Intervention Connect

Introduction

My intervention design idea Connect centers the students’ need to make meaningful connections during their study time, both emotional and professional. The first to increase their feeling of belonging and decrease social barriers, the latter to foster their success. Amongst the teaching team we observed the absence of our international students to connect with others outside their course, this is echoed by the results of the Course Student Survery (CSS), figure 1 (2025). This might be due to language and social barriers and a lack of networks. I believe that this not only has a negative impact on their academic performance, but on their social life as well, which in turn increases the negative feeback loop, amplifying their individual struggles. As a fairly recent imigrant to the UK, multi-lingual and with a life shaped by living in various different countries before my arrival here, I understand how important networks are, but also how important it is to feel connected. Therefore I’m passionate about giving students a sense of belonging on our course.

Context

I am a part of the teaching team at the MA Innovative Fashion Production course at LCF, as an hourly paid lecturer (HPL). I accompany the students as a tutor and lecturer across the year. Critical for the envisioned intervention is the final Master’s project in block 3. While the students have settled in, they are just getting the hang of academic expectations at MA level. At this time, they have made strong connections amongst themselves (91% agree, see fig. 1) and have become close to the teaching team and institution (90% agree, see fig. 1). These figures are about 20% higher than UAL wide, suggesting that we are doing not too bad, which might be due to regular informal class socials that the students organise. The established sense of belonging not only shows in classroom interactions, but also manifests itself in Instagram following and LinkedIn connection requests we are starting to receive by the end of block 2. The latter also shows that they start contemplating about their career paths after graduation.

“There are not sufficient opportunities to connect with other postgraduate taught students.”
UAL course survey result (2025)

At the moment, 73% of our students agree that “There are not sufficient opportunities to connect with other postgraduate taught students.” (UAL survey result, 2025), a survey that was conducted this year before the Easter break. To put this figure in perspective; it is 10% higher than the UAL survey result across UAL.

UAL wide our course MA IFP is performing very well in ‘Community’, with an average of 84.6% (see fig. 2) composed of the answers to the questions in fig. 1., compared to the UAL-wide much lower result of 68.6%. If the answer to the last question yielded a higher agreement rate, we would do exeptionally well. Notably, 84.6% is still our course’s lowest questionnaire score and therefore important to address.

Inclusive learning and intervention rationale

Inclusive practices in education are not only crucial for providing a positive study experience for all students but are transformative, especially those that recognize intersectionality and value lived experiences (Holland-Gilbert, 2019). Czerniewicz and Cronin (2023) frame belonging as inseparable from the idea of “infrastructures of care.” arguing that the higher education systems often fail to foster belonging for many students, due to competitive and individualistic cultures. Similarly, deficit discourses and structural inequalities reinforce feelings of alienation and marginalisation (Bradbury, 2020; Czerniewicy and Cronin, 2023).

“Care in higher education must be about creating the conditions for all to flourish: this necessarily means fostering belonging, inclusion and recognition for those who have historically been marginalised.”

(Czerniewicz and Cronin, 2023)

This frames belonging as not just emotional comfort but as a systemic goal. Within this discourse, networks are mentioned as one way to foster belonging. They are seen as central to moving away from cultures of individualism to more collaborative, relational, and care-focused practices. The intervention intends to connect the students to other students, alumni and people outside of the University.

Reflection

The idea for the intervention emerged during a team discussion about the upcoming Master’s project unit. Reflecting on the previous year, I noticed that some students seemed reluctant to seek out help by others, both from within and outside of University, likely held back by a lack of confidence and language barriers. This observation stayed with me, as I felt that these challenges were not just academic and emotional, but structural. How should they build and access supportive networks uniquely meaningful to them?

At the same time, I happened to listen to a podcast episode by Leah Cox, one of our IP guest lecturers, in which she discussed using a Human Library for social work students. What struck me most was hearing the student’s own account of how meaningful that experience had been for her learning, especially that the encounter not only enhanced her expertise, it boosted her confidence and brought her closer together with her peers. I thought this was a helpful example of how to part from a purely skills-based perspepctive to considering the emotional and relational dimensions of learning.

Initially, my proposal foregrounded academic support, with the inclusive and emotional aspects positioned almost as byproducts. However, when I shared the idea with my peers, I chose to emphasise the student’s voice from the podcast as the dominant inspiration behind the intervention. Their feedback was insightful; they suggested the intervention should centre on building a supportive network. One peer, in particular, reflected on how valuable such a workshop would have been for her personally as a newly arrived international student at the time, which made me realise the broader potential impact.

“Establishing a network for students who don’t have one.”

(Ignacia, 2025)

My tutor also offered a critical perspective, pointing out that my original title, Expert Encounter, could unintentionally reinforce traditional hierarchies by suggesting that the expert holds authority. This feedback prompted me to reconsider the framing of the intervention. Drawing on Freire’s (1970) idea that “No one educates anyone else, nor do we educate ourselves; we educate one another in communion,” I was reminded that everyone brings unique forms of expertise shaped by their lived experiences. This reflection helped me reframe the intervention. I now prefer to include the students in the process of ideating the network event in terms of event design and choice of guests. Therefore, I chose to rename it to Connect, as a space where students and their guests could share, listen, and learn from each other on equal terms.

Reflecting on the planning for our networking event, I identified a potential risk linked to funding: there is no dedicated budget available, although our programme leader kindly offered a small amount for providing refreshments. This lack of funding means I am unable to pay some external network candidates for their time, which is particularly unfortunate as some may need to make financial decisions about how they spend their time, despite their goodwill and desire to contribute.

• Action – How would this intervention be used and what does this mean to your practices? 
• Evaluation of your process – what have you learned from this process? If you were to implement it, how would you know if it’s working. 
• Conclusion – what are your key observations and reflections regarding this process,your positionality, and your practices? 

References
Allport, G.W. (1954) The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bradbury, A. (2020) A critical race theory framework for education policy analysis: The case of bilingual learners and assessment policy in England. Race Ethnicity and Education, 23(2).

Czerniewicz, L. and Cronin, C. (eds) (2023) Higher Education for Good: Teaching and Learning Futures. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers. Available at: https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0363 (Accessed: 10 July 2025).

Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Hall, F. (2025) Positive Evaluation – Tools for evaluative thinking. Available at: https://positiveevaluation.myblog.arts.ac.uk/ (Accessed: 4 July 2025).

Holland-Gilbert, J. (2019) Precariat insurgency: A means to improve structures of inclusivity in higher education. In: K. Hatton, ed. Inclusion and intersectionality in visual arts education. London: Institute of Education Press (IOE Press), pp.122–142.

Gibbs, G., 1988. Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford: Further Education Unit, Oxford Polytechnic.

Rolfe, G., Freshwater, D. & Jasper, M., 2001. Critical reflection for nursing and the helping professions: a user’s guide. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Savage, P. (2022) ‘The New Life’: Mozambican Art Students in the USSR, and the Aesthetic Epistemologies of Anti-Colonial Solidarity. Art History, 45(5), pp.1078-1100.

Appendix

UAL wide our course MA IFP is doing well, with an average of 84.6% composed of the answers to the questions in fig. 1.