Tag: Based

  • Improving Transfer Based on Success Stories

    Improving Transfer Based on Success Stories

    A new transfer playbook, released by the Aspen Institute and the Community College Research Center, offers strategies for improving outcomes for transfer students by examining higher ed institutions with the best records.

    The playbook notes that, for a decade, fewer than a fifth of community college students have successfully transferred and earned bachelor’s degrees, though many aspire to reach that goal. But the playbook stresses that better outcomes are possible. At colleges with the best overall transfer outcomes—those in the top 10 percent for all institutions—at least 52 percent of students transfer and at least 61 percent of transfer students earn bachelor’s degrees, far exceeding national averages. If all community colleges achieved these kinds of results, they could double the bachelor’s degree attainment rates for community college students from 16 percent to 32 percent, the playbook concludes.

    Based on interviews with college leaders, students and staff members at campuses with successful transfer pathways and partnerships, the playbook’s authors offer three core strategies for improving transfer, with examples of relevant practices and case studies.

    First, they recommend that executive leadership spearhead partnerships between community colleges and universities so improvements to transfer can be made at scale. They also suggest working toward more timely bachelor’s degree completion rates within majors by better aligning curriculum and instruction with transfer pathways. Lastly, they recommend tailoring advising and other supports for transfer students in ways that “foster trust and engagement.” For example, the playbook encourages community colleges to ensure transfer advising is offered to all students and occurs before, during and after the transfer process, with outreach to prospective students about transfer options as early as high school.

    “There is immense potential in the dreams and ambitions of bachelor’s-intending community college students—and the many who may have counted themselves out but have the ability to complete a bachelor’s and expand their career horizons,” the foreword to the playbook reads.  

    Source link

  • 15 Must-Have Features of a Cloud Based LMS in Higher Education

    15 Must-Have Features of a Cloud Based LMS in Higher Education

    Higher education in 2025 will be about customized, data-driven, flexible learning opportunities rather than only classrooms and textbooks. These days, a cloud-based LMS system is not a luxury; rather, it is a must for universities trying to keep competitive, increase student involvement, and raise results.

    But among hundreds of sites available, how do you choose the best one? Supported by statistics and meant to enable institutions to flourish, let us explore the 15 must-have characteristics of a modern customisable LMS for universities.

     

    The 15 Must-Have Features for a Higher Education Learning Management System (LMS) in 2025

     

     

    1. Support for blended learning

    There is nowhere hybrid learning is headed. 73% of students, according to studies, would rather combine in-person and online instruction. To provide an immersive, adaptable experience, your LMS should easily combine digital materials with conventional classrooms.

     

    2. Learning with self- pace

    Students pick things up at varying rates. According to the Research Institute of America, a self-paced learning environment allows students to direct their development, therefore enhancing retention between 25 and 60%. Bonus—also Designed in-house tests and checkpoints help pupils stay on target.

     

    3. Tools for collaborative learning

    Better still is learning when done jointly. Especially crucial for Gen Z students, 85% of which favor group projects, peer assessments, and shared workspaces, platforms with these features promote involvement.

     

    4. Accessible mobile-friendly

    A mobile-optimized LMS is absolutely essential given students spend five to six hours every day on smartphones. Make sure students can access materials, turn in homework, and interact with peers—anywhere, at any moment.

     

    5. Evaluations driven by AI

    Why use outdated tasks? Student results are improved by adaptive examinations and performance-based assignments in modern LMSs. Pre-quiz adaptive study increased pass rates by 20%, according to research.

    Adjustive learning enhances academic performance in 59% and student engagement in 36%, according to study. Teachers can better identify knowledge gaps and personalize instruction to individual students by using these new technologies.​

     

    6. Adaptable evaluations

    There is no one-size-fits-all solution here. A strong learning management system should enable you to create customized tests and assignments that highlight each student’s unique advantages and disadvantages.

     

    7. Integration of course schedules

    Ensure professors and students stay on course. By automatically tracking missed lessons, impending tasks, and class progress, integrated schedules eliminate administrative burdens.

     

    8. More complex content administration

    Today’s content can be in many different formats, from YouTube videos to PDFs. There should be a variety of content types supported by your LMS so that teachers can design dynamic, multimedia-rich courses.

     

    9. Messaging boards and discussion notes

    In online courses, fifty-eight percent of students say they feel disconnected. Built-in forums and messaging tools help to build community and enable faculty and student real-time cooperation.

     

    10. Student tracking for development

    Track engaged and non-involved students in a jiffy! Detailed data on material availability, completion rates, and time spent per module let teachers act early to support difficult students.

     

    11. Performance Studies

    Performance goes beyond just marks. Dashboards displaying trends in student progress should be part of a strong LMS, therefore stressing areas needing work and increasing retention rates.

     

    12. Gamification

    Engagement leaps when education feels like a game. Leaderboards, badges, and awards on LMS systems help to increase student involvement by up to 89% hence transforming learning from a passive to an active process.

     

    13. Instantaneous reporting

    Give up searching frantically for information. Crucially for certification and institutional planning, your LMS should create fast, exportable reports on student performance, course progress, and engagement.

     

    14. Complete branding and customizing

    Why then do you look like everyone else? From logos to unique workflows, a top-notch LMS should represent the character of your university thereby guaranteeing a customized experience for staff and students.

     

    15. Distance learning support

    With 74% of students saying they would enroll in online programs even post-pandemic, distance learning support is here to stay. Remote classes are something a modern LMS has to support so that students from wherever may get top-notch instruction.

     

    The Impact of Predictive Analytics on Student Engagement

    Predictive analytics is changing higher education. According to a 2024 EDUCAUSE research, 76% of predictive analytics-using universities said their student results have improved Using data insights—tracking behavior, engagement, and performance—an LMS helps staff members intervene before students lag behind.

     

    predictive-analytics

     

    How to Choose the Right LMS for Your Institution

    Selecting an LMS goes beyond just filling up boxes. This brief checklist can help you make decisions:

    Scalability: Can your institution help it to flourish?

    Customizability: Does it fit your particular requirements? Customizing

    Integration: Will it flow naturally with your current systems?

    Support: Does the provider give consistent, continuous assistance?

    Analytics: Can it instantly monitor student involvement and performance?

    A cloud-based, customized LMS is about enabling student success rather than only course administration. Your institution can design an interesting, future-ready learning environment with the appropriate features, data insights, and flexibility.

    All set to change your college’s instruction? Start with a platform meant for future success—that of the students.

     

    Future-Ready Learning Begins with the Correct LMS

    Higher education in 2025 is about empowering student success with flexible, data-driven learning opportunities rather than about course management. More than just a platform, the appropriate cloud-based LMS solution transforms engagement, performance, and institutional growth.

    Ready to future-proof your university using a customisable LMS for those that satisfy all the necessary requirements? Discover how Creatrix Campus LMS enables organizations like yours to provide smarter, more connected learning—built for tomorrow, now. Connect with us now!

    Source link

  • Results of Women’s March Madness Bracket Based on Academics

    Results of Women’s March Madness Bracket Based on Academics

    Tyler Schank/NCAA Photos/Getty Images

    Women’s basketball has experienced a surge in popularity of late, and this year is no different. The Athletic reported that regular season viewing of women’s college basketball was up 3 percent on ESPN—even if this year’s Big Ten championship didn’t quite hit the record-breaking viewership of 2024’s, fueled by fans of then–University of Iowa point guard Caitlin Clark.

    Here at Inside Higher Ed, though, we celebrate the start of March Madness a little differently from the 1.44 million people who tuned in earlier this month to this year’s Big Ten championship face-off between the University of Southern California and the University of California, Los Angeles. For every tournament since 2006, we’ve created a bracket of who would take home the trophy if the winners were selected based on academic, rather than athletic, achievement.

    If you’re new here (or you didn’t see the men’s bracket from yesterday), here’s how it works: Matchups are decided by which team had the higher academic progress rate—the NCAA’s own metric for measuring academic performance—based on the most recent data available, from 2022–23. The academic progress rate measures student athlete retention and academic eligibility, though some outside experts have criticized the metric for painting an incomplete picture of a team’s academic achievement.

    There are, inevitably, at least a handful of ties every year. In those cases, we used several different graduation metrics to select winners. First, we used the team’s 2023–24 graduation success rate, which shows whether athletes graduated within six years of entering an institution. If teams tied again, we then turned to the teams’ federal graduation rates, which are more inclusive than the NCAA’s metric. Finally, when teams were matched up on all three of those measures, we turned to the institution’s overall GSR across their athletics programs.

    It’s worth noting that federal graduation rate data is not available for Ivy League teams, so for GSR ties involving Ivies, we skipped right to the overall GSR metric. That caused some chaos in a bracket that ended up seeing a total of seven ties featuring Ivy League institutions.

    Another note on methodology: Although two of the First Four games were decided before publication, we used academic metrics to select the winners of those matchups as well.

    This tournament was intense. There were not two, not three, but four matchups in the second round in which both teams had perfect APRs of 1,000. Kudos to those teams!

    The championship matchup was between two Ivies, Harvard University and Columbia University, both of which had perfect APRs and GSRs and whose overall GSRs were perfectly matched at 99. We’ve never seen this before in Inside Higher Ed’s 19 years of academic March Madness, so, although not ideal, we had to resort to a (virtual) coin flip. Naturally, Harvard was heads, because both start with “H.”


    Women’s 2025 Academic Performance Bracket Fullscreen

    But, in the end, we got tails. Congratulations to the Columbia Lions—who have now won Inside Higher Ed’s academic tournament two years in a row!


    Source link

  • Results of Men’s March Madness Bracket Based on Academics

    Results of Men’s March Madness Bracket Based on Academics

    Michael Allio/Icon Sportswire/Getty Images

    No shame if you forgot National Collegiate Athletic Association’s Division I basketball championships were coming up—after all, this March has been filled with more than enough madness in higher ed, even without paying attention to basketball.

    Nonetheless, the biggest event in college sports kicks off this week. If you’ve been a little too concerned with the news cycle to fill out your bracket, we’re here to help. Every year since 2006, Inside Higher Ed has determined which teams would win in the men’s and women’s tournaments if the results were based on academic, rather than athletic, performance.

    To determine the winners, we used the NCAA’s key academic performance metric, known as the academic progress rate, for the 2022–23 academic year, the most recent data available. The academic progress rate measures student athlete retention and academic eligibility, though some outside experts have said the metric paints an imperfect picture of a program’s academic performance.

    (Full disclosure, we did use this metric to determine the winners of the First Four matchups, even though two of the four games will be determined before publication Wednesday morning.)

    If two colleges had the same APR, we used 2023–24 graduation success rate, the proportion of athletes who graduated within six years of entering an institution, as tiebreakers. If teams tied again, we turned to the team’s six-year federal graduation rates, which is a more inclusive metric.

    Luckily, none of the teams tied in all three categories. Still, there were a handful of nail-biting victories. For instance, the Clemson University Tigers tied the Liberty University Flames on both the academic progress and graduate success rates. But when looking at the overall graduation rate, Clemson won by one point. After besting the Flames in the Final Four, the Tigers beat out the University of Louisville to win the whole thing.


    Men's 2025 Academic Performance Bracket Fullscreen

    Now, the Inside Higher Ed bracket likely won’t win you any money. But there’s no bad time to celebrate the academic achievements of student athletes alongside their athletic prowess.

    Congrats, Clemson Tigers!


    Source link

  • Operations with Cloud Based Higher Education Management Solutions

    Operations with Cloud Based Higher Education Management Solutions

    Cloud based higher education management solution

    In the education industry, cloud-based technologies are driving a major revolution. Over 70% of colleges use cloud solutions to streamline operations and cut expenses as they balance budgets. Recent studies show that institutions that have adopted Cloud based higher education management solutions have seen an average reduction of 30% in reduce operational costs in higher educations, enabling them to reinvest in areas that enhance the student experience and drive academic success. 

    Keeping on budget while managing admissions, money, HR, and learning systems is no small task. Often caught handling costly, ineffective, error-prone fragmented systems are IT teams are assigned. Still, there is a smarter road forward. Higher education management solutions housed on clouds are meant to streamline your life. These tools are meant to combine all those disparate systems, automate tedious chores, and clear the mess of documentation. Consider it your default method for simplifying university processes.

    In this blog, we’ll dive deep into how cloud based higher education management solutions are optimizing university operations, enabling smarter decision-making, and unlocking efficiencies that were once unimaginable with legacy systems.

    Cloud based higher education management solutions: why?

    Cloud technology is improving campus operations, including:

    • Automating and removing paper workflows saves institutions up to 30%.
    • Efficiency: Real-time data and better cooperation boost productivity.
    • Scales smoothly: A rise in students? Program expansion? Your needs shape cloud systems.
    • Upgraded Security: Multi-factor authentication, encryption, and compliance safeguard data.

    Disjointed Systems Breakup

     

     

    Even the most efficient teams can be slowed by obsolete technologies and paper processes. To reduce redundancies and streamline operations, cloud solutions combine these systems into a single, easy platform. IT teams can focus on strategic innovations instead of segregated platform troubleshooting.

    Future-Ready Change

    Agility and resilience are essential for the future of higher education. Enabling seamless scalability, strengthening cybersecurity measures, and fostering innovation, cloud-based systems guarantee that your institution remains at the forefront. Not only do these solutions address current challenges, but they also establish your campus as a leader in adapting to the constantly changing educational landscape.

    Improving Efficiency with Creatrix Campus Cloud-Based Solutions

    Creative Campus provides a complete solution for your university. The automation of financial operations and real-time course registration are meant to simplify and improve your work.

    The platform’s easy design and customized modules let you solve campus issues. Because it’s cloud-based, Creatrix Campus integrates across departments, fosters collaboration, and supports growth without costly infrastructure updates.

    Source link

  • Going against the grain? Arts Based Research and the EdD: Resistance, activism and identity

    Going against the grain? Arts Based Research and the EdD: Resistance, activism and identity

    by Tim Clark and Tom Dobson

    There has been growing interest in the potential of arts-based research (ABR) methods to enrich educational inquiry (Everley, 2021). However, minimal attention has been given to how accessible or relevant ABR is for practice-based researchers (including lecturers and teachers), who undertake the professional doctorate in education (EdD) pathway. We believe that this lack of attention is significant, partly because institutional frameworks for doctoral programmes are often informed by traditional models of PhD research, which may constrain the creative possibilities of practice-based study (Vaughan, 2021), and partly due to the nature and ‘uniqueness’ of the EdD as a research degree (Dennis, Chandler & Punthil, 2023).

    We have previously argued that ABR potentially holds particular promise for EdD research due to its alignment with the programme’s highly relational and contextual nature and its engagement with diverse audiences. In our 2024 paper, which was part of a special issue of Teaching in Higher Education, we mapped the theoretical similarities in understandings of ABR and the EdD, exploring this alignment across aspects including practice, audience and reflexivity (Dobson & Clark, 2024). Our paper called for colleagues to ‘embrace hybridity’ and provide permission for creativity in EdD research and we attempted to illustrate this within the paper itself, entangling examples of creative nonfiction writing with a traditional scoping review to embody our theorisation. However, we also concluded with a realisation that maximising the potential of ABR requires careful attention to how design, practice and regulations support students’ identity development and agency (Savva & Nygaard, 2021).

    To build on this, throughout 2024 we have been working with a group of nine EdD students studying at our respective institutions, who are all exploring the potential of ABR for their work. These students span professional roles from early childhood through to higher education, and disciplines including the arts, business and science. Following initial narrative interviews with each student, we developed an online cross-institution action learning set (Revans, 1982) to facilitate dialogue and learning relating to some of the key problems and opportunities students were experiencing in relation to their engagement with ABR. As a group we met 6 times, each time agreeing an area of focus, and providing opportunities for individuals to present and group members to ask clarifying and open-ended coaching style questions. This process culminated in creative analysis, where we collaboratively analysed and reflected on the learning that had taken place, and each student presented a creative interpretation of their learning to the group. We are currently working with a group of these EdD students to co-author a paper which captures and illustrates this learning and shares these creative outputs.

    Alongside this, the second paper from our project (Clark & Dobson, forthcoming) explores some of the key learning arising from the initial interview phase – in particular the idea of ABR as a form of ‘resistance’ involving potentially either a deliberate, or more hesitant, decision to ‘go against the grain’. Using Glăveanu’s 5A’s theory (actors, actions, artifacts, audiences and affordances) to understand creativity as embedded in social relations, we developed the interview transcripts into vignettes for each student and identified three key strands of the students’ perceptions of their experiences – many of which continued to be key areas of focus as we worked through the action learning set process. The process highlighted the students’ understanding of how methodological expectations were reflected through key audiences and structures, how methodological choices aligned with their sense of self and identity and the role of ABR in promoting action and agency. The vignettes offered a nuanced illustration of the tensions in these areas, which we feel offers wider value due to the fact that, unlike any previous work we had identified in this area, the understandings related to students both with and without previous artist identities, backgrounds or experiences.

    The focus on audience and structures highlighted the numerous audiences which exist for students’ EdD research, often spanning academic, professional and community spaces and how these can create tensions in terms of expectations of what research ‘should’ look like. Some students talked of an ongoing battle to justify and ensure their ABR projects were taken seriously, whilst others positioned their decision to use ABR as an active decision to resist academic or managerial structures they perceived had been unhelpfully imposed on them. This also highlighted that whilst valuing creativity in research within the micro context of an EdD programme itself (through teaching and supervision) was significant and built confidence, students also needed support to consider how to frame their work in wider contexts, including through institutional processes (such as those for ethics approval) and professional and academic communities. One student, for example, highlighted feeling ‘junior’ and ‘a bit insecure’ about engaging in wider university processes designed for what they felt was understood as more ‘serious research’.

    In relation to identities and self, we explored a complex and nuanced understanding of students’ perceptions of the need for ongoing negotiation of the entanglement between professional, researcher, and in some cases, artist identities. Where students identified pre-existing artist identities, for some this created an obvious alignment with their research, but for others they identified tensions, including feeling ‘nervous’ about bringing this identity into their research and apprehensive of their relevance to an academic audience. Where students had no prior expertise or experience in the arts, they often expressed hesitance regarding using ABR, but strong feelings about its potential to align with aspects of their professional identity and values. For example, they appreciated ABR’s affordances in ensuring research was accessible to wider communities and supporting children’s voices to be heard.

    This also connected with the final strand, action and agency, where ABR was positioned by the students as having the potential to facilitate an emancipatory process in education, promote agency and in some cases play a role in research as a form of activism. This was often associated with ideas of social justice, with one student, for example, talking of ABR as providing agency for him to ‘push back against’ an education system that marginalises certain groups. Alongside this, another highlighted ABR as having stronger potential to be participatory and action based, maximising the benefits of the research process itself on her participants who were also her students.   

    As we continue our work on this project, the learning it has generated allows us to begin to reflect on its implications: implications that are both within individual EdD programs, where teaching and supervision have strong potential to offer spaces to explore, and reflect on, the potential value of ABR within EdD research, and at an institutional level, where regulations need to continue to respond to growing focus on the social and professional relevance of doctoral research and the range of models, and methodologies, they encompass. A key part of the action learning sets has also been their role in highlighting the value of facilitating methodological dialogue and creating a community of doctoral researchers exploring ABR. As one of the students reflected, this has helped with their sense of ‘validation’ for their work and provided a space to navigate some of the key tensions.

    Dr Timothy Clark is Director of Research and Enterprise for the School of Education at the University of the West of England, Bristol. His research focuses on aspects of doctoral pedagogy and researcher development, particularly in relation to academic writing and methodological decision making on the professional Doctorate in Education (EdD). https://www.linkedin.com/in/drtimothyclark/

    Dr Tom Dobson is Professor of Education at York St John University, where he leads the Professional Doctorate in Education (EdD) programme. His research explores creative writing in education as well as the use of arts-based research by EdD students. https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-dobson-84860388/

    Author: SRHE News Blog

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

    Source link