Author: admin

  • How Higher Education Can Lead the AI Shift – Campus Review

    How Higher Education Can Lead the AI Shift – Campus Review

    Artificial intelligence is no longer a fringe experiment in education; it is reshaping how institutions design learning, support students, and organise academic work. Although pilot programs and experimentation environments are becoming more common, few institutions have successfully scaled AI to achieve real transformation.

    The new white paper, From Pilots to Transformation: Scaling AI for Student Success in Higher Education, produced by Ellucian and Nous Group, offers research-based recommendations for moving from experimentation to institutional-scale impact.

    Drawing on insights from sector leaders, global references, and lessons from neighbouring industries, the paper explores the need for deep cultural and strategic alignment in scaling AI initiatives.

    It emphasises the importance of incorporating equity, ethics, and student trust into AI projects from the start, while also examining how AI is profoundly reshaping academic work, learning experiences, and governance.

    Additionally, the paper provides practical steps that institutions can take to move beyond isolated pilot programs toward sustainable, sector-wide transformation.

    Zac Ashkanasy, Principal at Nous Group, frames the challenge clearly: “The real transformation lies in how institutions prepare their people, redesign their roles, and embed AI responsibly into their operating models,” he says.

    For institutions across Australia, the message is clear: students are adopting AI faster than staff. Institutions that lead with purpose today will shape the future of the sector, while those that hesitate risk falling behind.

    Find out more and download the white paper to discover the strategies and actions that will help your institution scale AI responsibly and unlock the next era of student success.

    Do you have an idea for a story?
    Email [email protected]

    Source link

  • Judge Rules Campaign Against Noncitizen Protesters Unlawful

    Judge Rules Campaign Against Noncitizen Protesters Unlawful

    In a scathing decision published Tuesday, a federal judge ruled that two federal agencies led a campaign to detain and deport international students and faculty for pro-Palestinian speech with the goal of chilling further protests, violating the First Amendment.

    “There was no ideological deportation policy,” wrote senior U.S. District Judge William G. Young, a Reagan appointee, in the 161-page ruling. “It was never the Secretaries’ [Marco Rubio, of the Department of State, and Kristi Noem, of the Department of Homeland Security] immediate intention to deport all pro-Palestinian non-citizens for that obvious First Amendment violation, that could have raised a major outcry. Rather, the intent of the Secretaries was more invidious—to target a few for speaking out and then use the full rigor of the Immigration and Nationality Act (in ways it had never been used before) to have them publicly deported with the goal of tamping down pro-Palestinian student protests and terrorizing similarly situated non-citizen (and other) pro-Palestinians into silence because their views were unwelcome.”

    He also stated unequivocally that noncitizens in the U.S. have the same First Amendment rights as citizens—despite the Trump administration’s argument to the contrary during the trial.

    The decision, which Young said may be the most important ever to fall within his district, comes about two months after the conclusion of a two-week trial in the case of American Association of University Professors v. Rubio, during which State Department and DHS employees explained that they had been tasked with identifying noncitizen pro-Palestinian activists to investigate and deport. Young wrote in his decision that the departments’ actions make it clear that they were working together to conduct targeted deportations with the goal of chilling speech—the repercussions of which are still being felt now.

    The plaintiffs, which include the AAUP, three of its chapters—at Rutgers University, Harvard University and New York University—and the Middle East Studies Association, celebrated the win in a remote press conference Tuesday afternoon.

    “That’s a really important victory and a really historic ruling that should have immediate implications for the Trump administration’s policies,” said Ramya Krishnan, the lead litigator on the case and a senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute. “If the First Amendment means anything, it’s that the government cannot imprison you because it doesn’t like the speech that you have engaged in, and this decision is really welcome because it reaffirms that basic idea, which is foundational to our democracy.”

    Still, despite the victory, several of the plaintiffs emphasized just how worrying the federal government’s crusade against pro-Palestinian noncitizen students and faculty is. Todd Wolfson, the president of the AAUP, said he believes those actions, as well as the federal government’s other attacks against academic freedom, are an even greater threat to higher education than McCarthyism was.

    “The only equivalents might be the Red Scare and McCarthyism, but this is even worse, right? Because it’s not only attacking individual speech, it’s also attacking institutional independence and speech, right?” he said. “The Trump administration’s attacks on higher ed are the greatest assault on this sector that we have ever seen in the history of this country.”

    So, What Comes Next?

    Young previously separated this case into two phases, one focused on the government’s liability and the other on relief for the plaintiffs. According to Krishnan, the judge will schedule a later hearing to determine that relief. The plaintiffs hope Young will forbid the government from continuing to target noncitizens based on their political views, making permanent an injunction that the judge granted in March.

    But Young noted in his ruling Tuesday that he is unsure what a remedy for the plaintiffs might look like in an era when the president consistently seems able to avoid recourse for unconstitutional acts.

    “I fear President Trump believes the American people are so divided that today they will not stand up, fight for, and defend our most precious constitutional values so long as they are lulled into thinking their own personal interests are not affected,” he wrote, concluding the decision.

    “Is he correct?”

    Source link

  • What is going on with the FCC?

    What is going on with the FCC?

    What is the Federal Communications Commission, and why
    does its chairman think the agency can regulate Jimmy Kimmel’s
    jokes?

    Note: Shortly after recording this episode, Nexstar
    and Sinclair announced they would return “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” to
    their stations.

    Joining us:

    Timestamps:

    00:00 Intro

    04:46 What’s the FCC?

    07:35 What’s the “public interest” standard?

    14:20 What is the “fairness doctrine”?

    25:21 What is the “broadcast hoax” rule?

    28:55 What is “news distortion”?

    35:31 Role of network affiliates

    41:15 What happens now?

    Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and
    get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and
    more. If you became a FIRE Member
    through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to
    Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected].

    Source link

  • The fifty per cent participation target is no more. Again.

    The fifty per cent participation target is no more. Again.

    Dare we say he felt the hand of history on his shoulder?

    In his Labour Party Conference speech Prime Minister Keir Starmer set a new participation target for participation in education at level 4 and above (including higher education, further education, and some apprenticeships) for young people. He said:

    Two thirds of our children should either go to university or take on a gold standard apprenticeship

    As subsequently briefed, the target (which replaces, somehow, the old 50 per cent target from the Blair years) relates to higher skills, either through university, further education or taking on a gold standard apprenticeship. It will include at least ten percent of young people pursuing higher technical education or apprenticeships that the economy needs by 2040, a near doubling of today’s figure.

    Alongside a restatement of recent further education policies (£800m extra into funding for 16-19 year olds in FE next year, and measures to make FE “world class”) Starmer couched the target in the language of “respect”, drawing on the now familiar tale of his father, the toolmaker.

    Because if you are a kid or a parent of a kid who chooses an apprenticeship, what does it say to you? Do we genuinely, as a country – afford them the same respect?

    The numbers now?

    We don’t really have the data at hand to judge progress against the target to date – we would imagine a new measure would be developed. The press release points to the most recent data we have relating to participation in any level four education before the age of 25 (CHEP-25 “all level four”): around half of the cohort that turned 15 in 2012-13 (and thus might have entered university in 2015-16) participated in the kind of provision the prime minister talked about. As this cohort turned 25 in 2022-23, we do not yet have data for future cohorts.

    In the last two recruitment cycles (2024, and 2025) 37 per cent of 18 year olds in England entered university directly from school via UCAS. This equates to 240,510 young people in 2024 and 249,780 in 2025 – out of an England domiciled 18 year old population of 650,710 in 2024 and 675,710 in 2025.

    In contrast just 15,085 adults (19+) participated in-year in provision at level four or above in the further education and skills sector during 2023-24. And there were 100,490 higher (level 4) apprenticeship starts in the same year.

    The uncancellable target

    It was originally proposed by Tony Blair during his 1999 leader’s address to conference that the government should have:

    a target of 50 per cent of young adults going into higher education in the next century.

    And this plan was reiterated in the 2001 manifesto, and the promise maintained in both 2005 and 2010 :

    It is time for an historic commitment to open higher education to half of all young people before they are 30, combined with increased investment to maintain academic standards.

    The original target date was 2010, but by 2008 then universities minister John Denham had already conceded that this target would not be met. And it was not met under a Labour government.

    It was never universally popular – in 2009 the CBI made a high profile call to drop the 50 per cent aspiration. Under Coalition Prime Minister David Cameron, then Business Secretary Vince Cable was the first of many to formally cancel the target. On 12 October 2010 he told the House of Commons that:

    We must not perpetuate the idea, encouraged by the pursuit of a misguided 50% participation target, that the only valued option for an 18-year-old is a three-year academic course at university. Vocational training, including apprenticeships, can be just as valuable as a degree, if not more so

    Which you’d imagine would be the end of it, a non-binding (it never featured in legislation) aspiration set by the previous administration rejected by a new minister.

    Cancel culture

    As the magic figure approached (the goal was achieved in 2019) the general disapproval of the long-scrapped target shifted into outright hostility. By 2017 Nick Boles (remember him?) was not outside the political mainstream in saying:

    The policy of unbridled expansion has now reached its logical conclusion.

    All to no avail. By 2020 the ever-thoughtful Gavin Williamson seemed he was making it into a personal vendetta:

    When Tony Blair uttered that 50 per cent target for university attendance, he cast aside the other 50 per cent. It was a target for the sake of a target, not with a purpose… As Education Secretary, I will stand for the forgotten 50 per cent.

    While former universities minister Chris Skidmore was characteristically a little more measured in his critique. Just about the only politician willing to stick up for the idea was Tony Blair himself, who in 2022 backed calls for 70 per cent of young people to enter higher education.

    By this point, Rishi Sunak had become Prime Minister, and was telling the 2023 Conservative conference that:

    As he renewed another familiar attack on “rip off degrees”. This brought about a robust response from Keir Starmer as leader of the opposition:

    I never thought I would hear a modern Conservative Prime Minister say that 50 per cent of our children going to university was a “false dream”. My Dad felt the disrespect of vocational skills all his life. But the solution is not and never will be levelling-down the working class aspiration to go to university.

    If anything, Starmer missed the opportunity at that stage to point out the volume of vocational going on in universities – but that probably speaks to the polling and public perception of “universities” that reinforces the challenge the sector has in surfacing it all.

    Delivery, delivery, delivery

    Targets and aspirations are all very well, but you would expect a government as focused on “delivery” as our current one to have a clear plan to drive up participation. And though welcome, the previously announced funding for further education is not it.

    Driving up participation to such a level is far beyond what can be achieved by tweaks around apprenticeship incentives or even the roll-out of the (surprisingly unpopular) Lifelong Learning Entitlement. We are promised more details about how it’s going to work in the forthcoming post-16 education white paper.

    History tells us that the majority of any increase in participation at level 4 will come from the efforts of our universities, through new courses and innovative delivery modes. And this will take participation in higher education far above the 50 per cent target.

    Source link

  • Chapter Budget – CUPA-HR

    Chapter Budget – CUPA-HR

    Creating Your Chapter Budget

    Creating a budget each year will help guide your chapter’s financial decisions and ensure you are using resources responsibly.

    A budget provides a clear picture of expected income and expenses, aligns your spending with the chapter’s goals, and helps you plan events and initiatives with confidence. Tracking your real expenses and income against your budget helps identify trends and may help you better prepare for future years.


    Sample Budget and Template

    Source link

  • Truth and Reconciliation, Ten Years On

    Truth and Reconciliation, Ten Years On

    Today is September 30th, National Day for Truth and Reconciliation and Orange Shirt Day. It has been just over ten years since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission issued its report, and so this seemed like a good time to review the state of Truth and Reconciliation – and Indigenous issues generally – on Canadian campuses. So, I am teaming up today with Mark Solomon, Associate Vice-President Reconciliation and Inclusion at Seneca Polytechnic to put together some thoughts on what progress we have made over the last decade.

    Let’s start with the TRC Calls to Action which have to do with post-secondary education. These can be broken down into two parts. The first is a call (#7) to the Federal Government (not institutions, interestingly) to develop with Aboriginal groups a joint strategy to eliminate educational and employment gaps between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians. Now, while a lot of talking has been done about this, it’s hard to say that anything resembling a strategy has emerged. Partly, that’s because the feds don’t want to spend a boatload of new money and partly it is because Indigenous groups across the country don’t all agree on what that strategy should be. One sticking point seems to be the relative prominence of Indigenous vs. mainstream institutions in closing the education gap and thus implicitly how generously to fund the former. Another is that while the federal government has a treaty relationship to provide education (K-PSE) for Indigenous learners, actualizing that responsibility to some extent requires coordination with provinces and territories, which isn’t exactly the feds’ strong suit these days.

    That doesn’t mean that nothing has happened on this front. The Post-Secondary Student Support Program (PSSP) for Status First Nations students was augmented substantially in Budget 2019, though inflation has since eaten away most of the value of the extra money. The federal government also provided new funding to Inuit and Métis students, thus to some extent fulfilling Call #11 on adequate funding for Indigenous students, though most would still say the funding is still inadequate. The question is: has any of this led to a closing of the access gap? 

    As Figure 1 shows, the answer is no, or at least not yet. Indigenous educational attainment rates are growing, particularly at the college level, but the total post-secondary attainment gap has increased a tiny bit, from 15 to 16 percentage points, and the university gap has increased a lot, from 19 to 26 percentage points.

    Figure 1: Higher Educational Attainment Among Off-Reserve Population aged 25-64, 2014, 2019 and 2024

    Let’s turn to the second set of Calls to Action – those Action aimed at institutions. The three big ones were parallel calls aimed at medical/nursing schools (Call 24), law schools (Call 28) and journalism schools (Call 86) to require all law students to take a course in Aboriginal people and the law, which includes the history and legacy of residential schools, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Treaties and Aboriginal rights, Indigenous law, and Aboriginal–Crown relations. This will require skills-based training in intercultural competency, conflict resolution, human rights, and antiracism.

    (Why not social work, or policing? We wondered that too.)

    The website Indigenous Watchdog has been following institutional progress on these areas. As of last year, 22 of 24 Canadian law schools had such mandatory courses, which is pretty good. The country’s 93 nursing schools have not done as well: only 41 are seen as having introduced mandatory courses with the requisite content; 18 have apparently no mandatory course at all and the remainder are somewhere in between. Journalism faculties, similarly, have a fairly spotty record: with 11 apparently meeting all criteria, four meeting partially and six not at all.

    This is where evaluation of progress on reconciliation gets tricky. Lots of these professional programs which did not introduce mandatory courses have, nevertheless, things which they think are relevant to reconciliation. To take merely one of potentially dozens of examples: look at the Journalism School at TMU. There, the course Reporting on Indigenous Issues remains resolutely mandatory but the faculty has put together an interesting website called Reconciling Journalism, which the school hopes will “provide a platform for Indigenous students and host many different student projects on Indigenous issues and communities at Toronto Metropolitan University”  In such a case, should one give TMU points for creativity and good wishes, or take them away for thinking that it knows better than Justice Sinclair what constitutes a contribution to reconciliation?  There is a difference between “Indigenous issues” and “reconciliation” which gets blurred here.

    More broadly: there are many institutions which have done a lot of Nice Symbolic Things for Indigenous peoples over the past decade. Things like Indigenous-language signage at places like Laurentian and UBC, Indigenization of campus architecture and campus planning like at Seneca, Centennial and Calgary. It’s good, but is it reconciliation?  (and also: why is it is easier to change signage and build buildings than change curriculum?). It’s not just symbolic stuff, either. There has been a lot of hiring of Indigenous staff, academic and otherwise.  What one might call “Indigenous lead” positions have been elevated in stature and in general individuals with Indigenous identity are moving closer to the centres of power within institutions. That’s all positive, but actually, none of the TRC calls addressed these issues. Generously, one could see these things as pre-requisites for greater Indigenous participation in higher education (back to Call #7) in the sense that Indigenous students won’t attend if they don’t feel seen or welcome; but even if that’s the case, it doesn’t seem to be working yet. 

    One thing that isn’t symbolic is the notion of “Indigenization” of the curriculum. Call #62 asks federal and provincial governments to provide the necessary funding to post-secondary institutions to educate teachers on how to integrate Indigenous knowledge and teaching methods into classrooms.  That hasn’t happened, of course, but there has been a significant elevation of Indigenous Knowledge within institutions which is worth recognizing. The notion of “Indigenization” of institutions has got stuck in part because no one can agree on what it means nor how it can be measured. Progress here won’t come from a one-size-fits-all approach. More institutional engagement with surrounding Indigenous communities on what that could and should like is necessary because in all likelihood the answer will differ a bit from one place and one set of communities to another.

    Broadly, then, it’s a mixed picture. Arguably, one could say that Canadian post-secondary institutions are doing better on Indigenous issues than they are on Truth and Reconciliation. Room for improvement for sure, but at the same time, it’s worth being mindful of the potential for backsliding, too. All of these measures were taken at a time when university and college budgets were growing; with a long period of budget cuts ahead, we’ll soon see whether or not our institutions view all of these measures as must-haves or just nice-to-haves. Time will tell.

    “Education got us unto this mess and Education will get us out of it” – Justice Murray Sinclair (1951-2024)

    Source link

  • Before you click on that incredible deal…

    Before you click on that incredible deal…

    Scammers are everywhere on the internet, masquerading to obtain your personal information. Many social media users or website creators pose as government entities or other authorities to offer you things that seem too good to be true or use scare tactics, like fake warnings about things like late fines or missed court dates, to prompt online users into sharing personal information. 

    In an era of misinformation, how do we know when a website is real? 

    One way is to research a website’s domain. A domain name is the part of a website address preceded by .com, .net or other popular suffixes. It’s essentially just the base website name without the “https://” and “www.”

    “Measuring a website’s credibility might take time,” said Jordan Lyle, a senior reporter for Snopes.com. “Young journalists should know their stuff when it comes to domains and redirects.” 

    Snopes.com is one of the internet’s oldest fact-checking websites. He has more than 25 years of experience in managing websites and knows how to determine whether a site is legit. 

    Investigating internet sites

    Alex Kasprak, a former investigative journalist at Snopes.com, has conducted numerous investigations using information gleaned from Domain Name Server (DNS) registers. DNS registers contain information about a particular website, its URL and IP address — a unique number on every tech device you might use. 

    With the information he found, Kasprak has been able to uncover unreported connections between news websites and their funders and between scammers and their beneficiaries. 

    “DNS tools are a great first step into any investigation that involves the identity of people behind websites or possible undisclosed connections between them,” Kasprak said.

    Taking the expertise from these two investigative reporters, News Decoder has compiled the toolkit below to help perform a credible and comprehensive examination for publishing. 

    Are there red flags?

    Scam websites have certain red flags. They might lack legal documentation, for example, including terms of service and privacy policies. 

    Another sign is sloppiness and mistakes. Try skimming through various pages on the site to look for typos, glaringly incorrect information, vague contact information, skewed formatting and other things that seem unprofessional. 

    Lyle said that a website that promotes a specific giveaway might lack any biographical or contact information about the people promoting the product or offer.

    “Sometimes, scammers will include a mailing address that, upon searching for it, turns out to be a fulfillment center or a business that allows LLCs to anonymously register with that business’ physical office as a virtual address, shielding the scam’s operators from being identified,” Lyle said. 

    Conduct a website domain search.

    Kasprak said that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) operates as a phonebook for the internet.

    “In this analogy, the phone numbers are Internet Protocol (IP) addresses  — a string of numbers formatted like 0.0.0.0 — and the ‘names’ are the actual domain names [e.g. news-decoder.com] to which those IP addresses are associated,” Kasprak said. “Like a human with a phone, domain names can change IP addresses several times.”

    The first step for tracing the origins of a website involves what’s known as a “WHOIS” search — a specific type of domain search listing information about the creation of a domain. 

    WHOIS is a public database that lists several contact numbers, names or organisations associated with a given IP address or domain name. Many people these days use services that allow one to register a website anonymously, making the results have limited value. Older records, or those from some non-Western nations, often include actual names or corporate contacts, explained Kasprak. 

    A WHOIS search, which can be conducted at godaddy.com/whois, queries the public WHOIS database. 

    Lyle said he often looks at the date a person officially purchased and registered a domain name.. “For example, in the case of researching potential scams, if a domain name was recently registered, that’s a red flag indicating the website might be untrustworthy and could confirm the potential scam as legitimate,” he said.

    Look at the site history.

    Another great tool to pair with “WHOIS” searches is the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine. When performing a “WHOIS” search on godaddy.com/whois, check to see when the domain was created. That year should match the Wayback Machine’s records of creation date, as well as show if the website had other owners with completely different websites. 

    “Also, know that the domain information listed in a WHOIS search might be the most recent data, but not the original data,” Lyle said. “Check the Wayback Machine to see if the website existed long ago in another form.”

    Scammers might also create fake domains to pretend to be a legitimate business, adjusting the URL link slightly to trick users. A fake Home Depot ad on Facebook, for example, didn’t lead to homedepot.com when clicked through, but instead to “h0medepott.com”; an “o” was changed to a zero and a second “t” was added to the end of the URL. 

    “Scammers have created fake domains almost matching the genuine business domain for banks, as well as for USPS, for example,” Lyle said. “Sometimes, scammers won’t even bother to create similar domain names and instead simply rely on people not looking at the URL.” 

    Some scammers go so far as to copy the web design of a company — logo and all — to trick consumers. These types of scam websites often offer giveaways that seem too good to be true, such as free money, super inexpensive offers for goods or services or non-existent programs for student loan forgiveness.

    “Of course, the biggest red flag would be an offer that seems too good to be true,” Lyle said. “If an offer seems too good to be true, it probably is. And I will go a step further: In 2025, if an offer seems too good to be true, it is. Avoid it.”

    For journalists all this should becoming standard practice when using information off the internet in news stories. 

    “Basically, you want to make sure you did everything you could with your research before publishing your article,” Lyle said. “And that you attempted to go above and beyond expectations other publishers might have for their articles’ comprehensive credibility.”

     

    Questions to consider:

    1. What are some common red flags that a website might be fake or trying to scam you?

    2. What is a DNS register and how is it useful to identify a potential scam?

    3. If a friend sent you an unknown link, what steps would you take before clicking? How would you explain your choice to click or not?

     

    Source link

  • I asked students why they go to school–this answer changed how I design campuses

    I asked students why they go to school–this answer changed how I design campuses

    This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.

    At first, the question seemed simple: “Why do we go to school?”

    I had asked it many times before, in many different districts. I’m a planner and designer specializing in K-12 school projects, and as part of a community-driven design process, we invite students to dream with us and help shape the spaces where they’ll learn, grow, and make sense of the world.

    In February of 2023, I was leading a visioning workshop with a group of middle schoolers in Southern California. Their energy was vibrant, their curiosity sharp. We began with a simple activity: Students answered a series of prompts, each one building on the last.

    “We go to school because …”

    “We need to learn because …”

    “We want to be successful because …”

    As the conversation deepened, so did their responses. One student wrote, “We want to get further in life.” Another added, “We need to help our families.” And then came the line that stopped me in my tracks: “We go to school because we want future generations to look up to us.”

    I’ve worked with a lot of middle schoolers. They’re funny, unfiltered, and often far more insightful than adults give them credit for. But this answer felt different. It wasn’t about homework, or college, or even a dream job. It was about legacy. At that moment, I realized I wasn’t just asking kids to talk about school. I was asking them to articulate their hopes for the world and their role in shaping it.

    As a designer, I came prepared to talk about flexible furniture, natural light, and outdoor learning spaces. The students approached the conversation through the lens of purpose, identity, and intergenerational impact. They reminded me that school isn’t just a place to pass through — it’s a place to imagine who you might become and how you might leave the world better than you found it.

    I’ve now led dozens of school visioning sessions, no two being alike. In most cases, adults are the ones at the table: district leaders, architects, engineers, and community members. Their perspectives are important, of course. But when we exclude students from shaping the environments they spend most days in, we send an implicit message that this place is not really theirs to shape.

    However, when we do invite them in, the difference is immediate. Students are not only willing participants, they’re often the most honest and imaginative contributors in the room. They see past the buzzwords like 21st-century learning, flexible furniture, student-centered design, and collaborative zones, and talk about what actually matters: where they feel safe, where they feel seen, where they can be themselves.

    During that workshop when the student spoke about legacy, other young participants asked for more flexible learning spaces, places to move around and collaborate, better food, outdoor classrooms, and quiet areas for mental health breaks. One asked for sign language classes to better communicate with her hard-of-hearing best friend. Another asked for furniture that can move from inside to outside. These aren’t requests that tend to show up on state-issued planning checklists, which are more likely to focus on square footage, capacity, and code compliance, but they reflect an extraordinary level of thought about access, well-being, and inclusion.

    The lesson: When we take students seriously, we get more than better design. We get better schools.

    There’s a popular saying in architecture: Form follows function. But in school design, I’d argue that form should follow voice. If we want to build learning environments that support joy, connection, and growth, we need to start by asking students what those things look and feel like to them — and then believe them.

    Listening isn’t a checkbox. It’s a practice. And it has to start early, not once construction drawings are finalized, but when goals and priorities are still being devised. That’s when student input can shift the direction of a plan, not just decorate it.

    It’s also not just about asking the right questions, but being open to answers we didn’t expect. When a student says, “Why do the adults always get the rooms with windows?” — as one did in another workshop I led — that’s not a complaint. That’s a lesson in power dynamics, spatial equity, and the unspoken messages our buildings send.

    Since that day, about a year and a half ago, when I heard, “We want future generations to look up to us,” I’ve carried that line with me into every planning session. It’s a reminder that students aren’t just users of school space. They’re stewards of something bigger than themselves.

    So if you’re a school leader, a planner, a teacher, or a policymaker, invite students in early. Make space for their voices, not just as a formality but as a source of wisdom. Ask questions that go beyond what color the walls should be. And don’t be surprised when the answers you get are deeper than you imagined. Be willing to let their vision shift yours.

    Because when we design with students, not just for them, we create schools that don’t just house learning. We create schools that help define what learning is for. And if we do it right, maybe one day, future generations will look up to today’s students not just because of what they learned, but because of the spaces they helped shape.

    Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

    For more news on district and school management, visit eSN’s Educational Leadership hub.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Featured Gig: eLearning Developer at UConn

    Featured Gig: eLearning Developer at UConn

    One of my goals for growing this Featured Gig series is to highlight early-career opportunities. When I saw on LinkedIn that UConn is searching for an e-learning developer, I reached out to Desmond McCaffrey, director of UConn Online, to learn more about the role.

    Q: What is the university’s mandate behind this role? How does it help align with and advance the university’s strategic priorities?

    A: The university is committed to expanding and enhancing its online and mixed-mode offerings as part of its strategic priorities. The e-learning developer 1 plays a central role in this effort by collaborating with instructional designers, faculty and staff to design and deliver high-quality courses that meet compliance requirements and research-based standards. Beyond content development, the role supports faculty growth and creates opportunities to integrate new technologies, experiment with innovative solutions and strengthen both teaching and learning. This work ensures that students benefit from inclusive, engaging and flexible educational experiences in an evolving digital environment.

    Q: Where does the role sit within the university structure? How will the person in this role engage with other units and leaders across campus?

    A: The e-learning developer is part of eCampus and UConn Online, units within the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning dedicated to supporting online and mixed-mode education. While the role works closely with colleagues in eCampus and CETL, it also engages with University IT Services, the University Library and faculty and staff across departments, schools and colleges. Developers contribute as members of cross-unit production teams and committees while also managing individual projects. Along the way, they collaborate on innovative pilots, explore and integrate emerging technologies, and engage with faculty and students to improve learning experiences and to help shape the university’s evolving digital learning ecosystem.

    Q: What would success look like in one year? Three years? Beyond?

    A: By the end of year one, success means moving beyond basic proficiency into advanced contribution, bringing creative solutions to course design and development, collaborating effectively across units, and helping faculty integrate best practices in accessibility and inclusion. The developer demonstrates growing confidence in evaluating and applying new technologies, employs strong communication skills, and distinguishes effective pedagogical, while building trust as a reliable partner on course and program teams.

    By three years and beyond, the e-learning developer is recognized as an innovator and campuswide contributor. They not only design inclusive, high-quality courses and learning objects but also pilot new tools and approaches, engage with faculty to improve learning experiences, and share insights through research and conference presentations. Their role evolves into mentorship and leadership, guiding projects and shaping conversations about digital learning strategy. At this stage, they are seen as a trusted resource and emerging leader who connects pedagogy, technology, and innovation to strengthen UConn’s online teaching and learning environment.

    Q: What kinds of future roles would someone who took this position be prepared for?

    A: This role provides a strong foundation for advancement into positions such as e-learning developer 2 or 3, instructional designer, faculty development specialist, or educational technology support professional, depending on the individual’s background and career goals. It also opens pathways into broader leadership roles in online education and digital learning. Along the way, developers gain hands-on experience by building courses, experimenting with new technologies, engaging with faculty and contributing to research and conference presentations—positioning them for long-term growth at the intersection of learning, technology and innovation.

    Please get in touch if you are conducting a job search at the intersection of learning, technology and organizational change. If your gig is a good fit, featuring your gig on Featured Gigs is free.

    Source link

  • Students Who Lack Academic Confidence More Likely to Use AI

    Students Who Lack Academic Confidence More Likely to Use AI

    Some students are more likely to use generative AI to find answers instead of learning.

    Colleges and universities have sought to equip students with the skills to use generative artificial intelligence tools thoughtfully and ethically, but a recent study finds students often outsource thinking to chatbots.

    Research from the University of Southern California Center for Generative AI and Society found that the average student who uses generative AI services does so to get a direct answer, not to learn. Students who feel less confident in a course or who do not engage with their peers are also more likely to turn to technology for help.

    The findings point to a need for greater learning support for students, including teaching them improved internet search skills, providing more faculty assistance on how to use generative AI and instilling a sense of belonging in the classroom.

    State of play: As generative AI tools become more common, a large share of students say they engage with AI regularly. Two-thirds of students say they use generative AI chatbots weekly, according to a 2025 study from Tyton Partners.

    Faculty have expressed concern that students are circumventing thinking and learning by using artificial intelligence tools, but students claim they’re using AI to advance their educations. A recent survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that 85 percent of students said they’d used generative AI for coursework in the past year; 55 percent said they used it for brainstorming, half asked it questions as if it were a tutor and 46 percent used it to study for quizzes or exams.

    Nearly all students Inside Higher Ed surveyed said colleges and universities should respond to threats against academic integrity, with over half of students requesting clear, standardized policies about when and how to use AI or for colleges to provide additional flexibility around AI for transparent student use.

    The study: USC researchers surveyed 1,000 U.S. college students to understand when and how they’re using generative AI, compared to other help sources. Researchers distinguished between instrumental help-seeking behaviors—such as getting clarification on a topic covered in class—versus executive help-seeking as a means to an end, like getting quick answers to complete an assignment.

    Students said they were most likely to turn to the internet or an instructor for learning assistance, ranking tutors and peers below generative AI. For executive help, students similarly turned to the internet most often, but then looked to generative AI or a peer before instructors or tutors.

    To researchers, the trend indicates that students feel more comfortable turning to technology than human sources for help.

    National data on how and when students engage with technology versus human supports is mixed; one analysis from the Center for Studies in Higher Education at the University of California, Berkeley, found that post-pandemic, fewer students reported helping their classmates. However, Tyton Partners found that 84 percent of students said they first turn to people, including a peer or instructor, when they need help in a course, and only 17 percent primarily use AI tools.

    USC’s research also found that certain students were less likely to depend on AI; those who had better internet search skills or perceived themselves as competent in their courses were less likely to turn to generative AI tools for help.

    Conversely, students who were averse to asking peers for support or perceived themselves as less competent were much more likely to engage with generative AI. Students who trusted generative AI, similarly, were more likely to use the tools to find answers.

    A recent survey from WGU Labs found that students from marginalized backgrounds, including first-generation students and students of color, were more likely to say they’re open to AI tools for academic support. WGU Labs’ report theorized this trend could be tied to what they see as a lack of support in other traditional forms offered by institutions.

    However, pedagogy can have an impact on how students interact with AI; if the professor encourages thoughtful generative AI use, students are more likely to engage in learning-oriented behaviors, rather than just ask for answers from chatbots. Researchers believe this speaks to the social impact professors can have on how students use AI.

    Source link