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.

This paper synthesizes findings from two empirical studies conducted within the same pedagogical intervention, using complementary qualitative and mixed-methods research designs. The research context was a 12-week, bachelor-level, pass/fail English L2 course delivered in line with the SDT-based teacher motivational behaviours (Ahmadi et al., 2023). The course was taught in small groups (maximum of 10 students) at a Finnish research-intensive university and targeted students who self-identified as having experienced challenges in learning English, including dyslexia, ADHD, anxiety-related conditions, and other learning difficulties. Ethical standards consistent with Finnish research integrity guidelines were followed throughout, and, in accordance with the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (2023), no formal ethical review was required. Informed consent procedures were implemented in line with established ethical research practices (Creswell & Creswell, 2023). Study 1: Qualitative interview study The first study employed a qualitative case study design (Creswell & Creswell, 2023). Data were collected in 2020 through semi-structured interviews with nine students following course completion. The interviews explored students’ engaging learning experiences and the perceived role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness in facilitating engagement. Data were analysed using abductive qualitative content analysis, combining inductive identification of learning modes (e.g. dialogue, participation, reflection, doing) with deductive coding informed by SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2020) and study engagement theory (Trolian, 2024). Study 2: Longitudinal mixed-methods intervention study The second study adopted a qualitatively oriented mixed-methods (QOMM) case study design, including 31 SWD. Quantitative data were collected in 2021-2024 using a validated study skills and well-being questionnaire (Parpala & Lindblom-Ylänne, 2012), administered at the beginning (T1) and end (T2) of the course. Five scales were analysed—self-efficacy, interest, alignment, support, and feedback—using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. All scales demonstrated acceptable reliability. Qualitative data consisted of weekly learning journals collected over ten weeks. The journals captured task-proximal reflections on concrete learning events. Abductive qualitative content analysis was used to identify learning contexts, engagement types (Trolian, 2024), and SDT facilitation (Ahmadi et al., 2023). Quantitative and qualitative findings were integrated using the Pillar Integration Process (Johnson et al., 2019), enabling systematic comparison across data strands.

Across both studies, the results indicated that a coherent set of SDT-based teacher motivational behaviors (Ahmadi et al., 2023) supporting students’ sense of competence, autonomy, and relatedness and embedded within both course design and instructional practice, contributed to their active engagement. Engagement was most strongly facilitated by competence-supportive practices in class–teacher and student–teacher interactions through clear structure, scaffolding, authentic tasks, and timely personalised feedback. These practices were particularly effective in fostering cognitive engagement, including strategy use, self-regulation, and sustained intellectual effort, while reducing academic insecurity. Relatedness-supportive practices, especially small peer groups and empathic teacher–student dialogue, played a central role in enhancing emotional engagement, sense of belonging, and psychological safety—factors critical for SWD who often report anxiety and social exclusion in traditional English L2 learning environments (Černickaja & Sokolová, 2024). By transforming social interaction from a source of anxiety into a driver for emotional engagement and participation, such practices strengthened inclusion within the academic community. Autonomy-supportive practices, including meaningful choice and self-referenced goal setting, supported behavioural engagement and persistence. Building on these findings, this paper challenges the overreliance on diagnosis- driven, reactive accommodations as the primary inclusion strategy for SWD in HE by demonstrating how proactively inclusive course design and instructional practices can effectively support SWD study engagement and inclusion (Taneja-Johansson & Pesonen, 2025). While the small sample sizes and purposive sampling may affect the generalisability of the findings, the thick description afforded by the interviews and task-proximal learning journal reflections supports analytic transferability (Corrigan & Onwuegbuzie, 2020). To strengthen the evidence base and causal inference, future research should employ diverse RCTs with systematic fidelity measures. Taken together, these findings offer actionable insights for teacher education, curriculum development, and institutional policy, illustrating how inclusive teaching practices grounded in SDT can benefit diverse learners across European HE contexts.

Ahmadi, A., Noetel, M., Parker, P. D., Ryan, R. M., Ntoumanis, N., Reeve, J., Beauchamp, M. R., Dicke, T., Yeung, A., Ahmadi, M., Bartholomew, K., Chiu, T. K. F., Curran, T., Erturan, G., Flunger, B., Frederick, C., Froiland, J. M., González-Cutre, D., Haerens, L.,…Lonsdale, C. (2023). A Classification System for Teachers’ Motivational Behaviours Recommended in Self-Determination Theory Interventions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 115(8), 1158–1176. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000783 Černickaja, K., & Sokolová, L. (2024). Dyslexia in higher education – teacher’s perspective: scoping review. Frontiers in Education, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1372699 Corrigan, J., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2020). Toward a Meta-Framework for Conducting Mixed Methods Representation Analyses to Optimize Meta-Inferences. The Qualitative Report. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2020.3579 Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches / John W. Creswell, J. David Creswell (Sixth ed.). SAGE. Finnish National Board on Research Integrity. (2023). 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. https://tenk.fi/sites/default/files/2023-05/RI_Guidelines_2023.pdf Johnson, R. E., Grove, A. L., & Clarke, A. (2019). Pillar Integration Process: A Joint Display Technique to Integrate Data in Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(3), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689817743108 McDowall, A., & Kiseleva, M. (2024). A rapid review of supports for neurodivergent students in higher education. Implications for research and practice. Neurodiversity, 2. https://doi.org/10.1177/27546330241291769 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 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 Taneja-Johansson, S., & Pesonen, H. V. (2025). Narratives of a postgraduate student with disabilities and his journey to higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2025.2580620 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 Wang, Y., Wang, H., Wang, S., Wind, S. A., & Gill, C. (2024). A systematic review and meta-analysis of self-determination-theory-based interventions in the education context. Learning and Motivation, 87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2024.102015