Category: Belonging

  • Getting students drawing can help belonging and mental health

    Getting students drawing can help belonging and mental health

    Empowering students to develop a creative skillset in response to curriculum-based tasks facilitates experimentation and exploration.

    Increasing creativity supports problem-solving and innovation in a range of academic disciplines. Developing these skills, students acknowledge improvements in their mental health and wellbeing. At De Montfort University, our drawing centre gives students opportunities to develop drawing skills, not only to improve visual communication, but to enhance creativity more broadly.

    Our students say that this ability to design and create improves their confidence to become more imaginative in their studies, developing a confidence that transcends beyond the ability to be creative, enabling more holistic engagement in studies and the wider university experience.

    A centre for creativity

    The drawing centre – part of the central Library and Student Services directorate – offers an inclusive studio environment in which students are supported in a non-assessed way to develop individualised approaches to the creative process.

    Many students first enter the drawing centre thanks to timetabled sessions aligned to curriculum content, others bravely wander in to see what’s happening, and some come along as a supportive friend but soon find themselves engaged and wanting more. Located at the very heart of our Leicester campus, the centre is visible from outside – its interior attracts many to come in and embrace creative development, in an environment designed to support wellbeing.

    The centre is led by experienced arts teacher Chris Wright, who recognised the decline in student confidence and associated mental health and sought to address it. Knowing the importance of a students’ ability to engage creatively, to explore creativity in a nurturing, non-judgemental environment, Chris championed the establishment of a space to develop creative design thinking, doing this to facilitate preparedness for study from a place of perceived mental safety.

    A starting point for the centre was research indicating that mainstream education appears to marginalise art and design subjects in favour of STEM disciplines – a point which echoed Chris’s 20 years of experience teaching arts disciplines, where he witnessed a diminishing focus on craft, experimentation, and creativity, leading to a decline in critical thinking and the negative impacts of this on the student experience.

    Realising the need to develop student confidence in drawing and mark-making, the drawing centre was established in 2018 to provide bespoke support to a small selection of courses at our university. It has grown to become a core part of university activity with provision for multi-modalities of learning for all four faculties, engaging over 2,600 student visits each academic year.

    Confidence

    Many providers seek to understand and support incoming students during that key period of transition into higher education.

    As part of our approach, we invite new students to engage in a self-evaluation exercise. Findings have indicated that high proportions of students start their higher education journey with little or no confidence in visual expression (the ability to express oneself through visual media), visual literacy (the ability to work with visual media), and visualisation (the ability to think in a visual way). The drawing centre aims to address this, based on the principles that with support and in the right environment all students have creativity that should be developed. We offer the chance to develop drawing, visual and creative skills to students who clearly recognise alignment between creativity and their academic studies, as well as to those who don’t.

    Through non-assessed creative activity, exploration and play, students are challenged to explore stimuli and tasks in different ways. They are taught about physical and visual representation, examining how changes in design approaches can impact processes and outputs. Doing this in a “fun” environment, students also share their experiences, often exploring and expressing deeper concepts than purely the physical medium in which they are working or in response to the task set.

    Echoing the mental health benefits of playful approaches to learning, students develop confidence in their creative abilities and recognise the impact of this on their studies. Chris’s student self-evaluation research identifies where visual acuity confidence is lacking and allows for a bespoke curriculum to be designed with course teams to meet student needs. Extracurricular sessions encourage students’ confidence, alongside coaching for staff to embed creative play within assessed activity.

    Power of community

    Some 96 per cent of drawing centre users recognise this as an important learning community, acknowledging creative skill development, and beyond that, resilience. Students feel more confident in approaching academic studies, using the skills developed through creative exploration, adapting these approaches for use in their disciplines. The non-assessed approach is considered non-judgmental, the learning environment is recognised as one in which students develop a toolbox of skills for use in any task and preparing them for lifelong learning.

    Community building within student cohorts supports the development of a sense of belonging, and is considered an increasingly important factor in a student’s sense of wellbeing within the learning environment. Belonging impacts the student experience and attainment, therefore providing students with a physical space in which they feel safe and supported to creatively explore delivers positive benefits beyond the development of creative skills.

    An ongoing process

    We hope to shine a light on the power of developing creativity during study, particularly to improve mental health and support engagement with study. The drawing centre is an experiential learning environment, one that invites the exploration and empowers a community. Students are encouraged to use creative enquiry, informing criticality within their studies.

    We encourage others to consider student support from a creative perspective. Practical guides outline approaches to student belonging, recognising the ways in which this can be approached and benefits it brings. From our experience, creative exercises and opportunities to explore in a non-assessed environment at the heart of campus enable students to develop confidence and lifelong learning skills.

    Source link

  • What does it mean if students think that AI is more intelligent than they are?

    What does it mean if students think that AI is more intelligent than they are?

    The past couple of years in higher education have been dominated by discussions of generative AI – how to detect it, how to prevent cheating, how to adapt assessment. But we are missing something more fundamental.

    AI isn’t just changing how students approach their work – it’s changing how they see themselves. If universities fail to address this, they risk producing graduates who lack both the knowledge and the confidence to succeed in employment and society. Consequently, the value of a higher education degree will diminish.

    In November, a first-year student asked me if ChatGPT could write their assignment. When I said no, they replied: “But AI is more intelligent than me.” That comment has stayed with me ever since.

    If students no longer trust their own ability to contribute to discussions or produce work of value, the implications stretch far beyond academic misconduct. Confidence is affecting motivation, resilience and self-belief, which, consequently, effects sense of community, assessment grades, and graduate skills.

    I have noticed that few discussions focus on the deeper psychological shift – students’ changing perceptions of their own intelligence and capability. This change is a key antecedent for the erosion of a sense of community, AI use in learning and assessment, and the underdevelopment of graduate skills.

    The erosion of a sense of community

    In 2015 when I began teaching, I would walk into a seminar room and find students talking to one another about how worried they were for the deadline, how boring the lecture was, or how many drinks they had Wednesday night. Yes, they would sit at the back, not always do the pre-reading, and go quiet for the first few weeks when I asked a question – but they were always happy to talk to one another.

    Fast forward to 2025, campus feels empty, and students come into class and sit alone. Even final years who have been together for three years, may sit with a “friend” but not really say anything as they stare at phones. I have a final year student who is achieving first class grades, but admitted he has not been in the library once this academic year and he barely knows anyone to talk to. This may not seem like a big thing, but it illustrates the lack of community and relationships that are formed at university. It is well known that peer-to-peer relationships are one of the biggest influencers on attendance and engagement. So when students fail to form networks, it is unsurprising that motivation declines.

    While professional services, student union, and support staff are continuously offering ways to improve the community, at a time where students are working longer hours and through a cost of living, we cannot expect students to attend extracurricular academic or non-academic activities. Therefore, timetabled lectures and seminars need to be at the heart of building relationships.

    AI in learning and assessment

    While marking first-year marketing assignments – a subject I’ve taught across multiple universities for a decade – I noticed a clear shift. Typically, I expect a broad range of marks, but this year, students clustered at two extremes: either very high or alarmingly low. The feedback was strikingly similar: “too vague,” “too descriptive,” “missing taught content.”

    I knew some of these students were engaged and capable in class, yet their assignments told a different story. I kept returning to that student’s remark and realised: the students who normally land in the middle – your solid 2:2 and 2:1 cohort – had turned to AI. Not necessarily to cheat, but because they lacked confidence in their own ability. They believed AI could articulate their ideas better than they could.

    The rapid integration of AI into education isn’t just changing what students do – it’s changing what they believe they can do. If students don’t think they can write as well as a machine, how can we expect them to take intellectual risks, engage critically, or develop the resilience needed for the workplace?

    Right now, universities are at a crossroads. We can either design assessments as if nothing has changed, pivot back to closed-book exams to preserve “authentic” academic work, or restructure assessment to empower students, build confidence, and provide something of real value to both learners and employers. Only the third option moves higher education forward.

    Deakin University’s Phillip Dawson has recently argued that we must ensure assessment measures what we actually intend to assess. His point resonated with me.

    AI is here to stay, and it can enhance learning and productivity. Instead of treating it primarily as a threat or retreating to closed-book exams, we need to ask: what do we really need to assess? For years, we have moved away from exams because they don’t reflect real-world skills or accurately measure understanding. That reasoning still holds, but the assessment landscape is shifting again. Instead of focusing on how students write about knowledge, we should be assessing how they apply it.

    Underdevelopment of graduate skills

    If we don’t rethink pedagogy and assessment, we risk producing graduates who are highly skilled at facilitating AI rather than using it as a tool for deeper analysis, problem-solving, and creativity. Employers are already telling us they need graduates who can analyse and interpret data, think critically to solve problems, communicate effectively, show resilience and adaptability, demonstrate emotional intelligence, and work collaboratively.

    But students can’t develop these skills if they don’t believe in their own ability.

    Right now, students are using AI tools for most activities, including online searching, proof reading, answering questions, generating examples, and even writing reflective pieces. I am confident that if I asked first years to write a two-minute speech about why they came to university, the majority would use AI in some way. There is no space – or incentive – for them to illustrate their skill development.

    This semester, I trialled a small intervention after getting fed up with looking at heads down in laptops. I asked my final year students to put laptops and phones on the floor for the first two hours of a four-hour workshop.

    At first, they were visibly uncomfortable – some looked panicked, others bored. But after ten minutes, something changed. They wrote more, spoke more confidently, and showed greater creativity. As soon as they returned to technology, their expressions became blank again. This isn’t about banning AI, but about ensuring students have fun learning and have space to be thinkers, rather than facilitators.

    Confidence-building

    If students’ lack of confidence is driving them to rely on AI to “play it safe”, we need to acknowledge the systemic problem. Confidence is an academic issue. Confidence underpins everything in the student’s experience: classroom engagement, sense of belonging, motivation, resilience, critical thinking, and, of course, assessment quality. Universities know this, investing in mentorship schemes, support services, and initiatives to foster belonging. But confidence-building cannot be left to professional services alone – it must be embedded into curriculum design and assessment.

    Don’t get me wrong, I am fully aware of the pressures of academic staff, and telling them to improve sense of community, assessment, and graduate skills feels like another time-consuming task. Universities need to recognise that without improving workload planning models to allow academics freedom to focus on and explore pedagogic approaches, we fall into the trap of devaluing the degree.

    In addition, universities want to stay relevant, they need agile structures that allow academics to test new approaches and respond quickly, just like the “real world”. Academics should not be creating or modifying assessments today that won’t be implemented for another 18 months. Policies designed to ensure quality must also ensure adaptability. Otherwise, higher education will always be playing catch-up – first with AI, then with whatever comes next.

    Will universities continue producing AI-dependent graduates, or will they equip students with the confidence to lead in an AI-driven world?

    Source link

  • Working-class students feel alienated from their creative arts degrees – here’s how to help

    Working-class students feel alienated from their creative arts degrees – here’s how to help

    Social class inclusivity is a problem in UK higher education.

    Research demonstrates that working-class students report being less likely to apply to university than their middle-class peers – and when working class people do enter higher education they may face discrimination and social exclusion. This is exacerbated in creative arts subjects.

    We interviewed students currently studying creative arts subjects at a Russell Group university to hear more about their experiences of social class inclusivity. Speaking to ten undergraduate and eight postgraduate students studying a range of creative fields including music, drama and film, we found that working-class students find it difficult to attend class, are disadvantaged in terms of accessing the cultural resources needed to succeed on their course, and feel excluded from social life on campus.

    Economic disadvantage presents a considerable barrier to students completing arts subjects at university. To be inclusive, university staff may have to adjust teaching and learning. We would like to make the case for those working in higher education to consider what classed assumptions are made about students in our institutions and accordingly reassess our expectations of those studying the creative arts.

    Many of the disadvantages or challenges that working-class students face are connected to wider structural inequalities that are deeply entrenched in our society. At the same time, there are still meaningful interventions that staff can make to support working-class students. We suggest four ways in which university staff can make their practice more inclusive to working-class students.

    Discuss working-class stories as present and live

    Universities are middle-class spaces. In creative arts subjects, students often make work referring to their class identity. This can be at odds in institutions where middle-class experience is the “norm”.

    Class diversity must be present within teaching. More working-class mentorship and role models would help students to feel like they belonged at university – including visiting working-class creatives. Our participants also advocated for contemporary working-class experience in the curriculum, in academic texts, and in the artworks discussed.

    Staff must maintain a supportive and safe space when discussing issues pertaining to social class. Staff should also recognise that not everyone wants to talk about their background or experience. Additionally, staff must be aware of social class-based stereotyping that might exist in other students’ creative work, and be prepared to intervene when necessary if (often unintended) prejudices around work, class, accent, or lifestyle emerge.

    Adapt teaching to the multiple demands on working-class students’ time

    More and more students are undertaking part-time work alongside their studies. It is difficult to devise our curricula for only those students who can commit all their time to studying, when significant numbers are balancing their studies with multiple part-time, temporary and precarious jobs, or with care responsibilities.

    Working-class and carer students may be commuting considerable distances to engage with their studies. This is creating a two-tier system of engagement, and many of the students we interviewed felt that teaching and learning on their courses was not flexible enough to support their participation. The same issues are present when students try to engage in extracurricular and cultural activities.

    Working-class students asked for more online resources and access to course materials immediately at the start of modules, alongside concerns over early starts and late finishes and travel costs. They wanted permission to speak to staff about part-time work without feeling like they were “doing something wrong” or not taking their studies seriously. The normalisation of working alongside studying is something that staff may have to accept and work with, rather than try to push against.

    Early intervention is important

    The early stages of the student’s degree are a key time when social class difference and disadvantage is felt, with high levels of anxiety around finance and budgeting in comparison to more affluent peers.

    Working-class students asked for the university to provide information to support their transition into economic independence. Examples include advice on budgeting, lists of free resources, inexpensive alternatives and free access to cultural resources.

    Peer support plays a huge role in the transition to higher education. Working-class peer support groups and mentorship are as significant interventions to help.

    Adjust assumptions and reassess expectations

    University staff can make a difference to the experience of working-class students through simple adjustments of the assumptions we make.

    Interviewees believed staff made assumptions about what creative arts students should know, or the kind of experiences they should have had prior to university. These assumptions corresponded with a more middle-class experience, for example knowledge of university life, or access to (and the ability to afford) cultural resources or engagement with extra-curricular activities. Participants were particularly frustrated by assumptions from staff that students could afford to pay for learning resources not available in the library.

    Extra work is also needed to ensure that working-class or other marginalised students feel comfortable and entitled to ask for help from staff.

    Because many students now must work alongside studying, students may have less time to complete their work outside of class. Stronger steers on the amount of time to complete activities and prioritisation of reading, and the removal of blame for those struggling to balance time constraints of working whilst studying can all be effective.

    Working-class creatives

    Class inclusivity means students feel like they belong on their course, alongside having the financial security to take the time and space to study.

    This is particularly important in the creative arts because the more time and space students have to engage with their course or with extracurricular activities like arts societies, the more working-class stories will be represented in the creative work they make. Creative arts subjects must better support working-class students to engage fully with their studies – and not to be disadvantaged by financial pressure, lack of resource, or through feeling like they don’t belong on their course.

    Source link

  • The value of the classroom in building belonging for commuter students

    The value of the classroom in building belonging for commuter students

    As highlighted throughout the commuter student series, the significant increase in commuters across the sector is beginning to influence many institutional approaches.

    These approaches have been varied but have included projects like making space for commuter students on campuses so that they can maximise their time and comfortably immerse themselves in the university experience.

    However, against a backdrop of a cost-of-living crisis, a cost of learning crisis has taken hold. Given the complexities of commuter students’ lives and responsibilities and the increasing costs of commuting, the “sticky campus” model is not always a viable option as the shift to a more transactional approach is becoming more prevalent.

    What educators, student-facing colleagues and decision makers need to identify is how they ensure time on campus adds value to the commuter student experience.

    The classroom as central

    My PhD research focuses on the experiences of ethnic minority commuter students, and how they develop their identity and sense of belonging whilst at university.

    Much of the research has found that commuter students are more likely to be from ethnic minority backgrounds, have employed work and caring responsibilities and come from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

    Exploring the experiences of participants in my research has revealed how the experiences within the timetabled teaching classroom carries particular significance for commuter students.

    This intersectionality of characteristics further emphasises the heterogenous nature of commuter students, and that speaking to, and understanding the experiences of students will help to understand how we can ensure their university experience is the best it can be.

    Whilst ensuring all students develop the subject specific knowledge is considered to be top of the list of how we add value, ensuring the classroom provides a space for students to develop networks and their community is one of the ways the classroom environment can better support commuters.

    Commuter students are struggling to adapt to pedagogies and policies that are typically designed for students who have relocated. This has started to come to the fore in the responses from students who are perceiving significant value of their experience in the approaches adopted within the classroom.

    Findings from my research signify that a sense of belonging is felt by commuter students, both at a course and institutional level, and that sense of belonging is very much driven by the experiences they have in the classroom.

    Finding space to belong

    To develop this sense of belonging, students often mentioned the importance of space and time.

    They spoke about the need to have space and time within their timetabled session to catch up with peers, have the time to speak to academic and professional services teams face to face and to ensure that classroom activities link to the outcomes they are hoping to achieve. To assist in facilitating this, consideration around how taught sessions are delivered, building space into weekly module delivery to maximise the potential for students to get the most out of their time on campus can develop and help foster this sense of belonging and community.

    Commuters are constantly making cost-benefit calculations, tying with the transactional approach to education. And the richness of these connections, however short and sporadic, can provide valuable outcomes and develop this sense of community.

    Not participating in activities outside of the classroom is not perceived as negatively impacting on their experience, and nor does the act of commuting always limit their ability to engage in activities, but there is an opportunity cost that is often considered.

    Differing approaches amongst tutors can impact on the experience students encounter, and the findings from my research signify a correlation between those classroom encounters and the sense of belonging for commuter students.

    Identity searching

    The institutional identity is also particularly relevant given that the students who are commuting are likely to live within the region, and this further develops the potential affinity they have with their institution.

    My research speaks to the importance of commuter students’ feelings of “we are all getting the same experience and opportunity” in ensuring they are not left feeling disadvantaged.

    This is not to suggest that engaging in activities outside of the classroom are not of value to commuter students, the benefits of engaging in extra-curricular activities is often considerable to the majority of students. The holistic experience of being in university should, however, support in developing the capital of commuter students.

    The classroom should be a space where all students enjoy the learning opportunities that higher education offers, providing the platform on which the student experience is built.

    For commuter students in particular, this space and environment is becoming increasingly important in their overall journey.

    And if we are to ensure an equitable experience for all students, providing a classroom experience which not only focusses on subject content, but provides time and space for interaction and the building of individual identity and community can help support this journey.

     

    This blog is part of our series on commuter students. Click here to see the other articles in the series.

    Source link

  • How the university can support student digital learning freedom

    How the university can support student digital learning freedom

    Feelings of belonging have a significant positive impact on academic success and progression, but we know that creating belonging isn’t as simple as putting up a welcome sign.

    Belonging is not something that can be automatically created by an institution, regardless of its commitment to access and inclusion. To make students feel they belong in a higher education environment, having the power to shape and co-create the environments in which they participate is essential.

    For students in higher education, liminal digital spaces (those informal areas of interaction that sit between formal academic environments and students’ broader social contexts) offer unique opportunities for students to lead, collaborate, learn and foster a sense of belonging, and the freedom to shape their learning environment and exercise agency in ways that may not be available within more formal institutional frameworks. They also offer opportunities for institutions to create places that nurture academic success without assuming responsibility for the development and delivery of all support.

    But squaring the ownership, credibility and safeguarding triangle is complex, so how can universities do this while also embracing digital tools?

    Taking ownership for learning

    Focusing on digital spaces allows institutions to expand the space their students feel comfortable inhabiting and learning in, without limiting engagement from those who may not be free to meet at a specific time or be able to meet in person.

    Digital learning resources can help students connect to their peers, further strengthening their sense of place within the institution. These spaces could act as connectors between university resource and student-driven exploration and learning in a way that more formal mechanisms sometimes fail to. At Manchester, resources such as My Learning Essentials (a blended skills support programme) can be used by the students within the spaces (via online resources) and signposted and recommended by peers (for scheduled support sessions).

    Although this model exists elsewhere, at Manchester it is enhanced by the CATE-awarded Library Student Team, a group of current students who appreciate and often inhabit these spaces themselves. The combination of always available online, expert-led sessions and peer-led support means there is a multiplicity of avenues in the support. This allows the University to partner with, for example, its Students’ Union, and work alongside students and the wider institution by hosting these digital spaces, acting as mediators or facilitators, and ensuring the right balance of autonomy and support.

    Keeping learning credible

    Wider institutional support like My Learning Essentials already takes advantage of digital spaces by delivering both asynchronous online support and scheduled online sessions, and it can be easily integrated, signposted and shaped by the students using it.

    These spaces need to be connected to the institution in such a way as to feel relevant and powerful. “Leaving” students to lead in spaces, giving them leadership responsibility without institutional support or backing, sets both them and these spaces up for failure.

    Universities can work alongside students to help them define collective community values and principles, much like the community guidelines found in spaces like MYFest, a community-focused annual development event. Doing so ensures these liminal spaces are inclusive and responsive to the needs of all participants. Such spaces can also help students transition ‘out’ of the university environment and support others to build skills that they have already developed, such as by mentoring a student in a year below.

    Safeguarding in a digital world

    Universities should also allow students to follow the beat of their own drum and embrace digital outside of university spaces to further their learning.

    Kai Prince, a PhD candidate in Maths at The University of Manchester, who runs a popular Discord server for fellow students, notes:

    If the servers are led by a diverse group of students, I find that they’re also perfect for building a sense of belonging as students feel more comfortable in sharing their difficulties pseudo-anonymously and receiving peer-support, either by being informed on solutions or having their experiences, such as impostor syndrome, acknowledged.

    Spaces like Discord allow students to engage in peer-led learning, but universities can enhance the quality of that learning by making available and investing in (as is done with My Learning Essentials) high-quality online materials, clear paths to wider support services and formal connections with societies or other academic groups. These mechanisms also help to keep the space within a student’s university experience, with all the expectations for behaviour and collegiality that entails.

    The higher education sector is a complex and diverse space, welcoming new members to its communities each year. But it is often mired in a struggle to effectively engage and include each individual as a true part of the whole.

    Work to address this needs to incorporate the students in spaces where the balance of power is tilted, by design, in their favour. Recognising the potential for digital spaces, for accessibility, support and familiarity for students as they enter higher education means that universities can put their efforts towards connecting, but not dictating, the direction of students and helping them forge their own learning journeys as part of the wider university community.

    Source link