Tag: blueprint

  • Workforce Planning Meets AI: A Blueprint for Smarter Surveys – CUPA-HR

    Workforce Planning Meets AI: A Blueprint for Smarter Surveys – CUPA-HR

    by Christy Williams | May 21, 2025

    For HR professionals in higher education, workforce planning has evolved into a strategic discipline. Filling positions is no longer enough — leaders must anticipate talent needs, support professional growth and align development opportunities with institutional goals. A well-designed needs assessment gives HR teams the insight to take action with confidence and create lasting impact.

    In the CUPA-HR webinar, Survey Says! Using HR Data and AI to Maximize Analysis of Needs, presenters from Harvard University’s Center for Workplace Development shared how their team designed and executed a large-scale, data-informed, AI-supported needs assessment. The goal? To better understand learning needs and create targeted strategies for professional growth across a decentralized institution.

    Here are the key takeaways from their process.

    Start With a Strategic Why

    Before sending a single survey question, clarify what you’re hoping to learn — and why it matters.

    At Harvard, the team began their needs assessment with a clear objective to understand learning and development needs across various employee groups as part of a larger workforce strategy. This meant designing a survey aimed at uncovering more than surface-level training needs, asking instead: What do our employees really need to grow and thrive in their roles?

    Their advice to other HR teams is to anchor your assessment in your institution’s strategic goals and organizational context. Let that “why” guide your survey design from the start.

    Design a Survey That Reflects Your Workforce

    A successful needs assessment is tailored to the specific population it serves rather than one-size-fits-all.

    Harvard’s workforce includes individual contributors, supervisors and executives across many schools and units. Their team created targeted questions for each group and pre-populated some responses using data from their HRIS system to reduce survey fatigue and improve accuracy.

    Make sure your questions are relevant to different audience segments, and use the data you already have to streamline the experience for respondents.

    Boost Participation Through Targeted Communications

    Even the best survey won’t produce results without strong participation. Driving engagement was one of the biggest challenges for Harvard, as it is for many institutions. Their team addressed this by securing leadership support, crafting targeted communications and clearly communicating the value of the survey to employees.

    To boost response rates on your own campus, consider using champions across departments, timing your outreach thoughtfully and explaining how the data will be used to benefit staff.

    Use AI Thoughtfully to Analyze Large Data Sets

    If your survey includes open-ended responses, you’ll likely end up with more data than you can quickly process — especially if your institution is large. This is where AI can help.

    Harvard’s team used a combination of AI tools to analyze thousands of comments and identify themes. But they stressed that the human element remained critical. They invested time in crafting the right prompts, testing outputs and verifying results before presenting them to stakeholders.

    Their approach to AI offers an important lesson: AI can accelerate analysis and bring fresh insights, but it’s not a shortcut. You need to build a process that includes human judgment, data verification and transparency.

    Integrate HR Data for Deeper Insights

    One of the most impactful decisions the Harvard team made was linking survey responses to existing HR data. This allowed them to connect learning needs to specific job roles, departments and demographics — enabling more targeted follow-up and planning.

    By incorporating HRIS data, they were also able to personalize survey questions and reduce respondent burden. That integration enhanced both the quality of their data and their ability to act on it.

    If you’re planning a survey, consider how existing HRIS data can be used to sharpen your questions and deepen your analysis.

    Turn Results Into Action

    The final — and perhaps most critical — step is using what you’ve learned.

    At the time of the webinar, the Harvard team was in what they described as the “where are we now” stage and had begun implementing some of the recommendations from their survey analysis. They emphasized the importance of translating results into practical strategies that support learning and development, talent mobility and organizational effectiveness.

    To do the same on your campus, be sure to:

    • Share key findings transparently with stakeholders.
    • Identify priority areas for development or investment.
    • Use insights to shape programming, leadership development or change management strategies.

    Embrace Experimentation and Continuous Learning

    The Harvard team acknowledged that this process wasn’t perfect — and that was okay. They embraced experimentation, learned from trial and error, and remained open to improving their approach as they went.

    Their experience is a reminder that innovation in higher ed HR — especially when integrating AI — is a journey. Don’t be afraid to pilot new tools and adjust your process.

    Watch the Webinar Recording

    Interested in learning more about Harvard’s process? The full webinar recording and slide deck are available here.

    More CUPA-HR Resources

    Harnessing the Power of Big Data for Sound HR Decision Making — This article examines using workforce data to make good business decisions with confidence.

    Data Visualization and Storytelling Tips and Tools for HR — This on-demand CUPA-HR webinar covers practical tips and tools you can use to share compelling data stories and data visualizations.

    AI in Higher Education HR Toolkit — Best practices and tools for using AI technologies thoughtfully and safely.



    Source link

  • A Blueprint for College Students’ Sense of Belonging

    A Blueprint for College Students’ Sense of Belonging

    A Dr. Terrell L. Strayhornfew years ago, Liu (2023) published, “Everyone is Talking about ‘Belonging’” in The Chronicle of Higher Education. Her opening lines were perennial: “It’s everywhere. College t-shirts, notepads, and posters proclaim, “You Belong!” That was true then and it still rings true today. Indeed, belonging is proudly displayed on a larger-than-life sign at Kent State’s library. It’s part of wayfinding signage at University of Washington and LeMoyne-Owen College. It’s a button at William & Mary. A landing page for student-facing websites at University of Michigan and Amherst College, just to name a few. It’s a cabinet-level position at Belmont University, Harvard University, and University of Massachusetts Boston. 

    There can be no question that this reflects a growing infrastructure to support belonging for all faculty, staff, and students in higher education. Despite these shifts and scaling of efforts, “no one has perfected a blueprint for belonging,” Liu concluded. That’s likely because though everyone is talking about it, few seem to know what to do about it. This is the topic we took to task in “Fostering Healthier Campuses: Applying Sense of Belonging Theory to Student Affairs Research and Practice” at the recent annual meeting of NASPA–Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education. 

    2025 NASPA CONFERENCE

    NASPA brought together over 6,600 student affairs professionals from across the country to New Orleans, Louisiana for connection, reflection, and renewal, three anchors of this year’s theme. Being in “The Big Easy” is significant according to NASPA President and long-time student success champion, Dr. Amelia Parnell, who shared on LinkedIn: “I’ll tell anyone that student affairs professionals are some of the most thoughtful people in higher education and our time together in New Orleans confirmed it for me again.” The 5-day annual meeting consisted of keynote speakers, sponsored receptions, and dozens of educational sessions and programs. Interestingly, dozens of conference sessions, like ours, had “belonging” somewhere in the title, according to NASPA’s mobile app.  

    Likely a testament to the urgency of the moment and relevance of the message, our 50-minute session was standing-room only. Typical of what happens when we join forces, fueled by our commitment to a shared mission, we stood on business and spoke to everyone’s mind straight from the heart in ways that would renew many souls. At one point, Terrell exclaimed, “Belonging’s a feeling so it can’t be fabricated, faked, or funked. It must be built…but building it can’t break us!” Builders need blueprints and we offered one using belonging theory as a guide, detailing how to move from having good intentions to making systemic change, from talking about belonging to creating conditions for it where all students, faculty, and staff truly feel it, just the way they are.

    Figure 1 is a visual representation of points shared in the session. 

    Figure 1. Sense of belonging model as a blueprint

    BELONGING 1.0

    Dozens of studies agree that sense of belonging is defined as “a basic…need [and human right], a fundamental motivation, sufficient to drive behaviors and perceptions. Its satisfaction leads to positive gains such as happiness, elation, wellbeing, achievement, and optimal functioning” (Strayhorn, 2019, p. 9). Belonging has seven core elements, one of which is it must be renewed continuously as conditions and circumstances change. For example, students may face new challenges that impact their sense of belonging at every stage of their academic journey. New challenges may require different supports that change semester to semester or year to year. Early on, students may need help navigating the physical terrain of campus, but, as seniors, they may desire coaching for career success. Any blueprint for belonging must consider these factors as part of the masterplan in design.

    J'Quen JohnsonJ’Quen JohnsonRECOMMENDATIONS: BELONGING 2.0 & BEYOND

    During Q&A, a chorus of voices confirmed that many campus professionals are convinced about the importance of belonging and what it can do for students, even some faculty and staff. But what’s much less clear is how to facilitate, engender, or boost belonging for all students, using theory as a blueprint. To this, we etched a few recommendations for “promising practices” on the canvas of gathered minds. Here are three evidence-backed ideas that hold promise for boosting students’ belonging on college campuses:

    Meeting Basic Needs. One building block for belonging is satisfying students’ basic needs: air, water, food, shelter, sleep, and personal enjoyment. When campuses take proactive steps to ensure that students have access to what they need, they open up possibilities for them to become who they are or aspire to be in terms of learning and development. Rutgers’ new, state-of-art Basic Needs Center is a prime example, offering extended operating hours, a mobile pantry, textbook loans, and life skills courses, just to name a few.

    Designing Culturally Relevant Programs. Another building block for belonging is tied to how students’ identities shape their experiences on- and off-campus. College women are more prone to feeling unsafe and recent reports show rising rates of trans violence, especially in light of anti-LGBTQ+ laws. Feeling unsafe and unwanted off campus heightens students’ need for belonging on campus. Hosting trans awareness events, safe zone training, “Take Back the Night,” and “Walk a Mile in Her Shoes,” for instance, are effective strategies for creating inclusive campus climates. University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Educational Justice and Community Engagement hosts events like Women’s Community Love and Leadership Dinner, LGBTQ+ Career Conference, and Feminist Film Fridays.

    Creating Positive Connections. A third building block for belonging is drawn from the middle of the blueprint–underscoring the importance of care, connectedness, and community. Community on campus flows from frequent, positive interactions with others, namely peers, faculty, and staff like advisors, coaches, and mentors. Architects of belonging pay attention to the quantity of students’ interactions with campus personnel, finding ways to nudge more frequent connections with academic advisors through micromessaging campaigns or faculty through first-year experience (FYE), undergraduate research, or “Take Your Professor to Lunch” initiatives. Alongside quantity, belonging builders assess the quality of such interactions to assure they’re warm, welcoming, and supportive.

    CONCLUSION

    If nothing else, we hope this provides higher education professionals a blueprint for boosting belonging on college campuses. It’s a blueprint, not the blueprint as what works best for Institution A may reap little for Institution B, and vice versa. Remember, belonging is a feeling. Just like bricks, feelings can be mixed and hardened over time. Changing people’s feelings is hard work, but that’s no excuse for retreat. Hard work is good work, and we must do good work. Anything less would be unbecoming and yes…unbelonging.

    Dr. Terrell L. Strayhorn is Professor of Education and Psychology at Virginia Union University, where he also serves as Director of Research in the Center for the Study of HBCUs.

    J’Quen Johnson is a research associate and consultant at Do Good Work Consulting Group and a Ph.D. candidate at University of the Cumberlands.

    Source link

  • Demands of Harvard Are Blueprint for Repression (opinion)

    Demands of Harvard Are Blueprint for Repression (opinion)

    Harvard University’s courageous refusal to obey the demands of the Trump administration—and its subsequent filing of a lawsuit this week seeking restoration of its federal funding—has inspired praise across academia. But there has been less attention to just how terrible those demands were. No government entity in the United States has ever proposed such repressive measures against a college. By making outrageous demands a condition of federal funding—and freezing $2.2 billion in funds because Harvard refused to obey—the Trump administration is setting a precedent for threatening the same authoritarian measures against every college in America.

    The April 11 letter to Harvard from Trump administration officials proposed a staggering level of control over a private college. Although at least one of the authors reported that the letter was sent in error while negotiations were still ongoing, this mistake didn’t stop the Trump administration from punishing Harvard for refusing to accept its dictates.

    After Harvard rejected the demands, Trump himself posted further threats to Harvard’s tax-exempt status on social media, even though federal law bars presidents from directly or indirectly requesting Internal Revenue Service investigations against specific targets: “Perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness?’” Of course, if Harvard obeyed the Trump regime’s orders to silence political speech, it would be pushing a right-wing ideological agenda.

    Among the stipulations in the April 11 letter, the Trump administration demanded the power to compel hiring based on political views to, in effect, give almost complete preference to political conservatives: “Every department or field found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by hiring a critical mass of new faculty within that department or field who will provide viewpoint diversity; every teaching unit found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by admitting a critical mass of students who will provide viewpoint diversity.” Since most people who enter academia are liberal, as are most current academics, this demand for ideological balance would effectively ban the hiring of liberal professors in virtually all departments for many years.

    Decisions on how to measure the presence or lack of viewpoint diversity would be made by “an external party” hired by Harvard with the approval of the federal government (meaning Trump). Government-imposed discrimination based on viewpoint would also apply to students, since the letter requires the “external party … to audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity, such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be individually viewpoint diverse.” If every department “must be individually viewpoint diverse,” then students with underrepresented viewpoints (Nazis, perhaps?) must receive special preferences in admissions. This concept that every department’s students, faculty and staff must match the distribution of viewpoints of the general population is both repressive and crazy to imagine.

    The Trump administration letter also ordered Harvard to commission a Trump-approved consultant to report on “individual faculty members” who “incited students to violate Harvard’s rules following October 7”—and asserted that Harvard must “cooperate” with the federal government to “determine appropriate sanctions” for these professors. Retroactively punishing professors who violated no rules for allegedly encouraging student protesters is an extraordinary abuse of government power.

    Not to stop there, the Trump administration letter seeks to suppress the right to protest: “Discipline at Harvard must include immediate intervention and stoppage of disruptions … including by the Harvard police when necessary to stop a disruption.” Since the Trump administration seems to regard every protest as a “disruption” (and Harvard itself has wrongly banned silent protests), this could require immediate police intervention to stop a broad range of actions.

    The Trump administration also demanded unprecedented control over Harvard’s disciplinary system to order punishments of student protesters without due process. Among other specific steps, the Trump administration ordered Harvard to ban five specific student groups, including Students for Justice in Palestine and the National Lawyers Guild, and “discipline” all “active members of those student organizations,” including by banning them from serving as officers in any other student groups. And Harvard would be compelled to implement government-imposed punishments by “permanently expelling the students involved in the October 18 assault of an Israeli Harvard Business School student and suspending students involved in occupying university buildings.”

    Shared governance is another target of Trump and his minions. The Trump administration’s demands for Harvard included “reducing the power held by students and untenured faculty” and “reducing the power held by faculty (whether tenured or untenured) and administrators more committed to activism than scholarship.” It’s bizarre to imagine that a university could be forced by the government to determine whether a professor is committed to “activism” before banning them from any position of power such as a department chair or committee member. The letter also demands “removing or reforming institutional bodies and practices that delay and obstruct enforcement [of campus rules governing protests], including the relevant Administrative Boards and FAS Faculty Council.”

    Not surprisingly, the Trump administration’s letter also demands a complete ban on diversity programs: “The University must immediately shutter all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, offices, committees, positions, and initiatives, under whatever name.” This repression not only interferes with the ability of universities to run their own operations, but it is also designed to suppress speech on a massive scale by banning all programs anywhere in the university that address issues of diversity and equity, with no exceptions for academic programs.

    There’s more. Harvard would be forced to share “all hiring and related data” to permit endless ideological “audits.” A requirement that “all existing and prospective faculty shall be reviewed for plagiarism” could be used to purge controversial faculty. Perhaps the most ironic part of the letter to Harvard is its command for ideological control over foreign students: “the University must reform its recruitment, screening, and admissions of international students to prevent admitting students hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence.” Trump’s regime is undermining the Constitution and shredding the Bill of Rights, while demanding that foreign students prove their devotion to the very documents that the Trump administration is destroying.

    The Trump administration’s letter to Harvard should shock and appall even those conservatives who previously expressed some sympathy with the desire to punish elite universities by any means necessary. This is fascism, pure and simple. It portends an effort to assert total government control over all public and private universities to compel them to obey orders about their hiring, admissions, discipline and other policies. It is an attempt to control virtually every aspect of colleges to suppress free expression, ban protests and impose a far-right agenda.

    It’s tempting to hope that the Trump administration merely wanted to target Harvard alone and freeze its funding by proposing a long series of absurdly evil demands, knowing that no college could possibly agree to obey.

    But the reality is that the letter to Harvard is a fascist blueprint for total control of all colleges in America, public and private. The demand for authoritarian control by the Trump administration is an assault on higher education and free speech in general. If Trump officials can impose repression on any college they target, then private corporations (as the assaults on private law firms have indicated) and state and local governments will soon follow.

    The government repression that began with Columbia University will not end with Harvard or the Ivy League institutions. These are the first volleys in a war against academic freedom, with the clear aim of suppressing free expression on campus or destroying colleges in the battle.

    Source link

  • 6 steps to a future-focused blueprint: Supporting students in making career decisions

    6 steps to a future-focused blueprint: Supporting students in making career decisions

    The OECD’s (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) study on teenage career uncertainty underscores a growing concern: 40% of 15-year-olds lack clear career plans, a figure that has risen by over 50% since 2018. This uncertainty is linked to poorer employment outcomes in adulthood, particularly for students with lower academic performance. The study emphasizes career development programs can significantly reduce this uncertainty by helping students explore interests and align education with potential career paths. However, data from PISA 2022 shows that too few students participate in such initiatives, suggesting a need for broader access and promotion of these programs. 

    The issue that frequently comes to the forefront is the potential disconnect between and among CTE programs, counseling, and academic standards-based classrooms. In conversations, all appear to believe in the interconnectedness of these three areas, yet they are often separate and distinct for a variety of reasons. Helping students prepare for their lives after school and for potential careers needs to be an integral part of all school’s educational vision. This is often demonstrated in graphics and words through a school’s mission, vision, and Portrait of a Graduate. 

    How can educators bring CTE, counseling, and standards-based classrooms together? Let’s look at six strategies through the lens of a curricular-focused learning environment: 

    Facilitating Career Exploration, Awareness, & Application 

    Counselors play a vital role in the success of all students, helping students identify their strengths, interests, and values through a variety of tools including interest assessments and career inventories. They provide one-on-one or group sessions to help students explore specific careers tied to their interests. These activities can guide students toward careers featured in classrooms, courses, and programs. 

    Interdisciplinary Career Units 

    Career exploration and application opportunities can be easily woven into all subjects. What students are learning in the classroom and the passions they are discovering can be connected to potential careers they may want to consider. For example, math classes could include performance tasks around topics such as financial literacy or architecture, requiring teamwork and communication to solve problems. Language Arts related careers could include a grant writer, social media marketer, public relations specialist, or a journalist with projects and lessons easily connected with essential content related to reading, writing, speaking, and listening. 

    Partnerships between CTE programs and general education teachers can help align these activities with broader learning goals and within and across career clusters and pathways. 

    Project-Based Learning (PBL) 

    Incorporating an instructional strategy such as PBL is something that is common for CTE teachers. Using this pedagogy and incorporating future-ready skills can involve students working on complex, real-world problems over an extended period, requiring them to think critically, collaborate, and communicate effectively. Defined utilizes career-themed projects that can be integrated across subjects, such as developing a marketing plan in business classes or designing solutions for community issues in science. These experiences make skills relevant to future careers while aligning with academic standards. 

    Embedded Communication Training 

    Incorporating oral presentations, team discussions, research, and report writing into assignments across all subjects ensures consistent practice. Weaving active communication strategies into learning activities helps students practice collaboration and interpersonal skills. Projects that require students to do presentations and/or build communication documents that are informative or persuasive promote formative and summative assessments of communication skills. 

    Assessment & Reflection 

    Self-reflections and teacher feedback through the lens of reflecting on the real-world connected processes and content applications to careers through their learning can be powerful “a-ha” moments for students. The use of rubrics for evaluating skills such as problem-solving can help teachers guide students as they practice skills throughout their learning experience. Evidence of practice and growth over time can also be part of an evidenced-based portfolio for the student. Bringing these ideas together can help students understand the interconnectedness between careers, content, skills, and projects. 

    Collaboration with Employers & Community Partners 

    Schools can establish partnerships with local businesses to provide interactive career days, mentorship programs, and soft skills training. Exposing students to the workplace through job shadowing, internships, or part-time work enables them to understand real-world career dynamics. When possible, incorporating on-site visits through field trips can help introduce students to different work environments and let them see first-hand the connections between school-based learning and future opportunities. 

    Bringing professionals into classrooms for workshops or mentorship allows students to practice skills in real-world contexts. Additionally, business and industry experts can work collaboratively with a curriculum team to create performance tasks, projects, and virtual internships to help students bridge the world of work, academic standards, and skill development and practice. 

    To learn more about how you can support and engage your students in career-connected deeper learning, please click here. 

    Source link