Category: inclusion

What the experience of neurodivergent PhD students teaches us, and why it makes me angry
by Inger Mewburn

Recently, some colleagues and I released a paper about the experiences of neurodivergent PhD students. It’s a systematic review of the literature to date, which is currently under review, but available via pre-print here.

Doing this paper was an exercise in mixed feelings. It was an absolute joy to work with my colleagues, who knew far more about this topic than me and taught me (finally!) how to do a proper systematic review using Covidence. Thanks Dr Diana Tan, Dr Chris Edwards, Associate Professor Kate Simpson, Associate Professor Amanda A Webster and Professor Charlotte Brownlow (who got the band together in the first place).

But reading each and every paper published about neurodivergent PhD students provoked strong feelings of rage and frustration. (These feelings only increased, with a tinge of fear added in, when I read of plans for the US health department to make a ‘list’ of autistic people?! Reading what is going on there is frankly terrifying – solidarity to all.) We all know what needs to be done to make research degrees more accessible. Make expectations explicit. Create flexible policies. Value diverse thinking styles. Implement Universal Design Principles… These suggestions appear in report after report, I’ve ranted on the blog here and here, yet real change remains frustratingly elusive. So why don’t these great ideas become reality? Here’s some thoughts on barriers that keep neurodivergent-friendly changes from taking hold.

The myth of meritocracy

Academia clings to the fiction that the current system rewards pure intellectual merit. Acknowledging the need for accessibility requires admitting that the playing field isn’t level. Many senior academics succeeded in the current system and genuinely believe “if I could do it, anyone can… if they work hard enough”. They are either 1) failing to recognise their neurotypical privilege, or 2) not acknowledging the cost of masking their own neurodivergence (I’ll get to this in a moment).

I’ve talked to many academics about things we could do – like getting rid of the dissertation – but too many of us are secretly proud of our own trauma. The harshness of the PhD has been compared to a badge of honour that we wear proudly – and expect others to earn.

Resource scarcity (real and perceived)

Universities often respond to suggestions about increased accessibility measures with budget concerns. The vibe is often: “We’d love to offer more support, but who will pay for it?”. However, many accommodations (like flexible deadlines or allowing students to work remotely) cost little, or even nothing. Frequently, the real issue isn’t resources but priorities of the powerful. There’s no denying universities (in Australia, and elsewhere) are often cash strapped. The academic hunger games are real. However, in the fight for resources, power dynamics dictate who gets fed and who goes without.

I wish we would just be honest about our choices – some people in universities still have huge travel budgets. The catering at some events is still pretty good. Some people seem to avoid every hiring freeze. There are consistent patterns in how resources are distributed. It’s the gaslighting that makes me angry. If we really want to, we can do most things. We have to want to do something about this.

Administrative inertia

Changing established processes in a university is like turning a battleship with a canoe paddle. Approval pathways are long and winding. For example, altering a single line in the research award rules at ANU requires approval from parliament (yes – the politicians actually have to get together and vote. Luckily we are not as dysfunctional in Australia as other places… yet). By the time a solution is implemented, the student who needed it has likely graduated – or dropped out. This creates a vicious cycle where the support staff, who see multiple generations of students suffer the same way, can get burned out and stop pushing for change.

The individualisation of disability

Universities tend to treat neurodivergence as an individual problem requiring individual accommodations rather than recognising systemic barriers. This puts the burden on students to disclose, request support, and advocate for themselves – precisely the executive function and communication challenges many neurodivergent students struggle with.

It’s akin to building a university with only stairs, then offering individual students a piggyback ride instead of installing ramps. I’ve met plenty of people who simply get so exhausted they don’t bother applying for the accommodations they desperately need, and then end up dropping out anyway.

Fear of lowering ‘standards’

Perhaps the most insidious barrier is the mistaken belief that accommodations somehow “lower standards.” I’ve heard academics worrying that flexible deadlines will “give some students an unfair advantage” or that making expectations explicit somehow “spoon-feeds” students.

The fear of “lowering standards” becomes even more puzzling when you look at how PhD requirements have inflated over time. Anyone who’s spent time in university archives knows that doctoral standards aren’t fixed – they’re constantly evolving. Pull a dissertation from the 1950s or 60s off the shelf and you’ll likely find something remarkably slim compared to today’s tomes. Many were essentially extended literature reviews with modest empirical components. Today, we expect multiple studies, theoretical innovations, methodological sophistication, and immediate publishability – all while completing within strict time limits on ever-shrinking funding.

The standards haven’t just increased; they’ve multiplied. So when universities resist accommodations that might “compromise standards,” we should ask: which era’s standards are we protecting? Certainly not the ones under which most people supervising today had to meet. The irony is that by making the PhD more accessible to neurodivergent thinkers, we might actually be raising standards – allowing truly innovative minds to contribute rather than filtering them out through irrelevant barriers like arbitrary deadlines or neurotypical communication expectations. The real threat to academic standards isn’t accommodation – it’s the loss of brilliant, unconventional thinkers who could push knowledge boundaries in ways we haven’t yet imagined.

Unexamined neurodiversity among supervisors

Perhaps one of the most overlooked barriers is that many supervisors are themselves neurodivergent but don’t recognise it or acknowledge what’s going on with them! In fact, since starting this research, I’ve formed a private view that you almost can’t succeed in this profession without at least a little neurospicey.

Academia tends to attract deep thinkers with intense focus on specific topics – traits often associated with autism (‘special interests’ anyone?). The contemporary university is constantly in crisis, which some people with ADHD can find provides the stimulation they need to get things done! Yet many supervisors have succeeded through decades of masking and compensating, often at great personal cost.

The problem is not the neurodivergence or the supervisor – it’s how the unexamined neurodivergence becomes embedded in practice, underpinned by an expectation that their students should function exactly as they do, complete with the same struggles they’ve internalised as “normal.”

I want to hold on to this idea for a moment, because maybe you recognise some of these supervisors:
- The Hyperfocuser: Expects students to match their pattern of intense, extended work sessions. This supervisor regularly works through weekends on research “when inspiration strikes,” sending emails at 2am and expecting quick responses. They struggle to understand when students need breaks or maintain strict work boundaries, viewing it as “lack of passion.” Conveniently, they have ignored those couple of episodes of burn out, never considering their own work pattern might reflect ADHD or autistic hyper-focus, rather than superior work ethic.
- The Process Pedant: Requires students to submit written work in highly specific formats with rigid attachment to particular reference styles, document formatting, and organisational structures. Gets disproportionately distressed by minor variations from their preferred system, focusing on these details over content, such that their feedback primarily addresses structural issues rather than ideas. I get more complaints about this than almost any other kind of supervision style – it’s so demoralising to be constantly corrected and not have someone genuinely engage with your work.
- The Talker: Excels in spontaneous verbal feedback but rarely provides written comments. Expects students to take notes during rapid-fire conversational feedback, remembering all key points. They tend to tell you to do the same thing over and over, or forget what they have said and recommend something completely different next time. Can get mad when questioned over inconsistencies – suggesting you have a problem with listening. This supervisor never considers that their preference for verbal communication might reflect their own neurodivergent processing style, which isn’t universal. Couple this with a poor memory and the frustration of students reaches critical. (I confess, being a Talker is definitely my weakness as a supervisor – I warn my students in advance and make an effort to be open to criticism about it!).
- The Context-Switching Avoider: Schedules all student meetings on a single day of the week, keeping other days “sacred” for uninterrupted research. Becomes noticeably agitated when asked to accommodate a meeting outside this structure, even for urgent matters. Instead of recognising their own need for predictable routines and difficulty with transitions (common in many forms of neurodivergence), they frame this as “proper time management” that students should always emulate. Students who have caring responsibilities suffer the most with this kind of inflexible relationship.
- The Novelty-Chaser: Constantly introduces new theories, methodologies, or research directions in supervision meetings. Gets visibly excited about fresh perspectives and encourages students to incorporate them into already-developed projects. May send students a stream of articles or ideas completely tangential to their core research, expecting them to pivot accordingly. Never recognises that their difficulty maintaining focus on a single pathway to completion might reflect ADHD-related novelty-seeking. Students learn either 1) to chase butterflies and make little progress or 2) to nod politely at new suggestions while quietly continuing on their original track. The first kind of reaction can lead to a dangerous lack of progress, the second reaction can lead to real friction because, from the supervisor’s point of view, the student ‘never listens’. NO one is happy in these set ups, believe me.
- The Theoretical Purist: Has devoted their career to a particular theoretical framework or methodology and expects all their students to work strictly within these boundaries. Dismisses alternative approaches as “methodologically unsound” or “lacking theoretical rigour” without substantive engagement. Becomes noticeably uncomfortable when students bring in cross-disciplinary perspectives, responding with increasingly rigid defences of their preferred approach. Fails to recognise their intense attachment to specific knowledge systems and resistance to integrating new perspectives may reflect autistic patterns of specialised interests, or even difficulty with cognitive flexibility. Students learn to frame all their ideas within the supervisor’s preferred language, even when doing so limits their research potential.
Now that I know what I am looking for, I see these supervisory dynamics ALL THE TIME. Add in whatever dash of neuro-spiciness is going on with you and all kinds of misunderstandings and hurt feelings result … Again – the problem is not the neurodivergence of any one person – it’s the lack of self reflection, coupled with the power dynamics that can make things toxic.

These barriers aren’t insurmountable, but honestly, after decades in this profession, I’m not holding my breath for institutional enlightenment. Universities move at the pace of bureaucracy after all.

So what do we do? If you’re neurodivergent, find your people – that informal network who “get it” will save your sanity more than any official university policy. If you’re a supervisor, maybe take a good hard look at your own quirky work habits before deciding your student is “difficult.” And if you’re in university management, please, for the love of research, let’s work on not making neurodivergent students jump through flaming bureaucratic hoops to get basic support.

The PhD doesn’t need to be a traumatic hazing ritual we inflict because “that’s how it was in my day.” It’s 2025. Time to admit that diverse brains make for better research. And for goodness sake, don’t put anyone on a damn list, ok?

AI disclaimer: This post was developed with Claude from Anthropic because I’m so busy with the burning trash fire that is 2025 it would not have happened otherwise. I provided the concept, core ideas, detailed content, and personal viewpoint while Claude helped organise and refine the text. We iteratively revised the content together to ensure it maintained my voice and perspective. The final post represents my authentic thoughts and experiences, with Claude serving as an editorial assistant and sounding board.

This blog was first published on Inger Mewburn’s legendary website The Thesis Whisperer on 1 May 2025. It is reproduced with permission here.

Professor Inger Mewburn is the Director of Researcher Development at The Australian National University where she oversees professional development workshops and programs for all ANU researchers. Aside from creating new posts on the Thesis Whisperer blog (www.thesiswhisperer.com), she writes scholarly papers and books about research education, with a special interest in post PhD employability, research communications and neurodivergence.

Like this:

Like Loading…

Categories: Quality, Standards, Performance, Evaluation, Student Experience, Teaching Learning & Assessment | Tags: academia, accessibility, accommodations, bureaucracy, inclusion, Neurodivergence, PhD, privilege, Standards, Supervision | Permalink.

Author: SRHE News Blog

An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education
Source link
May 20, 2025
Steps Toward Creating a More Accessible and Inclusive College Classroom – Faculty Focus

Preparing the next generation of graduates in a 21st-century, diverse, and international classroom requires a pedagogical shift to recalibrate one’s practice. A faculty vision of inclusive pedagogy informed by equity and social justice transcends bias and makes diversity functional and beneficial to all students. Creating a classroom in the service of social justice (The Metropolitan Center for Urban Education, 2008) requires a profound understanding of the impact of human diversity on teaching and learning (Cushner et al., 2024). Enacting equity pedagogy as an essential component of multicultural education (Banks & Banks, 1995) requires instructors to become change agents. It is important to understand inclusive pedagogies as practices where we discern the nuance between general multicultural education or culturally responsive pedagogy and inclusive practices that specifically address the ability/disability continuum and the health dimension. In this article, we will examine ability/disability as a characteristic of human diversity in education as illustrated by Cushner et al. (2024) in their diversity framework. Approaches to creating an inclusive classroom are presented.

Start here…

Adopt an asset-based approach for all students.

Recognize that disability is often defined by the environment in which an individual exists.

Ensure you are not making ableist statements that reinforce stereotypes (ex: “turn a blind eye,” “fall on deaf ears;” using phobia to mean discrimination, ie “transphobia”).

Avoid negative descriptions of disability (ex: “suffers from a condition,” “confined/bound to a wheelchair”).

Use person-first language rather than deficit-first language (ex: “student with a learning disability,” not “learning disabled student”), unless an individual discloses that they prefer to use identity-first language (for example: some individuals on the autism spectrum may prefer to call themselves “autistic” rather than “a person with autism”; someone may identify as part of the Deaf community). Refer to people how they refer to themselves.

Realize that impact matters, regardless of intention.

Assume that students are capable and possess knowledge and skills.

Support colleagues with disabilities.

Tell a colleague that you are committing to the work of becoming a more inclusive educator. When they ask what this means, share these suggestions!

Beginning

Add literature/resources from neurodivergent, disabled, and diverse authors to assigned course readings and class activities.

Replace and/or supplement outdated readings.

Provide electronic files of reading, resources, presentations, and other materials.

Provide multiple sources and access points for assignment requirements and expectations (written descriptions, presentations, instructional videos, examples, rubrics).

Be open and welcome student questions.

Understand that all behavior is a function or indicative of something else; ask if students need support rather than punish them.

Update course syllabi to include statements from the campus disability/accommodations resource office, a statement on academic diversity, religious observant policies, and campus mental health resources.

Create community guidelines for discussions that include intention and impact/anti-bias language.

Immediately address ableist/biased remarks in the classroom through discussion.

Update course syllabi to include a statement of classroom environment that encourages regard for others and respects free speech while not tolerating hate speech.

When presenting a visual/image, also provide a description of the image (alt text).

Provide Closed Captioning on posted videos (lectures, resources, etc.).

Incorporate the impact of and perspectives of groups of diverse abilities in policies of the past and present.

Encourage students (and ourselves as faculty) to analyze research and articles to ensure they represent the perspectives of marginalized groups; follow up with questioning why and providing additional resources to promote self-advocacy.

Revise course syllabi to include Student Learning Objectives, Essential Questions, and Course Descriptions related to self-reflection/advocacy/inclusion/preparing students to be agents of change.

Examine course syllabi to make sure policies (late work, absence, participation grades, etc.) do not indirectly or directly target students with disabilities OR demonstrate bias toward neurotypical students (for example: a “cameras on” video policy in an online course may disproportionately punish students who require accommodations or have diverse learning needs; deductions for late work may punish students who need flexibility due to medical or mental health needs; requiring students to disclose personal details in order to receive extensions or incompletes disrespects students’ privacy of health and disability needs)

Be willing to adjust your expectations through flexibility.

Re-examine assignments and assessments for bias and exclusionary practices.

Consider changing assessments from high-stakes timed tests to projects, homework, open-note/open-book take-home tests.

Ask a colleague to audit your syllabi for readings/topics/policies as listed here.

Collaborate with colleagues in accessibility services to better understand and integrate the services and supports available.

Discuss the need to broaden participation and opportunities for people with disabilities in your department/college.

Examine courses to make sure provided resources are organized and labeled clearly.

Advanced, all the previous steps plus…

Advocate for (or lead!) professional development opportunities on inclusion.

Participate in on- and off-campus events that promote disability acceptance and inclusive practices.

Inform students of community opportunities they can take part in promoting disability acceptance or inclusive practices.

Model examination/reflection on your own privilege (if neurotypical and able-bodied) or experience as a person with(out) a disability.

Consider multimodal access to course participation (for example, HyFlex courses have in-person, video and asynchronous options for all students).

Ask a colleague to informally observe your teaching and provide constructive feedback on your work of being an inclusive teacher.

Invite guest speakers with disabilities to speak with your students about their experiences.

Collaborate with an ADA coordinator to educate students and colleagues about accessibility on your campus.

Collaborate with administrators and faculty who may be working toward DEI or inclusion initiatives on your campus.

Seek input from resources such as the Association of University Centers on Disabilities (AUCD) and Think College for postsecondary education program guidance for individuals with disabilities.

We believe that the responsibility of anti-oppressive work in higher education belongs to all and that making education accessible for individuals with disabilities advances freedom for all groups of people. These universally designed teaching practices, while necessary to increase access for individuals with disabilities, are beneficial for all individuals, regardless of identity status. Thank you for your work towards broadening access to higher education!

Laura N. Sarchet is an autistic self-advocate and Assistant Professor of Special Education at Niagara University who uses her experience as a neurodivergent person to raise awareness about autism and disability through research and practice.

Haoua M. Hamza is an associate professor in the Middle and Adolescence Education Department in the College of Education.

Rachel Bailey Jones, Professor of Education at Nazareth University, focuses their research and teaching on working for educational justice for LGBTQ+ students through an intersectional lens.

Jennifer E. Hartman is an Instructor-ABD in the Special Education Department at Niagara University.

Dennis P. Garland, Ph. D. is Associate Professor and Chair of the Special Education Department at Niagara University.

Maria R. Nader is passionate about providing equitable education for all students and supporting educators to achieve this goal. She serves as a Faculty Fellow in the Special Education Department at Niagara University and has held teaching and administrative roles at the local, state, and university levels in New York, Ohio, and Hawai’i.

References

Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (2004). Handbook of research on multicultural education. 2nd ed. Jossey-Bass.

Coughlin, M. (2021). 10 things faculty need to understand about autism. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2021/10/20/lessons-teaching-students-autism-spectrum-opinion

Cushner, K., McClelland, A., Safford P., & Cushner, H. (2024). Human diversity in education. McGraw Hill.

The Metropolitan Center for Urban Education. (2008). Culturally Responsive-Sustaining Education Framework. New York State Education Department.

Sarchet, L. N. (2021). Faculty and staff: Training and outreach. University of Rochester Office of Disability Resources, adapted with permissions. https://www.rochester.edu/college/disability/assets/pdf/more-accessible-classroom.pdf

Waitoller, F. R., & King Thorius, K. A. (2016). Cross-pollinating culturally sustaining pedagogy and universal design for learning: Toward an inclusive pedagogy that accounts for dis/ability. Harvard Educational Review, 86(3), 366–389. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-86.3.366

Source link

May 19, 2025
How educators can use Gen AI to promote inclusion and widen access

by Eleni Meletiadou

Introduction

Higher education faces a pivotal moment as Generative AI becomes increasingly embedded within academic practice. While AI technologies offer the potential to personalize learning, streamline processes, and expand access, they also risk exacerbating existing inequalities if not intentionally aligned with inclusive values. Building on our QAA-funded project outputs, this blog outlines a strategic framework for deploying AI to foster inclusion, equity, and ethical responsibility in higher education.

The digital divide and GenAI

Extensive research shows that students from marginalized backgrounds often face barriers in accessing digital tools, digital literacy training, and peer networks essential for technological confidence. GenAI exacerbates this divide, demanding not only infrastructure (devices, subscriptions, internet access) but also critical AI literacy. According to previous research, students with higher AI competence outperform peers academically, deepening outcome disparities.

However, the challenge is not merely technological; it is social and structural. WP (Widening Participation) students often remain outside informal digital learning communities where GenAI tools are introduced and shared. Without intervention, GenAI risks becoming a “hidden curriculum” advantage for already-privileged groups.

A framework for inclusive GenAI adoption

Our QAA-funded “Framework for Educators” proposes five interrelated principles to guide ethical, inclusive AI integration:

Understanding and Awareness Foundational AI literacy must be prioritized. Awareness campaigns showcasing real-world inclusive uses of AI (eg Otter.ai for students with hearing impairments) and tiered learning tracks from beginner to advanced levels ensure all students can access, understand, and critically engage with GenAI tools.

Inclusive Collaboration GenAI should be used to foster diverse collaboration, not reinforce existing hierarchies. Tools like Miro and DeepL can support multilingual and neurodiverse team interactions, while AI-powered task management (eg Notion AI) ensures equitable participation. Embedding AI-driven teamwork protocols into coursework can normalize inclusive digital collaboration.

Skill Development Higher-order cognitive skills must remain at the heart of AI use. Assignments that require evaluating AI outputs for bias, simulating ethical dilemmas, and creatively applying AI for social good nurture critical thinking, problem-solving, and ethical awareness.

Access to Resources Infrastructure equity is critical. Universities must provide free or subsidized access to key AI tools (eg Grammarly, ReadSpeaker), establish Digital Accessibility Centers, and proactively support economically disadvantaged students.

Ethical Responsibility Critical AI literacy must include an ethical dimension. Courses on AI ethics, student-led policy drafting workshops, and institutional AI Ethics Committees empower students to engage responsibly with AI technologies.

Implementation strategies

To operationalize the framework, a phased implementation plan is recommended:

Phase 1: Needs assessment and foundational AI workshops (0–3 months).

Phase 2: Pilot inclusive collaboration models and adaptive learning environments (3–9 months).

Phase 3: Scale successful practices, establish Ethics and Accessibility Hubs (9–24 months).

Key success metrics include increased AI literacy rates, participation from underrepresented groups, enhanced group project equity, and demonstrated critical thinking skill growth.

Discussion: opportunities and risks

Without inclusive design, GenAI could deepen educational inequalities, as recent research warns. Students without access to GenAI resources or social capital will be disadvantaged both academically and professionally. Furthermore, impersonal AI-driven learning environments may weaken students’ sense of belonging, exacerbating mental health challenges.

Conversely, intentional GenAI integration offers powerful opportunities. AI can personalize support for students with diverse learning needs, extend access to remote or rural learners, and reduce administrative burdens on staff – freeing them to focus on high-impact, relational work such as mentoring.

Conclusion

The future of inclusive higher education depends on whether GenAI is adopted with a clear commitment to equity and social justice. As our QAA project outputs demonstrate, the challenge is not merely technological but ethical and pedagogical. Institutions must move beyond access alone, embedding critical AI literacy, equitable resource distribution, community-building, and ethical responsibility into every stage of AI adoption.

Generative AI will not close the digital divide on its own. It is our pedagogical choices, strategic designs, and values-driven implementations that will determine whether the AI-driven university of the future is one of exclusion – or transformation.

This blog is based on the recent outputs from our QAA-funded project entitled: “Using AI to promote education for sustainable development and widen access to digital skills”

Dr Eleni Meletiadou is an Associate Professor (Teaching) at London Metropolitan University specialising in Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI), AI, inclusive digital pedagogy, and multilingual education. She leads the Education for Social Justice and Sustainable Learning and Development (RILEAS) and the Gender Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (GEDI) Research Groups. Dr Meletiadou’s work, recognised with the British Academy of Management Education Practice Award (2023), focuses on transforming higher education curricula to promote equitable access, sustainability, and wellbeing. With over 15 years of international experience across 35 countries, she has led numerous projects in inclusive assessment and AI-enhanced learning. She is a Principal Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and serves on several editorial boards. Her research interests include organisational change, intercultural communication, gender equity, and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). She actively contributes to global efforts in making education more inclusive and future-ready. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-eleni-meletiadou/

Like this:

Like Loading…

Categories: Access and Widening Participation | Tags: accessibility, AI literacy, digital divide, equity, ethical responsibility, generative AI, Higher Education, inclusion, sustainable development, Widening Participation | Permalink.

Author: SRHE News Blog

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

Source link

May 16, 2025
What Your Students Aren’t Telling You: Listening, Learning, and Leading with Empathy – Faculty Focus

This article includes a free, open-access resource for educators: What Your Students Aren’t Telling You: Listening, Learning, and Leading with Empathy. The book, co-authored with students, offers actionable strategies and insights to help create more inclusive and humane learning environments. Download it here: https://publish.illinois.edu/gist-partnerships/what-your-students-arent-telling-you/

In higher education, we often track student success through grades, credit hours, and retention rates. But behind those metrics are untold stories—narratives of resilience, confusion, silence, and strength. This project started with a deceptively simple question: What aren’t our students telling us?

After years of teaching, I noticed how often students carried academic, emotional, and personal burdens without sharing them. Not because they lacked courage, but because they didn’t feel invited to speak. Their stories, while occasionally requested, were rarely acted upon. I wanted to change that—not just by asking better questions, but by building an open-access platform that would amplify student voices and inform actionable change.

From Curiosity to Campuswide Inquiry

The project began in two large general education courses I teach at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign: FSHN 101: The Science of Food and FSHN 120: Contemporary Nutrition. These courses enroll a diverse cross-section of the student body, creating the perfect environment to listen broadly and learn deeply.

Over multiple semesters, more than 2,000 students voluntarily participated in IRB-approved surveys and follow-up interviews. These were not standard end-of-semester evaluations. The surveys included over 20 demographic questions—covering areas like housing, food security, disability status, and employment—followed by 15–40 experience-based questions exploring academic confidence, mental health, study habits, and perceptions of inclusion.

To capture both breadth and nuance, the surveys incorporated multiple question formats, such as Likert scales, rankings, multiple select, and open-ended prompts. Each semester, the surveys were refined based on student feedback and changing classroom dynamics.

We also conducted one-on-one interviews with select students, allowing them to share the context behind the data—what it feels like to study while housing-insecure, to navigate a disability without accommodations, or to sit in a classroom where your identity is invisible.

Building a Cross-Disciplinary Team

To guide this growing body of student insight into something useful for faculty, I turned to trusted collaborators with expertise across student development, pedagogy, and educational innovation.

Bonnie Hemrick, Director of Mental Health Promotion at Oregon State University, helped frame issues of student well-being and resilience. Dr. Emily Tarconish, a teaching professor in the College of Education, contributed her deep knowledge of Universal Design for Learning and accessible course design. Amy Leman, professor in Human Development and Family Studies, helped navigate the IRB process providing insight and guidance. Dr. Tony Zhang from Gies College of Business offered perspective on AI, ChatBot technology, and ethical academic support tools. Ann Fredricksen, a dedicated advocate with Disability Resources and Educational Services, kept disability at the center of our equity framework—not as an afterthought, but as a foundation.

Together, we weren’t just evaluating survey results. We were reframing how we think about student-centered learning.

Empowering Students as Authors and Analysts

One of the most powerful dimensions of this work was who got to tell the story. From the beginning, students weren’t just research subjects—they were research partners. Many were enrolled in leadership-focused sections of FSHN 101 and 120 and took on active roles in the analysis, writing, and design of the final open-access book: What Your Students Aren’t Telling You.

Their contributions weren’t theoretical. They were rooted in lived experience. Alysha Haverkos grounded our understanding of food insecurity and student basic needs. Ananya Mani shared honest, often-overlooked realities of international student life. Samarth Jain brought data visualization to life, uncovering trends and turning them into stories. Sheza Shaikh centered mental health and belonging in her writing. Tessa Wolf strengthened our commitment to inclusive course design.

These students didn’t just support the work—they shaped its voice. Each of them served as a reminder that students are not passive recipients of education. They are co-creators of it.

Key Takeaways That Changed Our Classrooms

Through data analysis, interviews, and student authorship, a set of clear—and deeply human—patterns emerged:

Timed, high-stakes assessments caused the highest levels of stress, especially for students managing disabilities or mental health concerns.

Flexibility in format and modality—such as recorded lectures, alternative assignments, or extended deadlines—made students feel supported, capable, and seen.

Textbook format and cost mattered. Students appreciated transparency and choice when it came to required materials.

Inclusive language, representation, and proactive instructor support all contributed to students’ sense of belonging and trust.

These findings don’t argue against academic rigor. Rather, they ask us to pair rigor with relevance and compassion. Many of the most impactful changes were not labor-intensive. A reworded syllabus, an anonymous feedback survey, or a mid-semester check-in can shift a student’s entire trajectory.

A Free, Open-Access Resource for Faculty

The insights we gathered are now published in What Your Students Aren’t Telling You, a free and open-access resource designed to support faculty, advisors, instructional designers, and anyone working to make higher education more humane and inclusive.

The book is both research-informed and experience-driven. Each chapter is co-authored with students who lived the realities we discuss. Their stories—of being brilliant but burned out, passionate but unheard, capable but unseen—bring the data to life.

You’ll find practical strategies, institutional recommendations, and reflective questions to help you translate student voices into action.

You can download it here:
https://publish.illinois.edu/gist-partnerships/what-your-students-arent-telling-you/

Why This Work Matters Now

We are teaching in a time of complexity—rising mental health challenges, widening equity gaps, and ongoing uncertainty in higher education. But we’re also teaching in a time of possibility.

Students are more willing than ever to share what they need—if we create the space to listen. They’re asking us not to fix everything, but to see them, to ask good questions, and to respond with care.

This project reinforced what many of us already know: better is possible. But it takes intentionality. It takes listening. And it takes the courage to rethink not just what we teach, but how we teach and why.

Final Thoughts: A Call to Listen and Lead

The most transformative teaching moments rarely come from perfectly delivered lectures. They come from real connection—from the moments we pause, ask, and truly hear our students.

The students in this project didn’t ask for perfection from faculty. They asked to be heard. And in return, they gave us tools, stories, and solutions that can reshape the future of our classrooms.

Let this be your starting point.

Explore the book. Share it with a colleague. Invite conversation in your next department meeting. And if it resonates with you, I welcome you to reach out. Let’s talk, collaborate, and keep learning from the people who know our classrooms best—our students.

Toni Gist is a clinical assistant professor at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Download the book at https://publish.illinois.edu/gist-partnerships/what-your-students-arent-telling-you/

Source link

May 16, 2025
The implications for UK universities of Trump’s attacks on EDI

Few will be unaware of Donald Trump’s antipathy towards diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the US. In February 2025, Trump issued executive orders and policy directives aimed at eliminating DEI programmes and removing references to “gender ideology” from federal agencies.

For those of us who know DEI as equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI), there is concern about the ripple effects of Trump’s measures on UK universities, for research as well as teaching and learning.

One of the immediate impacts of this manoeuvre was to remove essential LGBTQ+ content from federal websites. Terms such as “transgender”, “LGBT”, and “pregnant person” were all banned. Decades of HIV data, contraception guidelines, and research on racial health disparities were suddenly inaccessible. For US researchers in higher education, such staggeringly blatant anti-EDI policies have disrupted the passage of critical research focused on improving health outcomes for marginalised groups.

Such censorship – to our minds at least – thoroughly undermines scientific integrity, limiting the study of complex health and social issues. Our colleagues in the US are now forced to work within these constraints, which threaten accuracy and inclusivity. Indeed, the politicisation of scientific terminology arguably damages public trust in research and, in the US, diminishes the credibility of federal agencies.

Implications for LGBTQ+ researchers

Trump’s anti-EDI stance is a menace to any form of university research seeking to address inequalities and build inclusion for seldom heard population groups, and the effects of these decisions will have wide-reaching and intersectional repercussions.

As committee members of a university’s LGBTQ+ staff network, our focus is understandably on the impact for our colleagues working on LGBTQ+ issues. US-based researchers working on LGBTQ+ themes now face obstacles in securing funding and publishing their work. And this has a knock-on effect on wider LGBTQ+ population groups. The suppression of critical health information and the suspension of targeted research leaves LGBTQ+ communities bereft of vital support and resources.

More fundamentally, Trump’s policies send the signal that LGBTQ+ identities and needs are irrelevant from his agenda for US growth. It’s a quick step from this to the increase of social stigma and discrimination targeted at LGBTQ+ people. And this in turn worsens mental health and social marginalisation. To put it bluntly: the absence of LGBTQ+ representation in official communications sends a damaging message about the validity of these communities’ experiences.

Lessons for UK universities

To bring this back to the UK context then, a few things come to mind.

First, the UK has its own, depressingly recent, history of government-led suppression of LGBTQ+ communication, which we’d do well to remember. Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 banned the promotion of homosexuality in schools across England, Scotland, and Wales. Repealed in England and Wales in 2003, this act led to years of silence and marginalisation within educational settings.

Section 28 not only harmed students and staff at the time but also created a culture of fear and misinformation, curtailing inclusive teaching and research. To ensure the UK does not repeat such history, universities must prioritise legal advocacy and protection for all involved in higher education, to safeguard academic freedom and inclusivity. Being involved in the LGBTQ+ staff network as we are, we might also add that coalition building among universities, LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, and non-profits can also strengthen efforts to resist any potential policy shifts that might echo the restrictive measures of the past.

Second, Trump’s agenda also urges us to re-think our approach to US-UK research collaborations and student exchanges. There seems to be an increasing discrepancy between what the UK and US each consider to be worthy of research and funding.

Universities in the UK should assess how they foster links with other nations whose research agendas align more closely with UK priorities, to mitigate any potential funding losses. Moreover, UK universities should ideally review their reliance on external funding from the US to determine whether any existing projects might be impacted by shifts in US policy. Equally, with US suppression of data relating to LGBTQ+ issues impacting LGBTQ+ health and wellbeing, it’s vital that UK universities ensure that their research connected to LGBTQ+ issues is readily available.

Third, it seems crucial that UK universities futureproof their relationships with US students. The possibility of new limitations on exchange programmes, including restrictions on modules with extensive EDI content, could impact the accessibility of UK higher education for US students. Online programmes that currently enrol US students may also face scrutiny, raising concerns about whether course content is monitored or whether degrees will continue to be recognised in the US due to their inclusion of EDI principles.

Looking forward

UK universities have a pivotal role to play in responding to what’s happening in the US in relation to Trump’s anti-EDI stance.

We’ve focused particularly on the impacts of these political and policy shifts on LGBTQ+ research and culture in higher education. But they represent a more wholesale attack on initiatives seeking to safeguard the wellbeing of marginalised population groups. UK universities must continue to represent a safe space for education which upholds inclusivity, critical thinking, and academic integrity. This requires a strong coalition of organisations, advocacy groups, and academic institutions working together to resist the erosion of rights and the suppression of essential research.

Such a coalition of critically-minded parties seems all the more important given the recent ruling by the Supreme Court on 16 April 2025 in relation to the Equality Act 2010, which insisted on the binary nature of sex, which is determined by biology. As a result, this leaves trans women unable to avail themselves of the sex-based protections enshrined in the Equality Act.

Universities, like other institutions, will need to review their policies accordingly and should do their utmost to continue to assert a safe and inclusive environment for trans people. But this decision, coming so soon after the Cass review, is also contributing to the anxiety and uncertainty experienced by LGBTQ+ people more broadly. With echoes between the US situation and recent UK developments, the direction of travel is concerning.

By standing together, we can safeguard the rights of all marginalised communities and ensure that the integrity of scientific research, human dignity, and social progress are protected.

Source link

May 1, 2025
Creating learning environments that work for BTEC entrants to higher education

We know that past learning experiences directly correlate to progress and preparedness for higher education study. But are we to accept that the adverse relationship with outcomes for different students’ entry routes is driven by academic performance at university?

There is evidence that students who enter with vocational qualifications are more likely to drop out or get a lower degree classification because of poorer academic performance. This lack of progression is alarming, and initiatives steered to increase progression opportunities that support better overall performance remain both a challenge and a strategic priority for the university sector. HESA statistics for the 2021–22 academic year show the “dropout rate” for first year students with vocational qualifications continues to increase by one percentage point across the sector year on year.

Furthermore, there remains a consistent four percentage point awarding gap between those with vocational and those with traditional qualifications. Despite their higher dropout and non-progression rates, students progressing from vocational qualifications represent a significant growing pathway into HE and many who progress, go on to graduate with at least a 2.1.

A 2022 Nuffield report on the relationship between 16-19 subject, higher education choices and graduate outcomes found “…a weakening of the relationship between entry qualifications and outcomes once comparing individuals with similar module scores.” This implies that educators have a significant part to play in ensuring approaches to setting, measuring and enhancing performance are fair and equitable. Specifically, inclusive assessment design should be central to the educational experience, ensuring all students can fulfil their potential irrespective of their route to HE.

A very particular set of skills

Ongoing work on student engagement such as this 2023 framework for inclusive and effective student engagement from QAA, has demonstrated clear benefits from creating communities that build identity and belonging though adopting inclusive approaches, enhancing student engagement, motivation and progression. Applying these principles means recognising that students entering HE from vocational routes like BTECs possess unique skills.

Through their studies they have developed hands-on learning and real-world application, giving them practical skills directly relevant to their chosen field. Additionally, they engage in self-directed projects and coursework, fostering independence and time management skills essential for managing university workloads. Many vocational courses offer work placements, providing valuable career insights that foster a professional mind-set from day one. Unlike traditional A levels, BTECs are assessed through coursework and practical assessments, helping students develop strong research, critical writing, and project management skills.

All of the above combines with a wealth of lived experience – BTEC students often come from diverse educational backgrounds – which enhances these students’ adaptability and resilience. Furthermore, the emphasis on practical achievements and continuous assessment fosters a positive mindset and a sense of belonging and community. These skills provide vocational students with a solid foundation for success in HE. So what are we not getting right?

Like many other universities, we recognise each cohort is unique and a one size fits all approach may not have sustained impact. Learning, teaching, and assessment design should provide an equitable experience for all students regardless of prior learning experiences and route into HE. We have streamlined our approaches, drawing on evidence of what is “working” to enable us to embed efficient and effective approaches to being intentionally inclusive within assessment design.

Five ways to inclusion

It’s early days, but we are already seeing improvements in the number of students that are passing all modules first time from a variety of entry routes and through approaches that celebrate and embrace the unique skillsets of all students. Through five interconnected themes we are making steady and sustained progress through exploring inclusive assessment practices and reviewing the narrative of learning.

Supporting student confidence is foundational to academic success. We have found that developing shared assessment literacies can help students recognise their capabilities and potential. This can directly speak to the unique skillset that students bring from a range of diverse routes: for example, creating Hidden Curriculum Guides that unpack unfamiliar language and concepts, drawing from past experiences to socialises the unknown so that students can feel confident in their understanding and learning journey.

Embedding effective pedagogical approaches employs a blend of student-centred and humanistic methods to create dynamic and responsive learning environments. These approaches are tailored to meet the specific needs of students. Evidence-based approaches include empowering students to bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application for life-wide learning and preparedness for the journey ahead. These examples not only integrate effective pedagogical approaches but support a range of skillsets, positioning the educational experience through empathy and compassion in developing supportive transition and orientation interventions and deepening the shared understanding of lived experiences.

Assessment diversity and timely feedback are crucial. Our commitment to inclusive assessment practices creates space where all students can demonstrate their knowledge and skills effectively. Through co-created integrated approach to inclusive assessment, we have produced a set of inclusive assessment and feedback principles: clear, understood, authentic, robust and personalised.

Creating a sense of belonging is vital for student engagement and retention. Inclusive classroom environments that celebrate diversity and foster community connections help students feel valued and supported. Harnessing the practice elements will bring a newfound confidence to the forefront of the learning experience. Flipping the classroom, so students have a more meaningful experience creates a sticky campus, and a strong sense of togetherness which particularly suit students that have entered HE via a vocational route. Initiatives such as peer mentoring and collaborative projects have been successful in creating a welcoming and inclusive atmosphere.

Recognising and valuing the diverse entry backgrounds of students not only enhances learning but also promotes equity and inclusion by drawing on the value of their individual learning experiences to enhance their learning journey. We identified the need for targeted support mechanisms that bolster student confidence during the transition to and through HE. Our emphasis on the importance of diverse pedagogical approaches, inclusive assessment practices, and feedback mechanisms provided solid foundations.

Learning from programme teams about what works to maximise real-world learning from current practice is essential to building trust. Our five-phase approach provides a scaffolding based on our unique learning journey. The challenge remains for us as a sector to address and share knowledge holistically, which draws from evidence-based practice with the aim of enhancing student outcomes. Working collegiately with the student body, this is both an urgent and important issue to address with the growing number of students joining universities from vocational routes. There is a government push to increase capacity for vocational routes in HE and so if universities are to stay relevant in this space, there is an urgency to find solutions, learning from programme leaders who are passionate and best placed to know students. Together and collaboratively, we can drive forward real intervention with sustained impact, it matters for student success.

For more about the authors’ work to create inclusive learning environments see the special editions of Innovative practice in higher education and Pedagogy collating evidence shared at our learning and teaching festivals in 2023 and 2024.

Source link

April 29, 2025
5 Strategies to Create Inclusive Learning Environments for International Students – Faculty Focus

The United States (U.S.) remains a top choice for international students pursuing higher education, with approximately six percent of the student population consisting of international students (Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange, 2024). This data underscores their integral role in higher education. One of the major challenges international students faces is adapting to a new educational system and culture while striving to integrate seamlessly into their new environment. Many international students bring deeply ingrained learning experiences from their home countries, which may differ significantly from those in the U.S. These differences profoundly shape their approach to education, influencing their self-esteem and academic success. This article explores these experiences, offering insights for educators on how to foster supportive and inclusive learning environments, particularly from an Asian perspective.

Personal Experience

I was an international student myself, so I can empathize with the challenges faced by the current generation of international students. While platforms like the internet and American media provide some understanding of American culture, nuances are often missed. I vividly recall the sense of isolation in the classrooms and at conferences, where engaging in conversations felt daunting. Introducing and joining conversations with others was challenging; the most I could do was to wave and acknowledge my presence. These experiences highlight the importance of creating environments where international students feel safe, supported, and included.

1. Cultural Perspectives on Authority

International students often approach interactions with educators with profound reverence, influenced by cultures that value authority and rules. This reverence may lead to reserved behavior in the classroom, hindering active participation. Rather than engaging in active discourse, they tend to listen attentively to their educators and accept their viewpoints unquestioningly, even if they conflict with their knowledge and understanding. This deference to authority may manifest as reticence, timidity, or reluctance to participate in class activities and discussions (Wan, 2021). For international students, this act of showing respect is vital, as they fear failure in the course if their communication style is perceived as disrespectful. Consequently, they do not advocate for themselves in academic settings and function best when following rules set by a person of authority.

To address this, educators can empower international students to express themselves more freely, by adopting strategies that foster a supportive and less intimidating learning environment. One approach is to adjust the tone of communication to be less stern or serious, creating a more welcoming atmosphere for dialogue. Additionally, providing alternative avenues for communication, such as writing on sticky notes or offering anonymous feedback options, can offer students a sense of safety and anonymity when expressing their thoughts. Furthermore, educators can encourage peer support by allowing students to bring a classmate along when seeking clarification or discussing concerns with educators. This approach can help alleviate feelings of intimidation and apprehension, as students may feel more comfortable and supported when engaging with professors alongside a peer. By acknowledging and accommodating cultural perspectives on authority, educators can promote inclusivity and empower international students to participate actively in their academic journey.

2. Adapting to Autonomy in the Classroom

Cultural backgrounds and language barriers contribute to international students’ hesitance to participate vocally in class. Students who come from educational backgrounds where autonomy in the classroom was not encouraged may struggle to adapt to the interactive and participatory learning environments often found in Western educational settings. Additionally, if English is not spoken as their first language, these students fear that their foreign accent may impede understanding. They quickly become sensitive to others’ evaluations and doubt their ability to communicate clearly, leading them to feel uncomfortable when speaking up in class (Hsu & Huang, 2017). Consequently, they may prefer to take on a passive observer role rather than participating actively. Moreover, international students may not perceive their personal views and experiences as significant, fearing that they may not align with the local context in the US.

Creating a safe space in the classroom for international students is crucial. These students must feel valued and have their dignity upheld. Educators must provide clear guidelines to foster participation, encouraging active engagement and the sharing of diverse perspectives. Turn-taking may not occur naturally for international students, so assigning specific roles to each group member to present their ideas can be effective. Appoint a leader who will ensure each group member’s voice is heard. Educators must also be cautious when addressing incorrect answers to prevent students from being discouraged from taking risks in responding in the future. A face-saving act plays an important role for international students when their answers are off- tangent.

3. Feedback and Revising

International students may not be familiar with the process of feedback and revising their work. These students have often been taught to get it right the first time and may not be accustomed to opportunities for revision. In some cases, they may not even receive feedback and might not understand what constructive feedback looks like.

Educators should familiarize students with feedback processes and create a supportive environment for revising work based on feedback. Help these students become accustomed to the various forms of feedback they may receive in your classroom. Emphasize that feedback is a way to help them improve their work and is not a personal attack.

4. Peer Support

International students often fear being judged by their educators if they ask questions that reveal their lack of understanding or knowledge. Additionally, there is a cultural perception among some international students that questioning authority, such as educators, may be viewed negatively. Therefore, seeking assistance from peers can feel less intimidating as peers may be perceived as more approachable and understanding of their struggles. Educators should view this reliance on peer support as a natural part of the adjustment process for international students. Allowing them time to acclimate to unfamiliar academic expectations and social dynamics will help them feel confident enough to engage directly with educators. Be accessible and supportive. Let the students know that you are approachable and happy to answer any questions no matter how simple or complex.

5. Creating a Sense of Belonging

International students often experience isolation in classrooms, making it crucial for educators to foster a sense of belonging. Cultural differences, such as the U.S. emphasis on independence versus the collectivistic nature of many Asian cultures, can make classroom interactions challenging. This unfamiliarity can lead to disengagement and alienation.

Despite appearing integrated, international students may struggle to form meaningful connections with American peers, leading to self-isolation. They often gravitate toward friends from their home country, limiting engagement in classroom discussions and peer support networks. This lack of engagement with local students can hinder their ability to form meaningful personal connections, access peer support, and fully participate in classroom discussions, all of which are essential for academic and social success.

Educators can help by designating peer mentors or teaching assistants to offer guidance. Assigning clear roles in group activities ensures inclusivity, while providing instructions and exemplars in advance helps international students prepare and participate more confidently. Allowing students to preview tasks before class gives them time to seek clarification, fostering comfort and engagement. These strategies create a more inclusive learning environment, enhancing both academic success and emotional well-being.

Conclusion

Creating a safe, supportive, and inclusive learning environment is essential for all students, including international students. Since international students may encounter cultural differences in their new learning environment, educators must implement culturally responsive support strategies. These strategies help foster an inclusive setting, enabling all students to succeed both academically and personally. By adopting these five inclusive practices in the classroom, educational experiences can be enriched for both international and domestic students, promoting a sense of belonging for everyone.

Thilagha Jagaiah is an Associate Professor of Special Education in the Education Department at the University of Hartford. She prepares pre-service teachers to develop essential teaching and assessment skills, equipping them to become highly effective licensed educators for PreK-12 students. Her research focuses on enhancing the teaching and learning of writing, with a specific emphasis on how sophisticated sentence structures can improve writing quality and how optimal trunk support can enhance engagement for students with trunk deficits in inclusive classrooms.

References

Hsu, C.-F. (Sandy), & Huang, I.-T. (Joyce). (2017). Are international students quiet in class? The influence of teacher confirmation on classroom apprehension and willingness to talk in class. Journal of International Students, 7(1), 38-52. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v7i1.244

International Students Enrollment Trends, 1948/49 – 2023/24. Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange. Retrieved from http://www.opendoorsdata.org

Wan, Y. W. (2021). Why are they so quiet? Exploring reticent and passive East Asian ESL students in the U.S. classroom. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 11, 942-954. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2021.116073

Source link

April 14, 2025
Will GenAI narrow or widen the digital divide in higher education?

by Lei Fang and Xue Zhou

This blog is based on our recent publication: Zhou, X, Fang, L, & Rajaram, K (2025) ‘Exploring the digital divide among students of diverse demographic backgrounds: a survey of UK undergraduates’ Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 8(1).

Introduction – the widening digital divide

Our recent study (Zhou et al, 2025) surveyed 595 undergraduate students across the UK to examine the evolving digital divide across all forms of digital technologies. Although higher education is expected to narrow this divide and build students’ digital confidence, our findings revealed the opposite. We found that the gap in digital confidence and skills between widening participation (WP) and non-WP students widened progressively throughout the undergraduate journey. While students reported peak confidence in Year 2, this was followed by a notable decline in Year 3, when the digital divide became most pronounced. This drop coincides with a critical period when students begin applying their digital skills in real-world contexts, such as job applications and final-year projects.

Based on our study (Zhou et al, 2025), while universities offer a wide range of support such as laptop loans, free access to remote systems, extracurricular digital skills training, and targeted funding to WP students, WP students often do not make use of these resources. The core issue lies not in the absence of support, but in its uptake. WP students are often excluded from the peer networks and digital communities where emerging technologies are introduced, shared, and discussed. From a Connectivist perspective (Siemens, 2005), this lack of connection to digital, social, and institutional networks limits their awareness, confidence, and ability to engage meaningfully with available digital tools.

Building on these findings, this blog asks a timely question: as Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) becomes embedded in higher education, will it help bridge this divide or deepen it further?

GenAI may widen the digital divide — without proper strategies

While the digital divide in higher education is already well-documented in relation to general technologies, the emergence of GenAI introduces new risks that may further widen this gap (Cachat-Rosset & Klarsfeld, 2023). This matters because students who are GenAI-literate often experience better academic performance (Sun & Zhou, 2024), making the divide not just about access but also about academic outcomes.

Unlike traditional digital tools, GenAI often demands more advanced infrastructure — including powerful devices, high-speed internet, and in many cases, paid subscriptions to unlock full functionality. WP students, who already face barriers to accessing basic digital infrastructure, are likely to be disproportionately excluded. This divide is not only student-level but also institutional. A few well-funded universities are able to subscribe to GenAI platforms such as ChatGPT, invest in specialised GenAI tools, and secure campus-wide licenses. In contrast, many institutions, particularly those under financial pressure, cannot afford such investments. These disparities risk creating a new cross-sector digital divide, where students’ access to emerging technologies depends not only on their background, but also on the resources of the university they attend.

In addition, the adoption of GenAI currently occurs primarily through informal channels via peers, online communities, or individual experimentation rather than structured teaching (Shailendra et al, 2024). WP students, who may lack access to these digital and social learning networks (Krstić et al, 2021), are therefore less likely to become aware of new GenAI tools, let alone develop the confidence and skills to use them effectively. Even when they do engage with GenAI, students may experience uncertainty, confusion, or fear about using it appropriately especially in the absence of clear guidance around academic integrity, ethical use, or institutional policy. This ambiguity can lead to increased anxiety and stress, contributing to wider concerns around mental health in GenAI learning environments.

Another concern is the risk of impersonal learning environments (Berei & Pusztai, 2022). When GenAI are implemented without inclusive design, the experience can feel detached and isolating, particularly for WP students, who often already feel marginalised. While GenAI tools may streamline administrative and learning processes, they can also weaken the sense of connection and belonging that is essential for student engagement and success.

GenAI can narrow the divide — with the right strategies

Although WP students are often excluded from digital networks, which Connectivism highlights as essential for learning (Goldie, 2016), GenAI, if used thoughtfully, can help reconnect them by offering personalised support, reducing geographic barriers, and expanding access to educational resources.

To achieve this, we propose five key strategies:

Invest in infrastructure and access: Universities must ensure that all students have the tools to participate in the AI-enabled classroom including access to devices, core software, and free versions of widely used GenAI platforms. While there is a growing variety of GenAI tools on the market, institutions facing financial pressures must prioritise tools that are both widely used and demonstrably effective. The goal is not to adopt everything, but to ensure that all students have equitable access to the essentials.

Rethink training with inclusion in mind: GenAI literacy training must go beyond traditional models. It should reflect Equality, Diversity and Inclusion principles recognising the different starting points students bring and offering flexible, practical formats. Micro-credentials on platforms like LinkedIn Learning or university-branded short courses can provide just-in-time, accessible learning opportunities. These resources are available anytime and from anywhere, enabling students who were previously excluded such as those in rural or under-resourced areas to access learning on their own terms.

Build digital communities and peer networks: Social connection is a key enabler of learning (Siemens, 2005). Institutions should foster GenAI learning communities where students can exchange ideas, offer peer support, and normalise experimentation. Mental readiness is just as important as technical skill and being part of a supportive network can reduce anxiety and stigma around GenAI use.

Design inclusive GenAI policies and ensure ongoing evaluation: Institutions must establish clear, inclusive policies around GenAI use that balance innovation with ethics (Schofield & Zhang, 2024). These policies should be communicated transparently and reviewed regularly, informed by diverse student feedback and ongoing evaluation of impact.

Adopt a human-centred approach to GenAI integration: Following UNESCO’s human-centred approach to AI in education (UNESCO, 2024; 2025), GenAI should be used to enhance, not replace the human elements of teaching and learning. While GenAI can support personalisation and reduce administrative burdens, the presence of academic and pastoral staff remains essential. By freeing staff from routine tasks, GenAI can enable them to focus more fully on this high-impact, relational work, such as mentoring, guidance, and personalised support that WP students often benefit from most.

Conclusion

Generative AI alone will not determine the future of equity in higher education, our actions will. Without intentional, inclusive strategies, GenAI risks amplifying existing digital inequalities, further disadvantaging WP students. However, by proactively addressing access barriers, delivering inclusive and flexible training, building supportive digital communities, embedding ethical policies, and preserving meaningful human interaction, GenAI can become a powerful tool for inclusion. The digital divide doesn’t close itself; institutions must embed equity into every stage of GenAI adoption. The time to act is not once systems are already in place, it is now.

Dr Lei Fang is a Senior Lecturer in Digital Transformation at Queen Mary University of London. Her research interests include AI literacy, digital technology adoption, the application of AI in higher education, and risk management. lei.fang@qmul.ac.uk

Professor Xue Zhou is a Professor in AI in Business Education at the University of Leicester. Her research interests fall in the areas of digital literacy, digital technology adoption, cross-cultural adjustment and online professionalism. xue.zhou@le.ac.uk

Like this:

Like Loading…

Categories: Access and Widening Participation, Student Experience | Tags: Connectivism, digital accessabillity, digital divide, Digital inclusion, digital technologies, GenAI, generative AI, inclusion, technology, Widening Participation | Permalink.

Author: SRHE News Blog

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

Source link

April 2, 2025
Free higher education in Syria and inequalities

by Oudai Tazan

HE and inequality

The debate over whether higher education (HE) serves as a vehicle for social mobility that nurtures meritocracy or as a mechanism for social reproduction that reinforces and exacerbates inequalities in society has persisted for some time. The first perspective regards HE as a meritocratic, achievement-based system of stratification that selects and allocates individuals to societal roles based solely on their merit (in line with Émile Durkheim’s theories). Conversely, the second viewpoint sees education as a means that perpetuates social stratification and the cultural hegemony of the elite (reflecting Bourdieu’s perspective). This phenomenon occurs because students’ socio-economic backgrounds significantly influence their access to, decisions regarding, and success within HE.

To mitigate the impact of socioeconomic background on individuals’ educational opportunities, a movement of research and activism spans from South America to Africa and the Far East, advocating for free HE. To investigate this claim, I examined the situation in Syria, which has consistently asserted that it possesses a meritocratic HE system aimed at fostering societal equality through the provision of free public HE for all since the 1970s. I analysed the Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE) database for 15 academic years, from 2001 to 2015. This dataset encompassed information on student access and graduation rates, categorised by type of education (public, private, higher institutes, and technical institutes), education level (undergraduate and postgraduate), gender (male and female), city, faculty, and specialisations. This analysis revealed various forms of inequality, specifically class-based inequalities, city-based inequalities, and gender-based inequalities.

Class-based inequalities

Although every citizen in Syria who finishes school can access free public HE, many students from high socio-economic backgrounds choose private HE to obtain better education or to pursue specific courses unavailable in the free public tracks. An analysis of the data reveals that the graduation rate in private institutions is almost double that of public institutions. One of the reasons behind this discrepancy in graduation rates between free public HE and private HE is the lack of funding for free public HE. Public university students suffer from a high student-teacher ratio (in some cases, 140 students per teacher) and poor infrastructure compared to the low student-teacher ratio (around 20 students per teacher) and better infrastructure in private universities. Furthermore, inadequate funding for free public universities has led qualified lecturers to prefer teaching at private institutions. This has widened the inequality between public and private HE institutions, as students with the financial capacity to access private HE learn from the most qualified teachers in Syria and receive the best knowledge available.

City-based inequalities

Although Syria has 14 cities, during the analysis period (2008–2013), it had only 5 free public universities located in 5 different cities. These universities have small branches or centres in all Syrian cities, offering limited course options. This design of the HE system has neglected some cities in Syria, leaving them without a proper educational framework. Having only one large university in select cities advantages students who reside in those areas, as they do not endure the added financial and mental pressures that students from other cities face to access education, such as paying for accommodation, living away from home, and travelling to see their families. Consequently, many students from cities without a university may encounter additional barriers to accessing HE, negatively affecting their academic, professional, and personal opportunities and choices. This could explain why cities like Damascus, Homs, and Latakia (where universities are located) are consistently overrepresented in HE, while students from Hama, al-Hasakeh, and al-Rakka (which lack universities) are consistently underrepresented.

In addition to the inequality of access to HE, city-based inequalities also encompass disparities in accessing the various specialisations and faculties offered by HE. This is further exacerbated by the sector’s design as not all faculties or specialisations are available at every university or branch. For instance, undergraduate media studies are solely taught in Damascus. Although Damascus constitutes only 8.75% of the Syrian population, students from Damascus account for 23.9% of the total number of media students. This representation is nearly three times their percentage of the overall population. This significant overrepresentation of students in certain courses occurs at the expense of those from other cities who are unable to access these courses and faculties because they are not available in their localities. This trend of unequal access to specialisations applies to numerous disciplines (eg Pharmacy, Dentistry, Medicine, Arts, IT, Mechanical Engineering, and Architecture). In each of these specialisations, students in the cities where the courses are taught have a distinct advantage over students from other cities in terms of access.

Gender-based inequalities

Officials in the Syrian HE sector have consistently celebrated the progress they have made, asserting that free HE has eliminated gender-based inequality by achieving near parity in enrolment rates. Although noticeable progress has indeed occurred, this claim does not hold up under scrutiny as it obscures other gender inequalities affecting certain groups within the population.

An analysis of the database reveals that, while there is no overarching gender gap in the sector, apart from in undergraduate public universities, disparities exist across all other educational tracks. Moreover, the higher the level of education (Master’s, PhD, etc), the more pronounced the gap becomes. The analysis further indicates that gender-based inequalities extend beyond females’ access to specific tracks and impact female academic representation within the sector. A 14-year average shows that female teachers constitute less than 25% of the total teaching staff in the sector. However, in lower-paid and less prestigious roles, such as technical and administrative positions, females occupy more jobs than their male counterparts (57%).

Conclusion

Simply offering free HE does not address the broader socio-economic inequalities that limit people’s opportunities in HE. Assuming that free HE will foster equality in society presumes that everyone has an equal capacity to access education. This paper demonstrates that HE, if not paired with an inclusive sectoral design, increased funding, and a comprehensive strategy to alleviate socioeconomic inequalities, will persist as a site of social reproduction that creates and exacerbates disparities within societies, even if provided at no cost.

Dr Oudai Tozan recently finished his PhD at the University of Cambridge, researching the potential role of exiled Syrian academics and researchers in rebuilding the higher education sector of Syria. This blog is based on an article published in Policy Reviews in Higher Education: Tozan, O. (2024) ‘Peeling the multiple layers of inequalities in free higher education policies’ (online 12 July 2024).

https://www.syria-education.com/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/oudai-tozan/

Like this:

Like Loading…

Categories: Access and Widening Participation, Government & Higher Education Policy | Tags: classism, Equality of opportunity, gender equality, inclusion, inequality, public sector higher education, public v private, social mobility, syria | Permalink.

Author: SRHE News Blog

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

Source link

February 18, 2025
Humane societies are thoughtful about how to promote equality, diversity and inclusion

We all knew that the Trump administration’s attacks on diversity, equality and inclusion would have ramifications in the UK, but we probably didn’t expect it to show up quite so quickly.

This Saturday’s lead in The Times warned that – in tacit contrast to President Trump’s apparent intention that all federal funding should cease to organisations or projects that champion inclusion – UK universities could now lose public money if they do not.

This refers, of course, to the ongoing consultation on the people, culture and environment measure in the 2029 Research Excellence Framework. Back in 2023, our tongues firmly in our cheeks, we held a panel session at our Festival of HE titled “Has REF gone woke?” That joke no longer looks so funny.

DK has explained elsewhere on the site exactly what’s wrong with the claims about the REF in The Times, should you need ammunition to fire over the dinner party table. We should hardly be surprised by now to see half truths and scare tactics mobilised in this particular culture war. Its proponents are not in the main motivated by a concern for evidence as by animus against a particular set of values which it suits them to project as being in opposition to [delete as appropriate] common sense/free market economics/honest working people/standards in public services/The Meritocracy.

While the spectacle in the US of wealthy white men openly deploying their enormous power against those who are minoritised and disenfranchised is truly horrifying, FT science columnist Anjana Ahuja last week pointed to a larger concern: that scientists, funders and research organisations would quietly divest from equality, diversity and inclusion initiatives, or deprioritise vital research into differential experiences of or outcomes from public health, provision of public services, justice, or education, consciously or unconsciously orienting the scientific endeavour towards the locus of power rather than towards truth or justice. Any such reorientation would have a serious impact, both through loss of talent in research, and loss of knowledge that could improve, and save, many lives.

The politics in the UK

You might feel that despite the tendency of part of the UK media to promulgate the culture wars, UK research is unlikely to experience anything like as serious as the US. And that is probably correct in the short term, given the current flavour of the Westminster and devolved governments. The temptation when there is a lot of noise but without much real likelihood of action, is to stay quiet, and wait for the noise to pass. That would be a mistake.

Despite the size of the Labour government’s majority, the current political battle – including the Labour Party – is on the populist right. The Conservatives under opposition leader Kemi Badenoch are locked in a struggle with Reform, which is currently not only beating the Tories in the polls, but is also neck and neck with Labour as a chunk of (socially, if not necessarily economically) conservative voters become impatient with Labour but are not ready to turn back to the big-C Conservatives.

None of this should be an immediate cause for concern – the next election is a long way off, and Farage remains a good distance from No 10. But it does appear to mean, unfortunately, that political discourse tends to gravitate to the populist right, as it is these potential Reform voters both parties hope to woo back. Badenoch – whose anti-woke credentials formed part of her appeal to Tory members – has called diversity and inclusion work “woke indoctrination.” Labour has been adamant on the need to cut net migration, a perennial Reform issue, despite the likely impact on its stated priority of economic growth. The next Westminster election may yet be fought on an “anti-woke” platform. And Labour may be a one-term government, as Biden was in the US.

What could the response be?

An instance last week in which Secretary of State for Health Wes Streeting was asked about diversity, equality and inclusion activity in the NHS gives a sense of the issues higher education institutions will be working through in this space. Streeting’s measured answer acknowledged the cost of such activity in a time of economic constraint but robustly defended the importance of, for example, anti-racist bullying and harassment work in the NHS. He added that on occasion some “daft things” have been done in the name of equality, diversity and inclusion – the part of his answer which inevitably formed the bulk of media headlines.

On equality, diversity and inclusion there is a principle at stake and a “political fight” to be had, in Streeting’s words, in which organisations that operate in the public interest must continue to stand up for the idea that any just and humane society makes a meaningful effort to address systemic and structural inequality no matter the economic environment or the political backlash.

But nor should external pressures dissuade the academic and scientific community, higher education institutions or students’ unions, from examining the evidence, and keeping the public conversation open about how such efforts are best accomplished in practice.

The culture wars thrive on category slippage between principle and practice – when one or two examples of specific initiatives are held to stand for all forms of equality and inclusion work. Anyone may have doubts about the merits of any given approach, and the best way to engage with those doubts is through evidence and good-faith discussion. Higher education has a responsibility not simply to protect and defend its own practice but to subject equality, diversity and inclusion practice to thoughtful scrutiny in the interests of promoting that principle – to contribute to making the public conversation as informed as possible.

Research England, in its extended consultation and discussion of its people, culture and environment measure, and its mobilisation of evidence, is therefore a shining exemplar of good practice. Inevitably some will feel that the resultant system puts too much weight on equality, while others will wish that the funding mechanisms would lean in harder.

What is not really arguable is that our collective approach to the management of research and education – what is prioritised, who is supported – has real-world consequences that shape the future of our society. To suggest that it’s wrong for evidenced consideration of how equality, diversity, and inclusion manifests in the funding mechanisms that drive those decisions is simply absurd.

Source link

February 8, 2025

1 2
Next Page

Blog
About
Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions

copyright 2025

Signup

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.

Email

Password