Welcome week attendance boosts peer belonging, but not staff belonging
Updated Apr 23, 2026
Belonging gaps can open in the first few weeks of term, when universities still have time to act. That is why this 2025 paper in Studies in Higher Education asks a practical question: do early introductory activities actually change students’ sense of belonging, and if so, for whom? Using survey data from 1,448 first-year students at a research university in the Netherlands, Aike S. Dias-Broens, Anne-Roos Verbree, David Gilani, Petrie van der Zanden and Tamara van Woezik test whether attending an introduction week shapes belonging with peers and lecturers across the first semester. For UK teams, the takeaway is immediate: welcome week may strengthen peer connection, but it is not enough on its own to build belonging with staff. Read the paper here.
Context and research question
Most UK universities invest heavily in welcome week. The underlying logic is clear: early social integration should make it easier for students to form friendships, feel confident navigating academic life, and ask for help when they need it. But welcome week is often treated as a tradition rather than an intervention that is evaluated with evidence. That makes it harder to tell which activities genuinely improve belonging, and which simply fill the calendar.
Dias-Broens et al. focus on sense of belonging (SOB) as a core outcome, and they break it into two parts that matter for institutional practice: belonging with fellow students and belonging with lecturers. Their research question is simple and actionable: does introduction week attendance change the trajectory of belonging, and does belonging itself influence whether students take part? That question sits alongside related evidence that student belonging can decline later in the first year. For institutions, that distinction matters because peer connection and staff connection may need different interventions.
Key findings
Introduction week attendance predicted stronger belonging with fellow students. The authors used a longitudinal design, measuring belonging three times across the first semester and analysing the relationships using cross-lagged panel models. In other words, the study does more than show that students who attend feel better: it tests direction over time. That gives institutions firmer evidence for treating welcome week as something to evaluate, not just deliver.
“A strong positive effect of introduction week attendance was found on students’ belonging with fellow students, not with lecturers.”
There was no comparable effect on belonging with lecturers. Belonging with staff increased over time, but attendance at the introductory activities did not shift that trajectory in the same way it did for peer belonging. For UK teams, this is a useful distinction: what builds social integration among students may not automatically build academic connection with teaching staff. If staff belonging matters too, institutions need additional touchpoints beyond welcome week.
The effects were not evenly distributed across student groups. Students with higher introduction week attendance showed stronger growth in belonging, and students with a Dutch cultural background showed stronger growth than their peers. That has a direct UK analogue: if early social integration activities are easier to access for some groups than others, they can unintentionally widen belonging gaps. Measuring by student group is how universities see that risk early enough to respond.
Peer belonging looked “sticky” early on. The study reports that belonging with fellow students was relatively stable across the first semester, while belonging with lecturers increased. If peer belonging sets early, welcome week and the first teaching weeks become a high-leverage period for collecting feedback and spotting groups who are not connecting.
Belonging related to dropout intention and depressive symptoms. Stronger belonging was associated with lower dropout intention and lower depressive symptoms. That matters for UK HE teams because it links “soft” student experience outcomes to continuation risk and wellbeing, not just satisfaction.
Practical implications
For UK institutions, three implications stand out if the goal is stronger belonging, earlier risk detection, and more targeted support.
First, treat welcome week as a belonging intervention, and specify the mechanism. If the main lift is in peer belonging, design activities that create repeated, low-pressure contact between students, rather than one-off events that favour confident joiners. That improves the odds that less confident students still make meaningful connections.
Second, design for non-attenders, not just attenders. Students miss welcome week for reasons that are predictable: caring responsibilities, work, travel, disability access needs, commuting, and anxiety. The practical response is not only “more events”, but accessible alternatives and follow-up touchpoints in weeks 2 to 6, when students can still build peer networks. That gives institutions a second chance to reduce gaps created in the first few days.
Third, measure belonging early, and combine scales with structured open-text analysis. Use a short pulse survey after welcome week, and again after the first assessment, with one or two belonging items plus an open-text prompt such as “What helped you feel part of your course so far?” and “What made it harder?”. Segment results by student group and mode of study so you can see who is being left behind, and where support needs to change first.
This is where Student Voice Analytics fits naturally. Analysing open-text at scale helps teams move from “belonging is down” to “these are the specific barriers students describe, and how they vary by cohort and programme”. If you want to track belonging themes after welcome week and through the first semester, see how Student Voice Analytics helps teams analyse open-text feedback at scale.
FAQ
Q: How can we evaluate whether welcome week is improving belonging at our university?
A: Use a short term-time pulse survey with one or two belonging items and one open-text question about what helped or hindered connection. Compare results for students who attended different types of activities, then repeat the same measures later in the semester (for example, after the first assessment) to see whether gaps narrow or persist. Pair this with continuation and wellbeing indicators to understand whether belonging changes are linked to risk.
Q: What should we be cautious about when interpreting “attendance causes belonging”?
A: Attendance is partly a choice and partly a constraint, so self-selection is always a risk. Cross-lagged panel models help by testing direction over time, but they cannot eliminate all confounding (for example, prior confidence or social networks). Treat the findings as evidence about plausible mechanisms, then validate locally with pilots, segmentation, and comparison groups.
Q: What does this imply for student voice work beyond welcome week?
A: It reinforces that belonging is multi-dimensional and time-sensitive. Early feedback can reveal whether students are building peer networks, whether they feel able to approach staff through personal tutor check-ins, and which groups are not connecting. Using open-text alongside short scales gives UK HE teams the detail they need to design targeted support, then track whether belonging-related themes improve for the cohorts that need the most support.
References
[Paper Source]: Aike S. Dias-Broens, Anne-Roos Verbree, David Gilani, Petrie van der Zanden, Tamara van Woezik "Sense of belonging in higher education: The effect of early introductory activities" DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2025.2598598
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.
UK-hosted · No public LLM APIs · Same-day turnaround