-Busaidi, A. S., and Dwivedi, Y. K. (2025). Reimagining higher education: Navigating the challenges of generative AI adoption. Information Systems Frontiers. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-025-10582-6
Basileo, L. D., Otto, B., Lyons, M., Vannini, N., and Toth, M. D. (2024). The role of self-efficacy, motivation, and perceived support of students' basic psychological needs in academic achievement. Frontiers in Education (Lausanne), 910.3389/feduc.2024.1385442
Chiu, T.K.F., Xia, Q., Zhou, X, Chai, C.S., Cheng, M. (2023). Systematic literature review on opportunities, challenges, and future research recommendations or artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, 100118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100118
Kangwa, D., Msafiri, M. M., and Fute, A. (2025). Balancing innovation and ethics: promote academic integrity through support and effective use of GenAI tools in higher education. AI and Ethics, 10.1007/s43681-025-00689-6
Maxwell, D., Oyarzun, B., Kim, S., and Bong, J. Y. (2025). Generative AI in Higher Education: Demographic Differences in Student Perceived Readiness, Benefits, and Challenges. TechTrends, 10.1007/s11528-025-01109-6
Nguyen, K. V. (2025). The use of generative AI tools in higher education: Ethical and pedagogical principles. Journal of Academic Ethics,1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-025-09607-1
Robert, J., and Muscanell, N. (2023). *2023 EDUCAUSE Horizon Action Plan: Generative AI*. EDUCAUSE. https://library.educause.edu/resources/2023/9/2023-educause-horizon-action-plan-generative-ai
Samala, A. D., Rawas, S., Wang, T., Reed, J. M., Kim, J., Howard, N.-J., and Ertz, M. (2025). Unveiling the landscape of generative artificial intelligence in education: a comprehensive taxonomy of applications, challenges, and future prospects. Education and Information Technologies, 30(3), 3239-3278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12936-0
Sengar, S. S., Hasan, A. B., Kumar, S., and Carroll, F. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence: a systematic review and applications. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 10.1007/s11042-024-20016-1
Shata, A., and Hartley, K. (2025). Artificial intelligence and communication technologies in academia: faculty perceptions and the adoption of generative AI. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 22(1),14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-025-00511-7
Young, MD & Diem, S (2023), Handbook of critical education research: qualitative, quantitative, and emerging approaches, (eds) Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, New York, NY.