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. 

The research question is investigated through an Educational Design Research methodology (McKenney & Reeves, 2019). The first phase consisted of an interview study looking deeper into the kind of challenges students experience across various diagnoses and conditions. Twenty-one students with a mixture of indi-vidual conditions participated in individual semi-structured interviews. Students were recruited among Aarhus University students with the following inclusion criteria (1) long-term emotional problems that af-fected their life as students, (2) Long-term somatic conditions that affected their life as students, and/or (3) neurodivergent conditions that affected their life as students. Documentation of diagnoses/health con-ditions was not requested. Thematic analysis of the interviews revealed five recurring interface problems, one of which was chosen for the second phase: difficulties meeting university expectations about self-organized learning. Phase two consisted of a series of four workshops with multiple university stakeholders as participants: The researchers (doubling as educators), a student administrator, a student counsellor, a teaching consult-ant, employees/researchers from the Centre for Educational Development, employees from the Student Support Office. A voluntary student board provided the student perspective. The content of the workshops was structured discussions about: (1 ) Elaborating interface problem 2 from all perspectives, (2) agreeing on a shared definition of the interface problem, (3) generating ideas for what would be needed in an alter-native student pathway for the chosen interface problem and (4) calibrating the shared model. Discussions are workshops were recorded, transcribed and summed up in working papers in between workshops and commented on by the student board. Phase three test of the prototype is planned to take place in the fall 2026.

The rising number of students with the student diversity experienced by faculty and university administra-tors emerges from interface problems and the strategies students use to handle their experienced interface problems rather than the diagnosis or health condition in itself. Knowledge about the source of diversity can be a productive starting point for development of more inclusive learning environments. Rather than focusing on specific learning needs arising from a range of different specific diagnoses and health condi-tions, educational development initiatives can focus on the smaller amount of shared interface problems. Five recurrent examples were found of how student diversity is produced in the intersection between indi-vidual differences in student participation and organization of learning activities at the university; (1) Prob-lems 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 activi-ties, (4) problems accessing academic content, and (5) problems fulfilling expectations to group work par-ticipation. Solutions to interface problems are complex and hinges on opportunities for developing a shared focus in the broader inclusive agenda and a model for how to orchestrate collaborations and knowledge transfer be-tween stakeholders. The design of an 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.

Amilon, A., Østergaard, S.V., Olsen, R.F. (2020). Mennesker med handicap. Hverdagsliv og levevilkår 2020. København: Vive. Costa-Renders, E.C. (2019). Pedagogy of seasons and UDL. The multiple temporalities of learning involving the university as a whole. In: Bracken & Novak (eds.), Transforming higher education through universal design for learning. In international perspective. London: Routledge. Fornauf, B.S., Erickson, J.D. (2020). Toward an inclusive pedagogy through universal design for learning in higher education: A review of the literature. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 33(2), 183-199. Hunter, B. & Segrott, J. 2008. Re-mapping client journeys and professional identities: A review of the lit-erature on clinical pathways. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45, 608-625. Doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2007.04.001 McKenney, S. & Reeves, T.C. (2019). Conducting educational design research. New York: Taylor & Francis. Meyer, A.; Rose, D.H. (2000). Universal design for individual differences. Educational Leadership, 58(3), 39-43. Schrijvers, G., van Hoorn, A., Huiskes, N. 2012. The care pathway: concepts and theories: an introduc-tion. International Journal of Integrated Care, 12 (sep), 1-7. Stigemoe, A.T.B., Larsen, L., Wulf-Andersen, T. (2021). “Hvis de først taber et skridt…” Vejledere og rådgi-veres perspektiver på mistrivsel blandt studerende i videregående uddannelser. Roskilde Universitet. Re-trieved from https://forskning.ruc.dk/da/publications/hvis-de-f%C3%B8rst-taber-et-skridt-vejledere-og-r%C3%A5dgiveres-perspektive