Blog

  • Universities Meet Just a Fraction of Demand for AI Training

    Universities Meet Just a Fraction of Demand for AI Training

    Interest in artificial intelligence training is soaring, but only a fraction of the demand is being met by higher education, according to a new report.

    Nearly 57 million people in the U.S. are interested in learning AI-based skills—with about 8.7 million currently learning, the higher education marketing and research firm Validated Insights estimates.

    Two-thirds of them are doing so independently through videos, online reading and other learning resources, and a third are doing so via a structured and supervised learning program. However, just 7,000 (0.2 percent) are learning AI via a credit-bearing program from a higher education institution.

    This is despite enrollment in AI courses growing quickly in recent years. According to the report, the first bachelor’s degree in the subject was launched by Carnegie Mellon University in 2018.

    Over the next five years, enrollment in AI programs at colleges and universities grew 45 percent annually. The report found that approximately 1 percent of institutions now offer a master’s degree in AI, 2.5 percent a bachelor’s degree and 3 to 5 percent offer a nondegree program.

    SUNY’s University at Buffalo saw enrollment in its master’s degree in AI grow over 20 times from 2020 to 2024, from five to 103 students.

    “Based on the data, there was sizable existing interest and demand for professional and workplace education and training in AI and AI-related areas, but we probably haven’t seen anything yet,” said Brady Colby, head of market research at Validated Insights.

    “According to survey data and hiring trends, this market, the AI education and training market, is positioned for incredible, maybe explosive, growth.”

    Validated Insights said ed-tech companies have seized the opportunity and are serving more than 99 percent of those looking to upskill in AI. Just 14 months after the launch of ChatGPT, enrollment in generative AI courses on platforms like Coursera and Udemy had grown to 3.5 million.

    “Given the expected very high demand for learning AI, that so few existing learners are in credit programs is an important thing to know,” said Colby.

    “It’s not necessarily a warning for colleges and universities as it may be a blast of opportunity. If for-credit, degree-granting institutions can sync their programs and reach this massive pool of interested students, the rewards could be excessive—for the students and schools alike.”

    Estimates published by Statista suggest that the aggregate market for AI in the U.S. in 2025 is worth $74 billion.

    Source link

  • UL Lafayette President Retires Suddenly

    UL Lafayette President Retires Suddenly

    University of Louisiana at Lafayette president Joseph Savoie is retiring suddenly after 17 years in the top job at the public research institution, The Louisiana Illuminator reported.

    His retirement, announced Wednesday, is effective today.

    Savoie, who earned both undergraduate and graduate degrees from UL Lafayette, served in multiple administrative roles at the university from 1978 to 1996, when he stepped down to serve as Louisiana’s commissioner of higher education. Savoie returned as president in 2008.

    Altogether, Savoie spent more than 35 years at UL Lafayette.

    “I reached the decision to transition to this new position after months of careful consideration,” Savoie said in a university news release about his retirement. “Higher education has changed immensely in the past two decades. The expectations on colleges and universities are as great as they have ever been and meeting those responsibilities to our community today—and to generations that follow—requires new ideas and fresh approaches. I owe it to this institution that has given me so much, personally and professionally, to make way for the future.”

    Savoie will become emeritus president and ULL provost Jaimie Hebert will serve as interim leader while the University of Louisiana system Board of Supervisors seeks a permanent hire.

    While Savoie is credited with various accomplishments, including overseeing Lafayette’s rise to R-1 status in the Carnegie Classifications of Institutions, the university has also faced criticism from board members and state officials over inadequate financial controls in two consecutive audits.

    Savoie is the second public university leader in Louisiana to step down abruptly in recent weeks. Southern University New Orleans chancellor James Ammons announced that he was departing last month and has already been replaced by Democratic lawmaker Joe Bouie, who held the job from 2000 to 2002 before he was fired over what he said was a political matter.

    Elsewhere in the state, Louisiana State University president William F. Tate IV also stepped down in June after he was hired to lead Rutgers University.

    Source link

  • Higher Ed Lobbying Spending Rises

    Higher Ed Lobbying Spending Rises

    Facing a proposal by congressional Republicans to significantly raise the endowment tax and other major changes for the sector, colleges spent millions of dollars on lobbying efforts in the second quarter of 2025.

    An Inside Higher Ed analysis of federal lobbying spending by members of the Association of American Universities and other select institutions showed a slight uptick in spending over the first quarter of 2025. AAU members alone spent about $9 million in the first quarter of 2025, which dramatically outpaced the same time frame in 2024.

    That number rose even more in the second quarter: Federal data shows AAU members spent more than $9.7 million on lobbying—and that’s without the multiple institutions that failed to report their numbers by a July 21 deadline, making the total likely higher. Emory University spent the most among AAU members, totaling $500,000. Among non-AAU members, the University of Phoenix spent the most, at $480,000.

    Here’s a look at how much universities spent on federal lobbying in the second quarter of 2025, and what issues they focused on between April 1 and June 30, as reported in required disclosures.

    Lobbying Expenditures

    Some institutions maintained spending levels similar to the first quarter, while others significantly increased lobbying expenditures. Emory, for example, spent $170,000 in the first quarter of 2025. But in the second quarter it increased that spending by $330,000 as lobbyists pressed Congress on cuts to federal research and public health funding, Senate disclosure reports show. Compared to data from prior years, this is the most Emory has spent on lobbying in one quarter.

    (Emory did not respond to a request for comment.)

    Emory was one of a few institutions that cracked the top 10 in terms of spending while also having the highest percentage increase in lobbying expenditures, at nearly 200 percent. Others that heavily ratcheted up lobbying efforts include Cornell University, which went from $230,000 to $444,000 over one quarter; the University of Washington, which jumped from $250,000 to $440,000; and Johns Hopkins University, which boosted lobbying from $170,00 to $380,000 between quarters.

    Only the University of Washington provided a statement to Inside Higher Ed on lobbying expenses, with spokesperson Victor Balta writing, “In light of a changing federal policy environment, we want to make sure that we are well represented so that we can continue to serve the American people through our teaching and research. Additionally, some expenses from our associations in these areas have gone up or are charged in Q2 for the full year.”

    All four institutions—along with many others—brought concerns about federal research funding to Congress, according to lobbying disclosure forms. Other key concerns for the sector included legislation that would likely limit international student enrollment and federal student aid.

    Some institutions dialed back their lobbying expenditures in the second quarter.

    Northwestern University spent the most on lobbying among single-institution AAU members in the first quarter of 2025 (excluding the University of California, which lobbies as a system)—$607,000. That declined to $306,000 for the second quarter, a figure that remains in the top 10 among AAU member institutions despite falling by nearly half.

    Lobbying Wins and Losses

    Higher education lobbyists seemed to score at least a few wins with their congressional efforts.

    Liz Clark, vice president for policy and research at the National Association of College and University Business Officers, noted at NACUBO’s annual conference this week that recent federal legislation could have imposed far-reaching and costly changes for higher education.

    The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, as President Donald Trump deemed it, capped some student loan programs and eliminated the Grad PLUS program, limited repayment options, and mandated that programs pass an earnings test for attendees to be able to access federal student loans. The federal legislation also tweaked the endowment excise tax, among other changes for the sector.

    But Clark noted that a leaked memo from January, well before the bill was passed in July, showed congressional Republicans considered changes that would have gone further, including imposing taxes on scholarships, dramatically increasing the endowment tax and cutting certain tax credits.

    “In that memo, it was very clear that higher education was on the menu,” Clark said.

    However, those changes never materialized as proposed. The Senate walked back House plans to significantly raise the endowment tax and extend it to far more institutions, opting for a softer blow, capping it at a maximum of 8 percent instead of the proposed 21 percent. Clark told NACUBO attendees that “what was not in the bill” was a win for the sector.

    Thad Inge, vice president at the lobbying firm Van Scoyoc Associates, told NACUBO attendees Monday that the leaked memo was “a real wake-up call” that “activated a lot of advocacy.”

    Inge argued that many of the proposals in the memo would have been harmful for the sector and that while higher education can absorb some hits, altogether it presented “an existential threat.” He credited individual institutions with making a personalized push to get through to Congress.

    “It’s easy to demonize Harvard and Yale and Columbia and say higher education is woke,” Inge said. “But when folks hear from schools in their state, schools in their district, they don’t paint with such a broad brush. I think those cultural battles will continue, but the more we as advocates bring it back home—not that we’re not fighting on behalf of all of higher education—but I think making it more personal to the state and the district makes it easier to win those battles.”

    Sector lobbyists weren’t quite as successful in other areas.

    Multiple universities have lobbied to maintain research funding as the Trump administration yanked federal grants and contracts, often with little to no warning or explanation. So far, the federal government has been impervious to their efforts. Similarly, many institutions advocated for the continuance of the Grad PLUS program, which was axed by Congress in July.

    Some colleges also encouraged Congress to push back on policies that could harm international enrollment and cause visa processing delays or denials—such as vetting social media posts for criticism of the U.S. government and culture—which the State Department continues to do.

    Source link

  • Julian Hill addresses The PIE Live Asia Pacific

    Julian Hill addresses The PIE Live Asia Pacific

    The post Julian Hill addresses The PIE Live Asia Pacific appeared first on The PIE News.

    Source link

  • Breaking the Bar: how can university graduates enter elite professions?

    Breaking the Bar: how can university graduates enter elite professions?

    This blog was authored by Charlotte Gleed, who is undertaking an internship at HEPI this summer. Charlotte is a BA History Graduate from Jesus College, Oxford and holds a Graduate Diploma in Law, supported by the Exhibition Scholarship from the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple. Following this internship, Charlotte will be studying an MPhil in Education: Knowledge, Power, and Politics at Emmanuel College, Cambridge.

    ‘Barristers: they make coffee, don’t they?’

    A family member said this to me recently. Not thinking much of it, I laughed and replied, ‘not quite, the ones who wear the wig and gown and bang the stick’. This conversation got me thinking: why is it that some professions seem so far removed from everyday life that not only does the possibility of entry appear distant, but what a person does in that profession is misunderstood? The English Bar falls in this category.

    The Bar is the profession of barristers, a set of specialist legal advocates who represent parties usually in courts or tribunals. The Bar has historically been a profession preserved for the elite. The requirement of high grades from top-ranked universities, together with financial instability during legal studies and in practice, compound this assumption. However, there can be an alternative narrative. As social mobility schemes arise, universities develop closer ties with the profession, and the availability of scholarships widen, there is a real opportunity to change the composition of the Bar.

    Fortunate to be a product of these changes, my journey to the Bar has highlighted three main obstacles for university graduates. First, the precarious financial situation. We are all aware that higher education of any form is expensive, even with government-backed student loans. However, further vocational study required for the Bar stretches student finances considerably. The cost of the Bar Vocational Course ranges from £12,640 to £20,220. Unless supported by family, scholarships and/or private bank loans, the costs can be both difficult to justify and even harder to deliver.

    Second, it is increasingly clear that a law degree alone is no longer sufficient. For students who complete an LLB or BA Jurisprudence, competition is so fierce that postgraduate study – a master’s or equivalent – is beneficial. For students who study a non-law undergraduate degree, the Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) is necessary. The cost of the law conversion course, ranging from £7,150 to £13,590 dependent on region and university provider, exacerbates the gap between those who can afford the additional university costs and those who cannot.

    Third, the essence of the Inns of Court is strikingly akin to an Oxbridge college. Each aspiring and practising barrister across England and Wales chooses membership of one of four Inns: Middle Temple, Inner Temple, Lincoln’s Inn, and Gray’s Inn. This is both a blessing and a curse for university graduates. A blessing because its magic and mystery is something to aspire to; a curse because its majesty can be intimating and can feel exclusionary. One barristers chambers, Essex Court Chambers, have partnered with the Social Mobility Foundation to improve accessibility to the commercial Bar. This is a welcomed step. But more needs to be done.

    What is the solution? Postgraduate study needs investment. The aggregate £12,000 postgraduate loan available from the government goes some way. Yet, this amount falls short of most postgraduate course fees and does not include maintenance costs. If university is to be a true social leveller, access to more advanced levels of higher education must be supported – and funded. Furthermore, the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple and Inner Temple interview all applicants for both their GDL and Bar Course scholarships. This is a start. It is advantageous to students who have not attended prestigious schools or universities with a raft of academic prizes and extra-curriculars to be seen and heard. Interviews for all scholarship candidates is one way to level the playing field. Together with links between university careers services, student societies, and mentorship schemes, this could be an era of genuine collaboration between students, universities, and professions.

    Education pays. But it cannot pay if access to elite professions, and its required higher education courses, is hindered in the first place.

    Source link

  • The details behind the first national school voucher program

    The details behind the first national school voucher program

    After decades of trying, conservatives this year succeeded in creating the first national school voucher program.

    The Republican megabill that President Donald Trump signed into law in July will establish new tax credit scholarships for families to use at private schools, including religious ones — a long-held goal of school privatization advocates who argue parents should get taxpayer support if they want to opt out of their neighborhood school.

    Under the “big, beautiful bill,” donors can receive dollar-for-dollar tax credits of up to $1,700 for contributions to scholarship-granting nonprofits. Those groups then distribute the money to families seeking help paying for private school, tutoring and other educational expenses. 

    The program, while significant, is less expansive than in earlier drafts of the legislation. Previous versions gave donors larger tax credits — a match up to $5,000 or 10 percent of their income, whichever is greater — and mandated that all states participate rather than allowing them to opt in. 

    Related: A lot goes on in classrooms from kindergarten to high school. Keep up with our free weekly newsletter on K-12 education.

    Here are 10 things to know about the program. If you have other questions or there’s more you’d like to know, write to us: [email protected].

    When does it start?

    Jan. 1, 2027. Families have until then to research where they might want to spend a scholarship — and if the school in mind even plans to accept one. Taxpayers who want to contribute to support the scholarships can do so beginning in late 2026.  

    How will the scholarships work?

    The law opens the door to churches, universities, education nonprofits, rotary clubs and potentially even public schools (more on that below) to accept and distribute donations for the program. These “scholarship-granting organizations,” or SGOs, can keep up to 10 percent of the donations for administrative costs.

    In some states with existing scholarship programs, families apply with a third-party contractor that works with eligible schools and selects students for awards. Other states allow religious groups and other nonprofits to create and manage their own scholarship funds. The federal bill gives states wide flexibility to make those sorts of decisions about how the program is administered, experts say.

    Who’s eligible for the scholarships?

    To qualify, students need to check these boxes: They must be eligible to attend a public school, their state must opt in to the program, and their families must earn no more than three times the area median income — a threshold that would include households with incomes nearing $500,000 in some parts of the United States.

    Students who already attend private school qualify, since they are eligible for public school, even if they don’t attend one. The scholarships also may cover home-schoolers. (Keep reading for more on that.)

    How much money will families receive? 

    While the bill set a $1,700 cap on how much individual donors can contribute through their taxes, it’s unclear whether it limits how much an individual student could collect in scholarships.

    In theory, a student could apply for several scholarships. An SGO might also offer a scholarship that reimburses a family for all costs associated with attending their preferred school. In states that already offer similar school choice programs, a student might be able to collect scholarships from both the new program and the existing state program. Still, the average cost of private school tuition is roughly $13,000, so even students who combine several scholarships may not receive enough to cover the full cost of attending.

    The Treasury Department is expected to issue regulations on the program, and we may not know these kinds of details until it does. 

    Related: Arizona gave families public money for private schools. Then private schools raised tuition

    What can the scholarship money be used for?

    Quite a lot. The legislation suggests that families could use the money not only to help pay for private school tuition, but also for room and board, services for students with disabilities, transportation, tutoring, and school supplies like books, computers and uniforms. 

    The rules may depend on the individual state and its definition of an “eligible school.” In some states, home schooling might qualify students for the scholarships, but in other states it might not, said Robert Enlow, president of EdChoice, a pro-school choice group.  

    It’s also possible that public schools could charge scholarship students — as some do with home-schoolers — for services like tutoring, special education or advanced courses. 

    So students can use the money at public schools? How would that work? 

    Yes, potentially. In some states, schools already charge activity or participation fees for non-enrolled students who want to join clubs and sports. Marguerite Roza, director of the Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University, said some states may write their own rules that allow schools to extend the menu of services they could charge for.

    Meanwhile, most school districts — roughly 4 in 5 — already partner with foundations that raise money to help students with transportation, school supplies and basic needs. Both Enlow and Roza said they expected nonprofits and districts to partner on finding ways to tap the federal scholarship dollars as well.

    “Imagine you could have a public school foundation going out and helping with transportation and books and computers and tutors and all sorts of stuff, right?” Enlow said. “The potential is huge.”

    Will all private schools accept the scholarships? 

    No, private schools are not required to accept the scholarships, and many states that offer school choice don’t require private schools to participate. Private schools generally can accept or reject a student for any reason, whether they have a scholarship or not.

    In Arizona, for example, the tax credit program provided scholarships to students at 348 schools last year. More than 400 private schools operated in the state as of 2022.

    Related: Tracking Trump: His actions to dismantle the Education Department, and more 

    Which states will participate?

    Roughly 21 states — including Arizona, Georgia and Montana — offer their own tax credit scholarships, according to the group EdChoice, so it’s expected they would opt into the federal program. Conservative lawmakers in North Carolina already introduced a bill to allow families there to take part in the federal scholarships. 

    If public schools can benefit too, even Democratic governors may consider joining the program, said Roza.

    “Ultimately if the state can open this to summer camp and tutoring, obviously there would be a lot of pressure to unlock so much money with this,” she said.

    How much will the scholarships cost the government?

    It depends on how many taxpayers claim the credit. 

    While an earlier version of the bill would have capped the tax credits at $10 billion a year, the final legislation contains no such limit — so the exact amount in lost revenue won’t be known until much later. That said, an analysis by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation found that the legislation would cost the Treasury up to $4 billion per year.

    Others think the cost will be higher. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a left-leaning research group, placed its projection closer to $51 billion, while Roza estimated the cost at $28 billion per year. Still, she hesitated to count that as a direct loss to K-12 funding. “It’s new money in the sense that it doesn’t go into or out of the federal pie,” Roza said.

    What’s been the reaction to the plan? 

    Critics, including teachers unions and many education experts, have been quick to raise alarms about the voucher program, arguing that it’s a handout for wealthy families and will harm public schools by reducing funding for them.

    “It’s the centerpiece of the Great American Heist — a privatization scheme wrapped in tax policy,” Denise Forte, president of the left-leaning nonprofit EdTrust, said at a hearing before the Senate Democratic Caucus in July. 

    Advocates for the separation of church and state worry about the program channeling money from government coffers to religious schools, while disability advocates note that private schools are not required to serve students with disabilities.

    Some supporters of school vouchers, meanwhile, wish the legislation had gone further.

    “This is a very positive program for taxpayers in America. You can help families get better education and claim a tax credit for it,” said EdChoice’s Enlow. “It’s going to benefit middle- and low-income families.” But he added, “It’s not as generous as we would like, which is universal.”

    Others are focused now on encouraging states to participate in the program. “The fight doesn’t end with the passing of the bill,” said Sydney Altfield, national director of Teach Coalition, which advocates for Jewish schools to get access to government funding. “States must opt into the program.”

    Contact staff writer Neal Morton at 212-678-8247, on Signal at nealmorton.99, or via email at [email protected].

    This story about school voucher programs was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

    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

  • The Collaborative AI Classroom: Teaching Students to Work With, Not Against, AI Tools – Faculty Focus

    The Collaborative AI Classroom: Teaching Students to Work With, Not Against, AI Tools – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • The Collaborative AI Classroom: Teaching Students to Work With, Not Against, AI Tools – Faculty Focus

    The Collaborative AI Classroom: Teaching Students to Work With, Not Against, AI Tools – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • How Redistricting Threatens Democracy in the 2026 US House Elections

    How Redistricting Threatens Democracy in the 2026 US House Elections

    As the 2026 midterm elections approach, efforts to manipulate congressional district boundaries—under the guise of redistricting—pose a serious threat to representative democracy in the United States. These efforts are not simply a matter of partisan politics; they represent a calculated attack on the principle of one person, one vote, and on the fragile trust working Americans place in democratic institutions.

    Across multiple states, redistricting maps are being drawn to favor incumbents and dominant political parties, most often through a practice known as gerrymandering. While both major parties have been guilty of gerrymandering, the recent wave of redistricting efforts has intensified in key battleground states, particularly following the 2020 Census and court rulings that rolled back federal oversight.

    Some of the most blatant manipulations are unfolding in Southern and Midwestern states, where legislatures have redrawn districts to dilute the voting power of Black, Latino, and low-income communities. In states like Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Ohio, courts have intervened—only to be ignored, delayed, or overruled by higher courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. The result: districts that favor white conservative voters while silencing diverse urban and working-class voices.

    These distortions in representation aren’t merely political—they have real consequences for education policy, healthcare, labor rights, and civil rights. When working families and students find themselves in districts designed to neutralize their votes, their needs are less likely to be met by elected officials. Funding for public education, protections for contingent workers, and relief from student loan debt are often neglected in favor of corporate interests and ideological agendas.

    The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision paved the way for even more aggressive gerrymandering, ruling that federal courts could not adjudicate claims of partisan gerrymandering. That decision effectively gave state legislatures a green light to draw lines with political intent, even when the result undermines basic democratic principles. And with the Voting Rights Act gutted in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), many communities of color no longer have a legal shield against discriminatory maps.

    In a just system, redistricting would be handled by independent commissions. In some states, this is happening—California, Michigan, Arizona, and a handful of others have taken steps toward fairer maps. But in most of the country, the party in power controls the process and uses sophisticated data tools—often developed by private firms with little transparency—to fine-tune districts down to the household level. This isn’t democracy. It’s data-driven voter suppression.

    For students, low-income voters, and working-class Americans, the implications are profound. A House of Representatives that does not reflect the electorate cannot be expected to act on behalf of its needs. Adjunct professors, student debtors, gig workers, rural teachers, and public librarians already operate on the margins. When their political voices are diluted, they are pushed even further to the periphery.

    These redistricting battles also have an educational cost. In states where partisan gerrymandering has secured one-party rule, legislatures have targeted curriculum content, attacked diversity and inclusion programs, cut higher education funding, and undermined faculty tenure—all without meaningful opposition. Political disempowerment leads directly to institutional decay.

    The Higher Education Inquirer calls attention to these developments not only because they distort elections, but because they warp the social and economic future of the country. The 2026 House elections may be won or lost not at the ballot box but on a redistricting map drafted behind closed doors in state capitals.

    The right to vote is hollow if the outcome is predetermined. The promise of representative government collapses if districts are engineered to deny equal voice. Without public awareness and pressure, these efforts to undermine democracy will go unchecked.

    It’s time to speak plainly: Unless there is a national movement to restore fairness to the process, the House of Representatives in 2026 will be even less representative of the people it claims to serve.

    Sources:

    • Brennan Center for Justice. “The Redistricting Landscape, 2023–2026.”

    • ProPublica. “How Politicians Use Redistricting to Lock in Power.”

    • NPR. “Supreme Court Ruling Lets Partisan Gerrymandering Stand.”

    • Southern Coalition for Social Justice. “Voting Maps and Racial Disenfranchisement.”

    • ACLU. “Gerrymandering: How It Works and Why It Harms Democracy.”

    • U.S. Census Bureau. “Apportionment and Redistricting Data.”

    Source link

  • Peer review is broken, and pedagogical research has a fix

    Peer review is broken, and pedagogical research has a fix

    An email pings into my inbox: peer reviewer comments on your submission #1234. I take a breath and click.

    Three reviewers have left feedback on my beloved paper. The first reviewer is gentle, constructive, and points out areas where the work could be tightened up. One reviewer simply provides a list of typos and points out where the grammar is not technically correct. The third reviewer is vicious. I stop reading.

    Later that afternoon, I sit in the annual student assessment board for my department. Over a painstaking two hours, we discuss, interrogate, and wrestle with how we, as educators, can improve our feedback practices when we mark student work. We examine the distribution of students marks closely, looking out for outliers, errors, or evidence of an ill-pitched assessment. We reflect upon how we can make our written feedback more useful. We suggest thoughtful and innovative ways to make our practice more consistent and clearer.

    It then strikes me how these conversations happen in parallel – peer review sits in one corner of academia, and educational assessment and feedback sits in another. What would happen, I wonder, if we started approaching peer review as a pedagogical problem?

    Peer review as pedagogy

    Peer review is a high stakes context. We know that we need proper, expert scrutiny of the methodological, theoretical, and analytical claims of research to ensure the quality, credibility, and advancement of what we do and how we do it. However, we also know that there are problems with the current peer review system. As my experience attests to, issues including reviewer biases and conflicts, lack of transparency in editorial decision-making, inconsistencies in the length and depth of reviewer feedback all plague our experiences. Peer reviewers can be sharp, hostile, and unconstructive. They can focus on the wrong things, be unhelpful in their vagueness, or miss the point entirely. These problems threaten the foundations of research.

    The good news is that we do not have to reinvent the wheel. For decades, people in educational research, or the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL), have been grappling both theoretically and empirically with the issue of giving and receiving feedback. Educational research has considered best practices in feedback presentation and content, learner and marker feedback literacies, management of socioemotional responses to feedback, and transparency of feedback expectations. The educational feedback literature is vast and innovative.

    However – curiously – efforts to improve the integrity of peer review don’t typically frame this as a pedagogical problem, that can borrow insights from the educational literature. This is, I think, a woefully missed opportunity. There are at least four clear initiatives from the educational scholarship that could be a useful starting point in tightening up the rigour of peer review.

    What is feedback for?

    We would rarely mark student work without a clear assessment rubric and standardised assessment criteria. In other words, as educators we wouldn’t sit down to assess students work without at least first considering what we have asked them to do. What are the goalposts? What are the outcomes? What are we giving feedback for?

    Rubrics and assessment criteria provide transparent guidelines on what is expected of learners, in an effort to demystify the hidden curriculum of assessment and reduce subjectivity in assessment practice. In contrast, peer reviewers are typically provided with scant information about what to assess manuscripts for, which can lead to inconsistencies between journal aims and scope, reviewer comments, and author expectations.

    Imagine if we had structured journal-specific rubrics, based on specific, predefined criteria that aligned tightly with the journal’s mission and requirements. Imagine if these rubrics guided decision-making and clarified the function of feedback, rather than letting reviewers go rogue with their own understanding of what the feedback is for.

    Transparent rubrics and criteria could also bolster the feedback literacy of reviewers and authors. Feedback literacy is an established educational concept, which refers to a student’s capacity to appreciate, make sense of, and act upon their written feedback. Imagine if we approached peer review as an opportunity to develop feedback literacy, and we borrowed from this literature.

    Do we all agree?

    Educational research clearly highlights the importance of moderation and calibration for educators to ensure consistent assessment practices. We would never allow grades to be returned to students without some kind of external scrutiny first.

    Consensus calibration refers to the practice of multiple evaluators working together to ensure consistency in their feedback and to agree upon a shared understanding of relevant standards. There is a clear and robust steer from educational theory that this is a useful exercise to minimise bias and ensure consistency in feedback. This practice is not typically used in peer review.

    Calibration exercises, where reviewers assess the same manuscript and have opportunity to openly discuss their evaluations, might be a valuable and evidence-based addition to the peer review process. This could be achieved in practice by more open peer review processes, where reviewers can see the comments of others and calibrate accordingly, or through a tighter steer from editors when recruiting new reviewers.

    That is not to say, of course, that reviewers should all agree on the quality of a manuscript. But any effort to consolidate, triangulate, and calibrate feedback can only be useful to authors as they attempt to make sense of it.

    Is this feedback timely?

    Best practice in educational contexts also supports the adoption of opportunities to provide formative feedback. Formative feedback is feedback that helps learners improve as they are learning, as opposed to summative feedback whereby the merit of a final piece of work is evaluated. In educational contexts, this might look like anything from feedback on drafts through to informal check-in conversations with markers.

    Applying the formative/summative distinction to peer review may be useful in helping authors improve their work in dialogue with reviewers and editors, rather than purely summative, which would merely judge whether the manuscript is fit for publication. In practice, adoption of this can be achieved through the formative feedback offered by registered reports, whereby authors receive peer review and editorial direction before data is collected or accessed, at a time where they can actually make use ot it.

    Formative feedback through the adoption of registered reports can provide opportunity for specific and timely suggestions for improving the methodology or research design. By fostering a more developmental and formative approach to peer review, the process can become a tool for advancing knowledge, rather than simply a gatekeeping mechanism.

    Is this feedback useful?

    Finally, the educational concept of feedforward, which focuses on providing guidance for future actions rather than only critiquing past performance, needs to be applied to peer review too. By applying feedforward principles, reviewers can shift their feedback to be more forward-looking, offering tangible, discrete, and actionable suggestions that help the author improve their work in subsequent revisions.

    In peer review, approaching comments with a feedforward framing may transform feedback into a constructive dialogue that motivates people to make their work better by taking actionable steps, rather than a hostile exchange built upon unclear standards and (often) mismatched expectations.

    So the answers to improving some parts of the peer review process are there. We can, if we’re clever, really improve the fairness, consistency, and developmental value of reviewer comments. Structured assessment criteria, calibration, formative feedback mechanisms, and feedforward approaches are just a few strategies that can enhance the integrity of peer review. The answers are intuitive – but they are not yet standard practice in peer review because we typically don’t approach peer review as pedagogy.

    There are some problems that this won’t fix. Peer review relies on the unpaid labour of time-poor academics in an increasingly precarious academia, which adds challenge to efforts to improve the integrity of the process.

    However, there are steps we can take – we need to now think about how these can be achieved in practice. By clarifying the peer review practice, tightening up the rigour of feedback quality, and applying educational interventions to improve the process, this takes an important step in fixing peer review for the future of research.

    Source link