Conference Agenda

The world population is ageing rapidly in a context of longer life expectancy. As a consequence, it is now commonplace to see people aged 60 and over attending university. Older individuals are a small but growing demographic cohort in higher education (Brownie, 2014). Different reasons motivate them to start or continue their academic training, including socialisation, personal fulfilment, mental stimulation, emotional well-being, and continuous learning (Cachioni et al., 2021; Chu & Tsai, 2009). As older students pursue their studies across different educational modalities, including online (Kara et al., 2019), we explore their experiences in a fully online and asynchronous learning environment.

Topic overview

Older students in higher education are present across all educational settings, including in-person, distance, and online modalities (Schiller, 2023). Regardless of the context, different pedagogical approaches coexist, including those designed exclusively for older students and the traditional ones where students of all ages learn together. In Europe and other world regions, the Universities of the Third Age movement have become a well-known context where older adults pursue their studies. Other traditional universities also offer programmes designed specifically for older students (Formosa, 2014). All these programmes focus primarily on lifelong learning and personal enrichment (Menéndez et al., 2018).

However, not all higher education institutions opt for age-specific educational models. Universities based on the open education philosophy, as well as those focused on distance and online learning, typically design their educational offerings universally for all students (Duan, 2025). So, older students who choose to enrol in these educational settings are usually present in the same classrooms and follow the same curriculum as younger students.

Online learning offers distinct advantages for older students, including the flexibility to study from home at any time and at their own pace, allowing them to balance their studies with personal circumstances (Gaumer & Noonan, 2010). However, the expectations of these learners regarding online higher education may differ from those of younger students in terms of interests and motivation. Although online learning can favour the inclusion of students across all ages, older students may face distinct challenges related to their personal characteristics, external responsibilities, technical and academic difficulties, and programme-specific requirements (Kara et al., 2019).

Older students are not a homogeneous group, either. While those under 65 may still have professional advancement interests, individuals over 65 are often retired and more focused on intellectual enrichment (Schiller, 2023). As a result, these differences in goals suggest that the challenges students face in online learning may vary by age and are worth examining. Analysing older students' needs and expectations represents a key opportunity for online universities to better align their courses to the needs of this heterogeneous population, creating inclusive learning environments that support their lifelong learning goals.

The study

This research was conducted at the Open University of Catalonia (UOC), an online Spanish university with a fully asynchronous, student-centred educational model that provides students flexibility while offering them spaces for text-based interactivity and collaboration, and personalised feedback. The model’s high degree of flexibility, together with the reduced access requirements, has helped to increase the presence of non-traditional students, such as those over the age of 60.

This work aims to explore older students’ perceptions of this educational model in terms of their satisfaction with the learning process and their overall evaluation of online learning based on their particular experience. To address this issue, we pose the following research questions:

RQ1 How well does a fully online and asynchronous educational model meet the needs of older students?

RQ2 How do older students perceive online learning as a means to accomplish their educational and lifelong learning goals?

Higher education institutions (HEIs) are increasingly expected to diversify their campus-based teaching formats through hybrid and fully online offerings (EUA, 2021). Such diversification is viewed as essential for addressing growing educational inequalities and responding to urgent societal challenges such as rural depopulation and lack of skilled labour. These policy imperatives are now shaping national and local educational landscapes also in the Nordic, compelling HEIs to reinterpret and operationalise education within their specific linguistic, cultural, and geographical contexts. Hybrid educational arrangements—integrating physical and digital, onsite and online learning—hold great potential in this regard (Pöysä-Tarhonen, 2025, 2026).

This conceptual paper examines hybrid education in regional HEIs, specifically in the Nordic context. While Nordic higher education is widely recognised for its strong commitment to equity, accessibility, and social inclusion (e.g. Buchholtz et al., 2020), HEIs in regional centres and smaller towns often operate under distinct conditions compared to their counterparts in major urban centres. These HEIs are typically characterised by smaller scale, more dispersed student populations, and a greater integration with local communities. As such, they carry a dual mandate: to promote equitable access to tertiary education across geographically diverse populations, and simultaneously, to contribute to local and regional vitality (Nordregio, 2024). In this context, hybridity is framed not only as a pedagogical question but also as a critical dimension of making higher education economically viable in sparsely populated areas. However, while these institutions are tasked with balancing widening participation and local and regional development, their distinct conditions are still underrepresented in dominant policy narratives and educational research. Accordingly, the central research question guiding this paper is: How can hybrid education be (re)conceptualised as a spatially responsive educational practice in regional HEIs?

Background: Higher educational institutions are organized in monocultures with a standard student in mind (Costa-Renders, 2019). The organization of teaching, learning and administrative practices presupposes a narrow set of ways to participate as a student from enrolment to graduation: A standard student pathway. Many students are able to comply with the standard student pathway. Simultaneously, a large minority – often with impairments - experience problems with the standard student pathway. To compensate, the educational institutions offer educational support [Specialpædagogisk Støtte]. Educational support is for students with recognized impairments only. Designated educational support does help but can be experienced as stigmatizing (Fornauf & Erickson, 2020). The mismatch with the standard student pathway also produces an extra workload for the atypical students to acquaint themselves with complex rules for dispensations (Stigemoe et al., 2021). Thus, the challenges experienced by atypical students arise in the meetings between the student and the educational institution, rather than from the impairment in itself. The higher drop-out rate among students with impairments (Amilon et al., 2020) suggests that the current support system is insufficient. There is a need to rethink the educational support system along the line of Universal Design for Education (UDL): To design educational systems with the diversity of students in mind (Meyer & Rose, 2000). How can we challenge the monoculture? What if multiple student pathways existed through the educational system?

Aim: The aim of the study is to design alternative student pathways that can address one or more recurring interface problems arising between students with disabilities/health conditions and the learning activities and organization at the university.

Method: The research question is investigated through an Educational Design Research methodology (McKenney & Reeves, 2019). The central concept of student pathways stems from care pathways in the health sector. Care pathways are professional tools that orchestrate treatment goals, treatment practices, work divisions and sequencing of different parts of the treatment. The aim of care pathways is to enhance the quality of care across professionals, improve patient outcomes and satisfaction and optimize use of resources (Vanhaecht et al (2007) in Schrijvers et al., 2012, Hunter & Segrott, 2008). The aim of student pathways is likewise to align the goal of inclusion with a broad set of activities, practices and professionals. The pathway concept stresses the need to develop sets of coordinated practices among faculty, students and administrators that are experienced as continuous and supportive of learning by as many students as possible. Through a three-phase research process, (1) the interface problems are investigated, (2) a pilot alternative student pathways developed and (3) the prototype tested. The designed alternative student pathway stands in as a concrete utopia that both seeks to reconfigure existing university practices and point to gaps in the current support practices.

Results: Phase one revealed five recurring interface problems produced in the intersection between individual differences in student participation and organization of learning activities at the university; (1) Problems keeping up with the institutionalized study pace, (2) difficulties meeting university expectations about self-organized learning, (3) problems maintaining a positive or neutral emotional stance in learning activities, (4) problems accessing academic content, and (5) problems fulfilling expectations to group work participation. Phase two further deepened the multi-perspective understanding of the chosen focus of interface problem 2. A pilot student pathway was developed focusing on better transfer of knowledge between stakeholders and better continuity and connection between inclusive measures organized as part of the general setting and inclusive measures in the specialized support system.

Despite growing global policy commitments to inclusive education and widening participation in higher education (HE), students with disabilities (SWD) continue to face systemic barriers that constrain engagement and limit full inclusion within the academic and social life of universities (McDowall & Kiseleva, 2024). These barriers are particularly salient in compulsory academic subjects such as English as a second language (L2) (Černickaja & Sokolová, 2024), which functions as a gatekeeper to academic progression, international mobility, and participation in the European Higher Education Area. When teaching practices prioritise rapid processing, accurate decoding, sustained attention, implicit interaction norms, and high-stakes oral performance, students with ADHD, dyslexia, and related conditions may experience persistent difficulties in executive functioning, literacy, and socio-pragmatic skills (McDowall & Kiseleva, 2024).

European HE systems have predominantly addressed inclusion through reasonable accommodations and individual support measures. While necessary, such approaches are often reactive, rely on student disclosure, and do not sufficiently transform everyday pedagogical practices (McDowall & Kiseleva, 2024). As a result, responsibility for inclusion frequently remains with individual students rather than with learning environments.

Although prior research has criticised reactive accommodation models and called for more proactive systemic support (Korthals Altes et al., 2024), empirical evidence on effective inclusive instructional practices remains limited (Taff & Clifton, 2022). This gap is particularly pronounced for SWD studying English as a second language (L2), which functions as the lingua franca of academia (Hakala et al., 2025). Moreover, few studies have examined SWD study engagement through Self-Determination Theory (SDT)–informed interventions or mixed-methods designs (Wang et al., 2024).

Addressing these gaps, this paper brings together findings from two complementary empirical studies examining how SDT can inform inclusive pedagogy that proactively enhances SWD study engagement and inclusion in HE. The studies investigate an SDT-informed English L2 course implemented at a Finnish research-intensive university. The course was explicitly designed to support students’ basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, drawing on SDT-based teacher motivational behaviours (Ahmadi et al., 2023).

The overarching research aim is to generate theoretically grounded and empirically validated knowledge on how inclusive learning environments can be enacted through pedagogical design rather than accommodation alone. The following research questions guide the studies:

• What kinds of study engagement experiences do SWD report in an SDT-informed English L2 learning environment?
• How are these engagement experiences facilitated by autonomy-, competence-, and relatedness-supportive teacher motivational behaviours?
• How do students’ perceptions of self-efficacy, interest, alignment, support, and feedback change between T1 and T2?
• In which learning contexts do different types of engagement emerge?

The theoretical framework integrates Self-Determination Theory (SDT)-based teacher motivational behaviors (Ahmadi et al., 2023) and contemporary study engagement theory (Trolian, 2024), which conceptualises engagement as a multidimensional construct encompassing behavioural, cognitive, and emotional components. In addition, the studies are informed by the relational model of disability, aligning with European inclusive education frameworks by emphasising the interaction between learners and learning environments rather than individual deficit (Taneja-Johansson & Pesonen, 2025).

The European and international relevance of this research lies in the universality of SDT, the shared challenges surrounding inclusive HE across European systems, and the central role of English L2 learning in academic participation. By focusing on pedagogical practices that can be implemented across disciplines and national contexts, this research contributes directly to advancing educational research that informs inclusive policy and practice across Europe and beyond.