The Practice
Why?
Teaching programmes across the School for Policy Studies engage students with content which may be traumatic and potentially hinder engagement with learning. Trigger or content warnings are increasingly used in Higher Education settings to prepare students for sensitive content.
What?
This project sought to explore the views and experiences of staff (including teaching and wellbeing staff) and Undergraduate students regarding the use of content warnings in teaching and learning environments.
How?
We conducted a scoping literature review and conducted two surveys (one with staff and one with students) and three focus group (one with wellbeing staff and two with students).
In total 6 wellbeing staff participated in the focus group and 9 students participated in two focus groups (5 in one and 4 in the other). The survey was completed by 36 members of staff and 27 students. All staff and UG students were asked to participate in the survey. All second and third years were invited to take part in the focus groups. The study was approved by the SPS research ethics committee.
What for?
We aimed to develop School-wide guidance for teaching staff on how to deliver potentially distressing content to curate inclusive teaching environments and support students in their learning journey. Guidance could then be adapted to be used in other subject areas across the University: as a project team, we know that this an issue which features across different areas including history, medicine, law, and anatomy.
Findings
Scoping review
The scoping review of the literature around the use of content or trigger warnings showed that there is no conclusive evidence around the value of their use in higher education settings. Proponents suggest that the use of warnings can be conducive to more inclusive teaching spaces, by acknowledging and accommodating the needs of students who may have experienced trauma. However, other studies argue that warnings can be harmful by creating anticipatory anxiety. Further they may compromise the students capacity for emotional resilience and even solidify their victim identity. Warnings may also be employed in a tokenistic way when not being integrated within a wider trauma-informed pedagogical framework. Overall, the scoping review found that further research is needed to explore the role of warnings in higher education settings.
Findings from surveys with staff and students
Staff survey showed that two thirds of teaching staff in SPS use content warnings with most of those who employ warnings, delivering them in both verbal and written format (eg on blackboard, lecture slides). Most of the staff refer students to University wellbeing services and a third give permission to students to opt out of learning, if needed (eg you can leave the room or take a break/ distract yourselves). The staff who do not use warnings preferred to provide more generic information about content. Some staff noted they were unsure how and if they should use these, or consider that warnings are not applicable to their content. Other staff mentioned the use of ground rules as a way of promoting thinking and around ones own and others’ needs and respectful discussions (see the quote below). Overall, there was not a consistent approach to the use of warnings across the school.
“We spend a significant part of our first seminar session setting out ‘group rules’ for how we will work together. This includes asking students what they need, from me and from each other, to be able to feel safe to engage in the learning, even when it might be difficult. We revisit these ‘ground rules’ halfway through the unit to see how they are working. The focus therefore is not on identifying what might ‘trigger’ a student and therefore, what they might want to avoid, but instead to try to make the space feel like a safe learning environment”
All students who responded to the survey reported having received content warnings, and most of them felt that teaching staff adequately prepare for distressing content. All of them except one felt that warnings are necessary when learning about sensitive issues.
“I think content warnings should be extremely clear on unit descriptions when students are choosing modules”
Focus group with wellbeing staff
The focus group with wellbeing staff (n=6) discussed when and how teaching staff should use content warnings, and how students should be supported. Data was analysed collaboratively via a thematic approach, as a project team. Overall wellbeing staff noted:
- The potential harmful aspects of content warnings which enable avoidance of sensitive teaching material and reinforce the victim identity-
- The importance of informing students about the teaching content rather than warning them about its potential distressing effect; thus positioning of students as adult learners with agency to make informed choices and feel empowered to act on these decisions (eg access support when needed)
- That teaching staff should signpost students to support and use language that normalise trauma responses. – although without trivialising them
- That Teaching staff should be mindful on how potentially distressing content is delivered, and the contextual aspects of the learning experience, such as the classroom discussions following presentation of content. It was emphasised that respectful conversations can be encouraged (eg through the use of ground rules).
There were mixed views about if students should be allowed to opt out. Some illustrative quotes from focus group participants are included below.
if there had been information in advance saying these are the topics we’re going to discuss she may have still been able to go along to that lecture and take part, she would have just been able to psychologically prepare herself for it, or make an informed choice, anyway.”
I was really struck by …actually changing how we’re offering this [content] to students and opening up that self-efficacy and saying this is what it is, but these are what you can do, like giving some of that empowerment back
Focus groups with students
We ran two focus groups and explored the views of nine second and third year SPS students on the use of content warnings within teaching. The students acknowledged the importance of being informed in advance about the nature of the content. It was agreed that the timing of content warning is important because when they were given on the same day as the sensitive content, they were unhelpful and could have an adverse effect.
“I think it’s always beneficial just to give -if you think there’s like any room for sensitivity- like just give content warning. And it’s not encouraging students to not engage, but it’s encouraging them to do whatever they need to do, to be in that head space to engage… And I think it’s also reframing it like that.(content advice)…So it’s not like, oh, this is sensitive, you shouldn’t touch it. Like, don’t, don’t look at it, if it’s even mildly upsetting, but more like giving them the tools necessary to equip themselves to be able to engage with it meaningfully.”
However, students also expressed how content warnings may end up sanitising (or diluting) the potentially challenging conversations that are intrinsic to the nature of the topics discussed with the SPS programmes. Similarly to wellbeing and teaching staff, students discussed the importance of having safe, respectful spaces where debate round contentious topics is encouraged and managed properly. They also acknowledged their own role in managing their wellbeing and expressed the need to be perceived as adults with agency over their learning process.
“It is inherent nature of what we’re studying that you have to expect that you’re going to have difficult discussions.”
“You don’t want to dampen the conversations (…) sometimes the difficult conversations that people do bring up can also be the most interesting and can be like the most valuable for some people. If someone does share an experience, then it can make someone else in the seminar think like, oh, I’ve not thought about it like that”
A suggested format for content warnings was shared with students in the focus group, which they provided feedback and advice about – this has informed our final recommendations.
What has been the impact of this practice? (e.g. the student experience and/or staff experience). This could include feedback from students, the external examiner etc – also any changes to the quality of work/assessments, student satisfaction etc.
The project’s findings led to the development of recommendations for School teaching staff, specifying what can be done at Program and Unit level, as well as during lecture and seminar sessions. These recommendations were presented as interim findings during the School’s Teaching and Learning week and the BILT conference in July 2024. School Staff corroborated the findings around the importance of creating safe learning spaces beyond the use of content warnings (for example, setting up group rules that involve thinking about what to do when someone or themselves feel unsettled).
Following this, the student focus groups were held (November 2024) which have shaped the final recommendations. The final recommendations will be shared at School and Programme level in TB2 2025.
The recommendations suggest reframing content warnings as content advice and providing information in advance about the teaching content are proposed as more effective ways to introduce sensitive content to students, in order to mitigate the potential negative impact of content warnings. At the same time, our recommendations highlight the importance of context when delivering content; how to curate teaching and learning spaces that are emotionally safe and underpinned by respect and empathy for each other. Within this framework, students should be placed as adult learners with autonomy to make their own informed decisions around their learning journey and be referred to appropriate support when needed. The recommendations aim to be part of an integrated approach to teaching sensitive content to ensure consistent practice across the School. The infographic is attached below, and also shared separately with this report. A suggested text to provide content advice has also been developed and will be shared with teaching staff.
Next Steps
It is hoped that a blogpost for the School and also for a wider HE audience will be prepared in 2025. We aim to produce an academic article reporting on the empirical findings in 2025. The PI will be presenting the findings of the study at the Advance HE national conference in April 2025
The team have had contacts from other parts of the University wishing to discuss content warnings and we are really happy to discuss with any other school/programme.
The PI and team are interested in exploring further opportunities to explore this topical issue further in an interdisciplinary way through internal or external funding.
We are very grateful to all the students and staff who took part in the study and shared their views.
Contact
For more information, please contact Jessica Roy – jessica.roy@bristol.ac.uk
Leave a Reply