Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 20:19:01 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
22 SES 14 D: Student Learning Challenges
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper Developing Diversity Competence Through Hackathons in Higher Education: A Trend Study at a German University TU Dortmund University, Germany Presenting Author:Despite increasing calls for diversity across sectors (Teixeira et al., 2016), higher education curricula often lack systematic approaches to fostering diversity competence, although universities are both responsible for preparing students for heterogeneous work environments and are becoming more diverse themselves (Braun et al., 2020). There is a growing need for teaching formats that deepen students' understanding of diversity while linking theoretical content to real-world problems. Problem-based learning (PBL) has gained recognition for promoting critical thinking and professional skills through applied, student-centered learning (Brondani et al., 2024). As part of the DiveHack project, funded by Stiftung Innovation in der Hochschullehre, we conceptualize, implement, and evaluate a problem-based teaching model within a business and economics course at a German university. Students apply their diversity knowledge to real-world challenges, developed in collaboration with regional partners from the private and public sectors. These challenges are addressed during a 24-hour hackathon (Avila-Merino, 2019). To examine the consistency and development of learning outcomes over time, we will conduct this intervention across two consecutive summer semesters (2025 and 2026), enabling us to analyze trends in students' diversity competence development. Thus, we ask the following research question: How does problem-based learning through hackathons contribute to the development of diversity competence in higher education? The hackathon format engages students in developing solutions to real organizational diversity problems provided by external regional partners. On day one, partners present their problems, students form interdisciplinary teams, and begin developing solutions. On day two, teams refine their ideas and create video pitches presenting their recommendations. Faculty serve as facilitators rather than instructors, supporting student-directed learning processes. Initial findings from summer 2025 demonstrated measurable increases in perceived diversity competence. Pre-survey data revealed that 73% of students reported low prior knowledge of diversity management before the intervention. Post-survey results showed that 100% of participants found the hackathon helpful for understanding diversity, with 81.8% rating it as very helpful. All participants (100%) expressed satisfaction with the hackathon format. Qualitative data from focus groups and written reflections revealed that students particularly valued the practical application of theoretical knowledge, interdisciplinary collaboration, and direct engagement with real organizational challenges. The summer 2026 implementation allows us to examine whether these positive outcomes are replicable and whether implementation refinements based on 2025 feedback lead to enhanced learning outcomes. By comparing two independent cohorts, this trend study provides stronger evidence for the effectiveness of PBL-based hackathons in developing diversity competence. The longitudinal approach enables us to identify stable patterns in learning outcomes, distinguish intervention effects from cohort-specific variations, and refine our teaching model based on evidence from multiple implementations. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used We employ a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design (Ivankova et al., 2006) implemented as a longitudinal trend study across two consecutive summer semesters. Longitudinal research constitutes a strategy of inquiry where data are collected over an extended period to identify changes, trends, or specific patterns within a population (Creswell, 2009). Our study extends the sequential explanatory approach longitudinally by repeating the same mixed-methods sequence with independent cohorts across two years, enabling examination of intervention consistency and replicability (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). Within each cohort, the sequential design allows us to first collect and analyze quantitative data, then use qualitative data to explain and deepen understanding of the quantitative results. Our trend study approach examines two independent cohorts (2025 and 2026) to assess whether intervention effects are stable and replicable across different student groups. This differs from panel studies that follow the same participants over time; instead, we utilize repeated cross-sectional measurement with distinct populations to identify consistent patterns (Creswell, 2009). This approach is particularly valuable for evaluation research aimed at assessing intervention effects, as it establishes a baseline followed by subsequent measurements to capture meaningful changes (Kuckartz, 2014). The quantitative phase consists of pre- and post-surveys administered to students in both cohorts. Surveys utilize Likert-scale items adapted from established diversity competence frameworks (Braun et al., 2020), measuring diversity knowledge, diversity management knowledge, and perceived contribution of the hackathon to understanding diversity. We collect demographic data including gender, study program, and prior diversity education experience. Quantitative analysis using SPSS includes paired-samples t-tests within each cohort to examine pre-post changes, and independent-samples t-tests between cohorts to identify trends across implementations. We also conduct descriptive analyses of satisfaction ratings and prior knowledge distributions. The qualitative phase involves focus group discussions and written reflections, analyzed using qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 2012) in MAXQDA. Longitudinal mixed methods research is motivated by analytical interest in documenting how attitudes or experiences change over time, specifically seeking to isolate key variables between different data "sweeps" (Fielding, 2018). We develop both deductive codes based on diversity competence theory and inductive codes emerging from the data. The study follows established ethical standards (Cohen et al., 2017), with voluntary anonymous participation and informed consent. The longitudinal design enables examination of both within-cohort learning gains and between-cohort consistency, strengthening validity of findings about hackathon effectiveness for developing diversity competence. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The findings from this trend study will provide evidence that problem-based learning, implemented through hackathons, can effectively support the development of diversity competence in higher education. The summer 2025 results demonstrate significant self-reported gains in diversity knowledge and diversity management understanding, with universally positive evaluations of the hackathon format. The replication in summer 2026 allows us to assess whether these outcomes represent stable, intervention-driven effects rather than cohort-specific phenomena. Several key patterns emerge from our analysis. First, students enter the course with highly variable and often low prior knowledge of diversity, suggesting that explicit diversity education remains inconsistently integrated in German higher education curricula. Second, the hackathon format appears particularly effective at bridging the theory-practice gap, with students consistently emphasizing the value of applying diversity concepts to authentic organizational challenges. Third, the intensive, collaborative nature of the hackathon creates conditions for interdisciplinary learning and perspective-taking that may be difficult to achieve in traditional lecture formats. The limitations of this research include reliance on self-assessment measures, relatively small sample sizes at a single institution, and the focus on immediate post-intervention effects rather than long-term retention. Future research should incorporate objective measures of diversity competence, examine effects across multiple institutions, and include follow-up assessments to evaluate sustained impact. This study contributes to both PBL and diversity education research by demonstrating how practice-oriented formats can produce measurable learning outcomes. For practitioners, our findings suggest that hackathons represent a viable and efficient model for integrating diversity education higher education curricula. The partnership with external regional organizations also creates opportunities for mutually beneficial knowledge exchange, as students gain practical experience while organizations receive fresh perspectives on their diversity challenges. References Avila-Merino, A. (2019). Learning by doing in business education. Using hackathons to improve the teaching and learning of entrepreneurial skills. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 22(1). Braun, E., Spexard, A., Nowakowski, A. et al. Self-assessment of diversity competence as part of regular teaching evaluations in higher education: raising awareness for diversity issues. Tert Educ Manag 26, 171–183 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-019-09047-8 Brondani, M., Barlow, G., Liu, S., Kalsi, P., Koonar, A., Chen, J., Donnelly, L., & Brondani, B. (2024). Problem-based learning curriculum disconnect on diversity, equitable representation, and inclusion. PLoS ONE, 19(6), e0298843. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0298843 Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539 Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. d'Escoffier, A. H., & de Rezende, F. P. (2024, July 24–26). Academic hackathon and PBL as an awakening of competencies for social entrepreneurship in engineering students [Conference presentation]. PAEE/ALE International Conference on Active Learning in Engineering Education, Monterrey, Mexico. Fielding, N. G. (2018). Combining digital and physical data. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data collection (pp. 584–598). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526416070 Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3 Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using Mixed-Methods sequential explanatory design. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20. Karagiannakis, E. (2024). Diversitätskompetenz. utb GmbH. https://doi.org/10.36198/9783838563312 Kuckartz, U. (2014). Mixed methods: Methodologie, Forschungsdesigns und Analyseverfahren. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-93267-5 Mayring, P. (2012). Qualitative Content Analysis: Basics and Techniques. Beltz. Teixeira, P., Teixeira, P. N., Cardoso, S., Rosa, M. J., & Magalhães, A. (2016). Graduates’ perceptions about labour market competencies: does the type of institution and programme make a difference?. Higher Education Policy, 29, 109-129. 22. Research in Higher Education
Paper The development of disciplinary thinking in Higher Education Research(ers) 1: University of Southern Denmark; 2: Universidad Católica del Maule, Chile; 3: University of Leeds Presenting Author:As a field of research, Higher Education Research (HER) has historically been thought about either as a discipline or an interdiscipline. This paper tries to overcome such dichotomies by reconceptualising contradictions still alive in the field by looking at HER as it develops when enacted in/through research. To that end, we develop a theoretical account of epistemic interfaces – relational sites where individual epistemic thinking engages with socially distributed epistemic norms and practices – to examine how HER and individual researchers can advance reciprocally. Drawing on social epistemology (Goldman, 2011), we address uncertainty about HER’s disciplinary status by theorizing how epistemic plurality and friction (c.f. Medina, 2013) condition possibilities for research development beyond accumulation alone, understood as the linear integration of findings into unified frameworks. In acknowledging the scarcity of theoretically focused research conceptualising the development of HER, we identify conceptual contradictions scattered in the field. By integrating and differentiating theoretical strands, we seek to reposition the need of epistemic plurality and friction in the making of HER. From a social epistemological perspective, knowing is fundamentally an activity of individual epistemic agents, yet one that is unavoidably shaped by social arrangements, norms, and institutions that condition successful inquiry (Goldman, 2011). Epistemic thinking (Barzilai & Zohar, 2014) is therefore neither arbitrary nor idiosyncratic. Rather, it is shaped by what Castorina and Faigenbaum (2002) describe as internal and external constraints. Internal constraints refer to the epistemic commitments, habits, and interpretive resources individuals bring to inquiry, largely analogous to epistemic thinking, whereas external constraints refer to the normative, methodological, and conceptual structures of the domains in which knowing is enacted. Following this, we consider disciplines as mid-level epistemic systems, non-deterministic sets of external constraints that may be more or less ‘well-structured’. From a relational perspective (Castorina & Faigenbaum, 2002), individual epistemic thinking develops through repeated engagement with externally structured practices, with such practices themselves being sustained and transformed through the activity of individuals over time. This is particularly salient in HER, which is widely recognized as a plural, even a-theoretical, discipline that draws on other established disciplines, especially psychology, sociology, and economics (Lovakov & Yudkevich, 2023; Tight, 2004; Orona, 2021). Researchers engaging with HER are often shaped by various disciplinary backgrounds and encounter external constraints that are comparatively weakly standardized. Consequently, results often serve to restate prior conceptual frameworks (Ashwin, 2012) and fail to make use of methodological resources available in HER (Huisman, 2024). However, interdisciplinary research and epistemic diversity perspectives foreground plausible advantages of engaging within joint epistemic spaces (Talbi & van Woerden, 2025). Although not all the epistemic goods that individuals bring in light of their epistemic commitments are negotiable, the potential of such spaces lies in the way differing constraints become visible when emergent friction is engaged (Medina, 2013). In this, interdisciplinary development can be considered at not only the between- and above-disciplines level (Talbi & van Woerden, 2025), but as grounds for individual epistemic change as well (Bendixen & Rule, 2004). Even so, developments at different levels are considered reciprocally related but asynchronous. Although changes in individual commitments are understood to be “slow” (Bendixen & Rule, 2004), they are comparatively faster than changes at the level of an epistemic system (cf. Popkewitz, 1997). In the context of HER, this perspective opens analytic space for examining how epistemic plurality functions not merely as a challenge to the coherence of the field, but as a condition under which different forms of research development may become intelligible. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This paper adopts theory development as its primary methodological approach in light of its need in HER (Wald et al., 2024). Following Hamann and Kosmützky (2021), theoretical work is treated as a legitimate and necessary mode of inquiry in fields characterized by conceptual fragmentation, as it enables clarification of assumptions, articulation of relationships, and integration across otherwise disconnected strands of scholarship. In the context of HER, where plural theoretical traditions and disciplinary backgrounds coexist (Lovakov & Yudkevich, 2023), such theory work is particularly warranted. Recent calls within educational psychology likewise emphasize that advancing knowledge requires not only methodological and ethical reform, but also renewed attention to how theory is developed, evaluated, and revised (Greene, 2022). The theory work undertaken here is conceptual-analytic and integrative in nature. Rather than proposing a comprehensive or unifying theory of HER, the paper develops a mid-level conceptual construct – epistemic interfaces – by bringing social epistemology into dialogue with research on epistemic thinking and HER. In line with the notion of “philosophizing with” (Dohn, 2011), epistemology is not employed as an external foundation or corrective, but as a dialogue partner that helps clarify how individual epistemic agency and socially distributed epistemic practices interact in HER contexts. This approach aligns with prior philosophical engagements in HER that have sought to support disciplinary development through conceptual clarification rather than paradigm imposition (Orona, 2021). Development is understood here in a non-teleological sense. Drawing on Amsel et al. (1997), development is conceptualized as potentially involving stability, variability, differentiation, or reorganization, depending on contextual conditions. This framing allows epistemic change to be theorized without presupposing progress, convergence, or cumulative integration. It also underpins the paper’s emphasis on reciprocal but asynchronous change, whereby individual epistemic commitments and broader epistemic systems may evolve at different paces and in different directions. The theorizing presented is constrained and evaluated through engagement with established literatures in social epistemology, epistemic cognition, interdisciplinarity, and HER. In line with recent discussions of theory development in educational psychology, the proposed account is assessed for adequacy with reference to Greene’s (2022) virtues of theory development, such as plausibility and internal consistency. Attention is likewise paid to historical and critical accounts of interdisciplinarity that caution against forced synthesis or homogenization (Graff, 2016). Together, these constraints aim to ensure that the theory developed is both intellectually responsible and generative for future empirical and theoretical work. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This paper has argued that HER can be productively understood through the lens of epistemic interfaces: relational sites at which individual epistemic thinking encounters socially distributed epistemic norms, practices, and constraints. By theorizing these interfaces, the paper offers a viable unit of analysis for examining how researchers enact knowing in epistemically plural fields, and how individual and collective forms of epistemic development may unfold under conditions of disciplinary heterogeneity. Rather than treating plurality as a deficit to be resolved through theoretical or methodological homogenization, the analysis foregrounds how epistemic friction can make underlying epistemic commitments visible and open to reflexive engagement. Building on this analysis, the paper proposes the model of meta-disciplinary thinking for understanding research development in HER. This model emphasizes meta-level epistemic engagement as a central feature of research activity in contradictory (singular-plural) fields. The model is not intended to replace existing accounts of disciplinarity grounded in theoretical or methodological cohesion, nor to imply that such forms of cohesion are undesirable. Rather, it highlights a different organizing principle: one in which epistemic plurality and dialogue across disciplinary boundaries constitute a potential epistemic advantage. Importantly, proposing meta-discipline is not a claim about what HER should become, nor an attempt to stabilize its identity once and for all. Disciplines are historically contingent and subject to ongoing transformation. In this sense, meta-discipline is offered as a descriptive and analytic lens that more accurately captures the current epistemic condition of HER—one that has persisted for decades—while opening alternative ways of thinking about research development beyond accumulation alone. By foregrounding epistemic interfaces and meta-disciplinary thinking, the paper aims to contribute conceptual resources for examining how plurality, rather than consensus, can figure productively in the ongoing development of research fields. References Amsel, E., et al. (1997). Change and Development: Issues of Theory, Method, and Application. United Kingdom, Psychology Press. Ashwin, P. (2012). How often are theories developed through empirical research into higher education? Studies in Higher Education, 37(8), 941–955. Bendixen, L. D. and D. C. Rule (2004). "An Integrative Approach to Personal Epistemology: A Guiding Model." Educational psychologist 39(1): 69-80. Castorina, J. A. and G. Faigenbaum (2002). "The Epistemological Meaning of Constraints in the Development of Domain Knowledge." Theory & psychology 12(3): 315-334. Dohn, N. B. (2011). "Roles of Epistemology in Investigating Knowledge: "Philosophizing With"." Metaphilosophy 42(4): 431-450. Goldman, A. (2011). A Guide to Social Epistemology. Social Epistemology: Essential Readings. A. Goldman and D. Whitcomb. Oxford: New York, Oxford University Press. Graff, H. J. (2016). "The “Problem” of Interdisciplinarity in Theory, Practice, and History." Social Science History 40(4): 775-803. Greene, J. A. (2022). "What Can Educational Psychology Learn From, and Contribute to, Theory Development Scholarship?" Educational Psychology Review 34(4): 3011-3035. Hamann, J., & Kosmützky, A. (2021). Does higher education research have a theory deficit? Explorations on theory work. European Journal of Higher Education, 11(sup1), 468–488. Huisman, J. (2024). The use of methods: are higher education scholars lazy or insufficiently skilled?*. Higher Education Research & Development, 43(1), 260–266. Lovakov, A., & Yudkevich, M. (2023). The multidisciplinary roots of higher education research: An analysis of citation patterns. Higher Education Quarterly, 77(4), 890–910. Portico. Medina, J. (2013). The Epistemology of Resistance: Gender and Racial Oppression, Epistemic Injustice, and the Social Imagination. New York, Oxford University Press. Orona, G. A. (2021). "Philosophy’s rematch: A new conceptualization of the study of higher education." Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 20(4): 386-402. Popkewitz, T. S. (1997). "The production of reason and power: Curriculum history and intellectual traditions." Journal of Curriculum Studies 29(2): 131-164. Talbi, M. and R. van Woerden (2025). "Reflections on interdisciplinary research in practice: Epistemological conflicts." European Journal for Philosophy of Science 15(4): 66. Tight, M. (2004). "Research into higher education: an a‐theoretical community of practice?" Higher Education Research & Development 23(4): 395-411. Wald, N., Harland, T., & Daskon, C. (2024). The gap statement and justification in higher education research: an analysis of published articles. European Journal of Higher Education, 14(2), 308–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2023.2189132 Weinstock, M., et al. (2017). "Informed Reflexivity: Enacting Epistemic Virtue." Educational psychologist 52(4): 284-298. 22. Research in Higher Education
Paper Students’ Perceived Readiness for Academic Writing and Thesis Work: Programme Progression, Feedback, and Academic Literacy Development in Higher Education University of Gothenburg, Sweden Presenting Author:Academic writing is a central component of higher education, both as a means of demonstrating knowledge and as a practice through which students develop disciplinary understanding, critical judgement, and participation in academic knowledge communities (Lea & Street, 1998; Wingate, 2006). Undergraduate thesis writing is commonly understood as a culmination of students’ academic literacy development, requiring competencies that are expected to be cultivated and progressively developed throughout programmes. It is well documented that students enter university with very diverse experiences of literate practices typically required for university studies and different levels of confidence in relation to complex writing tasks (Nallaya et al., 2022). This variation is particularly consequential in programmes where the thesis functions as the most comprehensive and demanding assignment, requiring students to formulate a research problem, engage critically with previous research, justify methodological choices, and present findings in a coherent academic text. Despite the central role of the thesis in undergraduate education, limited attention has been paid to how students perceive their preparedness for these demands and how such readiness develops across the course of a programme. Moreover, relatively little is known about what forms of pedagogical support students themselves consider important in preparing for thesis work. Therefore, this study examines students’ perceived readiness for academic writing and thesis work, with particular attention to how such perceptions vary across stages of study and what forms of pedagogical support students identify as valuable. Rather than treating thesis writing as a skill to be acquired in the final thesis course, this study approaches academic writing development as a longitudinal, programme-level pedagogical responsibility (Murray & Nallaya, 2016; Wingate, 2018). This perspective is consistent with research on academic writing in higher education, which has increasingly moved from viewing writing as an individual study skill towards understanding it as a situated academic literacy practice embedded in disciplinary, institutional, and feedback contexts (Bassett & Macnaught, 2025; Lea & Street, 1998; Lymer et al., 2024; Wingate, 2006). Studies also continue to show that students experience academic writing as challenging, particularly when they must develop argumentation, critical engagement with sources, genre awareness, and the capacity to use feedback productively (Fernsten & Reda, 2011; Little et al., 2024; Teng & Ma, 2024; Wei & Liu, 2024). The following specific research questions were formulated: 1. How do students perceive their readiness for academic writing and thesis work? 2. Which aspects of academic writing and thesis preparation do students perceive as most challenging? 3. How do perceptions of readiness differ between students at different stages of their programme? 4. Which teaching activities, feedback practices, and learning resources do students identify as most helpful for developing academic writing and thesis-related competencies? The study contributes to research on academic literacy and higher education pedagogy by focusing specifically on students’ perceived readiness for academic writing and thesis work. Perceived readiness is seen as a pedagogically relevant construct, since students’ self-assessments may influence motivation, help-seeking behaviour, engagement with feedback, and their capacity to make use of writing-related learning opportunities. Theoretically, the study connects academic literacy research with work on feedback, self-assessment, and student-centred learning, thereby framing perceived readiness as a diagnostic resource for curriculum design.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study had an exploratory cross-sectional design conducted at a Swedish higher education institution. A digital survey was distributed to undergraduate students across several programmes and levels of study and the material consists of 76 responses from students in applied, profession-oriented programmes in education, health, and sport sciences, including home economics, health promotion, physical education teacher education, and sports coaching. The questionnaire included closed questions rated on a four-point Likert scale from low to very high concerning perceived ability in relation to central features of academic writing, such as objectivity, formal style, precision, concision, cautious phrasing, and impersonal academic tone. It also included questions concerning perceived preparedness for key components of thesis writing, including formulating aims and research questions, writing background sections, describing methods, presenting results, and discussing findings in relation to previous research. Four open-ended questions invited students to describe learning activities, feedback practices, and resources that had supported their development. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively using frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations. Qualitative responses were analyzed through manifest content analysis to identify recurrent themes in students’ accounts. Ethical guidelines were followed throughout the study. Participation in the data collection was entirely voluntary, and all responses were collected anonymously to ensure participants’ confidentiality. Participants were informed about the purpose of the study and their right to withdraw at any time without any consequences, and this information was provided in the introductory text of the survey. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Results demonstrated that students generally report moderate-to-high capability concerning academic writing, yet first-term students tend to self-rate higher than students later in the programme - a pattern consistent with the notion that increased experience can bring greater awareness of one’s limitations (Kruger & Dunning, 1999). Across academic writing features, students rate objectivity, an impersonal style, and formal written language as comparatively easier, while concision, precision, and cautious phrasing are more challenging. In relation to thesis work, students express greater confidence in writing introductory or background sections than in formulating researchable aims and questions, justifying methodological choices, and developing analytical discussions that critically relate findings to previous research. In terms of educational supports, students identify specific courses and academic language resources as beneficial, but they also articulate a strong need for recurring opportunities to practise reading, analysing, and writing academic texts, complemented by concrete and detailed feedback, embedded throughout the programme, rather than concentrated in the thesis course alone. Qualitative themes highlight (i) the role of pre-university preparation, (ii) sustained training and practice, (iii) supervision and feedback with clear guidance, and (iv) access to concrete examples and criteria. The proposed conclusion highlights a programme-level perspective: the development of academic writing and thesis-related competencies should be regarded as a longitudinal process rather than the responsibility of an isolated thesis course (Wingate, 2006). Given staff workload constraints, structured peer-feedback activities offer a promising and scalable pedagogical approach, supporting student autonomy, deepening understanding of assessment criteria, and strengthening reflective and critical academic practices without substantially increasing teacher workload. In the era of AI, further exploration is needed regarding how these digital developments can be harnessed, and the associated pedagogical possibilities should be carefully elaborated. References Bassett, M., & Macnaught, L. (2025). Embedded approaches to academic literacy development: a systematic review of empirical research about impact. Teaching in Higher Education, 30(5), 1065-1083. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2024.2354280 Fernsten, L. A., & Reda, M. (2011). Helping students meet the challenges of academic writing. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(2), 171-182, Article Pii 934414253. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2010.507306 Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol, 77(6), 1121-1134. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.77.6.1121 Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157-172. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079812331380364 Little, T., Dawson, P., Boud, D., & Tai, J. (2024). Can students’ feedback literacy be improved? A scoping review of interventions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(1), 39-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2177613 Lymer, G., Lindwall, O., & Greiffenhagen, C. (2024). Student writing in higher education: From texts to practices to textual practices. Linguistics and Education, 80, 101247. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2023.101247 Murray, N., & Nallaya, S. (2016). Embedding academic literacies in university programme curricula: a case study. Studies in Higher Education, 41(7), 1296-1312. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.981150 Nallaya, S., Hobson, J. E., & Ulpen, T. (2022). An investigation of first year university students’ confidence in using academic literacies. Issues in Educational Research, 32(1), 264-291. Teng, M. F., & Ma, M. (2024). Assessing metacognition-based student feedback literacy for academic writing. Assessing Writing, 59, 100811. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2024.100811 Wei, Y., & Liu, D. (2024). Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges [Systematic Review]. Frontiers in Psychology, Volume 15 - 2024. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1506725 Wingate, U. (2006). Doing away with ‘study skills’. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(4), 457-469. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600874268 Wingate, U. (2018). Academic literacy across the curriculum: Towards a collaborative instructional approach. Language Teaching, 51(3), 349-364. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444816000264 22. Research in Higher Education
Paper Integrating Experiential Learning in Graduate Family Studies Education TED University, Turkey (Türkiye) Presenting Author:This study aims to explore how participation as observers in community-based premarital psychoeducation programs shapes graduate students' professional identity development and their understanding of family dynamics theories. Furthermore, another question of concern was how this university-municipality partnership model contributes to bridging the gap between academic knowledge and community mental health practice across diverse European and international contexts. The current study is grounded in experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984) and reflective practice (Schön, 1983), which emphasize that professional competence develops through cycles of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. Within family studies, this study integrates family systems theory (Bowen, 1978; Minuchin, 1974) and relational-cultural theory (Jordan, 2010) to understand how graduate students observe and interpret couple dynamics. The study also draws on the communities of practice framework (Wenger, 1998), positioning the university-municipality collaboration as a legitimate peripheral participation model where students transition from observers to practitioners. This aligns with European Higher Education Area (EHEA) recommendations for competency-based learning and community engagement in social sciences education. Premarital education represents a critical preventive mental health intervention recognized across European and international contexts (Markman & Rhoades, 2012; Halford et al., 2017). However, significant gaps exist between academic training and community practice, particularly in non-Western contexts. Türkiye's position as a bridge between European and Middle Eastern family systems offers unique insights into how cultural contexts shape both couple dynamics and professional training needs. European studies indicate that experiential learning in family therapy training enhances clinical competence (Carr, 2019), yet few programs systematically integrate community partnerships into graduate curricula. This model addresses calls from the European Association for Psychotherapy and the International Family Therapy Association for innovative training approaches that combine theoretical rigor with practical application. This study contributes to international discourse on:
The findings will inform curriculum development across European and international family studies programs while providing evidence for policy discussions on integrating experiential learning in higher education. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Research Design This study employs a qualitative, reflective inquiry design to explore graduate students' experiential learning through observer participation in a community-based premarital psychoeducation program, aligning with interpretive phenomenological traditions. Participants A six-week premarital psychoeducation program was conducted at a municipality-affiliated women's center in Türkiye, representing a university-municipality partnership model. The program initially enrolled seven couples intending to marry, and four completed the full intervention. Sessions addressed communication patterns, conflict resolution, expectation alignment, family-of-origin influences, and relationship maintenance. Nine graduate students from the Department of Psychological Counseling participated as rotating observers throughout the program. Students attended sessions on a rotating schedule, ensuring continuous observer presence while exposing all students to different stages of the group process. Data Collection Following program completion, students provided anonymous written reflections in Turkish responding to a structured protocol of 10 open-ended questions organized into four domains: A. Group Process and Observation: Experience as observers, impactful moments, and observed couple dynamics B. Emotional and Professional Reflections: Personal emotions, challenges, and professional identity development C. Connection to Course Content: Alignment between observed experiences and Marriage and Family Dynamics course theories D. Educational and Societal Connections: Perspectives on integrating such experiences into graduate education, university-municipality collaboration value, and program recommendations Ethical Considerations Full ethical approval was obtained prior to implementation. Anonymous data collection protected student identity, informed consent was secured from all participants, and confidentiality protocols ensured voluntary participation with no impact on course evaluation. Data Analysis Student reflections are analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2022), involving systematic coding, pattern identification across the four domains, and iterative theme development. Analysis focuses on meaning-making processes, professional identity development, and theory-practice integration, with attention to cultural context. Limitations The small sample size (9 students) limits generalizability but provides rich, in-depth data. Single program cycle and couple attrition (7 to 4) may have influenced observations. Self-report data are subject to social desirability biases, and cultural specificity requires cautious interpretation for international contexts. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Reflexive thematic analysis of nine graduate students' reflections on their participation as observers in a six-week premarital psychoeducation program revealed six interconnected themes illuminating the transformative potential of experiential learning in family studies education. Professional identity transformation emerged as central, with students transitioning from theoretical knowledge to embodied professional awareness. Students recognized couple work's complexity—"handling two different dynamics impartially requires sophisticated skills"—while reporting enhanced professional confidence and satisfaction. The observer role provided a safe vantage point for developing clinical competence without overwhelming intervention responsibility. Critical reflexivity characterized students' experiences as they confronted personal biases and cultural assumptions. Students reported being "triggered" by couples with differing values, catching themselves forming prejudiced judgments, then using this discomfort generatively to develop professional boundaries and cultural humility—particularly crucial when working with conservative perspectives prevalent in Turkish contexts. Theory-practice integration occurred as active, complex sense-making rather than simple application. Students successfully identified theoretical concepts (Gottman's Four Horsemen, attachment patterns, dyadic coping) in couple interactions while recognizing that Western-origin theories "become more complex due to emotional intensity, defenses, and cultural factors" in practice—a critical insight for international family studies discourse on cultural adaptation. Couple dynamics observations revealed multilayered relational patterns: tensions between authentic expression and public performance, gender-based power dynamics reflecting Turkish cultural norms, and communication patterns showing both strengths (empathy, mutual listening) and vulnerabilities (avoidance of difficult topics). University-community partnership received unanimous endorsement as reciprocally beneficial, providing accessible preventive mental health services to economically disadvantaged couples while offering invaluable experiential learning for students. This aligns with European Higher Education Area priorities for community engagement and social responsibility. Pedagogical value was universally affirmed, with students emphasizing that experiential learning "accelerated learning and was more memorable" than traditional instruction, supporting systematic integration into graduate curricula internationally. References Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. Jason Aronson. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE Publications. Carr, A. (2019). Family therapy and systemic interventions for child-focused problems: The current evidence base. Journal of Family Therapy, 41(2), 153-213. Halford, W. K., Pepping, C. A., & Petch, J. (2017). The gap between couple therapy research efficacy and practice effectiveness. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 43(4), 541-555. Jordan, J. V. (2010). Relational-cultural therapy. American Psychological Association. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall. Markman, H. J., & Rhoades, G. K. (2012). Relationship education research: Current status and future directions. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38(1), 169-200. Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Harvard University Press. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. | ||