Student-centred culture connects relationships and university systems

Updated Sep 07, 2026

Student-centred teaching involves relationships in classrooms and decisions beyond them. Petra Nilsson Lindström, Åsa Bringsén, Maria Melén and Ann Ooms explore those connections in their study of a Swedish university programme, published online in Studies in Higher Education on 29 November 2025.

The authors develop two models: HOLUS describes university systems, while CO-SEEM describes the roles and interactions of students and educators. These are ways to interpret practice, rather than tested interventions with demonstrated effects on student outcomes.

Evidence scope: this briefing uses the publisher’s abstract and accessible indexed methods, findings and discussion sections. We could not read the complete article or inspect the model figures during this review.

How the models were developed

The study used constructivist grounded theory in a public-health programme at a university in southern Sweden. The accessible methods describe eight reflective sessions with educators, two first-year student focus groups with five students in each, and two rounds of member-checking involving 72 first- and second-year students. Researchers iteratively combined educator and student evidence when developing the models. Member-checking here helped refine an interpretation; it was not an independent test of whether adopting the models improved learning.

HOLUS connects four levels: the university and surrounding society; faculty conditions and support; programmes and courses; and direct interactions between educators and students. Participants discussed formal representation, library and academic support, collegial reflection, coherent teaching approaches and relational trust. CO-SEEM focuses on student responsibilities, educator responsibilities and what they develop together through dialogue, feedback and shared attention to learning.

The useful distinction is between collecting feedback and providing conditions in which people can discuss and respond to it. The study’s participants connected student-centred practice with both institutional support and everyday relationships. A local qualitative study cannot establish that a particular arrangement is necessary or sufficient in every university.

Questions for local review

Our suggestion is to trace one recurring student concern through the levels the models describe. A teaching activity may require a module-level response; an issue with programme coordination or access to support may involve other teams. Agree responsibility with those teams and students, rather than assuming that a comment category determines who can resolve it.

Compare representative discussion with survey comments and other feedback routes. Record which students contributed and where views may be missing. The NSS open-text methodology offers a starting point for discussing consistent categorisation, while the governance checklist addresses handling and review. Neither replaces dialogue or establishes that participants represent everyone.

Programme teams could also review whether staff have time to discuss feedback together and whether students understand the reasons for course design. These are proposed local checks inspired by the models, not improvements demonstrated by this study. Document decisions and explain the response to students, including proposals that cannot be adopted.

FAQ

Q: Can the models be used outside the Swedish programme?

A: They can provide questions for comparison, but their fit should be assessed locally. The study does not estimate how common these conditions are or demonstrate that implementing a model improves outcomes elsewhere.

Q: What did the larger member-checking group establish?

A: It contributed student responses to the developing interpretation. It should not be treated as a representative survey or an effectiveness evaluation.

Q: Where should a team start?

A: Select one concern, examine the relevant relationships and decision levels, and agree with students and staff how it will be considered. Record the limits of the available feedback as well as the intended response.

Review, 7 September 2026: clarified the limited source access and distinguished qualitative model development from demonstrated institutional outcomes.

Reference

Petra Nilsson Lindström, Åsa Bringsén, Maria Melén and Ann Ooms. “Models for student-centered educational culture: Holistic University Systems for a Student-Centered Educational Culture (HOLUS) and Co-Created Student-Educator Engagement Model (CO-SEEM).” Studies in Higher Education. DOI:10.1080/03075079.2025.2596124.