In this extra post, Anna Pilz discusses her participation in the Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice (PgCAP). Her assessment task for the option course on ‘Working with PGRs’ led her to develop a project for the Principal’s Teaching Award Scheme (PTAS) on ‘Co-Creating a New Development Needs Analysis for PGRs’ (January 2024-July 2025). Anna is an Academic Developer and Trainer in the Institute for Academic Development.

Soon after I had taken on a new role as Academic Developer at the Institute for Academic Development in autumn 2022, I enrolled on the PgCAP programme. I was motivated not only to gain professional accreditation via a Fellowship of the Higher Education Academy, but also to reflect on my teaching practice and pedagogical approaches within the context of my new role that involved designing and delivering training for postgraduate researchers and research staff across career stages.

One of my responsibilities in the role is to convene a three-week online course on “Getting Started with Postgraduate Research” for Master by Research and PhD students who are just at the beginning of their research degree journey. The PgCAP option course on ‘Working with PGRs’ therefore appealed to me. For the assessment, I chose to write a review report of the current use of Training Needs Analysis (TNA) at the University of Edinburgh to gain an understanding of current institutional practices within the context of sector-developments and scholarship on doctoral education.

Reviewing the use of Training Needs Analysis

One of the key elements of doctoral education is an emphasis on postgraduate researchers’ training and development. Within the Researcher Development Team, we had already identified the need to revisit the existing TNA. A TNA is a person-centred, reflective activity in form of a self-assessment, described by scholars as a key ‘pedagogical tool designed to assess doctoral researchers’ strengths as well as weaknesses’ (Elliot et al 2020, 149). Therefore, it is relevant right from the start and throughout the researcher degree journey by reflecting on strengths, development needs, intentions, and opportunities.

To understand current practices at Edinburgh and students’ experiences, I looked at the Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES) from 2023. Although satisfaction with supervision was at 86.5% at the University of Edinburgh in the 2023 Postgraduate Research Experience Survey, the question regarding the extent to which the ‘Supervisor helps identifying training’ reached the lowest satisfaction rate (76.3%) out of the four questions put to PGRs. The PRES survey highlights the need to involve both PGRs and supervisors in the process of engaging in training, development, and career conversations.

This is also reflected in wider sector conversations, including in UKRI’s Economic and Social Research Council’s 2022 review on “Strengthening the Role of Training Needs Analysis in Doctoral Training”, which signals supervisors’ crucial role in enabling effective use of TNAs as a tool. For any Training Needs Analysis, then, resources and training needs to be considered for supervisors, too. As Adams et al (2022) recommend, it’s important to ‘set clear expectations for supervisory input’ and offer ‘training to support supervisors in navigating DNA conversations’. This may involve addressing unconscious biases about career goals as well as emphasising that development needs ought to be integrated throughout and not only at the start or the end of a research degree journey. My review thus concluded that any revised TNA and associated processes and resources needs to engage and focus on both user groups: PGRS and supervisors.

Shifting to a Development Needs Analysis

Postgraduate research students arrive at the University of Edinburgh with their own personal set of skills and aptitudes, cultural attitudes to learning, understandings of the Higher Education and research landscape, professional experiences, and have a variety of career aspirations. Scholars have proposed the productive concept of a ‘doctoral learning ecology’, which is based on the understanding that ‘the doctoral journey takes place simultaneously within and across several domains of learning, namely, discipline, institution, workplace, and the person’s lifeworld.’ (Elliot et al 2020, 148)

The ‘doctoral learning ecology’ invites a wider conceptualisation of development than the term ‘Training Needs Analysis’ allows. My review thus followed UKRI’s ESRC recommendation to adopt the term Development Needs Analysis (DNA) (Adams et al 2022). A good DNA equips PGRs for whatever direction they want to take during and after their research degree. Successful engagement with a DNA – both through reflective self-assessment and through conversations with supervisor(s) – can affect a sense of control, ownership, and empowerment for their career trajectories.

From report to cross-university PTAS project

Having shared the report with Fiona Philippi, Head of Researcher Development at the IAD, and – on her suggestion – with the Doctoral College Forum, I started to develop an application to the Principal’s Teaching Award Scheme. To improve PGRs’ satisfaction, enhance the student experience, and ensure the quality of doctoral education in line with sector developments, I wanted to co-create a new Development Needs Analysis for the University. With its wider professional and career emphasis, the new DNA would benefit from collaboration with the Careers Service, and Sharon Maguire (Assistant Director, Careers Service) was soon on board. To connect the DNA with institutional priorities, we also recruited Laura Bradley, Dean for Postgraduate Research in the College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences.

Our new DNA must be applicable across disciplines. It’s been important to identify pilot communities that would allow us to test and evaluate the use of our new DNA by both students and supervisors. Tom MacGillivray, Co-Director of the Precision Medicine Doctoral Training Programme, and Kimberley Czajkowski, Graduate Officer in Classics in the School of History, Classics, and Archaeology, joined the project to pilot our DNA and resources in their respective contexts. With the team assembled, we drafted and submitted our PTAS application. The project was timely as it aligns with the University’s strategic priorities as set out in the 2024 Postgraduate Research Cultures Plan.

Following the successful outcome of the application, we recruited Majdouline El hichou, a PhD student in GeoSciences, as our Research Assistant. So, what all started as part of my own professional development, resulted in a project all about professional development, and created a professional development opportunity. You can read about how we established learning needs among both the PGR and supervisor communities, and why and how we co-created a draft of a new Development Needs Analysis in Maj’s blog, out next week.

References

Adams, Elizabeth, Scafell Coaching and Joanne Neary, Strengthening the Role of Training Needs Analysis in Doctoral Training (UKRI, Economic and Social Research Council, 2022). https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Strengthening-the-role-of-TNA-Report-April-2022.pdf.

Elliot, Dely L., Søren S.E. Bengtsen, Kay Guccione, and Sofie Kobayashi (2020), The Hidden Curriculum in Doctoral Education (Palgrave Macmillan).

The University of Edinburgh (2023), Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES).

Anna Pilz

Dr Anna Pilz (she/her) is an Academic Developer and Trainer in the Institute for Academic Development at Edinburgh. She designs and delivers training for researchers across career stages ranging from 1:1 support to online resources and workshops. As a first-generation academic, she is passionate about building communities and aims to enable, facilitate, and encourage conversations about research processes in all their shapes, sizes, and forms. She inaugurated and leads on the University’s Researcher Realities initiative.

In this post, Lianya Qiu, Emily Birtles and Julie Smith, from Moray House School of Education and Sport, along with Aubrey Li and Rie Shigemori, from School of Economics, share their experience of co-developing the Dissertation Buddies programme, supported by the Student Partnership Agreement grant. This post is part of the Student Partnership Agreement 2024 series.

Bridging the gap: The launch and expansion of dissertation buddies

Navigating a one-year Postgraduate Taught (PGT) study in the UK presents unique challenges, especially during the dissertation or major project phase (Huang, 2007). Previous studies have highlighted difficulties for both domestic, EU and international (non-EU) students (Evans et al., 2018). However, there is limited evidence of effective peer support approaches for PGT students, and PGT students have been described as the ‘overlooked cohort’ (Coneyworth, et al., 2019).

Addressing this gap in research and practice, the Dissertation Buddies (DB) programme was developed at Moray House School of Education and Sport (MHSES) and implemented in academic year 2020/21. The programme has been developed and enhanced each year and regularly has around 200 students participating. Details of the design and implementation of DB are in our previous blog post, where we also discuss our initial evaluation of student experience.

At the University of Edinburgh Learning & Teaching Conference 2023, Julie Smith, Emily Birtles and Lianya Qiu presented the model, and highlighted PGT student experiences from MHSES, which sparked interest from a number of schools in piloting the peer support model in their one-year PGT programmes. To widen DB peer support across disciplines, in the academic year 2023/24, a collaborative effort was initiated among academic staff, students, and student experience staff from MHSES and the School of Economics to co-develop the Dissertation Buddies programme, supported by a University of Edinburgh Student Partnership Agreement grant.

Tailored to Context: Integrating the DB Programme in the School of Economics

The integration of the DB programme within the School of Economics was built upon the successful experiences at MHSES while adapting the activities to suit our specific context. We adopted themes from previous DB activities, including academic learning, mental health maintenance, and preparation for future careers. Many of these activities were jointly organised between the School of Economics and MHSES, fostering collaboration and community across the two schools.

Recognising the unique needs of our PGT programme, we made several adjustments. One significant change was the timing of events. For instance, students at School of Economics have exams in May, whereas students at MHSES typically begin drafting their dissertations around that time. To accommodate this, we rescheduled our events to better align with the students’ academic calendars. Additionally, we introduced new events tailored to the students’ learning cycles. For example, two weeks before the submission deadlines for research proposals and thesis abstracts, we organised sessions where professors provided valuable writing tips and guidance.

Despite differences in subject areas, many PGT students face the challenge of writing their first major academic paper within a short timeframe of two to three months. For events that benefitted students from both Schools, we ensured they were held jointly to strengthen community connections. Joint events covered topics such as using research tools, developing writing skills, and addressing visa issues. These interactions between students from different disciplines were particularly valuable, as they often highlighted common challenges and offered new perspectives that students might not have considered on their own.

This year, around 25 students in the School of Economics participated in DB events. Events held before the submission deadlines for proposals and abstracts attracted particular interest. The combination of in-person and online participation options also contributed to higher engagement levels.

Looking forward: A flexible framework across disciplines and schools

The DB programme has shown potential in addressing the academic, social, and wellbeing needs of PGT students across different disciplines. While the programme initially centred around the context of MHSES, tailoring and piloting it to the School of Economics revealed the importance of flexibility in timing and content to accommodate specific students’ needs and programme schedules. For example, aligning event timetables with exam and dissertation timelines and customising the content to reflect the students’ priorities of Economics students has proven crucial for engagement and success in implementation.

Looking forward, the DB model offers a flexible framework that could be tailored to other schools within the University. The key is to start by recognising and identifying the distinct differences in academic cycles and requirements, as well as student needs. Then, map the academic calendar and key events tailored to the students’ needs and the available resources. The selected DB activities aim to provide comprehensive support for students during their dissertation phase.

While some activities may overlap with those already offered by the school, it is essential to maintain frequent communication with faculty to ensure DB complements existing schemes. For example, the School of Economics hosted a session for students interested in pursuing a PhD, a topic also included in DB. Rather than duplicating the formal guidance on PhD applications, DB took a different approach, inviting current PhD students to share their personal experiences. These discussions focused on real-world challenges, such as contacting potential supervisors and demonstrating research capabilities. By highlighting these unique aspects in DB promotional materials, we encouraged student engagement and ensured the distinct value of our peer support activities was clear.

To further scale the DB programme, we also suggest creating a collaborative approach that includes input from academic staff, students, and student support staff from various schools, fostering both inter- and intra-school connections. We believe this partnership approach will provide a sustainable peer support structure for PGT students across the University. If you would like to know more about the Dissertation Buddies peer support programme, please contact Julie Smith, Lianya Qiu, or Emily Birtles.

References

Coneyworth, L., Jessop, R., Maden, P., & White, G. (2019). The overlooked cohort?–Improving the taught postgraduate student experience in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International.

Evans, Nguyen, T., Richardson, M., & Scott, I. (2018). Managing the transition from undergraduate to taught postgraduate study: perceptions of international students studying in the UK. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 23(2), 249–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2018.1444386

Huang, R. (2007). ‘A Challenging but Worthwhile Learning Experience!’Asian International Student Perspectives of Undertaking a Dissertation in the UK. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 6(1), 29-38.

Aubrey Li

Aubrey Li is a Tutor and PhD candidate at the School of Economics, specializing in the theory of social learning in networks. This is her first year serving as the Dissertation Buddies Coordinator. She came across the opportunity in an unexpected way—after winning a pub quiz with friends, two of them redeemed the prize and learned from Rie that the program was seeking a new coordinator. They passed the word on to Aubrey, leading her to this role.

Rie Shigemori

Rie (they/them) works as the Student Experience Assistant at the School of Economics since October 2022 and alum of MSc Education (Philosophy of Education pathway) at Moray House School of Education and Sport. Rie has worked in the education sector for more than seven years and offered academic, pastoral, and career support to 100+ students in secondary education. They are actively engaged in educational activities within and outwith the university with a strong passion in questioning assumptions (“philosophising”).

Julie Smith

Julie Smith is a Lecturer in Developmental Psychology in Education at Moray House School of Education and Sport.  She is also currently the School’s Director of Quality Assurance and Enhancement.  Julie has previously worked in the area of mental health with children and young people as well as with students at the University Disability Learning and Support Service.  It was this latter experience that developed Julie’s keen interest in supporting a holistic learning experience for students through collaboration and co-construction, with a focus on supporting wellbeing through the curriculum.  Julie is a Chartered Psychologist with the British Psychological Society and a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy.

Emily Birtles

Emily Birtles is the Student Experience Officer at Moray House School of Education and Sport, based within the Student Experience and Support Office. Emily is committed to organising and supporting school wide events that enhance the student experience. Additionally, she focuses on improving communication with current students to keep them well informed and actively engaged throughout their academic journey.

Lianya Qiu

Lianya Qiu is a Tutor and PhD candidate in Education at Moray House School of Education and Sport. Her PhD research focuses on the curriculum design and development of Polish and Chinese complementary schools in Scotland. For the past three years, she has also been working as the Dissertation Buddies Coordinator. Her interest in higher education and her previous experiences as an MSc student at Moray House inspired her to support and collaborate on the Dissertation Buddies project.

In this extra post, Lei Garcia from Project CARE (Community Action for and with Refugees in Edinburgh) and Dr Sam Spiegel from the School of Social and Political Science, explore learning through exchange initiatives linking University of Edinburgh MSc students and Afghan, Eritrean, Sudanese and other refugees supported at St Ninian’s Episcopal Church. Here, they highlight the significance of reciprocal socio-cultural learning both in and outside of classrooms, building bonds, and the uniqueness of learning through language initiatives.

Language is far more than a communication tool in the context of migration and displacement. It becomes a vital bridge linking people from diverse cultures and backgrounds. Indeed, in Alison Phipps’ powerful book “Decolonising Multilingualism: Struggles to Decreate”, learning language is theorised as a complex practice rife with many possibilities. The ethics of language learning in a world of displacement indeed requires deep attention to reflective practices, to moving past colonial linguistic mindsets, and to listening.

An ongoing partnership between the University of Edinburgh and Project CARE (Community Action for and with Refugees in Edinburgh) has, since 2022, been exploring some of the many possibilities of active language-based learning exchanges. Through teaching English to refugees and asylum seekers, MSc students have explored and supported language learning trajectories of refugees from Afghanistan, Eritrea and Sudan, as they experience life in Scotland. Project CARE, a grassroots Edinburgh-based initiative, has been supporting refugees from a vast number of countries in the earliest months of their arrival. Its approach recognises that learning new language skills is inevitably an important part in integrating into a new community – and is experienced in very different ways by different people.

In programmes set up at St Ninian’s Episcopal Church, MSc students from the University of Edinburgh not only teach English, but more importantly, build bonds through conversation, supporting the agency of those who have faced displacement. Students also acquire new insights from hearing some of the refugees come and speak in the classroom about their experiences, as part of the Displacement and Development course. For example, guest speakers in 2022, 2023 and 2024 helped students explore ways of moving past oversimplified ideas of refugee ‘integration’, inviting sensitive learning about social, economic and cultural meanings of what ‘integration’ may entail. MSc and PhD students also benefited from precious avenues for community-engaged learning this partnership offered.

Weekly English classes as reciprocal learning avenues

The weekly English classes and conversation cafes offer more than learning basic English; they help create a welcoming atmosphere to make refugees feel that they belong, help forge connections and boost their confidence in communication, knowing that proficiency in English could unlock doors to education, jobs, and essential services. The programmes and activities of Project CARE provide safe spaces for the refugees and asylum seekers to be themselves as they tell their stories and insights. They also help in cultivating a sense of community and belonging that ultimately build a network of support.

In 2023, four students from the Displacement and Development course supported this initiative as mentors and cultural allies for the refugees and asylum seekers (some facing deep uncertainties about future accommodation and educational opportunities). While students in the course explored the complexities of “social justice” and “decolonisation” in refugee studies, multicultural exchanges allowed students to gain personal experience and a richer understanding of complexities relating to displacement over time. As one student expressed:

“I feel teaching English is just one side of the story. I’ve earned more because I made connections and was profoundly inspired by their undying hope and resilience.”

This exchange seeks to help provide tools for refugees and asylum seekers to integrate into their new reality. Students, meanwhile, actively engage with social justice and global issues, and, in some cases, have benefited from seeing, in the classroom, the artistic creations of refugees supported by Project CARE, which express migration journeys and changing senses of ‘home’ (Figure 1).

For some refugees in this programme, learning English signifies more than just acquiring a new language – it symbolises a reclaiming of agency and a gateway to new opportunities. An Afghan woman participating in the Literacy and Numeracy class said:

 “I always feel a renewed sense of hope when I attend the class, even though sometimes I can barely understand what we were studying because learning is like receiving a key that will help me unlock doors of opportunity.“

Ultimately, these initiatives are guided by the thinking that the power of education and human connection can help tackle challenges of migration and displacement to shape and pave the way toward a more equitable future. Reflecting on the language used in the classroom is itself a vital need – and we are all – everyone – constantly learning new languages as we learn – this itself is a vital part of pedagogic reflection in this field (see also Cox et al, 2022; and Fassetta and Imperiale, 2023; Spiegel et al., 2024).

Complementing new vocabularies generated by literature-based learning, students at the University continue to explore different kinds of language about hope, empathy, belonging, home, and connection. In 2025, there will be further dimensions of this ongoing educational partnership between the University and Project CARE. Notably, an art exhibition is planned to explore further meanings associated with displacement and its many after-effects.

References

 Cox, S., Phipps, A., & Hirsu, L. (2022). Language learning for refugee women in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic: restorative pedagogies for integrating to place—perspectives from Scotland. Frontiers in Communication, 7, 982813.

Fassetta, G., & Imperiale, M. G. (2023). Language and Integration of Refugee Children: Reflections on Delinking and Decoloniality. L2 Journal: An electronic refereed journal for foreign and second language educators, 15(1).

Phipps, A. (2019). Decolonising multilingualism: Struggles to decreate. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Spiegel S.J. Mucherera, B., Idrees, S., McAteer, B., Moze, F., Rajadhyaksha, K., Mutambasere, T., Falisse, J.B., Cole, G., Qadir, S. (2024). Displacement, Borders and Unsettling Narratives: Critical Directions for Higher Education. New York: Palgrave, 171 pages.

Lei Garcia

Lei Garcia is the spearhead and coordinator of Project CARE. She has worked with various people’s organisations in the Philippines, focusing on human rights, justice, and peace issues. Lei is also an artist and has toured her Peace Concert across Asia, North America, and Europe. She is currently creating pieces for an art exhibit next year centered on the theme Displaced Realities.

Sam Spiegel

Dr Sam Spiegel is the course convenor of Displacement and Development, an MSc course taught in the School of Social of Social and Political Science. He is based in the Centre of African Studies and has published extensively with colleagues in Zimbabwe and in other regions of the world on migration experiences, displacement politics, borders and social change.

In this post, we share with you the Collegiate Commentary from our latest Teaching Matters ‘Five things’ reflective round-up: Five lessons learned from the Students as Change Agents (SACHA) series. In this commentary, David Jay offers his thoughts on student belonging, intentionality, variety, co-creation and group work in relation to similar ‘change agent’ activities being undertaken at Anglia Ruskin University. David is a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Arts, Humanities, Education and Social Sciences at Anglia Ruskin University.

Reading about the SACHA programme, I was struck by the sheer breadth and diversity of activities which are interwoven across the five lessons. There was a palpable sense of vitality and willingness to innovate, but also a strong sense of community and support for learning. It was fascinating to explore the examples of practice and to think about their resonances with our practice here at Anglia Ruskin University (ARU). How to do all of this justice within one commentary?

Rather than reflection, I propose this piece as a diffraction. Without going too far into the theory, diffraction, as proposed by philosopher-scientists Donna Haraway and Karen Barad, is about reading insights ‘through’ one another, to understand what matters. Working with this concept, my intention here is to read examples from our university contexts ‘through’ one another diffractively, to allow shared insights and ways of understanding to emerge. So, here goes my diffractive commentary!

Sense of belonging

I fully agree that a sense of belonging is crucial for learning, so it made sense that community was the first of the five lessons. From the introductory post onwards, it is very clear that the SACHA programme places students from all backgrounds at the centre of the change process, empowering them to engage with key issues in sustainability and creative thinking. These inspiring examples brought to mind an ARU project entitled Seeing Myself, which saw students from diverse backgrounds co-create a series of workshops, short films and motivational talks by ARU alumni, facilitated by Karen Sturt, Student Engagement Manager in the Faculty of Arts, Education, Humanities and Social Sciences. Project Co-ordinator, Jasmine King, who completed the MA in Film & TV Production and subsequently gained a managerial position in the creative industries, commented: “the experience of acting as a conduit for change and amplifying student voices through film was both rewarding and enriching.”

Intentionality 

On intentionality, it was illuminating to read participants’ perspectives on developing resilience, celebrating diversity and working with an optimistic mindset. Here, a lesson that resonated was how best to reach those who may not feel comfortable asking for help. In our context, the ARU Language Centre has developed a programme of academic skills workshops which take place within the timetabled curriculum across faculties. Centre Director, Sarah Etchells, explains, “teaching these sessions with both international and home students provides a meaningful and inclusive approach to integrity, both in terms of academic development and life skills”.

Variety

Whether through experiential learning, or specific resources such as MURAL, the variety of opportunities on the SACHA programme is clear. At ARU, diverse strategies for active, creative and playful learning are regularly implemented across courses and modules. Interdisciplinary variety is embedded in the undergraduate curriculum through the award-winning Ruskin Modules, where students from across courses come together to tackle ‘wicked’ problems, framed by UN Sustainable Development Goals.

A forthcoming edited book provides insights into the rich variety of modules; on the specific topic of SACHA, the module Climate Justice and Social Inequality: Could you be an Agent for Change? implements a variety of pedagogical strategies, including team building, peer assessment and reflection tasks. Module Leaders, Roxana Anghel and Victoria Tait, shared the following insights:

“For us, success was having students acquire a critical understanding of how historic and present injustices intersect with the climate crisis. This conscientisation was a crucial first step towards becoming change agents, further strengthened by their engagement in active learning. To apply it effectively and respectfully in contexts of social inequality, we recommend that students unpack the concept critically, to avoid the power imbalance of a ‘saviour’ role. In our module, they practiced an intermediary role, as facilitators of co-produced solutions. Becoming a change agent can involve difficult epistemological transitions – support, and presenting the challenge as offering not imposition are key conditions.”

Co-creation

In the fourth lesson, the SACHA participants’ experiences demonstrate how co-creation can have a direct impact on inclusive and collaborative curriculum design. Diffracting this through an example from the ARU context, co-creation was also at the heart of the Creative Showcase Project within the School of Humanities and Social Sciences. This multi-stranded initiative saw students working as Creative Ambassadors to produce creative artefacts communicating their final-year dissertation topics to wider audiences; students’ perspectives on the project have since been implemented within the curriculum.

Group work

The SACHA blog posts on group work provide an insightful account of the many benefits and challenges of working together to achieve shared learning goals. As the authors explain, group dynamics can be complex, and the proposed strategies, from enhanced communication, to fostering accountability, to mentorship, all resonated. My diffractive example here focuses on the Jigsaw technique. Pioneered in the 1970s in the recently de-segregated US school system, this simple, two-stage regrouping strategy has multiple benefits for inclusive, collaborative learning. An ARU-based learning and teaching project on the jigsaw technique explored its implementation across diverse disciplines. Senior Lecturer, Nicola Walters, who participated in the research project and has since incorporated the technique into healthcare courses, commented:

“The jigsaw strategy works on several levels, it encourages more collaborative work breaking down division than can be caused by friendship or work groups.  In my course we have apprentices drawn from a variety of workplaces and initially they tend to sit and work with people they know or who work in their organisation but this limits the range and scope of discussion, the jigsaw technique requires interaction with a wider mix of students. […] It is striking how much more complete the engagement and concentration on understanding the section they will be sharing with others is, and then the pride and respect in stage two where they share with their peers.”

To conclude, the SACHA programme provides a rich range of perspectives and strategies which rightly place students at the centre of learning and teaching. In this commentary, by interweaving these with related examples of practice from ARU, I hope that the reader will have experienced a diffractive process, intended to generate new insights for consideration, and, of course, further diffractions!

David Jay

David Jay is a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Arts, Humanities, Education and Social Sciences at Anglia Ruskin University. His background is in teaching language, linguistics and academic skills. Most recently, David has focused on higher education pedagogies, working with creative, communicative and inclusive approaches to learning and teaching. His doctoral research focuses on experiences of creativity in interdisciplinary settings within higher education, drawing on Karen Barad’s agential realism to explore diffractive methodologies.

In this post, the co-editor of the Students as Change Agents (SACHA) June-July 2024 series, Emma Taylor, presents a reflective round-up from the ten blog posts, offering five lessons learned from the series. Emma is the Students as Change Agents Programme Manager, where she leads on the development, delivery, and management of SACHA. (Please note: this blog post format and the LinkedIn newsletter is currently replacing the Teaching Matters Adobe Express newsletter format).

Lesson 1: The work of community will always be worth it

Community and sense of belonging was a recurring theme throughout the SACHA series, beginning with the introductory post, by Ruth Donnelly and Emma Taylor, reflecting on the importance of SACHA’s ‘Change Agents for Life’ community:

“SACHA participants are strongly encouraged to see themselves as life-long ‘Change Agents’ with the skills and confidence to have a positive impact in the world.”

As a diverse community of alumni, external host organisations, and staff, Change Agents for Life cultivates an environment where opportunities are shared, and ideas are championed.

“SACHA alumni have taken their experiences further through activities such as volunteering with host organisations, securing internships, sitting on university strategy groups, and even returning to host challenge questions themselves as ‘change agents’ in their graduate roles.”

However, creating community can be hard work – as Change Agents, Della Yang, Hera Li, and Lilette Burga, discussed in their post about experiential learning for international students. Studying at a large university can make it difficult to create genuine connections, particularly as an international student. Creating intentional pockets of community through opportunities like SACHA opens up possibilities for students looking for a space to connect:

“SACHA provides students with a safe space where we can interact and connect with people from diverse backgrounds without worrying about being judged. It also gives us the experience of working with a multidisciplinary team, and all that we achieve has both tangible and intangible impact. This helps to distinguish us as unique students and boosts our self-esteem, fostering a sense of belonging.”

Beyond creating a sense of belonging, working in small, diverse teams highlighted the value of individual differences for innovation:

“Our differences sparked creativity while our individual strengths and limitations compensated for each other. The diversity in our mindsets and knowledge allowed us to look at the problem from different perspectives that an individual would not be able to think of alone.”

The importance of community took on an entirely different perspective in the reflections of online students, Foster Osei, Mteeve Amugune, and Nisha Daniel. Studying online can create a sense of disconnection and distance from the ‘real’ university:

“[A]s an online student, sometimes you feel lost and no sense of belonging especially when you are worlds apart from the university. It feels like you are only on a program to obtain a degree but there is nothing that makes you feel a part of the university.”

As technology continues to breakdown geographic barriers and the physical boundaries of university campuses are redefined, these reflections reminded us how important it is to create meaningful opportunities for everyone to feel part of our community:

“Through this program, we had the opportunity to interact and collaborate with diverse student groups, fostering a sense of inclusivity and expanding our network beyond our individual disciplines. By actively engaging with The University of Edinburgh initiatives and working closely with several staff members, we felt a deeper sense of belonging and connection to our institution.”

Lesson 2: Intentionality sparks growth

Encouraging students to meaningfully engage with informal and non-subject-related learning can pose a challenge, particularly if seen as an add-on to the core curriculum. Being intentional can make all the difference when it comes to student engagement, as David Wilson, Finn Eilenberger, and Zoe Lai, pointed out in their blog about the power of reflection:

“Intentional reflection cultivates self-awareness, a growth mindset, and the ability to purposefully chart our trajectory through conscious examination of strengths, weaknesses, and progress”.

However, as they discovered through personal experience, it’s easy to lose motivation when instructors tie reflection to a grade or steer too far in the other direction and never follow up at all:

“The [reflective poster] came with prescribed sections and guiding questions, making it feel more like a checklist rather than an authentic reflection. I felt pressured to tailor my responses to meet the grading criteria, which accounted for 60% of my grade. This approach made my reflections feel forced, detracting from the genuine self-assessment that reflection should promote.”

“In some of our courses, we were encouraged to keep weekly journals to reflect on our learning progress. However, without feedback, it felt pointless, and motivation dwindled.”

Identifying ways to incorporate personal reflection without synonymising ‘meaningful’ with ‘marked’ can lead to more impactful outcomes for students.

Intentionality can also lead to growth by empowering students’ voice, as Della, Hera, and Lilette noted in their post. For students who may feel uncomfortable asking for help, consistent communication and support can encourage them to step out of their comfort zone:

“I learned that asking for help is crucial for resilience, not weakness. Through open conversations with the supportive staff, I gained invaluable guidance and fresh perspectives. … More importantly, it reminded me that I don’t have to face every obstacle alone – seeking support is a strength.”

Being intentional with how we offer support can strip away much of the inherent ‘teacher-student’ power dynamics of university structures, and can encourage students to seek advice for personal growth:

“Student-facing staff should reflect on how they communicate to ensure students feel comfortable asking for support. Building an environment where seeking help is encouraged, not stigmatized, can foster resilience in students as they navigate academic challenges.”

Lesson 3: Variety is the spice of (academic) life

It’s all too easy to fall back into old habits and routines when university life gets busy. In their reflections on their experiences as distance learners, Foster, Mteeve, and Nisha reminded us of the importance of incorporating variety into academic experiences if we want to keep learning apathy at bay:

“SACHA’s focus on experiential learning was a breath of fresh air compared to traditional courses. Instead of just theory, we dove headfirst into practical application, making the learning process far more engaging. This hands-on approach solidified concepts in a way lectures never could.”

Their reflections also made us stop and think about whether the diverse learning options on offer are accessible to all the students in our learning community, whether sitting in the classroom or in front of a computer:

“I think that one of the more specific elements I’d also love to see integrated into the curriculum is the use of tools like MURAL boards for academic brainstorming activities. MURAL boards could be used from a participative lesson planning and curriculum designing to creating a transparent peer review system and/or for receiving constructive feedback.”

Aidan Tracey and Emma Taylor challenged us to think about variety in learning and teaching from a different perspective in their post on using GIFs in academic environments. They highlight GIFs as a way to foster approachability and insert a light-hearted break in content:

“Lightening up extended, text-heavy messages with a dynamic image can make lengthy bits of content seem less daunting and, through the image used, instantly communicate the message’s importance to the reader.”

Amidst the never-ending stream of emails, messages, and Learn notifications, GIFs can also serve as a beacon for finding key messages:

“GIFs also have the added benefit of being memorable and eye-catching, making it easier for individuals to find what they’re looking for when scrolling back through their messages in search of a specific piece of information.”

Whether through hands-on learning, interactive web tools, or cheerful GIFs, there’s a compelling case for embracing academic variety in the physical and virtual classroom.

Lesson 4: Learning is a two-way street

In theory, staff-student co-creation can be an invaluable tool in developing a curriculum that is relevant, inclusive, and practically feasible. In reality, getting staff and students on board can prove difficult, as Pooja Suresh Kumar and Ankita Chattopadhyay discussed in their post on co-creation:

“[G]etting students to actively participate can be challenging. Many might feel they don’t have enough expertise or unsure about their contributions. … Faculty are busy with teaching and research, making it hard to find time for collaborative curriculum design. Some staff fear losing control over curriculum and teaching methods.”

Their own experiences of co-creation during the SACHA programme underscored the message that it may not be institutional knowledge or academic insight that matter most after all:

“My SACHA experience taught me the importance of student-staff partnerships in curriculum design. … It emphasized clear communication, flexibility, and adaptability in overcoming technical and scheduling challenges, reinforcing my belief in co-creation’s transformative power in higher education.”

In their experiences as Challenge Hosts, Cathy Bovill and Matt Lawson, echoed the importance of centring student voice in academic processes:

“The ideas that emerged were not necessarily what I expected students to focus on – and to me that is the added value of SACHA Think Tank, to create unexpected outcomes and ideas to challenge our thinking.”

“Recommendations were drawn directly from their own student experience. This was incredibly valuable, as it allowed us to better understand trends and differences across different levels of study and degrees.”

Reflecting on the student experience from her vantage point as both a student representative and international student, Shirley Tian drew our attention to the parallels between co-creation and student agency in her post on inclusive education:

“When students are given a voice in how their curriculum is designed, they typically feel more empowered and are more likely to take ownership of their learning journey[.]”

Offering a space where meaningful student-staff collaboration could move from theory to practice provided evidence that co-creation could, in fact, work:

“[M]y SACHA experience was proof that those frequently advertised concepts of open communication, collaborative problem-thinking, independent research and mentor-style teaching were not just theoretical concepts, but lived experiences[.]”

Lesson 5: There’s more than one way to climb a tree

As creatures of habit, it’s all too easy to unconsciously believe our way of doing things is the only sure path to success. In their blog on common group dynamics, Aidan Tracey and Emma Taylor remind us that there’s no one set recipe for success:

“The real beauty of teamwork is its rich tapestry, there isn’t one fixed perfect approach.  Working together in your group to find an approach that suits you all is all part of the unique experience.”

While it’s tempting to approach each group scenario with a universal list of norms and expectations or a pre-prescribed set of questions to encourage participation, being adaptive and responsive to group dynamics can lead to better outcomes – whether incorporating more team activities for ‘independent worker’ groups or reminding your ‘overachiever’ groups to prioritise boundary setting.

In their top tips blog, SACHA coaches, Lesley Kelly, Sophie Rippinger, Valerie McIntosh and Amer Khushman, reminded us that learning should also be guided by student needs, rather than by prescribed objectives alone:

It’s also helpful to try to find out what each member of the group wants to get out of the experience. This provides information about motivations and expectations and can help coaches to adapt their approach to suit the group members.

Of course, adaptive learning can feel more daunting than sticking to a pre-set list of talking points, especially when trying to move students towards a specific outcome. At times, the solution may be to take a step back and re-evaluate the necessity of reaching a particular outcome in the first place:

“Listen deeply and let go of knowing the answer – take time to pause, be curious and ask for more.”

Emma Taylor

Emma Taylor is the Students as Change Agents Programme Manager, where she leads on the development, delivery, and management of SACHA. Her background is in Education, with experience teaching and tutoring at a variety of levels, from primary grades to master’s courses. Emma is currently completing a PhD in International Development.

In this post, Alessia Stanistreet-Welsh, Kelly Douglas, and Nick Mullin describe their Student Partnership Agreement-funded project: developing a community garden at the BioQuarter, and hosting gardening events. Alessia is a recent graduate from IRR, Kelly is the Postgraduate Teaching and Administration Manager for IRR, and Nick is a researcher at IRR. This post belongs to the Student Partnership Agreement 2024 series.

In November 2023, I received funding from the Student Partnership Agreement (SPA) Fund to work on a project involving the community garden based at the BioQuarter campus at the University of Edinburgh. I carried out the project in collaboration with Kelly Douglas and Nick Mullin, both of whom are staff members based on the campus at the Institute for Regeneration and Repair (IRR). Kelly and Nick had been instrumental in the creation of the garden and have been involved in its maintenance for some time, alongside some other staff members who have helped out on occasion.

Receiving the SPA fund was crucial in starting the ‘Garden @ BioQuarter’ project, which aimed to promote the garden to more students and staff at the BioQuarter campus. The objective of the community garden is to create a green space that can serve as a community hub where students and staff can come together to relax whilst gardening. The fund was instrumental in allowing for the purchase of new tools and supplies in the winter.

After receiving the funds, all of the regular garden volunteers met together to discuss the project. We outlined the plan we would follow for the next few months, which was closely aligned with the plans discussed in our grant application.

The winter was spent preparing the garden for the upcoming spring and summer when we would be planning a seed planting event in the garden, where students and staff could come together to plant vegetables and herbs. We purchased new tools and, over the weeks, volunteers helped to clear out the garden, cleaning it up and removing weeds to make room for new plants. In the meantime, we held a berry picking event where students and staff joined for a walk around the campus, following a trail where participants could pick edible berries.

Then, we started to plan for the upcoming seed planting event. To advertise, we sent emails around the institute to inform staff and students about the upcoming event and created a poster that we placed around the institute.

On the morning of 30^th of April, we hosted the seed planting event. During the event, we catered tea and coffee and an assortment of cakes for students and staff to enjoy.

We placed instructions for volunteers to follow. They could choose from several herbs to plan into their own personal plot to take home or they could choose some vegetables to plant into freshly cleared plots in the garden itself. Several students and staff members joined for the event, and it was an excellent opportunity for them to relax and do something therapeutic during their busy day.

Following the event, three new members from IRR joined the garden group, showing how community involvement is growing. We also shared news of the event on the website, thanking volunteers and updating the IRR community on the garden’s progress.

This event was the first of many planned for the future. Going forward, we hope to run more events at the garden for students and staff to enjoy. Additionally, Kelly had a productive meeting with representatives from King’s Buildings (KB), who expressed interest in replicating our garden model on their campus. They are currently seeking a location and have plans to visit the IRR garden.

The SPA fund has been instrumental in helping us get the Garden @ BioQuarter project off the ground, and we are eager to continue organising engaging events that foster community well-being.

Call to action

We encourage anyone at BioQuarter who hasn’t yet visited the garden to come by and see what it’s all about. Whether you’re interested in getting your hands dirty with some gardening, attending one of our events, or just enjoying a peaceful moment in nature, the Garden @ BioQuarter is a space for everyone.

Stay tuned for upcoming events and opportunities to get involved. Together, we can grow not just plants, but a stronger, more connected community.

Website link: https://blogs.ed.ac.uk/regeneration-repair/gardening-in-the-workplace/

Alessia Stanistreet-Welsh

Alessia is a graduate from the University of Edinburgh.

Kelly Douglas

Kelly Douglas commenced her role within Centre for Regenerative Medicine (CRM) in 2011, and is currently the Postgraduate Teaching and Administration Manager for the newly created Institute for Regeneration and Repair (IRR), which encompasses CRM, Centre for Reproductive Health and Centre for Inflammation Research. In this role, Kelly is currently responsible for the administration of over 200 PG students based at IRR, supported by a team of three postgraduate administrators.

Nick Mullin

Researcher at the Institute for Regeneration & Repair.

In this post, Jill Haldane, Philip Davies, and Dr Faith Dillon-Lee from the Centre for Open Learning, share how they used Student Partnership Agreement funding to work with staff and students in collaboration on the redesign of the Academic Language and Literacies course, and to employ students to develop a student-led project. This post belongs to the Student Partnership Agreement 2024 series.

The Centre for Open Learning runs International Foundation Programmes (IFP) for the University of Edinburgh, serving as a pathway to undergraduate study at College Art, Humanities and Social Sciences (CAHSS). Inspired by Murray’s (2024) insights on enhancing inclusion through autonomous learning practices, and guided by both the University of Edinburgh’s Student-Led, Individually Created Courses team and the Feedback and Assessment Principles and Priorities policy (2022), we are redesigning the Academic Language and Literacies course of the CAHSS IFP, which will include a student-led project. We took the opportunity presented by the Student Partnership Agreement (SPA) to engage IFP alumni in the construction of this student-led project.

We invited all IFP alumni from 2018-2023, and seven volunteered from across all years of UG study. They were predominantly Chinese and represented a range of programmes from Law, Psychology, Finance, Economics & Business, and English Literature. Several themes arose from these initial focus groups, including writing and presentation practice, transferability of skills, and criticality and analysis. The focus group spoke of the difficulties they face prioritising tasks, learning independently, group work, and the variety of assessment types required in their degree programmes. As one student put it:

“There’s so many things happening at the same time and tutors […] they would expect sometimes that students are already equipped […] with knowledge, with life skills” (Focus Group 1).

This led to the incorporation of a student-led project in the redesigned IFP. We applied for SPA funding to work with IFP alumni on assessment design, course structure, and the amount of teacher-led guidance IFP students will need to carry out the student-led project. Of the seven students who took part in the initial focus groups, three offered to be paid volunteers, with their time being compensated through the SPA funding.

The project

Firstly, we elicited the alumni’s retrospective thoughts – as IFP students – on the usability of the marking rubric for written assignments. We asked them to comment from their current viewpoint on whether the marking rubric was missing any key skills, abilities, or competencies that are specific required on their programmes. The students reported several key areas, including evidencing research, wording and layout of the rubric.

Next, we moved on to the student-led project. We asked alumni for their blue-sky thoughts on what the syllabus of a student-led project could possibly look like. We used Miro, populating it with the potential basic elements of learning and teaching, and assessment. We asked them to consider projects from their current UG study, as well as any gaps in opportunities and experiences for collaborative, independent group work they thought were missing from their IFPs. Students shared thoughts about interpersonal skills, academic socialisation, equity in assessment, teacher facilitation, and workshops for the student-led project.

Finally, we had an in-person meeting to discuss the students’ ideas expressed on Miro with the aim of gaining a deeper understanding of how the student-led project could link to experiences of the undergraduate student in CAHSS. The consensus was that a student-led project should build in AI literacy to facilitate a multi-modal project with a strong sense of teacher guidance.

Staff and student responses to the project

There was overwhelming consensus among students and staff that the collaboration on course design – brought about by SPA funding – was rewarding on multiple levels. Staff commented that they had learned from their students and that this shaped their approach to course design. Students reported that they felt valued in engaging in the project, and it allowed them to develop key graduate skills, such as critical thinking. Feedback from students included:

Why did you join this project?

• “As I participated in IFP and this experience helped me a lot, I am happy to help it improve further.”
• “To gain work experience.”

What did you hope to gain from this project?

• “Work experience.”
• “It is quite useful for me to acquire more insight into how a programme is structured and made under the cover, and also get a practical experience on it, as I aim to work in the academia in the future.”

Lessons learned

Since the end of the project, we have reflected on aspects of the process that could have been improved, resulting in some recommendations for future projects:

1. Consider the time and resource implications of employing students (e.g. costs, Right to Work checks, pay grading). These steps can delay the project starting.
2. Decide beforehand what role the project aims to give the students (e.g. reviewers, designers etc.). This is important to the productivity and success of the project, but also the timeline. For example, students can only review a curriculum once it has been developed.
3. Create a clear schedule of meetings and events which prioritise working to the availability of the students involved. This can prevent delays, unused hours and disengagement.

Conclusion

We were able to develop new and key insights into the student-led project through engaging with our alumni students. While we would certainly make some changes should we apply for funding again, the project overall has been a huge success. We are now beginning the process of designing the syllabus and materials for the student-led project and look forward to launching it and gathering more insight from future students on its success. In sum, the ability to engage students as practicing thinkers and knowers captures a range of perceptions that can inform both current and future curriculum design.

References

Murray, R. (2024) The Capability Approach, Pedagogic Rights and Course Design: Developing Autonomy and Reflection through Student-Led, Individually Created Courses. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 25:1, 131-150

The University of Edinburgh (2022). Assessment and Feedback Principles and Priorities. Available at: https://www.ed.ac.uk/sites/default/files/atoms/files/assessmentfeedbackprinciplespriorities.pdf (accesses 04.05.2024)

Jill Haldane

Jill is a Lecturer in English Language Education in the Centre for Open Learning. Jill is the Course Organiser for the Foundation Academic Language and Literacies course for the undergraduate International Foundation Programme for the CAHSS. Jill’s current work extends to the School of SPS and Edinburgh School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture in ECA.

Philip Davies

Philip is a Lecturer in English for Academic Purposes. He teaches and course organises across a range of provision within English Language Education and COL. This includes COL’s International Foundation Programme (IFP), pre-sessional EAP, Graduate Writing Centre and various in-sessional provision in collaboration with Schools and programmes. He is a Fellow of HEA.

Faith Dillon-Lee

Faith Dillon-Lee holds a PhD in English Literature, focusing on the psycho- and sociological effects of reading fiction on belief formation. She also holds a Master’s Degree in Applied Linguistics and ELT, with a focus on English Language Teaching and sociolinguistics, and a PGCert HE. She is a Fellow of the RSA and HEA. Faith has extensive experience in teaching English as a Foreign Language, English for Academic Purposes, and Academic Literacies. She is also experienced in curriculum & materials development, student engagement, and education for empowerment. She has worked in Higher Education for over a decade and, prior to this, worked in language schools and on community development projects.

In this extra post, Colette Revadillo, David Geddes, and Anya Tan showcase  APEX 7, an upcoming student-led medical research expedition to Bolivia that seeks to advance the field of high-altitude medicine. Colette, David and Anya are currently undergraduate Medical Students at the Edinburgh Medical School and are all part of the APEX Committee

What can medical students achieve during their time in medical school? It’s easy to assume that our journey is all about mastering anatomy, perfecting clinical skills, and keeping up with exams. But what if we could go beyond this? What if, during our time as students, we could lead international research expeditions, contribute to groundbreaking discoveries, and push the frontiers of global health—all while balancing our studies?

This is precisely what Altitude Physiology Expeditions (APEX), a Scottish charity founded by University of Edinburgh medical students, has made possible for over two decades. Established in 2001, APEX has organized six successful high-altitude research expeditions, with the seventh—APEX 7—scheduled for the summer of 2025. Each expedition is student-led, giving participants an unparalleled opportunity to engage in research, build leadership skills, and make tangible contributions to science while still in medical school.

APEX: A unique blend of education and innovation

The core mission of APEX is to study the effects of hypoxia—reduced oxygen levels at high altitudes—on the human body. While this may seem relevant only to mountaineers or elite athletes, hypoxia research has far-reaching applications in healthcare, especially for conditions like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and heart failure. By understanding how the body adapts to low-oxygen environments, we can develop better treatments for patients suffering from oxygen deprivation.

What makes APEX truly exceptional is its commitment to student leadership. Medical students organise every aspect of the expeditions, from research design and fundraising to logistics and safety management. This level of responsibility gives us the chance to take what we learn in the classroom and apply it in a high-stakes, real-world setting.

APEX 7: The most ambitious expedition yet

APEX 7, planned for June and July 2025, promises to be the largest and most ambitious expedition in APEX’s history. With a team of 80 to 100 volunteers from the University of Edinburgh, we will travel to Bolivia, where we’ll spend 16 days conducting research at high altitudes. The journey will take us to La Paz (3,800 meters) for acclimatisation before moving to the Huayna Potosi Base Camp at 4,700 meters, where most of the research will occur.

One of the most exciting aspects of APEX 7 is its scale – it will be the largest controlled ascent ever conducted in medical research. The expedition is being led by eight senior medical students who previously participated in APEX 6. Balancing their academic commitments with the demanding task of organising this expedition, these students have been working for months to plan research projects, secure funding, and ensure the safety of all participants.

Among the student leaders are:

• Ben Harrison (Head of Funding, Grants, and Sponsorship)
• Ella McElnea (Head of Volunteers and Well-being)
• Cami Maezelle (Head of Funding, Grants, and Sponsorship)
• Anya Tan (Head of Research)
• Cameron Norton (Expedition Leader)
• David Geddes (Expedition Leader)

As part of this team, I can say firsthand that organising APEX 7 has been an incredible learning experience. We’ve gained skills in project management, teamwork, and research that go far beyond traditional medical training.

Research at high altitude: A hands-on learning experience

The heart of APEX lies in its research. Some of the exciting research projects planned for APEX 7 include:

• Gene expression at high altitude: This study will analyse how certain genetic variants regulate gene expression in response to hypoxia. By identifying these genetic markers, we can better understand why some individuals are more susceptible to altitude sickness or hypoxia-related conditions.
• Altitude and eczema: This project will explore whether high-altitude environments can alleviate symptoms of eczema, a condition often worsened by allergens and humidity. We will compare eczema severity in participants at different altitudes to see if there’s a correlation.
• Cortisol variation: Using a novel device to measure cortisol levels in the interstitial fluid over 24 hours, we will study how hypoxia affects the body’s stress response. Understanding this could lead to better management of stress in patients experiencing hypoxia.
• Cognitive performance under hypoxia: We will also assess how cognitive abilities are affected by altitude, testing participants at various points during the expedition to determine how decision-making and problem-solving skills are impacted by reduced oxygen levels.

These projects not only allow us to contribute to cutting-edge medical research but also give us hands-on experience of the scientific process—from study design and data collection to analysis and publication. It’s a rare opportunity to be directly involved in research that could have real-world medical applications, all while still in medical school.

What APEX teaches us: Lessons beyond the classroom

APEX is more than just a research expedition; it’s a powerful learning experience. Organising and leading an expedition of this scale requires skills that we don’t always develop in traditional medical education—leadership, problem-solving, and interdisciplinary collaboration. These are the kinds of skills that will serve us well throughout our medical careers, whether we pursue clinical practice, research, or other paths.

Being part of APEX also reminds us that medical school is about more than just learning from textbooks and lectures. It’s about exploring new areas of interest, taking on challenges, and pushing ourselves to make meaningful contributions to the field of medicine. Through initiatives like APEX, students have the chance to take ownership of their education and create opportunities that will shape their future careers.

Getting involved: A call to action

If you’re a student at the University of Edinburgh interested in medical research, global health, or expedition medicine, APEX is an unparalleled opportunity to get involved. Recruitment for APEX 7 volunteers will begin this autumn, with information sessions and workshops available for those who want to learn more. Whether you’re interested in scientific research, logistics, or volunteer coordination, there’s a role for you in APEX. Please email: apex7@altitude.org to register your interest!

In short, APEX 7 is a testament to what medical students can achieve when given the opportunity to lead, innovate, and explore. We’re not just learning medicine—we’re making discoveries that could change it. And that, I believe, is what makes APEX so special.

Read previous Teaching Matters blog posts on APEX expeditions:

• The APEX 5 Expedition: The Peak of Altitude Research
• APEX 6: Student-led learning in the Andes

Colette Revadillo

Colette is a 5th Year Medical Student, and Head of Communications of APEX 7.

David Geddes

David is a 4th Year Medical Student, and Expedition Leader of APEX 7.

Anya Tan

Anya is a 6th Year Medical Student, and Head of Research of APEX 7.

In this post, Ash Scholz reflects on their Student Partnership Agreement-funded project: creating a database of student LGBTQ+ sources in the University archive, as well as hosting a portfolio of events during LGBTQ+ History Month. Ash is a fourth-Year History and Politics student, and is in their second term as LGBTQ+ Liberation Officer for the Edinburgh University Students’ Association. This post belongs to the Student Partnership Agreement 2024 series.

“Hello Kate! (….) For LGBTQ+ History Month, I would be really interested in collaborating with HCA and plan a bigger series of talks and maybe even an exhibition, highlighting research into LGBTQ+ history and celebrating history as a form of liberation for the LGBTQ+ community. I was wondering whether you would be interested? (…)”

This is the first e-mail that I sent to Kate Davison, Lecturer for History of Sexuality, back in June 2023. Ever since arriving at the University, I had observed that, while there were so many welcoming people, queer events, and LGBTQ+ societies and groups in Edinburgh, the queer life and activism on campus was severely lacking the representation that it deserved. I was convinced that there must be an untold history of queer students at the University of Edinburgh and I wanted to shine light on this during LGBTQ+ History Month.

After a few emails between Julie Gibbings (Head of EDI in the School of History, Classics, and Archaeology), Rachel Hosker (Archivist at the Centre for Research Collections), and Wannes Dupont and Kate Davison (Lecturers in History of Sexuality), I assembled a small group of student volunteers. Over the past year, we have been creating a database of student LGBTQ+ sources in the University archive. We have been identifying themes that have emerged from this research, for example queer student, life, activism, queer societies, and connecting the dots between them. Our work has been a mix of remote and in-person, given that some of the archives we use are digitised and accessible, and others are only available physically.

Our research showed that queer life was not always present in the form we recognise it today. We found the establishment of the Gay Society in 1973 but also occasional reports on gay life through the 1970s, 80s and 90s. There are a lot of silences that we are facing, for example, the exclusion of trans and racially minoritised members of the community.

And what started as a passion project of mine snowballed into a much bigger project. We soon realised that completing our work by February was a bit of a monumental task. Together with EUSA, Gender.ED and the School of History, Classics, and Archaeology, though, we were still able to run some very impactful events during LGBTQ+ History Month, which would have not been possible without the SPA funding.

Some of them included:

• A Queer History Walking Tour of Edinburgh.
• An undergraduate seminar on Queer History with presentations from students on their own research, in collaboration with the History Society.
• A film screening of “Framing Agnes” (2022).
• A community event for trans+ students and staff.
• A panel event on the importance of archives for the queer community and the presentation of our archive research so far, in collaboration with Gender.ED.

And the archive project?

We received so much support and positive receptions for the research we’ve been doing, and we continued our work after February! When I got approached by the School about creating a physical exhibition of our findings, I was absolutely ecstatic! Over the summer, I worked together with the Marketing and Communications Team in the School, Julie Gibbings as the EDI Lead, and a wonderful designer at the College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences.

The small exhibition is an accumulation of our work over the past year but is by no means exhaustive. It provides some glimpses into the incredible work of queer student activists and community members throughout a time of significant repression and discriminatory laws against queer life. Without the work of student activists in the past, these successes would have not been possible at all, and we found a sense of intergenerational solidarity with the queer students that came before us through our research. The exhibition wants to take up space for an underrepresented community, with queer students being able to manifest their belonging at the University through having a visual reminder of their historical presence.

Three different topics are covered by wall panels, text and pictures of the archive material: The formation of Queer Societies on Campus, Queer Student Activism, and Student Life.

You can now see the Exhibition in the William Robertson Wing of the Old Medical School (Doorway 5), on the Ground Floor.

Thank you to everyone who was involved in making this project a reality, from the amazing volunteers who spent countless hours in the archive, Rachel Hosker who supported all the research, and Julie Gibbings, Kate Davison, Wannes Dupont, and Jannika Pott, Sarah Morrison, Ann Harrison for believing in me and offering us the tools and additional funding to actually make this happen. We are far from done, and we have some exciting plans for this year, and we would love for more people to join us!

We have always been here. And we always will be.

Ash Scholz

Ash is a Fourth-Year History and Politics student, and a passionate campaigner for Human Rights and queer topics. This year is their second term as LGBTQ+ Liberation Officer for the Edinburgh University Students’ Association and they hope to facilitate an welcoming environment on campus for all students and bring about some much-needed change in Equality, Diversity and Inclusion matters at the University. They are also one of the founding members of Sex? On Campus!, a grassroots campaign for improved consent education at universities. When they aren’t spending countless hours in the library over assignments or campaigns, Ash is a Support Worker for people with disabilities, loves going bouldering and hiking, and is always up for a coffee in one of Edinburgh’s amazing coffee shops.

In this extra post, Dr Adan Chew, Dr Jess Gurney, and Dr Magdalena Cerbin-Koczorowska, from Edinburgh Medical School, explore the concept of student-centred education through the lens of medical education and clinical practice. In considering different learning theories, they foreground the importance of social and cultural influences, and the uniqueness of the individual, on learning.

A superficial understanding of a student-centred approach to education may falsely lead to the belief that standardisation of teaching activities can become a source of high-quality education.

The concept of student-centred education (SCE) has existed in literature for many years. It entails a shift in focus of the educational process from the teacher to the student. Higher education institutions have to find their place in the commercial and competitive market of educational services. which can result in a risk of misinterpretation and a superficial understanding of the SCE approach ​(Fawns et al., 2021; Trinidad, 2020)​.

Identifying a ‘competent student’ as a product of robust teaching activities without acknowledging the philosophy behind it, the power of the student-teacher relationship, and the nature of the learning process, may falsely lead to the belief that the standardisation and detailed evaluation of teaching activities leads to outstanding education ​(Trinidad, 2020).​ On the contrary, it has the potential to negatively affect teachers’ creativity and self-esteem ​(Fawns et al., 2021)​. Additionally, this belief opposes the concept of students as co-creators, which has been suggested as a future direction for higher education ​(Bovill, 2020; Stoddard et al., 2024)​.

At the decision-makers’ level, a superficial approach could be adopted due to a misunderstanding of the concept of standardisation as promoted by the World Health Organization and the World Federation of Medical Education (Weisz & Nannestad, 2021). The movement toward the “market model of the university” results in higher education institutions imitating behaviours and elements of organisational culture from large corporations ​(Jongbloed, 2003)​. Although standardised measurements of students’ knowledge and clinical competencies are seen as a driver for high-quality medical education ​(Scoville & Bisson, 2018), some institutions have attempted to standardise the delivery of educational interventions in response to the challenges of mass education ​(Mierzwa & Mierzwa, 2020)​.

This approach seems to contradict what is understood about learning. As we outline here, an exploration of the predominant learning theories demonstrates that not only should each learner be treated as an individual with their unique learning readiness and abilities, but the dynamic and multifactorial nature of the educational environment cannot be ignored.

Starting from the behaviourist approach, which suggests that learning is underpinned by habit formation, the response to a standardised stimulus will differ across individuals (Hull, 1943). The response is shaped by learners’ unique biological features (such as the number and sensitivity of receptors) and previous experiences which shape neural structures and cognitive abilities. Even if it could be widely agreed on how one defined the intended effect, the type of reinforcements and punishments considered more or less effective and the time of stimulation needed to achieve the intended effect will vary across learners.

Analysing the nature of learning through the lens of constructivism requires considering the importance of prior knowledge and existing mental frameworks. As these vary among our learners, the same information is perceived differently based on aspects such as cultural background and prior learning experiences. Clinical practice is varied and uncertain, meaning each learning event is a unique experience. Moreover, learner motivation to reflect upon experiences and actively construct their own understanding might differ based on temporary psychosomatic conditions, which in turn impact factors that affect intrinsic motivation, such as perceived control and task value (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). This ultimately influences how learning messages are interpreted.

Finally, the social aspect of learning cannot be omitted. Clinical practice and training often occur in various learning settings, with different mentors and peers, forming communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Furthermore, learners assume different identities – some are mentors themselves, or some may be guided to different extents by teaching fellows, professors or clinical supervisors. This in turn brings their unique experiences and cognition perception into the shared repertoire in varying settings.

Indeed, this is also dependent on the extent of engagement learners have integrated with their respective communities of practice (ibid.), coined by Lave and Wenger as “peripheral participation” (1991). It is simply too easy for standardised educational practices to disregard the multifaceted aspect of learners’ experiences. Since each learner has unique interactions and interpersonal experiences, the learning process becomes personalised and distinct for each individual.

Considering the above models that foreground the importance of social and cultural influences on learning, the pursuit of standardising the delivery of teaching activities may not only fail to bring the intended results but is also literally impossible. This is especially the case for a clinical teaching environment, where the social aspect is even more dynamic.

Finally, keeping in mind the above-mentioned importance of observational learning, we need to be aware that how different members of higher education institutions approach various aspects of the educational process may stimulate but also distort its true nurturing value. Bates et al. ​(2019)​ state that, “The inevitable diversity of contexts for learning and practice renders any absolute standardisation of programs, experiences, or outcomes an impossibility.”

There is simply no ‘one size fits all’ approach to student-centred education. Even though, as humans, we strive to minimise uncertainty by categorising our observations and generalising them, educators (including decision-makers) must acknowledge and become equipped to deal with this uncertainty. Instead of confining teaching activities to uniform and limited parameters, utilising pedagogical expertise in combination with creativity and courage allows us to embrace the precious uniqueness of learning.

References

​​Bates, J., Schrewe, B., Ellaway, R. H., Teunissen, P. W., & Watling, C. (2019). Embracing standardisation and contextualisation in medical education. Medical Education, 53(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13740

​Bovill, C. (2020). Co-creating learning and teaching: towards relational pedagogy in higher education. Critical Publishing.

​Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153

​Fawns, T., Aitken, G., & Jones, D. (2021). Ecological Teaching Evaluation vs the Datafication of Quality: Understanding Education with, and Around, Data. Postdigital Science and Education, 3(1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00109-4

​Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior: An introduction to behavior theory. Appleton-Century.

​Jongbloed, B. (2003). Marketisation in Higher Education, Clark’s Triangle and the Essential Ingredients of Markets. Higher Education Quarterly, 57(2), 110–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2273.00238

​Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

​Mierzwa, D., & Mierzwa, D. (2020). Organisational culture of higher education institutions in the process of implementing changes–case study. Journal of Decision Systems, 29(sup1), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2020.1848377

​Scoville, J. P., & Bisson, E. F. (2018). Quality and standardization of medical education. In Quality Spine Care: Healthcare Systems, Quality Reporting, and Risk Adjustment (pp. 15–28). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97990-8_2

​Stoddard, H. A., Lee, A. C., & Gooding, H. C. (2024). Empowerment of Learners through Curriculum Co-Creation: Practical Implications of a Radical Educational Theory. Teaching and Learning in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2024.2313212

​Trinidad, J. E. (2020). Understanding student-centred learning in higher education: students’ and teachers’ perceptions, challenges, and cognitive gaps. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 44(8), 1013–1023. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2019.1636214

Adan Chew

Dr Adan Chew is an academic foundation doctor and a student in the MSc Clinical Education Programme at Edinburgh Medical School. She has a keen interest in medical education, and also enjoys hiking and running in her spare time.

Magdalena Cerbin-Koczorowska

Dr Magdalena Cerbin-Koczorowska directs the MSc Clinical Education Programme at Edinburgh Medical School.

Jess Gurney

Dr Jess Gurney is a Lecturer on the MSc Clinical Education, and works clinically as a doctor in Medicine of the Elderly.

Welcome to the October, November and December Hot Topic: Student Partnership Agreement 2024.

The Student Partnership Agreement is an engaging and enriching experience for students and staff to come together to work in partnership to enhance the student experience. The Agreement itself is an official document outlining the explicit commitment between Edinburgh University Students Association and The University of Edinburgh to work in partnership with students. One way in which the University supports putting the tenets of this Agreement into practice is through Student Partnership Agreement Funding. 

Proposed projects are funded for up to £1000, and must involve both students and staff as named collaborators on the application AND in the work of the project. 

The Student Partnership Agreement is reviewed annually, and sets out a number of  priority areas, which serve as the focus for the proposed projects. These priorities are agreed in consultation with students and staff. Once the project is completed, the project holders are invited to write a Teaching Matters blog post to disseminate and reflect on their project. This Hot Topic will celebrate the 19 projects that were funded in the 23/24 bidding round, and addressed the following priority areas:

• Community, wellbeing, and supporting transitions
• Transforming curriculum and engagement with learning and teaching
• Equality, diversity and inclusion

Contributions will include reflections on the following projects:

• Supporting PGT Students through the Dissertation Buddies Programme – a cross-school collaboration (between School of Economics and Moray House School of Education and Sport), by Lianya Qiu, Aubrey, Rie Shigemori, Julie Smith, and Emily Birtles.
• A Celebration of Culture at R(D)SVS, by Thalia Blacking, Ned Binns, Nandini Paalavadyala Sharma, Anna Rickard, Alexi Voudouris, Sílvia Perez-Espona, and Jenna Richardson.
• A network to support PhD students and engage staff members across imaging physics disciplines, by Lucy Kershaw, Michael Langsen, and Carmel Moran.
• Community building at the community garden based at the BioQuarter campus, by Alessia Stanistreet-Welsh, Nick Mullin and Kelly Douglas.

And many more…

2025/25 Student Partnership Agreement Funding

It is also an opportune time to raise awareness of the new call for funding for 2024-25. This coming year includes the following priority areas, which are broadly similar to previous years’:

• Wellbeing, mental health, cost of living and student accommodation
  • Developing communities that promote a sense of wellbeing, positive mental health, belonging, and mattering in Schools, societies, and across years and degrees, and the University as a whole.
  • Supporting students through the cost-of-living crisis and the challenging student accommodation context in the city.
  •  Supporting students as they move to the University, from semester to semester, from year to year, as well as beyond the University and preparing for professional working life.

• Transforming curriculum 
  • Recognising the power of learning, teaching, and assessment to transform the student experience.
  • Encouraging meaningful student and staff engagement with the curriculum, including through co-creation of learning, teaching, and assessment.
  • University-wide curriculum transformation and making the Edinburgh Student Vision a reality, and effectively communicating this work to students and staff.
  • Developing students who are: disciplinary experts; ready to thrive in a changing world; and highly employable.
  • Exploring: experiential learning; engagement with global and local challenges;  decolonising the curriculum; generative AI; sustainability and climate change; online, in-person, and hybrid experiences of teaching and learning.
  • Creating a sense of community and belonging in the curriculum.

• Equality, diversity and inclusion
  • Ensuring we work in partnership to promote a University community where all are welcome, respected and nurtured.
  • Making intentional efforts to meet the needs of our diverse community of students and staff, and acknowledging intersectionality.
  • Recognising we may need to change the way we practice to ensure some individuals and groups, who have traditionally been systemically excluded, feel welcome and are enabled to engage.
  • Celebrating our incredible diversity of students and staff.
  • Listening to a diverse range of student voices and perspectives and closing the feedback loop.

Although there is a specific priority area of equality, diversity and inclusion, we expect all projects to include information to highlight how they will be inclusive in their project approach.

The funding call for 2024-2025 is now open, with a deadline of Tuesday 8^th October 2024. More information, and the application form, is available on the Student Partnership Agreement Funding webpage.

Jenny Scoles

Dr Jenny Scoles is the editor of Teaching Matters. She is an Academic Developer (Learning and Teaching Enhancement), and a Senior Fellow HEA, in the Institute for Academic Development, and provides pedagogical support for University course and programme design. She leads the University’s Learning & Teaching Conference, and her research interests include student-staff co-creation, interdisciplinary learning & teaching, professional learning and sociomaterial methodologies.

In this post, Dr Vassilis Galanos continues his exploration of metrics, arguing that the passive acceptance of a metrics-oriented culture is what feeds, establishes, and normalises hype and high adoption rates of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) machinery. This post is part 3 of 3, and belongs to the Hot Topic theme: Critical insights into contemporary issues in Higher Education.

In the previous two posts (Higher Education State Critical and Rigorously Established Fear), I argued that, in Marxian terms, the surplus value generated from intellectual labour in academia is enhancing the institution’s reputation and funding. This shift is slowly reversing the map (numerical indices) with the territory (learning and teaching experience), using the latter to navigate the former, instead of the opposite. In this post, I argue that the passive acceptance of this metrics-oriented culture is what feeds, establishes, and normalises hype and high adoption rates of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) machinery, such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Microsoft’s Copilot, or Anthropic’s Claude.

This is a fast-forward historical recap of what preceded the emergence of GenAI. Student grades, attendance, and staff’s citations fuel the academic-industrial complex by fostering connections between businesses ready to absorb the highly-graded students while partnering with high-ranking research initiatives. This relationship turns human intellect into marketable products, since the relationship is mutually parasitical: as much as the industry wishes to present an outwardly-facing, scientifically and moral high-ground with the approval of the academy,  while the latter wishes to benefit by collaborations with the industry that increase revenue, prestige, and can be presented as societal impact.

This process is reminiscent of the commodification trends in industrial capitalism, where labour was quantified and valued based on its contribution to profit. Social media metrics further entrench this commodification, transforming intellectual achievements into social capital. Shoshana Zuboff calls this “behavioural surplus” – a term that might as well fit within the academic landscape. Students and staff self-regulate, ever aware of the metrics that loom over them, dictating their academic behaviour. This is the darker side of the notion of the quantified self the vision in which people would continuously track in order to optimise their performance (and well-being) that fell into decay once the profit-driven motives of self-tracking industries were sufficiently experienced, from health apps to selfie share, in most cases training customised advertisement algorithms and facial recognition software, often used for military and policing purposes.

This self-tracking culture fits perfectly into academia’s metrics obsession. Students monitor their grade point average (GPA) like investors tracking stocks, and researchers obsess over their h-index scores like they’re anxiously awaiting show reviews. While waiting for these longer-term affirmations, theye both gain temporary satisfaction through social media interactions in secret hope one of their outputs (research, business, or otherwise) will become viral – indeed, the algorithm for virality in social media and academia might be very similar.

From what has already been mentioned, GenAI visions uplift this obsession to an extreme level. Initially, it presents itself as capable to produce the boring aspects of a text that everyone wishes to avoid, for example, the opening and concluding sentences, the formal proofreading and grammatical/syntactical corrections, the angle ideation, and short explanations for relatively common-sense knowledge. Supposedly, thus, they save time which, in theory, can be used for leisure (of course, in Academia, the concept of “leisure” is very controversial and means different things to different people – should we prohibit the consumption of an academic text while on holidays? For one, we do not prohibit the academic study of leisure, especially if it attracts big grants).

Upon closer inspection, time is not saved at all, especially for those in precarious temporary contracts, or with student loans, or who need a promotion, or on scholarship deadlines. What Generative AI’s time-efficient output may do, is increase the amount of produced content, but without an unchanged time-table (the contracted hours, or the time prior to entering the job market). Students and teachers become mere data nodes, constantly producing text to feed the technical and the social machinery. This aligns with the historical trajectory of technological advancements that have progressively extended the volume and precision of bureaucratic production and control while intensifying the intellectual labour within the same time interval.

And the final Marx quote for the day:

“The shortening of the hours of labour creates, to begin with, the subjective conditions for the condensation of labour, by enabling the workman [workperson] to exert more strength in a given time. So soon as that shortening becomes compulsory, machinery becomes in the hands of capital the objective means, systematically employed for squeezing out more labour in a given time” (Marx 2013: 285).

Endless self-tracking and performance optimisation, powered by GenAI and sustained by social media metrics culture, thus turns the academic journey into a frantic dash for better numbers. While Generative AI claims to offer personalised feedback and guidance, it amplifies the anxiety around self-improvement and harmonising output within “acceptable” frames. Students and staff focus more on meeting target numbers than engaging deeply with their work (or others’), mirroring the constant self-optimisation driven by social media feedback loops.

If, as academics, we also think of ourselves as activists, not merely observing but influencing the politics of what we study (for some, this is inevitable anyway for we cannot suppress our influence – the question is whether we admit it and what we do with it), we should consider how the infrastructures that oppress social groups we wish to defend are entrenched through the criteria we develop and use to measure success and failure.

Words like “success,” “failure,” “impact,” “assessment,” “measurement,” “mark,” “rank,” or “grade” carry legacies of phallogocentrism (the internet is still complete with videos of males measuring their manhood in toilets), imperialism and colonialism, military hierarchy and operationalism, and nonhuman and human enslavement (marked on the flesh by branding iron until today). In this metrics-driven landscape (where “data-driven” is but a euphemism), academia risks becoming a parody of itself. Here, surveillance, commodification, and self-quantification dominate, supported by a broader culture of social media views and reactions that enables as reductionist a thinking as the nine emotions featured in the recent film, Inside-Out 2.

Generative AI, the latest instalment in the history of automated education, intensifies these trends, aiming to squeeze more surplus profit out of education and research, which in turn exacerbates an aesthetic of the safe and acceptable writing we have already established in academic circles. This, in turn, normalises a degenerative culture of unimaginative repetition. Hence, I prefer to call it ‘Degenerative AI’.

My rant is over. I am leaving you with the following song about numbers from the 1969 season of Sesame Street, composed by Denny Zeitlin and featuring vocals by Grace Slick of Jefferson Airplane: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5stWhPNyec

References for Part 1, 2 and 3

Andreski, S. (1973). Social sciences as sorcery. New York: St. Martin’s Press, May.

Archer, M. (2024). Unsustainable: Measurement, Reporting, and the Limits of Corporate Sustainability. NYU Press.

Cixous, H. (1974). Prénoms de personne. Paris: Seuil.

Cixous, H. (1994). The Hélène Cixous Reader. (Susan Sellers, Ed.). Routledge.

Derrida, J. (1979). Spurs: Nietzsche’s styles. University of Chicago Press.

Marx, K. (2013). Capital: A critical analysis of capitalist production (S. Moore, E. Aveling, & E. Untermann, Trans.). Wordsworth.

Zuboff, S. (2022). Surveillance capitalism or democracy? The death match of institutional orders and the politics of knowledge in our information civilization. Organization Theory, 3(3).

Vasileios Galanos

Dr Vassilis Galanos, SFHEA is a visitor at the Edinburgh College of Art and works as Lecturer in Digital Work at the University of Stirling. Vassilis investigates historico-sociological underpinnings of AI and internet technologies, and how expertise and expectations are negotiated in these domains. Recent collaborations involved the history of AI at Edinburgh, interrogations of generative AI in journalism (BRAID UK), artist-data scientist interactions (The New Real), and community-led regeneration interfacing with data-driven innovation (Data Civics). Vassilis has co-founded the AI Ethics & Society research group and the History and Philosophy of Computing’s (HaPoC) Working Group on Data Sharing, also acting as Associate Editor of Technology Analysis and Strategic Management.

Welcome to Oct-Nov Learning & Teaching Enhancement theme: Engaging and Empowering Learning at The University of Edinburgh

In this inaugural post of our blog series, Kirsten Cowan, co-editor and passionate advocate for transformative educational practices, delves into the pivotal themes of engagement and empowerment at The University of Edinburgh. This series, a collaborative effort among a diverse group of staff and students, aims to highlight the dynamic and innovative ways we are advancing learning toward the ambitious goals of Strategy 2030. Join us as we explore how these foundational principles are shaping the future of education and fostering a community of inspired, empowered learners.

As The University of Edinburgh advances towards the goals set in Strategy 2030, we remain steadfast in our mission to reshape the world through our esteemed research, robust civic contributions, and trailblazing educational practices. At the core of our educational philosophy is an unwavering commitment to the well-being of our students—a pivotal aspect of our approach to teaching and learning. Recognising the crucial role that engagement and empowerment play in the academic experience, we are dedicated to cultivating a learning environment that wholeheartedly embraces and enhances these themes.

Under Strategy 2030, our educational practices continually evolve to meet diverse learning needs, ensuring that every student benefits from innovative, personalised educational approaches. Our efforts are bolstered by leading-edge research, advanced facilities, and a dynamic curriculum designed to prepare students for the challenges and opportunities of today and tomorrow. By fostering collaborative and inclusive learning spaces, we empower students to take active roles in their educational journeys, transforming them into discerning leaders and innovators equipped to drive progress.

Moreover, our strategy recognises the importance of extending our impact beyond university walls—combining global influence with local engagement. In this way, The University of Edinburgh aspires to continue being a luminary of knowledge and innovation, committed to enriching societies through an educational practice that prioritises student empowerment and welfare.

Why engagement and empowerment matter

True engagement in education extends beyond simply capturing students’ interest. It means motivating students to participate actively, thus sparking a genuine desire to learn. Achieving this requires a blend of cognitive challenges, emotional support, and encouraging students to behave in engaged ways. On the flip side, empowering students involves creating settings where they can take charge of their learning journey, thereby building essential skills, confidence, and independence. By enriching traditional methods with innovative approaches—advanced assessment tactics, interactive technology integration, and diverse student-centred strategies—we open new avenues for learners to excel.

Extending impact beyond classrooms

Our commitment to engagement and empowerment transcends physical spaces and conventional teaching methods—it nourishes the broader dynamics of today’s varied and vibrant educational landscape. Strategy 2030 emphasises a comprehensive view, fostering an atmosphere of inclusivity, interdisciplinary cooperation, and strong community bonding. Thus, transforming education at The University of Edinburgh means communicating with learners who are curious, self-reliant, resilient, and well-equipped to tackle future challenges. Our goal is not just to keep pace with educational trends but to actively influence them, paving new pathways for our students to succeed and flourish in an ever-changing world.

Launching the blog series

When the call for contributions to a 9-blog post series on engaging and empowering learners opened, we received an overwhelming response from The University of Edinburgh community. As such, it’s clear that the topic is highly resonant among our staff and students. This inspired us to structure our reflections in a four-part series. This ensures a thorough exploration of these critical themes from a community and class perspective. The first instalment, running from October through November, will focus on establishing environments that make students feel both capable and secure—an essential foundation for engagement and empowerment.

Exploring key themes of ‘setting the stage for engaging and empowering learners’ with experts

In the inaugural post of the instalment, Noel Entwistle, a well-known educational psychologist, describes how research into teaching and learning in this university, and elsewhere, has changed its focus over the years, with the balance moving from how to lecture to give the student the ‘right’ knowledge, through a form of ‘enlightenment’ that brought the student experience into the picture, and onto the current situation where students are expected to engage with both the subject matter and life as a whole within and outside the university.

The next three blogs in this series will demonstrate the impact of community efforts on student empowerment and confidence. We will explore the Ambassadors for Student Carers Scheme, examine extracurricular events that celebrate linguistic and cultural diversity, and delve into the crucial role of developing academic relationships. Following these, four more posts will challenge the traditional limits of education, illustrating how their re-evaluation has not only fostered a greater sense of inclusion and diversity but also amplified student voices. These entries will cover topics such as English language courses, student-led projects from various societies, reforms in the Student Representation scheme, and strategies for democratizing educational dialogue.

Join us on this journey

Stay tuned in as we explore these compelling facets of student life at The University of Edinburgh. Each post aims to not only inform but also inspire, contributing to a dialogue that empowers and engages all members of our community.

Kirsten Cowan

Dr Kirsten Cowan is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing in the Business School. She has been working at The University of Edinburgh for the past six years, teaching mostly undergraduate students. Her research explores how immersive technologies can influence consumer decision-making by changing the way that people think and remember. This research has led to the creation of a book entitled ‘The Reality of Virtuality’ and several articles published in top marketing journals. Her research has also led her to integrate virtual reality in the classroom to facilitate student learning. She has a PhD from The University of North Texas.

In this post, Dr Vassilis Galanos continues his exploration of metrics, its place in Higher Education, and the impact of the Research Excellence Framework on our work practices. This post is part 2 of 3, and belongs to the Hot Topic theme: Critical insights into contemporary issues in Higher Education.

In a previous post with Teaching Matters, I have written about how academic excellence evaluations such as the UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF), claiming to measure research quality with some kind of objective precision, can foreground the development of digital machinery (such as Generative AI) that is adjustable to the REF’s objective (or better: objectifying) metrics. In this post, continuing the thread from part 1, I will connect the REF to the context of broader student and faculty numerical rankings. REF, that for many academics also stands for “Rigorously Established Fear”, often ends up fostering a competitive environment where volume trumps substance and impact is staged in wording but often not grounded in practice. As an example of this, as part of the Edinburgh Futures Institute’s Data Civics Observatory, I encountered the frustration of local communities in Edinburgh who complained about researchers using their underdeveloped neighbourhoods to justify their grant allocation, but disappeared upon the project’s end.

Niche or curiosity-driven disciplinary-questioning endeavours get side-lined while churned-out, quota-meeting research takes centre stage, especially in the context of academic-industry collaboration. Such collaboration is initially phrased as an attempt to open-up the world of Academia into the real world, but, in practice, it transforms Academia itself into a peculiar type of industry. This mirrors the rise of performance indicators in corporate bureaucracies, which seek to optimise efficiency at the expense of innovation and creativity.

This obsession with optimisation and efficiency further increases the distance between metric-driven reporting as just a symbol and as practical social change (as Matthew Archer recently showed in his 2024 book ‘Unsustainable: Measurement, Reporting, and the Limits of Corporate Sustainability,’ or, as Stanislav Andreski beautifully put it in 1970, “evasion in the guise of objectivity”; “quantification as camouflage’; and ‘techno-totemism and creeping crypto-totalitarianism”).

As an individual progresses up the academic ladder from student to staff, the REF exercise takes the emotional place occupied by the marker’s assessment and staff mentor’s supervision as the higher and sufficiently invisible entity of surveillance. This mirrors Marx’s description of a factory, which, in our case, is the university (my additions in square brackets):

“The technical subordination of the workman [read: worker, but also student, lecturer, professor, etc] to the uniform motion of the instruments of labour [including marking schemes, impact assessments, article production, grant allocation mechanisms], and the peculiar composition of the body of workpeople, consisting as it does of individuals of both sexes and of all ages, give rise to a barrack discipline, which is elaborated into a complete system in the factory [and academia], and which fully develops the before mentioned labour of overlooking, thereby dividing the workpeople into operatives and overlookers, into private soldiers and sergeants of an industrial army. […] The place of the slave-driver’s lash is taken by the overlooker’s book of penalties [including late submission penalties, resits, redundancy of academics who did not produce REFable outcomes, and more]” (Marx 2013: 293).

In the next, and final, post of this three-part series, I will conclude this conversation by situating the emergence of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) within the afore-described process of metrics-oriented culture.

Vasileios Galanos

Dr Vassilis Galanos, SFHEA is a visitor at the Edinburgh College of Art and works as Lecturer in Digital Work at the University of Stirling. Vassilis investigates historico-sociological underpinnings of AI and internet technologies, and how expertise and expectations are negotiated in these domains. Recent collaborations involved the history of AI at Edinburgh, interrogations of generative AI in journalism (BRAID UK), artist-data scientist interactions (The New Real), and community-led regeneration interfacing with data-driven innovation (Data Civics). Vassilis has co-founded the AI Ethics & Society research group and the History and Philosophy of Computing’s (HaPoC) Working Group on Data Sharing, also acting as Associate Editor of Technology Analysis and Strategic Management.

In this post, Dr Vassilis Galanos dissects what metrics really mean for students, educators, and researchers in the wider academy. This post is part 1 of 3, and belongs to the Hot Topic theme: Critical insights into contemporary issues in Higher Education.

As the heading suggests, it’s not some Matrix-like virtual reality conspiracy controlling all things academic – it’s the metrics. For about 20 years now, from undergraduate student to Lecturer, I’ve experienced numbers like student grades, attendance monitoring points, seminar participation marks, journal rankings, research excellence frameworks (REF), and citation scores as structural elements we increasingly have to face, understand, and be assessed against. Yet, at the same time, we find ourselves being less outspoken about these metrics and what they mean for our daily lives.

Following a long legacy of bureaucratic solutionism, they’re supposed to streamline and improve academic management and recognition, but often end-up reducing the – supposedly – rich, varied experience of academia to a dry set of spreadsheets, impact factor badges, and transcript competitions.

As a person who studies the history of the internet in parallel with artificial intelligence (AI) (and an avid social media user myself, turning my life into an open experiment), I’ve seen the rise of social media metrics like ‘likes’, ‘follows’, and ‘faves’ being established as a “free-for-all” venue for numerical recognition. I have also seen how they further normalise our obsession with numbers, converging with the proliferation of AI and algorithmic technologies to amplify and entrench this metric-driven culture. When you add Generative AI into the mix, the metrics game shifts into hyper-drive with an efficiency that an Orwell-Huxley hybrid couldn’t have predicted.

For the past six months, I’ve spent time with Karl Marx’s The Capital, volume 1, so I decided to dissect what these metrics really mean, using insights from surveillance studies, Marxian economics, and the quantified self, with a nod to the history of numerical classifications from mathematics to economics. To complete the pun: from the Matrix, to metrics, to Marx.

Grades as assessment

Grades are the old standby for assessing students, neatly categorising their efforts and even identities into A, B, C, and “better luck next time.” Or, to use a term co-constructed by Hélène Cixous (1975, 1994: 29) and Jacques Derrida (1979: 97), they encapsulate the education of a phallogocentric system – one that is at the same time serving a masculine (phallocentric) ideal of military rankings and the dominion of rationality (reasoned logic as Logos, that is, logocentric). This creates a linear trajectory in which there is less space for winners and those in higher ranks.

Grading turns the wonderfully messy process of learning into bite-sized numbers, much like fast food turns diverse cuisines into generic meals – always with the opportunity to pay a bit more in order to have access to luxurious gastronomy. This simplification often strangles creativity and critical thinking. For the imaginative and divergent thinkers, it’s like being shoved into a production line where only uniformity gets rewarded.

The politics of such numerical simplification finds its roots back to the early applications of mathematics in standardising measurements for trade and commerce as well as military precision. Here’s Marx:

“The division of labour, as carried out in Manufacture, not only simplifies and multiplies the qualitatively different parts of the social collective labourer, but also creates a fixed mathematical relation or ratio which regulates the quantitative extent of those parts […]. It develops, along with the qualitative sub-division of the social labour-process, a quantitative rule and proportionality for that process” (Marx 2013: 241).

The presentation of presence

Attendance records act as the school’s hall monitor, ensuring students physically show up. Digital systems like biometric scans offer precise tracking but also inch dangerously close to a Big Brother type of oversight. This constant scrutiny is more than just checking who’s present – it’s a subtle method of enforcing compliance and cultivating a culture of stress and control. The evolution of such monitoring systems can be linked to the development of bureaucratic systems in the 19th century, which relied on statistical data to manage and control populations. Interestingly, this enforcement of being present in fear that attendance is being monitored, is transformed within social media environments into “fear of missing out” (FOMO).

The presentation of presence as something to compete for is an interesting parallel between (a) attendance monitoring as part of one’s entertainment/leisure lifestyle, and (b) the joy of education as an enforced evil that is effected only by attendance supervision. Marx again:

“An industrial army of workmen, under the command of a capitalist, requires, like a real army, officers (managers), and sergeants (foremen, overlookers), who, while the work is being done, command in the name of the capitalist. The work of supervision becomes their established and exclusive function” (Marx 2013: 230

(Keep in mind that the French word “surveillance” literally translates into “supervision” or “overseeing” – worth considering every time you have a “supervision meeting” with your dissertation supervisor or your line manager).

The power of citations

For faculty, journal rankings and citation metrics are the currency of the academic marketplace (as it is very precisely put in everyday vocabularies). Top-tier publications and a heap of citations bring career benefits like tenure and grants. But navigating this numbers game often means playing it safe, avoiding the unconventional or interdisciplinary work that might not score high on the metrics scale. This focus on numeric evaluation echoes the econometric models that gained prominence in the 20th century, emphasising quantifiable data over qualitative insights. As an extension of econometrics, the 20th century saw the evolution of bibliometrics, scientometrics, and infometrics, as a quantifiable measure of impact of research.

Compounding the issue, social media metrics like ‘likes’ and ‘followers’ further normalise academics’ predisposition towards popular, mainstream topics that satisfy the instantaneity of a present-oriented appreciation of science. This is often at the expense of deeper, more substantive inquiries, which extend into the past and future. Indeed, the academic culture behind creating ‘tweetable’ abstracts of abstracts (“threads”) after an attention-grabbing title that is meant to be retweeted indicates the time pressure under which scholarly content is produced, disseminated, and consumed – “content” in the recent social media flavour of the word.

In the next part of this Teaching Matters contribution, I will relate the question concerning metrics to the Research Excellence Framework (REF) exercise.

Vasileios Galanos

Dr Vassilis Galanos, SFHEA is a visitor at the Edinburgh College of Art and works as Lecturer in Digital Work at the University of Stirling. Vassilis investigates historico-sociological underpinnings of AI and internet technologies, and how expertise and expectations are negotiated in these domains. Recent collaborations involved the history of AI at Edinburgh, interrogations of generative AI in journalism (BRAID UK), artist-data scientist interactions (The New Real), and community-led regeneration interfacing with data-driven innovation (Data Civics). Vassilis has co-founded the AI Ethics & Society research group and the History and Philosophy of Computing’s (HaPoC) Working Group on Data Sharing, also acting as Associate Editor of Technology Analysis and Strategic Management.

In this post, Dr Charlotte Desvages and Dr Itamar Kastner reflect on the notion of academic standards and its relationship with assessment and feedback, drawing on the events from the 2023 Marking and Assessment Boycott. Charlotte is a teaching Lecturer in Mathematical Computing, and Itamar is a Senior Lecturer in Linguistics and English Language in the School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences. This post  belongs to the Hot Topic theme: Critical insights into contemporary issues in Higher Education.

On 20 April 2023, in the context of a years-long dispute on pensions, pay, and working conditions, academic staff across the UK started a Marking and Assessment Boycott (MAB) called by the University and College Union (UCU). The MAB lasted until September 2023, directly impacting assessment culminating in the May and August exam diets. As often is the way when systems ‘breakdown’ or suddenly require large-scale workarounds, a huge amount of learning and reflection emerges. In this post, we draw on our experience and reflections of the MAB as an entry point to unpick how regulatory ‘academic standards’ influence our assessment and feedback practices. We argue that a focus on pedagogically-informed course and programme design, where marks are dissociated from feedback, would be more beneficial to students’ learning than a focus on an aggregated numerical grade.

Background to the MAB and academic standards in relation to assessment and feedback

In our University, assessment is regulated by each School’s Boards of Examiners according to the Taught Assessment Regulations, which in turn are decided by the Senate’s Academic Policy and Regulations Committee. Edinburgh saw strong participation in the MAB, prompting Senate to change the regulations temporarily in order to “mitigate against the impact of significant disruption to students, without compromising academic standards” [1]. Boards of Examiners were asked to make an academic judgement on whether they had sufficient information on students’ performance to decide on progression or degree awards; to what extent was the Board confident that a student had achieved learning outcomes and was ready to progress or graduate?

Our proxy for this decision is usually an average of numerical marks. With many of these unavailable due to the MAB, many Boards of Examiners decided that they were not competent to make an informed decision, leading to a large number of students affected by delayed results despite the relaxed regulations – including 30% of students [2] graduating in July either without an award, or with an unclassified degree. Although the immediate impact on students was regrettable, this cautious approach likely contributed favourably to the very small number of misclassifications [3]. Even under a narrow understanding of “academic standards” defined by graduates obtaining the appropriate degree classification, it is difficult to see how Boards applying the full extent of available mitigations would have maintained academic standards.

Perspectives on academic standards

Often, and certainly in the context of the MAB, the institutional understanding of “academic standards” is about the regulatory framework of Quality Assurance, an interlocking system of regulations set by Scottish ministers (through the Quality Assurance Agency), the University’s regulations, and each School’s Board of Examiners. The “quality” in question relates to the quantitative outcomes produced by Boards of Examiners (a course mark, a progression decision, a degree classification). Quality Assurance is how institutions demonstrate robustness and reliability of those outcomes to external stakeholders. In the process, all the learning and growth a student has experienced are distilled into one final grade.

This is an administrative process, happening after all learning and assessment are complete; by necessity, it’s based on shortcuts. For example, the 40% grade boundary provides a standardised threshold over which a student is deemed to have passed a course. This saves Boards of Examiners from having to wrestle with its implications: are we passing students who have achieved 2 out of 5 learning outcomes? Are we contenting ourselves with “achievement” being defined as 40% of the best possible performance?

In contrast, from an educator’s perspective, that is perhaps more internal facing, “academic standards” is understood as starting with rigorous, pedagogically-informed course and assessment design, and includes everything that happens before the final grade. In this sense, academic standards are standards we set on students’ engagement, learning, and growth, and on ourselves as instructors. We design assessment to give students the opportunity to demonstrate their progress; to give us confidence that they are ready for the next stage.

Regulatory mitigations only introduced more possible shortcuts for Boards of Examiners to produce aggregated outcomes with limited information from courses. Clearly, this cannot fit with educators’ understanding of “maintaining academic standards” – by definition, we did not have sufficient information to assess whether they were maintained. These different understandings of “academic standards” explain how academic staff who raised concerns about mitigations were left unsatisfied by the University’s response, and particularly concerned about continuing students [4]. Indeed, the major concern to UCEA [5] was primarily the disruption to the administrative function of exam boards, rather than, say, the delay of feedback on coursework, or the impact on student learning [6].

Returning to the Feedback and Assessment Principles and Priorities

Perhaps we can better understand the relevant assumptions about marks and feedback by considering the University’s Feedback and Assessment Principles and Priorities. None of these refer to marks or grades, although an educator’s perspective might be that these all contribute to upholding robust academic standards:

In our experience, the dissociation of marks from feedback is not only supported by research, as demonstrated at recent university events (such as talks Ungrading: What it is and why should we do it? by Rashne Limki, and To Grade or to Ungrade, that is the question! by Dave Laurenson, James Hopgood and Itamar Kastner), its benefits are also clear to students. While they would be lost without feedback – in that learning, by definition, does not happen without feedback loops – most students clearly understood (and supported) the withholding of marks as a tool.

We argue that the MAB laid bare how we have administrative processes serving a distinct purpose from that of teaching/learning. Institutional requirements for an aggregated numerical grade can place an inherent barrier for educators seeking alternative feedback and assessment methods which could be more beneficial for learning, and which could in fact contribute to maintaining robust academic standards.

So, where do these reflections leave us? We would encourage individuals, Schools, and managers to consider learning and feedback as a priority in the first stages of designing curriculum and assessment. We should be ensuring that the pedagogy is in place, and only later thinking about satisfying the administrative requirements of numerical evaluation (if at all). We must continue to challenge the model that defines “academic standards” as both requiring, and being limited to, a quantitative interface with external stakeholders.

Here’s one example to end on: in the National Student Survey (NSS), “feedback” has consistently been a sore point for our University. One of management’s responses has been to implement stricter deadlines for returning marks and feedback to students. But how does this move engage with the pedagogical grounding of feedback? Where does the magic number in the “15 working days” turnaround come from? And how does any of this support educators to improve their practice?

[1] APRC 22/23 8 – Minutes of the 2/05/2024 meeting of APRC. Accessed 23/07/2024.

[2] SQAC 23/24 5B – Appendix C, Degrees Awarded Outcomes. Paper presented at the 16/05/2024 meeting of SQAC. Accessed 23/07/2024.

[3] See footnote 2, Appendix B. Accessed 23/07/2024.

[4] e-S 23/24 3F – Appendix 1 (Maintaining Academic Standards), Report of Motions and Items not included on Senate Billet from 2022 to April 2024. Paper presented at the April/May 2024 e-Senate. Accessed 23/07/2024.

[5] Universities and Colleges Employers Association; the body representing universities as employers in the dispute which led to the MAB.

[6] See e.g. UCEA news release, 28^th July 2023, describing the “sector-wide impact” of the MAB exclusively as the percentage of students who were (un)able to graduate in July.

Itamar Kastner

Itamar is a Senior Lecturer in Linguistics and English Language in the School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences. His research investigates the structure of words from theoretical, experimental and computational perspectives, alongside evidence-based approaches to pedagogy. He has been a member of the university Senate since August 2023.

Charlotte Desvages

Charlotte is a teaching Lecturer in Mathematical Computing in the School of Mathematics, teaching computing courses focused on Python programming skills and introductory numerical methods. Her interests include peer learning for programming (via pair programming, code review, live coding); the development of computational thinking linked to mathematical thinking; and accessible and inclusive teaching practices. She is also currently the director of Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion in the School, and has been a member of Senate since August 2022.

In this extra post, Dr Michelle King-Okoye, Dr Jansi Natarajan and Dr Nichole Fernandez introduce the iMatter magazine, which was co-produced by participants of the iMatter support and writing group. They also share some empirical research on student and staff experience of the writing process.

Introduction

According to the Higher Education Students statistics, in 2022/3, there were over 800,000 postgraduate students and over two million undergraduates enrolled in UK higher education. 30% of these students were from black, Asian and mixed ethnicity, and mainly reflect international countries, which contributes to the rich diversity of the population (HESA 2024a). Similarly, in 2022/3, 22% of Higher Education Staff were from ethnic minority backgrounds (HESA 2024b).

Research has shown that adapting to UK university life alongside navigating and engaging with communities for both local and international ethnic minority students and academics can, at times, present unique challenges. Integrating with UK’s sociocultural climate whilst adhering to unique cultures, traditions and religions may impact mental health, wellbeing, and subsequent learning. English language has also been seen as a major hurdle for some students, with accents, stereotyping, and misunderstanding reported, contributing to loneliness and othering (Oduwaye, Kiraz, & Sorakin 2023).

Purpose

The purpose of this blog post is threefold:

1. To highlight the iMatter magazine co-produced by participants of the iMatter support and writing group, which was conceptualised and led by Michelle, and supported by the staff led Equality, Diversity and Inclusion grant, in 2023.
2. To share some of the findings from the qualitative research Jansi and Michelle conducted with staff and students who volunteered to share their experiences attending this group.
3. To raise awareness of this group and highlight the benefits of writing and speaking about one’s identity and culture.

The iMatter support and writing group

The iMatter support and writing group was birthed from a need to embrace ‘being and feeling different’ for students and staff from ethnic minority backgrounds who experience othering, cultural adjustments and under-representation in higher education.

The purpose of the support group is to promote positivity and create a sense of belonging from shared cultures and shared identities. There is evidence that preserving cultural heritage protects one’s identity and keeps individuals grounded (Holtorf 2020), which was the basis for initiating the iMatter writing and support group. Open to all races and ethnicities, it aims to promote dialogue to illuminate the successes and challenges of ethnic minority students and staff, and provide a supportive environment.

Peer support network

Attending the support group creates solidarity in shared experiences. Attendees communicated that the iMatter writing and support group serves as a peer support network, which is instrumental towards forming new relationships and strengthening existing ones. Lived experiences connect them together when sharing unique challenges experienced while navigating university life and wider society. The support group creates a unique platform for students and staff to connect as well as to voice what is important to them. Highlighting the positives of their culture and values, including what they feel are important to share with others, are some highlights of the group.

A more inclusive campus environment

The support group creates a platform for cultural exchange as those from other cultures are able to learn and appreciate the diversity that exists in their classrooms and wider university. While the support group attracts a wider representation of cultures across the staff and student body, the group is open to non-ethnic minorities attending so that the attendees have a better appreciation and understanding of their lived experiences and systemic barriers they encounter on a daily basis.

Value to teaching, learning and career development

Writing, reflecting and sharing about unique cultures and traditions are helpful to students’ learning and engagement. Some noted that this removed writing blocks previously experienced, and others felt the support group was instrumental towards learning and career development. Students voiced that they are able to focus better on their university assignments and some, for the first time, started journaling. Self-discovery with regard to shining a light on what career they envisage for themselves was expressed by a few participants. Indeed, writing about self, identity and culture was a liberating experience for them.

Mental health and wellbeing

A few students stated that talking about their identity boosts their self-worth and self-confidence, and made them feel a sense of empowerment after attending each session. Sharing experiences that impacted self, religion, culture and traditions improved students’ emotional wellbeing and reduced feelings of disconnectedness and social isolation. The support group also made them more aware and sensitive to the needs of their peers. Feeling valued and a sense of belonging resonated across the group. Some recognised for the first time the emotional labour that othering can bring and valued the importance of seeking counselling from The Health and Wellbeing Centre.

Future directions

Attendees of the iMatter group are keen to develop a podcast to highlight the successes and challenges of ethnic minority students in higher education. This would be done in collaboration with Race-ed. An iMatter quarterly newsletter was also recommended to promote a more equitable campus life by illuminating the lived experiences of minority ethnic students and staff within the University community.

Are you a student from an ethnic minority background? Due to ongoing interests, the iMatter writing and support group is expected to re-commence for the new semester. Nichole Fernandez is happy to invite you to attend to share with others in an informal safe space. Please contact Nichole at N.Fernandez@ed.ac.uk.

References

Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), (2024a). “Higher Education Student Statistics: UK, 2022/23 – Student numbers and characteristics”. https://www.hesa.ac.uk/news/08-08-2024/sb269-higher-education-student-statistics/numbers

Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), (2024b). “Higher Education Staff Statistics: UK, 2022/23”. https://www.hesa.ac.uk/news/16-01-2024/sb267-higher-education-staff-statistics

Holtorf, C. (2020). Conservation and Heritage As Creative Processes of Future-Making. International Journal of Cultural Property, 27(2), 277–290. doi:10.1017/S0940739120000107.

Oduwaye, O., Kiraz, A., & Sorakin, Y. (2023). A Trend Analysis of the Challenges of International Students Over 21 Years. Sage Open, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231210387

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all participants for being part of the iMatter writing and support group and their contributions to the magazine.

Michelle King-Okoye

Dr Michelle King-Okoye is a Lecturer in Nursing Studies at the School of Health in Social Science, and co-director at the Centre for Research on Families and Relationships, the University of Edinburgh (currently on extended leave). Michelle has an interest in widening participation and increasing diversity for students. She also enjoys utilising innovative and novel teaching/learning activities at undergraduate and postgraduate levels.

Jansi Natarajan

Dr Jansi Natarajan is a former Lecturer in Nursing Studies at the School of Health in Social Science, the University of Edinburgh.

Nichole Fernandez

Dr Nichole Fernandez is a Research Fellow at the University of Edinburgh, with a background in visual sociology and media studies. Her experience in creative and visual methodologies has covered topics in migration, nationalism, health, and environment. Prior to her current position, Nichole was a Lecturer in Sociology at UC San Diego and an Assistant Professor at Hiram College, Cleveland.

In this post, Dr Matjaz Vidmar offers Part 2 of his exploration about the future of the take-home essay as a form of assessment in the era of generative large-language models. Matjaz is Lecturer in Engineering Management and Deputy Director of Learning and Teaching overseeing the interdisciplinary courses at the School of Engineering. This post is Part 2 of 2, and belongs to the Hot Topic theme: Critical insights into contemporary issues in Higher Education.

As explained in Part 1 of this article, generative writing tools need not be feared as the end of take-home writing assignments, if they are grounded on students’ critical reflection in connecting theory and practice. On the contrary, with the increase of group-work and experiential learning models, the take-home assessment has become more common in fields beyond the social science and humanities domains, such as engineering. For example, in the final assessment set in a number of courses I designed and now deliver across management, systems engineering and futures design domains, 60-70% of the final mark is obtained from a final, take-home essay.

However, for this to work at a time when chat-bots can read and write much faster than humans, I have developed an explicit assessment brief to discuss practical experience with respect to the core course concepts and literature. This assessment structure pre-dates the advent of generative writing tools, and is based on the pedagogy of reflexive critical thinking as a major marker of experiential learning and knowledge making. Most importantly, the students are also required to offer some original insight that the practical experience inspired. This leads them beyond the well-rehearsed generic principles from course literature and requires them to examine unique points of view (a dimension where generative algorithms struggle).

In my experience, whilst it is possible for students to articulate a well-structured generative writing prompt that identifies all three key components of the assessment answer (underlying theory, practical experience, and new insight), in doing so, they have, by-and-large, already demonstrated the critical understanding and skills outcomes from the course. Thus, the writing of the text in itself is not as pedagogically relevant (especially in an era where such tools are widely used in any case). Furthermore, by keeping the assignment length reasonably short (<1500 words), the limited scope and required conciseness requires writing skills that ensure the clarity of message, again demonstrating critical thinking and academic practice.

These considerations and observations have also been demonstrated in practice. During marking take-home essay assignments in all of my courses with this mode of assessment, we could only detect a small number of submissions where more extensive use of generative writing tools was likely (<5%). Furthermore, these submissions did suffer from the tale-tail signs of algorithmic syntax, both in terms of the artificial linguistic forms and predicted poor integration of different sections, even where the content was edited to be more or less on point.

Overall, we can note that there was no detectable advantage in terms of quality of writing output. If comparing the mark distribution for the final take-home essay assignment in the course Technology and Innovation Management (5 / MSc), for which we have the required comparable longitudinal data[1], there is no discernible change in student relative performance between academic years 2021-22 (pre-ChatGPT; n=74/63) and 2023-24 (post Chat-GPT; n=77/65). If anything, within the normal boundaries of cohort differentiation, the results from the more recent academic year(s) are slightly worse, despite the teaching team’s clear policy that use of generative writing tools is allowed as means to improve grammar, syntax and text flow.

Overall, this model is demonstrating that, with more focus in course delivery on experiential learning and then framing the take-home essay as an examination of critical reflection, the current generation of generative writing tools do not pose any serious threat to the robustness and integrity of take-home essay as a form of assessment. In addition, if the assessment objectives target explicit linkage of theoretical concepts to a managed, in-class experience, then the intellectual work required to construct a writing prompt for a generative writing tool already meets the core learning outcomes examined by such an assessment.

Having said that, it is nonetheless important that we educate learners about ethical and epistemological issues surrounding large language models within the context of in-class exercises and take-home writing support. On the epistemic side, it is critical to stress that language models are based on statistical patterns of language use, and as such cannot serve as un-checked sources of knowledge.For many widely accepted theories, the two can be strongly aligned. But with newer or more peripheral bodies of literature, the margins of error in accurately representing scholarly insights increase significantly.

On the matter of ethics, two critical issues need to be communicated:

1.  The models have been constructed with inherently biased and often exploitative data practices.
2. Inputting own original ideas into publicly available tools can lead to them being used for future model development / training and thus lack of credit to the originators.

Colleagues have already set the scene for making the most of generative writing tools, proposing both more adaptive teaching practices as well as assessment innovation. Given that it is here to stay, we should focus on making the most of this new technology to enhance the experiential learning process, and reject the temptation to revert to outdated assessment practices, as that would also inevitably make our teaching less relevant to students.

[1] Apart from lowering the word-count (which was planned ahead of time and unrelated to arrival of generative writing tools) there was no change to the assessment brief. Three other courses which I organise, with comparable assessment models (Building Near Futures, Systems Engineering: Thinking and Practice and Social Dimensions of Astrobiology and Space Exploration) also show no discernible advantage to students, though they are new, so there is no pre-generative-writing-tools data. Colleagues teaching Technology Entrepreneurship 5 / MSc, which I set up in 2020-2022 academic year with similar final assessment also report there is no change in results and little use of generative writing tools.

Matjaz Vidmar

Dr Matjaz Vidmar is Lecturer in Engineering Management at the University of Edinburgh and Deputy Director of Learning and Teaching overseeing the interdisciplinary courses at the School of Engineering. He is researching the collaborations within Open Engineering by bridging technical and social dimensions of innovation processes and (eco)systems as well as futures, strategies and design. In particular, he co-leads The New Real programme, a collaboration between the Edinburgh Futures Institute and Alan Turing Institute, experimenting with new AI experiences, practices, infrastructures, business models and R&D methodologies, including the flagship Open Prototyping. He is also the Deputy Director of the Institute for the Study of Science, Technology and Innovation and is involved in many international initiatives to develop the future of these fields, including several start-up companies and an extensive public engagement programme on interplay of STEM, arts, and futures literacy. More at www.blogs.ed.ac.uk/vidmar.

In this post, Dr Matjaz Vidmar explores the future of the take-home essay as a form of assessment in the era of generative large-language models. Matjaz is Lecturer in Engineering Management and Deputy Director of Learning and Teaching overseeing the interdisciplinary courses at the School of Engineering. This post is Part 1 of 2, and belongs to the Hot Topic theme: Critical insights into contemporary issues in Higher Education.

Since the global launch of chat-based access to generative large-language models (most notably, ChatGPT), a sense of technological and moral panic set in across the education sector. In particular, it seems that despite the well-documented existence of “essay mills”, where assignments could be written by hired “professional writers”, we nonetheless relied extensively on take-home written work as form of formative and summative assessment. With the now ubiquitous and freely-available writing tools in the hands of students, a number of colleagues became worried that marks on their courses were unsafe and considered (re)introduction of in-person timed exams as a way to stop what was perceived a wide-spread possibility of “cheating”.

However, is it that perhaps the issue with take-home written assessment is not about a sudden crisis arising from new technological development, but rather with some of our teaching and assessment practices?

In many ways, the sector has been struggling for years with the parallel challenges of the need to grow student numbers to keep up with maintaining expensive real-estate and facilities, whilst at the same time questioning what is the role of (higher) education in the modern information-driven, digital society. As more up-to-date knowledge is increasingly available online, the traditional (formal) forms of higher education have been resorting to focusing on honing in graduate skills and attributes in critical thinking, effective professional practice, and cross-cultural citizenship. Thus, it has become less clear how to identify the most effective and appropriate teaching and learning models.

One promising direction emerged when grappling with more complex and advanced concepts: an emphasis on experiential learning and group / project work. This also follows the leading pedagogical frameworks about practice-based learning and greater integration of individual ways of knowing and learning. The emphasis here is placed on critical personal reflection by connecting practical experience of challenges, and the strategies adopted to address them, with the academic understanding of the issues at stake.

The schematic shown below brings together some of the critical contributions mentioned above into a more holistic approach to learning and teaching, framing experiential learning as the grounding of the development of students through experimentation and experience. However, crucial to the attainment and assessment of deep personal understanding of the learning process is a meaningful reflective observation, connecting the (individual) practice with (collective) sense / knowledge-making.

In this post, Indigo Williams explores some of the factors contributing to the student mental health crisis, the varied ways this is shaping their university experience, and how we can begin to tackle it. Indigo is the Vice President Welfare at Edinburgh University Students’ Association. This post belongs to the Hot Topic theme: Critical insights into contemporary issues in Higher Education.

The mental health crisis amongst University of Edinburgh students is an increasingly pressing issue. We’ve been talking about the student mental health crisis for years and it’s not getting better. So, we must get serious about responding to it and accepting that this is, sadly, the new reality for students. For our students, transitioning to this new environment, coping with increasing academic pressures, trying to maintain some semblance of social life, and the rising cost-of-living, can all contribute to the development of new mental health concerns, or exacerbate existing ones.

Our community, with its diverse student body, is not immune to these challenges. A 2022 report by the Mental Health Foundation found that nearly three quarters of students in Scotland reported low well-being, and 45% said they had suffered from a serious psychological issue that they felt required professional help, so this is not an isolated issue. Ongoing conversations about where the responsibility for students with complex support needs lies – whether with the University or the NHS – often result in students falling through the gaps and not receiving the support they need. This is particularly concerning as students are increasingly coming to university with, or developing, more complex, less well-known, and chronic conditions such as disordered eating, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and psychosis.

Pressures faced by students

Students face a variety of different pressures, which can contribute to mental health concerns:

• Academic pressure: Higher Education, particularly at prestigious institutions such as Edinburgh, fosters a demanding academic environment with high student expectations, and where academic pressure is frequently intertwined with career pressure. This is especially true for international students, whose families have often invested significantly in their education expecting them to provide financial support to their families after graduation. The competitive nature of higher education, particularly on programmes where performance is compared publicly, can contribute to feelings of imposter syndrome.
• Financial hardship: As my fellow Sabbatical Officers, Dora and Ruth, explored in their contribution to this series, the cost-of-living in Edinburgh is soaring with sky-high rents and the ever-increasing cost of bills and essentials. These, combined with the debt burden of tuition fees and student loans, create a constant stress on all our students, even those not experiencing direct financial hardship.
• Social adjustment: For many of our students, University is their first experience of living away from home, often in a new city or even new country. This can be overwhelming for some, which when combined with the loss of existing friend and family support networks can lead to loneliness or isolation.
• Cultural adjustment: For the thousands of international students who make up nearly half of our community, adjusting to a new culture, language, and educational system can be challenging and contribute to mental health issues. These students can also sometimes find it challenging to navigate support services due to language and cultural barriers.
• Marginalised Communities: Students from marginalised communities often face unique challenges in higher education. Black, Asian, Minority Ethnic (BAME) students may experience discrimination, LGBTQ+ students may face bullying, and students with disabilities may encounter accessibility barriers. These challenges, combined with socioeconomic disadvantages and cultural barriers, can create significant pressure for underrepresented groups, making it difficult to thrive in academic environments.

The impact of mental health struggles on students’ lives

When we are experiencing a period of poor mental health and well-being, it’s not just our personal lives or social relationships that are affected. Students facing a mental health crisis often see a knock-on impact on their academic work. Whether that’s because they are struggling to concentrate and remember information, a specific activity – such as a presentation or group work – is causing them anxiety, or because they cannot find the motivation to engage with their studies, students often see their academic performance suffer. These challenges can often have further cumulative effects, creating a vicious cycle where students struggle to find their footing. The pressure to catch up and recover from academic setbacks can lead to increased stress, reduced confidence, and even more difficulties. Resubmitting assignments or re-sitting exams can further exacerbate these issues, making it difficult for students to break out of this negative spiral.

The transition to university can also be a challenging time for many students, often marked by feelings of loneliness and social isolation. The loss of familiar support systems, combined with the pressure to succeed academically, can contribute to feelings of stress and anxiety. Students may also assume that their struggles are unique, leading them to isolate themselves and avoid seeking help. This can create another vicious cycle, as social isolation can further exacerbate mental health issues. Particularly for new students, who may not yet have developed strong friendships or support networks, it’s important to recognise the value of reaching out to others and seeking support.

Some students may turn to substances to self-medicate or escape. When struggling with mental health, substance abuse can be used as a coping mechanism for arising challenges that may lack necessary support approaches or availability.

Mental health struggles can significantly hinder a student’s ability to reach their full academic potential. Challenges like anxiety, depression, and other complex conditions can lead to difficulties with concentration, motivation, and engagement in academic activities, often resulting in declining performance and increased stress. For some students, the cumulative impact of these challenges may become overwhelming, contributing to higher dropout rates among those experiencing severe mental health crises. The inability to continue their studies not only disrupts their immediate academic goals but also affects their prospects and overall well-being.

Let’s address the problem

It is important to recognise that even students with complex, severe, and chronic mental health conditions can still thrive when provided with the right support. This raises a critical question: what is the solution?

Addressing the growing mental health crisis will require us to work together to improve the well-being of our students. Below are a few suggestions:

• Destigmatise and open up the conversation: Students can feel embarrassed about seeking out support, and we all have a part to play in tackling the stigma around mental health. We have excellent Professional Services staff who can give students the in-depth support they might need, but there is a lot that other members of our community can do. If we all were aware of the signs to look out for and knew about the resources available, more students might feel comfortable in seeking out the support. Staff that want to feel more comfortable engaging in conversations around mental health and signposting students appropriately are encouraged to take the University’s Mental Health Awareness Course.

Doing so creates an open and kind environment in classes, and we often see this approach reflected in submissions for our annual Teaching Awards, with students telling us how supportive our community can feel.

• Effective services and responses: Students will likely seek out support and specific services when they’re in crisis, so the design and development of this offer should be carried out through the lens of the service user. Websites and resources should be easy to navigate, quick to digest and understand, and putting the focus on the needs of service users, rather than internal structures.
• Preventative measures: One effective approach is encouraging staff to consider how their course design impacts well-being. Simple adjustments, such as spacing out assessment deadlines to avoid clustering or scheduling them directly after weekends, can significantly reduce stress. Presentations and public speaking can also be anxiety-inducing, so offering alternatives like smaller group settings or pre-recorded options can help ease this pressure. Moreover, when teaching sensitive or distressing topics, staff should provide content warnings and foster a supportive and inclusive environment where students can express concerns.
• Early intervention: Although a crucial part to supporting students, early intervention does not lie solely on individual staff. While they do play a role in identifying students who may be struggling, the broader, structural issues must also be addressed to create lasting impact. Universities need to invest in comprehensive mental health resources, including accessible counselling services, proactive outreach programmes, and clear pathways for students to seek help early on. Addressing structural issues like high academic pressure, financial stress, and accessibility barriers requires coordinated efforts at the institutional level.

To conclude

Tackling the student mental health crisis requires a collective effort from both staff and students. By taking on the responsibility of understanding and recognising when members of our community are struggling, and by implementing the steps outlined above, we can make a meaningful impact. This approach not only supports those who are facing mental health challenges but also helps foster a positive, welcoming, and sportive university environment for everyone. Together, we can create a community where all students and staff feel valued, supported, and empowered to reach their full potential.

Students and staff can learn more about well-being and mental health services and support available on the University’s Wellbeing Services and the EUSA Advice Place webpages.

Indigo Williams

Indigo is Vice President Welfare at Edinburgh University Students’ Association.