Abstract Curriculum representation has become a central concern within higher education, yet relatively little empirical research has examined how students interpret curriculum‐making and what these interpretations reveal about disciplinary knowledge and belonging. This explanatory mixed‐methods study investigates students' perceptions of curriculum representation at a post‐92 university in England using survey data from 108 students across multiple faculties and levels of study. Descriptive statistical analyses identified patterns in students' perceptions of curriculum representation and belonging, while reflexive thematic analysis explored how these patterns were experienced and interpreted. The findings indicate that students understand curriculum representation not simply as the inclusion of diverse contributors but as a process through which disciplinary knowledge is legitimised and recognition is negotiated. Experiences of belonging were closely associated with these interpretations, particularly among global ethnic majority students who reported lower levels of curriculum representation. The study contributes to curriculum scholarship by conceptualising curriculum representation as a process of epistemic legitimacy, positioning students' interpretations of curriculum‐making as central to understanding participation, recognition and belonging in higher education.
Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly influencing medical education through simulation, personalised learning, and automated feedback. However, its integration into medical curricula raises important questions about preserving the human qualities essential to medical practice. Emotional intelligence (EI), encompassing self‐awareness, empathy, emotional regulation, and relationship management, is fundamental to patient‐centred communication and professional development, yet it may remain an implicit rather than an explicitly defined curriculum outcome. This curriculum perspective argues for the longitudinal integration of EI into undergraduate medical education. Drawing on established curriculum theories and emerging evidence on EI development and AI‐supported communication training, it proposes aligning EI learning outcomes with teaching activities, authentic patient encounters, reflective practice, mentorship, and assessment. AI‐assisted simulations may provide safe opportunities for students to practise communication and receive feedback, but they should complement rather than replace authentic interpersonal experiences and educator‐guided reflection. The article highlights the importance of curriculum mapping to support progressive EI development across preclinical, simulation‐based, and clinical learning environments. Making EI explicit within the formal curriculum can help ensure that technological innovation strengthens, rather than compromises, the humanistic foundations of medical education.
Abstract Student development programmes (SDPs) are increasingly incorporated into undergraduate medical curricula to foster communication, professionalism, teamwork, ethical reasoning and reflective practice. However, when these activities are mandatory but do not contribute to academic credit or progression decisions, their educational importance may be perceived as limited. This conceptual perspective examines the relationship between developmental recognition and curriculum legitimacy in competency‐based undergraduate medical education. Drawing on educational theory and professional experience within an undergraduate‐entry bachelor of medicine and bachelor of surgery programme in India, the article explores how curriculum enactment, faculty agency, student engagement and institutional practices influence the perceived value of SDPs. It argues that the absence of meaningful developmental recognition may contribute to a gap between the intended and enacted curriculum. At the same time, excessive formalisation or high‐stakes assessment of professionalism and reflection may encourage performative behaviour and undermine authentic learning. A balanced approach is therefore proposed, incorporating longitudinal formative feedback, mentoring, reflective portfolios and narrative assessment while preserving protected, ungraded learning opportunities. Reframing SDPs as a matter of curriculum legitimacy rather than grading alone may strengthen their integration into undergraduate medical education and support professional identity formation. This perspective offers a conceptual basis for further empirical investigation across medical and other health‐profession programmes.
