With an increasing number of students with disabilities (SWD) entering higher education (HE) (Adefila et al., 2020) and legislation requiring their reasonable accommodation, supporting the academic success of these students has become a critical area of global research. This research is essential, as disabilities such as dyslexia, attention deficit disorders, and Autism spectrum disorders, pose significant challenges to students’ study engagement, such as difficulties with executive skills, attendance, concentration, and time management (Grimes et al., 2021). In learning English as L2 and lingua franca in academia, these challenges may manifest in reading, writing, speaking, and comprehension, and in heightened anxiety, panic, feelings of inferiority, and frustration due to the need for substantial time and effort, often with poor results.

Identifying effective means to proactively support the study engagement of HE SWD is crucial for creating equitable opportunities in HE. This aligns with European educational traditions that emphasize the importance of diversity and inclusive practices. Engagement involving behavioral (participation in learning tasks), cognitive (goal setting, learning strategies and self-regulation), and emotional engagement (interest, enjoyment, and a sense of belonging) is a key for an inclusive positive study  experience in HE (Trolian, 2024).

This calls for developing engaging learning environments for students with a diverse range of disabilities across disciplines. Given the universal nature of human basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, a potential key for inclusive  instruction in HE is one that fosters these needs, as outlined in Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Ryan & Deci, 2020). Such teaching has been shown to enhance students’ intrinsic motivation, academic success, and well-being (Tu et al., 2024). However, only a few studies have explored learning environments designed to promote SDT factors among HE SWD (Gelbar et al., 2020; Tu et al., 2024). Accordingly, further studies are needed on how learning environments designed to support basic psychological needs influence the study engagement of HE SWD.

This study aims to contribute to bridging the gap in the literature by exploring SWD’s study engagement with mixed methods design by using longitudinal survey and learning journals in an English language course designed to promote autonomy, competence, and belonging—the core components of SDT.

The study addresses the following main research question:

1.Which characteristics of the English course contribute to the study engagement of SWD?

1.1 Are there differences in the students’ experiences of self-efficacy, interest, alignment, support, and feedback between T1 and T2?

1.2 What types of engagement (behavioral, cognitive, and emotional) occur in which context in this learning environment?

1.3 To what extent are the different types of engagement facilitated by the SDT factors?

Study Design, Context, and Ethics This study employs a mixed methods multiple design approach (Creswell & Creswell, 2023) and was conducted in an English course at a Finnish research-intensive university. According to the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (TENK, 2023), no ethical review was required. Informed consent procedures were followed (Creswell & Creswell, 2023). Data and Participants Students from seven English course small groups (spring 2021–spring 2024) were invited to participate after completing the course. A total of thirty-one students who took the course participated in the study (88.6%). Participants reported various learning challenges, including dyslexia (15), panic attacks (8), ADHD (7), anxiety disorder (5), social anxiety (5), learning difficulties (4), language phobia (3), and others. Each participant reported at least one challenge. The longitudinal survey data were collected using a study skills and well-being questionnaire HowULearn at the beginning of the course (T1) and again 10 weeks later at the end of the course (T2)(Parpala & Lindblom-Ylänne, 2012). The survey consisted of the following five scales measuring: 1) self-efficacy (five items), 2) interest (three items), 3) alignment (four items), 4) support (three items), and 5) feedback (four items). The questionnaire has been validated in previous research (Parpala et al., 2021). All the items were measured with a four-point Likert scale (1: I completely agree, 2: I agree to some extent, 3: I disagree to some extent, 4: I completely disagree). Reliability for T1 was acceptable to good (self-efficacy α = 0.77, interest α = 0.82, alignment α = 0.75, support α = 0.81, feedback α = 0.78). For T2, it remained acceptable to good (self-efficacy α = 0.78, interest α = 0.71, alignment α = 0.75, support α = 0.85), but lower for feedback (α = 0.62)(Field, 2009). The qualitative data included students’ Learning Journal reflections. The journals consisted of students’ reflections after each teaching session and were written during the course. Data Analysis: A convergent and explanatory sequential design was applied (Creswell & Creswell, 2023). Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS Statistics 29.0.2.0, with the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test used to examine changes in self-efficacy, interest, alignment, support, and feedback between T1 and T2. Qualitative data were thematically analyzed using Atlas.ti 25, employing a mix of deductive and inductive strategies. Deductive reasoning drew on study engagement, inductive reasoning identified engagement contexts, and further deductive reasoning incorporated Self-Determination Theory (SDT).

The improvement in self-efficacy, interest, alignment, support, and feedback was detected over time during the course. Statistically significant differences in students’ experiences of self-efficacy (z = −2.213, p = .025p), interest (z = −4.186, p < .001), alignment (z = −4.473, p <.001), support (z = −3.704, p <.001), and feedback (z=−4.713, p <.001) were observed between T1 and T2. Further investigation showed that the students described their active involvement in course activities through behavioral (participation in learning tasks, exerting effort, persistence, and focus), cognitive (reflection on learning and goal setting, learning strategies and self-regulation, deep thinking, problem-solving, intellectual effort in tasks, persisting through challenging activities), and emotional engagement (enthusiasm, interest, enjoyment, happiness, belonging or support from peers and teacher). The engaging experiences were embedded in peer interaction, student-teacher interaction, and independent study. The students described their sense of competence, autonomy, and relatedness as primary sources of engaging study experiences in the course. The preliminary findings imply that SWD’s engaging study experience can be cultivated in inclusive English courses designed to promote the SDT factors. More spesifically, particularly interactions with teacher and peers that cultivated a sense of autonomy, relatedness, and competence facilitated students’ behavioural, cognitive, and emotional engagement in learning the ‘lingua franca’ of the academic world.

Adefila, A., Broughan, C., Phimister, D., & Opie, J. (2020). Developing an autonomous-support culture in higher education for disabled students. Disability and Health Journal, 13(3), 100890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2020.100890 Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches / John W. Creswell, J. David Creswell (Sixth edition. ed.). SAGE. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics Using SPSS (3 ed.). Oriental press. Gelbar, N., Madaus, J. W., Dukes, L., Faggella-Luby, M., Volk, D., & Monahan, J. (2020). Self-Determination and College Students with Disabilities: Research Trends and Construct Measurement. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 57(2), 163-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2019.1631835 Grimes, S., Southgate, E., Scevak, J., & Buchanan, R. (2021). Learning impacts reported by students living with learning challenges/disability. Studies in Higher Education, 46(6), 1146-1158. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1661986 Parpala, A., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2012). Using a research instrument for developing quality at the university. Quality in Higher Education, 18(3), 313-328. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2012.733493 Parpala, A., Mattsson, M., Herrmann, K. J., Bager-Elsborg, A., & Hailikari, T. (2021). Detecting the Variability in Student Learning in Different Disciplines—A Person-Oriented Approach. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 66(6), 1020-1037. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2021.1958256 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860 The Finnish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and Procedures for Handling Alleged Violations of Research Integrity in Finland. Guideline of the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK 2023, (2023). https://tenk.fi/sites/default/files/2023-05/RI_Guidelines_2023.pdf Trolian, T. L. (2024). Student Engagement in Higher Education: Conceptualizations, Measurement, and Research. In L. W. Perna (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (1 ed., Vol. 39, pp. 265-324). Springer Cham. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38077-8 Tu, W.-M., Liu, Y., & Ruvalcaba Diaz, S. (2024). Academic motivation and contextual influences in well-being for students with disabilities in higher education. J Am Coll Health, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2024.2404932