ID123 Embedding Wellbeing-by-Design Across the Curriculum

The Idea

We propose a university-wide Keele Wellbeing Framework that systematically embeds wellbeing into programme design, induction, organisation & delivery, and assessment & feedback, treating wellbeing not as an add‑on but as a hallmark of educational quality. Building on the Wellbeing Learning Circle, staff workshops, and our forthcoming book chapter “Keeping well: Curriculum design for wellbeing of staff and students”, the framework translates evidence-based principles (e.g., Active learning, Belonging, Communication) into practical, discipline-sensitive actions. 

While the primary focus of the Keele Wellbeing Framework is curriculum design and delivery, its impact is intended to extend beyond teaching staff alone. The framework recognises that student wellbeing is shaped by the wider institutional ecosystem, including the practices and wellbeing of professional services colleagues, managers and research-active staff who contribute to the learning environment. As such, the framework is designed to be relevant to all colleagues whose roles influence curriculum structures, learning conditions and student support, with scope to evolve over time through aligned staff development, leadership practice and organisational processes. 

Why now: student loneliness, financial stressors, and staff workload pressures are rising; sector guidance (e.g., Advance HE, 2024. QAA 2023 & 2024. Student Minds/UMHC, 2024) places curriculum at the heart of mentally healthy universities. Keele’s curriculum is the only guaranteed touchpoint for all students, making it the most equitable lever for change.

The framework would be a satellite to the IEF, co-created with Schools and professional services, and supported by a practical toolkit (rubrics, mapping templates, induction playbooks, assessment calendars, example activities). It will codify small, sustainable changes (e.g., assessment spacing, feedback literacy, reflective “check‑in/check‑out” routines, compassionate flexibility) that improve learning, belonging and attainment while protecting staff capacity and morale. It will provide a benchmark for staff to recognise the positive aspects of their teaching. 

References:

• Spaeth, E. (2024). Wellbeing in the curriculum: A new compendium of case studies. Advance HE. https://advance-he.ac.uk/news-and-views/wellbeing-curriculum-new-compendium-case-studies?_ga=2.243333446.27957667.1712569479-445564280.1712569479  
• Student Minds. (2023). University Mental Health Charter framework. https://hub.studentminds.org.uk/resources/charter-framework/
• Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2023). Inclusive higher education framework. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/members/inclusive-higher-education-framework.pdf?sfvrsn=209aaa81_6
• Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2024). Embedding mental wellbeing: Methods and benefits. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/membership/benefits-of-qaa-membership/collaborative-enhancement-projects/learning-and-teaching/embedding-mental-wellbeing 

Why This Idea Should Be Considered

Wellbeing strongly correlates with engagement, attainment, retention and graduate confidence; conversely, poor wellbeing undermines learning and staff sustainability. Sector toolkits and reviews now explicitly identify curriculum design as a primary determinant of student mental health and emphasise whole‑institution approaches rather than tokenistic add‑ons. Keele already has momentum, cross‑faculty collaboration, workshops, case studies and a shared vocabulary (ABC of Student Wellbeing, 2022. Advance HE Student Needs, 2023 and Advance HE, 2022.). Formalising this into a single, visible framework will align practice with policy (Keele’s IEF, Graduate Attributes), reduce duplication, and position Keele as a leader in compassionate, rigorous education that benefits students and staff. 

Whilst this directly impacts Academic staff and the Keele’s Institute for Innovation and Teaching Excellence (KIITE) team, it will have an indirect impact on professional services staff across the university e.g. administrative teams for assessment set-up and student support teams due to more supported student. Wellbeing underpins engagement, attainment and retention for students, while also directly influencing staff sustainability, absence and organisational performance. Evidence increasingly highlights that positive staff wellbeing is associated with improved teaching quality, continuity of provision and student experience. By embedding wellbeing principles into curriculum design, the framework supports not only student learning and belonging but also healthier workload patterns, clearer expectations and greater professional fulfilment for staff, creating mutually reinforcing benefits across the institution. 

References:

• Advance HE. (2023). Student Needs Framework. https://advance-he.ac.uk/teaching-and-learning/student-needs-framework
• Advance HE. (2022). Education for Mental Health Toolkit - Wellbeing and the Curriculum. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/teaching-and-learning/curricula-development/education-mental-health-toolkit/introduction/wellbeing-curriculum
• QAA. (2023). An ABC of Student Wellbeing. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SWr1eQMRo4&t=1s 

How We Would Implement This Idea

1. Co-create the framework via the Wellbeing Learning Circle with academic leads, Keele Institute for Innovation and Teaching Excellence (KIITE), Student Services and the SU; publish as an Inclusive Education Framework (IEF )satellite with a tiered maturity model (baseline → enhanced → exemplar). 

Positioning the Keele Wellbeing Framework as a satellite to the Inclusive Education Framework (IEF) ensures coherence rather than proliferation of frameworks. This approach builds directly on existing principles, language and processes already embedded across the institution, allowing wellbeing considerations to be surfaced explicitly without introducing parallel or competing requirements. The wellbeing framework strengthens current practice and provides a clearer lens through which wellbeing-enhancing curriculum decisions can be recognised and supported. 

2. Enable with a toolkit curriculum mapping guide for staff,(design/induction/delivery/assessment), assessment spacing planner, feedback literacy pack, induction belonging playbook, reflective CICO prompts, and exemplars by discipline (some of which already exists in line with the Universities Curriculum Design Process) 

While many wellbeing-enhancing changes operate at a systemic level, such as assessment spacing, induction design and timetable coherence, the framework treats these elements as integral to the curriculum rather than adjacent to it. Curriculum is understood here as the total student learning experience, including how content is sequenced, assessed, communicated and supported over time. The framework therefore focuses on practical, design‑level decisions that shape how students engage with learning, rather than prescribing additional content or outcomes. It will be a practical guide for staff designing curricula. 
 
3. Embed through programme review/validation and continuous enhancement with light touch evidence (one-page map + action plan) and targeted KIITE support. 

The framework is intentionally flexible and discipline-sensitive, enabling programmes to evidence wellbeing through context-appropriate approaches rather than uniform requirements. For PSRB accredited programmes, the focus would be on aligning wellbeing-informed practices with existing professional standards, rather than introducing conflicting expectations. Practical implementation would rely on light touch mapping and reflective planning, supported by exemplars, to ensure applicability across diverse curriculum and regulatory contexts. Principles within the framework will assist and support the development of graduates who are resilient and can support themselves in their future workplace. 

4. Support staff wellbeing via Academic Development /CPD modules (contemplative “ dare to pause interludes, compassionate assessment timelines), recognising that staff flourishing underpins student outcomes. 

The framework is designed to minimise additional workload by making visible and valuing practices many staff already use, rather than requiring wholly new activity. Implementation would emphasise small, sustainable design choices and provide tools that save time by reducing assessment bottlenecks, clarifying expectations and supporting feedback efficiency. Support through KIITE, CPD and existing quality processes would further ensure that engaging with the framework feels enabling rather than burdensome. The one-off labour of implementing the framework will potentially reduce on-going labour for staff when designing courses. 

What Success Would Look Like

• Student experience: Higher NNS scores for belonging, feedback usefulness, assessment fairness; reduced peak‑stress reports; improved continuation and attainment gaps.
• Graduate outcomes: Improved confidence in skills, career readiness and wellbeing literacy; stronger employer feedback on teamwork, communication and adaptability.
• Staff experience: Reduced reports of overload around assessment bottlenecks; positive Academic Development /CPD evaluations on compassionate rigour and community; better retention.
• Quality & recognition: Positive external review commentary (alignment with IEF/Graduate Attributes); case studies featured by Advance HE/QAA; national awards for curriculum innovation and mental health leadership. 

If the framework is understood as supporting the wellbeing of all colleagues involved in the learning environment, success would also be reflected in healthier workload patterns, reduced stress during peak assessment periods, improved staff retention and absence rates, and stronger cross‑team collaboration. A culture in which wellbeing is embedded into curriculum decision‑making would benefit both staff experience and organisational resilience, with positive downstream effects on student learning and satisfaction.