Conference Agenda

Higher education instituions are increasingly tasked with preparing students for unequal and unpredictable social environments (OECD, 2018). This submission proposes intersectionality as a core analytic framework equipping students to critically examine how structural forces shape heterogeneous needs and obligations. It further explores how challenge-based learning, a method widely argued to be suited for preparding students to navigate uncertainty and complex real-world demands, can facilitate student learning about intersectionality as well as the practical application of theoretical knowledge about intersectionality.

Intersectionality conceptualizes how multiple social positions interact to shape lived experience and structural inequality (Crenshaw, 1989, 1991), rendering visible both their conscious and unconsious aspects (Collins & Bilge, 2020; Götschel, 2022). It foregrounds patterns of power, oppression and social justice, which can be reinforced or challenged by educational practices. While intersectionality has emerged as prominent framework in the context of higher education in the U.S., much less known about its embeddedness in higher education in other higher education systems across the world. Scholarly debates on how to teach intersectionality in the context of higher education ongoing (InterHEd, 2024; Villa-Nicholas, 2018), which poses challenges for teachers when it comes to select and implement materials and methods for teaching intersectionality.

Challenge-based learning (CBL) is an increasingly prominent approach in higher education and is promoted as a means for students to align the acquisition of disciplinary knowledge with the development of transversal competencies while working on authentic societal problems (Gallagher & Savage, 2023). It is characterised by a focus on real-life challenges (Doulougeri et al., 2024) as well as its open process: rather than solving pre-defining problems, challenges need to defined, analysed, and processed independently by students (van den Beemt et al., 2023). Despite growing interest in challenge-based learning as a pedagogical aproach in higher education (Leijon et al., 2022), existing iterature primarily focuses on ist general characteristics, benefits, and implementation challenges and there is limited attention to how it engages social justice frameworks like intersectionality.

Based on the above-presented evidence and assumptions, this submission poses the following research questions:

• How does literature adress intersectionality in the context of teaching in higher education?
• How can a challenge-based learning approach be used to facilitate student learning and bridge the theory-practice gap with regard to intersectionality?

In recent years, higher education has sought to promote learner-centered instructional approaches that emphasize active student participation and learner responsibility for the learning process (Saad & Abdullah, 2025). These approaches aim to develop essential student skills such as creative thinking, problem-solving, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration (Bhardwaj et al., 2025). A prominent means of advancing these goals in higher education is the integration of Flexible Learning Spaces (FLS) (Chen et al., 2024).

A FLS is a large, open physical environment characterized by diverse, mobile, and modular furniture, multiple learning areas, and transparent or movable walls (Saur & Ulleberg, 2025). These design features enable adaptable learning configurations and support a range of teaching and learning practices. Such spaces often incorporate advanced technologies, such as multiple large screens, virtual reality headsets, augmented reality objects, and immersive walls, which support diverse learning experiences (Hu et al., 2025).

Recent studies have identified multiple benefits of teaching and learning in FLS. Accordingly, the physical layout and collaborative configuration support instructional practices that emphasize active learning and higher-order thinking over procedural instruction (Thomas, 2025). In addition, the spatial design supports learner autonomy, creativity, and responsibility for learning processes (Cardellino & Deed, 2024), while the diverse affordances of FLS enable varied instructional approaches and adaptation to learners’ needs (Charteris et al., 2025).

Furthermore, the range of seating and learning options in FLS allows learners to choose appropriate workspaces during individual learning activities (Grannäs et al., 2025). Meanwhile open FLS, supported by collaborative furniture, digital tools, and active learning practices, enhances peer and teacher-student interactions and promotes a sense of community (Basdogan & Birdwell, 2024). Moreover, learner-centered use of FLS is associated with a more positive emotional classroom climate (Alakoski et al., 2025).

However, teachers may still adopt traditional, teacher-centered approaches in FLS, underscoring the importance of pedagogical orientations and professional development for realizing their potential (Alakoski, 2024). In addition, high spatial flexibility may confuse learners, highlighting the need for pedagogical and emotional support to enable effective use of the space (Halidane et al., 2024).

To examine teaching and learning processes in FLS, this study draws on several theoretical models: Illeris’ (2003) learning model is used to conceptualize learning as a process comprising three interrelated dimensions: The cognitive dimension refers to the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and understanding; the emotional dimension relates to motivation, feelings, and mental energy involved in learning; and the social dimension concerns interaction, collaboration, and communication.

In parallel, the teacher centrality framework (Yondler & Blau, 2023) conceptualizes teaching along a continuum of instructional control and student autonomy: At the Sage level, the teacher provides explicit instruction and retains high control over learning; At the Facilitator level, the teacher structures activities and guides engagement; At the Guide level, the teacher supports inquiry and experiential learning with increased student responsibility; Finally, at the Partner level, responsibility for learning is shared through teacher-student collaboration.

Alongside this, Pintrich’s (2004) model conceptualizes self-regulated learning as a multidimensional process comprising several components. Cognitive regulation encompasses learners’ use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies; Motivational and emotional regulation addresses the management of motivation and emotional states during learning; Behavioral regulation focuses on the organization of effort, time, and help-seeking behaviors; and the Contextual regulation concerns learners’ ability to structure and adapt their learning environment.

Building on these frameworks, this study examines teachers’ role perspectives within FLS, the instructional strategies they employ, and the learning dimensions reflected in both their role perspectives and instructional practices. It also explores the degree of teacher centrality reflected in role perspectives and enacted strategies, as well as the extent and types of self-regulated learning encouraged among students.

The research presented in this paper originates in my doctoral dissertation Inclusive Didactic Dimensions – A phenomenological study of teachers’ teaching from the perspective of upper secondary school students (Björkman 2025). The study is situated in Sweden but also in an international educational context marked by social complexity and intense discussion about inclusion and learning in schools (Ainscow, Booth et al. 2020). The overarching research question of the dissertation examined how inclusive teaching is experienced from students’ perspectives, where inclusion is understood in a broad sense as relevant to all discriminated groups (Ainscow & Messiou 2017), and teaching is defined as all intentional pedagogical work carried out by teachers in interaction with students (Klafki 1997).

Responding to European and international calls to move beyond policy-driven or technical accounts of inclusion (Florian 2019), the thesis and this paper conceptualize inclusion as inherently didactic. Such a perspective enables teachers to articulate the subtle yet consequential teaching choices through which inclusion and exclusion are continuously formed, and to act reflectively and responsively in educational situations characterized by unpredictability and complexity. In line with Frohn (2024), inclusion is therefore approached as a didactic phenomenon, echoing Korsgaard and Mortensen’s (2017) call to ask educational questions about inclusion rather than inclusive questions about education, not treating it as something added to teaching.

The findings align with such calls from the research community for a shift from fragmented to holistic approaches, showing that students experience inclusion as woven into all dimensions of teachers’ teaching, rather than as an additional or compensatory practice. Inclusion is perceived as present, or absent, in every teaching act: a gesture, an instruction, a glance, or a choice of content. Each act carries the potential for inclusion or exclusion. Based on these findings, the paper addresses a theoretically oriented research question of relevance to current educational debates: How can inclusive education be conceptualized as a didactic phenomenon, using didactic theory as a professional language for understanding and articulating inclusive teaching when it’s often questioned, in both society and schools.

The theoretical framework is grounded in the continental European tradition of Didaktik, which functions as the central analytical perspective of the study. In particular, the framework draws on Klafki’s concept of Allgemeinbildung (2000) and his critical-constructive didactics. Within this tradition, general education is understood as inherently political and emancipatory, aiming to support students’ self-determination, solidarity, and capacity for democratic participation - capacities that become especially vital in times of societal uncertainty and contested futures. This orientation closely aligns with international understandings of inclusive education as a matter of equity, participation, and social justice (Barton 2006). General didactics is thus understood as providing a conceptual language for examining how inclusive teaching responds to emerging social and individual needs.

In the empirical material, students describe inclusion both as a positive atmosphere and as a sense of “we” created by the teacher, where the shared learning process becomes more important than fears of “not knowing” or “not fitting in.” These descriptions align with the understanding of teaching in general didactics as a holistic, formative, ethical, and political practice grounded in the question of why teachers teach. This prompts the question of how a didactic “why,” expressed through an intention of inclusion, can be realized in teaching practice. One way this question is explored in the thesis is through Tjärnstig’s (2022) concept of the didactic room - an action-dependent, immaterial spatiality that arises from teachers’ approaches to subject matter and their relationships with students. This framed space, defined by didactically formed boundaries, embraces unpredictability, participation, and becoming, serving as a pedagogical response that both holds and challenges uncertainty.