In this paper, we argue for the need to shift towards more sustainable faculty development (FD) processes so that academics can become self-regulated, autonomous learners themselves and develop competences that allow them to design efficacious Inclusive Student-centred Pedagogy (ISCP) lessons in their context. Drawing on Hockings (2001), we define ISCP in Higher Education as proactive and intentional teaching and learning activities, course design, curricula and assessment that foster equity during carefully designed learner-centred opportunities for student engagement, self-awareness, self-regulation, and learner autonomy for all stakeholders in higher education; hence, ISCP does not label certain groups of students or individuals who may have additional needs but it attempts to meet all student needs proactively taking into account potential needs of all stakeholders without labelling (Katsampoxaki-Hodgetts, 2022).

The Covid-19 pandemic created many challenges that higher education (HE) has to address (EU Commission Directorate, 2021) including the rapid digitalisation of education and the expression of often muted or suppressed academic voices. The digital transformation of education enhanced our awareness that some on-campus teaching models may not be appropriate as certain groups of students may be under-privileged. In this new landscape, academics ought to revise their teaching and their curricula, listening at the same time to voices that may have been unassumed, like those of students. Incorporating needs, plans and ambitions of all students, regardless of identity, ISCP can address such discrepancy in a context where everyone’s voice can be heard through all available means and students are viewed as equal partners (Cook-Sather, 2016). This need for educational change is highlighted and promoted throughout the EU through University alliances i.e. Circle.U or CIVIS and European Agencies promoting Inclusion i.e. EASIE. Academics’ role needs to adapt to becoming more responsible for cultivating an inclusive and equity-driven learning environment where all students can succeed academically (Whittaker & Montgomery, 2014) and improving ISCP teaching practices and faculty development (FD) interventions in Higher Education become imperative (Katsampoxaki-Hodgetts, 2022). 

Following top-down policy directives and despite faculty member resistance, faculty development (FD) modes entail organising formal learning cycles including teacher-fronted training sessions, lectures, seminars or hands-on workshops. Recent FD developments opt for modes that employ informal discussions among or between peers, peer coaching discussion prior to or after completion of peer-observation protocols and self-regulation tasks that require alignment of all syllabus components with ISCP pedagogies. Action research combined with reflective diaries or teacher portfolios also serve as a promising FD model. However, there is a yawning gap between teaching practices and policies as little attention has been given to academics’ pedagogical acuity following target faculty development (FD) modes. With this shift in mind and by systematically recording academics reflections and evaluations of existing formal, informal, typical and atypical formal development modes, COALITION partners, an international European project with six universities, aim to map emerging needs in terms of academics pedagogical acuity as well as overall readiness to embrace ISCP pedagogies by placing emphasis on the need to implement adequate schemes for pedagogical development that empower academics to teach in ISCP programmes with confidence.

The study has a comparative dimension among six universities in six European countries (Greece, Latvia, Spain, Netherlands, Sweden, Romania) involved in this consortium. Following a functionalist and an empowerment approach of needs analysis (Sava, 2012), we employed two survey methods, a questionnaire and interview to collect data from faculty members (academics) and students. The initial component of this large scale project examined faculty (n=180) and students’ (n=180) perceptions in terms of how ISCP is facilitated and implemented at their home university. The context takes into account institutional situatedness and personalised standpoints. The survey instrument consisted of 46 statements that obtained descriptive data using a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = neutral, 4 = disagree, and 5 = strongly disagree. The survey has four sections; the first one aims at mapping academic perceptions of possible institutional barriers and facilities in terms of ISCP, the second section explores faculty’s beliefs regarding support of inclusive pedagogy approaches, the third section focuses on curricular and assessment adjustments that support ISCP, while the fourth section examines facilitation of active learning and engagement of all students through ISCP. This tool was employed to map any expected competences among faculty member ISCP and faculty development needs taking into account various teaching, learning and assessment modes. The survey was followed up by semi structured interviews whose thematic analysis gave rise to academics’ agentic engagement potential and expectations of typical and atypical faculty development modes. Participation in the study was voluntary and the protocol was approved by the institutional review board for the protection of human subjects.

Framed through an evidencing value lens (Bamber & Stefani, 2016; van der Rijst et al., 2022), the theoretical framework, the methodology, the tools used by six European Universities will shed light to academics’ needs and competences with regards to ISCP and follow up interventions designed. In this light, we also aim, at a later stage, to provide a more learner centred FD approach with academics as learners, through a “methodological approach that foregrounds plurality and contestation, orienting research frameworks towards inclusiveness, tensions, unpredictability and complexity” (Khoo et al., 2019: 182). Based on the initial data and upon mapping of academics ISCP competences, we aim to design formal and informal faculty development approaches (incl. reflexive and communicative interaction tools). In an attempt to evaluate how substantive each FD approach is in terms of ‘doing’ ISCP. We also aim to complement each academic’s action with an evaluation questionnaire that will provide us with reflexive opportunities by focusing on processes (Kläy et al., 2015). The same evaluation questionnaires will be used after each FD activity as purposive spaces, frameworks (Mitchell et al., 2015) and structured opportunities for reflection or a self-regulation tool. Drawing upon insights from critical reflexivity (Wilmes et al. 2018) and collaborative autoethnography as a qualitative methodology and a theoretical approach that allows researchers to “transcend narrations of the past” (Chang, Wambura Ngunjiri, Hernandezm, 2013:19), we will encourage participants to work toward interpretation of the self, relative to situated social and cultural contexts (Lave & Wenger, 1998). This non-dominating and reflexive ‘strong objectivity’ (Rosendahl et al., 2015) view promotes a standpoint perspective that involves both expert and non-expert actors in co-producing knowledge as equal partners. Reflexivity upon their decisions will reveal academics’ actions and stance as ‘a self-referential analytic exercise’ which ‘aligns methodological rigour with a critically disciplined subjectivity’ (Macbeth 2001: 38–39).

Brew, A. & Boud, D. (1996). Preparing for new academic roles: A holistic approach to development, IJAD, 1:2, 17-25. Bamber, V., & Stefani, L. (2016). Taking up the challenge of evidencing value in educational development: From theory to practice. IJAD, 21(3), 242–254. Chang, H. et al.(2013). Collaborative Autoenthography. Walnut Creek. CA: Left Coast Press. Cook-Sather, A. (2016). Creating brave spaces within and through student-faculty pedagogical partnerships. Teaching and Learning Together in Higher Education (18). Dinkleman, T. (2003). Self-study in teacher education: A means and ends tool for promoting reflective teaching. J. Teacher Education, 54(1), 6–18. Hellstén M., Mickwitz L. & Scharfenberg J. (2020). Teacher Education in Sweden: Revisiting the Swedish Model. Teacher Education in in the Global Era, 99-114. Grunefeld H. et al. (2022). Development of educational leaders’ adaptive expertise in a professional development programme, IJAD, 27:1, 58-70 Hockings, C. (2010). Inclusive Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: A Synthesis of Research. York: Higher Education Academy. Katsampoxaki-Hodgetts, K. (2022). The ‘naked’ syllabus as a model of faculty development: is this the missing link in Higher Education?, IJAD Khoo, SM., Haapakoski, J., Hellsten, M. And Malone, J. (2019). Moving form interdisciplinary educational ethics: bridging epistemological differences in researching higher education internationalisation(s), Eu.Ed.Re.J. 18 (02) 181-199. Kläy, A. Zimmerman, AR and Schneider, F. (2015). Rethinking Science for Sustainable Development: Reflexive inaction for a paradigm transformation. Futures. 65: 72-85. Lave, J., and E. Wenger. (1998). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Macbeth, D. (2001). “On ‘Reflexivity’ in Qualitative Research: Two Readings, and a Third.” Qualitative Inquiry 7 (1): 35–68. Mitchell, C., Cordell, D. And Fame, D. (2015). Beginning at the end: The outcomes spaces framework to guide purposive transdisciplinary research. Futures. 65: 86-96. Roeland van der Rijst, Bonnie Dean & Klara Bolander Laksov (2022) Revisiting the impact of academic development: scholarship and practice, IJAD 27:1, 1-3 Rosendahl, J. Zanella MA and Rist, S. (2015). Scientists’ situated knowledge: String objectivity in trasndisciplinarity. Futures 65: 17-27. Sava, S. (2012). Needs Analysis and Programme Planning in Adult Education (1st ed.). Verlag Barbara Budrich. Whittaker, J.A., Montgomery, B.L. (2014) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-013-9277-9 Wilmes, S., Siry, C., Heinericy, S. Heesen, KT., Kneip, N. (2018). doi: 10.17564/2316-3828.2018v7n1p13-24 Zou, T. X. P., & Geertsema, J. (2020). Higher Education Research & Development, 29(3), 606–620.