Category: collaboration

  • How does the higher education sector sustain digital transformation in tough times?

    How does the higher education sector sustain digital transformation in tough times?

    Higher education institutions are in a real bind right now. Financial pressures are bearing down on expenditure, and even those institutions not at immediate risk are having to tighten their belts.

    Yet institutions also need to continue to evolve and improve – to better educate and support students, enable staff to do their teaching and research, strengthen external ties, and remain attractive to international students. The status quo is not appealing – not just because of competitive and strategic pressures but also because for a lot of institutions the existing systems aren’t really delivering a great experience for students and staff. So, when every penny counts, where should institutions invest to get the best outcomes? Technology is rarely the sole answer but it’s usually part of the answer, so deciding which technologies to deploy and how becomes a critical organisational capability.

    Silos breed cynicism

    Digital transformation is one of those areas that’s historically had a bit of a tricky reputation. I suspect your sense of the reason for this depends a bit on your standpoint but my take (as a moderately competent user of technology but by no means expert) is that technology procurement and deployment is an area that tends to expose some of higher education’s historic vulnerabilities around coordinated leadership and decision-making, effective application of knowledge and expertise, and anticipation of, and adaptability to change.

    So in the past there’s been a sense, not of this exact scenario, but some variation on it: the most senior leaders don’t really have the knowledge or expertise about technology and are constantly getting sold on the latest shiny thing; the director of IT makes decisions without fully coordinating with the needs and workflows of the wider organisation; departments buy in tech for their own needs but don’t coordinate with others. There might even be academic or digital pedagogy expertise in the organisation whose knowledge remains untapped in trying to get the system to make sense. And then the whole thing gets tweaked and updated to try to adapt to the changing needs, introducing layer upon layer of complexity and bureaucracy and general clunkiness, and everyone heaves a massive sigh every time a new system gets rolled out.

    This picture is of course a cynical one but it’s striking in our conversations about digital transformation with the sector how frequently these kinds of scenarios are described. The gap between the promise of technology and the reality of making it work is one that can breed quite a lot of cynicism – which is the absolute worst basis from which to embark on any journey of change. People feel as if they are expected to conform to the approved technology, rather than technology helping them do their jobs more effectively.

    Towards digital maturity

    Back in 2023 Jisc bit the bullet with the publication of its digital transformation toolkit, which explicitly sought to replace what in some cases had been a rather fragmented siloed approach with a “whole institution” framework. When Jisc chief executive Heidi Fraser-Krauss speaks at sector events she frequently argues that technology is the easy bit – it’s the culture change that is hard. Over the past two years Jisc director for digital transformation (HE) Sarah Knight and her team have been working with 24 institutions to test the application of the digital transformation framework and maturity model, with a report capturing the learning of what makes digital transformation work in practice published last month.

    I book in a call with Sarah because I’m curious about how institutions are pursuing their digital transformation plans against the backdrop of financial pressure and reductions in expenditure. When every penny counts, institutions need to wring every bit of value from their investments, and technology costs can be a significant part of an institution’s capital and non-staff recurrent expenditure.

    “Digital transformation to us is to show the breadth of where digital touches a university,” says Sarah. “Traditionally digital tended to sit more with ‘digital people’ like CIOs and IT teams, but our framework has shown how a whole-institution approach is needed. For those just starting out, our framework helped to focus attention on the breadth of things to consider such as digital culture, engaging staff and students, digital fluency, capability, inclusivity, sustainability – and all the principles underpinning digital transformation.”

    Advocating a “whole institution approach” may seem counter-intuitive – making what was already a complicated set of decisions even more so by involving more people. But without creating a pipeline of information flow up, down and across the institution, it’s impossible to see what people need from technology, or understand how the various processes in place in different parts of the university are interacting with the technologies available to see where they could be improved.

    “The digital maturity assessment brought people into the conversation at different levels and roles. Doing that can often show up where there is a mismatch in experience and knowledge between organisational leaders and staff and students who are experiencing the digital landscape,” says Sarah.

    Drawing on knowledgeable voices whose experience is closer to the lived reality of teaching and research is key. “Leaders are saying they don’t need to know everything about digital but they do need to support the staff who are working in that space to have resources, and have a seat at table and a voice.”

    Crucially, working across the institution in this way generates an evidence base that can then be used to drive decision-making about the priorities for investment of resources, both money and time. In the past few years, some institutions have been revising their digital strategies and plans, recognising that with constrained finances, they may need to defer some planned investments, or sequence their projects differently, mindful of the pressures on staff.

    For Sarah, leaders who listen, and who assume they don’t already know what’s going on, are those who are the most likely to develop the evidence base that can best inform their decisions:

    “When you have leaders who recognise the value of taking a more evidence-informed approach, that enables investment to be more strategically targeted, so you’re less likely to see cuts falling in areas where digital is a priority. Institutions that have senior leadership support, data informed decision making, and evidence of impact, are in the best place to steer in a direction that is forward moving and find the core areas that are going to enable us to reach longer term strategic goals.”

    In our conversation I detect a sense of a culture shift behind some of the discussions about how to do digital transformation. Put it like this: nobody is saying that higher education leaders of previous decades didn’t practice empathy, careful listening, and value an evidence base. It’s just that when times are tough, these qualities come to the fore as being among the critical tools for institutional success.

    Spirit of collaboration

    There’s a wider culture shift going on in the sector as well, as financial pressures and the sense that a competitive approach is not serving higher education well turns minds towards where the sector could be more collaborative in its approach. Digital is an area that can sometimes be thought of as a competitive space – but arguably that’s mistaking the tech for the impact you hope it will have. Institutions working on digital transformation are better served by learning from others’ experience, and finding opportunities to pool resources and risk, than by going it alone.

    “Digital can be seen as a competitive space, but collaboration outweighs and has far more benefits than competition,” says Sarah. “We can all learn together as a sector, as long as we can keep sharing that spirit of internal and external collaboration we can continue that momentum and be stronger together.”

    This is especially relevant for those institutions whose leaders may secretly feel they are “behind the curve” on digital transformation and experience a sense of anxiety that their institution needs to scramble to “catch up”. The metaphor of the race is less than helpful in this context, creating anxiety rather than a sense of strategic purpose. Sarah believes that no institution can legitimately consider itself “ahead of the curve” – and that all should have the opportunity to learn from each other:

    “We are all on a journey, so some might be ahead in some aspects but definitely not all,” says Sarah. “No-one is behind the curve but everyone is approaching this in a slightly different way, so don’t feel ‘we have to do this ourselves’; use networks and seek help – that is our role as Jisc to support the sector.”

    Jisc is hosting Digifest in Birmingham on 11-12 March – sign up here for online access to sessions.

    Source link

  • AI in K-12 instruction: Insights from instructional coaches

    AI in K-12 instruction: Insights from instructional coaches

    Key points:

    As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes an integral part of modern education, instructional coaches play a pivotal role in guiding teachers on its implementation, bridging the gap between emerging educational technologies and effective classroom practices.

    As trusted mentors and professional development leaders, they guide teachers in implementing AI tools thoughtfully, ensuring that technology enhances student learning while aligning with pedagogical best practices. This article briefly synthesizes responses from instructional coaches regarding their experiences, challenges, and recommendations for integrating AI into K-12 education.  

    Ten instructional coaches, all with advanced degrees, had the following insights into the instructional use of AI in K12 education. They all have more than 10 years of experience in education and work across all three types of school environments: urban, suburban, and rural.

    The coaches reported that AI is used for various instructional purposes. The most-cited applications included providing feedback on student work, creating professional development materials, supporting writing and content generation, creating course content, and enhancing accessibility for students with special needs. Many coaches note that AI tools assisted in grading assignments, offering real-time feedback, and supporting differentiated instruction. AI-powered feedback helps teachers provide more personalized responses without increasing their workload.  Regarding professional development, AI is being used to generate training content for teachers, ensuring they stay updated on educational trends. Coaches are leveraging AI to curate research, synthesize best practices, and develop instructional strategies tailored to their schools.  They encourage teachers and students to utilize AI for brainstorming, outlining essays, and improving writing mechanics.  

    Perceived impact of AI on instruction 

    The vast majority of instructional coaches expressed positive expectations regarding AI’s potential to reduce educator workload, create personalized learning experiences, and improve access for students with disabilities. However, perspectives on AI’s overall impact on education varied. While most believe AI has positively influenced instruction, a few remain cautious about its potential risks.  One coach suggested that allowing students to utilize the tools in a structured setting and teaching them to use AI as a tool is one of the biggest potentials for generative AI in education. About three-fourths of coaches feel that AI will reduce teacher workload by automating repetitive tasks such as grading and data analysis.

    Concerns about AI in education 

    While AI presents numerous benefits, instructional coaches also raised concerns about its potential drawbacks, including ethical dilemmas, student engagement challenges, and equity issues. Despite its advantages, instructional coaches identified several challenges and ethical concerns. They worry some students will use AI tools without critically engaging with the material, leading to passive learning and an overreliance on generative tools. Some had concerns that AI-generated content could reduce the need for creativity and independent thought. Coaches worry that AI makes it easier for students to plagiarize or rely on generated answers without truly understanding concepts which can negatively impact academic integrity. Coaches cite technical challenges as well. Educators face issues with AI tool reliability, compatibility with existing learning management systems (LMS), and steep learning curves. The coaches mentioned that some schools lack the infrastructure to support meaningful widespread AI integration. 

    Several ethical and privacy concerns were mentioned. AI tools collect and store student data, raising concerns about data privacy and security–particularly with younger students who may be less aware or concerned about revealing personally identifiable information (PII). They mention the need for clear guidelines on responsible AI use to prevent bias and misinformation.

    Coaches emphasize the importance of verifying AI-generated materials for accuracy. They suggest teachers be encouraged to cross-check AI-produced responses before using them in instruction. They recommend robust integrating discussions on digital literacy, AI biases, and the ethical implications of generative AI into classroom conversations. Schools need to train educators and students on responsible AI usage. Some schools restrict AI for creative writing, critical thinking exercises, and certain assessments to ensure students develop their own ideas–an idea that coaches recommend. Coaches suggest embedding AI literacy into existing courses, ensuring students understand how AI works, its limitations, and its ethical implications. 

    Equity concerns are a serious issue for instructional coaches. Schools should ensure all students have equal access to AI tools. AI should be leveraged to bridge learning gaps, not widen them. Making sure all students have access to the same suite of tools is essential to create a level playing field for all learners. Instructional coaches generally agree that AI is not just a passing trend, but an integral part of the future of education. There is a concern that generative AI tools will reduce the human interaction of the teaching and learning process. For instance, interpersonal relationships are not developed with AI-based tutoring systems in the same way they can be developed and encouraged with traditional tutoring processes.

    The integration of AI in K-12 education presents both opportunities and challenges. Instructional coaches largely recognize AI’s potential to enhance learning, improve efficiency, academic integrity, and maintain human-centered learning experiences. As AI continues to evolve, educators must be proactive in shaping how it is used, ensuring it serves as a tool for empowerment rather than dependency. Future efforts should focus on professional development for educators, AI literacy training for students, and policies ensuring equitable AI access across diverse school settings.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Strengthening partnerships between trade unions and universities

    Strengthening partnerships between trade unions and universities

    February 10–16 is the Trades Union Congress ‘“HeartUnions” week, a week dedicated to celebrating the good work that trade unions do.

    I love trade unions and higher education. Given that unions primarily receive media coverage when their members take industrial action, it’s easy to forget that, at their heart, they are solidarity movements, whose campaigns have driven social change.

    Trade unions fought for and won a minimum wage, maternity and paternity rights, pension provision, and holiday and sickness entitlements. These victories have benefited every British person. Equally, those external to the sector may overlook the social impact higher education has due to the question of whether university still represents value for money for students.

    The current picture

    Higher education staff knowledge of how trade unions democratically work and the positive impact that a collective movement can have varies. Anti-union legislation over the past 50 years, such as the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act (1992) and the Trade Union Act (2016), has led to fewer people being members of trade unions or understanding their purpose, compared to previous generations.

    My personal experience as a trade union representative has shown me that it has become increasingly important to explain what a trade union is to new staff entering careers in higher education, as there is a likelihood that they, or their parents, may not have been members of a union. Indeed, in 2021, only 14.1 per cent of trade union members in the UK were aged between 20 and 29 years. Furthermore, in a more interconnected and mobile world, assumptions about trade unions can be very different from stereotypes and experiences in other countries. Overall, there are a range of misconceptions about unions’ purpose and value.

    Despite legislative challenges, trade unions in UK higher education have reasons to be optimistic. Some UCU branches have seen membership numbers grow and an increased level of member activism. A core reason for this appears to be that staff are increasingly viewing unions as part of the solution to overcoming problems faced in the sector. This seems to be driven by the successes branches are having locally, and by the number of universities currently undertaking or preparing to implement cuts.

    Trade union branches and university management will never see eye to eye on every issue. Trade unions are there to protect their members, whereas university management is there to protect the organisation. As many reading this will know, differing objectives undoubtedly lead to disputes and industrial unrest. Withholding labour can sometimes be the best and/or only strategy unions have to win disputes. It should never be forgotten that many of the successes trade unions have had which we now often take for granted, such as the two day weekend, came through intense campaigning and struggle, including strike action.

    I love trade unions and higher education, and see both for their flaws, including missed opportunities to collaborate. University management and trade unions often have shared purposes. Unfortunately, these are not always understood, limiting the impact trade union branches have.

    New legislation

    The Employment Rights Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, promises greater protection for workers, including repealing much of the Trade Union Act (2016). As written, it would significantly empower workers to act collectively, though it’s worth noting that parts of the bill are currently out to consultation and the legislation is not expected to receive Royal Assent until next year.

    In essence, the bill encourages employers to work more closely with trade unions. It strengthens the rights of trade unions to access workplaces, simplifies trade union recognition processes, introduces new protections for trade union representatives (including equality representatives), and introduces a duty for employers to inform employees that they have a right to join a trade union.

    Drilling down into the details of the bill as it stands, it can be seen how it will be easier for trade unions to successfully gain industrial action mandates. This makes it more vital than ever for university stakeholders, such as UCEA, as well as individual university management teams, to collaborate with trade union colleagues, enhancing how a diverse range of staff voices influence university decisions. This is important as staff working in various capacities across higher education may be well-placed to propose innovative ways of overcoming significant challenges faced by the sector.

    Working in partnership

    Trade unions and university leaders ultimately want the sector to be successful, with excellent teaching, research, and student support, as well as financial stability.

    Personal experiences from working at various institutions have shown that trade unions are typically consultative mechanisms. While consultation must occur, in line with recognition agreements, in many cases it may have been more effective for trade union representatives to have worked in partnership with the university prior to reaching a consultative or approval stage. For example, policies relating to health and safety or sustainability.

    A starting point to building any partnership is understanding how objectives align. Awareness of how trade union representative positions correlate with university structures and committees is a good way of identifying when objectives are shared. Trade union branches often have a range of different representatives who can actively contribute to committees and task-and-finish groups. Trade union health and safety representatives are very capable of assisting in evaluating workload, inspecting environments, drafting new policies, and many other tasks in partnership with the university.

    Although partnership working between trade union branches and universities can be improved, there are good examples of it occurring in the sector. Universities such as Glasgow Caledonian have a “learning agreement” with their recognised trade unions. This agreement specifies how the trade unions will work in partnership on staff development activities.

    Stories from Northampton

    At the time of composing this article, the University of Northampton (UON) is completing a consultation process that has placed many staff at risk of redundancy.

    Although the consultation process has been challenging for the UON UCU branch and the UON leadership team – as can be expected in these situations – UON UCU has continued to improve partnership working across the university, while simultaneously fighting hard to protect the jobs of all members at risk of redundancy.

    The branch has been involved in interview selection processes, work relating to building an improved sense of staff belonging, and a new Race Equality Charter. The branch’s approach of being able to traverse between challenging management on some issues, while simultaneously working in partnership with them on others, has advanced the interests of our members and saved jobs.

    It is also evident that UON UCU will come out of the consultation with enhanced credibility from UON management. Management has expressed willingness to work with recognised trade unions on issues such as workload stress risk assessments and its new learning development policy. It is also highly pleasing to note that membership and activism in the branch have increased. As part of HeartUnions week, activists are completing a live brief with fine art students. The students will be learning about trade unions while using skills developed in their programme to create a large UCU banner.

    HeartUnions

    If you like me love trade unions and higher education, and want them to be their best version going forward, now seems the perfect time to consider how we make their relationship work at every university.

    Yes, like most relationships, there will be times when disagreement occurs. However, equally, there will be opportunities to work together, which will benefit the sector.

    If this article or other activities that occurred as part of HeartUnions week have inspired you to join a trade union, a good starting point is to visit the TUC website. It’s worth checking out staff intranet pages too to learn what trade union agreements are in place at your university.

    Source link

  • Introducing The Edge, a Breakthrough SEL and Life Skills Curriculum for Middle and High School Students

    Introducing The Edge, a Breakthrough SEL and Life Skills Curriculum for Middle and High School Students

    Los Angeles, CA — As students navigate an increasingly complex world defined by artificial intelligence, social media, and rapid technological change, the need for essential life skills has never been greater. The Edge, an innovative, research-based social-emotional and life skills curriculum, creates a dynamic and effective learning environment where middle and high school students can build the social-emotional and life-readiness skills needed to succeed in school, relationships, and life. 

    Designed in collaboration with educators and aligned with the CASEL framework, The Edge is the first curriculum to meet educators’ demands for high-quality instructional materials for SEL and life-skills readiness. The curriculum helps students cultivate communication, problem-solving, and self-awareness, as well as essential life skills like entrepreneurship, negotiation, financial literacy, and networking, to boost their academic abilities.

    “The Edge represents a paradigm shift in education,” says Devi Sahny, Founder and CEO of The Edge and Ascend Now. “It’s not just about helping students excel academically—it’s about helping them understand themselves, connect with others, and develop the resilience to face life’s challenges head-on.”

    By combining bite-sized lessons with project-based learning, The Edge creates a dynamic and effective learning environment with ready-to-use, adaptable resources educators use to help students develop both hard and soft skills. Its advanced analytics track student progress whilesaving valuable preparation time. Designed to enable educators to adapt as needed, the curriculum is flexible and requires minimal preparation to support all learning environments—asynchronous and synchronous learning, even flipped learning.

     Key highlights include:

    • Integrated Skill Framework: A robust curriculum featuring 5 pillars, 24 essential skills, and 115 modules, blending SEL with employability and life skills such as negotiation, financial literacy, and digital literacy, all aligned with CASEL, ASCA, and global educational standards.
    • Educator-Friendly Design: With over 1,000 customizable, MTSS-aligned resources, The Edge saves teachers time and effort while allowing them to adapt materials to meet their unique classroom needs.
    • Hard Skill Development Meets SEL: By engaging in activities like entrepreneurship, critical thinking, and leadership training, students develop technical proficiencies while enhancing communication, empathy, and resilience.
    • Real-Time Analytics: Advanced data tools provide administrators with actionable insights into student progress, enabling schools and districts to measure outcomes and improve program alignment with educational goals.
    • Compelling Content. The curriculum features engaging content that integrates the latest insights from learning sciences with professional writing from skilled authors affiliated with SNL, Netflix, and HBO Max. This combination guarantees that the material is educationally solid, relevant, and thought-provoking.

    The Edge immerses students in real-life, complex scenarios that challenge them to think critically, collaborate effectively, and apply social-emotional learning (SEL) to everyday situations. For example, one lesson about conflict resolution uses an actual problem that Pixar faced when allocating resources for new movies. 

    Early adopters of The Edge have reported remarkable results. The Edge was used by rising high school seniors during a three-week summer college immersion program (SCIP) at Georgetown University, which prepares high school students from underserved backgrounds to apply for college. At the end of the program, 94% reported learning important skills, and 84% said they discovered something new about themselves.

    ABOUT THE EDGE

    The Edge is the latest innovation from Ascend Now US, dba The Edge, a US-based education startup committed to increasing both college and career readiness for all students.  Sahny founded The Edge in the US after building and scaling Ascend Now Singapore, which has provided personalized academic and entrepreneurship tutoring to over 10,000 students and 20+ international schools over the last decade. 

    eSchool News Staff
    Latest posts by eSchool News Staff (see all)

    Source link

  • Marian High School Chooses BenQ’s LK936ST Golf Simulator Projector for New Golf Training Lab

    Marian High School Chooses BenQ’s LK936ST Golf Simulator Projector for New Golf Training Lab

    COSTA MESA, Calif. — BenQ, an internationally renowned provider of visual display and collaboration solutions, today announced that Marian High School in Omaha, Nebraska, selected and installed two BenQ LK936ST 4K HDR short-throw golf simulator projectors for its golf sim Golf Training Lab at the Marian Athletic Center. In 2024, the Marian girls’ golf team became the undefeated Nebraska State Champions in Class A golf. Designed to help analyze and improve the golfers’ swings and give them the ability to practice in all weather conditions, the Marian Golf Training Lab provides the girls’ high school and junior teams with an immersive and realistic golf course environment. Based on research and recommendations from golf simulation experts, Marian High School chose the BenQ LK936ST for its exceptional color accuracy, powerful brightness, and maintenance-free operation.

    Head Coach Robert Davis led the effort to build the Golf Training Lab, which includes two golf simulator bays featuring Carl’s Place 16×10 impact screens and ProTee VX launch monitors. Seeking a high-performance projector that could deliver realistic course visuals, bright images in a well-lit environment, and long-term, maintenance-free operation, Davis consulted with golf simulator manufacturers and reviewers. After thorough research, BenQ’s LK936ST emerged as the top choice.

    “Our athletes benefit from an experience that’s as close as you can get to being on an actual course,” said Davis. “When we pull up courses, you can see distinct leaves on the trees. That level of realism not only makes training more effective but also more enjoyable.”

    The BenQ LK936ST’s 4K UHD resolution, combined with BenQ’s exclusive Golf Mode, ensures a highly detailed, true-to-life golfing experience. Its 5,100 lumens of brightness allow it to perform exceptionally well in the Marian Athletic Center’s brightly lit environment, ensuring clear visuals even without dimming the lights. Additionally, its short-throw lens and advanced installation tools — such as digital shrink, lens shift, and keystone correction — allow for a flexible and seamless setup within the limited space of the simulator bays.

    “The golf simulation market has grown rapidly as more schools, athletes, and enthusiasts seek ways to improve their game year-round,” said Bob Wudeck, senior director of business development at BenQ America Corp. “With the LK936ST, we’ve provided everything a golf simulator needs to deliver a truly immersive experience. Its 4K resolution, high brightness, and laser-powered color accuracy ensure that golfers can see every detail with precision, whether it’s the grain of the greens or the clear blue sky. By combining these features, we’ve created a projector that meets the high standards required for today’s golf training environments.”

    The BenQ LK936ST is engineered to provide a truly immersive and precise golf simulation experience, making it an ideal choice for Marian High School’s Golf Training Lab. With a 4K UHD resolution powered by Texas Instruments’ DLP chip technology, it delivers razor-sharp visuals and a stunning 3,000,000:1 contrast ratio, which allows for enhanced graphics and a lifelike recreation of the world’s top golf courses. Its exclusive Golf Mode, designed specifically for golf simulation, reproduces the vivid greens and brilliant blues of fairways and skies, offering 92% of the Rec. 709 color gamut for true-to-life color accuracy. This unprecedented visual fidelity helps golfers maintain their focus and engagement, simulating real-world conditions to perfect their game.

    In addition to its color and image quality, the LK936ST is designed to excel in challenging environments. The projector’s short-throw lens (0.81-0.89) and 1.1x zoom capacity make it easy to install outside of the swing zone, projecting a large image without casting shadows on the screen. Digital shrink, offset, lens shift, keystone correction, and corner fit provide advanced installation flexibility, enabling perfect alignment with the screen, even in tight or unconventional spaces like garages, basements, or smaller training rooms.

    Built for long-lasting, maintenance-free operation, the LK936ST features a sealed IP5X-rated dustproof optical engine, eliminating the need for filter changes and ensuring optimal performance even in dusty environments. Its laser light source guarantees 20,000 hours of use with consistent color and brightness, far outlasting traditional lamp-based projectors. The projector also offers instant power-up without the need for warm-up or cool-down times, allowing golfers to jump straight into their training. With multiple HDMI inputs and networking options, it integrates easily with other entertainment or training components, making it a versatile centerpiece for not only golf simulations but also home theater and gaming setups.

    More information on the BenQ LK936ST 4K HDR short-throw golf simulator projector is available at bit.ly/3na585n.

    About BenQ America — Business & Education Solutions
    The No. 1 selling global projector brand powered by TI DLP technology, according to Futuresource, the BenQ digital lifestyle brand stands for “Bringing Enjoyment and Quality to Life,” fusing ease of use with productivity and aesthetics with purpose-built engineering. BenQ is a world-leading human technology and professional solutions provider serving the enterprise, education, and entertainment markets. To realize this vision, the company focuses on the aspects that matter most to users, redefining traditional technology with innovative capabilities that increase efficiency, enhance learning, and amplify entertainment — all while ensuring a healthy, safe, and intuitive user experience. BenQ’s broad portfolio of professional installation solutions includes digital, laser, and interactive projectors; premium flat panels; and interactive large-format displays that take visual enjoyment to new heights in corporate offices, classrooms and lecture halls, and home theaters. The company’s products are available across North America through leading value-added distributors, resellers, and retailers. Because it matters. More information is available at www.BenQ.com.

    All trademarks and registered trademarks mentioned herein are the property of their respective owners.

    Image Link:
    www.ingearpr.com/BenQ_Marian_High_School_Golf_Lab_2.jpg
    www.ingearpr.com/BenQ_Marian_High_School_Golf_Lab_1.jpg
    www.ingearpr.com/BenQ_Marian_High_School_Golf_Lab_4.jpg
    www.ingearpr.com/BenQ_Marian_High_School_Golf_Lab_3.jpg
    Image Caption: Marian High School Chooses BenQ’s LK936ST Golf Simulator Projector for New Golf Training Lab

    Follow BenQ America Corp.
    Blog: https://www.BenQ.com/en-us/business/resource.html?category=Trends%20and%20Knowledge
    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BenQNorthAmerica
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/BenQnorthamerica/
    LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/BenQ-america/
    Twitter: https://twitter.com/BenQamerica
    YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqz1hlN9lW1mfUe4_XMEo2A/featured?

    eSchool News Staff
    Latest posts by eSchool News Staff (see all)



    Source link

  • Bridging borders in knowledge: the internationalisation of Chinese social sciences

    Bridging borders in knowledge: the internationalisation of Chinese social sciences

    by Márton Demeter, Manuel Goyanes, Gergő Háló and Xin Xu

    The dynamics of Chinese social sciences are shifting rapidly. As policies aim to balance domestic priorities with global integration, the interplay between China’s academic output and its international reception highlights critical challenges and opportunities. In a recent study published in Policy Reviews in Higher Education, we analyzed 8,962 publications by the top 500 most productive China-affiliated scholars in Economics, Education, and Political Science between 2016 and 2020.

    Uneven impacts across disciplines

    Our analysis reveals that most Chinese-authored works in these disciplines are published in Western-edited journals. Political Science publications often focus on China-specific topics, creating what may be interpreted as intellectual silos.

    By contrast, Economics stands out for its significant global impact, with Chinese scholars’ publications frequently outpacing the citation rates of their Western peers. Meanwhile, Education and Political Science publications from China generally attract fewer citations compared to those from the U.S., U.K., and Germany.

    Why does Economics perform so well? The field’s emphasis on data-driven, globally relevant research – addressing topics like economic policy, market dynamics, and financial crises – positions it effectively within international discourse. Substantial funding and resources further strengthen Economics’ visibility and impact.

    In contrast, Education often highlights region-specific practices that may resonate less with a global audience, while Political Science is constrained by political sensitivities and limited opportunities for broad international collaboration.

    Patterns of collaboration

    Collaboration offers another perspective of Chinese academia’s strengths and limitations. Scholars in Economics and Education often engage in diverse partnerships, with strong connections to both Western and Asian institutions. In contrast, Political Science remains more insular, with most co-authorships occurring within mainland China. This inward focus may restrict the field’s integration into global academic conversations.

    At an institutional level, hybrid collaborations – combining domestic and international partnerships – highlight China’s strategic approach to bridging local and global aspirations. However, the predominance of Western collaborators, particularly from the United States, underscores a continued reliance on established academic hubs.

    The duality of “siloed internationalisation”

    A significant finding of our study is the duality evident in Political Science research: while these publications often appear in international journals, their focus on China-specific issues reflects a form of “scientific nationalism”. This approach limits their global engagement, confining them to niche scholarly communities rather than positioning them as contributors to broader, international dialogues.

    The “international in format but national in essence” approach underscores a broader challenge for Chinese academia. It must navigate the tension between adhering to global visibility standards while championing non-Western perspectives and priorities.

    Policy and practical implications

    Our findings also carry critical implications for policymakers, institutions, and global academic networks. For China, fostering more diverse collaborations – beyond traditional Western partners – can reduce overreliance on dominant paradigms and contribute to a more equitable global knowledge production system. Initiatives with an emphasis on partnerships with Asia-Pacific, Africa, and Eastern Europe, could play a key role in reshaping these dynamics.

    We believe that, for the global academic community, greater inclusivity requires deliberate efforts to decenter Western paradigms. Platforms that ensure equitable participation and strategies to protect collaborations from geopolitical tensions are vital for sustaining open and impactful scientific exchange.

    Looking forward

    The field of Economics exemplifies how targeted investment and international integration can amplify visibility and impact. To replicate this success in Education and Political Science, expanding international collaboration and addressing thematic silos are essential. At the same time, global academic networks must also embrace diverse perspectives to ensure that voices from regions like China enrich rather than merely adapt to dominant discourses.

    Importantly, in an era of geopolitical uncertainty, research can serve as a vital conduit for mutual understanding and collaboration. By prioritising equitable partnerships and sustaining global dialogue, we can work toward a more inclusive and, therefore, more resilient academic ecosystem.

    Our study offers practical guidance for addressing the challenges of internationalization in Chinese social sciences, providing valuable tools for scholars, institutions, and policymakers working to advance global knowledge production.

    For more details, explore our full paper:

    Demeter, M, Goyanes, M. Háló, G and Xu, X (2024) ‘The Internationalisation of Chinese Social Sciences Research: Publication, Collaboration, and Citation Patterns in Economics, Education, and Political Science’ https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2024.2438240.

    Márton Demeter is a Full Professor at the University of Public Service, Budapest at the Department of Social Communication, and he is the Head of Department for Science Strategy. He has extensively published on academic knowledge production in communication studies and beyond.

    Manuel Goyanes serves as Associate Professor of Research Methods at Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. His interdisciplinary work revolves around theoretically designing, and empirically testing, cutting-edge quantitative and qualitative methodological procedures to scientifically address challenging aspects of social science inquiry 

    Gergő Háló, an assistant professor at the National University of Public Service Budapest, specialises in socio-critical studies of geopolitical and gender inequalities in science, academic performance, research assessment frameworks, and higher education policies.

    Xin Xu is a Departmental Lecturer in Higher/Tertiary Education at the Department of Education, University of Oxford, and the deputy director of the Centre for Skills, Knowledge, and Organisational Performance (SKOPE). Her research focuses on tertiary education and the research on research.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Connect more: creating the conditions for a more resilient and sustainable HE sector in England

    Connect more: creating the conditions for a more resilient and sustainable HE sector in England

    Despite it being the season of cheer, higher education in England isn’t facing the merriest of Christmases.

    Notwithstanding the recent inflationary uplift to the undergraduate fee cap, the financial headwinds in higher education remain extremely challenging. Somehow, in the spring/summer of next year, the Secretary of State for Education is going to have to set out not only what the government expects from the sector in terms of meeting the core priority areas of access, quality and contribution to economic growth, but how it will deliver on its promise to put the sector on a long-term sustainable financial footing.

    The overall structure of the sector in terms of the total number of providers of higher education and their relationships to each other might arguably be considered a second-order question, subject to the specifics of the government’s plans. But thinking that way would be a mistake.

    The cusp of change

    There are real and present concerns right now about the short term financial stability of a number of providers, with the continued increased risk that a provider exits the market in an unplanned way through liquidation, making the continued absence of a regime for administering distressed providers ever more stark.

    But on a larger scale, if, as some believe, the sector is on the cusp of entering into a new phase of higher education, a much more connected and networked system, tied more closely into regional development agendas, and more oriented to the collective public value that higher education creates, then the thinking needs to start now about how to enable providers to take part in the strategic discussions and scenario plans that can help them to imagine that kind of future, and develop the skills to operate in the new ways that a different HE landscape could require. It is these discussions that need to inform the development of the HE strategy.

    The Office for Students (OfS) has signalled that it considers more structural collaboration to be likely as a response to financial challenge:

    Where necessary, providers will need to prepare for, and deliver in practice, the transformation needed to address the challenges they face. In some cases, this is likely to include looking externally for solutions to secure their financial future, including working with other organisations to reduce costs or identifying potential merger partners or other structural changes.

    Financial challenge may be the backdrop to some of this thinking; it should not be the sole rationale. Looking ahead, the sector would be planning change even if it were in good financial health: preparing for demographic shifts and the challenge of lifelong learning, the rise of AI, and the volatile context for international education and research. Strategic collaboration is rarely an end in itself – it’s nice to work together but ultimately there has to be a clear strategic rationale that two or more providers can realise greater value and hedge more readily against future risks, than each working individually.

    There’s no roadmap

    In the autumn of 2024, Wonkhe and Mills & Reeve convened a number of private and confidential conversations with heads of institution, stakeholders from the sector’s representative bodies, mission groups, and regional networks, Board chairs, and a lender to the sector. We wanted to test the sector’s appetite for structural change; in the first instance assessing providers’ appetite for stepping in to support another provider struggling, but also attitudes to merger and other forms of strategic collaboration short of full merger. Our report, Connect more: creating the conditions for a more resilient and sustainable higher education system in England sets out our full findings and recommendations.

    There is a startling dearth of law and policy around structural collaboration for HE; some issues such as the VAT rules on shared services, are well established, while others are more speculative. What would the regulatory approach be to a “federated” group of HE providers? What are merging providers’ legal responsibilities to students? What data and evidence might providers draw on to inform their planning?

    We found a very similar set of concerns, whether we were discussing a scenario in which a provider is approached by DfE or OfS to acquire another distressed provider, or the wider strategic possibilities afforded by structural collaboration.

    All felt strongly that the driving rationale behind any such structural change – which takes considerable time and effort to achieve – should be strategic, rather than purely financial. Heads of institution could readily imagine the possibilities for widening access to HE, protecting at-risk subjects; boosting research opportunities, and generally realising value through the pooling of expertise, infrastructure and procurement power. The regional devolution and regional economic growth agendas were widely considered to be valued enablers for realising the opportunities for a more networked approach.

    But the hurdles to overcome are also significant. Interviewees gave examples of failed collaboration attempts in other sectors and the negative cultural perceptions attached to measures like mergers. There was a nervousness about competition law and more specifically OfS’ attitude to structural change, the implications for key institutional performance metrics, and a general sense that no quarter would be given in accommodating a period of adjustment following significant structural change. The risks involved were very obvious and immediate, while the benefits were more speculative and would take time to realise.

    Creating conditions

    We have arrived at two broad conclusions: the first being that government and OfS, in tandem with other interested parties such as the Competition and Markets Authority could adopt a number of measures to reduce the risks for providers entering into discussions about strategic collaboration.

    This would not involve steering particular providers or taking a formal view about what forms of collaboration will best serve public policy ends, but would signal a broadly supportive and facilitative attitude on the part of government and the regulator. As one head of institution observed, a positive agenda around the sector’s collaborative activity would be much more galvanising than the continued focus on financial distress.

    The second is that institutions themselves may need to consider their approach to these challenges and think through whether they have the right mix of skills and knowledge within the executive team and on the Board to do scenario planning and strategic thinking around structural change.

    In the last decade, the goal for Boards has been all about making their institution stronger, and more competitive. While that core purpose hasn’t gone away, it could be time to temper it with a closer attention to the ways that working in a more collective way could help higher education prepare itself for whatever the future throws at it.

     

    This article is published in association with Mills & Reeve. View and download Connect more: creating the conditions for a more resilient and sustainable higher education system in England here.

    Source link