Category: Strategy

  • What if students were the architects of their own success?

    What if students were the architects of their own success?

    What if the best student support service universities could offer haven’t been designed yet – all because the right students weren’t in the room?

    It’s an unsettling thought, especially for those of us who have worked within the sector with hopes of improving student wellbeing, success, and engagement.

    But it’s a question I kept circling back to during my own Master’s dissertation – on how higher education leaders can empower student success through student support services.

    Despite evidence of dedicated and passionate staff, adequate funding, and strategic frameworks, students still reported gaps – not just in service delivery, but in how those services are conceived.

    The issue isn’t just operational, it’s philosophical.

    Going from “we provide” to “we build together”

    Higher education has made important strides in expanding student services – from wellbeing hubs and learning support, to financial aid and disability access. But often, these services are still created for students, rather than with them.

    Student feedback is collected after implementation, student leaders are invited to steering groups halfway through, and students are asked for “input” on final drafts rather than on the first blank page.

    But that’s not co-creation – it’s consultation with extra steps.

    When we move beyond ticking the “student voice” box and start sharing power, from the ideation stage to ongoing evaluation, something transformative happens – services become relevant, not just available.

    Across the Irish and UK sectors, we talk a good game about partnership. But authentic representation often struggles against institutional muscle memory – senior committees with unclear roles for student reps, siloed support departments, and legacy systems where “that’s just how it’s always been done.”

    And yet, higher education institutions that embed structured co-creation into their DNA show what’s possible.

    At the University of Helsinki, students sit on nearly every working group — not just tokenistically, but as equal contributors in shaping the academic experience. In the Netherlands, the concept of the “student assessor” has placed students at the heart of university governance.

    In Australia, institutions have embedded co-design into their equity and access strategies, involving students from underrepresented backgrounds in shaping services intended for them. Closer to home, UCL’s Student ChangeMakers programme enables students to co-lead improvements in pedagogy, assessment, and support services.

    Even in smaller institutions, we see creative approaches – from peer-led mental health initiatives in Scotland to course review panels in Irish colleges where students shape curriculum content and feedback systems in real-time.

    These aren’t add-ons – they’re rewiring the system to trust students as partners, not recipients. And it works.

    Co-design works

    When students co-design support services, they’re more likely to use them, to trust them, and to champion them among peers.

    One of the strongest themes that emerged from my own research was just how often students didn’t engage with services because they weren’t designed with their realities in mind.

    I’ve found mature students balancing work and care responsibilities, students with disabilities navigating inaccessible booking systems, international students who couldn’t find help that reflected their unique needs, and online learners who found support hyper-focused towards traditional campus-based students.

    We don’t need another awareness campaign – we need services designed with lived experience at the core. Co-creation isn’t just about collaboration, it’s about expertise – the kind students bring simply by surviving and succeeding in today’s higher education and societal landscape.

    It’s not a radical thought to think a first-year commuter student might have better insights into timetabling conflicts than a senior manager does.

    If we want student support services to meet the moment, leaders have to ask the hardest question of all – what decisions am I willing to share?

    Because real co-creation means giving away control. Not all of it, not recklessly – but deliberately and structurally. It means students co-chairing steering groups. It means budgets ringfenced for student-led initiatives. It means evaluation that includes student-led metrics of success, not just institutional KPIs.

    And it means recognising that students are not a problem to be solved, but a resource to be repurposed.

    As we continue to navigate one of the worst cost-of-living crises we’ve ever seen, post-pandemic recovery, and mounting mental health concerns, the temptation is to invest in more services, faster solutions, and slicker technology. But what if the most impactful thing we can do is pause – and ask students to build it with us?

    Co-creation isn’t a buzzword. It’s a strategy for relevance, equity, and resilience.

    And if we’re serious about empowering student success, it’s time we stopped building services around students – and started building them with students.

    How might it work – and what could it change?

    Reimagining support means starting with different questions: What if students didn’t have to search for help — what if help found them? What if every staff member saw themselves as part of the support system, not just those with “student services” in their title? What if wellbeing wasn’t its own office, but a value that lived in curriculum design, assessment timelines, and space planning?

    There’s no one model, and that’s the point. At some universities, it might mean tearing down departmental silos and creating shared case management teams. In others, it could mean radically overhauling communication with students — ditching ten disconnected emails for one meaningful touchpoint, co-designed with students for students.

    It could mean integrating student advisory roles across academic faculties/schools, or giving SUs shared governance over support strategy, not just representation on working groups.

    It could even be as bold as adopting a ‘universal design’ approach to all student services — where we build systems for the most marginalised, and in doing so, make them better for everyone.

    The change isn’t just structural — it’s cultural, philosophical. When students see that their experience and input drives institutional decisions, not just fills out end-of-semester surveys, something shifts. Trust deepens. Engagement rises. The story students tell about their university begins to change — from “I had to figure it all out” to “they built this with us in mind.”

    Source link

  • Should higher education be thinking in terms of evolution or transformation?

    Should higher education be thinking in terms of evolution or transformation?

    The pervasive sense that five years or a decade or 20 years hence the sector will look radically different might be an exciting topic for panel discussions but it’s not clear whether radical transformation is desirable – not least because the form that transformation might take remains far from clear.

    The drivers of change are well-rehearsed: while demand remains strong for higher education participation, as we’ll be exploring at our Secret Life of Students event this week, the traditional student experience is coming under intense pressure as students with diverse backgrounds, needs and aspirations try to wedge their lives into a fairly boilerplate model of higher education study. Most institutions don’t have the money to throw at additional services, or to carry the risks of innovating in how they structure their portfolio. Income from international students could go some way to smoothing out the rough edges but recent events have demonstrated the consequences of building a system on an income stream that’s so variable and subject to a change of direction in the political winds.

    The Westminster government’s current higher education policy agenda is a rag bag of “stuff we can all agree on” like access, quality, and civic engagement, and contextual mood music around industrial strategy, skills, devolution, and regional economic growth. Reading between the lines it seems there is a direction of travel towards a more coordinated regional post-18 offer broadly aligned to regional economic growth agendas, but against a punishing economic backdrop nobody’s very clear what this ought to look like, how deeply or broadly it should touch the general HE offer, or how it should happen.

    The lack of system-wide or even local coordination is a real worry, as individual institutions make decisions for sustainability and even survival that will have long term implications for the functioning of the system as a whole and the opportunities that are available to students. To give one example: colleges report that what they see as predatory behaviour by universities to try to scoop up the students that might more traditionally be seen in college-based higher education provision is placing that provision under significant strain.

    Choices for change

    Dealing with the immediate pressures on costs while also staring down the barrel of a call for reform is objectively a very difficult psychological space for higher education to be in. Everyone I speak to is desperate for more time in their day to reflect, digest, make sense, and plan. Something I often find useful when I find the world confusing (an alarmingly frequent occurrence) is some kind of model or map to help me structure my thoughts, especially when time is limited.

    I like putting one thing next to another thing and seeing what happens, and so for this case I put change actors on one continuum from individual institutions to multiple organisations in collaboration, and scale of change on the other, from evolution to revolution. I then tried to think of all the “change” activities that are either under way or are being mooted and assigned them to quadrants.

    I’ve taken a few things from this exercise.

    One is that I think it hugely unlikely that the sector will coalesce into one of the quadrants or even at the top or bottom of the model. I think we will see activity in all four quadrants depending on the context – and I think that policy should seek to support all four forms of change to give the sector the best chance of making a good fist of it. I have found arriving at this conclusion oddly freeing, as it stops the circular argument of advocating any single activity such as income diversification, or merger, or shared services, as a unified answer to the sector’s challenges. It is possible to argue, as we have at Wonkhe, that the policy environment could be more conducive to supporting radical forms of collaboration, without suggesting that all institutions must now hasten to adopt these forms if these do not serve wider missions and objectives. Likewise, it does not necessarily follow that introducing mechanisms to support collaboration would reduce competitive pressures in some parts of the sector or geographies, and the sector may collectively need to make its peace with that.

    Another is that it’s noticeable that the activity to the left in the “evolution” space is a much more “comfortable” space for higher education, in the sense that it’s possible to see it already in action and the sector knows how to do it, not that all the activities listed are necessarily things that are desirable in every case. There’s a question, then, about whether, IF substantial change is needed, it’s possible for the accumulation of practices in the evolution space to achieve it – or do we just end up with lots of random examples of interesting practice and not much that is fundamentally different. I instinctively think that policy should accept that the grain of sector practice runs in the direction of evolution rather than transformation, and seek to work with the sector on mapping critical paths towards the change that is desired rather than administering exogenous shocks to the system.

    Finally, I’d like to see what new ideas the sector could come up with in the right hand side of the diagram (especially the top right quadrant) – not necessarily to advocate for, but to help open up the conversation and ask meaningful questions of current practice. It’s quite easy to explain why all the ideas in the top right quadrant are unlikely to happen, so another way to come at that question is to ask whether there are other ideas that might be more plausible.

    Tone matters here though – for some that idea of transformation is something like a playground, where it’s fun to speculate about different possibilities and might spark some useful thinking. For others, it could carry a much more serious weight of strategic challenge and need to be approached accordingly as likely to have a material impact on people’s lives and working conditions. The stakes are much higher on this side of the evolution to transformation continuum, particularly where an institution is operating in the bottom right quadrant – the risks of failure are real.

    Source link

  • The five things universities do to cut costs

    The five things universities do to cut costs

    Incoming Office for Students chair Edward Peck would have expected that many of the questions he would face at his pre-appointment Education Committee hearing would concern the precarious financial situations that are the reality at many higher education institutions.

    His answer to this line of inquiry was instructive. As a part of an urgent briefing with the current chief executive he would want to know:

    the extent to which those universities have done all the things you do as an organisation when you face financial pressures. There are five or six things that you routinely do. To what extent have they been done by those organisations? To what extent is the financial pressure they are facing particularly acute because they have not yet got through all the cost reduction measures that would have enabled them to balance income with expenditure?

    To many with an interest in universities – as places to study, as employers, as local anchor institutions – this idea of “five or six things” would have been confusing and opaque. Is there really a commonly understood playbook for institutions facing financial peril? If there is, why would there be any doubt as to whether senior leaders were following these well-worn tracks to safety? If there genuinely is a pre-packaged solution to universities running out of money, why do so many find themselves in precarious financial situations?

    It would help to take each of these “five or six things” (I’m going to go with five) in turn.

    1. Size and shape

    If your university is smaller than expected in terms of students or income this year, the chances are it has been this size before.

    The sector has grown enormously over the last few years, and the way that funding incentives currently work (both in terms of boom and bust in international recruitment, and the demise – in England – of the old HEFCE tolerance band) has meant that the expansion needed to teach more students, run more estate, or conduct more research has had to happen quickly – taking action when the money and need is there, rather than as a part of a long term plan.

    Piecemeal expansion suffers when compared against strategic growth in that the kinds of efficiencies that a more considered approach offers are simply not available. Planned growth allows you to build capacity in a strategic way, in ways that take into account the wider pressures the institution is facing, the direction it wants to head, or plans for long term sustainability.

    Often senior leaders look back to the resources needed in previous years for a similar cohort or workload in determining costs at a subject area or service level of granularity. If we could teach x undergraduates with y academic staff and z additional resources in 2015–16, why do we need more now? – that’s the question.

    It’s a fair question – but it is a starting point, not a fully formed strategic plan for change. You may need more resources because there is more or different work to do – perhaps your current crop of academics are bringing in research contracts that need specialist support, perhaps the module choices available to undergraduates are more expansive, perhaps the students you are currently recruiting have different support needs. There’s any number of reasons why 2024-25 is not a repeat of 2015-16, and the act of comparison is the start of the conversation that might help unpack some of these a bit.

    2. Pausing and reprofiling

    Imagine that at your university the last few rounds of the national student survey have seen students increasingly bring up the issue of a lack of library capacity as a problem. In response, the initial plan was to increase this capacity – an extension to the existing building paid for with borrowing, refurbishment and update of the rest of the building, and more money for digital resources.

    A sound plan, but three years of lower than expected recruitment, declining income elsewhere, and an increased cost of doing business (construction costs are way up, for example) mean that the idea of putting the plan into action is keeping the director of finance up at night. It may be a necessary improvement, but it is no longer affordable.

    In other words some or all of this valuable work isn’t going to happen this year, as things stand. One decision might be to redesign the project – perhaps covering some of the refurbishment and the content subscriptions but not the new build (and thus not the new borrowing). Even these elements would still have a cost, and with no new finance this would be coming out of recurrent funds. And there’s not as much available as there used to be.

    So the other end of this point is reprofiling existing debt. For even a moderately leveraged university the repayment of capital and interest (under 6 per cent is pretty decent for new borrowing these days) takes up a fair chunk of available recurrent funding each year. If you are able to renegotiate your repayments – extending the loan term perhaps, or offering additional covenants, or both – this frees up recurrent funding to meet other needs.

    Both of these solutions are temporary ones – one day that library will need sorting out, and paying less of your loan back now inevitably means paying more back later. But sometimes suboptimal solutions are all that are available.

    3. Bringing things together

    There may well be cases where the same thing is being done in multiple ways, by multiple teams, across a single institution. There might be benefits in every faculty having an admissions team and a research manager, but in a time of financial constraint you have to ask whether a central team might be more efficient – and whether this efficiency is more important than the benefits being realised from the current configuration.

    Again – the calculus here differs from institution to institution. Where faculty autonomy is the norm, it may be that benefits are being realised that the centre doesn’t know exist, much less understand. As I am sure is becoming increasingly clear, questions like these are the start of a conversation – not the end. Even if in bald resource terms centralisation is a saving, you may not be taking all of the variables into account.

    Conversely, where there are clear savings and no meaningful reduction in benefits you are still entering into a course of action that could prove hugely disruptive to individual staff members. For some, your plan may represent a long hoped for chance for progression or role redesign – for others it may be the push that means that their years of experience are lost to the university as they retire or move to another role. With campus redundancies in the news each week, staff are rightly suspicious of change – bringing people along with new structures requires a huge investment of time and effort in communication, consultation, and flexibility.

    4. Focus

    There are many, many more effective ways to run a surplus than being a university. The converse of this is that people who run universities probably have non-financial reasons to want to run universities rather than running something else. In some of the wilder us-versus-them framings of campus industrial relations we can lose sight of the fact that pretty much everyone involved wants a university to keep on being a university, despite the benefits that would come alongside a sudden pivot into, say, rare earth metal extraction or marketing generative AI.

    That’s an admittedly flippant expression of something that is often forgotten in university strategising. We all have our reasons to be there. Expressing these is often the start of understanding which are the things a particular university does that are non-negotiably essential, and which are the things we do that are either generating income to subsidise these, or facilitating these things being done.

    If there is something that a university is doing that is non-essential, is not helping essential activity to get done, and it is not generating income to subsidise the things that are essential, why is it being done at all?

    Of course, this presupposes that everyone agrees on what activity fits into each category. Even posing the question can be painful. Once again, we are at the very beginning of a journey that probably took up a large part of governance and management meetings over the past few years.

    5. Addressing underperformance

    A couple of years ago, my party trick at conferences involving senior university staff was to show them my “fake subject TEF”. Confronted with a by subject analysis of student progression and satisfaction at their own provider, many of the staff I talked to would give me a similar answer – and it started “ah, I know why that is…”

    The problems our universities face are already known to those who work there. External datapoints only confirm things that are pretty well understood, and usually confirm an instinct to act on them sooner rather than later – a reason why OfS investigations have tended to find the smoking guns already put beyond use by the time they get on campus.

    If the problems within your institution are less obvious, a well-judged comparison with a competitor could help make things clear. A lot of the data you might want to play with is closely guarded, but there are ways in which you might use HESA’s public data to make a start (my tips – Student table 37, Staff table 11, Finance table 8). Otherwise, your staff will have a rich experience of working at other universities – what are the key differences. What is special about the way your place does things – and are there ways you can learn from the way things are done elsewhere.

    Bring to the boil and mix well

    If you are a university governor hoping for the mythical playbook, I can only apologise. If there was an easy way to make university books balance, we wouldn’t be where we are now.

    What is on offer is the hard choices and difficult conversations that will very often lead to arguments, mistrust, and conspiracy theories. At boards and councils up and down the UK, variations on the above conversations are at the root of everything you feel is going wrong on campus.

    You’ll be learning just how good your senior executive and governors actually are at running large, complex, beautiful organisations like universities. Parts of the university you may never have given a second thought to – the planning team, the finance department, the data analysis directorate, internal audit, procurement – will be coming up with ever more ingenious ways to make savings while preserving the university as a whole.

    Source link

  • 2025 Higher Ed Trends | Collegis Education

    2025 Higher Ed Trends | Collegis Education

    2025 Higher Education Trends: What to Watch and How You Can Plan

    Higher education is experiencing transformative shifts as institutions respond to societal, economic, and technological changes. This year is set to bring new opportunities and challenges. We’re always keeping a pulse on the industry and where it’s headed so we can stay proactive and prepared –– ready to support our partners through whatever conditions they’re facing.

    10 most impactful higher ed trends for 2025

    1. Increased mergers and consolidations

    The pace of mergers and consolidations among smaller colleges is expected to accelerate in 2025, according to Collegis Education CEO Kim Fahey. With financial pressures and declining enrollment, many institutions will view mergers as a strategic alternative to closure. But these transitions are anything but simple.

    “Mergers involve unique technology requirements and complex data management challenges,” Fahey explains. Successfully integrating applications, systems, and hardware requires expert guidance. Higher ed leaders will look to partner with experienced organizations to help navigate these intricacies.

    2. Heightened focus on data privacy and security

    The information security landscape is becoming increasingly intricate. With 21 comprehensive state privacy laws, alongside European Union (EU) regulations, federal rules, and Title IV requirements, compliance challenges are mounting.

    “Smaller schools often lack the experience and qualifications to manage these threats,” notes Dr. Jason Nairn, CISSP, Collegis VP of Information Technology. Cyberattacks, like phishing and social engineering, are relentless. In 2025, institutions must prioritize more robust cybersecurity measures, leveraging external partnerships and security tools to protect sensitive data.

    3. Acceleration of digital transformation

    Cloud migration will take center stage as institutions transition away from outdated, on-campus systems. While many schools still rely on highly customized platforms, which limits their ability to adopt or migrate to more modern technology, the adaptability and scalability of cloud platforms are simply too compelling to ignore.

    Furthermore, technology infrastructures must be sufficiently modernized in order to capitalize on emerging tech innovations in AI and predictive analysis. This process can’t happen overnight –– it’s an evolution, according to Fahey.

    “Cloud migrations take 18+ months, so schools need to act now,” she emphasizes. An institution-wide commitment to digital transformation will not only modernize operations but also position institutions to stay competitive in an increasingly tech-driven environment.

    4. Adoption of shared services models

    Financial constraints will push smaller schools toward shared services and consortium models to access the technology and expertise they need at a manageable scale. These models allow institutions to pool resources and reduce costs but require significant change management, according to Jeff Certain, VP of Solution Development at Collegis.

    “This will require schools to standardize and make some concessions,” Certain explains. “This could pose a challenge, but they may not have an option.” Institutions must embrace these shifts to remain sustainable while navigating limited budgets.

    5. Growth in career-focused and flexible education

    Programs aligning with workforce needs will gain momentum in 2025. Alternative credentials like microcredentials and certificates will become more prominent, offering shorter, career-oriented pathways for learners.

    “Institutions will increasingly recognize and credit learning outside the classroom, exploring more direct pathways into the workforce,” predicts Dr. Tracy Chapman, Chief Academic Officer for Collegis. This reflects growing demand for flexible, career-focused education that meets student and employer expectations.

    6. Ed tech consolidation and market impact

    It is not just colleges and universities facing consolidation. Ed tech companies and services providers are also reshaping the landscape with their own mergers and acquisitions. While these changes may offer schools more comprehensive solutions, they may not necessarily align with institutional objectives.

    “Some recent acquisitions have led to poorer customer experiences,” Fahey observes. Institutions must carefully evaluate new partnerships to ensure they will deliver meaningful improvements.

    7. Higher Focus on Retention

    With the “enrollment cliff” looming, institutions must double down on maintaining their existing student base as a key to sustainability. Purposeful and cost-effective retention strategies will play a pivotal role in maintaining financial health, as retaining current students is often more cost-effective than recruiting new ones.

    “Retention strategies build stronger, more loyal communities,” says Patrick Green, VP of Enrollment Strategy. Forward-looking schools have perceived the importance of fostering a sense of belonging across the student lifecycle and are providing robust support networks that improve student persistence and satisfaction.

    8. Rise of value-focused marketing

    Students and families are increasingly demanding clear ROI from their education. As a result, institutions will need to demonstrate how their programs lead directly to employment and career advancement.

    “Building relationships with regional industries and showcasing job placement rates will be essential,” advises Tanya Pankratz, AVP of Marketing at Collegis. Marketing efforts will need to start highlighting tangible outcomes (e.g., alumni success stories, job placement rates, and employer partnerships) to win over prospective students.

    9. Expanded role of AI and emerging technologies

    AI and other emerging technologies will revolutionize higher education operations. From enrollment management and personalized marketing to virtual campus tours using augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR), technology has the means to dramatically enhance the student experience –– or wreak technical havoc if data, platforms and tools are misaligned.

    “AI-driven tools make personalization more accessible, but the strategy remains critical,” notes Dan Antonson, AVP of Data and Analytics. Institutions must invest in data infrastructure to fully harness these advancements in order to build and maintain a competitive edge.

    10.Proliferation of strategic partnerships

    Higher ed institutions are increasingly recognizing that they don’t need to own the entire value chain. In 2025, strategic partnerships will play a more prominent role.

    “Institutions will double down on their core mission of education and seek out partners to support other critical functions,” Dr. Chapman explains. These partnerships provide access to technology, expertise, and resources, allowing schools to focus on what they do best — educating students.

    Opportunities on the horizon for higher ed

    As evident in this compilation of higher ed trends, the landscape is set for significant change in 2025 and beyond. Institutions that proactively address these trends will be well-positioned to navigate challenges and seize opportunities. By embracing digital transformation, fostering strategic partnerships, and adopting value-driven approaches, schools can ensure long-term success in an evolving marketplace.

    Excited about the opportunities that lie ahead? Collegis Education has the experience and expertise to guide you through any twists and turns you may face. We’ll help you stay on the leading edge instead of chasing trends. Connect with us and let’s start creating solutions together.

    Source link

  • Empower Learners for the Age of AI: a reflection – Sijen

    Empower Learners for the Age of AI: a reflection – Sijen

    During the Empower Learners for the Age of AI (ELAI) conference earlier in December 2022, it became apparent to me personally that not only does Artificial intelligence (AI) have the potential to revolutionize the field of education, but that it already is. But beyond the hype and enthusiasm there are enormous strategic policy decisions to be made, by governments, institutions, faculty and individual students. Some of the ‘end is nigh’ messages circulating on Social Media in the light of the recent release of ChatGPT are fanciful click-bait, some however, fire a warning shot across the bow of complacent educators.

    It is certainly true to say that if your teaching approach is to deliver content knowledge and assess the retention and regurgitation of that same content knowledge then, yes, AI is another nail in that particular coffin. If you are still delivering learning experiences the same way that you did in the 1990s, despite Google Search (b.1998) and Wikipedia (b.2001), I am amazed you are still functioning. What the emerging fascination about AI is delivering an accelerated pace to the self-reflective processes that all university leadership should be undertaking continuously.

    AI advocates argue that by leveraging the power of AI, educators can personalize learning for each student, provide real-time feedback and support, and automate administrative tasks. Critics argue that AI dehumanises the learning process, is incapable of modelling the very human behaviours we want our students to emulate, and that AI can be used to cheat. Like any technology, AI also has its disadvantages and limitations. I want to unpack these from three different perspectives, the individual student, faculty, and institutions.

    Get in touch with me if your institution is looking to develop its strategic approach to AI.

    Individual Learner

    For learners whose experience is often orientated around learning management systems, or virtual learning environments, existing learning analytics are being augmented with AI capabilities. Where in the past students might be offered branching scenarios that were preset by learning designers, the addition of AI functionality offers the prospect of algorithms that more deeply analyze a student’s performance and learning approaches, and provide customized content and feedback that is tailored to their individual needs. This is often touted as especially beneficial for students who may have learning disabilities or those who are struggling to keep up with the pace of a traditional classroom, but surely the benefit is universal when realised. We are not quite there yet. Identifying ‘actionable insights’ is possible, the recommended actions harder to define.

    The downside for the individual learner will come from poorly conceived and implemented AI opportunities within institutions. Being told to complete a task by a system, rather than by a tutor, will be received very differently depending on the epistemological framework that you, as a student, operate within. There is a danger that companies presenting solutions that may work for continuing professional development will fail to recognise that a 10 year old has a different relationship with knowledge. As an assistant to faculty, AI is potentially invaluable, as a replacement for tutor direction it will not work for the majority of younger learners within formal learning programmes.

    Digital equity becomes important too. There will undoubtedly be students today, from K-12 through to University, who will be submitting written work generated by ChatGPT. Currently free, for ‘research’ purposes (them researching us), ChatGPT is being raved about across social media platforms for anyone who needs to author content. But for every student that is digitally literate enough to have found their way to the OpenAI platform and can use the tool, there will be others who do not have access to a machine at home, or the bandwidth to make use of the internet, or even to have the internet at all. Merely accessing the tools can be a challenge.

    The third aspect of AI implementation for individuals is around personal digital identity. Everyone, regardless of their age or context, needs to recognise that ‘nothing in life is free’. Whenever you use a free web service you are inevitably being mined for data, which in turn allows the provider of that service to sell your presence on their platform to advertisers. Teaching young people about the two fundamental economic models that operate online, subscription services and surveillance capitalism, MUST be part of ever curriculum. I would argue this needs to be introduced in primary schools and built on in secondary. We know that AI data models require huge datasets to be meaningful, so our data is what fuels these AI processes.

    Faculty

    Undoubtedly faculty will gain through AI algorithms ability to provide real-time feedback and support, to continuously monitor a student’s progress and provide immediate feedback and suggestions for improvement. On a cohort basis this is proving invaluable already, allowing faculty to adjust the pace or focus of content and learning approaches. A skilled faculty member can also, within the time allowed to them, to differentiate their instruction helping students to stay engaged and motivated. Monitoring students’ progress through well structured learning analytics is already available through online platforms.

    What of the in-classroom teaching spaces. One of the sessions at ELAI showcased AI operating in a classroom, interpreting students body language, interactions and even eye tracking. Teachers will tell you that class sizes are a prime determinant of student success. Smaller classes mean that teachers can ‘read the room’ and adjust their approaches accordingly. AI could allow class sizes beyond any claim to be manageable by individual faculty.

    One could imagine a school built with extensive surveillance capability, with every classroom with total audio and visual detection, with physical behaviour algorithms, eye tracking and audio analysis. In that future, the advocates would suggest that the role of the faculty becomes more of a stage manager rather than a subject authority. Critics would argue a classroom without a meaningful human presence is a factory.

    Institutions

    The attraction for institutions of AI is the promise to automate administrative tasks, such as grading assignments and providing progress reports, currently provided by teaching faculty. This in theory frees up those educators to focus on other important tasks, such as providing personalized instruction and support.

    However, one concern touched on at ELAI was the danger of AI reinforcing existing biases and inequalities in education. An AI algorithm is only as good as the data it has been trained on. If that data is biased, its decisions will also be biased. This could lead to unfair treatment of certain students, and could further exacerbate existing disparities in education. AI will work well with homogenous cohorts where the perpetuation of accepted knowledge and approaches is what is expected, less well with diverse cohorts in the context of challenging assumptions.

    This is a problem. In a world in which we need students to be digitally literate and AI literate, to challenge assumptions but also recognise that some sources are verified and others are not, institutions that implement AI based on existing cohorts is likely to restrict the intellectual growth of those that follow.

    Institutions rightly express concerns about the cost of both implementing AI in education and the costs associated with monitoring its use. While the initial investment in AI technologies may be significant, the long-term cost savings and potential benefits may make it worthwhile. No one can be certain how the market will unfurl. It’s possible that many AI applications become incredibly cheap under some model of surveillance capitalism so as to be negligible, even free. However, many of the AI applications, such as ChatGPT, use enormous computing power, little is cacheable and retained for reuse, and these are likely to become costly.

    Institutions wanting to explore the use of AI are likely to find they are being presented with additional, or ‘upgraded’ modules to their existing Enterprise Management Systems or Learning Platforms.

    Conclusion

    It is true that AI has the potential to revolutionize the field of education by providing personalized instruction and support, real-time feedback, and automated administrative tasks. However, institutions need to be wary of the potential for bias, aware of privacy issues and very attentive to the nature of the learning experiences they enable.

    Get in touch with me if your institution is looking to develop its strategic approach to AI.

    Image created using DALL-E

    Source link