Post-pandemic flexibility can widen access while weakening belonging

By Student Voice AI

Updated Apr 10, 2026

Flexible learning solved real access problems after the pandemic. It also made it easier for some students to feel like visitors rather than members of a course community. At Student Voice AI, we see the same tension in student comments: flexibility can remove real barriers, but it can also make courses feel thinner, less social, and easier to consume passively. That is why Gemma Mansi's Innovations in Education and Teaching International paper, "Navigating student engagement and belonging post-pandemic: A case study from a post-1992 university", matters for UK universities using student voice to understand engagement, belonging, and the effects of hybrid delivery. The paper shows why post-pandemic engagement cannot be judged by attendance or digital access alone. Universities also need to know whether flexible provision still gives students meaningful ways to feel connected.

Context and research question

Many UK universities now teach in an environment shaped by lecture recordings, hybrid expectations, commuting pressures, paid work, and higher levels of anxiety about participation. Those shifts can widen access for students who cannot always be on campus, which is a genuine gain. But they also create a practical challenge for Student Experience teams: if flexibility changes how students participate, what happens to belonging, confidence, and the shared learning culture that helps students stay engaged?

Mansi examines that question through a qualitative case study at an English post-1992 university with a widening-participation ethos and a large proportion of commuting students. Guided by Kahu's ecological framework of engagement, the study used three staff focus groups, three student focus groups, and an interview with a senior faculty leader. That design makes the paper useful for UK higher education teams because it connects personal factors such as confidence and wellbeing with institutional factors such as pedagogy and timetabling, and with sociocultural factors such as peer community and academic expectations.

Key findings

The clearest finding is that engagement has become more individualised and transactional. Staff and students described a post-pandemic culture in which digital resources and flexible attendance patterns can encourage students to treat university as something to fit around other pressures rather than a shared academic community. For UK institutions, that matters because dashboards can show high resource access while hiding a weaker form of engagement built on passive consumption rather than active participation.

Flexible learning had a double effect. The paper argues that it widened inclusion, especially for diverse and commuting students, but also reduced shared presence and community cohesion. This is a practical warning for universities that kept pandemic-era flexibility without redesigning how connection happens, a tension echoed in evidence on why students choose online or on-campus participation in hybrid teaching. Accessibility gains are real, but they do not automatically create belonging.

Students increasingly built belonging through small, peer-led digital communities rather than formal course structures. Group chats and informal online spaces became extensions of the learning environment, often providing the support, reassurance, and continuity that students did not always find in timetabled settings. One student described that kind of learning community as being about "genuine care" and knowing that someone in the group would reply helpfully when you were stuck. For Student Voice teams, that is important because belonging may now sit as much in informal peer spaces as in scheduled teaching, which means formal course feedback needs to ask about both.

"it's about genuine care ... someone will always reply with a helpful comment."

Confidence, motivation, and social anxiety remained central barriers to participation. The study shows that some students, especially in larger classes, held back because they feared being judged or getting things wrong. Staff also described a post-pandemic cycle in which anxiety affects participation, which then shapes teaching choices, and can further weaken communal learning. That matters for institutions because low engagement is not always a sign of disinterest. Often, it reflects a learning environment that feels too exposed or too impersonal.

Institutional design still matters enormously. Timetabling, large-group teaching, lecture recordings, and the clarity of expectations all shaped whether students saw participation as worthwhile. The paper's broader point is that engagement should not be treated as a student deficit. It is an ecological outcome produced by the interaction between student confidence, course design, staff-student relationships, and peer culture.

Practical implications

For UK higher education teams, the first implication is to stop treating flexibility as self-explanatory progress. Hybrid and digital options can improve access for commuting, working, and caring students, but they only protect belonging when universities design for connection as deliberately as they design for convenience. That means smaller discussion spaces, clearer participatory expectations, and low-pressure ways to contribute before students are asked to speak in front of a large room. If the goal is inclusive engagement, convenience alone is not enough.

Second, universities should collect student voice on connection, not only on convenience. A survey can tell you whether students value recordings or timetable flexibility, but it will not show whether those same changes are weakening peer ties or making classes feel passive. Add open-text prompts such as "What helps you feel part of your course?" and "What makes it easier or harder to take part?" Then analyse those responses by commuting pattern, study mode, and year group, because belonging can shift across the academic year rather than staying stable after induction. That is where Student Voice Analytics fits naturally: it helps institutions compare recurring belonging and engagement themes in free-text comments, so teams can act on patterns rather than anecdotes.

Third, institutions should recognise informal peer networks as part of the engagement infrastructure. If students are sustaining belonging through group chats and other digital micro-communities, universities should think seriously about how formal teaching, induction, personal tutoring, and student support can connect with those patterns rather than ignore them. The practical aim is not to institutionalise every peer interaction, but to design courses and support services that reinforce dialogue, confidence, and mattering across both physical and digital spaces.

The broader lesson is simple. If universities want hybrid provision to remain inclusive, they need evidence not only of whether students can access learning, but also of whether they still feel part of it. Post-pandemic student voice work is strongest when it looks at belonging, confidence, and participation together rather than treating them as separate issues.

FAQ

Q: How should universities apply this paper when reviewing hybrid or flexible delivery?

A: Start by checking whether flexible provision is improving access at the cost of community. Ask students not only whether recordings, online materials, or timetable options are useful, but whether these formats still help them feel connected to peers, staff, and the course. Short pulse surveys with open comments are often enough to show where convenience is helping and where it is weakening participation.

Q: What are the methodological limits of this study?

A: This is a qualitative case study from one English post-1992 university, so it is designed to explain mechanisms rather than estimate prevalence across the sector. Its strength lies in showing how staff and students interpret engagement and belonging after the pandemic. UK universities should use it as an interpretive framework for local feedback, not as a sector benchmark.

Q: What does this change about student voice practice more broadly?

A: It reinforces that engagement cannot be reduced to attendance, logins, or resource use. Student voice becomes more useful when institutions ask how students experience confidence, connection, and participation in real contexts. Free-text comments are especially valuable here because they reveal whether flexible learning feels liberating, isolating, or both at once.

References

[Paper Source]: Gemma Mansi "Navigating student engagement and belonging post-pandemic: A case study from a post-1992 university" DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2026.2629477

Request a walkthrough

Book a free Student Voice Analytics demo

See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and reporting designed for OfS quality and NSS requirements.

All-comment coverage with HE-tuned taxonomy and sentiment.
Versioned outputs with TEF-ready reporting.
Benchmarks and BI-ready exports for boards and Senate.

Prefer email? info@studentvoice.ai

UK-hosted · No public LLM APIs · Same-day turnaround