Annotated Bibliography: Student Success
Rebecca Roper – Teaching and Learning Advisor (Student Success), Higher Education Authority (HEA)
Though in no way exhaustive, this brief annotated bibliography brings together national, European, and international sources to inform a comprehensive understanding of student success in higher education and is drawn from the recent HEA discussion paper Between Metrics: Rethinking 21st Century Student Success in Ireland. It integrates policy frameworks, research evidence, and practice-based insights to explore how institutions can enable inclusive, relational, and data-informed approaches to student success. Grounded in the Irish higher education context, the collection engages global perspectives on belonging, engagement, equity, wellbeing, and partnership. Together, these sources reinforce the message that student success is not a singular outcome but a systemic condition—shaped by institutional culture, curriculum design, and quality processes that value care, flexibility, and inclusion. The bibliography and annotations can serve as both a reference and a strategic guide for leaders, educators, and policymakers committed to embedding success as a shared institutional responsibility, resulting in a better lived experience for all students.
Annotated Bibliography
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. Jossey-Bass.
Astin’s longitudinal research synthesises extensive data to identify the individual and institutional factors that most influence student learning and persistence over the first four years of college. He highlights the primacy of student involvement and the educational benefits of peer environments, faculty interaction, and meaningful engagement in academic and co-curricular activities. For student success policy and practice, Astin provides foundational evidence that resource allocation should prioritise opportunities for involvement (e.g., learning communities, mentoring, clubs, undergraduate research) and purposeful peer/faculty contact. Implications include designing metrics that capture engagement rather than only attainment, aligning quality assurance with involvement indicators, and embedding involvement as a cross-institutional principle in strategies for equity of access, retention, and progression.
Bovill, C. (2020). Co-creating learning and teaching: Towards relational pedagogy in higher education. Critical Publishing.
Bovill advances student–staff partnership as a relational pedagogy, outlining practical frameworks for co-creation across curriculum design, assessment, and classroom practice. The book synthesises case studies that show co-creation enhances motivation, belonging, and learning, particularly for underrepresented students. For student success policy and practice, it legitimises partnership as a quality and enhancement strategy rather than an optional extra. Implications include adopting partnership principles in institutional policies (e.g., charters or frameworks), resourcing staff development for partnership methods, and incorporating partnership evidence into programme approval and review—aligning with engagement and equity goals.
Bryant, P. (2024). The relational university: Belonging, care, and connection in higher education. Routledge.
Bryant conceptualises the “relational university” as one where connection, care, and belonging are central to educational and organisational design. Drawing on post-pandemic case studies, the book argues that universities must intentionally foster caring relationships not only between students and staff but across leadership, governance, and community. For student success policy and practice, Bryant’s work provides a relational blueprint for enacting belonging as both pedagogy and strategy. Implications include embedding care and connection in institutional values, performance indicators, and staff development, and integrating relational principles into curriculum policy and leadership training to ensure the student experience is coherent, humane, and inclusive.
CAST. (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines (Version 2.2). CAST. http://udlguidelines.cast.org/
The UDL Guidelines provide a globally recognised framework for designing flexible, inclusive learning experiences that accommodate learner variability. Centred on multiple means of engagement, representation, and expression, UDL translates accessibility into proactive curriculum design. For student success policy and practice, the guidelines align closely with Ireland’s inclusive education agenda, offering a scaffold for equitable participation. Implications include embedding UDL principles in programme validation, staff development, and digital learning design, ensuring that flexibility and accessibility are built in rather than retrofitted. For more information on UDL in Ireland, access https://www.ahead.ie/udl.
Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C., & Felten, P. (2014). Engaging students as partners in learning and teaching: A guide for faculty. Jossey-Bass.
This influential text provides a conceptual and practical foundation for student–staff partnerships in curriculum design, teaching, and assessment. Cook-Sather, Bovill, and Felten demonstrate how partnership enhances learning outcomes, equity, and mutual respect, drawing from international case studies. For student success policy and practice, it establishes partnership as a pedagogical and cultural strategy that empowers students as co-creators of their education. Implications include embedding partnership principles in institutional frameworks, recognising partnership activity in workload and quality systems, and integrating partnership practices into staff professional development to enhance belonging and engagement institution wide.
European Commission / EACEA / Eurydice. (2024). The European Higher Education Area in 2024: Bologna Process Implementation Report. Publications Office of the European Union. https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2024-05/z_After_Chapters_1.pdf
The 2024 Bologna Implementation Report provides a pan-European assessment of progress on key commitments—quality assurance, recognition, qualifications frameworks, and the social dimension. It offers comparable indicators and country profiles that map system-level reforms affecting access, completion, and student-centred learning, in addition to a comprehensive glossary. For student success policy, the report supplies benchmarks and peer comparisons that can guide national and institutional KPIs, inform equity targets, and align local strategies with European standards (e.g., ESG, learning-outcomes-based curricula). Practically, it can shape improvement plans around recognition, flexible pathways, and data on participation and completion, ensuring student success agendas remain systemically coherent and internationally referenced.
European Students’ Union. (2024). Bologna with student eyes 2024. ESU. https://esu-online.org/category-publications/bwse/
Drawing on student-led evidence across Europe, ESU’s biennial report evaluates the lived implementation of Bologna commitments, highlighting gaps between policy rhetoric and student experience—especially in participation, assessment, and student welfare. The analysis foregrounds rights-based approaches, partnership, and social-dimension measures that enable belonging and progression. For success policy and practice, the report centres the student perspective for audit and enhancement, offering indicators and narratives that complement official dashboards. Implications include using student evidence in self-evaluation, embedding rights/partnership clauses in institutional charters, and prioritising welfare, assessment fairness, and transparency as core enablers of retention and attainment.
European University Association. (2018). Learning and teaching in Europe’s universities: An EUA position paper. European University Association. https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/learning%20and%20teaching%20in%20europes%20universities%20-%20an%20eua%20position%20paper.pdf
EUA’s position paper outlines a sector vision for student-centred learning, pedagogic innovation, assessment for learning, and the strategic status of learning and teaching in universities. It advocates institutional strategies, recognition of teaching excellence, and supportive leadership and structures. For success policy and practice, EUA provides a European-aligned rationale to elevate learning and teaching, connecting pedagogy with quality, recognition, and resource allocation. Implications include establishing learning-and-teaching strategies, reward frameworks for teaching, and structures (centres/fellowships) that scale evidence-based practice.
Felten, P., & Lambert, L. M. (2020). Relationship-rich education: How human connections drive success in college. Johns Hopkins University Press. https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/relationship-rich-education
Felten and Lambert synthesise research and practitioner narratives to argue that purposeful relationships—with faculty, staff, peers, and mentors—are central drivers of student learning, belonging, and persistence. They translate this into actionable design principles: relationship-centred curricula, mentoring constellations, and everyday practices that signal care. For policy and practice, the book reframes student success beyond services to the fabric of academic experience. Implications include embedding advising/mentoring in workload models, tracking relationship metrics (e.g., frequency and quality of staff–student contact), and aligning quality-enhancement funds to scale mentoring, peer-led learning, and community-building as core success infrastructure.
Felten, P., & Lambert, L. M. (2024). Connections that matter: How relationships drive student success in college (2nd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press.
In this updated edition, Felten and Lambert expand their evidence base to include post-pandemic data and international contexts. They reaffirm that human connection—between students, staff, and peers—is the strongest determinant of persistence and learning. The new edition adds guidance on relationship-building in hybrid learning and equity-minded mentoring. For policy and practice, it reinforces that student-success infrastructures must be relational as well as academic. Implications include embedding mentoring networks, recognising relational work in promotions, and aligning institutional values and workloads with care-centred education.
Gravett, K., Taylor, C. & Fairchild, N. (2024). Pedagogies of mattering: re-conceptualising relational pedagogies in higher education, Teaching in Higher Education, 29:2, 388-403, DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2021.1989580
Gravett and colleagues advance relational pedagogy as a theoretical and practical framework for cultivating authentic human connections in learning and teaching. They integrate care ethics, dialogic teaching, and critical pedagogy to argue that learning flourishes through trust, mutual respect, and vulnerability. For student success policy and practice, the book translates relational theory into actionable strategies for engagement and belonging—particularly valuable in post-digital and hybrid contexts. Implications include embedding relational competencies into teaching frameworks, designing learning environments that prioritise dialogue and care, and recognising relational labour in workload and promotion policies, aligning closely with the Irish sector’s emphasis on partnership and inclusive pedagogy.
Higher Education Authority Act 2022 (No. 31 of 2022). (2022). Irish Statute Book. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2022/act/31/enacted/en/html
The HEA Act 2022 reconfigures the governance of Irish higher education, strengthening accountability, performance frameworks, and oversight while emphasising equity of access, quality, and robust data use. For student success policy, the Act provides the statutory backdrop for institutional compacts, performance agreements, and systematic monitoring of participation and outcomes. Implications include aligning institutional strategies to statutory objectives (equity, quality, value), enhancing data infrastructure for student lifecycle analytics, and ensuring governance structures empower student representation and engagement in decision-making.
Higher Education Authority. (2023). Eurostudent VIII report: Survey results for Ireland. Higher Education Authority. https://hea.ie/assets/uploads/2023/04/Eurostudent-8-Final-Report.pdf
EUROSTUDENT VIII provides national-level data on Irish students’ socio-economic profiles, living conditions, time use, employment, and well-being. Findings illuminate structural pressures—housing costs, commuting, and working hours—that intersect with study, with clear equity differentials for mature, part-time, and first-generation students. For student success policy, the dataset underpins evidence-based interventions (e.g., bursaries, accommodation supports, flexible delivery) and enables segmentation for targeted initiatives. Practically, the indicators can be embedded into institutional dashboards or similar systems to monitor risk factors for non-completion and to evaluate the impact of policy measures on access, retention, and progression.
Higher Education Authority. (2025). National Student Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Framework – Review Report. Higher Education Authority. https://hea.ie/policy/health-and-wellbeing-landing-page/mental-health-framework/
This HEA review evaluates progress on Ireland’s national student mental health framework, highlighting advances in awareness and policy integration but identifying ongoing gaps in coordination, funding, and data. It advocates for a whole-campus, preventative approach that embeds mental health within institutional culture, curricula, and governance. For student success policy and practice, the report confirms that mental health and well-being are inseparable from retention, engagement, and attainment. Implications include embedding well-being in institutional KPIs, ensuring sustainable resourcing of counselling and peer supports, and aligning policy implementation with quality assurance and student partnership frameworks.
Higher Education Authority. (2024). StudentSuccess.ie: National Framework and Toolkit review. HEA. https://studentsuccess.teachingandlearning.ie/
This review assesses the implementation of Ireland’s Student Success Framework and Toolkit since 2019, identifying progress and persistent challenges. It highlights increased strategic adoption but variable integration into governance, curriculum, and quality processes. For policy and practice, the review underscores the importance of leadership, data-driven decision-making, and cross-functional collaboration in embedding student success institution-wide. Implications include refining indicators of success, developing stand-alone student success strategies, aligning institutional KPIs with national outcomes, and sustaining communities of practice to share evidence-based approaches across the sector.
Kift, S. (2009). Articulating a transition pedagogy to scaffold and to enhance the first-year student learning experience in Australian higher education. Australian Learning and Teaching Council. https://transitionpedagogy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Kift-Sally-ALTC-Senior-Fellowship-Report-Sep-092.pdf
Kift’s landmark fellowship report proposes a “transition pedagogy” that makes first-year success a whole-of-institution, curriculum-embedded responsibility. It outlines design principles—curriculum alignment, assessment for learning, early feedback, and intentional support—that are scalable across disciplines. For practice, the model operationalises retention as a curricular issue rather than solely a services remit. Implications include integrating first-year experience principles into programme approval standards, mapping assessment and support in the first-year curriculum, and resourcing faculty development to enact early, frequent, and constructive feedback loops.
Kinsella, K., & Fox, G. (2023). Relational pedagogy and the staff–student relationship: Re-centring care in Irish higher education. Irish Journal of Academic Practice, 12(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.21427/IJAP2023.12.1.45
Kinsella and Fox use Irish case studies to examine how staff–student relationships shape belonging, motivation, and persistence. They argue that relational pedagogy—grounded in empathy, responsiveness, and mutual respect—is a critical yet undervalued component of teaching excellence in Irish higher education. Their findings demonstrate that care practices, when institutionally supported, enhance retention and engagement, particularly for first-generation and commuter students. For policy and practice, the paper offers evidence to inform teaching and learning frameworks, staff development, and success strategies. Implications include embedding relational teaching standards in professional accreditation and integrating care-based metrics into student success evaluation.
Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). https://navigate.utah.edu/_resources/documents/hips-kuh-2008.pdf
Kuh identifies a set of high-impact practices (HIPs)—including first-year seminars, learning communities, writing-intensive courses, undergraduate research, internships, and capstones—associated with gains in learning and persistence, especially for underserved students. The report also surfaces inequities in access to HIPs. For student success policy and practice, HIPs provide a scalable, evidence-linked menu that can be embedded into curricula and tracked institutionally. Implications include making HIP participation an equity KPI, integrating HIPs into programme design standards, and resourcing inclusive access (e.g., curricular integration, workload allocation) to ensure benefits accrue to all student groups.
Mothersill, D., Nguyen, H., Loughnane, G., & Hargreaves, A. (2024). Mental health among third-level students in Ireland during COVID-19. Irish Journal of Education, 48(3), 1–19. https://www.erc.ie/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/IJE_48_Mothersill-et-al.-2024.pdf
Using Irish survey data during COVID-19, this study documents elevated levels of stress and mental health concerns among third-level students and identifies correlates including isolation, academic disruption, and financial pressure. It highlights service access issues and the protective roles of social support and institutional communication. For success policy and practice, the paper situates well-being as integral to persistence and engagement. Implications include strengthening proactive, whole-campus mental health strategies, addressing basic needs (e.g., finance, housing), and embedding well-being supports within curricula and advising to mitigate risk to retention.
National Access Plan: A strategic action plan for equity of access, participation and success in higher education 2022–2028. (2022). https://hea.ie/assets/uploads/2022/08/Online-National-Access-Plan-2022-2028-FINAL-1.pdf
Ireland’s National Access Plan 2022–2028 sets system-wide targets and actions to advance equity of access, participation, and success for underrepresented groups. It foregrounds intersectionality, data-driven targeting, and collaboration across sectors (schools–FET–HE), alongside financial and non-financial supports. For success policy, it provides a binding framework for institutional access plans and compacts, with a stronger emphasis on progression and completion. Implications include embedding access and success targets at programme level, improving data linkages to track outcomes by group, and resourcing targeted, evidence-based supports that reduce structural barriers (e.g., financial strain, commuting, disability).
National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. (2019). Understanding and enabling student success in Irish higher education. National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning. https://studentsuccess.teachingandlearning.ie/
This Irish sector-wide synthesis conceptualises student success as multi-dimensional—encompassing achievement, engagement, well-being, and a sense of belonging—and identifies enablers spanning curriculum, assessment, data, and culture. It offers a practical framework, “Taking Stock,” a digital evaluation tool, and case exemplars for institutional strategies. For policy and practice, this priority area on the website provides a shared language, understanding, and structure to align local initiatives with national priorities. Implications include adopting a whole-institution success framework, auditing enablers/barriers across the student lifecycle, and integrating success goals into quality processes, professional development, and resourcing decisions.
National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. (2021). Next steps for teaching and learning: Moving forward together. National Forum. https://www.teachingandlearning.ie/resource/next-steps-for-teaching-and-learning-moving-forward-together/
This report synthesises sectoral learning from Ireland’s pandemic response and identifies key priorities for sustainable, inclusive, and flexible teaching. It positions digital transformation, well-being, and partnership as interdependent enablers of student success. For Irish policy and practice, the report provides a bridge between emergency remote teaching and long-term cultural change, emphasising collaboration across disciplines and institutions. Implications include embedding flexible delivery and universal design principles into programme design, supporting staff capacity for digital pedagogy, and aligning institutional strategies with national priorities for inclusion, belonging, and learner agency.
Quality and Qualifications Ireland. (2023, December). Statutory quality assurance guidelines for providers of blended and fully online programmes (QG8-V4). QQI. https://www.qqi.ie/sites/default/files/2023-12/statutory-quality-assurance-guidelines-for-providers-of-blended-and-fully-online-programmes-2023_1.pdf
QQI’s statutory guidelines set out national expectations for assuring quality in blended and online higher education. Extending QQI’s core framework, the guidelines address programme design, digital pedagogy, assessment integrity, learner support, and institutional governance in technology-enhanced contexts. They emphasise proportionality, inclusion, and flexibility to ensure that digital modes uphold academic standards and equitable access. For student success policy and practice, the guidelines provide a regulatory foundation for embedding quality in digital transformation. Implications include integrating digital-mode quality indicators into institutional review, resourcing staff capacity for inclusive digital pedagogy, and supporting learner digital readiness to ensure coherent, high-quality experiences across physical and virtual environments.
National Student Engagement Programme. (2021, May). Steps to partnership: A framework for authentic student engagement in decision-making (NStEP). https://studentengagement.ie/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/NStEP-Steps-to-Partnership-Doc.pdf
The Steps to Partnership framework provides a structured model for embedding authentic student–staff partnerships in decision-making across Irish higher education. It delineates stages from representation and consultation through to co-creation, emphasising values such as reciprocity, trust, inclusivity, and shared responsibility. The framework offers practical guidance on student roles, relational values, governance mechanisms, and evaluation pathways. For student success policy and practice, Steps to Partnership advances partnership from rhetoric to design: it offers institutions a roadmap for building sustainable and equitable engagement structures. Implications include integrating its stages into institutional partnership strategies, using its values as normative anchors in policy, resourcing student capacity development for partnership roles, and aligning quality assurance mechanisms with evidence of authentic student involvement.
SPARQS (Student Partnerships in Quality Scotland). (2023). Student learning experience (SLE) model. Scottish Funding Council. https://www.sparqs.ac.uk/upfiles/SLE_model_digital_resource.pdf
The SPARQS SLE (Student Learning Experience) Model offers a structured framework for evaluating and enhancing the student learning experience across key domains—curriculum, assessment, feedback, and support. Developed collaboratively with students and staff, it promotes dialogue, partnership, and evidence-based enhancement. For student success policy and practice, it operationalises partnership at scale, offering adaptable tools for institutional self-evaluation and continuous improvement. Implications include adopting SLE dimensions within national and institutional quality frameworks, using student-led evidence to shape enhancement priorities, and embedding shared responsibility for learning quality into governance and policy processes.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2018). College students’ sense of belonging (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315297293
Strayhorn theorises belonging as a fundamental human need and a key predictor of student persistence and achievement, integrating quantitative and qualitative evidence across diverse student populations. He details practices that cultivate belonging—affirming identities, building meaningful relationships, and creating culturally responsive environments. For policy and practice, the framework links equity and inclusion to measurable outcomes. Implications include embedding belonging indicators into institutional surveys and dashboards, co-designing inclusive curricula and spaces with students, and prioritising staff development in culturally sustaining pedagogy and advising.
Tinto, V. (2012). Completing college: Rethinking institutional action. University of Chicago Press. https://sites.evergreen.edu/nsilc2017/wp-content/uploads/sites/261/2017/03/Tinto-V_Completing-college.pdf
Tinto reframes student departure as a function of institutional conditions—academic expectations, support, assessment, and social/academic integration—rather than solely student characteristics. He provides an actionable model linking clear, high expectations; timely feedback; and structured support to persistence. For student success policy and practice, Tinto’s work underpins whole-institution retention strategies and the design of intentional, scaffolded learning experiences. Implications include setting explicit progression standards, investing in early-alert and advising systems that trigger timely interventions, and aligning assessment and feedback practices with persistence goals.
Thomas, L. (2012). Building student engagement and belonging in higher education at a time of change: Final report from the What Works? programme. Paul Hamlyn Foundation. https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets.creode.advancehe-document-manager/documents/hea/private/what_works_final_report_1568036657.pdf
Thomas’s landmark What Works? report synthesises extensive UK research demonstrating that a sense of belonging—developed through early academic and social engagement—is the strongest predictor of persistence. The study provides an evidence-based framework for fostering belonging through curriculum design, active learning, and supportive relationships. For policy and practice, it reframes retention as a function of institutional culture rather than student deficit. Implications include embedding belonging as a core success indicator, aligning induction and transition programmes with academic integration, and investing in relationship-rich, community-building teaching approaches that are inclusive of diverse student identities.
UNESCO. (2023). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379707
UNESCO’s vision statement calls for a new social contract grounded in equity, sustainability, and collective responsibility for learning. It reframes education as a public good essential to social cohesion and planetary well-being. For student success policy and practice, this global perspective positions inclusion, partnership, and lifelong learning as moral imperatives rather than optional enhancements. Implications include aligning institutional missions with sustainability and social justice principles, strengthening community partnerships, and developing success metrics that recognise contribution, citizenship, and well-being as integral outcomes of higher education.
Working Group on Student Engagement in Irish Higher Education. (2016). Enhancing student engagement in decision-making: Report of the working group on student engagement in Irish higher education. Higher Education Authority & Irish Research Council. https://www.iua.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/HEA-IRC-Student-Engagement-Report-Apr2016.pdf
This seminal report defines student engagement in governance and quality processes in Ireland, setting sectoral expectations and mechanisms (e.g., class reps, programme boards, quality reviews) for partnership in decision-making. It articulates principles and structures that enable student voice to influence policy and programme enhancement. For success policy and practice, it legitimises formal partnership in governance and provides a blueprint for institutional frameworks. Implications include codifying engagement roles and training, resourcing representative structures, and integrating student–staff partnership evidence into QA cycles and performance frameworks.