Blog

  • Supporting the Instructional Design Process: Stress-Testing Assignments with AI – Faculty Focus

    Supporting the Instructional Design Process: Stress-Testing Assignments with AI – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Research funding won’t redistribute itself

    Research funding won’t redistribute itself

    On the whole research funding is not configured to be sensitive to place.

    Redistribution

    It does good things in regions but this is different to funding being configured to do so. For example, universities in the North East performed strongly in the REF and as a consequence they received an uplift in QR funding. This will allow them to invest in their research capacity, this will bring agglomerate benefits in the North East, and go some small way to rebalancing the UK’s research ecosystem away from London.

    REF isn’t designed to do that. It has absolutely no interest where research takes place, just that the research that takes place is excellent. The UK isn’t a very big place and it has a large number of universities. Eventually, if you fund enough things in enough places you will eventually help support regional clusters of excellence.

    There are of course some specific place based funds but this doesn’t mean they are redistributive as well as being regionally focussed. The Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) is focussed on regional capacity but it is £260m of a total annual Research England funding distribution of £2.8bn. HEIF is calculated using provider knowledge exchange work on businesses, public and third sector engagement, and the wider public. A large portion of the data is gathered through the HE-BCI Survey.

    The result of this is that there is place based funding but inevitably institutions with larger research capacities receive larger amounts of funding. Of the providers that received the maximum HEIF funding in 2024/25 five were within the golden triangle, one was in the West Midlands, one was in the East Midlands, two were in Yorkshire and the Humber, one was in the North West, and one was in the South East but not the golden triangle. It is regional but it is not redistributive.

    Strength of feeling/strength in places

    RAND Europe has released a process evaluation of wave two of the Strength in Places Fund (SIPF). As RAND Europe describe the fund is

    The Strength in Places Fund (SIPF) is a £312.5 million competitive funding scheme that takes a place-based approach to research and innovation (R&I) funding. SIPF is a UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) strategic fund managed by the SIPF delivery team based at Innovate UK and Research England. The aim of the Fund is to help areas of the UK build on existing strengths in R&I to deliver benefits for their local economy

    This fund has been more successful in achieving a more regionally distributed spread of funding. For example, the fund has delivered £47m to Wales compared to only £18m in South East England. Although quality was a key factor, and there are some challenges to how aligned projects are to wider regional priorities, it seems that a focus on a balanced portfolio made a difference. As RAND Europe note

    […]steps were taken to ensure a balanced portfolio in terms of geographical spread and sectors; however, quality was the primary factor influencing panel recommendations (INTXX). Panel members considered the projects that had been funded in Wave 1 and the bids submitted in Wave 2, and were keen on ensuring no one region was overrepresented. One interviewee mentioned that geographical variation of awards contributed to the credibility of a place-based funding system[…].

    The Regional Innovation Fund which aimed to support local innovation capacity was allocated with a specific modifier to account for where there had historically been less research investment. SPIF has been a different approach to solving the same conundrum of how best support research potential in every region of the UK.

    It’s within this context that it is interesting to arrive at UKRI’s most recent analysis of the geographical distribution of its funding in 2022/23 and 2023/24. There are two key messages the first is that

    All regions and nations received an increase in UKRI investment between the financial years 2021 to 2022 and 2023 to 2024. The greatest absolute increases in investment were seen in the North West, West Midlands and East Midlands. The greatest proportional increases were seen in Northern Ireland, the East Midlands and North West.

    And the second is that

    The percentage of UKRI funding invested outside London, the South East and East of England, collectively known as the ‘Greater South East’, rose to 50% in 2023 to 2024. This is up from 49% in the 2022 to 2023 financial year and 47% in the 2021 to 2022 financial year. This represents a cumulative additional £1.4 billion invested outside the Greater South East since the 2021 to 2022 financial year.

    Waterloo sunset?

    In the most literal sense the funding between the Greater South East and the rest of the country could not be more finely balanced. In flat cash terms the rest of the UK outside of the Greater South East has overtaken the Greater South East for the first time while investment per capita in the Greater South East still outstrips the rest of the country by a significant amount.

    The reasons for this shift is because of greater investments in the North West, West Midlands, and East Midlands who cumulatively saw an increase of £550m worth of funding over the past three years. The regions with the highest absolute levels of funding saw some of the smallest proportions of increases in investment.

    The evaluations and UKRI’s dataset present an interesting picture. There is nothing unusual about the way funding is distributed as it follows where the highest numbers of researchers, providers, and economic activity is located. It would be an entirely arbitrary mechanism which penalised the South East for having research strengths.

    Simultaneously, with constrained resources there are lots of latent assets outside of the golden triangle that will not get funding. The UK is unusually reliant on its capital as an economic contributor and research funding follows this. The only way to rebalance this is to make deliberate efforts, like with SIPF, to lean toward a more balanced portfolio of funding.

    This isn’t a plea to completely rip up the rule book, and a plea for more money in an era of fiscal constraint will not be listened to, but it does bring into sharp relief a choice. Either research policy is about bolstering the UK’s economic centre or it is about strengthening the potential of research where it receives less funding. There simply is not enough money to do both.

    Source link

  • Reframing the commute | Wonkhe

    Reframing the commute | Wonkhe

    Way back in 2019, the Augar review stated that students living away from home for university was part of a “deep-seated culture.”

    By extension, it inferred that living at home – in whatever home looks like for an individual – was abnormal or uncommon.

    Six years on and it really feels like this narrative is changing. Whilst I’ve written on the site before about the sector being at cross purposes when talking about the student group, the acknowledgement and discussion of commuter students and their experiences is on the increase.

    As Wonkhe’s commuter student series has demonstrated, there are many students, scholars, policy makers and practitioners doing some excellent work to highlight the challenges faced by commuter students in higher education.

    Whilst the narrative might be changing, what is less discussed is some of the benefits of commuting for students.

    In my PhD research whilst students spoke of long and difficult journeys, struggling to park on campus or counterintuitive academic timetabling, they also spoke about the positives of their experiences. It’s these that I think are an important starting point for those looking to know more about this student group.

    Challenging the narrative

    Simply put, not all students want to live in student accommodation. Some prefer to live with family. Mature students don’t necessarily want to live with younger students or uproot their family units into family accommodation options.

    For those who have been in full-time employment to starting their studies, they saw the commute as just part of a working day.

    One of the students in my study specifically told me that they didn’t expect their institution to do anything special for them as a commuter because commuting was just “what you do” in order to get to class.

    For the wider student experience, a number of students in my research participated in multiple extra-curricular activities and had numerous friends they’d met through these, as well as on their commute or on their course. One commuter even elected to get a rail replacement bus at a weekend to participate in their sports club. Anyone who has ever taken a rail replacement bus will know that this isn’t a decision taken lightly.

    In all these instances, commuter students demonstrated either the positive benefits of commuting, or that they were able to participate in university life irrespective of their commute.

    I’m not trying to say that all commuter student experiences are positive. Unless you hold an amount of luck, you’re going to be late to class at some point due to some kind of transport issue. We’ve all been there, stood waiting for a bus that doesn’t turn up or a train that’s delayed. It’s frustrating and sometimes (read, often) it makes you late to class.

    What I am saying is that this deficit narrative of commuter students often does them a bit of a disservice and ends up homogenising their experiences in a way that isn’t always that useful if we’re trying to think about how to improve their experience.

    It’s not you, it’s me

    Instead of thinking about the commuter student, we might want to consider thinking about the institution itself.

    After all, when we’re framing commuter student experiences what we’re really doing is talking about how they fit in with the institutional structures that frame their university life.

    For one of the commuters I spent time with, delays to their journey were frequent even when allowing plenty of time for their journey. What is of interest though was what happened next.

    One of their class tutors routinely employed the institutions’ academic attendance policy. The policy stated that if a student arrived later than 15 minutes after the class had started, they’d be marked as absent. This meant that a couple of times, whilst they’d informed this staff member via email in advance that they’d be late and did physically make it to their class, they were still marked absent because they arrived 15 minutes late.

    In contrast another tutor, acknowledging that this student had emailed them warning of their late attendance, allowed them to sign the register when they arrived.

    Institutions can have one attendance policy but have staff enact it in different ways. If you’re a commuter student who’s had an awful journey to get to class, it’s not ideal when you’re not sure how your class tutor might respond.

    This particular student had been previously recommended by their tutor that they should factor more time into their journey to arrive on time. This student, along with many others in my study, were already factoring in extra time in their journeys.

    You can also see why there might be some disgruntlement between students here. If you’ve done the same journey as someone else on your course who has a different module tutor, you’d be annoyed to find out that they let them sign the register yet your tutor marked you as absent. Experiences like these then can lead to differing expectations between students and the institution which could develop into some pretty bad feeling.

    Great expectations

    I suggest it’s a question here around what the institution deems a reasonable expectation of its students, and by extension whether or not the institutional structures are suitably flexible enough to accommodate any fluctuations within these.

    If the above example here is anything to go by, it’s likely that what’s considered as a reasonable expectation of commuter students will differ between students, institutional policies and ultimately the staff that enact them.

    Where students spoke to me about commuting to university in more positive terms, it was often relating to how their expectations of university had matched their reality. This could be down to the individual themselves. For example, where students had researched their commute or done a commute to work prior to starting their degree they took things like disruptions to travel as simply part of life as a commuter student.

    But if the expectations that were being asked of students had changed. For example, being taught by different academic staff with different stances on attendance, or these experiences were not clear between the institution and the student to begin with, this negative narrative could often arise as a result.

    Being a commuter student is not mutually exclusive to having a poor student experience. But if we want to hear more about the positive experiences of commuter students, we need to think about why they’re positive and consider how our institutions can enhance these experiences further.

    Source link

  • HEDx Podcast: ‘Never waste a crisis’: CIO of Arizona State University – Episode 159

    HEDx Podcast: ‘Never waste a crisis’: CIO of Arizona State University – Episode 159

    Arizona State University (ASU) chief information officer Lev Gonick and Dave Rosowsky, senior advisor to the president of ASU, both believe universities can thrive in the age of AI by actively shaping how the technology is integrated into higher education.

    In this podcast, they share how ASU fosters innovation through bold leadership, a culture of rapid experimentation, and partnerships with over 300 tech companies.

    Get a sneak peek into the lessons they’ll be sharing at HEDx’s April conference in Melbourne, which will offer insights into how universities can “do the work to change the model” and embrace the transformative potential of AI.

    Read more:

    Do you have an idea for a story?
    Email [email protected]

    Source link

  • EXCLUSIVE: WSU vice-chancellor is back in the classroom this year

    EXCLUSIVE: WSU vice-chancellor is back in the classroom this year

    Professor George Williams started as VC in July, 2024. Picture: Hollie Adams

    Western Sydney University (WSU) vice chancellor George Williams’s love for teaching didn’t disappear when he became vice-chancellor of his university.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Body cams, staff to carry ID, change of culture: TEQSA draft rules for protests, student complaints

    Body cams, staff to carry ID, change of culture: TEQSA draft rules for protests, student complaints

    Security stand in front of a pro-Israel protest at the University of Sydney on May 3, 2024. Picture: David Swift

    Universities will be expected to publish de-identified complaints data publicly, make student complaints processes clearer, and analyse the data twice a year if the university regulator’s interim guidelines for student complaints mechanisms are adopted.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • What will NCES layoffs mean for the Nation’s Report Card?

    What will NCES layoffs mean for the Nation’s Report Card?

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    The Trump administration has all but axed the U.S. Department of Education’s statistical research arm — the National Center for Education Statistics — sparing only a handful of employees who are left without department staff needed to analyze education data. 

    “They didn’t just RIF a few people, they deleted the agency for all intents and purposes,” said an NCES employee of more than a decade who was part of the massive March 11 layoffs

    The loss of over a hundred Institute of Education Sciences employees — including almost all of the NCES staff comes as part of sweeping cuts to the Education Department that left the federal agency with only half of its workforce. NCES, which traces its existence to an 1867 law establishing a federal statistical agency to collect, analyze and report education data,  has been tasked with research and analysis on everything from graduation rates and student outcomes to teacher and principal development. 

    Overall, NCES research tracked the condition of education in the nation, including gaps in achievement and resources for underserved students. During the pandemic, the unit closely analyzed trends in school resources and educator and student mental health. 

    Perhaps most notably, NCES oversaw and ensured the quality of the Nation’s Report Card, along with other key student outcome studies. School and college leaders rely on such NCES research to improve student performance, and its findings often help inform federal and state policymakers on funding decisions.

    Now, those caught in the latest wave of the administration’s cuts are warning that their haphazard nature will lead to a decline in the quality of assessments and data overseen by NCES. Longtime NCES employees report being fired at a moment’s notice and abruptly losing access to years — sometimes decades — of work, with no communication from the administration about how to offboard so as to preserve and pass on critical information. 

    “A lot of institutional knowledge is going to be lost,” said another former NCES employee who worked closely on the Nation’s Report Card. This employee and the others who spoke to K-12 Dive asked to remain anonymous for fear that identification could affect their severance terms.

    NAEP and international assessment employees impacted

    Although NCES employees are nearly all gone, many of NCES’ functions they previously carried out are congressionally mandated, meaning they will still need to be done. That includes portions of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, commonly known as the Nation’s Report Card. 

    The required parts include: reading and math assessments in 4th and 8th grade, long-term trend assessments for 9, 13 and 17-years-olds, and 12th grade reading and math assessments. The long-term assessment for 17-year-olds was last administered in 2012, having been canceled during the pandemic, and again for this spring due to what the Education Department cited as funding issues.

    Other portions of the federal test such as science, U.S. history and civics are optional. 

    The federally mandated assessment has often served as a yardstick for student performance in various subjects, most notably reading and math. Following the pandemic, it helped educators understand which subject areas students struggled in the most during and following school closures. 


    “Despite spending hundreds of millions in taxpayer funds annually, IES has failed to effectively fulfill its mandate to identify best practices and new approaches that improve educational outcomes and close achievement gaps for students.”

    Madi Biedermann

    U.S. Department of Education’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Communications


    Congress also mandates that student performance be compared on an international level, a requirement usually fulfilled by the Program for International Student Assessment, or PISA. 

    The latest round of PISA testing was expected to begin by the end of March. Plus, the main NAEP for grades 4, 8 and 12 was supposed to begin early next year — preparation for which was set to begin this summer, according to former NCES employees. 

    The Education Department, in a March 13 statement emailed to sister publication Higher Ed Dive, said, “IES employees impacted by the reduction in force conducted none of the research related to NAEP, the College Scorecard, and IPEDS.”

    “That work is all done through contracts that are still maintained by the Department,” said Madi Biedermann, deputy assistant secretary for communications at the department, in the statement.

    Source link

  • St. Norbert College to cut over 2 dozen faculty positions and 20 programs

    St. Norbert College to cut over 2 dozen faculty positions and 20 programs

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • St. Norbert College’s trustee board recently approved discontinuing 20 academic programs, according to a message last week from college President Laurie Joyner.
    • Additionally, the Wisconsin college expects to terminate 21 faculty positions by May. It will eliminate another six faculty positions in 2026. 
    • The cuts come as the private Catholic institution looks to shed $7 million in costs to balance its budget for fiscal 2026. These decisions, though difficult, set us on a path to emerge stronger from this transitional period,” Joyner said Thursday.

    Dive Insight:

    Not long after Joyner joined St. Norbert in July 2023having previously led St. Xavier University in Chicago she found “a significant miscalculation” in the upcoming budget for the fiscal 2024 year, according to the college. 

    After two consecutive years of running deficits, the 2024 budget’s gap was even larger than expected. The college subsequently moved to cut $12 million from the budget — including through multiple rounds of layoffs. But it still faces a $7 million deficit in fiscal 2026 and anticipated further gaps in the years ahead.

    The deficits follow shrinking enrollments and rising costs. In 2022, according to the college, it had the highest faculty numbers in a decade but hundreds fewer students. Headcount during those 10 years fell by 405 students, with 1,882 students attending in fall 2022, per federal data.

    The shrinking student body is a major source of financial strain on St. Norbert. The college received 50% of its core revenue from tuition and fees in the 2023 fiscal year, according to latest federal data. 

    Between fiscal 2021 and 2024, revenue from tuition and fees fell 13.1% to $35.8 million at St. Norbert, according to its financial statements.

    The college says it is restructuring from “a position of relative strength as it adjusts its staffing to mirror its student population,” and the cuts are “creating an even stronger foundation as we prepare to weather the headwinds facing higher education.”

    The slate of programs approved for discontinuation include both majors and minors running the gamut from studio art and theology to physics and applied mathematics. Students enrolled in majors and minors set for discontinuation will be able to complete them, Joyner said. And some coursework in discontinued programs will continue to be taught. 

    St. Norbert joins a growing field of colleges paring back their programs and employee ranks in the face of demographic declines and cost inflation. That includes several of St. Norbert’s Catholic peers, including Saint Louis University, University of Dayton and University of St. Thomas.

    Source link

  • CASEL Becomes New Home for Engaging Schools Resources

    CASEL Becomes New Home for Engaging Schools Resources

    The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) recently announced that it has become the new steward of Engaging Schools’ extensive body of educational resources. With Engaging Schools set to close in early 2025 after more than four decades of impact, CASEL will ensure the organization’s valuable tools, books, and frameworks remain available to educators worldwide.

    As part of this transition, CASEL is making these resources freely accessible to the public. Over time, CASEL will integrate elements of Engaging Schools’ work into several areas including the free Guide for Schoolwide SEL to further advance high-quality, evidence-based SEL implementation in schools and districts.

    “For more than 40 years, Engaging Schools has helped educators create safe and supportive learning environments where students thrive,” said Aaliyah A. Samuel, president and CEO of CASEL. “We are honored to carry forward their legacy by making these resources widely available and embedding them into our work to create school communities that prioritize academic, social, and emotional development.”

    Engaging Schools has long been recognized for its contributions to fostering inclusive school climates, strengthening restorative and equitable  discipline, and advancing engaging  teaching practices. 

    “We take immense pride in the lasting impact of Engaging Schools’ work,” said Larry Dieringer, Executive Director of Engaging Schools. “Though our organization’s chapter is closing, we are deeply grateful to CASEL for ensuring our resources continue to benefit educators and students for years to come.”

    For more than 30 years, CASEL has been a trusted leader in advancing SEL through research, practice, and policy. By integrating Engaging Schools’ resources into its offerings, CASEL reaffirms its commitment to supporting educators with the tools they need to create engaging, inclusive, and academically rich learning environments.

    To access Engaging Schools’ resources now available through CASEL, visit casel.org/engagingschools.

    Kevin Hogan
    Latest posts by Kevin Hogan (see all)

    Source link

  • What will NCES layoffs mean for the Nation’s Report Card?

    What will NCES layoffs mean for the Nation’s Report Card?

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    The Trump administration has all but axed the U.S. Department of Education’s statistical research arm — the National Center for Education Statistics — sparing only a handful of employees who are left without department staff needed to analyze education data. 

    “They didn’t just RIF a few people, they deleted the agency for all intents and purposes,” said an NCES employee of more than a decade who was part of the massive March 11 layoffs

    The loss of over a hundred Institute of Education Sciences employees — including almost all of the NCES staff comes as part of sweeping cuts to the Education Department that left the federal agency with only half of its workforce. NCES, which traces its existence to an 1867 law establishing a federal statistical agency to collect, analyze and report education data,  has been tasked with research and analysis on everything from graduation rates and student outcomes to teacher and principal development. 

    Overall, NCES research tracked the condition of education in the nation, including gaps in achievement and resources for underserved students. During the pandemic, the unit closely analyzed trends in school resources and educator and student mental health. 

    Perhaps most notably, NCES oversaw and ensured the quality of the Nation’s Report Card, along with other key student outcome studies. School and college leaders rely on such NCES research to improve student performance, and its findings often help inform federal and state policymakers on funding decisions.

    Now, those caught in the latest wave of the administration’s cuts are warning that their haphazard nature will lead to a decline in the quality of assessments and data overseen by NCES. Longtime NCES employees report being fired at a moment’s notice and abruptly losing access to years — sometimes decades — of work, with no communication from the administration about how to offboard so as to preserve and pass on critical information. 

    “A lot of institutional knowledge is going to be lost,” said another former NCES employee who worked closely on the Nation’s Report Card. This employee and the others who spoke to K-12 Dive asked to remain anonymous for fear that identification could affect their severance terms.

    NAEP and international assessment employees impacted

    Although NCES employees are nearly all gone, many of NCES’ functions they previously carried out are congressionally mandated, meaning they will still need to be done. That includes portions of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, commonly known as the Nation’s Report Card. 

    The required parts include: reading and math assessments in 4th and 8th grade, long-term trend assessments for 9, 13 and 17-years-olds, and 12th grade reading and math assessments. The long-term assessment for 17-year-olds was last administered in 2012, having been canceled during the pandemic, and again for this spring due to what the Education Department cited as funding issues.

    Other portions of the federal test such as science, U.S. history and civics are optional. 

    The federally mandated assessment has often served as a yardstick for student performance in various subjects, most notably reading and math. Following the pandemic, it helped educators understand which subject areas students struggled in the most during and following school closures. 


    “Despite spending hundreds of millions in taxpayer funds annually, IES has failed to effectively fulfill its mandate to identify best practices and new approaches that improve educational outcomes and close achievement gaps for students.”

    Madi Biedermann

    U.S. Department of Education’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Communications


    Congress also mandates that student performance be compared on an international level, a requirement usually fulfilled by the Program for International Student Assessment, or PISA. 

    The latest round of PISA testing was expected to begin by the end of March. Plus, the main NAEP for grades 4, 8 and 12 was supposed to begin early next year — preparation for which was set to begin this summer, according to former NCES employees. 

    The Education Department, in a March 13 statement emailed to sister publication Higher Ed Dive, said, “IES employees impacted by the reduction in force conducted none of the research related to NAEP, the College Scorecard, and IPEDS.”

    “That work is all done through contracts that are still maintained by the Department,” said Madi Biedermann, deputy assistant secretary for communications at the department, in the statement.

    Source link