Developing student self-assessment, reflection and confidence through progressive assessment design

Posted on by Sarah Watson

Jon Powell (Assistant Professor in Engineering)

What I did 

I teach a Foundation Year Engineering module called Mechanics and Properties of Matter, a laboratory-based module that introduces students to experimental work and technical report writing. When I took over the module in 2022, students were required to complete seven reports: six during term time and a further report during the assessment period. Four of these were substantial laboratory reports. My initial observation was that the volume of assessment was overwhelming, particularly for students who had never undertaken laboratory work or technical writing before. 

Over a three-year period, I redesigned the assessment to focus on developing students’ skills gradually. The redesigned approach incorporated three interrelated elements: 

  1. Progressive authorship 
  1. Self-assessment and reflection 
  1. Draft submission and feedback 

The progressive authorship model was designed to scaffold report writing. Rather than expecting students to write a complete laboratory report from the outset, the first report was largely written by me, with students completing only the summary and conclusions. With each subsequent report, students assumed greater responsibility for the writing until, by the fifth report, they were producing a complete laboratory report independently. 

The weighting and timeline of the assessments were as follows: 

  • Report (500 words) – Week 3 – 5% 
  • Report (1,500 words) – Week 6 – 12% 
  • Report (2,000 words) – Week 8 – 18% 
  • Report (2,500 words) – Week 10 – 30% 
  • Report (2,500 words) – Assessment Period – 30% 
  • Group Presentation – Week 11 – 5% 

Alongside this, students completed a self-assessment and reflection cover sheet. They were required to evaluate their work against the marking criteria, identifying strengths and areas for improvement. Importantly, they had to reference specific criteria rather than providing general reflections. 

Here is the guidance provided around effective self-reflection: 

Self-assessing is a five-step routine. It works best before you finalise each section, not as a last-minute exercise.  

  • Read the criteria for one section at a time. 
  • Find your evidence. For each key point, find the exact place in your report where you do it. If you cannot point to it, that is a gap. 
  • Judge your section against the bands. Using the rubric, pick the band that best describes your section, then give it a score.  
  • Write the coversheet entry: score, strengths, improvements. One or two cited strengths and one or two cited improvements per section beats a long uncritical list. Be honest — your self-assessed marks do not affect the marks you are awarded; the coversheet is marked on the quality of your judgement, not on how generous it is. 
  • Respond to the draft feedback. State briefly what the feedback on your draft report said and what you changed in response. This is required for the coversheet to be complete. 

To support the self-assessing process, I also provided explicit training on how to use the criteria. During the first week of the module, students worked collaboratively to assess sample reports, compare marks, and discuss feedback. This helped demystify the assessment process and familiarised students with the language and expectations of technical report writing. 

More recently, I introduced an optional draft submission stage. Students could submit a draft report and receive one-to-one feedback during their laboratory session before submitting the final version. Feedback discussions were structured around the assessment criteria and focused on helping students understand where improvements could be made. 

Why I did it 

The redesign was motivated by a concern that the original assessment structure was neither supporting learning nor enabling meaningful improvement. Students were being asked to write complex laboratory reports before they had developed the necessary skills. Technical report writing requires students to manage a large number of components simultaneously, including structure, presentation of results, analysis, discussion, and conclusions. For students encountering these expectations for the first time, this represented a substantial cognitive and emotional challenge. I observed only marginal improvements in report quality across the module and was unconvinced that students were genuinely developing as writers. The workload also appeared excessive and potentially discouraging. 

The progressive authorship model was designed to reduce this burden while maintaining opportunities for assessment. By focusing initially on a smaller number of report sections, students could concentrate their efforts on developing specific skills before tackling increasingly complex tasks. The self-assessment component was intended to help students engage actively with assessment criteria and develop the ability to evaluate their own work. This is not only a valuable academic skill but also a professional skill. As engineers, students will eventually be expected to evaluate their own work in order to continue improving throughout their careers. 

The draft submission process was introduced to provide timely, dialogic feedback. Rather than receiving comments after submission, students were able to discuss their work directly with me and clarify misunderstandings before final submission. 

What did I discover? 

Students responded very positively to the draft submission process. Mid-term feedback suggested that the opportunity to receive draft feedback reduced anxiety and increased confidence. For Foundation Year students in particular, reducing assessment-related stress appeared to support more authentic engagement with the task. 

The most significant findings emerged when I analysed student performance across three years of implementation. Perhaps surprisingly, the interventions did not improve all aspects of report writing equally. The largest improvements occurred in sections requiring evaluative thinking. Marks improved significantly in discussion and conclusion sections, with improvements of approximately 14% and 13% respectively. By contrast, sections involving more procedural tasks, such as presenting results, showed less change. This suggests that the interventions were particularly effective in supporting students’ ability to analyse data, evaluate findings, and discuss significance rather than simply follow instructions. 

The self-assessment process was also revealing. Students who engaged fully with self-assessment produced marks that were much closer to my own marking than those who did not engage. Their performance also improved over time. For me, this was one of the most interesting outcomes. Students who could more accurately judge the quality of their own work appeared better able to identify the improvements needed for future assessments. Developing this evaluative capacity may therefore be as important as improving performance on any individual assignment. 

The work also highlighted the importance of helping students critique information rather than merely produce it. This has become increasingly relevant in the context of generative AI, where students need to be able to evaluate outputs critically rather than accept them uncritically. 

What I can improve 

Although I am pleased with the outcomes, there are several aspects I would like to develop further. The current marking criteria has become too lengthy and detailed. While students appreciate the specificity, it can be cumbersome for both students and assessors. My next step is to streamline the marking criteria while maintaining clarity. 

I would also like to provide additional worked examples. Currently, each report section includes key points and example paragraphs demonstrating individual assessment criteria. Expanding these examples could further support students in understanding expectations. 

Another area for development is self-assessment. Only around half of students engaged fully with the reflection cover sheet. Interestingly, this created a useful comparison group in the evaluation, but ideally I would like all students to participate. My longer-term ambition is to integrate self-assessment directly into Canvas. Before submitting their work, students would complete a short structured self-evaluation linked to the assessment criteria. This would simplify the process and encourage wider participation. 

Finally, I would like to investigate which elements of the intervention are having the greatest impact. The progressive authorship model, self-assessment process, draft feedback, and marking criteria training were designed as pedagogical responses to a teaching challenge rather than as a formal research study. My next step is to explore these components individually to understand how they work together and which have the strongest effects on learning. 

My top tips

1. Scaffold complex assessments: If students are new to a form of assessment, avoid expecting complete mastery from the outset. Start with smaller components and gradually increase complexity as confidence develops. 

2. Teach students how to use the marking criteria: Do not assume students understand assessment language. Explicitly teach the criteria and give students opportunities to practise using them. 

3. Make self-assessment specific: Ask students to reference precise assessment criteria when evaluating their work. This grounds reflection in the expectations of the assessment and discourages vague responses. 

4. Expect a temporary dip in marks: With scaffolded assessment, student performance may drop when expectations increase. In my module, marks typically fell in the middle of the term before improving again as students gained confidence and experience. This dip is often a sign that learning is happening. 

5. Be consistent with terminology: Students need clear and consistent language, particularly when encountering unfamiliar forms of assessment. Once they understand core concepts, additional complexity can be introduced later. 

6. Use feedback as a conversation: Where possible, discuss feedback directly with students. One-to-one conversations helped me ensure that feedback was understood and gave students opportunities to ask questions and clarify misunderstandings. 

7. Share your expectations: As educators, we always have an internal standard against which we judge work. Where possible, make those standards visible. Clear criteria, examples, and explanations help students understand what success looks like and support more equitable assessment practices. 

Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Blog

Students Lead Social Change Campaign

Posted on by Sarah Watson

Katherine Kruger (Associate Professor in Community Engagement)  

What I did 

In this Level 4 Leading Social Change module students work collaboratively on a real social change campaign and are assessed on their ability to critically analyse and reflect on their developing communication skills, their application of community engagement and social justice concepts, and their contribution to campaign activities. In the most recent iteration of the module, students contributed to a Young Workers’ Rights Campaign, taking on different campaign roles and responsibilities. The assessment is an individual 1,500-word reflective portfolio worth 75% of the module mark, alongside a group presentation worth 25%. 

The portfolio combines a 1,500-word reflective and analytical commentary with supporting evidence gathered throughout the campaign. Students are expected to explain the role they played within the campaign, analyse the communication strategies they employed, draw on relevant research and concepts from the module, and reflect on what they did, why they approached it in that way and what they would do differently in the future. Alongside the written element, students curate an appendix that documents their contribution to the campaign. This may include campaign materials such as posters and banners, photographs of events and activities, records of campaign meetings, evidence of conversations with community members, and examples of strategic planning work. The portfolio therefore allows students not only to discuss their learning, but also to evidence it through examples drawn from their campaign work. 

Throughout the semester, students build this evidence base through a series of workshop activities that support the development of their campaigning skills. These activities include exercises such as root cause analysis, power mapping, campaign strategy development and the identification of worthwhile and winnable campaign demands. Students can choose to include these activities within their final submission, enabling them to demonstrate how their thinking, decision-making and strategic understanding have evolved over time. 

A key feature of the portfolio is the degree of scaffolding built into the module. Students complete a formative reflective task midway through the semester, providing an opportunity to test out their reflective writing and receive feedback before the final submission. They are also given detailed guidance about the portfolio requirements, including a suggested structure with indicative word counts and prompts to support their writing. The midterm presentation assessment asks students to design a direct action (any activity taken to build the campaign, for example a rally, strike etc) and to consider these different actions as part of a communications strategy. Students are encouraged to be theatrical, and previous students have done performances and come in costume, created podcasts, and spoken word poetry. This assessment supports them with the design of actions in their campaign. Students are marked individually for this assessment to encourage participation and recognise their different contributions. For the presentation, reasonable adjustments are in place, but students are encouraged and supported to present orally since communication is a key part of the module. However, I recognise that for campaigns to work we need people to play to their strengths and allow students to be graded, for example, on their contribution to the planning and research elements of the presentation.  

Photograph of two students on Sussex campus campaigning for young workers rights through newspapers and flyers and activities.
Sussex students campaigning for Young Workers Rights

Why I did it 

I wanted students to engage in an authentic learning experience rather than simply writing about social change. Instead of responding to a hypothetical brief, students are actively involved in designing and delivering a campaign in partnership with the local charity Brighton & Hove Citizens Alliance. Students apply theoretical ideas about community engagement, organising and social justice within a real-world context. This year they launched the Young Workers’ Rights campaign with an event in the Meeting House on campus; negotiated with management to get young workers’ rights included in the curriculum; listened to over 100 students from outside the module and collected their work horror stories; built a campaign database of student-worker experiences; designed and created the social media elements of the campaign. 

The assessment is intentionally inclusive, enabling students to demonstrate their learning through a variety of campaign activities and forms of evidence, drawing on different strengths, experiences and communication skills. Learning is scaffolded throughout the module through workshop activities, campaign tasks, peer and tutor feedback, and formative opportunities, allowing students to build towards the final portfolio in stages rather than relying on a single end-point submission. The assessment also promotes sustainability by encouraging students to consider the social impact of collective action and critically reflect on contemporary social challenges and pathways for change. Finally, it has a strong employability focus. As graduates increasingly need to articulate their skills, present evidence of their achievements, communicate persuasively, work collaboratively, and adapt their messages for different audiences. The portfolio encourages students to build a narrative around their experiences, values and capabilities that will support both future study and professional practice. 

What went well 

Students often report that the portfolio feels more accessible than a traditional essay. Because much of the evidence is generated throughout the semester, students do not face a blank page at the end of term. The flexibility of the portfolio has also been beneficial. Students can include a range of evidence and demonstrate learning in different ways. One particularly successful aspect has been the ability to capture students’ development over time through workshop activities, campaign materials and reflective commentary. The assessment is also highly authentic. Students are not simply simulating campaign work, they are doing it. 

What I would change 

My main challenge is ensuring that the assessment appropriately captures and rewards students’ practical work. Some students make a substantial contribution to the campaign but struggle to articulate their learning in writing. In these cases, the final mark may not fully reflect the quality or quantity of work they have undertaken. This has led me to question whether the portfolio currently places too much emphasis on written reflection and not enough on the practical outputs themselves. 

As a result, I’m beginning to think about whether the portfolio could be broken down differently in the future. For example, there may be scope to give more weight to particular elements of the work, rather than assessing everything through a single written submission. I’m also interested in experimenting with more oral and multimedia forms of reflection. Ahead of the midterm presentation, students write and perform a leadership speech – we go into the woods as a group to enable them to project their voices without worrying about who might overhear them. Students are asked to consider different modes of communication for different audiences, and currently they can reflect on that experience in their portfolios and include the written speech in their appendices. The written speech doesn’t, however, fully capture the different elements of communication we’re exploring (pacing, pronunciation and accent, intonation, rhythm and cadence, vocal dynamics and volume etc.); for this reason, I’m considering asking them to submit it as an audio recording. As this is fundamentally a communication module, it seems worth considering whether students could demonstrate some of their learning through spoken formats rather than writing alone. 

I’m also considering asking students to submit a podcast-style reflection, or even a structured peer-to-peer conversation in which they discuss their role in the campaign and what they learned from it. I’m not sure exactly what this would look like yet, but I think there is potential for these approaches to surface learning that can sometimes get lost in the written portfolio.  

Ultimately, the challenge is finding a way to assess such an authentic learning experience authentically. I’m increasingly interested in whether a broader range of assessment formats might help me recognise not only what students can write about their practice, but the practice itself. 

Photograph of six paper plates labelled with different negative workplace experiences, including being paid late. Participants indicated which experiences they had encountered by placing stones on the corresponding plates.
Participants indicated which negative work experiences they had encountered by placing stones on the corresponding plates.

Top tips for others 

  1. Build evidence into teaching activities. Don’t treat portfolio work as something that happens outside class. 
  1. Provide clear scaffolding. Templates, prompts and formative activities can reduce anxiety and help students get started. 
  1. Distinguish between mandatory and optional elements. This gives students structure while retaining flexibility. 
  1. Make the purpose of reflection explicit. Students often describe what they did rather than analysing what they learned. They need to know why analysis is important for their learning development.  
  1. Use portfolios to support employability. Encourage students to see the portfolio as a way of evidencing skills, experiences and achievements for future opportunities. 
Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Case Studies

New Education at Sussex newsletter

Posted on by Katie Piatt

The new Education at Sussex newsletter, provides a way to keep colleagues connected with the latest news, opportunities, events, and inspiring practice from across the University and the wider sector. The newsletter is relevant to anyone at Sussex, whether in a professional services or academic role, who works in an education-related capacity. Each issue will showcase creative approaches to teaching, curriculum development, and student engagement. It will also share opportunities for you to get involved, including conferences, calls for publication, and other education-related events. You can find each issue here, under the ‘News’ tab on Learning Matters and editions will be disseminated via existing channels from September 2026.   

Posted in Events, News, Newsletter, Uncategorised

Faculty Education Dialogue: Assessment of Participation – Possibilities and Challenges

Posted on by Kamila Bateman

 Assessment of participation remains one of the more complex and contested areas of higher education practice. While universities increasingly emphasise active learning, belonging, and student engagement, questions persist around what participation actually means, how it can be assessed fairly, and whether it should be assessed at all. The recent Faculty Education Dialogue: Assessment of Participation: Possibilities and Challenges, organised by Dr Carli Rowell and Dr Emily Danvers, featured colleagues from across the Faculty of Social Sciences, who explored these questions through examples of innovative practice.

The discussion resonated strongly with wider scholarship on participation assessment. Research has highlighted both the educational benefits and ethical challenges of assessing participation, particularly in recognising diverse forms of contribution and avoiding narrow definitions of engagement (Armstrong & Boud, 2006).  Similarly, Lai (2011) explores assessing participation via online discussions and emphasises the importance of transparent criteria and acknowledging different modes of participation.

 Colleagues at Sussex have reflected on the practicalities of participation assessment and the importance of designing approaches that reward meaningful engagement rather than simple attendance.

Below are some of the examples of assessment participation that were shared at the event. We hope they provide inspiration and resource for educators working across the sector.

Engaged students discussing ideas in the classroom.

Reframing participation through reflection and shared learning

Dr Beth Mills presented an inspiring example of participatory pedagogy through her MA module, ‘Doing Gender in Theory and Practice’.Through its structure, content and assessment design, the module challenges us to reconsider one of the most familiar ideas in higher education: participation. Rather than viewing participation simply as speaking confidently in seminars, it encourages us to think more critically about whose knowledge is recognised, whose voices are heard, and what forms of engagement universities choose to value.

Teaching takes place in intensive three-hour sessions with cohorts of up to 30 students. The module content covers four main quadrants of the Gender at Work Framework to support rigorous analysis of intersectional inequalities across scale, from the individual to the community and wider institutions. These quadrants include: Individual Consciousness and Capabilities; Social Norms; Politics and Policies; and Resource Allocation. The module is designed across two week blocks that focus on each quadrant. In the first week, students are supported to learn relevant theory; this theory is then applied through a tutor- and group-facilitated practice session in the second week.  In the practice sessions, learning extends beyond traditional academic texts to include blogs, podcasts, music, and poetry. These sessions often begin with “story circles” that seek to move the theory of the previous week into the student’s reflections of their everyday lives and work, reframing participation as collaborative narrative exchange rather than simply speaking during classroom discussions.

In the practice sessions, students engage in small-group work, collaborative activities supported by Padlet, and analytical methods such as policy analysis, stakeholder analysis, problem trees and opportunity mapping. Participation is broadened to include storytelling, collaborative discussion, online engagement, reflective writing, creative work, practice-based case studies and professional or activist expertise. The classroom becomes a space for collective knowledge production, where learning is understood as relational, embodied and collaborative rather than something transmitted from lecturer to student. The module foregrounds inclusivity. Expectations are clearly communicated from the outset, and students are given opportunities to express concerns and preferences around teaching activities early in the course.

Assessment reflects the module’s philosophy of reflection and collaboration. A traditional case study, worth 60%, requires students to analyse an organisation using the Gender at Work framework. Complementing this, a 40% learning journal encourages ongoing reflection throughout the module, enabling students to integrate experiences, challenge assumptions about what constitutes valid knowledge, and recognise that academic understanding often emerges through reinterpretation and dialogue. Students are encouraged to reflect on module readings, practical experiences and the evolution of their own thinking throughout the course. The learning journal assessment focusses on three key criteria—critical thought, creativity and reflexivity—while giving students the freedom to communicate their learning through a wide range of formats, including reflective writing, photographs, poetry, blogs, drawings, videos and organisational examples. Importantly, this approach does not abandon academic rigour; instead, it expands the ways in which intellectual engagement could be demonstrated and encourages students to synthesis academic analysis with their own lived experience of ‘doing gender’.

One of the most compelling aspects of the approach is the emphasis on creating a genuine learning community. Student feedback suggests that the module fosters trust, wellbeing and solidarity, with one student describing the experience as “making knowledge together.” Students feel empowered to develop their own thinking collectively, linking personal experience with academic scholarship in meaningful ways.

Assessing engagement through in-class group presentations

Dr David Karp shared an approach to assessing student engagement through group presentations that shifts the emphasis from product to process. In a third-year module, all preparation occurred during class time rather than outside scheduled teaching sessions.

Across five weeks and five topics, students selected areas of interest and formed groups accordingly. Each group explored a guiding question supported by individual preparatory research based on case studies. Students facilitated breakout discussions with peers before presenting a five-minute summary of their group’s conclusions.

What distinguished this approach was the opportunity for direct observation of collaboration, interpersonal skills, and critical reasoning as they developed. Although framed as group presentations, assessment focused on individual contributions, with presentations accounting for approximately 20% of the module mark.

Ultimately, Dr Karp’s model shows that when assessing student participation, the collaborative process itself is just as important as the final product.

Portfolio assessment and fostering belonging

Professor Lynne Murphy described an innovative portfolio approach designed to encourage engagement among first-year students. Within 30-credit modules, 20% of the assessment is allocated to an “engagement sheet” documenting participation across various activities.

Students receive credit for maintaining reflective journals, submitting formative assessments, attending seminars or talks accompanied by brief reflections, and participating in reading quizzes. Crucially, the assessment does not evaluate the quality of participation itself; rather, it acknowledges that students have engaged with learning opportunities.

Murphy emphasised that formative work need not be polished. Simple notes are sufficient, reducing perfectionism while supporting feedback and demonstrating progress over time. The approach also strengthens community building through randomly assigned groups and opportunities for extracurricular engagement.

Although labour intensive, Murphy noted that this model works effectively with cohorts of fewer than 40 students and positively influences both engagement and belonging. Resit arrangements remove the engagement component entirely, replacing it with alternative assessments.

Murphy’s experience demonstrates that designing participation-focused assessment often requires experimentation and adaptation. As outlined in her case study on encouraging attendance and engagement through portfolio assessment, these approaches can significantly enhance students’ sense of connection and investment in learning communities.

The value of deeper intellectual engagement

Dr Sabrina Gilani and Dr Ashleigh Keall presented perhaps one of the most thought-provoking examples of engagement assessment through their Level 6 elective module, Aboriginal Law.

This third-year module, taught through highly interactive seminars without lectures, encourages students to engage with Indigenous legal thought and embodied approaches to law. Students prepare by listening to podcasts before class, creating space for discussion-based learning during seminars.

A forthcoming assessment redesign introduces an in-class presentation, critical case analysis, and a 10% engagement component assessed through a 500-word reflective statement. Students explain how they engaged with the module, what they gained from this engagement, and how it influenced their thinking. They are also encouraged to position themselves within a grade band based on self-assessment.

Importantly, engagement is conceptualised broadly. Alongside attending classes and office hours, students might engage by attending talks, watching documentaries, undertaking supplementary reading, or independently exploring legal cases. The intention is to reward intellectual curiosity that extends beyond formal teaching sessions, rather than penalising absence. 

The presenters also addressed practical considerations surrounding reflective assessment, including marking fairness, self-assessment, and whether reflective work should be assessed anonymously. Supporting reflective practice throughout the module, students are given opportunities to consider their weekly engagement and participate in peer review activities.

This approach prompts important questions about the distinction between participation as visible activity and engagement as deeper intellectual investment.

Building communities of enquiry

Dr Marcelo Staricoff described several innovations within the MA Education programme that seek to strengthen collaborative learning, applied theory, and critical engagement.

Students complete group presentation tasks linking educational theorists with contemporary educational organisations. Assessment is based on pass/fail participation, emphasising involvement rather than performance. Students also present preliminary ideas for subsequent written assignments, encouraging iterative development and dialogue around assessment.

Teaching incorporates debate-style activities requiring students to apply theoretical concepts to authentic problems. Notably, dissertation assessment now includes a presentation component worth 25% of the final mark, requiring students to discuss and defend their research ideas before submitting written work.

Staricoff also highlighted the integration of artificial intelligence within portfolio work. Students critically engage with AI tools to transform academic resources into alternative formats or generate materials that must then be contextualised and adapted appropriately.

Underlying these innovations is a commitment to developing classrooms as communities of enquiry characterised by collaboration, dialogue, and reflective engagement with emerging technologies.

Final reflections

The dialogue highlighted that there is no single approach to assessing participation, and that it goes far beyond just ‘bums on seats’. Instead, participation emerges as a multifaceted concept encompassing reflection, collaboration, seminar discussions, online forums, group projects, with predominant focus on ‘effort and process, as opposed to product’.

Across the presentations, common principles emerged: valuing diverse forms of engagement, prioritising inclusivity, making expectations transparent, and recognising that meaningful learning often occurs through dialogue and shared inquiry. At the same time, presenters were refreshingly honest about the practical challenges involved, including workload, scalability, and ensuring fairness.

Perhaps the most significant takeaway was the value of creating spaces where colleagues can openly share experiments, successes, uncertainties, and lessons learned. Events such as this remind us that educational innovation flourishes through collaboration and conversation.

Hopefully, this will not be the last event of its kind. Bringing academics together to exchange good practice, challenge assumptions, and collectively explore possibilities for enhancing student learning is itself an example of the very participatory ethos that many of the presenters advocated. As we continue to rethink assessment and engagement in higher education, these opportunities for shared reflection may prove just as valuable as the innovations they inspire.

Tagged with: ,
Posted in Blog

Spotlight on AI in Education: June 2026

Posted on by Helen Morley

Welcome to June 2026’s Spotlight on AI in Education bulletin. With how fast things are moving, this will help you cut through the noise and catch what’s important. The bulletin highlights on-the-ground practice, institutional perspectives and trends in generative AI use across the sector and beyond. We hope you find this useful.

If you have anything you’d like to contribute or see in this bulletin please email EE@sussex.ac.uk

On-the-ground at Sussex: The Sixth Meeting of the Teaching with AI Community of Practice

Illustrations produced at the sixth meeting of the AI CoP, depicting our perceptions of AI at Sussex now and in the future.
Illustrations produced at the sixth meeting of the AI CoP, depicting our perceptions of AI at Sussex now and in the future. Read more about these below.

On Monday 8th June Educational Enhancement hosted the sixth in-person meeting of the University of Sussex’ Teaching with AI Community of Practice. In a change to previous sessions, we focused on providing opportunities for all attendees to reflect on their professional use, understanding and perspectives of AI. The atmosphere was positively buzzing with conversation, creativity and collaboration as colleagues from across the university’s faculties and divisions shared their insights. 

This report of the session runs quite long, but is not a challenging read. We hope you find it interesting. There are links below to where different activities are discussed.

Format of the Event

Tables were arranged with five separate activities with which members of the community were invited to engage. Colleagues were invited to move between the tables and activities as they liked, and were also given two time-checks to facilitate this.  We heard from representatives of the groups during the time-checks which provided further information on the activities.

The activities were:

  • Let’s talk about it – A space to share and ask questions with optional prompts provided.
  • Read All About It! – Three articles were provided to spark conversation, along with some prompts.
  • Be the Expert – Planning the perfect session to support a new colleague to make good use of AI.
  • Practical Hands-on – George, EE’s Senior Learning Technologist, facilitated this opportunity to explore and build AI agents using Microsoft CoPilot.
  • Visual and Artistic Expression – Borrowed and adapted from an activity Mark saw at a JISC event; colleagues illustrated how they perceive AI at Sussex now and in the future.

Click on the activity titles above to learn more about each one and the outcomes.

Let’s talk about it:

The conversation activity uncovered a lot of positive experience with AI, including task refinement and success with asking AI to follow formulaic instructions, and frustrations including AI output being too general and the challenge of knowing whether one can be confident in what is generated. One member of the group, Dr Leonardo Garcia Garcia, shared experience of using AI with students to create CAD images and the colleagues at the table took the opportunity to try this for themselves, comparing Gemini (Google) and CoPilot (Microsoft) and evaluating how the different platforms performed the same task of illustrating a gear. This was an excellent example of the value of having these tools at our fingertips while we’re discussing them, and how crucial it is to critically and experientially engage with generative AI by comparing output across platforms and to what an expert would expect, and adjusting our input – for instance by giving an example – to improve the result.

Two outputs from GenAI models, Microsoft CoPilot and Google Gemini, showing illustrations created by the platforms in response to the prompts to draw a CAD image of a gear. The Gemini example is more detailed, but both are inaccurate.

Microsoft CoPilot (left) and Google Gemini (right) CAD-style renderings of a gear.

Microsoft CoPilot (left) and Google Gemini (right) CAD-style renderings of a gear. While the illustrations may look convincing, Dr Garcia Garcia was able to identify faults in the design and in the formatting.

Read All About It!:

The reading activity started quietly as the colleagues at that table took the time to study the article they chose to engage with. The structure was quite loose; colleagues were welcome to read and consider the texts on their own or to select a text they could discuss as a group. It seemed to develop quite naturally that colleagues who chose the same article were drawn to explore it together, while some were more inclined to work independently. The three publications were:

The colleagues at the reading table reported in their notes that it was reassuring to read in the Gallup poll that Gen Z (generally considered to be people born between 1997 and 2012) seem more aware of the contentious issues of using AI but that their concern that AI use risks replacing human skills rather than enhancing them must be taken seriously. Suggestions were made that Sussex must emphasise how AI can be used to enhance student experience and outcomes, if it is used at all, and that the university must ensure that suitable training is implemented across the institution.

Professor Luckin’s post, which was in response to Alex Imas’ Ghosts of Electricity article What will be scarce? was well-received, but didn’t generate much reaction as Luckin is essentially making the point that so many of us in Sussex’s Teaching with AI Community of Practice already understand – that while AI and automation has a place in education, the value that comes from the elements that only humans can deliver must be preserved. (Luckin cautions that the relational goods in education are devalued if AI is perceived to have “leaked” into them.) The hard task we should all be asking is where those distinctions lie: “where, in this institution, does human provenance matter?”

It was the article from The Spectator that generated the most discussion, probably because it is a polemic against the ills of AI and “lazy” students who use it. Sussex colleagues, as ever, identified the unfairness in the piece: that there are numerous reasons a student might be tempted to explore how generative AI could solve a problem for them in the moment, that not all students have equal access to such tools and this disadvantages students who cannot employ expensive or sophisticated systems, that actually the advent of AI only makes it more crucial that we develop assessments that are proportionate and relevant, and so on. Members of the CoP who are far from enthusiastic about adopting AI, rallied to the defence of the hypothetical students Hamilton labelled “lazy” and tore to shreds the points the author tried to make about in-person exams and removing anonymous marking. Reading the piece was useful though as the rhetoric about AI and universities published in a magazine that features in the Top 10 of current affairs titles in the UK (Press Gazette, 2026) is not something we can afford to ignore. Colleagues’ suggestions for Sussex are to ensure that information pages for staff and students, with a clear position on responsible use of AI and what this means, are made available and explicit, not hidden behind passwords and logins. Colleagues agreed that while the issue Hamilton writes about is sector-wide, we need a “cohesive, strategic approach…integrated into our policies” and that “some students will use AI; we [Sussex] need to adapt”.

Photograph of four people sitting at a classroom-style table reading printed articles.

One of the iterations of the Reading Table group (colleagues moved between activities as the session went on)

Be the Expert:

The “Be The Expert” activity invited colleagues to position themselves as the expert expected to provide a 30 minute training or coaching session for a new colleague joining their team in September 2026, with a focus on how the new starter could use AI to directly support their work or to improve student experience.  Prompts were provided, including variables such as what would change if the session were completely theoretical with no practical element, or if the session were extended to include multiple attendees.

 We had two responses to this activity, one by a teaching colleague who worked independently and one by a group comprising colleagues from across specialisms. The teaching example included suggestions such as using AI to support initial subject research, future trends, fact-checking, lesson planning and giving students examples of poor AI output for them to critique and learn from. The group example included reference to our institutional resources such as Skills Hub, the Library, assessment and academic integrity guidance, Employability and Entrepreneurship and wider research on how students use AI. The two responses demonstrated how AI can be used well to support students and staff at Sussex, and how our response is developing across the university. Both responses made the point that details regarding permitted or prohibited use of AI must be transparent, and that while using AI is not automatically misconduct, we have a responsibility to set clear expectations.

My observation was that while this was initially a less popular activity, colleagues who approached it after completing the reading activity seemed more prepared to tackle it, which highlights how important it is that experts have the chance to engage with literature and data, developing their own scholarship, before being expected to deliver training or advice to others.

Practical Hands-on:

The Practical Hands-on activity was facilitated by George Robinson, EE’s Senior Learning Technologist, and provided the opportunity for members of the CoP to explore and build AI agents using Microsoft CoPilot. George’s encouragement, vast knowledge and enthusiasm were perfectly suited to this task as he put colleagues at ease and encouraged them to give it a go.

 What started as a small one-on-one session soon grew as colleagues became more confident to join George and learn from him.

A photograph showing two people working together at laptops. The facilitator (George) is demonstrating on one device and watching the colleague complete the same activity on theirs.

George Robinson, Senior LT, guided and supported colleagues to build AI agents using Microsoft CoPilot.

Colleagues were surprised how easy the process turned out to be, and recognised that while this is certainly a point in favour, such ease also calls for caution: we must be careful not to become mindless in our interaction with the technology.

Visual and Artistic Expression:

Finally, the Visual and Artistic Expression activity, which was borrowed and adapted by Mark Thomas from one he saw at a JISC event, invited colleagues to illustrate how they perceive AI at Sussex now and in the future. Mark provided useful prompts to include in the artwork and to guide reflection, which were:

  • Draw the present – Sussex as it is today in terms of digital tools and its use of AI. Show how people experience AI: what works, what doesn’t and where challenges exist.
  • Draw the future – Sussex 5-10 years from now where AI is working at its best. Show what has changed, how people experience it, and what makes it successful.
  • Reflect – what are the key differences between the two drawings?
  • Barriers – what is stopping us from moving from the current picture to the future one?
  • Strategy Link – What would we need to prioritise to make the future picture a reality?

A photograph showing people working at a classroom-style table, creating illustrations. There are lots of coloured pens and the people are discussing their ideas.

The visual/artistic activity proved very popular and generated a lot of conversation and reflection among attendees.

Perceptions of current AI use at Sussex were varied, but the common themes reflected the uncertainties and conflicts that we would expect so early in a paradigm shift. A desire for clearer institutional guidance was evident, as was concern that risks such as threats to academic integrity, critical thinking, environmental resources and equity are not being sufficiently addressed.  


Illustration of the present showing a stick figure crossing a ravine where the only support is the letters A and I. The letters are shaky and the person is unsteady. It is necessary to cross the AI bridge to reach a building the other side of the ravine. Another stick figure stands on the side before the ravine and looks concerned.

In this thought-provoking example, AI is depicted as shaky ground separating people from reaching a destination. The building the person is trying to reach could represent employment (I read “Ltd.” on the roof) or another goal. It is clear that the artist views AI as a necessary but insecure part of the path to reaching the target. The person has to traverse the landscape without a guide who has gone before, but they do have a companion who might be encouraging them or urging caution.

Illustrations of how members of the Teaching with AI Community of Practice perceive AI at Sussex in the present. a) a building on fire, on a cliff about to fall in the sea. b) representations of money, time and intellect bowing to a representation of AI as a TV on a podium. c) wavy water representing extreme AI attitudes, including a shark fin. d) a battleground of AI enthusiasts and opposers. e) a representation of our AI tools being used without complete confidence or consistency. a representation of seeds underground.

Illustrations of how members of the Teaching with AI Community of Practice perceive AI at Sussex in the present.

When asked to consider how AI at Sussex might look in the 2030s, the responses were mostly optimistic that the university will find a way to adopting informed and equitable use. A well-resourced and human-centred experience is envisioned, informed by initiatives such as the Sussex Academic Framework, with discernment and balance.

 However, visions of the future did also include a stark warning about what we stand to lose if AI is allowed to overrun our values and our world: the threat to the natural environment is referenced, and the depiction of Sussex’s Arts A building alight drives home the risk to our creativity.

I was particularly struck by this illustration by Helen Todd, the Learning Technologist who supports Sussex’s Online Distance Learning provision, which shows AI as a tool used by skilled humans for the benefit of our community:

An illustration depicting AI as a plough being operated by a human proficient in the work. The land is fertile. There is a note that the plough has been fashioned from the swords of conflict depicted in the artist's vision of the present state of AI at Sussex. AI Swords into ploughshares Isiah 2:4.

Illustration of the future

For reference, Helen’s vision of the present situation with AI is the illustration depicting conflict between opposing camps, while “thoughtful engagement” tries to achieve peace.

Illustrations of how members of the CoP perceive AI at Sussex in the coming decade.<br /> a) more resource being used well, with teachers more confident and some tasks streamlined. The seeds from earlier have grown into shoots.<br /> b) the stick figures from before, this time the A I letters are stable and easy to climb, and colleagues further along can confidently encourage new adopters.<br /> c) AI breaking through a wall, removing barriers, and leading to an inclusive and happy future.<br /> d) Arts A is on fire, and our Meeting House is dwarfed by a monolith to AI with risks such as water scarcity and devaluing of creativity carved on the plinth.<br /> e) calmer waters than before, but still with some waves. The shark has been replaced with a sheep representing reduced risk.

Illustrations of how members of the Teaching with AI Community of Practice perceive AI at Sussex in the coming decade.

In terms of the barriers we are facing, and what members of the CoP understand to be priorities for achieving confident and critically informed use of AI, the number one call was for support for colleagues and students to develop their AI Literacy and their wider Digital Skills, echoing the second of our Principles for AI in Education which were published in Summer 2025.

Summary and Next Steps for the CoP

The 6th meeting of the Teaching with AI Community of Practice was a success, generating much discussion and providing time and space for colleagues to reflect on how they have worked with AI throughout 25/26, and what they would like to try for 26/27.  The activities and the structure was well-received and I really valued the chance to learn from everyone who came along.

Feedback on the session, and what colleagues would like to see from us in the future is invited on the MS Form here Teaching with AI Community of Practice – What’s Next for 26/27?.

You may view the resources we provided for the session here https://sussex.box.com/s/knm67qntxrt95l3bdfl6klrigr27lf14. If you would like to use them for your own event, we’d appreciate a credit.  

 

Across the Sector

The University of Surrey have announced that AI is to be embedded in discipline-specific ways in every Surrey degree from September 2026. Read more here: Surrey embeds AI in every degree from 2026.

JISC’s HE AI Community Meetup took place on 11th June. Read more about the topics here June HE AI community meetup – Artificial intelligence where you’ll see a lot of the perspectives at Sussex are echoed across institutions.

Further Afield

Coming up on 5th July, the BBC podcast The Artificial University will feature Kathryn Claire Higgins, a working academic in the UK, who wants to raise an alarm and ask “can university education survive AI?” Tune in here: BBC Radio 4 – Currently, The Artificial University.

Announcements were made by the UK Government during London Tech Week, including details such as UK infrastructure, online safety and defence. The announcements were covered by The Guardian here: UK sets out AI infrastructure push at London Tech Week – how does it stack up? | AI (artificial intelligence) | The Guardian

  • Join the Teaching and Learning with GenAI Community: If you’d like to join the community and be first to hear about events. Get in touch with us and we can add you to the list and dedicated MS Teams community. www.tinyurl.com/sussex-ai-cop
  • Disclaimer on any tools not supported at Sussex. Please do not share Sussex, student, colleague, sensitive or personal data via these platforms. Not being supported means they have not passed stringent Data Protection assessments and could put you at breach of policy and legislation. For a list of supported platforms for teaching and learning please visit the Educational Enhancement website.

This was a Spotlight on AI in Education update from Educational Enhancement

Tagged with: , , ,
Posted in Blog, Newsletter, Uncategorised

Embedding student consultancy projects in first year of Philosophy degrees

Posted on by Sam Hemsley
Picture of Sarah Sawyer

In this case study, Sarah Sawyer, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sussex and former Head of Department, talks about the process, drivers and impacts of introducing a student led consultancy project into a year one, semester one module.

What I do: 

In 2025/26 we embedded a student consultancy group project into our semester 1 ‘Reason and Argument’, undergraduate module. The module, which typically has around 70 students, is core for all first year Philosophy students, including joint honours and PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics) students.

The module is structured in two halves. In the first half, we teach students some core philosophical skills around critical thinking and analysing arguments, and how bad arguments are used in journalism, media, marketing and social media to persuade or manipulate. In the second half, students apply their learning through the student consultancy project, which was set by an industry expert, who in this case was from Microsoft.

They asked our students to develop a policy on ethical AI use for university students and staff. Working in groups of 5-6, students developed and presented their policy back to the industry expert, who was able to ask them questions and provide some on the spot informal feedback. The students also had to produce information leaflets for both staff and student audiences. We used Buddycheck, the University’s peer evaluation app, to encourage engagement and, importantly, to provide students with their own and others’ teamwork contributions. Finally, students were also required to construct a CV and encouraged and supported to articulate skills they had developed through the consultancy project.

Through this process, students were able to apply what they’d learned in the first half of the semester to a very current problem, develop group and team working skills and presentation skills, think about how different policies might be appropriate for different groups, and practice writing for different audiences. They received a range of different kinds of feedback on their contributions and outputs.

Why I did it: 

The main driver was to find a way to embed more employability within our curriculum. The student consultancy approach came out of a conversation with Emily Huns (Head of Careers, Employability and Entrepreneurship) whose team have a lot of experience in this area. They’ve now been working with a range of industry partners over a number of years to develop both tailored curriculum-based projects and extra-curricula, interdisciplinary, student-led consultancy projects, so they have a model we could follow and were able to help us engage our industry expert.

Another driver is the fact that philosophy is often misunderstood in terms of its relevance to work, including by our students. I want them to see, from their very first term, that the skills they are developing are valued by employers. Having someone from a major technology company explicitly say “we want you, not just coders” is an incredibly powerful message for them to hear at the start of their course.

Also, I think first year, and especially first term, is the ideal place to do this. Our students don’t yet have fixed expectations about assessment, so it is easier to be bold. It also gets them working in groups early, builds confidence, and establishes a sense of belonging. First year marks do not count towards the final degree, so the assessment is relatively low stakes while still being meaningful.

There were also some secondary benefits I had hoped for. The project helps students recognise and articulate the skills they are developing, addressing the ever-present question of “what am I going to do at the end of my degree?” right from the start. It also supports attendance, as students have an ongoing commitment to their group over several weeks and understand that not turning up affects others, not just themselves.

How it went: 

The student consultancy project was received very positively. The department was enthusiastic, and the industry partner was generous with their time, checking in with students at the start, midpoint and end of the project, which really helped our students stay on track and modelled professional ways of working.

Students engaged well with the brief and produced thoughtful, nuanced policies that recognised the appropriateness of different uses of AI in different contexts. Asking them to write information leaflets for staff and student audiences proved particularly valuable, as it forced them to translate abstract reasoning into accessible communication.

BuddyCheck worked well to support fairness and reflection in group work. Students were prompted to think actively about their own contributions and those of others and the tool gave us evidence in the rare cases where group work was uneven.

And, last but not least, having done this project in their first year, I suspect our students will be more likely to participate in the extra-curricular student consultancy projects for which they can get paid and benefit from opportunities to work with students from across a wider range of disciplines.

What I might change: 

The core structure will remain the same, but one area we are developing further is how we support students when groups aren’t functioning well. While rare, there are occasionally groups where one or two members contribute very little, leaving others carrying the work. Students fill in BuddyCheck after the deadlines so we’re going to provide clearer escalation routes and more proactive support when problems arise, encouraging students to let us know early rather than struggling on in silence.

Three top tips for others wanting to do the same: 

  1. Be bold in first year. Students are far more adaptable than we sometimes assume, and early experiences set expectations for how they will learn and work throughout their degree.
  2. Embed employability in a meaningful content. Do not bolt it on as an extra. Choose a rich, interesting brief that requires students to apply disciplinary thinking to real world problems.
  3. Prepare students for group work. Even a small amount of explicit discussion about collaboration, presentations and professional skills can make a significant difference, without detracting from academic depth.

Additional information: 

If you’re interested in introducing a student consultancy project into your course or module, or introducing other forms of experiential learning, please contact the Careers and Entrepreneurship team at careers@sussex.ac.uk to discuss the support available.

For more information about opportunities for students, see the student facing information about Career Lab and Student Consultancy Projects.

Tagged with: , , ,
Posted in Assessment and Feedback, Case Studies, Employability

Reflections on the Sussex Education Festival 2026

Posted on by Charlotte Crouch

On 8 May, over 100 colleagues from across the university attended the fourth Sussex Education Festival. This year’s festival was our biggest yet- with more applications to present, and more colleagues attending than any previous year. The content of the talks and discussions highlighted just how much incredible work goes into teaching and learning here at Sussex.

We tried out new formats such as roundtables with student respondents, panel discussions on new university initiatives, and a lunchtime walk and tour of the university’s Forest Food Garden. We also ran a showcase, advertising opportunities to get involved in education and scholarship, alongside projects and resources highlighted in talks during the day

a conference panel discussion of four people, a lady is holding the microphone and the others are listening

After morning pastries and a welcome from Kate O’Riordan, the convenors of the new Progressive Futures flagship electives formed the first session, in a panel discussion also hosted by Kate. We were reminded of Sussex’s rich interdisciplinary history and heard about how rewarding the convenors have found working together to design the new electives. The new modules, based on the three Sussex transformational themes, will be taken by the majority of all new first year undergraduates in the autumn.

We spent the rest of the morning enjoying rich presentations in parallel sessions, on topics such as experiential, creative and playful learning, inclusive pedagogy and using AI in the classroom. The lightning talks offered snapshots of projects, classroom interventions and research, all aimed at improving student experience and the way we teach at Sussex. The full programme can be found here.

At lunch, Perpetua Kirby offered a lunchtime walk. Colleagues took their packed lunch to the Forest Food Garden, to hear more about the opportunities available to use the garden in their own teaching. The team are currently looking for volunteers to help out in the garden- the next volunteering day is on Thursday 30 July.

13 people standing in a semicircle in an outdoor green space listening to a lady in the centre with her back to the camera

The last two parallel sessions of the day focused on building student wellbeing and supporting student transitions into higher education.

We closed the packed day with a roundtable: ‘Build it and students will come? Insights from staff and students on attendance’. The session brought together staff working on student engagement and participation with student connectors, who have received training on curriculum design and worked with fellow students to understand barriers to engaging in teaching sessions. The format wove together staff presentations with rich discussion and insights from student connectors. Our discussions took the outcomes of a recent report by Estelle Marks and Jenny Chanfreau as a starting point. The report uses survey and qualitative data to explore the reasons behind declining student attendance in our classrooms.

a row of 10 people on chairs forming a conference panel session, one student is holding a microphone while the others listen to her

Lara McMurtry, chair of the Education Festival Steering Group, reflected on the day:

It was lovely to see so many colleagues across the institution, sharing ideas, celebrating great practice and engaging in thoughtful conversations about education and student experience. Bringing staff and students together for the closing roundtable discussion felt like a really positive way to end the day. There was a real sense of energy, openness and community throughout, which made this year’s Festival such a big success.

We’ll leave you with Kate O’Riordan’s final reflections:

The Education Festival is a core event in the academic year at Sussex, and has gone from strength to strength. This is thanks to the excellent support from the Educational Enhancement team and the Education and Scholarship Committee. My thanks to everyone involved in this. Highlights this year included:

  • the panel on the progressive futures transformation theme electives, with reflections from the convenors of these modules;
  • and the panel on attendance and belonging which brought together students and staff to reflect on their experiences, and to show case and discuss the really important research at Sussex on this theme.
Also, the badges were great. We’ll be back next year and look forward to welcoming more staff and students from Sussex, and partner organisations to the event.

Tagged with: , , , , , ,
Posted in community engagement, Education and Scholarship, Events

Build it and students will come? Insights from staff and students on attendance and belonging at Sussex

Posted on by Sarah Watson

Dr Estelle Marks (Assistant Professor in Criminology) and Dr Jenny Chanfreau (Assistant Professor in Sociology)

Student attendance is one of the most discussed issues in higher education. While declining attendance is frequently noted anecdotally, there is less clarity about why students attend or don’t attend, and what attendance tells us about engagement. 

In this article, we draw on recent research led by Dr Estelle Marks (Assistant Professor in Criminology) and Dr Jenny Chanfreau (Assistant Professor in Sociology) in the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Sussex. Their study offers a nuanced and evidence-informed understanding of student attendance, moving beyond common assumptions and highlighting implications for teaching, curriculum design, and institutional policy. 

Impetus for the project 

The project began in 2024 with a pilot study prompted by observations of highly inconsistent attendance. As Estelle explains, while there were many anecdotal explanations circulating across the University, there was a need to understand what was really going on. To gain a more evidence informed perspective, the team conducted a survey initially within criminology and sociology programmes, before expanding it in 2025 to include all undergraduate students across the Faculty of Social Sciences.  This larger dataset enabled a more robust analysis of attendance patterns and student experience. The survey was sent to all undergraduate students in the Faculty of Social Sciences and received 746 responses. It is a strong sample size, although the response rate itself was relatively low – around 27%, which is typical for online surveys. It is also worth noting that students were being surveyed heavily at that time: final-year students had just completed the NSS, and other students were completing module evaluations, so survey fatigue likely played a role in the low response rate. 

The survey asked students to reflect on a wide range of barriers to attendance, indicating how often these affected them. Importantly, the survey combined quantitative measures with open-ended responses, allowing students to describe their experiences in their own words. 

Students responded to statements about barriers, indicating whether these affected their attendance “never”, “sometimes”, “often”, or “always”. 

Barriers were grouped into three categories: 

  • university-related barriers 
  • individual barriers (e.g. health and wellbeing) 
  • external factors (e.g. work, caring responsibilities, home life) 

A complex picture 

One of the most important findings is that attendance cannot be explained by a single factor. Instead, students experience a cumulative set of barriers that interact with one another. 

Individually, commonly cited barriers include: 

  • seminar anxiety 
  • timetabling challenges, particularly early morning and late evening sessions 
  • financial pressures, including the need to work 
  • travel costs 
  • physical and mental health, disability, and neurodivergence 
Percentage for students in reporting barriers to attendance 'often/always' by attendance quartile. Unsurprisingly, the number of reported barriers differed by attendance group, with almost half of students in the lowest quartile (Q1) reporting three or more university barriers, almost a quarter reporting three or more individual barriers and a fifth reporting three or more personal circumstances barriers affecting attendance ‘often’ or ‘always’. Among the highest attending (Q4) group the percentages reporting three or more barriers affecting attendance ‘often’ or ‘always’ were: 13% for university barriers, 3% for individual barriers and 6% for personal circumstances. Notable difference across specific barriers between attendance groups include seminars making students anxious, preferring to study online, disability, physical illness (with doctor’s involvement), diagnosed mental health conditions, living a long distance away from campus, having caring responsibilities and paid work.
Percentage for students in reporting barriers to attendance ‘often/always’ by attendance quartile.

What emerges from the qualitative data is that these are not separate issues. Students experience them as interconnected and reinforcing. For example, a student working long hours may not have time to complete preparatory reading, which increases anxiety about participating in seminars, which then affects attendance. 

Certain student groups are more likely to experience these cumulative pressures. Women, students of colour, mature students, and first-generation students reported higher levels of overlapping barriers. In particular, first-generation students were more likely to need to work alongside their studies, reflecting broader changes in the student population. 

The changing realities of student life 

Perhaps the most significant finding of the research relates to the changing financial context of higher education. As Estelle notes: 

The student loan, even with the maximum maintenance allowance, barely covers basic expenses like rent and food… Only students who receive financial support from family are able to fully dedicate themselves to their studies. 

This financial reality represents a fundamental shift in student experience. While widening participation initiatives have successfully increased access to university, many students now face a new barrier: the cost of living. The majority of students must balance study with paid work, significantly shaping how they engage with their education. Attendance, therefore, cannot be understood without recognising these broader structural pressures. 

Rethinking what counts as a barrier 

Another important insight from the study is that barriers are not objective measures, they are experienced realities. For example, simply living far from campus does not necessarily affect attendance. However, experiencing the commute as difficult or costly does. Similarly, having a disability or learning plan is not, in itself, linked to attendance but how those conditions are experienced, and whether appropriate support is in place, can have a significant impact. 

This highlights the importance of moving beyond “observable characteristics” and engaging directly with students’ lived experiences. As Jenny explains, understanding attendance requires listening to how students themselves interpret and navigate their circumstances. 

A strong theme emerging from the qualitative data is students’ frustration with transport costs. Many expressed palpable anger about rising bus fares and unreliable services, with this frustration sometimes directed towards the University, particularly where timetabling appears not to account for these constraints. Students described having to make difficult trade‑offs, for example, deciding whether to spend money on travel for a short teaching session or to prioritise work and other commitments. Timing further compounds the issue: several students noted that there are not enough buses to reliably get to early morning sessions, yet these sessions remain a fixed part of the timetable. The result is a clear sense of tension, with students feeling that structural factors beyond their control are shaping their ability to attend. 

Attendance and engagement are not the same thing 

A key finding that challenges common assumptions is that attendance is not a reliable proxy for engagement. The research found that reported study time does not differ significantly between attendance groups and students with lower attendance often still describe themselves as highly engaged, for example through reading or engaging with recorded materials. This finding raises important questions about how we define and measure engagement, particularly in a context where students are balancing multiple responsibilities. While there is longstanding evidence linking attendance and attainment, the authors suggest that this relationship needs to be revisited in light of current student realities. Attendance may no longer be an adequate stand alone measure of engagement in contemporary higher education. 

What can teachers do to support attendance? 

Address seminar anxiety 

Seminar anxiety emerged as one of the most frequently reported barriers to attendance. Many students expressed concern about speaking in front of others or being called upon in class. 

As a result, the researchers emphasise the importance of: 

  • creating supportive, low-stakes learning environments 
  • clearly communicating expectations 
  • framing seminars as learning spaces rather than testing spaces 

Students need to feel comfortable making mistakes as part of the learning process and this requires teaching approaches that normalise uncertainty and exploration. As noted in discussion, students may attend but not participate verbally due to anxiety, which raises questions about how engagement is recognised. 

Recognise competing demands 

Many teaching staff are aware that students face increasing pressures outside their studies. However, this awareness needs to translate into practical adjustments and flexibility, where possible. 

This might involve: 

  • reconsidering how preparatory work is structured 
  • acknowledging constraints on students’ time 
  • designing activities that remain meaningful even when preparation is limited 

Make in-person teaching meaningful 

A significant proportion of students reported a preference for online study. In a predominantly in-person institution, this raises an important question: what is the added value of attending in person? 

Departments and teaching teams may benefit from working collaboratively to: 

  • identify what cannot be replicated through recordings 
  • design sessions that emphasise interaction, discussion, and active learning 
  • ensure that attendance feels worthwhile 
  • Think creatively about how to ensure that attending in person feels valuable to students, so that there is a clear added benefit over watching recorded lectures later. 

Institutional implications 

The research also highlights several areas where institutional action could have a significant impact. 

Timetabling 

Students consistently identified timetabling as a barrier, particularly early morning or evening sessions, uneven distribution of teaching across the week and having to travel in for a single short session. At the same time, preferences vary widely, suggesting that there is no simple solution. Instead, the findings point towards a need for clearer communication around timetabling and more predictable scheduling patterns. 

Understanding engagement 

The study suggests that institutions need to move beyond attendance as a primary measure of engagement. While attendance data is widely available, other forms of engagement are less systematically captured. This gap offers an opportunity for institutions to develop more holistic measures of engagement that can explore how engagement is experienced by different student groups. 

Supporting teaching practice 

Finally, the research highlights the value of creating space for staff to reflect on approaches to reducing seminar anxiety and inclusive pedagogies more generally. While support for early-career teachers is well established in the Fundamentals of Teaching and Learning and the PGCert, the findings suggest that these conversations should take place across all levels of experience. 

Moving the conversation forward 

The research provides a foundation for ongoing discussion about student attendance and engagement at Sussex and beyond. While the study focuses on the Faculty of Social Sciences, its findings resonate more broadly across disciplines and institutions. For colleagues interested in learning more the full report is available below and provides detailed analysis and recommendations. The hope is that it will be read, discussed, and used to inform practice at multiple levels, from individual modules to institutional strategy.

Faculty-of-Social-Sciences-Student-Attendance-Survey-2025-Final-ReportDownload
Tagged with: ,
Posted in Articles

Spotlight on AI in Education: April & May 2026

Posted on by Mark Thomas
AI generated image of A girl looking at wires

Welcome to April and May’s 2026’s Spotlight on AI in Education bulletin. With how fast things are moving, this will help you cut through the noise and catch what’s important. The bulletin highlights on-the-ground practice, institutional perspectives, and trends in generative AI use across the sector and beyond. We hope you find this useful.

If you have anything you’d like to contribute or see in this bulletin, please email EE@sussex.ac.uk

On-the-ground at Sussex 

Sussex Education Festival 2026  

The fourth Sussex Education Festival happened last week at the Student Centre.  

The festival is for anyone involved in delivering education at Sussex and provides a supportive and collaborative space to celebrate and share experiences, research and reflections on teaching, learning and assessment. This year was a well-attended event with lots of interesting and thought-provoking talks on a range of topics.  

There were three AI sessions as part of the programme  

1.Using an AI-generated reception class to enhance deliberate practice in initial teacher Education. Using an AI-generated reception class, Hayley Preston-Smith explored how trainee teachers could safely practise classroom activities, behaviour management, report writing and other early-years skills, while also benefiting from peer reflection and more equitable learning experiences.

2.Teaching gen-AI prompting to develop science communication skills. Greig Joilin (Life Sciences) Greig examined how teaching students to use and critique generative AI prompts can support science communication skills, while highlighting the need for stronger critical thinking, self-evaluation, and a staged AI literacy curriculum across degree programmes.

3.Designing with AI: A backward -design and TBL approach focused on inputs, not outputs. Gabriella Cagliesi (USBS) Gabriella argued that, through backward design and clear pedagogical rules, AI can move beyond being a passive chatbot to become an active teaching partner that supports questioning, reflection, communication and critical engagement with AI-generated answers. 

Next AI Community of Practice 8th June  

The Teaching with AI Community of Practice will meet again Monday 8th June, when we look forward to hosting a salon-style event with opportunities to reflect on 2025/26 and discuss your ideas, experiences and questions with each other. 

We will meet in-person on the University Campus, in the Library Teaching Room (Ground Floor, by the step-free access next to IDS). Please register to attend here: Completing the form is particularly useful for us to accommodate any access requirements. 

Read more about our previous AI CoPs on the blog.

AI in education hub 

Please review our new and improved AI in education hub. Here you will find everything you need to know about the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in teaching, learning and assessment at The University of Sussex. 

Self-enrol to Educational Enhancement’s Canvas module “AI at Sussex” 

Sussex staff and students only) to support your use of AI in your teaching and learning, Please remember that CoPilot and other tools are constantly being developed, and the material might not always reflect how the tool operates on a given day. 

The JISC Building Digital Capabilities Toolkit is available to all Sussex staff and students, and includes guidance on how to improve your own digital skills. Access the toolkit here. The specialised question set looking AI focuses on 

  • AI and digital proficiency 
  • AI and digital productivity 
  • AI and information and data literacy 
  • AI and digital communication 
  • AI and collaboration and participation 
  • AI and digital creativity 
  • Responsible AI 

You can read more about the University of Sussex principles on AI here.

Find out more and book your place on the Summit.

 Across the Sector 

Topic: “Is AI the new plastic?” 

From my reading this month the concept of values and our AI driven future have come up on both the micro and macro level and ultimately looking at the enduring quality of AI use. Here are two articles talking about this subject: 

Values-led Generative AI in Design Education: A Toolkit for Confident, Critical Practice 

In this post it looks at how Nottingham Trent University, University of the Arts London, and Norwich University are exploring generative AI and how it is reshaping art and design education. They are attempting to respond by developing practical support to help students and staff integrate AI tools confidently while addressing authorship, ethics, originality, and creative practice. [altc.alt.ac.uk]

The resulting open Art, Design & Artificial Intelligence: Educator’s Toolkit offers design-cycle activities, case studies, and reflective “spark card” prompts grounded in nine shared AI design values (e.g., human creativity first, transparency, inclusion, process over output) to encourage critical, values-led use of generative AI in teaching.  

This statement resonated with me and is something I wish to explore more. “Whilst technologies evolve rapidly, the values cultivated through creative, critical and material practice are more enduring” These kind of activities described in the article put the process and the skills front and centre while taking emphasis off the final product are important reminders, for me personally, as I develop my professional work with AI as tool to support.  

The tensions of AI shouldn’t come as a surprise in a system wired for speed and output 

In this WonkHE article the author talks about the tension in the HE sector about AI use isn’t just about governance or a policy problem, they argue it’s a “dopamine problem,” because AI offers fast cognitive relief (turning friction, uncertainty, and drafting effort into neat output). Instead, universities need to rethink what they value and design for slower, difficulty, revision, and critical engagement especially as AI tools become embedded as invisible infrastructure [wonkhe.com] 

“We have seen this pattern before. Fast fashion was convenient before it was environmentally destructive. Social media was connective before it was corrosive. Plastic was revolutionary before it was everywhere… forever. In each case, the benefits were immediate and personal; the costs were distributed, delayed and easier to ignore. We normalised first and interrogated later.” 

Novelty, assistance and potential embarrassment: patterns of change in AI use amongst teachers. April 2026 

Martin Compton’s article looks at a 12-month-old post asking ‘What GenAI tools can do well’ has had hundreds of responses from educators around the world. Compton later asked contributors in the post “……What are your top personal and/or professional uses of generative AI tools?” 

Compton reports” The teachers, lecturers and students shared examples of what they were doing, along with anxieties and uncertainties. These comments revealed messy, sometimes confused pictures that reflect anything but consensus. Rather than any sort of transformation either to digital utopia or intellectual ruin there is nevertheless a sense of change over time that suggests increased normalisation and experimentation alongside heightened wariness.” [HEducationist] 

Further Afield 

Global Accessibility Awareness Day (GAAD) 21st May 2026  

Global Accessibility Awareness Day, is a worldwide initiative that encourages everyone to talk, think, and learn about digital access and inclusion for the more than one billion people living with disabilities. By spotlighting the importance of accessible design across web, mobile, and emerging technologies such as AI, GAAD highlights how inclusive digital experiences can remove barriers and create more equitable opportunities for all.  

For more information about events, news and resources visit the website  

The University of Kent’s Digitally Enhanced Education webinars!  

These webinars are organised into playlists based on different elements of AI use. The employability list has nine episodes with Q&A elements. These are all available for free on YouTube with other playlists focusing on topics about AI digital technologies for teaching. 

In case you missed it 

Other links on the topic of AI in teaching and learning you may have missed. 

  • Join the Teaching and Learning with GenAI Community: If you’d like to join the community and be first to hear about events. Get in touch with us and we can add you to the list and dedicated MS Teams community.  www.tinyurl.com/sussex-ai-cop   
  • Disclaimer on any tools not supported at Sussex. Please do not share Sussex, student, colleague, sensitive or personal data via these platforms. Not being supported means they have not passed stringent Data Protection assessments and could put you at breach of policy and legislation. For a list of supported platforms for teaching and learning please visit the Educational Enhancement website. 

This was a Spotlight on AI in Education update from Educational Enhancement 

www.tinyurl.com/sussex-ai-cop 

Tagged with: , , ,
Posted in Blog, Newsletter

Upcoming education-focused opportunities: teaching, learning, scholarship and pedagogic research

Posted on by Sarah Watson

Here is a range of opportunities from across the sector to share educationfocused practice, present work, and publish. Some opportunities require payment and travel, while others are free, and we hope this selection highlights the excellent range of options available to suit different interests and circumstances. 

Conferences, symposia, and events 

(In)equalities in PostCompulsory Education – MiniConference 

  • Date: 2 June 2026, 10.00–15.00 
  • Location: King Henry I Street, Portsmouth, PO1 2BZ 
  • Format: In person 
  • Cost: Free (booking required) 
  • Focus: Social justice, inequality, resistance, and transformation in postcompulsory education 

This miniconference explores contemporary challenges in postcompulsory education, with a focus on resistance, transformation, and reimagining the future. 

ALDcon26 – Association for Learning Development in Higher Education 

  • Location: University of Leeds 
  • Dates: 12 June and 16–17 June 2026 

ALDcon26 brings together colleagues working in learning development, academic literacy, and inclusive curriculum design. Conference themes include advocating for learning development, disciplinespecific approaches, blended learning, and digital innovation. 

Assessment in Higher Education conference

Theme: Assessment and feedback.

Dates: 18 June – 19 June

Focus: Improving assessment and feedback as a means of enhancing the student experience.

Advance HE Teaching & Learning Conference 2026 

  • Theme: Success by Design 
  • Dates: 30 June – 2 July 2026 
  • Focus: Teaching, assessment, belonging, employability, and institutional change 

A major sectorwide conference with strong alignment to practicebased inquiry and educational enhancement. 

Collaborative Pedagogic Research Symposium 

  • Date: 10 July 2026 
  • Format: Online (Teams) 
  • Theme: Collaborative Pedagogic Research 

This symposium marks the launch of the International Pedagogic Research Network (IPRN), a supportive community for colleagues engaged in pedagogic research, educational innovation, and teachingfocused careers. 

2nd International Conference on Innovative Teaching and Education (ITECONF 2026) 

  • Dates: 17–19 July 2026 
  • Location: London 
  • Focus: Innovative teaching practice, curriculum design, and pedagogic research 
  • Call for papers: Open 

ITECONF welcomes both empirical research and reflective, practicebased contributions from academics and educators. 

EdTec – International Conference on Education & Learning Technology 

  • Dates: 22–23 November 2026 
  • Location: London 
  • Focus: Digital pedagogy, learning technologies, assessment, and inclusion 
  • Call for papers: Open 
Shape

Writing and publishing opportunities 

Call for Book Chapters – Empowering Graduate Skills in the Age of Augmented Intelligence 

Editors: 
Dr Christine O’Dea (King’s College London) 
Dr Davy Tk Ng (The Education University of Hong Kong) 
Dr Jac Ka Lok Leung (Hong Kong University of Science and Technology) 
Dr Mike O’Dea (University of York) 

This forthcoming Emerald Points edited volume focuses on creative pedagogies and graduate skills development in the age of augmented intelligence, with an emphasis on crossdisciplinary case studies. 

Key details: 

  • Chapter length: up to 3,000 words 
  • Focus: practical case studies of creative pedagogy involving AI 
  • Expression of Interest deadline: 30 May 2026 
  • Draft chapter: 1 August 2026 
  • Final chapter: 1 October 2026 
  • Publication: January 2027 

Ongoing scholarship and sector platforms 

International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (ISSOTL) 

ISSOTL supports faculty, professional staff, and students who view teaching and learning as serious intellectual work, and provides international infrastructure for SoTL research, writing, and collaboration. 

Write for Wonkhe 

Wonkhe publishes commentary and analysis on UK higher education for a readership of highereducation professionals across academic, professional services, and policy roles. 

Times Higher Education (THE) Campus 

THE Campus is a knowledgesharing community focused on teaching and learning in higher education. Contributions include concise guides, evidencebased explainers, case studies, reflective pieces, and leadership insights. 

Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning Journal 

This journal addresses pressing questions of access, equity, social exclusion, and lifelong learning in education, engaging with national and international policy and practice. 

Tagged with:
Posted in Blog

About this blog

Learning Matters provides a space for multiple and diverse forms of writing about teaching and learning at Sussex. We welcome contributions from staff as well as external collaborators. All submissions are assigned to a reviewer who will get in touch to discuss next steps. Find out more on our About page.

Please note that blog posts reflect the information and perspectives at the time of publication.