Category: Technology

  • 5 of the biggest education trends for 2025

    5 of the biggest education trends for 2025

    Key points:

    As we welcome a new year, educators and industry leaders are excited to discover the biggest education trends for 2025. The past few years have been characterized by fresh and innovative solutions for learning, as well as transformative, technology-forward approaches to education.  

    Each year, we like to look ahead and anticipate the biggest upcoming education trends. There are many topics education professionals can expect to be at the center of the conversation in 2025–from new perspectives on artificial intelligence for education to the emergence of nontraditional school models amid an increasingly competitive enrollment environment. 

    For 2025, schools and districts are focused on making learning more engaging for students, creating a more positive environment for educators, and transforming school culture to meet the diverse needs of the school community. As schools work to accomplish these goals, we expect to see an expansion of AI and other emerging technologies in the classroom, enhanced professional development and support for teachers, and more individualized learning opportunities for students. 

    Here are five of the biggest education trends for 2025: 

    1. Nontraditional school models 

      Everything from career opportunities, technology, and the world around us has changed significantly over the past decade, yet the traditional model of public schools in the U.S. has remained largely unchanged for generations. As this industrial-age school model persists, many students feel bored and disengaged with their learning.  

      When the COVID-19 pandemic caused school interruptions in 2020, many families decided it was time to pivot to new and nontraditional learning opportunities for their children. Since 2019, over 1 million students–the equivalent of one student from every class in the country–have left the conventional classroom to seek out different educational approaches and more innovative learning environments. The National Center for Education Statistics projects that public schools, including public charter schools, will lose an additional 2.4 million students by 2031.  

      Today’s students desire more individualized learning approaches, which empower them to use their creativity, explore their passions, and engage with their peers in more collaborative ways. In 2025, we will see a greater emergence of nontraditional school models that center student engagement, collaboration, and creativity, and prepare learners to graduate into a continually-evolving workforce.  

      Some of these emerging nontraditional education models include microschools, online and hybrid learning programs, and project-based or student-led schools, as well as long-established nontraditional school programs such as homeschooling, Montessori, and career and technical education schools. In 2025, we also anticipate that public schools will step up to meet the diverse needs of students through innovative approaches, mirroring some of the elements of these nontraditional school models in order to maintain enrollment, enhance engagement, and equip students with applicable career-ready skills. 

      2. Expanded use of AI in education 

        As we predicted last year, artificial intelligence (AI) has become prevalent in the educational space, and this emerging technology shows no sign of stopping its rapid growth as we make our way into 2025. This year, we expect the conversation around AI to shift, reflecting a more widespread acceptance of the technology as a beneficial tool to enhance education and productivity. 

        In 2025, schools will continue to integrate more AI into the curriculum, guiding students to use it appropriately to enhance their learning. Many schools and districts have already developed formal AI school policies and modified student codes of conduct to ensure safe, effective, and ethical use of AI tools in the classroom.  

        Furthermore, many educators are now taking the initiative to incorporate AI tools into their lesson plans to help students build familiarity with the technology. Introducing students to AI in a safe and controlled environment enables them to learn how to use it effectively and ethically. Equipping students with foundational skills in AI is already regarded as an essential skill set for college and many careers. 

        Because AI is a fairly new technology for everyone, including educators, we anticipate that more schools will implement AI professional development opportunities this year, enabling teachers to deliver more effective AI instruction. Some schools are also beginning to employ AI tools for administrative productivity, which will require training and guidance to ensure educators and staff can successfully integrate these tools into their work. 

        3. Targeted support for educators  

          Over the past five years, many districts have been focused on allocating Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funding to implement new educational programs and tools, support student wellbeing, and overcome learning loss. Now that the final ESSER deadline has passed, 2025 will see schools and districts shift their attention to providing targeted support directly to educators.  

          With all of the new technology, refreshed learning spaces, and updated curriculum districts have recently introduced, professional development is essential to ensure effective implementation of these enhancements. In 2025, schools will incorporate new professional development programs that empower educators to foster engaged learners. By providing the tools and resources teachers need to be successful, schools can help educators improve their productivity and attain professional goals, while still keeping teacher wellbeing as a top priority. 

          Teachers are the primary influencers of the K-12 educational experience, so supporting educators is a holistic approach that benefits the entire school community. To address rising workloads, schools will implement new tools and strategies to support teacher efficacy and wellbeing. Some schools are even piloting automated and AI-powered technologies to take repetitive and administrative tasks off teachers’ plates, freeing up invaluable time for them to connect with students and focus on teaching.  

          Additionally, districts have begun to recognize the importance of a healthy work-life balance, as many teachers have left the profession over the past several years. In 2025, districts will continue to explore ways to cultivate a more positive job experience for teachers. Teachers want solutions for student behavioral issues, more attentive leadership teams, and more manageable workloads. Schools will work to improve these matters, while maintaining aspects of the job teachers value most, including school culture, opportunities for professional learning and certifications, and STEM and arts programs. 

          4. A focus on school and district culture 

            With a growing list of education options, students and their families are seeking out learning environments that not only provide high-quality curriculum and resources, but also align with their values and prioritize school-home communication. In this increasingly competitive enrollment environment, cultivating a positive culture and connected school community are the qualities that make schools stand out.  

            Funding and resources are directly related to the number of students at each school, so cultivating an inviting school culture is key. In 2025, schools and districts will take time to refine their school brand in order to attract and maintain students. School leaders will focus on creating more opportunities to engage with students and families, implementing new communications tools, initiatives, and events that bring the school community together. 

            In the past few years, some K-12 administrators have piloted mobile teaching stations to increase their visibility and daily impact throughout their school. We anticipate more school leaders will embrace this approach in 2025, enabling them to build stronger relationships with students and teachers. By working from mobile workstations, administrators can directly engage with students and staff, making face-to-face connections on a daily basis. Frequent positive interactions with school leadership help students, teachers, and families stay engaged with the school community, promoting a culture of connection and support. 

            5. Universal design for learning 

              Today’s students are making more choices about how and where they want to learn than ever before. Universal design for learning (UDL) promotes achievement among diverse student bodies by giving each student access to resources and environments that help them learn. Accessibility goes far beyond ADA compliance, and schools are recognizing this through the application of UDL across the learning experience. Understanding the diverse needs of students is crucial for creating learning experiences that are inclusive and supportive. 

              In 2025, UDL will be at the center of creating comfortable and engaging learning environments that accommodate all students’ needs. For instance, more schools are implementing sensory spaces, ensuring neurodiverse learners have a safe and comfortable space to self-regulate throughout the school day. These spaces don’t just serve neurodivergent students–all students benefit from having areas at school that are dedicated to supporting wellbeing. 

              As in previous years, accessibility and equity will continue to be prominent topics in 2025, but the conversation will pivot to focus on ways UDL can positively impact curriculum. UDL emphasizes providing students with multiple, flexible types of engagement, different ways of presenting information, and multiple ways to demonstrate their understanding in the classroom. This practice supports students who are neurodivergent and/or experience learning challenges, but also improves the learning experience for neurotypical students. 

              Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Crafting technology-driven IEPs

    Crafting technology-driven IEPs

    Key points:

    Individualized Education Plans (IEP) have been the foundation of special education for decades, and the process in which these documents are written has evolved over the years.

    As technology has evolved, writing documents has also evolved. Before programs existed to streamline the IEP writing process, creating IEPs was once a daunting task of paper and pencil. Not only has the process of writing the IEP evolved, but IEPs are becoming technology-driven.

    Enhancing IEP goal progress with data-driven insights using technology: There are a variety of learning platforms that can monitor a student’s performance in real-time, tailoring to their individual needs and intervening areas for improvement. Data from these programs can be used to create students’ annual IEP goals. This study mentions that the ReadWorks program, used for progress monitoring IEP goals, has 1.2 million teachers and 17 million students using its resources, which provide content, curricular support, and digital tools. ReadWorks is free and provides all its resources free of charge and has both printed and digital versions of the material available to teachers and students (Education Technology Nonprofit, 2021).

    Student engagement and involvement with technology-driven IEPs: Technology-driven IEPs can also empower students to take an active role in their education plan. According to this study, research shows that special education students benefit from educational technology, especially in concept teaching and in practice-feedback type instructional activities (Carter & Center, 2005; Hall, Hughes & Filbert, 2000; Hasselbring & Glaser, 2000). It is vital for students to take ownership in their learning. When students on an IEP reach a certain age, it is important for them to be the active lead in their plan. Digital tools that are used for technology-driven IEPs can provide students with visual representations of their progress, such as dashboards or graphs. When students are given a visual representation of their progress, their engagement and motivation increases.

    Technology-driven IEPs make learning fun: This study discusses technology-enhanced and game based learning for children with special needs. Gamified programs, virtual reality (VR), and augmented reality (AR) change the learning experience from traditional to transformative. Gamified programs are intended to motivate students with rewards, personalized feedback, and competition with leaderboards and challenges to make learning feel like play. Virtual reality gives students an immersive experience that they would otherwise only be able to experience outside of the classroom. It allows for deep engagement and experiential learning via virtual field trips and simulations, without the risk of visiting dangerous places or costly field trip fees that not all districts or students can afford. Augmented reality allows students to visualize abstract concepts such as anatomy or 3D shapes in context. All these technologies align with technology-driven IEPs by providing personalized, accessible, and measurable learning experiences that address diverse needs. These technologies can adapt to a student’s individual skill level, pace, and goals, supporting their IEP.

    Challenges with technology-driven IEPs: Although there are many benefits to
    technology-driven IEPs, it is important to address the potential challenges to ensure equity across school districts. Access to technology in underfunded school districts can be challenging without proper investment in infrastructures, devices, and network connection. Student privacy and data must also be properly addressed. With the use of technologies for technology-driven IEPs, school districts must take into consideration laws such as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

    The integration of technology into the IEP process to create technology-driven IEPs represents a shift from a traditional process to a transformative process. Technology-driven IEPs create more student-centered learning experiences by implementing digital tools, enhancing collaboration, and personalized learning experiences. These learning experiences will enhance student engagement and motivation and allow students to take control of their own learning, making them leaders in their IEP process. However, as technology continues to evolve, it is important to address the equity gap that may arise in underfunded school districts.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Building and Sustaining an AI-informed Institution

    Building and Sustaining an AI-informed Institution

    Title: Navigating Artificial Intelligence in Postsecondary Education: Building Capacity for the Road Ahead

    Source: Office of Educational Technology, U.S. Department of Education

    As a response to the Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence, the Department of Education’s new brief, Navigating Artificial Intelligence in Postsecondary Education, provides recommendations for leaders at higher education institutions. The brief is divided into two main parts: one with policy recommendations and one reviewing literature and research.

    The report outlines five recommendations:

    Develop clear policies for the use of AI in postsecondary settings. The use of AI can be vast, from admissions to enrollment to other decision-making processes. It is important, though, to ensure that AI is not reifying bias. Stakeholders should consider the potential utility of an AI Bill of Rights or the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s AI Risk Management Framework in shaping policies for their campuses. They should also consider affirmative consent and disclosure policies as they relate to AI, as well as inscribing characteristics that make AI trustworthy.

    Generate infrastructure that supports the use of AI in pedagogy, student support, and data tracking. Incentivizing cross-department collaboration and faculty involvement in the development of AI tools is key. It is also important to integrate social and behavioral science research into evaluation of AI.

    Continually assess AI tools. This includes testing equity and accounting for any bias. AI should continuously go through a feedback loop. Institutions need to strategize in ensuring a balance of human supervision. Additionally, evaluations should be comprehensive and from diverse stakeholders.

    Collaborate with partners for the development and testing of AI across different educational uses. Leaders are tasked with finding and building relationships with partners. These partnerships should aim to ensure best practices and promote equitable AI.

    Programs should grow and develop alongside the job market’s increased demand for AI. Leaders must consider how to keep up with the evolving demand for AI, as well as how to integrate across all disciplines.

    Click here for the full report.

    —Kara Seidel

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link

  • Writing notes instead of typing pits scholars against each other

    Writing notes instead of typing pits scholars against each other

    Imagine you’re a student in high school or college. Class is about to start. You are faced with a notable dilemma: Should you whip out a notebook or a laptop to take notes?

    The answer is not so simple. A year ago, paper and pen seemed to be the winner when the journal Frontiers in Psychology published a Norwegian study that documented how different areas of the brain were communicating more frequently when students were writing by hand. When students were typing, the brain was not nearly so active. This extra brain activity, the neuroscientists wrote, is “beneficial for learning.” 

    The study ricocheted around the world. Almost 200 news stories promoted the idea that we remember things better when we write them down by hand instead of typing. It confirmed what many of us instinctively feel. That’s why I still take notes in a notebook even though I can hardly read my chicken scratch.

    Yet earlier this month, the same academic journal published a scathing rebuttal to the handwriting study. A pair of scientists in Spain and France pointed out that none of the Norwegian college students was asked to learn anything in the laboratory experiment. “Drawing conclusions on learning processes in children in a classroom from a lab study carried out on a group of university students that did not include any type of learning seems slippery at best,” the critics wrote.

    The Norwegian study asked 36 college students in their early 20s to write words from the game Pictionary using either a digital pen on a touchscreen or typing on a keyboard. The participants wore stretchy hair nets studded with electrodes to capture their brain activity. The scientists documented the differences between the two modes of writing. 

    Neither mode approximated real life conditions. The students were instructed to write in cursive without lifting the stylus from the screen. And they were only allowed to type with their right index finger.

    The critics also questioned whether elevated brain activity is proof of better learning. Increased brain activity could equally be interpreted as a sign that handwriting is slower and more taxing than typing. We don’t know.

    I contacted Audrey van der Meer, one of the co-authors of the Norwegian study who runs a neuroscience lab at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim. She pointed out that her critics promote the use of keyboards in education, and so they may not be unbiased. But she admitted that her study didn’t test whether students learned anything. 

    Van der Meer is conducting a fresh experiment that involves actual learning with 140 teenagers. She had the high school students watch a recorded lecture. Half of them were randomly assigned to take notes by hand, using a digital pen and touchscreen, and the other half typed their notes. Afterward, they all took the same exam graded by teachers at the school. 

    So far, she’s noticed clear differences in note-taking styles. Those who typed their notes wrote significantly more words, often transcribing parts of the lecture verbatim. They didn’t make any drawings. Those who used a digital pen mainly wrote key words and short sentences and produced two drawings, on average. 

    According to van der Meer, students who use the keyboard are writing down everything the teacher says “because they can.” But, she said in an email, “the information appears to be coming in through the ears and, without any form of processing, going out through the fingertips.” She added that when taking notes by hand, “it is impossible to write down everything, so students have to process the incoming information, summarize it, and link it to knowledge they already have.” That helps the “new information to stick better, resulting in better retention.”

    Van der Meer said she could not yet share the exam results with me as she is still analyzing them. She explained that there are “many confounding variables” that make it difficult to tell if those who used handwritten notes performed better on the exam.

    Even the pro-typing scientists admit that handwriting is important. Previous research has shown that writing letters by hand, compared to typing them, helps young children learn their letters much better. A 2015 study found that adults were better able to recall words in a memory game when they wrote them down by hand first instead of typing them. And a 2010 book chapter documented positive associations between writing words and being able to read them. 

    While there’s fairly compelling evidence that handwriting can help children learn their letters and new words, there’s less proof that handwriting helps us absorb new information and ideas. That’s not to say the Norwegian neuroscientists are wrong. But we still need the proof.

    I’d also add that not all learning is the same. Learning to write is different from learning Spanish vocabulary. There may be times when typing is the ideal way to learn something and other times when handwriting is. Also, learning something involves far more than either typing or handwriting, and the method we use to take notes might ultimately be of small importance compared to how we study our notes afterwards. 

    In the meantime, where did I put my notebook?

    Contact staff writer Jill Barshay at 212-678-3595 or barshay@hechingerreport.org.

    This story about handwriting versus typing was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up forProof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Is freedom of speech the same as freedom to lie?

    Is freedom of speech the same as freedom to lie?

    Meta will stop checking falsehoods. Does that mean more free speech or a free-for-all?

    “First, we’re going to get rid of fact-checkers,” Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Meta, said in a video statement early this January. “Second, we’re going to simplify our content policies and get rid of a bunch of restrictions on topics like immigration and gender that are just out of touch with mainstream discourse.”

    This statement marks another turn in the company’s policies in handling disinformation and hate speech on their widely used platforms Facebook, Instagram and Threads. 

    Meta built up its moderation capabilities and started its fact-checking program after Russia’s attempts to use Facebook to influence American voters in 2016 and after it was partially blamed by various human rights groups like Amnesty International for allowing the spread of hate speech leading to genocide in Myanmar. 

    Until now, according to Meta, about 15 thousand people review content on the platform in 70 languages to see if it is in line with the company’s community standards.

    Adding information, not deleting

    For other content, the company involves professional fact-checking organizations with journalists around the world. They independently identify and research viral posts that might contain false information. 

    Fact-checkers, like any other journalists, publish their findings in articles. They compare what is claimed in the post with statistics, research findings and expert commentary or they analyze if the media in the post are manipulated or AI generated. 

    But fact-checkers have a privilege that other journalists don’t – they can add information to the posts they find false or out of context on Meta platforms. It appears in the form of a warning label. The user can then read the full article by fact-checkers to see the reasons or close the warning and interact with the post.

    Fact-checkers can’t take any further action like removing or demoting content or accounts, according to Meta. That is up to the company. 

    However, Meta now likens the fact-checking program to censorship. Zuckerberg also argued for the end of the program saying that the fact-checkers “have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created.”

    Can untrained people regulate the Web?

    For now, the fact-checking program will be discontinued in the United States. Meta plans to rely instead on regular users to evaluate content under a new program it calls “Community Notes.” The company promises to improve it over the course of the year before expanding it to other countries.

    In a way, Meta walking back on their commitments to fight disinformation wasn’t a surprise, said Carlos Hernández- Echevarría, the associate director of the Spanish fact-checking outlet Maldita and a deputy member of the governance body that assesses and approves European fact-checking organizations before they can work with Meta called the European Fact-Checking Standards Network. 

    Zuckerberg had previously said that the company was unfairly blamed for societal ills and that he was done apologizing. But fact-checking partners weren’t warned ahead of the announcement of the plans to scrap the program, Hernández- Echevarría said.

    It bothers him that Meta connects fact-checking to censorship.

    “It’s actually very frustrating to see the Meta CEO talking about censorship when fact-checkers never had the ability and never wanted the ability to remove any content,” Hernández-Echevarría said. He argues that instead, fact-checkers contribute to speech by adding more information. 

    Are fact-checkers biased?

    Hernández-Echevarría also pushes back against the accusation that fact-checkers are biased. He said that mistakes do occur, but the organizations and people doing the work get carefully vetted and the criteria can be seen in the networks’ Code of Standards. 

    For example, fact-checkers must publish their methodology for choosing and evaluating information. Fact-checkers also can’t endorse any political parties or have any agreements with them. They also have to provide proof of who they are owned by as well as publicly disclose information about their employees and funding.

    Meta’s own data about Facebook, which they disclose to EU institutions, also shows that erroneous decisions to demote posts based on fact-checking labels occur much less often than when posts are demoted for other reasons — nudity, bullying, hate speech and violence, for example. 

    In the period from April to September last year, Meta received 172,550 complaints about the demotion of posts with fact-checking labels and, after having another look, reversed it for 5,440 posts — a little over 3%. 

    However, in all other categories combined, the demotion had to be reversed for 87% of those posts.

    The sharing of unverified information

    Research shows that the perception of the unequal treatment of different political groups might form because people on the political right publish more unreliable information.

    A paper published in the scientific magazine Nature says that conservative users indeed face penalties more often, but they also share more low-quality news. Researchers therefore argued that even if the policies contain no bias, there can be an asymmetry in how they are enforced on platforms.

    Meta is also making other changes. On 7 January, the company published a revised version of its hateful conduct policies. The platform now allows comparing women to household objects and “insulting language in the context of discussing political or religious topics, such as when discussing transgender rights, immigration, or homosexuality”. The revised policies also now permit “allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation”.

    LGBTQ+ advocacy group GLAAD called these changes alarming and extreme and said they will result in platforms becoming “unsafe landscapes filled with dangerous hate speech, violence, harassment, and misinformation”. 

    Journalists also report that the changes divided the employees of the company. The New York Times reported that as some upset employees posted on the internal message board, human resources workers quickly removed the posts saying they broke the rules of a company policy on community engagement.

    Political pressure

    In a statement published on her social media channels. Angie Drobnic Holan, the director of the International Fact-Checking Network, which represents fact-checkers in the United States, linked Meta’s decision to political pressure.

    “It’s unfortunate that this decision comes in the wake of extreme political pressure from a new administration and its supporters,” Holan said. “Fact-checkers have not been biased in their work. That attack line comes from those who feel they should be able to exaggerate and lie without rebuttal or contradiction.”

    In his book “Save America” published in August 2024, Donald Trump whose term as U.S. President begins today, accused Zuckerberg of plotting against him. “We are watching him closely, and if he does anything illegal this time he will spend the rest of his life in prison,” he wrote. 

    Now, with the changes Zuckerberg announced, Trump is praising Meta and said they’ve come a long way. When asked during a press conference 7 January if he thought Zuckerberg was responding to Trump’s threats, Trump replied, “Probably.”

    After Meta’s announcement, the science magazine Nature published a review of research with comments from experts on the effectiveness of fact-checking. For example, a study in 2019 analyzing 30 research papers covering 20 thousand participants found an influence on beliefs but the effects were weakened by participants’ preexisting beliefs, ideology and knowledge. 

    Sander van der Linden, a social psychologist at the University of Cambridge told Nature that ideally, people wouldn’t form misperceptions in the first place but “if we have to work with the fact that people are already exposed, then reducing it is almost as good as it as it’s going to get”. 

    Hernández-Echevarría said that although the loss of Meta’s funding will be a hard hit to some organizations in the fact-checking community, it won’t end the movement. He said, “They are going to be here, fighting disinformation. No matter what, they will find a way to do it. They will find support. They will do it because their central mission is to fight disinformation.”

    Questions to consider:

    • What is now allowed under Meta’s new rules for posts that wasn’t previously?

    • How is fact-checking not the same as censorship?

    • When you read social media posts, do you care if the poster is telling the truth?

     

    Source link

  • A higher education institution’s relationship with technology crosses all its missions

    A higher education institution’s relationship with technology crosses all its missions

    Universities have a critical role to play at the intersection of academic thought, organisational practice, and social benefits of technology.

    It’s easy when thinking about universities’ digital strategies to see that as a technical question of organisational capability and solutions rather than one part of the wider public role universities have in leading thinking and shaping practice for the benefit of society.

    But for universities the relationship with technology is multifaceted: some parts of the institution are engaged in driving forward technological developments; others may be critically assessing how those developments reshape the human experience and throw up ethical challenges that must be addressed; while others may be seeking to deploy technologies in the service of improving teaching and research. The question, then, for universities, must be how to bring these relationships together in a critical but productive way.

    Thinking into practice

    The University of Edinburgh hosts one of the country’s foremost informatics and computer science departments, one of the largest centres of AI research in Europe. Edinburgh’s computing infrastructure has lately hit headlines when the Westminster government decided to cancel planned investment in a new supercomputing facility at the university, only to announce new plans for supercomputing investment in last week’s AI opportunities action plan, location as yet undetermined.

    But while the university’s technological research prowess is evident, there’s also a strong academic tradition of critical thought around technology – such as in the work of philosopher Shannon Vallor, director of the Centre for Technomoral Futures at the Edinburgh Futures Institute and author of The AI Mirror. In the HE-specific research field, Janja Komljenovic has explored the phenomenon of the “datafication” of higher education, raising questions of a mismatch and incoherence between how data is valued and used in different parts of an institution.

    When I speak to Edinburgh’s principal Peter Mathieson ahead of his keynote at the upcoming Kortext Live leaders event in Edinburgh on 4 February he’s reflecting on a key challenge: how to continue a legacy of thought leadership on digital technology and data science into the future, especially when the pace of technological change is so rapid?

    “It’s imperative for universities to be places that shape the debate, but also that study the advantages and disadvantages of different technologies and how they are adopted. We need to help the public make the best use of technology,” says Peter.

    There’s work going on to mobilise knowledge across disciplines, for example, data scientists interrogating Scotland’s unique identifier data to gain insights on public health – which was particularly important during Covid. The university is a lead partner in the delivery of the Edinburgh and south east Scotland city region deal, a key strand of which is focused on data-driven innovation. “The city region deal builds on our heritage of excellence in AI and computer science and brings that to addressing the exam question of how to create growth in our region, attract inward investment, and create jobs,” explains Peter.

    Peter is also of the opinion that more could be done to bring university expertise to bear across the education system. Currently the university is working with a secondary school to develop a data science programme that will see secondary pupils graduate with a data science qualification. Another initiative sees primary school classrooms equipped with sensors that detect earth movements in different parts of the world – Peter recounts having been proudly shown a squiggle on a piece of paper by two primary school pupils, which turned out to denote an earthquake in Tonga.

    “Data education in schools is a really important function for universities,” he says.”It’s not a recruiting exercise – I see it as a way of the region and community benefiting from having a research intensive university in their midst.”

    Connecting the bits

    The elephant in the room is, of course, the link between academic knowledge and organisational practice, and where and how those come together in a university as large and decentralised as Edinburgh.

    “There is a distinction between the academic mission and the day to day nuts and bolts,” Peter admits. “There is some irony that we are one of finest computer science institutions but we had trouble installing our new finance system. But the capability we have in a place like this should allow us to feel positive about the opportunities to do interesting things with technology.”

    Peter points to the university-wide enablement of Internet of Things which allows the university to monitor building usage, and which helps to identify where buildings may be under-utilised. As principal Peter also brought together estates and digital infrastructure business planning so that the physical and digital estate can be developed in tandem and with reference to each other rather than remaining in silos.

    “Being able to make decisions based on data is very empowering,” he says. “But it’s important that we think very carefully about what data is anonymised and reassure people we are not trying to operate a surveillance system.” Peter is also interested in how AI could help to streamline large administrative tasks, and the experimental deployment of generative AI across university activity. The university has developed its own AI innovation platform, ELM, the Edinburgh (access to) Language Models, which is free to use for all staff and students, and which gives the user access to large language models including the latest version of Chat-GPT but, importantly, without sharing user data with OpenAI.

    At the leadership level, Peter has endeavoured to put professional service leaders on the same footing as academic leaders rather than, as he says, “defining professional services by what they are not, ie non-academic.” It’s one example of the ways that roles and structures in universities are evolving, not necessarily as a direct response to technological change, but with technology being one of the aspects of social change that create a need inside universities for the ability to look at challenges from a range of professional perspectives.

    It’s rarely as straightforward as “automation leading to staffing reductions” though Peter is alive to the perceived risks and their implications. “People worry about automation leading to loss of jobs, but I think jobs will evolve in universities as they will elsewhere in society,” he says. “Much of the value of the university experience is defined by the human interactions that take place, especially in an international university, and we can’t replace physical presence on campus. I’m optimistic that humans can get more good than harm out of AI – we just need to be mindful that we will need to adapt more quickly to this innovation than to earlier technological advances like the printing press, or the Internet.”

    This article is published in association with Kortext. Peter Mathieson will be giving a keynote address at the upcoming Kortext LIVE leaders’ event in Edinburgh on 4 February – join us there or at the the London or Manchester events on 29 January and 6 February to find out more about Wonkhe and Kortext’s work on leading digital capability for learning, teaching and student success, and be part of the conversation.

    Source link