Bristol Institute for Learning and Teaching

Abstract

Research indicates that there are cultural and linguistic factors specific to international students studying abroad that may result in less engagement from these students during group work. Findings from semi-structured interviews conducted with international undergraduate psychology students enrolled at the University of Bristol revealed that a cultural similarities icebreaker helped with bonding during group work. Therefore, we empirically tested the effects of an icebreaker (generic vs cultural similarities) and fee status on attitudes towards group work, attitudes towards statistics. Quantitative analysis revealed that after the cultural similarities icebreaker international students has and increased in appreciation of group work, whereas home students decreased in group work appreciation immediately after the icebreaker (p=.05).

However, this effect was not found at the end of the semester. Within the attitudes towards statistics questionnaire the sub-test of anxiety towards testing had a main effect of fee status (home students had greater anxiety at T1 than T3) and icebreaker (those that did the cultural similarities intervention had better anxiety towards statistics). However, there was no interaction between icebreaker and fee status on attitudes to statistics (overall or any sub-section) at any time point. Despite there being no effect quantitatively on the sense of belonging being affected by icebreaker and fee status, how group work was affected by sense of belonging was a prominent theme from the focus groups. The findings of this have shaped our curriculum and have applications to any HE courses that includes group work.

Mini-Bios

Polly Barr is interested in decolonising our curriculum, and student experience of how we decolonise our curriculum. I’m also interested in student experience more widely particularly in relation to research methods and group work, international student experience, how we can ensure our teaching practices are inclusive, how to we can create feedback that is useful for students and use of AI in bettering our teaching practices.

Jiexin Zhang is a PhD student at the University of Bristol. My research explores international students’ attitudes and experiences with the UK healthcare system, aiming to develop a digital intervention to support healthcare navigation and enhance self-efficacy in managing common infections. I am also interested in how exposure to different cultures, educational systems, and group work shape international students’ sense of belonging in their host country.

Abstract

In today’s diverse university environment, it is crucial to understand how to effectively support a wide range of students, empowering them to navigate their academic journeys successfully. With the support of BILT and the inclusion team, we initiated a longitudinal study tracking 36 undergraduate students throughout their studies at the University of Bristol. The study is now in its second year and we are excited to share our initial findings with delegates at the BILT Conference. Our project commenced in February 2025 with a Hackathon, where these first-year students shared their experiences and reflected on what could have better supported them during their initial term.

This event provided a platform for students to voice their challenges and propose solutions, fostering a sense of community and collaboration from the outset. In May 2025, we conducted six focus groups with the same students to delve deeper into key themes identified during the Hackathon: Assessment, Academia, Community, Communication, and Transitions, aligned to the literature. These focus groups allowed us to gather more detailed insights and explore the evolving needs and experiences of students as they progressed through their university journey. In January 2026, we met with the students for the third time and learnt more about their experience of second year so far, whether their predictions for how things would be were correct, and the areas they feel they are struggling with.

The themes we are investigating are critical to understanding the multifaceted nature of student transitions and aligned with the literature (Clough et al, 2024 and Thompson et al, 2021). Assessment focuses on how students perceive and cope with various evaluation methods. Academia examines their academic integration and engagement with course material. Community explores the social aspects of university life and the importance of building supportive networks. Communication looks at the effectiveness of information dissemination and interaction between students and faculty. Finally, Transitions addresses the broader process of adapting to university life and the ongoing changes students face.

This presentation will share our findings to date, highlighting the initial themes and insights gathered from the hackathon and two sets of focus groups. We will discuss the implications of these findings for enhancing student support and propose strategies for creating a more inclusive and active educational environment. By sharing our research, we hope to contribute to the ongoing conversation about how to best support students in a changing world and inspire colleagues to undertake similar initiative.

Mini-bios

Fiona is a Lecturer in Academic Development at the Bristol Institute for Learning and Teaching (BILT), working with colleagues across the university to support teaching practice. She has spent most of her career working in education in a number of different countries and has a keen interest in the international student experience. She is passionate about learning for the long term. She is particularly interested in learning design and how to make course content meaningful and accessible, integrating technology when suitable, to provide an inclusive learning experience for all.

Amy is a Senior Education Developer at the Bristol Institute for Learning and Teaching (BILT). She has a keen interest in instructional design.

Abstract

Across UK higher education, persistent disparities remain in the experiences and outcomes of students from underrepresented and/or marginalised backgrounds. Intersectionality considers interconnected power relations as well as social and cultural structures in processes of inequality (Cech, 2022). The project: “Ca-pow!”, based in the Faculty of Engineering, developed an intervention to improve academic personal tutoring, centring the experience of intersectionally disadvantaged students. The intervention developed through Ca-pow! centred on student-delivered workshops for academic personal tutors (PTs) and student-facing staff members (SFS), co-designed and facilitated by a cohort of 12 intersectional student co-producers (SCPs).

These students, selected through an application process highlighting their identities and educational journeys, worked part-time over four months alongside the project lead, Dr Neha Chandarana, and an external professional coach, Dr Matt Jacobs. Through a series of experiential sessions, the SCPs deepened their understanding of identity, intersectionality, and their manifestation within students’ educational experiences. They went on to co-design interactive workshop content and develop their facilitation skills before delivering the workshops to staff members.

The final two-part workshop engaged 47 university staff members (with 43 attending both parts). In the workshops, the aims as presented to the participants were to enable them to develop a deeper understanding of:

• What it means to be an intersectionally disadvantaged undergraduate engineering and/or computer science student at the University of Bristol

• How to use their power (as personal tutors and student-facing staff members) to support intersectionally disadvantaged students

• Their positionality and how this might affect their relationship with intersectionally disadvantaged students A key learning from Ca-pow! was the transformative power of co-production, whereby students became co-researchers, workshop designers, and facilitators.

The findings highlight that this approach improved their confidence, presentation skills, and sense of belonging, while also reshaping staff awareness of how different types of privilege and disadvantage intersect in higher education. We did face challenges during the project, including the initially poor uptake from staff members of the opportunity to participate in workshops and a misalignment in staff expectations of what the workshops would provide.

Despite this, Ca-pow! demonstrated that embedding student voices meaningfully into interventions aiming to improve student experience can amplify their impact from the perspective of staff members as well as the students themselves. This project offers practical, transferable value across Bristol and beyond, as the approach taken is scalable across disciplines and institutions.

Presenting team

Presenter 1: Dr Nicola Warren-Lee is an Associate Professor based in the School of Education and PGCE Geography Subject Lead.

Presenter 2: Dr Maria Tsapali is a Senior Lecturer based in the School of Education.

Additional team members not able to present:

Dr Neha Chandarana (Project Lead) is a Senior Lecturer based in the School of Civil, Aerospace, and Design Engineering and Athena Swan Lead for the Faculty of Science and Engineering

Dr Anna Baker is a Senior Lecturer based in the School of Civil, Aerospace, and Design Engineering

Dr Susanne Quadflieg is a Senior Lecturer based in the School of Psychological Science and APVC for Global Engagement for the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences

Abstract

This project investigates how subject specialists can better support international students on International Foundation Programmes (IFP) by reducing discipline specific language barriers. Students entering STEM pathways such as Biomedical Sciences and Psychology face an immediate and intensive exposure to both Tier 3 technical terminology and Tier 2 discipline specific academic vocabulary, as defined by Beck, McKeown and Kucan’s tiered vocabulary framework. For many speakers of other languages, these linguistic demands are among the most significant challenges affecting confidence and academic performance. The project aims to address this challenge by embedding inclusive language support strategies directly into subject teaching, rather than positioning language development within a separate academic English provision.

Survey data from students at two proficiency levels (CEFR B2 and C1) highlighted differing needs. Group B consisted of students at CEFR B2(IELTS 5.5–6.5), representing upper intermediate English users, while Group C included students at CEFR C1 (IELTS 6.5–7.5), representing advanced users. B level students struggled most with academic language, vocabulary retention, and limited opportunities to practise English, while C level students reported cultural adjustment and motivation as key challenges. Both groups found assessment requirements difficult to interpret and experienced vocabulary overload. When practising English, Group C students engaged more readily in speaking with peers and tutors, whereas Group B students expressed greater reluctance and reported fewer opportunities to use English in daily life. Language-skill challenges also varied, with 30% of Group B reported struggling with pronunciation, while almost 50 % of Group C reported no difficulties with reading, listening, writing, speaking or pronunciation.

The project focused on the development of two key pedagogical interventions. The first was a subject specific Tier 2 academic word bank, integrated into weekly vocabulary resources with synonyms and explanations to support comprehension, communication, and assessment preparation. The second was a new inclusive pedagogical tool designed to link Tier 2 academic language with Tier 3 technical terminology, facilitating students compose, express and communicate complex concepts in both written and verbal form. This inclusive tool offers inherent scaffolding, supports success of all students despite their starting points, functions as an active learning activity, and serves as an effective classroom assessment technique.

Early use of these interventions has shown strong student engagement, improved confidence, and reduced anxiety surrounding discipline specific language. The session argues that subject embedded language support can play a crucial role in promoting equitable learning for international as well as home students and offers practical strategies that other disciplines may adopt to reduce linguistic disadvantage and enhance academic success.

Our project aligns closely with the inclusive teaching and active learning themes by embedding language inclusive active learning practices directly into subject teaching. By integrating Tier 2-word bank and the inclusive pedagogical tool into Biomedical Sciences and Psychology IF units, we provide multiple opportunities for students to develop and practise discipline-specific language with in-built scaffolding support. Furthermore, these tools may also help international students build a stronger sense of academic belonging from the point of entry.

Mini-bios

Elena Borodina

Elena has worked as a teaching practitioner for the past 14 years across HE and FE sectors. Elena is currently teaching Biomedical Sciences unit of the International Foundations Programme. Her passion for teaching and learning incorporates reflective practice, student centred and evidence-informed pedagogical approaches. She has particular interests in creative teaching methods, active learning, classroom assessment techniques, visible learning and discipline-specific language development in STEM subjects.

Blagoy Vargolomov
Blagoy works as a Lecturer in Social Sciences on the International Foundation Programme at the Centre for Academic Language and Development. Blagoy has taught units across range of areas within the social sciences and humanities, including cultural studies, contemporary global issues, historical perspectives, foundations of psychology and research methods. Blagoy has worked on curriculum and assessment design, and on education programme development across social science subjects. Blagoy’s interests include governance, the politics of resilience, youth studies, critical pedagogy, international relations theory, drawing upon post-structuralist thinking and continental philosophy.

Abstract

Psychology students, like those enrolled in any research-intensive discipline, must develop critical thinking, logical reasoning, and a robust understanding of research methods. At the same time, the rapid integration of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) into higher education presents a pedagogical tension: while these tools may support learning, unstructured use risks reducing opportunities for students to practise and consolidate core research skills. This intervention study examines whether structured, themed engagement with GenAI within Research Methods (RM) units can enhance research literacy while simultaneously fostering critical AI literacy.

The intervention was embedded within scheduled RM workshops. Each week, students were encouraged to revise that week’s theoretical content using GenAI, guided by a specific thematic lens designed to promote distinct research skills. Early sessions included activities such as using GenAI as a quiz generator, engaging in role-play to explore material’s understanding, summarising papers, and analysing the structure of research reports. The central aim was not simply to use AI as a revision aid, but to encourage students to experiment with multiple modes of engagement and to reflect on how different forms of interaction shaped their understanding. Research literacy was conceptualised as the development of discipline-specific skills, including the ability to critique research design, apply appropriate terminology, interpret empirical findings, and engage with ethical dilemmas. The study adopted a qualitative design.

Students were invited to participate voluntarily in focus groups conducted before, during, and after the intervention. These discussions explored shifts in students’ perspectives on the use of GenAI in their study, their revision practices, and their understanding of GenAI’s role in academic work in general. The intervention also functioned as preparation for a subsequent GenAI-related assessment in which students were required to critically evaluate an AI-generated output. This final reflective component aimed to cultivate critical AI literacy, encouraging students to interrogate the limitations, epistemic boundaries, and ethical implications of AI-generated content. Pre-intervention focus groups revealed significant uncertainty among students regarding their preparedness to use GenAI responsibly. Students expressed a desire for clearer institutional guidance, raised concerns about ethical dilemmas in assessment contexts, and questioned the potential impact of AI use on long-term skill development. These findings suggest that students do not approach GenAI uncritically; rather, they seek structured opportunities to engage with it thoughtfully.

This study contributes to emerging debates on GenAI in higher education by reframing AI not as a shortcut, but as a pedagogical tool that, when critically structured, may deepen engagement with discipline-specific knowledge. By embedding guided AI interaction within core research training, the project proposes a model for aligning research literacy and AI literacy as mutually reinforcing competencies in psychology education

Mini-Bios

Laura Contu – Dr Laura Contu is a Lecturer in the School of Psychology and Neuroscience with a research focus on teaching and learning in higher education. Her work examines how students engage with GenAI during study and assessment, and how this use relates to the development of higher-order thinking and reasoning skills, particularly within science disciplines. She collaborates with King’s College London on research exploring GenAI and critical thinking. Within the School, she leads the Psychology division of the GenAI in Teaching Working Group, coordinates Research Methods 1 unit on the Psychology Conversion MSc, and leads the Dissertation Unit for the MSc Applied Neuropsychology. Originally trained in preclinical neurobiology and psychopharmacology, her earlier research focused on addiction and diet-related cognitive performance. She has received several internal awards to support her pedagogical research.

Michael Smyth – Michael Smyth is a Lecturer in the School of Psychology and Neuroscience with academic interests in social psychology, cyberpsychology, GenAI, students’ university experience, qualitative and quantitative research approaches. His current research focuses on exploring the ways in which research literacy and study confidence in research methods can be enhanced through critical engagement with GenAI, the impact of using GenAI on higher-order thinking and reasoning skills, and the effect of virtual reality and GenAI mindfulness-based interventions on students’ anxiety and mood levels. As a school contributor he directs Research Methods 2 unit on Psychology Conversion MSc and teaches cyberpsychology across Year 3 undergraduates and convention MSc students, and forensic applications of social psychology to year 3 UGs. As a member of the undergraduate management group (UMG) and involvement with MSc conversion units, he keenly contributes to programme enhancement, strategy and delivery of education.

Gaurav Saxena – Gaurav Saxena is a final-year PhD student in Psychology. His doctoral research focuses on the decolonisation of the psychology curriculum. He is also working with BILT as a Student Fellow, contributing to the theme of AI and education. Within this area, he is particularly interested in understanding how students, including other doctoral researchers, are using AI in their learning and research. He is launching a BILT blog series exploring the decolonisation of AI. He worked as a student partner in the project ‘Enhancing Research Literacy Through Critical Engagement with Generative AI in Psychological Research Methods Units’ where Master’s psychology students were delivered a series of sessions designed to enhance their GenAI literacy and skills.

Abstract

The accelerated adoption of large language models (LLMs) in higher education brings significant opportunities alongside notable challenges for academic supervision. The present study aims to explore the envision of how university supervisors could integrate LLMs into their mentoring processes, determine the ethical, pedagogical, and practical challenges that arise, and collaboratively develop an “AI-ready supervision” toolkit that preserves human judgment while allowing students to progress successfully with their studies.

Drawing on a qualitative pilot-survey framework, the pilot stage will involve conducting a series of email-based interviews by sending a short set of questions to a purposive sample of academic supervisors at the University of Bristol. We will use the feedback from these email interviews to fine-tune the interview guides for the full study.

Drawing on those insights, we will:

• Conduct in-depth, semi-structured interviews with supervisors and students in each cohort to explore their experiences, concerns and developing best practices around LLM use.

• Observe a series of supervisory meetings in real time to monitor how prompts are created, feedback is negotiated, and AI outputs are constructed into the conversation.

• Collect and qualitatively analyse student work artefacts (drafts, proposals) from before and after LLM engagement, using inductive thematic coding to track shifts in argumentation, voice and critical reflection.

Our core inquiries ask: How are supervisors deploying LLMs to scaffold academic writing, research design and critical reflection? In what ways does the supervisory role shift, from knowledge gatekeeper to process mentor, when AI acts as co-writer or brainstorming partner? What literacies are needed to evaluate AI outputs, detect bias and uphold academic integrity? Which scaffolded strategies (prompt workshops, reflective debriefs, rubric adjustments) best balance technological assistance with authentic mentorship?

Preliminary findings will highlight trust dynamics around AI credibility, emerging tensions between instructional support and gatekeeping roles, and widespread prompt-literacy gaps. Building on these insights, we will co-design with supervisors and students a suite of ethical checklists, scaffolded interventions and competency guidelines to ensure generative AI amplifies, rather than supplants, human expertise.

Mini-bio

An Electric/Electronics and Communications Teaching Technologist at the Faculty of Science and Engineering, Khalid holds a B.Sc. in Electronics & Communication, an M.Sc. in ICT, and a PhD in Communications Engineering (University of Bristol). His doctoral research focused on realistic mmWave V2X channel characterisation, modelling and performance optimisation for autonomous vehicles in 5G and beyond. Since 2000, he has held roles as Research Assistant, Communication Engineer, Service Engineer, CEO of an Internet Service Provider, Lecturer, and private academic tutor before starting the PhD. At Bristol, he assisted in delivering technical curricula, cosupervises UG/PG projects in EE, mechanical and biorobotics, and develops software/hardware teaching tools. His previous research includes indoor wireless channels investigations and renewable energy systems. He is a Fellow of the HEA, has been nominated for multiple Bristol Teaching Awards, and has published and presented multiple technical and pedagogical research papers and posters in different venues, both nationally and internationally.

Abstract

There is an emerging body of literature on generative AI (GenAI) in education. However, this research has largely overlooked a key group: postgraduate research (PGR) students, who may be using AI in diverse ways to support their research. At the University of Bristol, the PGR Code of Practice permits the use of AI for proofreading and related activities (Academic Quality and Policy Office, 2025a), alongside recent guidance on the acceptable use of AI in thesis writing (Academic Quality and Policy Office, 2025b). However, this guidance risks assuming that Gen AI use is limited to thesis writing alone.

In practice, PGR students may use Gen AI to support a range of research activities, including planning, conceptualising, translating, coding, generating images or graphs, and data analysis. There may also be significant inter- and intra-disciplinary variation in how students engage with AI. Against this backdrop, this study explores how Bristol PGR students use Gen AI across different schools and faculties in research activities leading to thesis production, what they perceive as the main benefits and challenges, and how well supported they feel in using Gen AI.

Fifteen University of Bristol PGR students from three faculties, both home and international students, representing different departments, and year groups, participated in semi-structured interviews lasting approximately 40 minutes. Data is being analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. In the talk, I will present preliminary themes generated and will also discuss the implications of my findings.

Mini-bio

Gaurav Saxena is a final-year PhD student in Psychology. His research focuses on the decolonisation of the psychology curriculum. He is also a Student Fellow at the Bristol Institute for Learning and Teaching, where he works on the theme of artificial intelligence and education. In this role, he is particularly interested in understanding how postgraduate research students use and perceive artificial intelligence in their research.

Abstract

The rise of generative Artificial Intelligence (genAI) has provided significant challenges and opportunities for higher education providers in the UK, with the vast majority of students estimated to be using genAI as part of their degree course (up to 92% in 2025; Freeman, 2025). Concerns around student use to circumvent learning outcomes have been expressed (Cotton, Cotton, & Shipway, 2023), but psychologists have also suggested that genAI could be useful at various stages of research (MacRae, 2024). For example, large language models can generate code for verifiable tasks (e.g., creating r-script for data analysis), synthesising complex literature, or facilitating hypothesis generation (Young, 2024). The Research Methods units within the BSc Psychology mirrors professional research within an authentic teaching environment.

Students work in small groups to design and build research studies, collect and analyse data, and disseminate findings. Currently, there is little understanding of student attitudes toward using genAI use within the context of a psychological research methods unit, which this study aimed to explore. This is important because emerging evidence has shown that students’ attitudes towards genAI is an important predictor of genAI awareness and usage (Otermans, et al., 2025). Student genAI use is also influenced by interpersonal factors, such as motivation for their degree (degree apathy; Playfoot et al., 2024) and self-efficacy using genAI (Asio & Gadia, 2024). Thus, this study also investigated factors that predict attitudes toward genAI use in the research methods course. In total, 300 undergraduate students were recruited to complete an online survey that included completing measures of degree apathy, learning style, consumer orientation, study self-efficacy, research self-efficacy, and attitudes toward genAI use.

Attitudes toward genAI use was measured for confidence using genAI, as well as a novel measure created to capture attitudes towards specific components of completing psychological research (e.g., generating hypotheses, programming experiments, data analysis, etc.). Results suggest that the novel measure of genAI use in research methods contained 5 factors; using genAI for 1) generating and analysing qualitative data, 2) to visualise or format study information, 3) to support learning or clarify knowledge, 4) to generate ideas and questions for research, and 5) to generate and analyse quantitative data. Overall, attitudes toward using genAI within research methods was low, suggesting some reluctance by students to use genAI within research. This was particularly evident within factors where genAI was used to generate and analyse qualitative or quantitative data. However, using genAI to visualise and format study information or to support learning and clarify knowledge was relatively higher than other factors.

These results tentatively suggest that students may be beginning to think ethically about genAI use within psychological research methods. Furthermore, multiple linear regression analysis indicated that the strongest predictor of attitudes toward genAI use in research methods was confidence using genAI, with self-efficacy in researching previous literature negatively predicting genAI attitudes. Thus, educators, particularly those running research laboratories, may want to consider how genAI could be used within these settings, and how best to empower students to use these tools confidently.

Mini-bios

Craig: I am a lab lead for the first-year psychological research methods course on the BSc and MSci Psychology programme as well as unit director for Biological Psychology on the MSc Psychology (Conversion) programme. My pedagogical interests include creating inclusive teaching and learning environments and assessments, understanding generative AI use within teaching, and enhancing the student experience (in particular, student wellbeing). Some of my recent work includes investigating student attitudes toward assessment and feedback with a focus on inclusivity. I am a Senior Tutor and School Academic Integrity Officer. More broadly, my research interests are in the cognitive and emotional effects of substance use, with a focus on alcohol hangovers.
Polly: I currently teach the practical side of higher research methods to year 2 BSc and year 3 MSci students and I am unit director for the Cognitive Module in the Conversion to Psychology course. My pedagogical interests broadly range around cognitive learning theory and student experience. Some of my recent work include investigating whether captioning of online lectures improves outcomes, whether student learning and consumer attitudes affect outcomes and international student experience of group work and belonging after icebreaker sessions. I am the departments decolonisation lead so as well as cocreation with students a more decolonised and inclusive curriculum I am passionate about improving visibility and my research largely investigates student experience of decolonising the curriculum. My research interests stem from language production. I’m interested in the processing of monolingual and bilingual language production and cognitive control associated with and extended beyond language. I am also interested in how bilingualism affects the onset and decline of dementia.
Bruna: I am a social psychologist teaching individual differences to second-year undergraduate psychology students and serving as Unit Director for Self & Social Psychology on the MSc Psychology (Conversion) programme. My pedagogical research interests focus on attitudes, perceptions, and experiences of students and educators in relation to generative AI in Higher Education. I am also particularly interested in exploring ways to enhance the experience of international students in the School of Psychology & Neuroscience, which aligns with my administrative role as Internationalisation Education and Experience Lead. More broadly, my research examines individual and cross-cultural differences in interpersonal relationships, ranging from predictors of relationship satisfaction to relational conflict.

Abstract

To ‘reconnect’ students, and those teaching them, is to remind us all that we are thinking, feeling human beings and part of an interconnected world. By engaging with ourselves, each other and the planet in ways including but beyond the purely rational so we reconnect not just through words and ideas but at a more fundamental, inner, way: in a deeper sense of belonging to a shared humanity and a living, breathing, planet.

To be truly student centred, teaching and learning needs to tap into who and what we all, teachers and learners alike, are deep within us. In this workshop we explore an inner aspect of Teaching & Learning, blending conventional pedagogy with that based around contemplative practice and a focus on consciousness: on how we think.

You’ll be introduced to ‘3 Ways of Knowing’, a recognition that intellectual knowledge is but one form of knowing. Indigenous peoples past and present, for example, engage with each other and the world in a very different mode of consciousness. The workshop will include exercises to encourage and enable a reconnection into this pre-colonial/non-colonial way of thinking and promote reflection on how this mind-state may benefit our deeper understanding of any particular topic.

During this workshop you will be introduced to Consciousness Education and the Consciousness Education project, an international participatory enquiry research project exploring the practice and value of ‘consciousness beyond the rational’. Such an alternative way of ‘thinking’ can be seen as a reconnection into our innate, inner self: not just intellectual mind but heart and soul. With such an holistic approach come benefits to our own wellbeing, of innate inclusion and of being better able to respond to the Climate Crisis, for example.

It is suggested that the challenge of disengaged students, might be a direct result of disconnection: between the words and concepts being taught and ‘what it means to be human’. In exploring the principles of ‘consciousness beyond’ and practice of reconnecting, so we will experience, through interactive examples, how engagement, motivation and resilience can be enabled from within. And, as we reconnected at a deeper, more meaningful level, so we feel innately supported and valued.

Mini-Bio

Following a first career at the forefront of Quality & Reliability management in the electronics industry, Keith retrained in holistic health, becoming a Reiki Master-Teacher and running retreats in Portugal. His PhD (Bangor University, 2013) was on ‘Transcending Thought’: the experience and perceived benefits of ‘consciousness beyond the rational’. Already focused on the value to personal wellbeing, he has extended the ideas since to link to deep decolonisation and education for sustainable development. Keith is currently School Safety Officer in Earth Sciences and in Geography, and a Wellbeing Champion. In 2024 he established the Exploring the Inner Staff Club (which now has over 200 members) and is a project leader within the Conscious Education project.

Abstract

To get the most out of their time at university, students must attend university, yet student absenteeism is increasing across the sector. A broad range of reasons have been offered to explain this: e.g. Němejc and Smékalová ‘s study found that students self-reported being absent due to ‘(1) job, employment, (2) inconvenient time of lectures, (3) lack of time, (4) useless lectures’ (2018: 11), while Şahin (2023) points to the impact of health problems, and Otte highlights both the rising costs of living and student mental health crisis (Otte, 2024, with comments from University of Bristol students).

The diversity of suggested causes is reflective of the fact that identifying the specific reasons for absence is very difficult as, by definition, absent students are not visible to academic staff and so cannot be asked. The findings of Young et al. reflect this problem, as though they sought to establish why students were not attending, they ultimately concluded: ‘we do not believe we succeeded in accessing the students whose views had been excluded from previous research and their views therefore remain unknown’ due to the ‘methodological challenges’ of this research (2010: 293).

This project has two key drivers: 1) that the best way to understand student absence and non-engagement is to directly hear from students; and 2) that students who are not engaging will either not discuss this with staff (in part because they may not be there to ask!) or will not feel that they can be honest about their non-engagement. Therefore, the best way to understand student absence is to utilise a community-researcher model. This project reports on some early lessons learned from our attempts to use this method to investigate student absence.

Mini-bio

Ashley is a Senior Lecturer in Politics, on the teaching track who is interested in political theory, especially environmental political theory, and pedagogical research.

Abstract

How do students understand academic challenge and when does the challenge enhance rather than undermine their wellbeing? This paper presents findings from a qualitative study of undergraduate students from two universities in England, exploring how they perceive academic challenge and its relationship to mental wellbeing. In alignment with the BILT 2026 theme of Student Centred by Design, the study foregrounds student voice to rethink how curriculum and assessment can be intentionally designed to foster agency, belonging and meaningful learning. 

Drawing on survey data and in-depth student conversations across three disciplines, the findings challenge dominant interpretations of academic challenge as high workload, cognitive load or curriculum intensity (Kuh, 2008; Nelson Laird et al., 2008). Instead, students describe challenge as a developmental movement from receiving knowledge to authoring it. Across the data three interconnected elements emerge. 

Firstly, independent secondary research was widely perceived as academically stretching. Students associated challenge with having to locate, evaluate and synthesise sources beyond lecture material. This shift from being ‘spoon-fed’ to exercising judgement signalled a movement towards epistemic agency and deciding what counts as credible knowledge and constructing reasoned arguments (Nieminen & Ketonen, 2024). Secondary research, often overlooked in undergraduate research discourse, emerged as a powerful site of identity development. 

Secondly, applying theory to practice, through essays, case studies, laboratory work, and problem-solving seminars was described as particularly challenging and meaningful. Students emphasised ‘doing’ rather than ‘just listening’, framing application as a transition from knowing about a discipline to thinking and acting within it (Barnett, 2007). Applied assessment was not just authentic pedagogy (Sambell, McDowell & Montgomery, 2012), but was also identity work (Mezirow, 2008), enabling students to engage with disciplinary ways of thinking. 

Finally, reframing understanding, or developing and defending personal perspectives, represented the deepest form of challenge. Students described confronting assumptions, negotiating ambiguity and engaging with diverse viewpoints. Academic challenge here became both epistemic and ethical, aligning with theories of self-authorship (Baxter Magolda, 2007) and Barnett’s (2012) argument for higher education as a space of ethical formation. 

Crucially, students linked the wellbeing impact of challenge to three mediating resources consistent with self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2020): autonomy (choice and personal meaning), relatedness (peer and staff relationships) and competence (skills and confidence). When challenge aligned with students’ identities, interests and future aspirations (Oyserman, 2015), it was experienced as energising and fulfilling. When disconnected from belonging or perceived competence, it generated anxiety and self-doubt. 

Mini-bio

Ros O’Leary is an Associate Professor in Learning and Teaching, and Head of BILT. Her research focuses on the intersection between the academic challenge and student mental wellbeing in higher education. 

Abstract

This presentation reports on a qualitative study of two curriculum-level EAP materials writers responsible for foundation-year provision. It examines how they conceptualise productive struggle when designing learning tasks, and whether applying Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) prompts design changes that could make active learning more inclusive for students with diverse prior knowledge and language backgrounds. It concludes by outlining practical design ideas for reducing cognitive load while promoting active learning. Active learning is widely promoted in higher education as a route to stronger learning outcomes than traditional lecturing (Freeman et al., 2014). However, more activity is not automatically more effective or inclusive. Tasks designed to promote autonomy and struggle can place uneven demands on students, particularly in foundation-year and multilingual contexts where learners may need to allocate additional working-memory capacity to language processing. CLT provides a way to explain why active learning can fail to deliver its intended benefits: when task demands exceed working-memory capacity, learners may be unable to process key information, which limits learning (Sweller, 1994).  

Although CLT has been critiqued in relation to the validity of some of its core constructs (de Jong, 2010), recent reconceptualisations by Kalyuga and Plass (2025) treat it more as a framework for thinking about cognitive load in the design of learning tasks. In this view, what counts as intrinsic or extraneous load depends on the purpose of the task and the characteristics of the learner. Cognitive demands are shaped not only by prior knowledge, but also by motivation and affect, which influence how learners allocate working-memory resources. Data were generated in four stages. First, materials were analysed. Second, semi-structured interviews explored how the materials writers understood productive struggle and how this shaped decisions about scaffolding, task openness, and linguistic complexity. Third, a structured CLT-informed session was delivered to the materials writers. Finally, the materials writers revised selected materials and follow-up interviews explored whether and how their assumptions and design decisions shifted. Preliminary analysis suggests that struggle was frequently framed as pedagogically valuable, particularly where ambiguity was seen as prompting students to slow down and work things out. Open-ended activities were described as allowing space for exploration and different responses. Materials writers sometimes assumed that because students had encountered a skill before, they would be able to use it again independently without further scaffolding.  

There were also assumptions that students would reread difficult sections, look up unfamiliar vocabulary, and respond positively to conversational academic tone. Finally, individual tasks commonly combined several aims within a single activity (e.g., developing metalanguage, promoting discussion, encouraging autonomy). While these tasks may appear to promote active learning, they may not be inclusive if combined cognitive demands exceed some students’ working-memory capacity. The presentation argues that inclusive active learning depends on calibrating struggle in relation to working-memory limits shaped by prior knowledge, affective factors, and motivation. Designing materials with these considerations enables more students to participate meaningfully as active learners.

Mini-bio

Nick is a Lecturer at the Centre for Academic Language and Development (CALD), where he has worked since 2022. He teaches English for Academic Purposes across foundation, in-sessional, and pre-sessional programmes. His current research explores how cognitive accessibility, informed by Cognitive Load Theory, can support learners with diverse language backgrounds, neurodivergent profiles, and those who may experience additional cognitive or emotional demands. He is particularly interested in how curriculum design can become more cognitively accessible while still meeting multiple learning aims. Outside of work, he enjoys running and reading.  

Abstract

This presentation examines how student‑centred doctoral supervision is strengthened through the intentional design of collaborative, values‑based relationships between co‑supervisors. Drawing on a collaborative intergenerational autoethnography co‑authored with Professor Ros Jennings (University of
Gloucestershire) – who will not be presenting but whose autobiographical reflections form a central part of the analysis – this presentation explores how shared values, reciprocal mentoring, and non‑hierarchical collaboration between supervisors shape doctoral candidates’ learning, wellbeing, and belonging.

By analysing our distinct but interconnected supervisory journeys, this presentation argues that supervisor–supervisor relationships constitute a largely invisible but structurally pivotal layer of pedagogic design that has profound consequences for the doctoral student experience. The research underpinning this presentation interrogates how similarities in social background, identity, and values (in our case as working‑class, feminist, and first‑generation academics) foster strong relational foundations that enhance supervisory practice. Our collaborative reflections highlight how this shared ground cultivates what we term empathetic expertise: a supervisory stance attentive to the emotional, cultural, and structural dimensions of doctoral study. These qualities enable us to create supervisory environments that centre the student, demystifying academic processes, clarifying expectations, and
supporting candidates’ development as researchers and emerging professionals.

Methodologically, this work advances the use of collaborative intergenerational autoethnography as a tool for supervisor development. The intergenerational aspect is critical: my perspective as a mid‑career academic and former doctoral candidate of Professor Jennings intersects with her reflections as a
long‑established supervisor, enabling a multi‑layered exploration of power, vulnerability, mutual learning, and professional identity across academic life stages. Our narrative accounts reveal how reciprocal mentoring can operate within supervisor teams, challenging hierarchical norms and creating flexible,
responsive supervisory arrangements that adapt to the needs, strengths, and ambitions of doctoral candidates.
This expanded relational lens also extends Lee’s (2008, 2012, 2018) influential framework for doctoral supervision. While Lee foregrounds the importance of “building relationships” between supervisor and candidate, our analysis demonstrates that the quality of relationships between co‑supervisors is equally
important. This internal dynamic shapes the coherence, tone, and ethos of the supervisory environment in which doctoral candidates learn and develop. A values‑based approach to co‑supervision therefore becomes a form of pedagogic design, one that can either support or undermine student‑centred practice.

In this session, I will present a conceptual model of values‑based co‑supervision, grounded in our autoethnographic analysis, and share practical strategies for embedding reflective, relational design into supervisory teams. These include structured pre‑ and post‑supervision dialogue, explicit values‑mapping
exercises between co‑supervisors, and call for institutional recognition of reciprocal mentoring as part of supervisor development. I will also explore how such practices contribute to more inclusive, transparent, and empowering supervisory environments that align with the conference’s focus on designing learning experiences around students’ needs, identities, and aspirations.

Mini-bio

Dr Hannah Grist is an academic specialising in higher education pedagogy and cultural studies. She is Head of CREATE at the Bristol Institute for Learning and Teaching (BILT) at the University of Bristol, where she leads initiatives to support active and reflective teaching practice in higher education. Her research
interests focus on learning and teaching in higher education, doctoral supervision, and qualitative methodologies such as autoethnography.

Abstract

There is a long history of students creating educational explainers as project-based active learning assessments. Lecturers take on the role of mentors who guide students to develop educational resources. These tools are driven by what students think their peers need to know in formats that work for their student group, providing opportunities for more inclusive approaches, depending on their group’s make up. But what happens to these educational resources when the student project finishes? Most remain neglected in records of assessment and student files.  

How might we unlock these resources and allow them to contribute to a more equitable educational landscape? Especially when finances are tight and textbook subscription costs are considerable. How might we see Open Educational Resources as part of the drive towards openness in academia, represented by the Open Research movement and Open Access practices? In this paper, I outline what Open Educational Resources are, including a few case studies.  

Although, we are in the very early stages of developing an institutional approach to Open Educational Resources, I will describe what we are doing in the Library to help educators develop these resources and how we aim to support those interested in this exciting area. I hope to inspire you to become Open Educational Resource pioneers who provide deep learning experiences that improve their students’ employability. 

Mini-bio

Dr Kate Holmes is an Open Access Advocacy Research Support Librarian with a background as an arts and humanities academic. She is enthusiastic about how open research practices can improve equity and research quality in academia. Kate is an HEA Fellow and holds a Professional Certificate in Academic Practice. 

Abstract

This presentation explores the theme of ‘student-centred by design’ through the lens of a core first-year interdisciplinary Liberal Arts unit, ‘The Art of Inquiry’. Informed by research- and inquiry-based pedagogies (e.g. Healey and Jenkins, 2009; Mieg et al, 2022; Spronken-Smith and Walker, 2010), the unit explicitly positions students as interdisciplinary researchers-in-training from the very start of their degree. It is deliberately structured to offer new students their first guided steps into independent research, enabling them to investigate the issues that matter to them. Students are introduced to key phases of the inquiry process, from the role of wonder and curiosity in driving intellectual exploration, to practices of observation, interpretation and communication.  

For many, this represents a real change in how they understand education. Having expected to learn ‘about things’ they are told, they are introduced instead to the idea that they are here to actively contribute to knowledge through their own discoveries. Alongside this broader conceptual framework – which equips students to investigate research questions across their wide-ranging degree the unit sets a practical, applied research task: developing and presenting an idea for Bristol that responds to a need, problem or opportunity they have identified in the city. This might take the form of a community or cultural initiative, a reimagined use of public space, a policy proposal, an event, or something else. Students are thus encouraged to explore something that matters to them, while also developing their knowledge and understanding of the city (new to many of them) beyond the academy – a process which resonates with the University’s civic mission and value of being ‘Bold and Bristolian’.  

Working in groups throughout the term, students use dedicated seminar workshops to test, refine, and develop their ideas. Their work culminates in two connected assessments: first, a public facing exhibition display, which fosters authentic collaborative skills and supports students in communicating their research to non-specialist audiences; and second, an individual research essay, which enables them to deepen their academic analysis and developing scholarly practices. References Interdisciplinarity can be understood as an ‘undisciplined space’ (Moran, 2010; Overend at al., 2024), one that expands beyond Western disciplinary categorisations of knowledge. In this sense, ‘interdisciplinarity has the potential to move us out of our institutions to engage with, learn from, and become with the world around us’ (Overend, 2024). 

 On this unit, students are encouraged to engage not only with ideas and perspectives from different academic disciplines but also with different forms of knowledge, including their own lived experiences and those of others. The presentation reflects, then, on how this student centred, inquiry driven approach might support students to take ownership of their learning – not only in this unit but as they progress through their degree – and foster an early awareness of the civic contexts in which they study and often live.  

Healey, Mick, and Alan Jenkins. Developing Undergraduate Research and Inquiry. Higher Education Academy, 2009. Mieg, Harald A., Elizabeth Ambos, Angela Brew, Dominique Galli and Judith Lehmann (eds). Cambridge Handbook of Undergraduate Research. Cambridge University Press, 2022. Moran, Joe. Interdisciplinarity. Routledge, 2010. Spronken-Smith, Rachel, and Rebecca Walker. “Can Inquiry-Based Learning Strengthen the Links Between Teaching and Disciplinary Research?.” Studies in Higher Education 35, no.6 (August 2010): 723-740. Overend, D., Choi, S., Cross, A., Cullen, C., Dures, S., Jay, D., Scoles, J., Winter, M. and Zhang, S. TILT: Toolkit for Interdisciplinary Learning and Teaching, blogs.ed.ac.uk/tilt/. University of Edinburgh, 2004 

Mini-bio

Dr Kirsten Harris is a Senior Lecturer and Director of Teaching in Liberal Arts. Her research spans three interconnected areas: Walt Whitman’s British readerships, C19 socialism and transdisciplinary utopian studies. Her first book, Walt Whitman and British Socialism: The Love of Comrades, was published in 2016, and she was co-editor of the journal Utopian Studies from 2021-2026. She has held administrative roles with programme-level responsibility for teaching and learning at the University of Bristol and previously the University of Warwick. She has led on work in areas such as widening participation, transition to university studies, and equity and inclusion. 

Abstract

Experiencing the challenges of authentic physiological research should be an essential component of a physiology degree programme and with physiology graduates entering a more diverse workplace, key transferable skills can be developed in a semi-independent laboratory setting (French et al., 2020). In addition to developing expertise in experimental design, data analysis and critical thinking, alongside application of physiological understanding (Rennhack et al., 2020), a research project can provide students with original research material to develop scientific report writing skills that can also double as an authentic assessment of the task.  

We have developed a 5-week course that allows students to explore the processes of experimental design, scientific writing and inquiry-based learning through research (Casotti et al., 2008) under the supervision of an academic supervisor. Students initially attend a 2-hour interactive workshop on experimental design and scientific writing skills before being able to choose from a selection of 11 different project themes across integrative physiology including exercise physiology, the diving reflex and animal models of disease. Groups are limited to 10 students per supervised project to enable effective group discussion and adequate data collection amongst participants as subjects. Students attend 3-hour laboratory sessions once a week over 4 weeks enabling them to design, carry out and analyse data collected from their study.  

The project is assessed via a summative 2500-word individually written report that takes the format of a short research paper which students have an additional 3 weeks to write after the laboratory time has concluded. An optional drop-in support session is also scheduled one week before submission. Student feedback on the projects is positive; within the 2024/25 cohort, 94% (n=17; final unit survey) of students reported that the sessions were well organised and 100% (n=22) stated that the course developed knowledge and skills required for their future.  

Students reported that the project made them feel more prepared for the skills required for their final year dissertations and that they valued the independence of the project work. Authentic physiology research is challenging to replicate in an undergraduate laboratory setting however these projects enable students to work in a semi-independent manner to design and investigate a research question whilst also communicating their findings in a way that prepares them for a future in physiology research and beyond.  

Casotti G, Rieser-Canner L and Knabb MT (2008). Adv Physiol Educ 32, 286-296.  

French MB, Choate JK, Zubek J, Bryner RW, Johnson KMS and Luttrell MJ (2020).  Adv Physiol Educ 44 (4), 653-657.  

Rennhack JP, VanRyn VS, Poteracki JM and Wehrwein EA (2020). Adv Physiol Educ 44 (3), 459-463 

Mini-bio

Lauren Goodhead is a PW3 senior lecturer in Physiology with an interest in integrative physiology and using technology and practical skills to support learning. Lauren is the programme director for the Physiological Sciences programme and is responsible for providing teaching opportunities for colleagues across physiology, pharmacology, neuroscience and histology.

Ben Chant is a PW3 senior lecturer in Physiology specialising in teaching the cardiovascular and respiratory systems. Ben is a senior tutor and year 3 lead for the physiological science, neuroscience and pharmacology programmes and runs year 3 group dissertation projects investigating the effects of exercise on health. 

Abstract

Creating coherent, holistic assessment experiences is key to ensuring that students progress confidently through their programmes while developing the skills they need for future study and employment. This interactive workshop will guide participants through a structured process for reviewing their programme level assessments, identifying opportunities to embed the Bristol Skills Profile, and strengthening the connections between assessment, feedback, and student skill development.  

The session begins with an introduction to the concept of the assessment landscape: a visual, programme level map of assessments that reveals timing, weighting, variety, and the distribution of skills and learning outcomes. Participants will work in programme teams (or individually, depending on attendance) to construct an initial assessment landscape for one of their programmes or units, using simple templates designed to support analysis and discussion. Through this process, participants will explore where assessment overload, clustering, or repetition may be occurring, as well as where students experience meaningful progression or skill scaffolding.  

Building on their emerging map, participants will then examine how the Bristol Skills Profile aligns with their programme assessments. Drawing on examples from the School of Biological Sciences’ Assessment and Feedback Portfolio redesign, we will show how the Skills Profile can be meaningfully embedded without adding assessment burden, by explicitly linking existing assessments to skill development pathways and clarifying this for students. Participants will identify where the Skills Profile is already being implicitly developed, where this could be made more explicit, and where future adjustments or opportunities could be incorporated.  

The workshop will then explore feedforward, focusing on how assessments and feedback connect longitudinally across a programme. Participants will consider questions such as: How does feedback on early tasks prepare students for later assessments? Where are opportunities to reinforce and build on previously developed skills? Using the assessment landscape, participants will trace feedforward routes and identify where clearer connections could be made.  

Finally, participants will be introduced to the Feedback Engagement Tool and other initiatives such as the Feedback Cafe, with examples of their use within the School of Biological Sciences to support student reflection and deepen engagement with feedback. Through hands on exploration, participants will consider how these tools could be integrated into their own programmes to help students track feedback, identify common themes, and link feedback directly to Bristol Skills Profile development.  

By the end of the workshop, participants will leave with: 

• a draft assessment landscape for their programme;  

• clearer insight into how and where the Bristol Skills Profile fits within their assessments;  

• identified opportunities for stronger feedforward connections; and  

• practical strategies for embedding the Feedback Engagement Tool or other initiatives to enhance student feedback literacy and progression. 

 This session is suitable for programme directors, unit leads, and anyone involved in or interested in assessment design or curriculum development. 

Mini-bios

Rose Murray: Rose is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Bristol. Her work combines research on higher education with practical innovation in biology teaching and assessment. Her research interests include assessment and feedback, student transitions, and sustainability, with a particular focus on supporting student engagement and the development of graduate employability skills.  

Rebecca Pike: Rebecca is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Bristol. Her pedagogic research focuses on assessment and feedback, with a particular interest in practices that enhance student learning and confidence. She also explores inclusive, evidence‑based teaching approaches that support engagement and the development of key scientific and transferable skills. 

Abstract

The use of video-based formative assessment tasks designed to enhance professional communication skills is increasingly widespread in Health Sciences, with a growing number of research papers attesting to their impact on learning (Gatrell, 2022; Gatrell et al., 2024; Hulsman & van der Vloodt, 2015; Krause et al., 2022; Lai et al., 2020; Leung & Shek, 2021; Pless et al., 2021). However, whilst many existing studies evaluate effectiveness in relation to learning outcomes and student satisfaction, they pay insufficient attention to the sociocultural dimensions that shape the design and enactment of such tasks, or to questions of inclusivity in assessment. Furthermore, there remains little research exploring the role of students as partners in co-designing, implementing and evaluating video-based formative assessment across whole cohorts and disciplinary contexts in higher education.

This presentation reports on a cross-programme Education Development Project that builds on earlier pilot data to co-design, implement and evaluate video-based formative assessment in two contexts: Year 1 Veterinary Nursing and Year 2 and 3 Effective Consulting labs in the MB ChB programme. In both settings, students recorded simulated consultations and used a video annotation tool to post time-stamped self-reflective comments and peer feedback on specific aspects of their professional communication. Pre- and post-task workshops, co-facilitated with student partners, provided structured opportunities to analyse challenges in existing roleplay and reflective log approaches,
co-design key features of the task (including sequencing, scaffolding and feedback format), and evaluate its inclusivity and impact.

Using a formative intervention research design (Engeström & Sannino, 2010; Sannino et al., 2016) informed by expansive learning (Engeström, 1987) and Hulsman and van der Vloodt’s (2015) specificity criteria, the study analyses data from staff consultations, student workshops and video annotations. The presentation highlights how the tool-mediated activity system can redistribute agency within assessment, enabling students to reflect prior to receiving peer input, seek feedback on targeted aspects of their practice, and engage in more specific, evidence-based and impact-focused dialogue. Across both programmes the video-based approach is experienced as creating time and space for reflection, reducing affective barriers to critical peer feedback, and supporting multimodal engagement with complex communicative practices, including non-verbal and paralinguistic features of communication.

The analysis also identifies contradictions in students’ and teachers’ experiences of the redesigned tasks, particularly in relation to structure, scaffolding and access, and considers how these tensions might be addressed to consolidate a more inclusive assessment ecology. By comparing two disciplinary contexts and multiple year groups, the project illuminates how co-created, technology-enhanced formative assessment can foster evaluative judgement, confidence in critical self-reflection, and sustained engagement with feedback over time.

The presentation concludes by discussing how insights from this cross-intervention analysis can inform the wider adoption of active and inclusive assessment practices in programmes where professional communication is central – and how student partnership and digital tools can be mobilised to reimagine formative assessment at scale.

This presentation is likely to be of value to participants who are interested in the use of student partnerships and technology to design active learning and inclusive assessment.

Mini-bio

Dr Dave Gatrell is a Lecturer in Academic Development with the Bristol Institute for Learning and Teaching, where he specialises in curriculum enhancement and assessment. He is passionate about collaborating with students and teachers to develop active and inclusive approaches to learning and assessment. His doctoral and postdoctoral research explores students’ and teachers’ experiences of video-based formative assessment tasks to develop communication skills. Before returning to live in the UK in 2022, he worked in education development and digital education in universities and the third sector in the Czech Republic, Spain and Hong Kong.

Emma Yi Kwan Lau is a Veterinary Associate who completed her degree in Veterinary Science at the University of Bristol. She worked as a Student Digital Champion with the Digital Education Office from 2023 to 2025. Passionate about improving student learning experiences, she has engaged in projects that focus on developing innovative approaches to education and enhancing interactivity in learning and assessment, particularly in the veterinary field. Through her contributions to digital education, she has aimed to create more engaging and effective learning experiences, ensuring students gain essential skills for their future careers.

Laura Kennedy is a final-year Veterinary Science student who joined the University of Bristol as a mature student. She is a member of the
University’s Veterinary Anatomy Society committee. Since 2023, she has worked as a Student Digital Champion with the Digital Education
Office, representing the faculty of Health and Life Sciences. This role has allowed her to take part in a variety of interesting projects, including an ongoing veterinary 3D anatomy project and communication skills workshops with veterinary nursing students. She is particularly interested in creative projects which involve collaboration with university staff and students on different programmes of study.

Abstract

The Access and Participation Plan 2025/26 identifies that ‘across higher education institutions and the University of Bristol, there is still a notable gap in the attainment of global majority students in comparison to white students’. My project aims to close the gap by reimagining assessment design for Global Majority students. Global Majority students face difficulties in adapting to University assessments as most of them are built to cater to the “ideal student”, who is typically white, middle-class, able-bodied, and neuro-aligned (Campbell 2023). My project attempts to identify the exact issues faced by students of colour in assessments and seeks to co-produce with them reimagined guidelines for different types of assessments. Students will bring in a particular
assessment question from their course and will be challenged to reimagine it using various tools.

I will utilise a skills-based approach, where we will identify what skills the student is aiming to engage in, such as critical thinking, problem-solving, or oracy skills, and discuss the issues Global Majority students face in showcasing these skills to the required level. The students will also discuss methodologies of making assessments more equitable, including issues of assessment planning maps, reflective journals, and group marking exercises. I plan to present the outcomes of the day at the Research Conference, including how the takeaways can be adapted within assessment criteria and Intended Learning Objectives (ILOs) of any module to make them more inclusive of the Global Majority experience.

Mini-bio

Pratham Gupta is the BILT Student Fellow for Inclusive Assessment, where he works with students, academics, and professional services staff to deliver research on inclusive assessment practices at the University of Bristol. In his role, he has collaborated with the other fellows to conduct assessment
outreach events and deliver 3 faculty-wise co-production sessions on how AI can be utilised to better students’ assessment experiences. He also serves as the Co-leader of the Race Inclusion Advocate at the University, where he leads a team of 45 Global Majority students to provide anti-racist consultancy to University services. He is a final-year (almost graduate) law student with a keen interest in increasing the sense of belonging among students of colour at the University, which is what his current project is aimed at.

Abstract

Promoting student engagement and co-ownership of assessment and feedback with academics is essential to ensure university assessment practices are meaningful, explicit, transparent and inclusive. To increase student engagement in assessment and feedback practices we (the Bristol Institute of Learning and Teaching and Bristol Students’ Union) have employed 30 student Feedback Engagement Fellows (FEFs) to explore student experiences of feedback across all taught disciplines. As part of this FEF initiative we have been conducting student-led interviews to generate rich qualitative data on student’s lived experiences of academic feedback.  

Our thematic analysis will be presented to promote some discussion around how we can use the identified themes to inform the development of more inclusive assessment practices. One of the main themes already emerging from these interviews is the avoidance of feedback-seeking behaviours, highlighting an urgent need to encourage our students to seek feedback in settings that feel psychologically safe (Young & Carless 2024).  

Neurodivergent students also reported facing culture shocks in the differences of feedback in different institutions and expressed a strong preference for predictable and specific feedback. The power of teacher-student relationships in enhancing motivation and learning in the feedback process was also emphasised by neurodivergent students. This study has focused on both the evaluative and affective dimensions of feedback, and students have shared the emotional vulnerability in feedback. Appreciating and validating this can help create true psychological safety. 

Sheila Amici-Dargan – Professor of Life Sciences Education  

Nathaniel Joyce – MSci (educational research) student in School of Biological Sciences 

Abstract

One of the most common methods of assessing students across all levels is exams, but how these exams are run can vary widely from fully closed book to allowing formula sheets or student generated notes. One of the disadvantages of allowing notes can be that students prepare less for exams as they can take the information in with them, whereas if these notes are prepared effectively, they can become a revision tool in themselves.¹  

The use of ‘crib sheets’ in exams has been previously studied for Chemistry courses^1-2, and this work uses the principles outlined to look further into students’ perceptions and use of exam notes. It will also look at ways they can be supported in the process of creating these notes to get the most benefit for their overall learning. In the School of Chemistry, students are allowed to take two A4 sides of self-generated notes into exams, with limited restrictions on format and content. During this academic year, a review has taken place of the resources provided to support students with generating these exam notes, and the effectiveness of the notes themselves.  

This presentation will look first at student perceptions of these notes and the supporting resources using survey data from third year students (n=91), before looking in more detail at the exam notes themselves and if there are any common features that correlate with changes in exam performance. Feedback from students about an in-person workshop run to support the use of exam notes will then be reviewed alongside these results to propose new resources and skills development sessions that would better support students from early on in their degree to make the best use of these notes. Some of the ideas will be proposed to students through focus groups with the aim of having student input into the final design of these resources to make them beneficial at all levels of study.  

1. L. T. Gibson van Mil, G. Shermer, and P. I. T. Thomson, J. Chem. Ed. 2024 101 (8), 3344-3351.  

2. E.G. McGinitie, H. Zimmerman, B. P. Rempel, J. Chem. Educ. 2025, 102, 3295–3305. 

Mini-bio

Dr Juliet Collins is a pathway 3 academic and senior tutor in the School of Chemistry. She has worked at Bristol for nearly 4 years and is involved in undergraduate teaching at all levels. Juliet has been involved in setting up initiatives to enhance pastoral support in the school in her role as senior tutor, and is now looking into ways to improve student experience by looking at support for assessments and skills development. 

Abstract

This paper examines my recent integration of zines as a form of assessment as a case study for authentic assessment. I will discuss the process of introducing zines to my unit Queer Screens, from designing the assessment brief, to seminar activities introducing students to zines as a creative practice, to organizing two workshops to support zine techniques and approaches, to the student submissions.  

I’ll discuss how zines blend both theory and creative practice, including how they incorporate writing that, while still requiring demonstrating of knowledge and understanding and strong argument, may take different forms of presentation style (such as personal reflection, manifestos, etc.) I will also discuss the zine I will have made that outlines ideas of how to integrate zines as a form of assessment. My aim in this paper is to demonstrate what I’ve learned through my first iteration, and outline the steps other unit conveners can take to integrating this form of assessment into their teaching. 

Mini-bio

Dr. Jacqueline Ristola is a Lecturer in the Department of Film and Television at the University of Bristol. She received her PhD in Film and Moving Image Studies from Concordia University, Montréal. Her latest research project examines queer representation in animation, studying how queer artists use animation to experiment and envision alternative configurations of gender and sexuality. Her work is published in Digital Society, Television and New Media, Kinephanos, Synoptique, Con a de animación, and Animation Studies Online Journal, and has chapters in edited collections on Steven Universe, Bojack Horseman, and Barbie media. 

Abstract

As attainment levels rise in academia, we now expect our students to engage more deeply with methods to generate novel ideas of their own. In essence, we want our students to operate at the pinnacle of Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy (Anderson, Krathwohl, et al, 2001): the ability to ‘create’. But how do we best our support students to explore new territory when so many ambiguities and uncertainties lie ahead? We could direct our students towards the gaps and edges of established disciplines and sectors to find new possibilities for problem solving.  

There is evident value in encouraging students to find these possibilities for themselves; self-directed learning builds curiosity, engagement, self-efficacy, and purpose (Knowles, 1975; Guglielmino 1977). But how do we best help our students locate problems worth exploring, whilst also steering them away from the boring and the bonkers? We might offer them a wide range of tools, including methods, mindsets, lenses, processes and more.  

There is huge value in helping students develop a ‘practice’ of creating value from uncertainty when there is no established protocol to follow (Neck, Greene, and Brush, 2014). But how do we advise students on finding the right tools for the right job as we navigate our own roles as ‘guides on the side’ rather than ‘sages on the stage’?  

Having run such units and programmes within the Innovation degrees since 2018 we’ve learnt a lot about curating this kind of learning experience and we’ve identified five key question areas:  

1) Is there an appropriate toolkit of methods that enables students to respond to a self-selected problem? (Might this include students creating their own methods?)  

2) How can we help students navigate complex problems where the range of possible responses is overwhelming? e.g. through the use of Systems Thinking such as the Cynefin Framework (Snowden, 1999)  

3) Are there threshold-concepts and mindsets we can promote to support project development, especially those that might enable adaptation and resourcefulness? e.g. through the use of Effectuation Theory (Sarasvathy, 2001, 2003, 2008)  

4) How can staff pitch their support flexibly according to where students are in their own process? e.g. moving from Pedagogy through Andragogy to Heutagogy? (Knowles, 1975; Jones, 2019)  

5) How can we help students find projects of value to them (and to others) whilst also responding to ILOs inside 12 weeks? (Might this involve reorienting assessment more towards Process and Originality over Output and Accuracy?)  

Mini-bio

Dave is an Associate Professor in Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the University of Bristol’s multi-award-winning Centre for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (www.bristol.ac.uk/innovation). Dave has previously been Head of Employability and Enterprise at Bath Spa University and Head of Student Enterprise at the University of Bristol. He’s moonlighted as an innovation coach, consultant, charity trustee, independent town councillor, and served as Chair of Enterprise Educators UK. Dave’s interests lie in early-stage entrepreneurship, creative habits, and ‘threshold concepts’ in entrepreneurial thinking. Dave co-developed the Threshold Concepts in Entrepreneurship Education Toolkit with Dr Lucy Hatt. 

Abstract

Small-group work is central to student-centred learning. Yet in practice, it often produces frustration: uneven contribution, unclear expectations, conflict avoidance, and staff acting as reluctant mediators. In this session, we explore how to intentionally design student teams that move from chaos to accountability without increasing staff workload.  

Drawing on our experience within the Centre for Innovation and informed by industry, this session reframes teamwork not simply as an assessment format but as a capability-building pedagogy. High-functioning student teams do not emerge organically. They are designed.  

The session introduces a practical framework structured around three design decisions:  

1. Team Formation: Designing for Productive Diversity Rather than relying on self-selection or purely random allocation, we discuss structured formation methods that balance skills, motivation, and diversity. We outline when to prioritise psychological safety and when to introduce constructive friction. 

2. Role Architecture: Building Interdependence Many group tasks fail because they allow parallel working. We demonstrate how to design role clarity and task interdependence so that collaboration becomes necessary rather than optional. Participants will see examples of rotating leadership, accountability structures, and shared deliverables that reduce freeloading.  

3. Visible Process, Not Just Output Assessment often privileges final artefacts, masking the dysfunctional process. We share lightweight tools that surface contribution, reflection, and decision-making, including team contracts, check-ins, peer calibration, and structured retrospectives. These approaches enable accountability without burdensome marking.  

Throughout the session, we will share short case examples from CfIE, where students work in sustained teams under conditions of ambiguity and time pressure. Leave with a clear framework for designing high-functioning student teams, practical tools that can be implemented immediately, and strategies for reducing common group-work friction.

Mini-bios

Peter Bartlett, CfIE Education Director, is an innovation and entrepreneurship educator bringing more than two decades of leadership across academia and industry. Before relocating to the UK in 2022, he held a professorship at SCAD, ranked the number one design university in the Americas and Europe, and taught across undergraduate and postgraduate levels at two top-ranked US institutions. His career spans technology, financial services, and fast-moving consumer goods, resulting in numerous US patents and dozens of international design and industry awards. This commercial experience directly informs his applied, practice-led teaching, where students engage with the realities of market uncertainty, product development, and strategic growth. Since joining Bristol’s Centre for Innovation. 

Dave is an Associate Professor in Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the University of Bristol’s multi-award-winning Centre for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (www.bristol.ac.uk/innovation). Dave has previously been Head of Employability and Enterprise at Bath Spa University and Head of Student Enterprise at the University of Bristol. He’s moonlighted as an innovation coach, consultant, charity trustee, independent town councillor, and served as Chair of Enterprise Educators UK. Dave’s interests lie in early-stage entrepreneurship, creative habits, and ‘threshold concepts’ in entrepreneurial thinking. Dave co-developed the Threshold Concepts in Entrepreneurship Education Toolkit with Dr Lucy Hatt. 

Abstract

In his famous 1959 lecture ‘The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution’, C.P. Snow lamented what he considered the arbitrary division between the sciences and humanities, a gap that he argued held back the cultural, economic and social development of the United Kingdom. Although criticised at the time and in more recent years, ‘The Two Cultures’ thesis continues to reverberate in British education as students are asked, quite early in life, to decide on a path which could well shape their professional and personal lives in profound ways. As we enter a new technological age, one where Britain must utilise all its intellectual potential, we should revisit Snow’s arguments and ask – is a truly interdisciplinary course of study possible in higher education?  

This presentation will report on the ‘Bring a STEM friend’ workshop, held on 16 March 2026 as part of the third-year history unit ‘Rage against the machine: Technology and anti-technology in modern Britain’. In the workshop, twenty student historians and twenty of their friends studying STEM subjects were asked to design their own interdisciplinary masters on ‘Technology and Society’. The workshop invited students to consider how the disciplines of the humanities and sciences can combine to shape the ethics of technology in education, industry, policy, among others. Students were asked: what knowledge do you want to take into the workplace? What skills does the market demand? How can you influence the public conversation?  

This presentation will discuss the findings of the workshop and will look to establish a platform on which a genuinely interdisciplinary postgraduate programme can be commenced, utilising the credentials of our staff and the infrastructure unique to the university to create a potentially market-leading international masters offering. 

Mini-bio

Keith Mc Loughlin is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of History. A historian of technology, Keith is the unit convenor and designer of the third-year special subject ‘Rage against the machine: Technology and anti-technology in modern Britain’. He has authored a BILT blog ‘Teaching the history of technology at a time of profound technological change’. He is interested in how technological studies can prepare our students to navigate the workplace. His ambition is that Bristol is recognised internationally an authority on the ethics of technology in both research and teaching. 

Abstract

We (staff and students at the University of Bristol) have co-developed a new workshop to help health sciences students understand how the basic science of climate change links to changes in human health. Inspired by the Climate Fresk workshop, we have developed an active-learning session where teams of students work together to arrange visually engaging cards in a cause-effect sequence, revealing the complex connections between climate change and health.  

Over 2 million people worldwide have undertaken a Climate Fresk workshop, demonstrating the power of this active learning format to engage diverse audiences with the complexities of climate change science. Our workshop builds on this, allowing participants to collectively make connections between human-induced climate change and more specific human health impacts such as changing patterns of infectious disease, respiratory health, dysregulated immunity and mental health problems. Through comparative surveys we aim to show that our approach results in a more subject-relevant learning experience for health sciences students than the original Climate Fresk.  

Our workshop has been refined over the past 12 months following iterative delivery and evaluation from students and educators. Our long-term goal is for this to be available as an open-access resource for educators to use in health and life sciences across HEIs. In this talk we plan to present an overview of our workshop as well as to share student and staff feedback on our learning tool. 

Mini-bios

Andy is an Associate Professor of Environmental Education in the School of Biological Sciences. He is co-director of the Science Communication for a Better Planet MSc and is keen on combining technology-enhanced learning with active learning approaches to create alternative forms of learning and assessment that build skills, foster connection with nature and create memorable experiences for learners.  

Bronwen is a teaching-focussed Senior Lecturer in Immunology with a strong interest in engaging students across the biomedical sciences with sustainability and its relevance to their disciplines. She is particularly interested in highlighting the connections between immunology, human and planetary health, and environmental drivers of disease. She aims to encourage students to think critically about ethical responsibility and the role of the biomedical sciences in addressing sustainability challenges. 

Kiah is a teaching focussed Lecturer in Neuroscience and the School Disability Co-ordinator. She is interested in embedding sustainability and accessibility into the curriculum in creative ways. She is currently working on helping students identify the ways in which sustainability and human health are interlinked through workshops and dissertation research projects.

Abstract

There is a growing body of literature highlighting the value of integrating reflective practice within Higher Education. Reflection has been linked to increased motivation and engagement, deeper ownership of learning, strengthened metacognition, and improved self-regulation. Despite these benefits, embedding meaningful reflection across a programme, rather than as a one-off activity, remains challenging. Within the School of Biological Sciences, we have woven reflective practice throughout our degree programmes, across multiple years and withing multiple units.  

Within this talk we draw from selected case studies to illustrate different models and purposes of reflective practice. This will include details of the creative process, practical execution in summative and formative assessment, tutorial programmes, reflection-based units, and the newly designed ‘bridging weeks’. We will spotlight the reflective practice learning journey within the undergraduate courses, alongside the MSc in Science Communication for a Better Planet.  

We will outline how reflection is aligned with unit and programme intended learning outcomes, how reflective work is scaffolded and assessed, and how these processes can support inclusive and authentic engagement. We will also share insights from student voice to surface their lived experience. The session is aimed at educators interested in developmental approaches to reflection at the undergraduate or postgraduate level.

Mini-bios

Emily: Emily is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Biological Sciences with a behavioural ecology background studying the evolution of social behaviour in wasps. As the Senior Tutor in her School Emily also has a keen interest in researching, supporting, and improving student experience and wellbeing. As part of this, she started the CafeBio Initiative, was the joint lead in creating the Life Science Allotment and sits on the University’s Wellbeing and Mental Health Steering Group. Emily has been pursuing her pedagogic research interests in the areas of supporting students’ transitions into and throughout higher education and embedding reflection and wellbeing initiatives into curriculum. She currently heads up the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences Pedagogic Research and Development SIG.  

Dave: Dave is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Biological Sciences, and Academic Director for Inclusion, Belonging and Community in the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences. Dave’s biological research background is in animal behaviour, plant-pollinator interactions, and why floral displays are so wonderfully complex. His pedagogical interests centre on fostering Designed for All education, decolonisation, and enhancing belonging and community in our educational experiences. Alongside this, Dave is interested in how coaching-informed practice, reflection, and the acknowledgement of emotions in educational settings can enhance teaching.  

Andy: Andy is an Associate Professor of Environmental Education in the School of Biological Sciences. He is co-director of the Science Communication for a Better Planet MSc and is keen on combining technology-enhanced learning with active learning approaches to create alternative forms of learning and assessment that build skills, foster connection with nature and create memorable experiences for learners. 

Abstract

This workshop explores how we might design learning environments in which AI can be used to deepen rather than replace student thinking. The facilitator will present a range of AI-generated pedagogical artefacts: interactive learning tools, scaffolded critical thinking activities, formative feedback applications and others designed around the principle that AI should contribute to structuring the conditions for deeper learning, not perform the learning itself.  

Participants will discuss how each aligns with key learning theories, how each was designed, and how passive use is minimised or prevented. A facilitated debrief will draw out transferable design principles, then participants will identify a challenge or opportunity from their own practice and begin to build their own experimental artefacts using AI. The session closes with discussion of institutional considerations including assessment integrity, AI policy and curriculum design. Participants will leave with design frameworks to explore, experimental artefacts to discuss with their teams, and ideas for how to design with AI more deliberately and equitably.  

The workshop is grounded in three bodies of theory:  

• Sweller’s Cognitive Load Theory (1988; 2011) frames the design challenge of reducing extraneous load without eliminating productive difficulty.  

• Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (1978) informs the scaffolding principle that effective artefacts position learners just beyond their current competence.  

• Biggs and Tang’s constructive alignment model (2011) underpins the session’s argument about assessment, with discussion on how assessment might be reshaped to make the learning process, metacognition and critical judgement more visible.

Mini-bio

Paul coordinates a range of in-sessional courses in English for Academic Purposes at the Centre for Academic Language and Development.