One of the most powerful aspects of Bloom’s Taxonomy is the ability to ask engaging, interactive questions that offer immediate, actionable insights—allowing educators to create highly participatory learning environments that align perfectly with Top Hat’s mission.
If you’re new to Bloom’s Taxonomy, here’s what you need to know: it consists of hierarchical levels (normally arranged in a pyramid) that build on each other and progress towards higher-order thinking skills. Each level contains verbs, such as “demonstrate” or “design,” that can be measured to gain greater insight into student learning.
The original Bloom’s Taxonomy framework consists of six Bloom’s levels that build off of each other as the learning experience progresses. It was developed in 1956 by Benjamin Bloom, an American educational psychologist. Below are descriptions of Bloom’s levels:
Knowledge: Identification and recall of course concepts learned
Comprehension: Ability to grasp the meaning of the material
Application: Demonstrating a grasp of the material at this level by solving problems and creating projects
Analysis: Finding patterns and trends in the course material
Synthesis: The combining of ideas or concepts to form a working theory
Evaluation: Making judgments based on the information students have learned as well as their own insights
Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
A group of educational researchers and cognitive psychologists developed the new and revised Bloom’s Taxonomy framework in 2001 to be more action-oriented. This way, students work their way through a series of verbs to meet learning objectives. Below are descriptions of each of the levels in revised Bloom’s Taxonomy:
Remember: To bring an awareness of the concept to learners’ minds.
Understand: To summarize or restate the information in a particular way.
Apply: The ability to use learned material in new and concrete situations.
Analyze: Understanding the underlying structure of knowledge to be able to distinguish between fact and opinion.
Evaluate: Making judgments about the value of ideas, theories, items and materials.
Create: Reorganizing concepts into new structures or patterns through generating, producing or planning.
Each level in the Bloom’s Taxonomy chart below is associated with its own verbs, outcomes, and question stems that help you plan effective instruction and assessment.
Bloom’s Taxonomy questions are a great way to build and design curriculum and lesson plans. They encourage the development of higher-order thinking and encourage students to engage in metacognition by thinking and reflecting on their own learning. In The Ultimate Guide to Bloom’s Taxonomy Question Stems, you can access more than 100 examples of Bloom’s Taxonomy questions examples and higher-order thinking question examples at all different levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy.
Examples of Bloom’s Taxonomy question stems
Bloom’s Taxonomy question stems
Knowledge: How many…? Who was it that…? Can you name the…?
Comprehension: Can you write in your own words…? Can you write a brief outline…? What do you think could have happened next…?
Application: Choose the best statements that apply… Judge the effects of… What would result …?
Analysis: Which events could have happened…? If … happened, how might the ending have been different? How was this similar to…?
Synthesis: Can you design a … to achieve …? Write a poem, song or creative presentation about…? Can you see a possible solution to…?
Evaluation: What criteria would you use to assess…? What data was used to evaluate…? How could you verify…?
Support Bloom’s Taxonomy higher order thinking in your classroom. Get 100+ Bloom’s taxonomy question stems in our interactive resource.
Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy question stems
Remember: Who…? What…? Where…? How…?
Understand: How would you generalize…? How would you express…? What information can you infer from…?
Apply: How would you demonstrate…? How would you present…? Draw a story map…
Analyze: How can you sort the different parts…? What can you infer about…? What ideas validate…? How would you categorize…?
Evaluate: What criteria would you use to assess…? What sources could you use to verify…? What information would you use to prioritize…? What are the possible outcomes for…?
Create: What would happen if…? List the ways you can…? Can you brainstorm a better solution for…?
Additional Bloom’s Taxonomy example questions
Bloom’s Taxonomy serves as a framework for categorizing levels of cognitive learning. Here are 10 Bloom’s Taxonomy example questions, each corresponding to one of the six levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy, starting from the lowest level (Remember) to the highest level (Create):
Remember (Knowledge): What are the four primary states of matter? Can you list the main events of the American Civil War? What are the three branches of government?
Understand (Comprehension): How would you explain the concept of supply and demand to someone who is new to economics? Can you summarize the main idea of the research article you just read? Can you explain the concept of opportunity cost in your own words?
Apply (Application): Given a real-world scenario, how would you use the Pythagorean theorem to solve a practical problem? Can you demonstrate how to conduct a chemical titration in a laboratory setting? How would you apply Newton’s laws in a real-life scenario?
Analyze (Analysis): What are the key factors contributing to the decline of a particular species in an ecosystem? How do the social and economic factors influence voting patterns in a specific region? What patterns can you identify in the data set?
Evaluate (Evaluation): Compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of two different programming languages for a specific project. Assess the effectiveness of a marketing campaign, providing recommendations for improvement. Which historical source is more reliable, and why?
Create (Synthesis): Design a new and innovative product that addresses a common problem in society. Develop a comprehensive lesson plan that incorporates various teaching methods to enhance student engagement in a particular subject. Design an app that solves a problem for college students.
Bloom’s Taxonomy higher-order thinking questions for college classrooms
Higher-order thinking questions are designed to encourage critical thinking, analysis, and synthesis of information. Here are eight examples of Bloom’s Taxonomy higher-order thinking questions that can be used in higher education:
Critical Analysis (Analysis): “What are the ethical implications of the decision made by the characters in the novel, and how do they reflect broader societal values?”
Problem-Solving (Application): “Given the current environmental challenges, how can we develop sustainable energy solutions that balance economic and ecological concerns?”
Evaluation of Evidence (Evaluation): “Based on the data presented in this research paper, do you think the study’s conclusions are valid? Why or why not?”
Comparative Analysis (Analysis): “Compare and contrast the economic policies of two different countries and their impact on income inequality.”
Hypothetical Scenario (Synthesis): “Imagine you are the CEO of a multinational corporation. How would you navigate the challenges of globalization and cultural diversity in your company’s workforce?”
Ethical Dilemma (Evaluation): “In a medical emergency with limited resources, how should healthcare professionals prioritize patients, and what ethical principles should guide their decisions?”
Interdisciplinary Connection (Synthesis): “How can principles from psychology and sociology be integrated to address the mental health needs of a diverse student population in higher education institutions?”
Creative Problem-Solving (Synthesis): “Propose a novel solution to reduce urban congestion while promoting eco-friendly transportation options. What are the potential benefits and challenges of your solution?”
You can use these questions to spark meaningful class discussions, guide research projects, or support student-led investigations, making your lessons interactive and engaging.
Q: What are Bloom’s Taxonomy question stems? A: Bloom’s Taxonomy question stems are short question prompts designed to help you align classroom learning activities with the various levels of learning, from remembering and understanding to applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating.
Q: How are Bloom’s Taxonomy verbs used? A: Verbs like “describe,” “design,” and “evaluate” clarify learning goals and help students understand what’s expected of them at each stage.
Q: Why are the six levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy important? A: They provide a scaffold for helping students move from basic recall to complex analysis and creation—supporting critical thinking and deep learning.
🎓 Get Your Free Resource
Make your next lesson more engaging and intentional. Download 100+ Bloom’s Taxonomy Question Stems to start building stronger assessments and more interactive learning today.
This blog was authored by Charlotte Gleed, who is undertaking an internship at HEPI this summer. Charlotte is a BA History Graduate from Jesus College, Oxford and holds a Graduate Diploma in Law, supported by the Exhibition Scholarship from the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple. Following this internship, Charlotte will be studying an MPhil in Education: Knowledge, Power, and Politics at Emmanuel College, Cambridge.
‘Barristers: they make coffee, don’t they?’
A family member said this to me recently. Not thinking much of it, I laughed and replied, ‘not quite, the ones who wear the wig and gown and bang the stick’. This conversation got me thinking: why is it that some professions seem so far removed from everyday life that not only does the possibility of entry appear distant, but what a person does in that profession is misunderstood? The English Bar falls in this category.
The Bar is the profession of barristers, a set of specialist legal advocates who represent parties usually in courts or tribunals. The Bar has historically been a profession preserved for the elite. The requirement of high grades from top-ranked universities, together with financial instability during legal studies and in practice, compound this assumption. However, there can be an alternative narrative. As social mobility schemes arise, universities develop closer ties with the profession, and the availability of scholarships widen, there is a real opportunity to change the composition of the Bar.
Fortunate to be a product of these changes, my journey to the Bar has highlighted three main obstacles for university graduates. First, the precarious financial situation. We are all aware that higher education of any form is expensive, even with government-backed student loans. However, further vocational study required for the Bar stretches student finances considerably. The cost of the Bar Vocational Course ranges from £12,640 to £20,220. Unless supported by family, scholarships and/or private bank loans, the costs can be both difficult to justify and even harder to deliver.
Second, it is increasingly clear that a law degree alone is no longer sufficient. For students who complete an LLB or BA Jurisprudence, competition is so fierce that postgraduate study – a master’s or equivalent – is beneficial. For students who study a non-law undergraduate degree, the Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) is necessary. The cost of the law conversion course, ranging from £7,150 to £13,590 dependent on region and university provider, exacerbates the gap between those who can afford the additional university costs and those who cannot.
Third, the essence of the Inns of Court is strikingly akin to an Oxbridge college. Each aspiring and practising barrister across England and Wales chooses membership of one of four Inns: Middle Temple, Inner Temple, Lincoln’s Inn, and Gray’s Inn. This is both a blessing and a curse for university graduates. A blessing because its magic and mystery is something to aspire to; a curse because its majesty can be intimating and can feel exclusionary. One barristers chambers, Essex Court Chambers, have partnered with the Social Mobility Foundation to improve accessibility to the commercial Bar. This is a welcomed step. But more needs to be done.
What is the solution? Postgraduate study needs investment. The aggregate £12,000 postgraduate loan available from the government goes some way. Yet, this amount falls short of most postgraduate course fees and does not include maintenance costs. If university is to be a true social leveller, access to more advanced levels of higher education must be supported – and funded. Furthermore, the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple and Inner Temple interview all applicants for both their GDL and Bar Course scholarships. This is a start. It is advantageous to students who have not attended prestigious schools or universities with a raft of academic prizes and extra-curriculars to be seen and heard. Interviews for all scholarship candidates is one way to level the playing field. Together with links between university careers services, student societies, and mentorship schemes, this could be an era of genuine collaboration between students, universities, and professions.
Education pays. But it cannot pay if access to elite professions, and its required higher education courses, is hindered in the first place.
Transnational education (TNE) is an increasingly prominent feature in the UK higher education landscape. The sector now has more than 600,000 TNE students, who study outside the UK for awards made by UK providers. Growth in the number and diversity of TNE students shows no sign of stopping. This has implications for institutional strategy and for the UK’s global reputation. At the same time, it asks us to consider the quality of the TNE student experience.
The 2024 HEPI report recommends practical ways to increase public understanding of the TNE student experience. These include: wider engagement with the Quality Assurance Agency’s Quality Enhancement of Transnational Education (QE-TNE) scheme; and greater use of external surveys of TNE students. Jisc’s new report focuses on the digital experience of TNE students and staff.
Things rarely stay still for very long in the TNE world. What has changed in the six months between the two reports, and what can we learn now?
In April, the Higher Education Statistics Agency (part of Jisc) published the latest aggregate offshore record. There were 621,065 UK TNE students in 2022-23, an increase of 8 per cent on the previous year. The total number of TNE students has grown every year since the current record was established in 2019-20. This trend looks set to continue, with India attracting particular recent attention. The government’s revised International Education Strategy is expected to have a renewed emphasis on TNE growth.
Meanwhile, at home, higher education providers face financial headwinds, combined with a potentially unfavourable policy environment for international students in the UK. Is TNE part of the answer? TNE projects are notoriously complex and have long lead-in times, making the direct impact on a provider’s bottom line hard to gauge. But many providers recognise the long-term strategic value of TNE projects, and are ready to invest even at a time of financial uncertainty for the sector.
April also saw a change of mind by two regulators: the Office for Students in England, and Medr in Wales. They jointly paused the development of TNE data sets based on individual student records, a requirement that would have been excessively burdensome on providers. Instead, there will be an expanded aggregate offshore record, such as was already planned in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In the absence of more granular data, it is all the more important that we find ways to understand the quality of the TNE student experience.
One aim of the HEPI report was to give a higher profile to TNE students in the policy agenda. This month’s Jisc report maintains the profile of TNE students by summarising the known digital challenges to global educational delivery from the perspective of 21 UK higher education providers. Digital is central to the success of all TNE students: whether learning in classrooms, dialling in or in asynchronous online modes of study. In every case, technology is woven throughout curriculum delivery and beyond. Jisc found that:
In aiming to deliver an equitable learning experience, we cannot assume that connectivity, digital resource access and prior digital experience in host countries is the same as in the UK
Intermittent access to the internet is common in many countries, often due to disrupted electricity supply. Technology infrastructure is especially vulnerable during times of extreme weather, natural disaster, civil unrest or war
Challenges associated with accessing digital resources and learning materials are common. They can be caused by software or publisher licensing restrictions, export control laws and/or host country restrictions
Significant fees can be charged for TNE student access to software or e-publications. This reflects how publishers define a student as ‘belonging’ to an institution
There are cultural differences in expectations related to how digital is used to support learning, teaching and assessment
Cultural differences also create challenges in understanding and adapting to UK academic norms associated with academic integrity, copyright, plagiarism, effective use of AI and assessment rubric
The digital skills and capabilities expected of HE students and staff can differ between countries and cultures
This month’s Jisc report is the first of two on the TNE student and staff digital experience. The second report will summarise the views of over 4,800 TNE students and 400 staff, across 50 instances of global delivery. It will be published in October 2025 and launched at the Universities UK International TNE conference.
Student retention remains one of the most pressing challenges in higher education. While institutions devote considerable resources to attracting new students, ensuring those students persist through to graduation is just as vital for institutional health and student success.
When students leave before completing their programs, colleges and universities lose tuition revenue and see diminished returns on their investments in recruitment and instruction. For students, the stakes are even higher: they often walk away without the credentials or skills they set out to earn, leaving personal and professional goals unfulfilled.
Retention, typically measured by the percentage of students who return to the same institution each year, is now a key performance indicator in higher education. It reflects how well a school supports and engages its students and can influence institutional rankings, funding, and public perception.
Recent data offers a mixed picture. In the United States, the national first-year retention rate for first-time students reached 69.5% in 2022, the highest level in nearly a decade and a slight increase over previous years. Still, that means nearly one in three students don’t return for a second year. In Canada, the pattern is comparable: 15–20% of university freshmen leave after their first year, with even higher attrition rates in colleges.
There is both urgency and opportunity here. This blog explores eight strategic, research-backed approaches that institutions can take to significantly improve student retention, strengthening institutional outcomes and ensuring more students reach the finish line.
Struggling with enrollment and retention?
Our Digital Marketing team can help you generate more leads!
What Causes Students to Leave?
Why is student retention important in higher education? Student retention reflects institutional effectiveness and student success. High retention means students are achieving their goals and institutions are providing strong support. Low retention signals issues like academic or financial struggle. It’s both an ethical responsibility and a financial imperative, reducing dropout rates and maximizing investment in recruitment and instruction.
Student retention is a complex challenge influenced by a range of academic, social, and personal factors. While no two students leave college for exactly the same reason, research has consistently identified several common barriers to persistence. Understanding these roadblocks is essential for developing interventions that work.
Financial Barriers
For many students, the cost of education is a deciding factor. Difficulty paying tuition, fees, and living expenses remains one of the most significant drivers of attrition—particularly for those from lower-income backgrounds. Even small outstanding balances can prevent students from registering for the next semester, pushing them to stop out or drop out entirely.
Lack of Engagement and Belonging
Students who feel disconnected from campus life are far less likely to persist. A strong sense of community, whether through clubs, student organizations, residence life, or peer support networks, has been shown to significantly improve retention. When students feel isolated or out of place, their motivation to stay enrolled often wanes.
Insufficient Academic Support
Academic struggles can quickly lead to frustration and withdrawal if students don’t receive timely help. Without access to tutoring, mentoring, academic advising, or remedial coursework, those who fall behind may begin to doubt their ability to succeed.
Campus Culture and Climate
The broader institutional culture also plays a pivotal role. A welcoming, inclusive environment supported by compassionate faculty and staff can boost student morale and engagement. In contrast, campuses that feel unwelcoming or where students sense a lack of support often see higher rates of attrition.
Life Outside the Classroom
External pressures, including mental health concerns, family responsibilities, work conflicts, or physical health issues, can interfere with students’ ability to continue their studies. When schools lack the flexibility or resources to help students manage these challenges, even the most motivated learners may be forced to leave.
The First-Year Experience
The transition into higher education is a make-or-break period. Students who struggle during their first year, due to academic shock, poor orientation programs, or difficulty making friends, are at greater risk of not returning for a second year. Supporting students during this critical period can make a long-term difference.
What Is the Difference Between Persistence and Retention?
Retention refers to students returning to the same institution, while persistence tracks students continuing in higher education, even if they transfer. A student may not be retained by one college but still persist by enrolling elsewhere. Persistence offers a broader view of student progress beyond a single campus.
What Are the Factors Affecting Student Retention?
Student retention is influenced by academics, finances, social belonging, mental health, and institutional climate. Academic unpreparedness, isolation, financial strain, and life challenges are leading causes of dropout. The first-year experience is especially critical. Successful retention strategies address multiple areas, supporting students academically, socially, and personally to help them stay enrolled.
With these contributing factors in mind, it’s clear that improving student retention requires a holistic, proactive approach. Fortunately, institutions have a range of strategies at their disposal. In the next section, we’ll explore eight of the most effective ways colleges and universities are addressing these issues, complete with real-world examples from Canada, the U.S., and beyond.
1. Personalize Communication and Support for Students
Today’s students are used to receiving customized experiences in almost every aspect of their lives, from social media feeds to online shopping recommendations. They now expect the same level of personalized communication from their college or university. When schools meet students with timely, tailored support, they show that they care, and that can make all the difference in whether a student stays or leaves.
This kind of proactive outreach can take several forms. Some institutions segment their automated email campaigns by group, such as first-years, international students, or those on academic probation, to deliver more relevant content and reminders. Others implement 24/7 text messaging systems or AI-powered chatbots that answer routine questions, offer words of encouragement, and send reminders about key deadlines. More advanced platforms go a step further, using predictive analytics to monitor signs of disengagement or academic trouble, alerting advisors to intervene before it’s too late.
These tools offer a concierge-style model of support: always on, always responsive. Students can get help after hours or over the weekend, when live staff may not be available, which helps reduce frustration and drop-off.
Example: Forsyth Technical Community College in the U.S. revamped its approach to student communication by adopting a “customer service” mindset, ensuring that both staff and automated systems responded quickly, kindly, and proactively to student needs. This overhaul included faster response times, friendly messaging, and a systematic effort to check in on students rather than waiting for problems to surface. The result? A 9% increase in student retention after implementing this new communication model.
To replicate this approach, consider implementing a CRM (Customer Relationship Management) or student engagement platform that allows advisors to monitor student status and send targeted messages. This could be as simple as congratulating a student on a strong midterm, or as critical as reaching out after several missed classes.
Even small gestures like a personalized check-in from a faculty member can make students feel they belong. When institutions shift from one-size-fits-all messaging to individualized outreach, they build a sense of care and connection that reinforces students’ decisions to stay enrolled.
2. Foster a Strong Sense of Community and Belonging
A strong sense of belonging is one of the most powerful predictors of student retention. When students feel connected, through friendships, mentors, and shared campus culture, they’re more likely to persist despite academic or personal challenges. Conversely, loneliness and disconnection are key drivers of attrition.
To support student connection, institutions should create structured opportunities for involvement: orientation, residence life, clubs, intramurals, volunteer work, and student leadership. Participation in these activities increases engagement and reinforces a sense of purpose. Social media can amplify this by highlighting student life and celebrating individual voices.
Example: The University of Toronto supports student retention by building community and belonging for underrepresented students through mentorship. In particular, U of T offers programming for first-generation students that connects them with mentors and resources across campus. This First Generation Student Engagement program focuses on helping students navigate barriers to access and inclusion by linking them to academic support, career guidance, wellness services, and peer networks. The goal is to ensure first-gen and other marginalized students feel a strong sense of belonging and are supported throughout their journey.
Ultimately, when students feel they matter to peers, faculty, and the institution, they’re more likely to stay. Belonging isn’t a bonus; it’s foundational to retention.
3. Offer Robust Academic Support and Advising
Academic challenges are a leading cause of student attrition. When students feel lost, overwhelmed, or unsupported, they’re more likely to withdraw. That’s why proactive academic support is one of the most effective student retention strategies.
Effective strategies include offering accessible tutoring (in-person and 24/7 online), writing assistance, and supplemental instruction for high-failure courses. Just as crucial is structured academic advising. When advisors monitor progress and flag early signs of struggle, like low grades or unbalanced course loads, they can intervene with timely solutions.
Institutions must also normalize help-seeking by actively promoting support services. Social media, email campaigns, and website content can encourage students to use academic resources without stigma.
Example – UC Berkeley has built an ecosystem of academic support services combined with faculty mentorship to improve student success and retention. On the academic side, Berkeley provides extensive tutoring, peer advising, and dedicated study spaces in residence halls, free for students and readily accessible where they live.
Early alert systems are another retention tool. By analyzing attendance and coursework in the first weeks, schools can identify at-risk students and reach out before they disengage.
The message is simple: when students know help is available and feel encouraged to use it, they’re more likely to succeed.
4. Provide Career Development Opportunities From Day One
Career uncertainty is a major driver of student attrition. To counter this, institutions must integrate career development early, ideally from the first year.
Career workshops, alumni networking, LinkedIn training, and highlighting the career potential of different majors help students connect academics to future employment. Research confirms that uncertainty about career direction strongly correlates with dropout risk.
Example: DePaul University launched the Future Forward program, a year-long career incubator for first-year students, to bolster their sense of purpose and keep them enrolled. The idea is to help freshmen find their “why” for attending college by engaging them in self-discovery, skill-building, and career exploration starting in their first quarter. Future Forward combines online learning modules (on topics like growth mindset, design thinking, networking) with mentorship from older student peers and staff. By integrating career development into the first-year experience, DePaul addresses a major attrition risk: lack of direction. Many freshmen enter undecided about their field, which can sap motivation. Future Forward helps students clarify goals and see how their studies link to future careers, thereby increasing their commitment to persist.
Mentorship is another effective strategy. Toronto Metropolitan University’s Tri-Mentoring Program connects upper-year students with professionals to support the transition to work.
Example: Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU) – formerly Ryerson University – pioneered the Tri-Mentoring Program (TMP) to support student retention through layered mentorship and inclusion. The educational priority of TMP is “to mentor each student using their individual experience to find their sense of belonging on campus.”
In practice, the “Tri” refers to three tiers of mentoring: Peer Mentoring (matching first-year students with trained upper-year mentors in the same program or with similar backgrounds), Group Mentoring (regular group sessions and community events for students from equity-deserving groups, facilitating peer networking and mutual support), and Career Mentoring (matching third-year or higher students with industry professionals, often alumni, for guidance as they prepare for careers).
Similarly, internships, job shadowing, and embedded career-planning courses give students confidence in their trajectory. Institutions can also integrate career goals into academic advising and marketing, using alumni stories to reinforce long-term value. When students see a clear path from degree to career, their motivation and likelihood of staying enrolled dramatically improve.
5. Leverage Data and Early Alerts to Identify At-Risk Students
Predictive analytics enables institutions to proactively support students showing signs of disengagement or academic risk. By monitoring GPA, class attendance, LMS activity, or even ID card swipes, colleges can detect early warning signs and act before a student drops out.
Many platforms offer dashboards and AI-driven messaging to flag risks and send targeted resources. When paired with advisor outreach, this approach becomes highly effective.
Example: Georgia State University’s Predictive Analytics: Georgia State tracks over 800 risk indicators, triggering alerts when students show signs of academic or financial distress. This system led to the Panther Retention Grant, which helps students with small outstanding balances, one of the biggest dropout triggers. Combined with advisor follow-ups, this strategy has significantly improved retention, especially for underrepresented students.
Even basic early alert systems can help. Faculty-initiated midterm warnings and proactive outreach have been shown to improve persistence by making students feel supported. Benchmarking tools like the IPEDS database can also guide institutions on where to improve.
In short, using data transforms retention from reactive to proactive. With the right tools and team, schools can identify challenges early, intervene meaningfully, and prevent students from slipping through the cracks.
6. Enhance Financial Aid Awareness and Support
Financial strain is a top reason students consider stopping out. To improve retention, institutions must ensure students are aware of, and able to access, funding options before small financial issues force them out.
Colleges should proactively promote scholarships, bursaries, emergency grants, and flexible payment plans. Hiring financial aid coaches or sending alerts to students with incomplete forms or unpaid balances can help prevent unnecessary dropouts. Georgia State University’s Panther Retention Grants exemplify this approach, offering micro-grants to students at risk of losing enrollment over modest fees. Over 10,000 students have benefited, with research showing faster graduations and lower debt loads as a result.
COVID-era aid also proved powerful: community colleges and HBCUs that used relief funds to clear student debts saw thousands stay enrolled. Additionally, financial literacy programs, like budgeting workshops or one-on-one counselling, equip students to manage limited resources wisely and reduce financial stress.
Example: Queen’s University has focused on reducing financial barriers and the misinformation around them by proactively promoting financial aid opportunities to students, using channels like social media, email, and digital signage. The goal is to ensure students know about and utilize available aid (scholarships, bursaries, grants), thereby decreasing the number who drop out due to financial strain. In practice, Queen’s Student Affairs runs ongoing Instagram awareness campaigns about bursary deadlines, loan applications, and financial wellness tips. Below we see Queen’s official Student Affairs Instagram has posts reminding students “it’s not too late to apply for the 2023–24 General Bursary for winter and summer terms” and to apply for government aid like OSAP (Ontario Student Assistance Program).
Bottom line: funding support and strong communication are critical tools in retaining financially vulnerable students.
7. Offer Flexible and Inclusive Learning Options
Modern college students are diverse; many are part-time, working, parenting, or have accessibility needs. Rigid policies and teaching methods can alienate these learners, making flexibility and inclusivity essential to retention.
Flexible scheduling options, like evening, weekend, online, or hybrid classes, help students balance education with life responsibilities. Allowing part-time enrollment, asynchronous learning, or summer online courses can reduce dropout risk, especially among non-traditional learners.
Credit for prior learning (e.g., PLAR in Canadian colleges) also supports older students by recognizing experience and accelerating time to completion. Inclusive learning environments ensure students of all abilities and styles thrive.
Example: Academy of Learning Career College (AOLCC) uses its proprietary Integrated Learning System (ILS) to maximize student retention by offering flexibility, personalization, and one-on-one support in the learning process. The ILS is a self-directed, multi-sensory training system that lets each student learn at their own pace on a schedule that suits them. A crucial feature since many AOLCC students are adult learners, working, or have family obligations.
Support for online students is also critical. Strong virtual infrastructure; 24/7 tech help, online tutoring, and proactive instructor check-ins help remote learners feel connected. Some schools have engagement teams dedicated to online students.
Additionally, flexible academic policies such as compassionate leaves or grading options (used during the pandemic) can prevent student loss under strain. By adapting to student realities rather than enforcing a traditional mold, colleges show they care and turn potential stop-outs into future graduates.
8. Strengthen Faculty-Student Engagement and Mentorship
Faculty play a pivotal role in student retention through their daily interactions with students. Strong faculty-student engagement, including mentorship, accessibility, and supportive instruction, helps students feel seen, guided, and motivated to persist, especially when challenges arise.
Research shows that meaningful faculty contact improves students’ sense of integration and commitment to college. Gen Z students, in particular, value professors who demonstrate authenticity and personal interest. Without that, disengagement and dropout risk increase.
Colleges can enhance engagement through mentorship programs, pairing students with faculty advisors who offer academic, career, and personal guidance. Faculty training in inclusive teaching and student outreach empowers instructors to recognize and assist struggling students early. Simple actions, like checking in on absences, can make a big difference.
Example: Faculty as Mentors at Berkeley:As noted earlier, UC Berkeley emphasizes that its faculty are among the most accessible, citing programs like the Resident Faculty Program where professors live in residence halls to interact with students outside of class. They highlight that faculty often serve as mentors and even friends to students, and note statistics such as a 19:1 student-faculty ratio and many small classes. This environment of approachability contributes to student success and retention at Berkeley; students feel supported academically and personally by instructors of that caliber, which deepens their commitment to staying.
Interactive teaching methods, such as discussions or group work, foster stronger connections. Faculty who use student names, encourage participation, and integrate feedback build rapport and community. Schools like UC Berkeley go further, housing faculty in residence halls and maintaining small class sizes to promote mentorship.
Faculty should be viewed as frontline retention agents. By celebrating teaching and providing tools for meaningful student relationships, institutions can greatly boost persistence through a caring, connected academic culture. In retention, relationships matter, and faculty are key.
Retention Starts With Intention and the Right Support
Improving student retention isn’t about a single silver bullet. As we’ve explored, it takes a coordinated, research-driven strategy, one that centers students at every point of their journey. Whether it’s delivering personalized outreach, fostering belonging, offering early career guidance, or using data to proactively intervene, the most successful institutions treat student retention as both a mission and a metric.
But knowing what works is only half the equation. Implementing these strategies at scale, consistently and effectively, requires the right tools, technology, and expertise. That’s where Higher Education Marketing can help.
At HEM, we equip colleges and universities with the CRM systems, marketing automation, and digital engagement strategies needed to nurture students from application to graduation. From crafting segmentation-based communications to building data-informed retention workflows, our solutions are built for institutions ready to prioritize persistence.
If you’re looking to boost your retention rates, build stronger student connections, and create a more responsive campus experience, explore how HEM’s services can support your goals. Together, we can help more students reach the finish line and help your institution thrive in the process.
Do you want to explore strategic and effective university student retention strategies?
Contact HEM for more information.
Struggling with enrollment and retention?
Our Digital Marketing team can help you generate more leads!
Frequently Asked Questions
Question: Why is student retention important in higher education?
Answer: Student retention reflects institutional effectiveness and student success. High retention means students are achieving their goals and institutions are providing strong support. Low retention signals issues like academic or financial struggle.
Question: What is the difference between persistence and retention?
Answer: Retention refers to students returning to the same institution, while persistence tracks students continuing in higher education, even if they transfer.
Question: What are the factors affecting student retention?
Answer: Student retention is influenced by academics, finances, social belonging, mental health, and institutional climate. Academic unpreparedness, isolation, financial strain, and life challenges are leading causes of dropout.
This HEPI guest blog was kindly authored by Cheryl Watson, VP of Education, UK at TechnologyOne.
Rising costs are now a defining feature of the student experience in the UK. What once felt like an educational ‘coming of age’ for young people is, for many, becoming a difficult balancing act between academic ambition and financial survival.
From housing and transport to food and essential tech, students today face relentless financial pressures just to participate in university life. For institutional leaders, the evidence is clear: the financial landscape is changing, and approaches to student engagement and support must change with it.
A growing financial gap in UK higher education
Financial pressures on students are not new but are growing in scale and complexity. The joint Minimum Income Standard for Students (MISS) 2024 research with HEPI and the Centre for Research in Social Policy (CRSP) at Loughborough University found that a typical full-time student living away from home needs around £244 per week to maintain a minimum standard of living. Yet, most face a significant shortfall even with part-time work and maintenance support.
One student from the recent MISS focus groups summed up the reality:
Even [like] knowing that I’m in my overdraft…I know it’s interest-free and stuff, but having to rely on it is not ideal, and I want to work to try and get out of it, but also like I can’t afford to.”
It’s a cycle, and you constantly max it out every year, and then you’re constantly working to pay it back.
This financial tightrope is increasingly common.
How student life is being redefined by cost pressures
Students are making tough choices daily between travel, food, work, and study. Financial stress is changing not just what students can afford, but also how they experience university life on a day-to-day basis.
While pressures vary, the underlying theme remains consistent: rising costs are reshaping the student experience in real-time.
The new commuter reality
Many universities still operate around the traditional student living on campus, but according to the Sutton Trust, over 50% of UK students go to university where they grew up and students from poorer backgrounds are three times more likely to commute from home.
For many, this is often because they cannot afford to live near campus. This has real academic consequences, with many students missing classes due to travel costs and disconnected timetables.
I live in Sheffield but a lot of the people in my class seem to commute and there’ll be times where like most of the class don’t turn up for a certain seminar and it’s because… it just wouldn’t make sense to pay all that money to come for an hour and a half and then just leave again.
Without more flexible, student-aware scheduling and targeted support, commuter students risk being structurally disadvantaged.
Technology isn’t optional
Access to digital tools is now essential for participation in academic life. From lecture recordings to online submissions, students are expected to stay constantly connected and equipped.
You definitely need a laptop as well because although the University library provides computers, especially during exam season, you have to book them in advance, and they’ve already been taken up.
For many, the cost of keeping up with technology adds to financial pressures, creating further barriers to participation.
Living with financial stress
Financial pressure is a constant presence for many students. Overdrafts are used regularly, part-time work is essential, and mismatches between payment schedules and bills force difficult choices.
In 2023, HEPI found that more than a quarter of universities operate food banks to support students, while rising rent costs leave little left for essentials.
The difference between first year and second year is that you have that comfort blanket of it, but by the time you get into second year, you’ve already used it, and you’ve got nothing to help you anymore.”
These aren’t one-off lapses in budgeting. They’re the result of an unsynchronised system that does not reflect the financial reality students are working within.
Missing out on student life
Financial pressures also limit participation in the social and community aspects of university life that are vital for wellbeing and development.
Especially in the SU, it’s not ideal because lots of societies will do socials there so if you can’t afford that… It might seem silly, but if you’re part of a sports society then there is some sort of expectation to go to Sports Night on a Wednesday most weeks so that obviously adds up if you’re going most weeks.
Opting out is often the only option, but it comes at a cost to confidence and connection
Why this matters for universities and policymakers
Financial stress is no longer a fringe issue in UK higher education. When 30% of students are taking on extra debt just to cover essentials, and many are skipping classes or missing out on key experiences, the impacts on retention, well-being, and academic outcomes cannot be ignored.
The disconnect between what students need and what current funding models assume continues to grow. Part-time work and family contributions are often treated as standard, despite being unrealistic for many students.
What’s next: Building an evidence base for change
If the Minimum Income Standard for Students 2024 brought much-needed clarity to the financial pressures facing undergraduates, this year’s follow-up takes that work a step further.
The upcoming report, Minimum Income Standard for Students 2025 (MISS25), focuses specifically on first-year students living in purpose-built accommodation, offering the most detailed insight yet into the cost of starting university life in the UK.
The findings are stark. Those on minimum support face a funding gap that must be filled by family or debt. The report also reveals a growing mismatch between student needs and how maintenance systems are designed, particularly for those without access to parental support.
For institutional leaders, policymakers and student advocates, we encourage you to read closely, and to consider how your planning, funding and engagement strategies can respond to what today’s students are telling us.
Click the link below to sign up for a copy of the MISS25 report when it’s ready.
TechnologyOne is a partner of HEPI. TechnologyOne is a global Software as a Service (SaaS) company. Their enterprise SaaS solution transforms business and makes life simple for universities by providing powerful, deeply integrated enterprise software that is incredibly easy to use. The company takes complete responsibility to market, sell, implement, support and run solutions for customers, which reduce time, cost and risk.
As global economies come under increasing strain from technological disruption, demographic change and tightening labour markets, one long-held assumption is starting to fray: that an overseas degree guarantees stronger employment outcomes for international graduates returning home. For many years, particularly across Asia, this belief underpinned the value proposition of international education. But new data suggests that this premium is beginning to erode – not because domestic education is closing the gap, but because international graduates are being left to navigate the final step of their journey alone.
Recent analysis from the Asia Careers Group (ACG), drawing on the outcomes of over 20,000 international graduates from UK and Australian universities who returned to China, India, Malaysia, and Singapore since 2015, offers critical insights. The headline message is that while international graduates continue to outperform their domestically educated peers in many cases, the margin is narrowing. The problem is not the quality of education delivered overseas, but the lack of structured support that enables these students to transition into meaningful employment in their home markets. For families across Asia making significant financial sacrifices to send their children abroad, the return on investment increasingly hinges not just on the degree earned, but on the job secured afterwards. For universities in the UK and other major host countries, international graduate outcomes are no longer just a reputational concern – they are becoming central to the long-term sustainability of international recruitment strategies.
China’s story illustrates the shifting terrain. For decades, foreign-educated Chinese graduates enjoyed a clear employment advantage in China’s urban job markets. Overseas qualifications, English fluency and global experience were seen as major assets. But just before the pandemic, as outbound numbers surged and China’s youth unemployment crisis deepened, that edge started to dull. The term ‘Sea Turtles’ (or haigui) came to represent the growing number of returnees entering an already saturated labour market, combined with employer preference for local experience, meant that the haigui label no longer guaranteed success.
By 2020, full-time employment among returnees had dropped below 30% – lower than the domestic graduate average for the first time. And yet, recovery has followed. In 2023-24, nearly 50% of internationally educated Chinese graduates secured full-time employment within six months of graduation, while only 30% of their domestically educated peers did the same. Despite mounting geopolitical pressure and a sluggish economy, UK and Australian degrees remain a lever of upward mobility, so long as students are able to connect their education to employment.
India reveals the outsized influence of immigration policy on international graduate outcomes. Following the withdrawal of post-study work rights by the UK government in 2012, Indian students returning home with UK degrees struggled to compete in the domestic job market. The lack of international work experience meant they were often indistinguishable from their peers who had remained in India. When post-study work rights were reinstated in 2019, a marked improvement followed. By 2022, nearly 65% of Indian returnees were in full-time employment within six months, well ahead of the national average. However, this improvement has not held.
Since 2023, the data shows another downward trend. While the Graduate Route remains technically available, it has not been accompanied by sufficient careers guidance, reintegration support, or India-facing employer engagement. As a result, many students—even those who stay on to work in the UK for a period—struggle to reconnect with Indian employers when they return. Without a deliberate, structured transition, the employability premium fades.
Malaysia presents a more complex picture. ACG data from 2010 to 2021 show that full-time employment for returnees dropped from nearly 80% to just over 30%. By contrast, Ministry of Education and Khazanah Research Institute data suggest that domestic graduate outcomes have remained relatively flat, hovering around 45–50%. On the surface, this looks like a convergence, but not for the right reasons. Employment outcomes for returnees have worsened, rather than improved, for domestic graduates. And yet when salary data is introduced, the story changes. International graduates continue to command significantly higher incomes, particularly those with UK and Australian degrees. ACG’s analysis and national labour statistics both show a clear premium: returnees are more likely to earn over RM6,000, while 65% of domestic graduates earn under RM2,000. This suggests that international education still opens doors to higher-level and better-paid roles—but only once graduates overcome the initial hurdle of securing employment. Without local support networks and targeted CIAG, many returnees remain stranded at the starting line.
Singapore’s system is notable for its transparency, with robust graduate employment data published annually. Even so, ACG’s data shows that internationally educated Singaporean returnees are now significantly less likely to secure full-time roles than their locally educated peers. Between 2013 and 2023, employment for returnees fell from over 80% to just above 40%, while domestic graduate outcomes stayed consistently above 75%. But this is less a judgement on the quality of international education than a reflection of systems misalignment. Many Singaporeans now study abroad at the postgraduate level in destinations or fields that don’t map neatly onto Singapore’s structured graduate pathways, especially in the public sector. Some never return. Others miss out on local graduate schemes or lack the mentoring and guidance necessary to re-enter the domestic market. These are not less capable graduates – they are structurally unsupported.
The implications for UK higher education institutions and policymakers are profound. Graduate outcomes for international students returning home have long been neglected in favour of compliance metrics, application numbers, and league table performance. But if we are to retain our position as a leading destination for international students, we must confront a simple truth: it is no longer enough to bring students in, deliver a quality education, and send them on their way. We must know what happens next. That means tracking international graduate outcomes systematically, forging deep partnerships with employers in key source countries, and embedding culturally tailored careers support into the student journey – not as an add-on, but as core infrastructure. This also means preparing students for re-entry from the moment they arrive, rather than reacting after they leave.
Governments in destination countries must play their part too. That includes aligning visa and migration policy with long-term employability outcomes, ensuring post-study work routes remain stable and transparent, and avoiding knee-jerk compliance changes that disrupt student confidence. The UK, in particular, must make good on the promise of the Graduate Route by working with universities to ensure that work experience gained in the UK translates into lasting employability abroad. We should also consider incentivising institutions to track and support international graduate success, just as we are increasingly focused on domestic outcomes.
And finally, for students and families, the message is clear: an international degree can still unlock opportunity, but it is not a guarantee. The most successful graduates are those who receive support tailored to their return journey—those with access to informed advice, strong alumni networks, and employer connections in their home country. Without these, the international education premium – once considered automatic – is slipping.
References
Asia Careers Group (ACG). Proprietary international graduate outcomes tracking data, 2015–2024.
India Skills Report (ISR). Confederation of Indian Industry, Wheebox, and Taggd, various years.
Ministry of Education, Malaysia & Khazanah Research Institute (KRI). Graduate Tracer Study and labour market reports, 2010–2021.
Department of Statistics Malaysia (DOSM). Monthly and graduate salary distribution reports.
Ministry of Education, Singapore. Graduate Employment Survey (GES), 2013–2023.
UK Home Office & Migration Advisory Committee. Graduate Route Policy Review, 2024.
Chinese Ministry of Education (MoE) and independent think tank analysis of returnee graduate outcomes (Haigui commentary), various sources.
This HEPI guest blog was kindly authored by Mary Curnock Cook CBE, who chairs the Dyson Institute and is a Trustee at HEPI, and Bess Brennan, Chief of University Partnerships with Cadmus, which is running a series of collaborative events with UK university leaders about the challenges and opportunities of generative AI in higher education.
Are universities super tankers, drifting slowly through the ocean while students are speedboats, zipping around them? That was one of the most arresting images from the recent Kings x Cadmus Teaching and Learning Forum and captured a central theme running through the Forum: the mismatch between the pace of technological and social change facing universities and the slow speed of institutional adaptation when it comes to AI.
Yet the forum also highlighted a fundamental change in how higher education institutions are approaching AI in assessment – moving from a reactive, punitive stance to one of proactive partnership, a shift from AI prohibition to integration. As speaker after speaker acknowledged, the sector’s initial approach of trying to detect and prevent AI use has been shown to be both futile and counterproductive. As one speaker noted, ‘we cannot stop students using AI. We cannot detect it. So we have to redefine assessment.’
From left to right: Mary Curnock Cook, Professor Andrew Turner, Professor Parama Chaudhury, Professor Timothy Thompson. Source: Cadmus
This reality has forced some institutions to completely reconceptualise their relationship with AI technology in order to work with the tide rather than against it. Where AI was viewed as a threat to academic integrity, educators are beginning to see it as an inevitable part of the learning landscape that calls for thoughtful integration, not least so that students are equipped for change and the AI-driven workplace. For example, Coventry University has responded by moving its assessment entirely to a coursework-based approach, except where there are Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body (PSRB) requirements, and explicitly allows the use of AI, in most cases, to assist.
Imperial College’s approach exemplifies this new thinking with its principle of using AI “to think with you and not for you.” This approach recognises AI as a thinking partner rather than a replacement for human cognition, fundamentally changing how universities structure learning experiences. The shift requires moving from output-focused assessment to process-based evaluation, where students must demonstrate their thinking journey alongside their final products.
Like many universities, Imperial is also concerned about equity of access to AI. As a baseline it offers enterprise access to a foundational LLM with firewalled data, Copilot, which ringfences the data within the institution. But it also has a multi-LLM portal pilot, which includes ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, Gemini and DeepSeek, acting as an AI sandpit to help instil a culture of thinking of the LLMs as different tools to be experimented with – users can switch between them and ask them the same question to see the variation in results. Meanwhile, LSE has partnered with Anthropic to offer all students free access to Anthropic’s Claude for Education, which helps students by guiding their reasoning process, rather than simply providing answers.
Practical implementation challenges
This transition to integration requires practical frameworks that many institutions are still developing. A speaker voiced the sector’s uncertainty as: ‘We do not know the next development – we didn’t see this one coming.’ This unpredictability leads to what was termed ‘seeking safety in policy’ – a tendency to over-regulate when the real need is for adaptive frameworks.
The challenge of moving beyond traffic light systems (red/amber/green classifications for AI use) emerged repeatedly. These systems, while intuitive, often leave educators and students in the ambiguous amber zone without clear guidance: ‘everyone falls in the middle. You cannot do the red stuff but how do you enforce that? What do we really mean by the green stuff?’ Instead, some institutions are moving towards assessment-specific guidance that explicitly states when and how AI can be used for each task.
Cultural and systemic transformation
This technological shift demands profound cultural change within institutions. As one participant observed, ‘Culture change is being driven by students. Academics may not want to change but they no longer have a choice if they’re getting assessments written by AI – or they don’t know if the assessments are written by AI’. The pace of student adoption is outstripping institutional adaptation, creating tension between established academic practices and emerging student behaviours – those speedboats and super tankers again.
However, while the magnitude of the challenge calls for institutional-scale change and moving beyond individual innovations to systemic transformation, super tankers don’t turn quickly.
Strategic approaches to change at scale
Several institutions shared their successful strategies for managing large-scale change. The key appears to be starting with early adopters and building momentum through demonstrated success. As Cadmus founder Herk Kailis noted, change champions are: ‘the best people who are keeping the sector evolving and growing – and we need to get behind them as there aren’t that many of them.’ Imperial’s approach of appointing ‘AI futurists’ in each faculty demonstrates how institutions can systematically seed innovation while maintaining a connection to disciplinary expertise.
Another speaker observed that successful change requires ‘recognising the challenges and concerns of academic colleagues, bringing them together, supporting colleagues in making the changes they want.’ At Maynooth University, incentives for staff, such as fellowships and promotion pathway changes, rather than mandates, draws on the notion that ‘you can’t herd cats but you can move their food’.
Cross-institutional collaboration
The forum emphasised that institutional change cannot happen in isolation. The complexity of stakeholder groups – from faculty leads to central teams to students and student-facing services – requires sophisticated engagement strategies. As one participant noted about successful technology implementation: ‘Pilots don’t work if they are isolated with one stakeholder group. You need buy-in from all the groups.’
The call for sector-wide collaboration extends beyond individual institutions to include professional bodies, regulatory frameworks and quality assurance processes – QA must also keep up with the pace of change. PSRBs, in particular, were singled out as a blocker to change.
International networking is also important. For example, UCL is working with Digital Intelligence International Development Education Alliance (DI-IDEA) from Peking University, which is experimenting with AI in education in innovative and accelerated ways.
Building sustainable change
Perhaps most importantly, the forum recognised that sustainable institutional change requires long-term commitment and resource allocation, and this imperative could arguably not have come at a more difficult time for many HE institutions. The observation that ‘There’s never been a greater need and appetite from staff to engage with this at a time when resourcing in the sector is a real problem’ highlights the tension between ambition and capacity that many institutions face.
However, the success stories shared – such as Birmingham City University’s Cadmus implementation saving 735.2 hours of academic staff time while improving student outcomes – demonstrate that institutional change, while challenging, can deliver measurable benefits for both educators and learners when implemented thoughtfully and systematically.
Three recommended actions from the forum
1. Address systemic inequalities, not just assessment design
Research from the University of Manchester shared at the conference showed that 95% of differential attainment stems from factors beyond assessment itself – cultural awareness, digital poverty, caring responsibilities and lack of representation.
Action: Take a holistic approach to student success that addresses the whole student experience, implements universal design principles, and recognises that some students are ‘rolling loaded dice’ in the academic game of privilege. Don’t assume assessment reform alone will solve equity issues.
2. Reduce high-stakes assessment
Traditional exam-heavy models risk perpetuating inequalities and don’t reflect workplace realities. Multiple lower-stakes assessments can support deeper learning and may be more equitable.
Action: Systematically reduce reliance on high-stakes exams in favour of diverse and more authentic assessment methods. This helps to address both AI challenges and equity concerns while better preparing students for their futures.
3.Co-create with students as partners
Students are driving the pace of change – they are already using AI. They need to be partners in designing solutions, not just recipients of policies.
Action: Involve students in co-designing assessments, rubrics and AI policies. Create bi-directional dialogue about learning experiences and empower students to share learning strategies. Build trust through transparency and genuine partnership.
This blog was kindly authored by Dr Anna Anthony, director of HEAT. HEAT provides a collaborative data service enabling higher education providers, Uni Connect partnerships and Third Sector Organisations to show the impact of their equality of opportunity delivery through a shared, standardised data system. By aggregating data from across the membership, HEAT can publish national-level impact reports for the sector.
It has never been more important for providers across the sector to show that access and participation activities have an impact. With resources stretched, we need to know the work we are doing is making a measurable difference. New research from HEAT reveals a series of powerful findings:
Intensive outreach boosts HE entry by up to 29% – Students who received at least 11 hours of intensive outreach were up to 29% more likely to enter higher education (HE) than matched peers receiving minimal support.
Disadvantaged students see the biggest gains – Free school meal (FSM) eligible students were up to 48% more likely to progress to HE when engaged in intensive outreach.
Uni Connect makes a difference – The largest relative increases in HE entry were observed in FSM-eligible students who participated in Uni Connect-funded activities, further demonstrating the importance of impartial outreach delivered collaboratively.
Access to selective universities improves – Intensive outreach from high-tariff providers increased the chance of progressing to a high-tariff university by 19%.
Sustained support across Key Stages is vital – Outreach delivered across both Key Stages 4 and 5 had the greatest impact, highlighting the need for long-term, multi-stage interventionsthroughout secondary education.
These findings provide compelling evidence that the work being done across the sector to widen participation is not only reaching the right students but changing trajectories at scale. Crucially, this latest research includes previously unavailable controls for student-level prior attainment — adding new rigour to our understanding of outreach impact. You can read the full report on our website.
What’s next for national-level research?
Our ability to generate this kind of national evidence is set to improve even further thanks a successful bid to the Office for Students (OfS) Innovation Fund. Through a collaboration with academics at the Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities (CEPEO) at the UCL Institute of Education, HEAT will lead on the development and piloting of a pioneering new Outreach Metric, measuring providers’ broader contribution to reducing socio-economic gaps in HE participation. More details about this project can be found here, and we look forward to sharing early findings with the sector in 2026.
Local-level evaluation is just as important
While national analyses like these are essential to understanding the big picture, the OfS rightly continues to require providers to evaluate their own delivery. Local evaluations are critical for testing specific interventions, understanding how programmes work in different contexts, and learning how to adapt practice to improve outcomes. Yet robust evaluation is often resource-intensive and can be out of reach for smaller teams.
This is where use of a sector-wide system for evaluation helps – shared systems like HEAT provide the infrastructure to track student engagement and outcomes at a fraction of the cost of building bespoke systems. Thanks to a decade of collaboration, we now have a system which the sector designed and built together, and which provides the tools necessaryto deliver the evaluation that the OfS require providers to publish as part of their Access and Participation Plans (APP).
We’re also continuing to improve our infrastructure. Thanks to a second successful bid to the OfS Innovation Fund we are building system functionality to support providers to use their tracking data when evaluating their APP interventions. This includes an ‘automated comparator group tool’ that will streamline the process of identifying matched participant and non-participant groups based on confounding variables. By reducing the need for manual data work, the tool will make it easier to apply quasi-experimental designs and generate more robust evidence of impact.
Next steps – sharing through publication
With all these tools at their disposal, the next step is to support the sector to publish their evaluation. We need shared learning to avoid duplication and siloed working. HEAT is currently collaborating with TASO to deliver the Higher Education Evaluation Library (HEEL), which will collect, and share, intervention-level evaluation reports in one accessible place for the first time. By collating this evidence, the HEEL will help practitioners and policymakers alike to see what works, what doesn’t, and where we can improve together.
If we want to continue delivering meaningful progress on access and participation, we need both meaningful, critical local evaluation and powerful national insights. Centralised data tracking infrastructure can give the sector the tools it needs to do both.
Top Hat’s engineering team is gaining a valuable new voice with the addition of Alec Kretch, whose work and experience sits at the intersection of technical innovation and learning science. As the founder of OpenClass—an AI-powered platform that helps educators design meaningful, mastery-based assignments—Kretch is a strong advocate for using assessment as a tool for learning rather than simple measurement. The acquisition of OpenClass’s intellectual property, along with Kretch’s appointment to Top Hat’s engineering team, will support Top Hat’s continued investment in discipline-specific solutions and in expanding the company’s capabilities around authentic assessment. These efforts align with a growing institutional focus on career readiness and helping students build practical skills they can carry into life after graduation
“Alec has shown how technology can help educators create richer, more effective learning experiences through relevant, real-world application,” said Maggie Leen CEO of Top Hat. “His work with OpenClass aligns closely with our focus on supporting instructors with tools that encourage deeper thinking and meaningful student engagement.”
OpenClass was originally developed to help computer science instructors create authentic assignments, where students solve in-browser coding problems and receive immediate, actionable feedback. While built with programming in mind, the underlying approach is broadly applicable across disciplines. Authentic assessment encourages students to apply what they’ve learned in practical contexts, fostering critical thinking, creativity, and lasting understanding in ways traditional assignments often fall short. This kind of learning experience is especially vital as students increasingly look to higher education to build the skills they’ll need to succeed in their future careers.
Over the past few years Top Hat has expanded innovation across many disciplines. Aktiv Chemistry, for example, which the company acquired in 2022, offers interactive tools designed to meet the unique needs of chemistry educators and learners. Offering personalized, authentic assessments that reflect the real-world scenarios students will face in their careers supports Top Hat’s mission to spark better teaching and more meaningful learning.
“Top Hat is the gold standard for evidence-based learning platforms,” said Kretch. “We share a vision for the future of higher education—one that’s equitable, personalized, and focused on helping students develop real skills. I’m excited to help bring the best of OpenClass to more instructors and learners.”
Harassment and sexual misconduct have no place on our university campuses, nor in wider society. Yet, both continue to be pervasive. The Office for National Statistics reports that 1 in 10 people aged 16 years and over experienced at least one form of harassment in the previous 12 months, while the Crime Survey for England and Wales reveals that “an estimated 7.9 million (16.6%) adults aged 16 years and over had experienced sexual assault since the age of 16 years”. The adverse sequelae for victims/survivors are well documented.
Over the last decade, universities have taken these matters more seriously, appreciating both the impact on victims/survivors and on their institution’s culture and reputation. In 2016, Universities UK and Pinsent Mason published guidance (updated in 2022) for HEIs on managing student misconduct, including sexual misconduct and that which may constitute a crime. As of 1 August 2025, the OfS has sought to strengthen universities’ actions through introducing condition E6 to ensure institutions enact robust, responsive policies to address harassment and sexual misconduct, as well as promote a proactive, preventative culture. Our experience, however, suggests that universities’ preparedness is varied, and the deadline is not far away.
Culture Starts at the Top
Organisational culture is shaped significantly by those at the top. At its heart is ‘the way things are done around here’: the established, normative patterns of behaviour and interaction that have come to be. Senior leaders have the power to challenge and change entrenched patterns of behaviour or to reinforce them. Thus, compliance with Condition E6 is just a starting point; herein lies an opportunity for university leaders to lean deeper into transforming institutional culture to the benefit of all.
Understandably, times of significant financial challenge may cause executive teams to quail at more demand on limited resource. This can precipitate a light-touch, bare minimum and additive approach; that is, devolving almost exclusive responsibility to a university directorate to work out how to do even more with less. Yet, the manifold benefits of inclusive cultures are well established, including improved performance and productivity and lower rates of harassment and sexual violence. Leadership attention to and engagement in building a positive culture will see wider improvements follow. Moreover, hard though it is to write this, we know from our own work in the sector that some leaders or teams are not modelling the ‘right’ behaviour.
Ultimately, the imperative to transform culture is in the best interests of the institution although it should also manifest a desire for social justice. Consequently, university governors need to understand and have oversight of the imperative; though narrowly defined as regulatory, it should be strategically defined as the route to creating a happier, healthier and more productive community likely to generate the outputs and outcomes the governing authority seek for a successful and sustainable institution.
Creating Safer Cultures
We use the term ‘safer culture’ to refer to a holistic organisational environment that is intolerant of harassment, discrimination, and mistreatment in any form. Underpinning the sustainable development of a safer culture are eight key pillars:
Leadership Commitment, Governance and Accountability Senior leaders and university governors need to visibly and actively promote an inclusive and respectful culture, holding themselves – and others – accountable. Strategic allocation of resources and institutional infrastructure needs to support cultural change, and governance mechanisms must enable assurance against objectives. A whole-institution approach is required to avoid commitments becoming initiative-based, siloed, inconsistent, or symbolic: the responsibility should be shared and collective.
Clear Policies, Procedures and Systems Institutions need to develop accessible policies that define inappropriate behaviour, including harassment and sexual misconduct, and outline clear consequences for non-adherence. Associated procedures and systems should support effective prevention and response measures.
Training and Development A tiered training approach should be adopted to embed shared understanding, develop capability and confidence, raise awareness, and foster appropriate levels of accountability across the organisation: among students and staff, including the executive team and governing body. Specialist skills training for those in frontline and support roles is essential.
Reporting Processes Simple, reliable, confidential, and trusted reporting mechanisms are required. These must protect against retaliation, the need to repeat disclosure information unnecessarily, and provide swift access to appropriate support through a minimum of touchpoints.
Provision of Support A trauma-informed, empathetic environment is crucial to ensure individuals feel safe and supported, whether they are disclosing misconduct or have been accused of such. User-focused support systems and wellbeing services need to be in place for all members of the university’s community.
Investigation and Resolution Fair, timely, and impartial processes are required which uphold the rights of all parties and enforce meaningful consequences when misconduct is confirmed. Those involved must be appropriately trained and supported to ensure just outcomes for all.
Risk Management Risk should be proactively identified and appropriately managed. Individuals throughout the organisation need to understand their responsibility in relation to risk, both individual and institutional.
Investigation and Resolution Creating a safer culture requires regular evaluation through policy review, data analysis and reporting, including staff and student feedback. This is essential to address emerging issues, enhance interventions in line with changing policy and practice, and achieve cultural maturity.
A Leadership Imperative
The imminent introduction of condition E6 offers university leaders an opportunity to bring renewed and purposeful focus to developing an institutional culture that is safe, respectful and high achieving – the very foundation of academic excellence, creativity and innovation. At a time when equity, diversity and inclusion are under threat worldwide, including in the UK, the imperative has never been greater.
