The Globe has witnessed a significant rise in violent conflicts in the past three decades (United Nations, 2019). Based on a report by the United Nations (2022), nearly a quarter of the world will be residing in conflict and war areas by the end of 2030.  Given this outlook, policymakers and international organizations implement interventions in the education field to empower individuals in these situations to promote development and ultimately attain peace and conflict resolution  (Burde et al., 2017). Nevertheless, the quality of the provided higher education in such contexts remains under-theorised. To elaborate, keeping high quality standards in higher education requires strong institutions, robust infrastructure, effective pedagogy, sustained academic governance, and clear progression pathways for students. Yet these basic requirements are violated during conflict, emergencies, and crises. The Inter‑Agency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE) Minimum Standards (2024) provides guide for education in crises, though most scholarship continues to focus on primary and secondary levels, rather than on higher education amid war (Burde et al., 2017; Inter-agency Network for Education in Emergencies, 2024). This gap is especially profound amid "educide" where infrastructure, staffing, and institutional stability are under direct assault (Alousi, 2022; Iriqat et al., 2025).  The case of higher education in the Gaza strip exemplifies the severity of this gap. Since October 2023, this sector has faced relentless bombardment, mass displacement of students and faculty, and the collapse of essential services. Despite these conditions, universities in the Gaza strip resumed academic instruction online in May 2024. People in the Gaza strip see particular importance of education and higher education both for individuals whose aspirations are under threat and for societies striving to maintain the intellectual and professional capacity necessary for recovery (Aboudagga & Al-Mqadma, 2025; Al-Mqadma et al., 2024). There is limited literature available that have focused on the impact of war on higher education institutions, students, and academics in Gaza (Al-Mqadma et al., 2024; Iriqat et al., 2025; Junina, 2025), but none focused on how these institutions could maintain quality education during wartime. 

This study addresses this gap by examining the experiences of two teachers (first and second authors) engaged in co-teaching a postgraduate course online during the 2024–2025 academic year. It further explores how these adaptations align with the INEE Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, ensuring that the educational response meets recognized international benchmarks for quality and accessibility. The current study is guided by the following research questions (RQs):

RQ1. To what extent do teaching and learning practices in wartime align with INEE Minimum Standards?

RQ2. How can wartime teaching and learning experiences inform the enhancement of INEE standards in higher education?

Study design This study mainly adopted a self-study approach (Butler & Horton, 2025), drawing on critical self-reflection of the teaching and learning experiences within a postgraduate-level course presented as a case study (Yin, 2014). A mixed-method design was incorporated to triangulate qualitative reflections with quantitative data collected from students. The course was co-taught by the first and second authors using the one-teach, one-assist model (Rytivaara et al., 2024). The second author was early career teacher and served as the primary instructor, and the first author who is a professor with extensive teaching experience at the Islamic University of Gaza (IUG), acted as the co-teacher. Both authors had previously collaborated on another doctoral-level course, and this prior experience informed the planning and pedagogical decisions for the current course. Advanced Research Methodology is a mandatory 3-credit course within the Crisis and Management Doctoral Program at IUG. Twenty-three students initially enrolled, with 18 completing the course. Data were collected from two main sources. First, the primary teacher maintained a reflective diary throughout the course duration, documenting personal and collaborative reflections and joint discussions on teaching, learning, and pedagogical decision-making with the co-teacher. Second, an online questionnaire captured students’ learning experiences. It included 26 Likert-scale items aligned with the five INEE Minimum Standards domains, and six open-ended questions on students’ motivations, challenges, learning experiences, and suggestions for improvement during wartime. Participants and procedures Participation in the study was voluntary. The course participants were provided with detailed information explaining the research aims and data confidentiality. Moreover, participants signed an informed consent form before answering the questionnaire. The questionnaire was administered to the course participants after the end of the course. Out of 18 total participants in the course, 10 completed and submitted their answers on the questionnaire. Data Analysis Due to the small sample size, we analysed students’ questionnaire data using descriptive statistics using SPSS software. Students’ open-ended data were analysed thematically (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The researchers’ reflection diaries were analysed using a combination of Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle (1988) with Brookfield’s (1995) four lenses as an analytical framework, such that specifically the evaluation and analysis phases are not relied only on one instructor’s own viewpoint, but also take into account the perspectives of the students, the co-teacher, and the relevant scholarship. Our intention was to bring together both depth (through Gibbs’ structured cycle) and breadth (through Brookfield’s multiple perspectives).

The findings indicated the teaching and learning practices during the course aligned with INEE Minimum Standards to a certain extent specifically in Teaching and Learning, but not in Access and Learning Environment. Analysis of reflection highlighted co-teaching as an important element in wartime higher education. The study suggested several recommendations for INEE five standards to navigate uncertainty and improve quality of higher education in war contexts: (1) For Access and Learning: maintaining weekly online sessions and providing learning materials in small, mobile-friendly formats; (2) For Teaching and Learning: promoting quality co-teaching (i.e., a Gazan teacher co-teaches with a dedicated teacher outside Gaza, collaborative reflection), offering multiple-opportunities assessment, and employing project-based learning, with large tasks broken into smaller staged assignments; (3) For Teaching Staff: introducing professional training programs to foster teachers’ reflection skills, co-teaching practices and emotion regulation; (4) For Students’ Participation and Coordination: supporting small group formation and leading and establishing regular feedback channels, and (5) For Institutional Policies: introducing flexible enrolment and assessment policies, restricting minimum number of courses per semester to reduce overload, and facilitating online and co-teaching approaches.

Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher, Higher and Adult Education Series Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series. Jossey-Bass Inc. Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by Doing. A Guide to Teaching and Learning Methods. Oxford Brooks University, Oxford. Inter-agency Network for Education in Emergencies. (2024). Minimum Standards for Education: Preparedness, Response, Recovery. INEE. https://inee.org/minimum-standards Rytivaara, A., Ahtiainen, R., Palmu, I., Pesonen, H., & Malinen, O.-P. (2024). Learning to Co-Teach: A Systematic Review. Education Sciences, 14(1), 113. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010113 Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. (pp. xvii, 355). Jossey-Bass. Al-Mqadma, A., Dittli, R., & Belotti, M. (2024). Resilience in the Rubble: A Needs Assessment of Higher Education in The Gaza Strip. https://www.swisspeace.ch/assets/publications/Reports/241030_Report_Gaza-Higher-Education-Needs-Assessment_final.pdf Banda, R. M., & Reyes, G. (2024). Caring for students by caring for ourselves first: Comadre co-teaching during times of crisis. Teaching in Higher Education, 29(6), 1657–1670. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2022.2103668 Bromley, P., & Andina, M. (2010). Standardizing chaos: A neo‐institutional analysis of the INEE Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, Chronic Crises and Early Reconstruction. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 40(5), 575–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057920903254972 Buckingham, L. R., López-Hernández, A., & Strotmann, B. (2021). Learning by Comparison: The Benefits of Co-Teaching for University Professors’ Professional Development. Frontiers in Education, 6, 776991. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.776991 Burde, D., Kapit, A., Wahl, R. L., Guven, O., & Skarpeteig, M. I. (2017). Education in Emergencies: A Review of Theory and Research. Review of Educational Research, 87(3), 619–658. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316671594 Aldahdouh, T. Z., Al-Masri, N., Abou-Dagga, S., & AlDahdouh, A. (2024). Development of online teaching expertise in fragile and conflict-affected contexts. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1242285. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1242285Quality; Higher Education; INEE Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies; Co-teaching; Reflection; Professional Learning; Palestine; Gaza; War