Category: Widening Participation

  • A new way of addressing the enigma of student engagement

    A new way of addressing the enigma of student engagement

    by Caroline Jones and Leonie Sweeney

    Psychosocial and Academic Trust Alienation (PATA) Theory as a Methodological Lens

    Higher education is experiencing post-pandemic challenges which have increased pressure on students in multifaceted and interconnecting ways (Jones & Bell, 2024). Existing research suggests that post-pandemic, students’ mental health and wellbeing has been significantly impacted (Chen & Lubock, 2022; Defeyter et al, 2021; Jones & Bell, 2025; McGiven & Shepherd, 2022; Nunn et al, 2021). This indicates that research into the field of higher education is needed more pro-actively than ever before, especially given the diverse student market.

    Currently there is considerable research in the form of critique of policy trends or evaluation of the effectiveness of changes in practice; however, the PATA theory lens suggests an approach to research centring on the educational psychologies and intricacies of the student and the enigma of student engagement (Buckley, 2018; Jones & Nangah, 2020: McFarlane & Thomas, 2017).

    Our recent article presents the PATA theory as a methodological lens through which higher education student behaviours, characteristics, and demographics can be researched. Furthermore, it provides an explanation of the PATA theory with specific links to student engagement. The idea of the PATA theory was first explored by Jones in 2017 and developed further in 2020 and 2021 in response to recognised issues faced relating to student engagement in widening participation student demographics. This research establishes the theory which can be applied to investigating the complexities of student demographics, with the aim being to develop knowledge and understanding of issues affecting students such as post-pandemic engagement.

    Guidelines from the QAA (2018) state that due to the demographic of the students who attend each institution, student engagement needs to be interpreted and encouraged in response to student/higher education institutional need. Therefore, student engagement can be interpreted in a variety of ways, examining the links between time, energy and other properties invested by HEIs and students with the aims of cultivating the student experience, strengthening educational outcomes, encouraging development and raising student achievement. Positive student engagement can lead to successful student outcomes, lower attrition rates and improved social mobility, demonstrating the importance of research for understanding and investing in student engagement practices.

    The PATA theory sits under the umbrella of alienation theory: it considers the individual student’s psychosocial status (self-concept/self-esteem levels) and has identified links to academic trust levels (Jones, 2021), particularly for students from the widening participation demographics or those who have experienced socio-economic disadvantage, see figure 1.

    Figure 1. PATA Theory (Jones, 2021)

    The PATA theory fits as a methodology within the realms of phenomenology as it enables researchers to present a narrative to represent the phenomena studied to extract significant statements from the data to formulate meaning. Neubauer, Witkop and Varpio (2019, p91) believe it is imperative for the researcher engaging in phenomenological research to be familiar with the philosophical ‘interpretations of human experience’, whilst Morrow, Rodriguez and King (2015, p644) advise that ‘descriptive phenomenology is especially valuable in areas where there is little existing research’. An additional crucial aspect of phenomenology is understanding that social reality has to be grounded in an individual’s encounters in authentic social situations. The focal point of the PATA theory lens research is to understand how students’ psychosocial status affects the academic trust of their higher education experiences and the relationships that arise out of the social exchanges therein, permitting researchers to construe the associations that the participants make.

    This article analyses the PATA theory potential range of research methods that can be employed and used in higher education practice and is supported by three case vignette examples with reflection points.  For example, we would usually see student disengagement relating to activities such as non-attendance, but the PATA theory shows us that the concept of student engagement is much more complex and encourages higher education institutions and professionals to view the issue in a more holistic student-centred way rather than homogenously.

    Additionally, post-Covid there has been a significant rise in the number of students presenting with mental health issues, with students struggling to attend and engage with their programmes of study. Currently, the assessment strategies used by HEIs for capturing student engagement fail accurately to measure both student engagement and sense of belonging. However, using the PATA theory as the research lens would provide a deeper insight into the post pandemic issues faced, by focussing on student alienation and the strengthening of trust between the student and the institution. HEIs could then scrutinise their existing on-campus experiences to aid the re-engagement process, and practice could be adapted to increase the student experience, such as including more pastoral 1:1 support time within the timetable.

    Some further practical illustrations of how the PATA theory might influence our understanding or make a difference in practice are:

    • To understand potential psychological barriers to student engagement based on demographics, behaviours and characteristics.
    • To identify success stories of positive engagement where good practice can be disseminated or shared to improve student outcomes.
    • To take a deep dive into higher education practices, course or programmes to find out if there are specific teaching and learning barriers affecting students.
    • Provides time and space to analyse intricate needs of specific demographics; behaviours and characteristics such as impact of low tariff on entry gaps or previous educational experiences.
    • Can lead to bespoke action to address potential equality and inclusion concerns.
    • Can be used as an early intervention tool to support students’ re-engagement potentially contributing to reduced attrition and improvements in social mobility.
    • Can be used to explore wider societal issues that affect engagement

    The PATA theory has its limitations, being a new and emerging theoretical perspective, and is very much open to academic critique. However, this concept does bring new insight to the complexities of the student community, the higher education institutional and political landscapes and could be used as a methodological lens to develop deeper knowledge and understanding of student engagement challenges. Whilst the PATA theory is a complex idea applied to a range of complex student issues, when the phenomenon is understood well, there is the potential to really make a difference to the educational outcomes for students. Furthermore, existing theories do not make connections between psychosocial status and academic trust which is where the PATA theory can contribute to a stronger understanding of the student phenomena.

    The article on which this blog is based is

    Jones, C. S., and Sweeney, L (2025) ‘The Psychosocial and Academic Trust Alienation (PATA) Theory: A new lens to research higher education student phenomena: behaviours, characteristics, and demographics’ Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal, 6(1), 79–110 https://sehej.raise-network.com/raise/article/view/1240.

    Caroline Jones is an applied social sciences teaching professional with extensive experience working in the children and young people field and lecturing/programme leading in Higher Education. Currently employed as a Tutor based within the Health and Education Faculty at Manchester Metropolitan University, having previously been a Lecturer at the University Campus Oldham and at Stockport University Centre. Also an External Examiner for Derby University/Middlesex University and a Peer Reviewer for IETI. Research interests include; leadership and management, social mobility and social policy, risk, resilience and adolescent mental health, young care leavers, widening participation and disadvantage, originator of the ‘psychosocial and academic trust alienation’ (PATA) theory.

    Email: c.jones@mmu.ac.uk. LinkedIn: https://uk.linkedin.com/in/caroline-jones-1bab40b3. Twitter/X: @c_JonesSFHEA. Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Caroline-Jones-39?ev=hdr_xprf.

    Leonie Sweeney is a teaching professional within the Applied Social Sciences faculty at Manchester Metropolitan University, with many years of experience working within the children and young people sector. Currently employed as a Higher Education Course Leader and Lecturer, delivering Children and Young People and Early Years degree courses. Additionally, is an External Examiner for University of Chichester and University of Sunderland. Research interests include: student engagement, social mobility, widening participation.

    Email: leonie.sweeney@oldham.ac.uk

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • How educators can use Gen AI to promote inclusion and widen access

    How educators can use Gen AI to promote inclusion and widen access

    by Eleni Meletiadou

    Introduction

    Higher education faces a pivotal moment as Generative AI becomes increasingly embedded within academic practice. While AI technologies offer the potential to personalize learning, streamline processes, and expand access, they also risk exacerbating existing inequalities if not intentionally aligned with inclusive values. Building on our QAA-funded project outputs, this blog outlines a strategic framework for deploying AI to foster inclusion, equity, and ethical responsibility in higher education.

    The digital divide and GenAI

    Extensive research shows that students from marginalized backgrounds often face barriers in accessing digital tools, digital literacy training, and peer networks essential for technological confidence. GenAI exacerbates this divide, demanding not only infrastructure (devices, subscriptions, internet access) but also critical AI literacy. According to previous research, students with higher AI competence outperform peers academically, deepening outcome disparities.

    However, the challenge is not merely technological; it is social and structural. WP (Widening Participation) students often remain outside informal digital learning communities where GenAI tools are introduced and shared. Without intervention, GenAI risks becoming a “hidden curriculum” advantage for already-privileged groups.

    A framework for inclusive GenAI adoption

    Our QAA-funded “Framework for Educators” proposes five interrelated principles to guide ethical, inclusive AI integration:

    • Understanding and Awareness Foundational AI literacy must be prioritized. Awareness campaigns showcasing real-world inclusive uses of AI (eg Otter.ai for students with hearing impairments) and tiered learning tracks from beginner to advanced levels ensure all students can access, understand, and critically engage with GenAI tools.
    • Inclusive Collaboration GenAI should be used to foster diverse collaboration, not reinforce existing hierarchies. Tools like Miro and DeepL can support multilingual and neurodiverse team interactions, while AI-powered task management (eg Notion AI) ensures equitable participation. Embedding AI-driven teamwork protocols into coursework can normalize inclusive digital collaboration.
    • Skill Development Higher-order cognitive skills must remain at the heart of AI use. Assignments that require evaluating AI outputs for bias, simulating ethical dilemmas, and creatively applying AI for social good nurture critical thinking, problem-solving, and ethical awareness.
    • Access to Resources Infrastructure equity is critical. Universities must provide free or subsidized access to key AI tools (eg Grammarly, ReadSpeaker), establish Digital Accessibility Centers, and proactively support economically disadvantaged students.
    • Ethical Responsibility Critical AI literacy must include an ethical dimension. Courses on AI ethics, student-led policy drafting workshops, and institutional AI Ethics Committees empower students to engage responsibly with AI technologies.

    Implementation strategies

    To operationalize the framework, a phased implementation plan is recommended:

    • Phase 1: Needs assessment and foundational AI workshops (0–3 months).
    • Phase 2: Pilot inclusive collaboration models and adaptive learning environments (3–9 months).
    • Phase 3: Scale successful practices, establish Ethics and Accessibility Hubs (9–24 months).

    Key success metrics include increased AI literacy rates, participation from underrepresented groups, enhanced group project equity, and demonstrated critical thinking skill growth.

    Discussion: opportunities and risks

    Without inclusive design, GenAI could deepen educational inequalities, as recent research warns. Students without access to GenAI resources or social capital will be disadvantaged both academically and professionally. Furthermore, impersonal AI-driven learning environments may weaken students’ sense of belonging, exacerbating mental health challenges.

    Conversely, intentional GenAI integration offers powerful opportunities. AI can personalize support for students with diverse learning needs, extend access to remote or rural learners, and reduce administrative burdens on staff – freeing them to focus on high-impact, relational work such as mentoring.

    Conclusion

    The future of inclusive higher education depends on whether GenAI is adopted with a clear commitment to equity and social justice. As our QAA project outputs demonstrate, the challenge is not merely technological but ethical and pedagogical. Institutions must move beyond access alone, embedding critical AI literacy, equitable resource distribution, community-building, and ethical responsibility into every stage of AI adoption.

    Generative AI will not close the digital divide on its own. It is our pedagogical choices, strategic designs, and values-driven implementations that will determine whether the AI-driven university of the future is one of exclusion – or transformation.

    This blog is based on the recent outputs from our QAA-funded project entitled: “Using AI to promote education for sustainable development and widen access to digital skills”

    Dr Eleni Meletiadou is an Associate Professor (Teaching) at London Metropolitan University  specialising in Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI), AI, inclusive digital pedagogy, and multilingual education. She leads the Education for Social Justice and Sustainable Learning and Development (RILEAS) and the Gender Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (GEDI) Research Groups. Dr Meletiadou’s work, recognised with the British Academy of Management Education Practice Award (2023), focuses on transforming higher education curricula to promote equitable access, sustainability, and wellbeing. With over 15 years of international experience across 35 countries, she has led numerous projects in inclusive assessment and AI-enhanced learning. She is a Principal Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and serves on several editorial boards. Her research interests include organisational change, intercultural communication, gender equity, and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). She actively contributes to global efforts in making education more inclusive and future-ready. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-eleni-meletiadou/

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Will GenAI narrow or widen the digital divide in higher education?

    Will GenAI narrow or widen the digital divide in higher education?

    by Lei Fang and Xue Zhou

    This blog is based on our recent publication: Zhou, X, Fang, L, & Rajaram, K (2025) ‘Exploring the digital divide among students of diverse demographic backgrounds: a survey of UK undergraduates’ Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 8(1).

    Introduction – the widening digital divide

    Our recent study (Zhou et al, 2025) surveyed 595 undergraduate students across the UK to examine the evolving digital divide across all forms of digital technologies. Although higher education is expected to narrow this divide and build students’ digital confidence, our findings revealed the opposite. We found that the gap in digital confidence and skills between widening participation (WP) and non-WP students widened progressively throughout the undergraduate journey. While students reported peak confidence in Year 2, this was followed by a notable decline in Year 3, when the digital divide became most pronounced. This drop coincides with a critical period when students begin applying their digital skills in real-world contexts, such as job applications and final-year projects.

    Based on our study (Zhou et al, 2025), while universities offer a wide range of support such as laptop loans, free access to remote systems, extracurricular digital skills training, and targeted funding to WP students, WP students often do not make use of these resources. The core issue lies not in the absence of support, but in its uptake. WP students are often excluded from the peer networks and digital communities where emerging technologies are introduced, shared, and discussed. From a Connectivist perspective (Siemens, 2005), this lack of connection to digital, social, and institutional networks limits their awareness, confidence, and ability to engage meaningfully with available digital tools.

    Building on these findings, this blog asks a timely question: as Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) becomes embedded in higher education, will it help bridge this divide or deepen it further?

    GenAI may widen the digital divide — without proper strategies

    While the digital divide in higher education is already well-documented in relation to general technologies, the emergence of GenAI introduces new risks that may further widen this gap (Cachat-Rosset & Klarsfeld, 2023). This matters because students who are GenAI-literate often experience better academic performance (Sun & Zhou, 2024), making the divide not just about access but also about academic outcomes.

    Unlike traditional digital tools, GenAI often demands more advanced infrastructure — including powerful devices, high-speed internet, and in many cases, paid subscriptions to unlock full functionality. WP students, who already face barriers to accessing basic digital infrastructure, are likely to be disproportionately excluded. This divide is not only student-level but also institutional. A few well-funded universities are able to subscribe to GenAI platforms such as ChatGPT, invest in specialised GenAI tools, and secure campus-wide licenses. In contrast, many institutions, particularly those under financial pressure, cannot afford such investments. These disparities risk creating a new cross-sector digital divide, where students’ access to emerging technologies depends not only on their background, but also on the resources of the university they attend.

    In addition, the adoption of GenAI currently occurs primarily through informal channels via peers, online communities, or individual experimentation rather than structured teaching (Shailendra et al, 2024). WP students, who may lack access to these digital and social learning networks (Krstić et al, 2021), are therefore less likely to become aware of new GenAI tools, let alone develop the confidence and skills to use them effectively. Even when they do engage with GenAI, students may experience uncertainty, confusion, or fear about using it appropriately especially in the absence of clear guidance around academic integrity, ethical use, or institutional policy. This ambiguity can lead to increased anxiety and stress, contributing to wider concerns around mental health in GenAI learning environments.

    Another concern is the risk of impersonal learning environments (Berei & Pusztai, 2022). When GenAI are implemented without inclusive design, the experience can feel detached and isolating, particularly for WP students, who often already feel marginalised. While GenAI tools may streamline administrative and learning processes, they can also weaken the sense of connection and belonging that is essential for student engagement and success.

    GenAI can narrow the divide — with the right strategies

    Although WP students are often excluded from digital networks, which Connectivism highlights as essential for learning (Goldie, 2016), GenAI, if used thoughtfully, can help reconnect them by offering personalised support, reducing geographic barriers, and expanding access to educational resources.

    To achieve this, we propose five key strategies:

    • Invest in infrastructure and access: Universities must ensure that all students have the tools to participate in the AI-enabled classroom including access to devices, core software, and free versions of widely used GenAI platforms. While there is a growing variety of GenAI tools on the market, institutions facing financial pressures must prioritise tools that are both widely used and demonstrably effective. The goal is not to adopt everything, but to ensure that all students have equitable access to the essentials.
    • Rethink training with inclusion in mind: GenAI literacy training must go beyond traditional models. It should reflect Equality, Diversity and Inclusion principles recognising the different starting points students bring and offering flexible, practical formats. Micro-credentials on platforms like LinkedIn Learning or university-branded short courses can provide just-in-time, accessible learning opportunities. These resources are available anytime and from anywhere, enabling students who were previously excluded such as those in rural or under-resourced areas to access learning on their own terms.
    • Build digital communities and peer networks: Social connection is a key enabler of learning (Siemens, 2005). Institutions should foster GenAI learning communities where students can exchange ideas, offer peer support, and normalise experimentation. Mental readiness is just as important as technical skill and being part of a supportive network can reduce anxiety and stigma around GenAI use.
    • Design inclusive GenAI policies and ensure ongoing evaluation: Institutions must establish clear, inclusive policies around GenAI use that balance innovation with ethics (Schofield & Zhang, 2024). These policies should be communicated transparently and reviewed regularly, informed by diverse student feedback and ongoing evaluation of impact.
    • Adopt a human-centred approach to GenAI integration: Following UNESCO’s human-centred approach to AI in education (UNESCO, 2024; 2025), GenAI should be used to enhance, not replace the human elements of teaching and learning. While GenAI can support personalisation and reduce administrative burdens, the presence of academic and pastoral staff remains essential. By freeing staff from routine tasks, GenAI can enable them to focus more fully on this high-impact, relational work, such as mentoring, guidance, and personalised support that WP students often benefit from most.

    Conclusion

    Generative AI alone will not determine the future of equity in higher education, our actions will. Without intentional, inclusive strategies, GenAI risks amplifying existing digital inequalities, further disadvantaging WP students. However, by proactively addressing access barriers, delivering inclusive and flexible training, building supportive digital communities, embedding ethical policies, and preserving meaningful human interaction, GenAI can become a powerful tool for inclusion. The digital divide doesn’t close itself; institutions must embed equity into every stage of GenAI adoption. The time to act is not once systems are already in place, it is now.

    Dr Lei Fang is a Senior Lecturer in Digital Transformation at Queen Mary University of London. Her research interests include AI literacy, digital technology adoption, the application of AI in higher education, and risk management. lei.fang@qmul.ac.uk

    Professor Xue Zhou is a Professor in AI in Business Education at the University of Leicester. Her research interests fall in the areas of digital literacy, digital technology adoption, cross-cultural adjustment and online professionalism. xue.zhou@le.ac.uk

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Open universities: between radical promise and market reality

    Open universities: between radical promise and market reality

    by Ourania Filippakou

    Open universities have long symbolised a radical departure from the exclusivity of conventional universities. Conceived as institutions of access, intellectual emancipation, and social transformation, they promised to disrupt rigid academic hierarchies and democratise knowledge. Yet, as higher education is increasingly reshaped by market logics, can open universities still claim to be engines of social progress, or have they become institutions that now reproduce the very inequalities they sought to dismantle?

    This question is not merely academic; it is profoundly political. Across the globe, democratic institutions are under siege, and the erosion of democracy is no longer an abstraction – it is unfolding in real time (cf EIU, 2024; Jones, 2025). The rise of far-right ideologies, resurgent racism, intensified attacks on women’s and LGBTQ+ rights, and the erosion of protections for migrants and marginalised communities all point to a crisis of democracy that cannot be separated from the crisis of education (Giroux, 2025). As Giroux (1984) argues, education is never neutral; it can operate as both a potential site for fostering critical consciousness and resistance and a mechanism for reproducing systems of social control and domination. Similarly, Butler (2005) reminds us that the very categories of who counts as human, who is deemed grievable, and whose knowledge is legitimised are deeply political struggles.

    Open universities, once heralded as radical interventions in knowledge production, now find themselves entangled in these struggles. Increasingly, they are forced to reconcile their egalitarian aspirations with the ruthless pressures of neoliberalism and market-driven reforms. The challenge they face is no less than existential: to what extent can they uphold their role as spaces of intellectual and social transformation, or will they become further absorbed into the logics of commodification and control?

    My article (Filippakou, 2025) in Policy Reviews in Higher Education, ‘Two ideologies of openness: a comparative analysis of the Open Universities in the UK and Greece’, foregrounds a crucial but often overlooked dimension: the ideological battles that have shaped open universities over time. The UK Open University (OU) and the Hellenic Open University (HOU) exemplify two distinct yet converging trajectories. The UK OU, founded in the 1960s as part of a broader post-war commitment to social mobility, was a political project – an experiment in making university education available to those long excluded from elite institutions. The HOU, by contrast, emerged in the late 1990s within the European Union’s push for a knowledge economy, where lifelong learning was increasingly framed primarily in terms of workforce development. While both institutions embraced ‘openness’ as a defining principle, the meaning of that openness has shifted – from an egalitarian vision of education as a public good to a model struggling to reconcile social inclusion with neoliberal imperatives.

    A key insight of this analysis is that open universities do not merely widen participation; they reflect deeper contestations over the purpose of higher education itself. The UK OU’s early success inspired similar models worldwide, but today, relentless marketisation – rising tuition fees, budget cuts, and the growing encroachment of corporate interests – threatens to erode its founding ethos.

    Meanwhile, the HOU was shaped by a European policy landscape that framed openness not merely as intellectual emancipation but as economic necessity. Both cases illustrate the paradox of open universities: they continue to expand access, yet their structural constraints increasingly align them with the logic of precarity, credentialism, and market-driven efficiency.

    This struggle over education is central to the survival of democracy. Arendt (1961, 2005) warned that democracy is not self-sustaining; it depends on an informed citizenry capable of judgment, debate, and resistance. Higher education, in this sense, is not simply about skills or employability – it is about cultivating the capacity to think critically, to challenge authority, and to hold power to account (Giroux, 2019). Open universities were once at the forefront of this democratic mission. But as universities in general, and open universities in particular, become increasingly instrumentalised – shaped by political forces intent on suppressing dissent, commodifying learning, and hollowing out universities’ transformative potential – their role in sustaining democratic publics is under threat.

    The real question, then, is not simply whether open universities remain ‘open’ but how they define and enact this openness. To what extent do they serve as institutions of intellectual and civic transformation, or have they primarily been reduced to flexible degree factories, catering to market demands under the guise of accessibility? By comparing the UK and Greek experiences, this article aims to challenge readers to rethink the ideological stakes of openness in higher education today. The implications extend far beyond open universities themselves. The broader appeal of this analysis lies in its relevance to anyone interested in universities as sites of social change. Open universities are not just alternatives to conventional universities – they represent larger struggles over knowledge, democracy, and economic power. The creeping normalisation of authoritarian politics, the suppression of academic freedom, and the assault on marginalised voices in public discourse demand that we reclaim higher education as a site of resistance.

    Can open universities reclaim their radical promise? If higher education is to resist the encroachment of neoliberalism and reactionary politics, we must actively defend institutions that prioritise intellectual freedom, civic literacy, and higher education for the public good. The future of open universities – and higher education itself – depends not only on institutional policies but on whether scholars, educators, and students collectively resist these forces. The battle for openness is not just about access; it is about the kind of society we choose to build – for ourselves and the generations to come.

    Ourania Filippakou is a Professor of Education at Brunel University of London. Her research interrogates the politics of higher education, examining universities as contested spaces where power, inequality, and resistance intersect. Rooted in critical traditions, she explores how higher education can foster social justice, equity, and transformative change.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • The Luck of the Irish by Cheri Kelly – ALL @ Liverpool Blog

    The Luck of the Irish by Cheri Kelly – ALL @ Liverpool Blog

    On 12th July 2019 I drove into Liverpool for my Go Higher assessment  full of nervous anxiety and anticipation for what was to come.  I had been encouraged by a friend to think about doing an Access to Higher Education course. I had no idea what it was.  I  googled the term and  Go Higher  popped up in my browser and I was hooked immediately.  That discussion had not really been about using the course to go on to University, I had not even entertained that idea,  it was much more about me doing something that was just for me, rebuilding my confidence and getting myself back out into the world.

    So, here I was driving along through Toxteth, heading to the car park with an hour to spare when I got stuck behind the Orange March! Who knew they even existed in Liverpool?  I was diverted and, in a panic, got completely lost. Parking up in a cul de sac I ‘phoned through to the office to explain the situation and convinced myself that was the end of that then. The admin team were great, calmed me down and told me that they would move me back to the afternoon session.  Obstacle Number One overcome.  I do not know what I was expecting but being told that there was to be a written maths exam was not on my radar. I have a real phobia of the word maths; it sends me into a tailspin if ever mentioned. I explained to the coordinator that I probably wouldn’t pass and why. He was amazing and calmed me down, as did the couple of people sitting on each side of me. We were all a little panicked about different things, but the staff all made it such an enjoyable and calming experience. I felt a real affinity with the lecturer that interviewed me.  A few days later I received the letter congratulating me on being accepted onto the course.

    By September I had connected with Paula who was also starting the course, she lived not far from me and so we decided that we would car share and go together for the induction week.  I will not lie; it was probably one of the most intense weeks of my life for many reasons. The imposter syndrome set in immediately, the number of people at the first meeting was overwhelming, the schedule of work looked enormous, and the list goes on.  What was great was that everybody made new friends, groups were formed, and those groups really encouraged each other from day one.  By the end of the induction week a lot of people had dropped out.  I had several wobbles, but the excitement of learning took over from the imposter syndrome.  A few people threatened not to come back but, with encouragement from the tutors and their new friends they did return.  The wobbles do not stop after the induction week, they come back time and time again, but you just have to remember why you want to do the course and talk to people for support.

    By the time I had finished the course I had decided that I did want to go on to do a degree. I had decided part way through that I wanted to do a degree in Psychology and duly applied to three universities, including Liverpool, and was accepted by all. I had a change of mind and thought that I would prefer to do English. After speaking to Claire at Go Higher I realised that I could not apply for English at Liverpool as I hadn’t taken the English module on Go Higher. She suggested I consider Irish Studies. It was a perfect fit for me as a multi-disciplinary course incorporating History, Culture, Politics and Literature of Ireland.  I applied and was accepted. It seems ironic that just a year earlier my chance to even do the Go Higher was almost scuppered by an Orange march!  I was given so many fantastic opportunities as a student in the Institute of Irish Studies. I acted as both Student and Faculty representative;  I was privileged to be selected as an Undergraduate Research Student for Prof Frank Shovlin and I completed a placement at the Museum of Liverpool where I worked on a project to update the Irish Trail and revamp the Information pamphlets.

    My journey through university was not as straightforward as I had hoped it would be. Each year brought me ‘out of the ordinary’ personal challenges that affected my studies, but I persevered. It took me a little longer to complete my degree than I would have hoped but, with the fantastic support and encouragement from all of the academic staff in the Institute of Irish Studies I got there in the end.  I graduated earning a BA (Hons) in Irish Studies, 2:1 and winning the George Huxley prize for best dissertation.  I am so very proud of myself and will be forever grateful to all of the staff from Go Higher who inspired me, pushed me and helped me to find my way to university.

    If I can give any advice to anybody thinking about doing Go Higher it would be to just put one foot in front of the other. Sign up and focus on the assessment day, cross each bridge as it comes, when you wobble, get back up and keep moving forward.  Everybody suffers from Imposter Syndrome; everybody wants to give up at some point. When you graduate Go Higher and become an undergraduate, embrace being around  the younger students, join in with as many societies as you can, really immerse yourself in the lectures and seminars, enjoy every moment. Mostly I would say, never give up on yourself because the staff will not give up on you.

    Cheri Kelly.

     

    Source link

  • Thank you to the Go Higher team for allowing me to write a blog and share my amazing experience on the Go Higher programme! By Gary Singh – ALL @ Liverpool Blog

    Thank you to the Go Higher team for allowing me to write a blog and share my amazing experience on the Go Higher programme! By Gary Singh – ALL @ Liverpool Blog

    I am thrilled to share my heartfelt gratitude to the University of Liverpool for offering the Diploma for Go Higher Programme – a remarkable initiative designed to open doors and beacon of hope for those who, due to various reasons, have been unable to pursue their educational goals and have had to suppress their ambitions.

    My name is Gary Singh, and I want to share my journey with you, a journey that has been filled with challenges, resilience, and hope. In 2004, my plans to become a solicitor were shattered by the sudden passing of my father. I had to start working, and unfortunately, I faced exploitation by corrupt politicians in India, making it nearly impossible to chase my dreams. Every attempt to resume my education was met with rejection due to the gap in my studies. After seeking asylum in the UK, I reached out to the University of Liverpool, hoping to enroll in a degree program because of the plenty of time available to me. Unfortunately, again, I was told that the gap in my education prevented direct entry into a degree course. However, Go Higher Team introduced me to the Go Higher Diploma program, a pathway that would enable me to pursue a degree. This news reignited my optimism and belief that I could achieve my dream of becoming a solicitor to serve society, just as I had hoped for as a teenager.

    I was fortunate enough to receive scholarships from the University of Liverpool, which were specifically designed for destitute students like myself, as I am not permitted to work as an asylum seeker. Even as a mature student, I found the friendly, multicultural atmosphere at the University of Liverpool very welcoming. My classmates, both younger and older, were incredibly supportive. Despite English being my second language and the initial challenge of understanding new accents, I can comprehend about 80% of my tutor’s lectures and make up the rest by utilizing lecture slides and class recordings available on the Canvas site. I started my first assignment with marks well above passing, and with unimaginable support from my tutors, I received an A grade on my last assignment. The dedication of my mentors—James Bainbridge, David Ellis, Barbara Milne, Julia, Sharon Connor, Darryn Nyatanga, Claire Jones, Stephen Kearns, Debbie Hart, and Matthew—along with additional English classes by Will, has been invaluable.

    I have encountered challenges on the path to success, but determination and hard work have allowed me to conquer every obstacle. On the day of the Go Higher celebration, something incredible occurred. I was honored with a personal achievement award, which came as a pleasant surprise. Furthermore, I was accepted into the Law with Business program at the University of Liverpool. This achievement has filled me with excitement and hope as I strive to complete my degree and make a positive impact on society. My aspiration is to become so capable and competent that I can assist those in need.

    Go Higher education means more to me than just personal advancement; it’s a way to think critically for the betterment of society and individuals. Through my Go higher studies, I learned to see society from a different perspective and took the first step toward progress in civilized society. My message to everyone is this: Don’t let your ambitions die in your heart. Give it a try! If your intentions are good, you will find many opportunities, mentors, and friends who are ready to help you. Believe in yourself and take the first step. The journey may be challenging, but the rewards are immeasurable.

    Thank you,

    Gary

    Source link

  • The essential PLUS for returning to learning at Liverpool by Sarah Hanson – ALL @ Liverpool Blog

    The essential PLUS for returning to learning at Liverpool by Sarah Hanson – ALL @ Liverpool Blog

    If you are a mature student, returner to learning or someone who has experienced a disrupted education, you may be anxious about the support available for anyone not familiar with higher education and its challenges.  Starting your higher education journey is one of the most exciting times of your life, but we realise you might have some concerns as well. Whatever they might be, you don’t need to worry as the University of Liverpool offers lots of support.

    Our Student Services team, who offer a huge range of services, including mental health support like counselling, a Mental Health Advisory Service and wellbeing support including self-help guides, workshops and events. They also provide financial advice, including guidance on managing the rising cost of living and support for disabled students through initiatives like Disability Coaches, a peer support service of trained students with lived experience of disability and accessing disability support. Disability Coaches can help with initial enquiries, support plans, obtaining medical evidence and Disabled Students’ Allowance (DSA).

    The Liverpool Guild of Students offer free and confidential advice to all students about the options available to you, covering academic, housing, wellbeing issues and more. Through the Guild you can  access a huge range of Societies, providing a brilliant opportunity to make new friends through shared interests. They also provide schemes like Give It A Go and lots of volunteering programmes, giving you the chance to enhance your student experience.

    From September 2024, Go Higher students will be able to access Liverpool Plus, a brand new post-entry support programme. Including an Enhanced Welcome package, 1-2-1 support with your transition into first year, bespoke events with University services like Global Opportunities and Libraries, and priority access to schemes like the Liverpool Advocate programme.

    With Liverpool Plus, we’ll provide the support you need to make the most out of your time at University

    Source link

  • How not to be afraid of Maths – a tutor’s story by Stephen Kearns – ALL @ Liverpool Blog

    How not to be afraid of Maths – a tutor’s story by Stephen Kearns – ALL @ Liverpool Blog

    My name is Stephen Kearns and I am the module co-ordinator for the maths module on Go Higher.

    I remember when I was in junior school and would rush home to work on my mathematics book because I loved solving the problems and getting the smiley faces on my work. I always considered myself to be quite clever and thought I’d do really well in school. But, secondary school was a different experience.
    The pupils just wanted to mess around ensuring the teacher spent most of her time dealing with the disturbance rather than teaching the class. Many teachers were absent through illness and substitute teachers struggled to lead the class so the pupils lost interest. It was a difficult environment in which to focus and I struggled. I left school with a couple of GCSE’s and Art A-Level which was all I deserved really, but I knew I should have done better.

    After many insignificant roles in thankless jobs I had begun reading about philosophy, spirituality/eastern philosophy, and physics. I had begun to ask meaningful questions about myself and the world; I wanted more from myself and my life. I decided it was time to retrain and get a career possibly in nursing so I started looking at access courses in Liverpool and came across Go Higher. I am from a poor, single parent family of six and was indoctrinated from an early age to think I was not the sort of person who goes to university. Go Higher was not a path to nursing but it taught a variety of modules including philosophy and so I applied thinking I wouldn’t even get accepted. But I got an interview and I remember the day clearly, I parked my car on Grove street, walked past Abercromby Square which looked beautiful in the spring sunlight with the trees in blossom, and nervously made my way to a large Georgian building which was a buzz of student activity. I sat in a dark oak wood room overlooking Abercromby Square wandering if I had made the right decision but the tutor who interviewed me made me feel valued for my life experience and dedication and not looked over because of my lack of academic qualifications. From this point on I never looked back. After completing Go Higher I stayed at University of Liverpool to complete my philosophy degree exceling at formal logic which is a mathematical based system of argumentation. I stayed at Liverpool for master’s degree focussing on ethics, the environment and technology. I am currently a PhD student focussing on the moral status of synthetically generated organisms in a Kantian framework, something I would not have dreamed about before I started Go Higher.

    I have worked in several secondary schools and the difficulties I faced in my education are still there. When I started teaching on Go Higher the academic literature on mature student learning of mathematics supports a flipped learning strategy so we redesigned the course to best fit the mature student learner. Learning math on Go Higher is not like school learning, there is a staff team to deliver 1:1 teaching, students have access to all the material at the start of the semester so they can go at their own pace, we have weekly quizzes for students to test themselves and for tutors to check how they’re progressing, and most of all it’s fun! The mathematics module is one that scares mature students the most but it not like mathematics at school, and once students get past that initial reservation it is great to see them understand this, enjoy it, and flourish. It is brilliant to see how many students end up enjoying mathematics on Go Higher, but it’s not surprising as that is why we structured the module the way we have, and it does work. Our pass rate is exceptional but that’s because students are willing to learn the subject and that is all down to them. Last year I went to the graduation of a former student who passed his History degree. He came to Go Higher hating mathematics but he was willing to put in the work and now he has a whole new life ahead of him. Go Higher could change your life if you are brave enough to give it a go.

    Source link