Conference Agenda

Academic staff with a range of teaching, research and service responsibilities often find traditional professional development opportunities inaccessible (Datt, 2024). For some the logistics of attending workshops or short courses are not compatible with their role—particularly those with part-time appointments. For others, the scope of these pre-designed activities is not sufficiently calibrated to their context and its requirements, making such activities an inefficient use of often proscribed professional development time. Others still struggle to find academic developer colleagues whose knowledges and experiences are sufficient to provide support to those whose academic teaching involves clinical or vocational praxis. While some might argue this is a deficiency of academic development, in reality, the contexts in which many of us work in academic development limit our capacity to provide such support: there are too few of us and too many of them.

Though not a cure-all, heutagogy offers a framework that embraces such academic staff’s unique positionalities and can afford academic developers flexibility in the provision of support. Heutagogy’s focus on “learner-centered learning that sees the learner as the major agent in their own learning, which occurs as a result of personal experiences” (Hase and Kenyon , 2007, p. 112) shifts the role of academic developers from (solely) subject matter expert to more a facilitative mentor. Such mentorship relationships can be oriented to building and extending competence, with the academic developer acting as hub within a network of colleagues, whom can provision collegial peer support. As well, liberating academic developers from timetabled learning events can also increase their individual capacity. In particular, heutagogy—as self-determined learning—requires learners to drive the purpose, goal, content and process of professional development in the digital learning space.

In this presentation, I examine how infusing an heutagogic ethos into my academic development praxis has reinvigorated it—and changed how I led a bespoke team of academic developers. Heutagogy has enabled some to extend their competences who are unable to attend more traditional professional development opportunities, and has led to other subsequent changes in the academic development space at my university. Whether competences are acquired via institutional professional development opportunities (my way), wholly autonomously (your way), or some other (any) way is secondary to acquiring the competences—and the provisioning of support to do so. In the end, academic staff who engage substantively with professional development develop their own socially situated heutagogic practice. This should subsequently serve them well professionally, including those who wish to pursue postgraduate studies around digital learning.

Datt, A. K. (2024). Building capacity for teaching with technologies in higher education: The value of networking. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, The University of Auckland, New Zealand. https://hdl.handle.net/2292/70729

Hase, S., & Kenyon, C. (2007). Heutagogy: A child of complexity theory. Complicity: An international journal of complexity and education, 4(1): 111-118

Education is recognised as a fundamental human right (United Nations, 2006), and Ireland’s commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, 2018) requires inclusive higher education. However, structural, digital and environmental barriers continue to shape participation. While Ireland’s National Access Strategy promotes inclusion for students with intellectual disabilities (ID), barriers to meaningful engagement remain (Buckley & Quinlivan, 2023). Students increasingly seek inclusion within academic and vocational pathways (Grigal et al., 2021; Hennessy et al., 2024).

The expansion of third-level programmes for students with intellectual disabilities is recent, raising key questions for educational technology (EdTech). Beyond access, design must support participation, autonomy and progression. Project WAVE (Working Towards Academic and Vocational Equity), a HEA-funded PATH 4 Phase 2 initiative, addresses this through inclusive programme design where, first-year learning is cohort-based to build academic and digital competencies, with progression to co-learning and mainstream participation in second year.

This research focuses on the ICT module within this structure. It examines students with intellectual disabilities alongside the lecturer, postgraduate teaching assistant and instructional designer. A qualitative, practice-based design was adopted, grounded in reflective pedagogy and iterative development. Ethical approval was obtained, and accessible materials, including Easy Read information and consent forms, supported participation.

The module was delivered through Moodle using structured layouts, scaffolded e-tivities (Salmon, 2013) and guided discussions. UDL informed the design (AlRawi & AlKahtani, 2022), alongside graphic facilitation strategies (Cavaliero et al., 2024; Cavaliero & Gilligan, 2025). Domain-general strategies supported engagement (Dinsmore, 2017), reinforced through peer interaction, routine and exposure to mainstream practices (Grigal et al., 2021).

Findings highlight predictability, visual clarity, relational support and modelling of digital behaviours as central to participation, alongside communication, spatial navigation and belonging.

Inclusive EdTech is therefore not about technological novelty, but about designing systems that support belonging, participation and autonomy for an emerging and underserved student population in higher education.

References

AlRawi, J. M., & AlKahtani, M. A. (2022). Universal design for learning for educating students with intellectual disabilities: a systematic review. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 68(6), 800–808. https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2021.1900505

Buckley, L. A., & Quinlivan, S. (2023). Inclusive learning in Ireland: A case study. International Journal of Discrimination and the Law, 23(1-2), 103-125. https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291231169397

Cavaliero, T., Gilligan, J., & McCabe, E. (2024). A rollercoaster of drawing and using digital tools!: Graphicking and grappling in a community of practice. Irish Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 8(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.22554/npk13x26

Cavaliero, T., & Gilligan, J. (2025). How graphic facilitation methods support your practice. AHEAD Journal. Retrieved March 2, 2026, from https://www.ahead.ie/journal/How-Graphic-Facilitation-Methods-support-your-practice

Dinsmore, D. L. (2017). Strategic processing in education. In D. L. Dinsmore (Ed.), Strategic processing in education (pp. 3–20). Routledge.

Grigal, M., L. L. Dukes, & Z. Walker. (2021). Advancing access to higher education for students with intellectual disability in the United States. Disabilities 1, 438–449. https://doi.org/10.3390/ disabilities1040030.

Hennessy, T., J. McMahon, and O. Doody. (2024). How People with an intellectual disability experience inclusive third‐level education: A scoping review. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53, 158–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/bld.12626.

Salmon, G., (2013). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. New York: Routledge.

United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. United Nations.

United Nations. (2018). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Ireland ratification documents. United Nations.

As digital learning expands across education, questions of effectiveness need to be considered alongside questions of people, culture, and inclusion: who digital tools are designed for, whose knowledge they embed, and how they support meaningful participation in learning (UNESCO, 2023). These questions are especially important in the context of less commonly taught languages (LCTLs), where learners and teachers often work with limited resources, reduced exposure, and fewer opportunities for engaging, culturally grounded practice (Ward, 2015). In such contexts, educational technology is not simply a delivery mechanism, but a way of shaping access, motivation, and belonging.

This paper presents research on Cipher: Faoi Gheasa, a digital game-based language learning resource developed to support Irish learning in primary education (Xu, 2025). The work sits within a wider research programme on Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) for LCTLs and explores how game-based approaches can combine pedagogy, play, and cultural context in ways that are both educationally meaningful and adaptable. Rather than treating language as a decontextualised system of forms, the project positions it as something learned through interaction, story, and cultural connection.

Cipher uses narrative gameplay inspired by Irish mythology and folklore to create a learning environment in which vocabulary practice is embedded within puzzles, story progression, and feedback. In doing so, the design moves beyond a narrow “how-to-use-tech” framing and instead asks who the learning experience is for: young learners who may need motivating entry points into Irish; teachers who need flexible and usable classroom resources; and language communities seeking approaches that value linguistic and cultural sustainability. The project also reflects a broader human-centred and learner-centred perspective in EdTech design, foregrounding engagement, accessibility, and cultural relevance.

The paper reports on a classroom-based evaluation of the game in Irish primary school settings and considers its implications for digital language learning more broadly. The study indicates that game-based learning can support vocabulary development while also fostering positive learner engagement and a sense that the learning experience is both fun and meaningful. The findings suggest that culturally grounded digital games can offer a productive response to recurring challenges in Irish language education, particularly around motivation, resource limitations, and the need for enjoyable but pedagogically purposeful learning experiences.

Beyond the Irish context, the paper argues for a more plural understanding of EdTech in language education: one that recognises the importance of designing with and for specific communities rather than assuming that dominant-language solutions will transfer easily to lower-resourced settings. The Cipher framework is therefore discussed not only as a tool for Irish, but as an example of how adaptable, culturally informed digital design can contribute to more inclusive and sustainable futures for LCTL education.

By bringing together digital game-based learning, learner-centred design, and culturally resonant content, this paper contributes to ongoing conversations about equity, belonging, and participation in EdTech. It reflects not only what educational technologies can do, but who they serve, whose stories they carry, and how they might help widen participation in digital learning.

Reference:

UNESCO. (2023). Global Education Monitoring Report 2023: Technology in education: A tool on whose terms. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000385723

Ward, M. (2015). Factors in sustainable CALL. WorldCALL: Sustainability and computer-assisted language learning, 132-151.

Xu, L. (2025). Bridging computer-assisted language learning and cultural approaches: AI-powered game and VR solutions for less commonly taught languages (Doctoral dissertation).