ɫֱ

Student well-being ‘nudges’ have ‘no measurable impact’

Trials at UK universities sent automatic email prompts to those identified as at-risk by learning analytics data

Published on
March 12, 2026
Last updated
March 12, 2026
Source: iStock/StockRocket

Email notifications and other “nudges” targeting at-risk students have little impact on their well-being or academic engagement, according to the results of a trial held at three UK universities.

Learning analytics data, such as class attendance or use of virtual learning systems, was used to identify students who appeared to have been struggling and they then received automatic email and app notifications prompting them to seek help. 

But researchers at The Centre for Transforming Access and Student Outcomes in Higher Education (Taso), found the students did not engage with the messages and there was no increased use of well-being services.

“The use of learning analytics systems to proactively identify students with poor attendance and direct them to wellbeing support services via nudge interventions had no measurable impact on students’ subsequent academic engagement across any of the trials,” a report says.

ɫֱ

ADVERTISEMENT

“There was also no evidence of a causal link between these nudges and other outcomes relating to uptake of wellbeing support services.”

The trial at Northumbria University, one of the institutions involved, saw students receive emails signposting them to guided online self-help services or to one-to-one support.

ɫֱ

ADVERTISEMENT

It found little overlap between the students identified as having low well-being by the analytics system, and those who previously reported having poor well-being to a survey that was conducted when they enrolled. 

Consequently, “the assumed link between light-touch communication based on analytics data, wellbeing and academic engagement is not supported by the evidence from these trials”. 

Another trial at the University of Staffordshire, where students in a test group who had an attendance rate below 60 per cent received a notification from their university app signposting them to well-being services and careers support, saw “no significant impact on attendance” from these students compared with a control group who did not receive such notifications. 

There was also no impact on student logins into their VLE systems, and no significant difference between students in the treatment and control groups in the likelihood of students accessing support services.

One student at another trial at the University of East Anglia – where students were sent an email with well-being resources – told the report: “I didn’t click on the link. I was already aware of well-being services because I looked into them last year. I wasn’t in distress, so I didn’t feel the need to explore further.”

ɫֱ

ADVERTISEMENT

The report says that “it is not clear” that “analytics data can effectively target students who are at risk of poor wellbeing”. 

“We encourage providers to test whether populations of at-risk students identified by their analytics data overlap as expected with groups identified via other means, for example wellbeing surveys.

“If and where this is not the case, providers should think about whether this challenges the assumptions behind the support they currently target at such groups,” it says.

ɫֱ

ADVERTISEMENT

A separate Taso report – also published on 12 March – showed that building trusted relationships with staff and peers was the key to boosting student confidence, developing supportive networks and engaging more positively with their studies.

Omar Khan, Taso’s chief executive, noted mental health challenges among students are “at an all-time high”. 

“We need better evidence on how to improve student well-being, enabling everyone to thrive at university and beyond. The results from our well-being projects released today show there is no substitute for human connection.

“While learning analytics offer opportunities to reach more students, the data underpinning these systems must be meaningful, monitored, and accompanied by relationship-building activities between staff and the students who need the most help,” he said.

ɫֱ

ADVERTISEMENT

juliette.rowsell@timeshighereducation.com

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (3)

The research finds: "The use of learning analytics systems to proactively identify students with poor attendance and direct them to wellbeing support services via nudge interventions had no measurable impact on students’ subsequent academic engagement across any of the trials.” I may have misunderstood, but did they measure in a way that could distinguish between the "identification/signal" (i.e. the analytics) and the "nudge/intervention"? Was it the former or the latter that was the problem? (Or both?) From this research, at least as reported above, these two factors appear entirely mashed together, and we are none the wiser on that question. Intuitively I agree with Omar Khan that "there is no substitute for human connection". So surely, at a time when expert human support staff in universities are more stretched than ever, the key proposition to examine should be: "can analytics signalling through to *expert human connection* improve overall outcomes at cohort level?" And I am none the wiser on that key question as a result of this research, which in my view as a parent of two children currently at university, is a missed opportunity.
For decades, before and after the large-scale adoption of learning analytics systems (yes, I have taught for a long time), students reported that ‘meaningful relationships’ , with tutors as well as friends, were key to sustaining engagement with their course and their institution. Cross reference that to a graph of SSR, contact hours, number of online platforms course leaders and tutors need to access daily, number of emails sent and received, time spent in any individual conversation, increase in ‘student satisfaction surveys’ per year, etc etc. Not my field but I don’t think it’s rocket science. You cut contact, by increasing cohorts, admin, surveillance, output demands on staff, you cut specialist support services and you wonder if another email in an account a student hasn’t logged into for weeks will nudge them towards ‘wellbeing’. Same research on the student-facing staff around them would, just possibly, deliver same results.
new
I would certainly agree that without proper follow-up these nudges don't have much impact. Is anyone reaching out to students who don't respond? Arranging Teams meetings? Offering time in office hours? Their inboxes and various apps / social media are so busy that a single nudge without any proper tracking or follow up was never likely to work. It just becomes aural wallpaper.

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT