Tag: Development

  • From detection to development: how universities are ethically embedding AI-for-learning

    From detection to development: how universities are ethically embedding AI-for-learning

    Author:
    Mike Larsen

    Published:

    • HEPI Director Nick Hillman’s verdict on the Budget can be found on the Times Higher website here.
    • Today’s blog was kindly authored by Mike Larsen, Chief Executive Officer at Studiosity, a HEPI Partner.

    The future of UK higher education rests upon the assurance of student learning outcomes. While GenAI presents the sector with immense opportunities for advancement and efficiency, the sector is constrained by an anachronistic model of plagiarism detection rooted in adversarialism. I believe the ‘Police and Punish’ model must now be replaced by ‘Support and Validate’.

    A reliance upon detection was perhaps once a necessary evil but it has never aligned with the fundamental values of higher education. The assumption that policing student behaviour is the only way to safeguard standards no longer applies.

    Such a punitive policy model has become increasingly untenable, consuming valuable university resources in unviable investigations and distracting from universities’ core mission. I believe there is a compelling alternative.

    As assessment methods undergo necessary change, higher education institutions must consciously evaluate the risks inherent in abandoning proven means of developing durable critical thinking and communication skills, such as academic writing. New learning and assessment methodologies are required but must be embraced via evidence and concurrently protect the core promise of higher education.

    An emerging policy framework for consideration and research is ‘support and validate’ which pairs timely, evidence-based academic support with student self-validation of authorship and learning.

    Building capability, confidence and competence provides the ideal preparation for graduates to embrace current and future technology in both the workplace and society.

    The combination of established and immediate academic writing feedback systems with advanced authorship and learning validation capabilities creates a robust and multi-layered solution capable of ensuring quality at scale.

    This is an approach built upon detecting learning, not cheating. Higher education leaders may recognise this integrated approach empowers learners and unburdens educators, without compromising quality. It ensures the capabilities uniquely developed by higher education, now needed more than ever, are extended and amplified rather than replaced by techno-solutionism.

    We must build a future where assessment security explicitly prioritises learning, not policing. For UK higher education, a pivot from punishment to capability-building and validation may be the only sustainable way to safeguard the value of the degree qualification.

    Studiosity’s AI-for-Learning platform scales student success at hundreds of universities across five continents, with research-backed evidence of impact. Studiosity has recently acquired Norvalid, a world leader in tech-enabled student self-validation of authorship and authentic learning, shifting how higher education approaches assessment security and learning.

     

    Source link

  • Measuring What Matters: A Faculty Development System That Improves Teaching Quality – Faculty Focus

    Measuring What Matters: A Faculty Development System That Improves Teaching Quality – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Measuring What Matters: A Faculty Development System That Improves Teaching Quality – Faculty Focus

    Measuring What Matters: A Faculty Development System That Improves Teaching Quality – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Director of Online Program Development at UVA

    Director of Online Program Development at UVA

    The origins of “Featured Gigs” trace back to the first post in the series with Kemi Jona, vice provost for online education and digital innovation at UVA. While I had the idea for the series, it was Kemi who ultimately came up with most of the language for the four questions we use to explore opportunities at the intersection of learning, technology and organizational change. Today, Kemi answers questions about the role of director of online program development.

    Q: What is the university’s mandate behind this role? How does it help align with and advance the university’s strategic priorities?

    A: The 2030 Plan calls on the university to expand the reach of its educational programs—both in person and online—and to make UVA more accessible, including to learners across and beyond the Commonwealth. The University of Virginia’s Office of the Vice Provost for Online Education and Digital Innovation is a key part of advancing this charge on behalf of the university, helping our schools and institutes design, deliver and scale high-quality online and hybrid programs that extend UVA’s reach and impact.

    The director of online program development plays a central role in advancing UVA’s online education goals. The role is ideal for someone who thrives at the intersection of strategy, innovation and execution. The director will not only guide program development but also help UVA build the internal capacity and frameworks needed to sustain this growth long-term. This is a high-impact, high-visibility position that will help shape the next chapter of online and hybrid learning at UVA and potentially serve as a model for the sector.

    Q: Where does the role sit within the university structure? How will the person in this role engage with other units and leaders across campus?

    A: This role sits within the provost’s office and reports directly to the vice provost for online education and digital innovation. The director will guide UVA schools and institutes through the planning, launch and evaluation of new online and hybrid programs, serving as a trusted partner to deans, associate deans, program directors and faculty.

    This individual will bring structure and strategy to UVA’s online growth, helping schools scope opportunities, assess market demand, support business case development and build the readiness needed for sustained success. The role requires exceptional communication, diplomacy and systems-level thinking to align multiple stakeholders around a shared vision.

    Q: What would success look like in one year? Three years? Beyond?

    A: In service of the vision articulated in the 2030 Plan and aligned to the strategic goals of our partner schools and institutes, UVA is undertaking ambitious growth in its online and hybrid portfolio. In the first year, success means ensuring active projects move from planning to launch with clarity and momentum, establishing shared frameworks, timelines and accountability across partners.

    Within three years, success will be measured not only in the number of successful program launches but also in the maturity of UVA’s internal systems, talent and decision-making processes that enable continued agility and innovation.

    Longer term, the director will help institutionalize a robust, repeatable, data-informed model for program development so UVA’s schools can innovate faster and with greater confidence, while ensuring that all programs uphold UVA’s reputation for academic excellence.

    Q: What kinds of future roles would someone who took this position be prepared for?

    A: Because this individual will be deeply engaged in all aspects of online program design, development and launch, he or she will gain substantial experience working with deans, faculty and other senior leaders. This experience would help set up future leadership roles in online education and digital innovation or in the private sector.

    This role offers a rare opportunity to operate at the heart of institutional transformation—building systems and partnerships that inform how UVA advances its mission as we begin our third century as a leading public institution. The experience will prepare the director for senior university leadership roles in strategy, academic innovation or digital transformation. It will equip them with the cross-sector perspective and executive acumen valued by both higher education and mission-driven organizations beyond academia.

    Please get in touch if you are conducting a job search at the intersection of learning, technology, and organizational change. If your gig is a good fit, featuring your gig on Featured Gigs is free.

    Source link

  • Rethinking Leadership Development in Higher Ed (opinion)

    Rethinking Leadership Development in Higher Ed (opinion)

    Higher education is in the midst of a crisis of confidence that has long been building. In this time of volatility, complexity and uncertainty, the steady hand of leaders matters more than ever. Yet academia does—at best—a very uneven job of preparing academic leaders for steady-state leadership, much less for times when the paradigm is shifting. This moment is creating an opportunity to reconsider how we prepare leaders for what will come next.

    Why Is Leadership So Uneven in Higher Ed?

    A primary reason lies in how we select and develop leaders. In academia, searches for department chair, dean and provost often emphasize top-level scholarly and research credentials and only secondarily consider an individual’s experience, perspective and ability to influence and motivate others to support shared missions. Academics in general do not respond well to directives: They expect to be persuaded, not commanded. Additionally, it is often only after being hired that those in formal positions of authority are provided with leadership-development opportunities to help foster those interpersonal skills—too late for foundational growth.

    These approaches to recruiting formal leaders are rooted in flawed assumptions about how leadership works. True leadership is not about commanding compliance but about shaping unit culture through influence. Many leaders fail by not understanding the difference. An effective leader is a person of strong character who can build trusting relationships with others; these skills take time to develop and usually take root even before a person assumes a leadership role.

    Another important reason that leadership in higher ed is uneven arises from conceptualizing leadership as a “heroic” individual endeavor. The same skills that help a formal leader to be successful—such as understanding the alignment of their actions with the unit’s mission; strong communication skills, including listening; the ability to navigate conflict, negotiation and conflict resolution; and formulating and articulating clear collective goals— are equally crucial for others to exercise to be fully engaged participants.

    Leaders with formal roles and titles play a crucial role in promoting a productive and collegial culture. At the same time, they do not do so alone: It is equally important that participants who are not in formal administrative roles are also seen (and see themselves) as central in shaping these environments, and that they are aware of how their own actions and interpersonal dynamics contribute to their working and learning experiences.

    In short, leadership responsibility is not limited to administrators. There are layers of formal leadership roles embedded inside departments and schools, visible whenever faculty members and staff take on responsibilities for shared governance and advisory roles; lead team research or manage grant portfolios; and select (hire), supervise, evaluate and mentor colleagues and other early-career individuals. These faculty and staff are leaders, too, whether or not they see, accept or internalize those roles.

    When leadership is viewed simply as an individual attribute rather than a process that emerges from the relationships among people in teams, organizations miss the opportunity to develop cultures of excellence that support integrity, trust and collaboration at all levels. Thus, we argue that leadership ought to be understood as an ongoing process of character development and a responsibility shared by all members of an organization—not something that can be addressed in a one-off workshop, but as an integral dimension of the work.

    The Foundations of Leadership: Influence Before Authority

    Rather than framing leadership as something only people with formal authority do, a more productive model is to view leadership as influence. By influence we mean modeling the behaviors we seek to share and promote in our groups so that we can better shape the way we solve problems collectively. Leadership is not in essence a position; it is contributing to an ongoing process of shaping culture, norms and behavior within a unit.

    Social psychology shows that we influence each other constantly. The more time we spend with people, the more we become like them and vice versa. This means that bad habits can spread as easily as good ones. When everyone is given an opportunity to develop good habits, they are more likely to spread throughout the community. Our character affects how we influence others. We are much more likely to be influenced by a person who demonstrates integrity and curiosity than we are by someone who is demanding and unwilling to listen.

    Here are some areas of practice for developing better influence:

    • Self-awareness and self-management: Focusing on oneself first helps individuals identify their strengths and areas for growth, while encouraging them to recognize and respect their roles and responsibilities in the current situation. Understanding oneself, one’s values, habits and motivations, is foundational to recognizing how we affect and are affected by those around us.
    • Conflict resolution: Healthy debate is foundational to innovation and growth. Developing strong conflict-resolution skills contributes to increased perspective-taking, depersonalizing disagreement and yielding more effective discussion and problem solving.
    • Decision-making: Understanding how we make decisions, and more importantly how heuristics influence and bias our decision-making, can help people slow down to make more ethical and effective decisions.

    Opportunities for influence are available to everyone, not just those in formal leadership roles. Early-career faculty, staff and students can cultivate influence by setting examples for collaboration, through ethical behavior and by contributing to collective problem-solving. Leadership is not centrally about having authority over others; it is about shaping an environment in which ethical decision-making, respect and shared purpose flourish.

    Reimagining Leader Development in Higher Ed

    Now more than ever, individuals need support in managing their careers with integrity and purpose—aligning their personal values and goals with those of their institutions. Leadership development should not be viewed as a costly add-on. In fact, it can be integrated into the everyday fabric of academic life through accessible and scalable methods, including:

    • Peer-learning cohorts that provide space for discussion and reflection on leadership challenges.
    • Guided personal reflections on workplace dynamics, communication and decision-making.
    • Structured mentoring programs that cultivate leadership skills through real-world interactions.
    • Deliberative conversations around such themes as research ethics, authorship and collaboration to build trust and integrity within teams.
    • Conflict-resolution training embedded in routine professional development activities.

    Our experience at the National Center for Principled Leadership and Research Ethics shows that even modest efforts—like those above—can spark essential conversations between mentors and mentees, improve communication, and positively influence both unit climate and individual well-being. To support this work, we offer a free Leadership Collection—an online collection of tools, readings and practical exercises for anyone seeking to lead more effectively, regardless of their title or career stage.

    When leadership development is embraced as a core part of academic life—not just a formal program or a luxury for a few—it can become a catalyst for healthier, more purpose-driven institutions.

    Conclusion: Leadership Development as a Cultural Foundation

    Reserving leadership-development programming only for when people reach formal leadership roles is a missed opportunity to develop broader and more inclusive working cultures. Such cultures emerge from the relationships among the members of a group. Building better relationships starts with personal growth, self-awareness and emotional intelligence for each member. Taking responsibility for one’s own professional growth and for one’s influence on others is also an important kind of leadership.

    True leadership, therefore, is not about directing others but about fostering environments in which good habits, strong ethics and meaningful engagement flourish. If universities want to build sustainable cultures of excellence, in which leadership is no longer an individual endeavor but a shared commitment to collaboration, they should start embedding it in professional development and routine practice for all. As uncertainty prevails, budgets are cut and people are navigating deep change, now is the moment to reconsider how we shape leaders in higher education.

    Elizabeth A. Luckman is a clinical associate professor of business administration with an emphasis in organizational behavior and director of leadership programs at the National Center for Principled Leadership and Research Ethics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

    C. K. Gunsalus is the director of NCPRE, professor emerita of business and research professor at the Grainger College of Engineering’s Coordinated Sciences Laboratory at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

    Nicholas C. Burbules is the education director of NCPRE and Gutgsell Professor Emeritus in the Department of Education Policy, Organization and Leadership at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

    Source link

  • Framework for GenAI in Graduate Career Development (opinion)

    Framework for GenAI in Graduate Career Development (opinion)

    In Plato’s Phaedrus, King Thamus feared writing would make people forgetful and create the appearance of wisdom without true understanding. His concern was not merely about a new tool, but about a technology that would fundamentally transform how humans think, remember and communicate. Today, we face similar anxieties about generative AI. Like writing before it, generative AI is not just a tool but a transformative technology reshaping how we think, write and work.

    This transformation is particularly consequential in graduate education, where students develop professional competencies while managing competing demands, research deadlines, teaching responsibilities, caregiving obligations and often financial pressures. Generative AI’s appeal is clear; it promises to accelerate tasks that compete for limited time and cognitive resources. Graduate students report using ChatGPT and similar tools for professional development tasks, such as drafting cover letters, preparing for interviews and exploring career options, often without institutional guidance on effective and ethical use.

    Most AI policies focus on coursework and academic integrity; professional development contexts remain largely unaddressed. Faculty and career advisers need practical strategies for guiding students to use generative AI critically and effectively. This article proposes a four-stage framework—explore, build, connect, refine—for guiding students’ generative AI use in professional development.

    Professional Development in the AI Era

    Over the past decade, graduate education has invested significantly in career readiness through dedicated offices, individual development plans and co-curricular programming—for example, the Council of Graduate Schools’ PhD Career Pathways initiative involved 75 U.S. doctoral institutions building data-informed professional development, and the Graduate Career Consortium, representing graduate-focused career staff, grew from roughly 220 members in 2014 to 500-plus members across about 220 institutions by 2022.

    These investments reflect recognition that Ph.D. and master’s students pursue diverse career paths, with fewer than half of STEM Ph.D.s entering tenure-track positions immediately after graduation; the figure for humanities and social sciences also remains below 50 percent over all.

    We now face a different challenge: integrating a technology that touches every part of the knowledge economy. Generative AI adoption among graduate students has been swift and largely unsupervised: At Ohio State University, 48 percent of graduate students reported using ChatGPT in spring 2024. At the University of Maryland, 77 percent of students report using generative AI, and 35 percent use it routinely for academic work, with graduate students more likely than undergraduates to be routine users; among routine student users, 38 percent said they did so without instructor guidance.

    Some subskills, like mechanical formatting, will matter less in this landscape; higher-order capacities—framing problems, tailoring messages to audiences, exercising ethical discernment—will matter more. For example, in a 2025 National Association of Colleges and Employers survey, employers rank communication and critical thinking among the most important competencies for new hires, and in a 2024 LinkedIn report, communication was the most in-demand skill.

    Without structured guidance, students face conflicting messages: Some faculty ban AI use entirely, while others assume so-called digital natives will figure it out independently. This leaves students navigating an ethical and practical minefield with high stakes for their careers. A framework offers consistency and clear principles across advising contexts.

    We propose a four-stage framework that mirrors how professionals actually learn: explore, build, connect, refine. This approach adapts design thinking principles, the iterative cycle of prototyping and testing, to AI-augmented professional development. Students rapidly generate options with AI support, test them in low-stakes environments and refine based on feedback. While we use writing and communication examples throughout for clarity, this framework applies broadly to professional development.

    Explore: Map Possibilities and Surface Gaps

    Exploring begins by mapping career paths, fellowship opportunities and professional norms, then identifying gaps in skills or expectations. A graduate student can ask a generative AI chatbot to infer competencies from their lab work or course projects, then compare those skills to current job postings in their target sector to identify skills they need to develop. They can generate a matrix of fellowship opportunities in their field, including eligibility requirements, deadlines and required materials, and then validate every detail on official websites. They can ask AI to describe communication norms in target sectors, comparing the tone and structure of academic versus industry cover letters—not to memorize a script, but to understand audience expectations they will need to meet.

    Students should not, however, rely on AI-generated job descriptions or program requirements without verification, as the technology may conflate roles, misrepresent qualifications or cite outdated information and sources.

    Build: Learn Through Iterative Practice

    Building turns insight into artifacts and habits. With generative AI as a sounding board, students can experiment with different résumé architectures for the same goal, testing chronological versus skills-based formats or tailoring a CV for academic versus industry positions. They can generate detailed outlines for an individual development plan, breaking down abstract goals into concrete, time-bound actions. They can devise practice tasks that address specific growth areas, such as mock interview questions for teaching-intensive positions or practice pitches tailored to different funding audiences. The point is not to paste in AI text; it is to lower the barriers of uncertainty and blank-page intimidation, making it easier to start building while keeping authorship and evidence squarely in the student’s hands.

    Connect: Communicate and Network With Purpose

    Connecting focuses on communicating with real people. Here, generative AI can lower the stakes for high-pressure interactions. By asking a chatbot to act the part of various audience members, students can rehearse multiple versions of a tailored 60-second elevator pitch, such as for a recruiter at a career fair, a cross-disciplinary faculty member at a poster session or a community partner exploring collaboration. Generative AI can also simulate informational interviews if students prompt the system to ask follow-up questions or even refine user inputs.

    In addition, students can leverage generative AI to draft initial outreach notes to potential mentors that the students then personalize and fact-check. They can explore networking strategies for conferences or professional association events, identifying whom to approach and what questions to ask based on publicly available information about attendees’ work.

    Even just five years ago, completing this nonexhaustive list of networking tasks might have seemed an impossibility for graduate students with already crammed agendas. Generative AI, however, affords graduate students the opportunity to become adept networkers without sacrificing much time from research and scholarship. Crucially, generative AI creates a low-risk space to practice, while it is the student who ultimately supplies credibility and authentic voice. Generative AI cannot build genuine relationships, but it can help students prepare for the human interactions where relationships form.

    Refine: Test, Adapt and Verify

    Refining is where judgment becomes visible. Before submitting a fellowship essay, for example, a student can ask the generative AI chatbot to simulate likely reviewer critiques based on published evaluation criteria, then use that feedback to align revisions to scoring rubrics. They can A/B test two AI-generated narrative approaches from the build stage with trusted readers, advisers or peers to determine which is more compelling. Before a campus talk, they can ask the chatbot to identify jargon, unclear transitions or slides with excessive text, then revise for audience accessibility.

    In each case, verification and ownership are nonnegotiable: Students must check references, deadlines and factual claims against primary sources and ensure the final product reflects their authentic voice rather than generic AI prose. A student who submits an AI-refined essay without verification may cite outdated program requirements, misrepresent their own experience or include plausible-sounding but fabricated details, undermining credibility with reviewers and jeopardizing their application.

    Cultivate Expert Caution, Not Technical Proficiency

    The goal is not to train students as prompt engineers but to help them exercise expert caution. This means teaching students to ask: Does this AI-generated text reflect my actual experience? Can I defend every claim in an interview? Does this output sound like me, or like generic professional-speak? Does this align with my values and the impression I want to create? If someone asked, “Tell me more about that,” could I elaborate with specific details?

    Students should view AI as a thought partner for the early stages of professional development work: the brainstorming, the first-draft scaffolding, the low-stakes rehearsal. It cannot replace human judgment, authentic relationships or deep expertise. A generative AI tool can help a student draft three versions of an elevator pitch, but only a trusted adviser can tell them which version sounds most genuine. It can list networking strategies, but only actual humans can become meaningful professional connections.

    Conclusion

    Each graduate student brings unique aptitudes, challenges and starting points. First-generation students navigating unfamiliar professional cultures may use generative AI to explore networking norms and decode unstated expectations. International students can practice U.S. interview conventions and professional correspondence styles. Part-time students with limited campus access can get preliminary feedback before precious advising appointments. Students managing disabilities or mental health challenges can use generative AI to reduce the cognitive load of initial drafting, preserving energy for higher-order revision and relationship-building.

    Used critically and transparently, generative AI can help students at all starting points explore, build, connect and refine their professional paths, alongside faculty advisers and career development professionals—never replacing them, but providing just-in-time feedback and broader access to coaching-style support.

    The question is no longer whether generative AI belongs in professional development. The real question is whether we will guide students to use it thoughtfully or leave them to navigate it alone. The explore-build-connect-refine framework offers one path forward: a structured approach that develops both professional competency and critical judgment. We choose guidance.

    Ioannis Vasileios Chremos is program manager for professional development at the University of Michigan Medical School Office of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies.

    William A. Repetto is a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of English and the research office at the University of Delaware.

    Source link

  • ACUE and ACE Deepen Alliance, Marking Nearly a Decade of Transforming Faculty Development and Advancing Excellence in Higher Education

    ACUE and ACE Deepen Alliance, Marking Nearly a Decade of Transforming Faculty Development and Advancing Excellence in Higher Education

    ACE and the Association of College and University Educators (ACUE) have reaffirmed our long-standing collaboration to continue driving transformative change in faculty development and elevate teaching excellence across higher education. For more information about the updates to this nearly decade-long alliance, click here.

    To learn more and register for an Oct. 29 webinar that will feature ACE President Ted Mitchell and ACUE Chairman and CEO Andrew Hermalyn, click here.

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

    Source link

  • Championing Equity in Workforce Development

    Championing Equity in Workforce Development

    Kioshana LaCount Burrell

     At 9:30 p.m., when most working mothers are winding down for the day, Kioshana LaCount Burrell is just getting started. After putting her three children to bed in their Columbus, Ohio home, the 38-year-old Ph.D. student settles into what she calls “The Quiet Hour Critiques” — her dedicated time for scholarship that has earned her recognition as a Rising Graduate Scholar.

    “I get up in the morning, get the kids ready for school, go to work all day, or go to class,” Burrell explains. “Then I come home, I do mom things until about 9 or 9:30, and then once the kids go to sleep, I’m able to focus on scholarship and my studies.”

    This demanding schedule reflects the determination that has defined Burrell’s journey from a small town in Northeast Alabama to the halls of The Ohio State University, where she’s pursuing a doctorate in workforce development with a focus that could reshape how America serves its most vulnerable populations.

    Growing up biracial in Gadsden, Alabama — located in a county of 30,000 people — Burrell witnessed inequality firsthand within her own family. As the oldest of four children with a white mother and Black father, she observed how her grandparents “came from similar backgrounds, but their socioeconomic outcomes were markedly different for what appeared to be no other reason than race.” 

    These early observations planted seeds that would later bloom into a career dedicated to dismantling systemic barriers. After completing her undergraduate degree at Alabama State University and earning her MBA at Faulkner University, Burrell entered the workforce development field in 2014, eventually landing in Columbus through federal contract work. 

    “I’ve been a career coach or doing career development stuff for about 15 years,” she says. But it was her experience working at the Gadsden Job Corps Center—her very first professional role—that crystallized her understanding of systemic inequity.

    Over her 15 years in workforce development, Burrell has traveled the country and encountered the same troubling pattern: programs inadequately modified for neurodivergent participants. This frustration led Burrell to pursue a Ph.D., recognizing that academic credentials would provide the platform and credibility needed to drive systemic change.

    “Some people listen to you a little bit differently when you can show that, no, actually, I am a subject matter expert in this,” she notes pragmatically.

    Her research focuses particularly on neurodivergent individuals of color — a population facing compounded challenges. 

    “We know that in all populations, Black kids and brown kids tend to get the short end of the stick. And when it is compounded by them also having an intellectual cognitive disability or just being different, the outcomes and the numbers are even worse,” she adds. 

    Dr. Donna Y. Ford, a renowned expert in gifted education and multicultural issues and a distinguished professor of education at The Ohio State University, has become a key mentor in Burrell’s academic journey. The two connected when Burrell took Ford’s anti-racist education course last spring. 

    “Kio is a very motivated and impressive student who is dedicated to having a positive impact on those she works with,” Ford observes. “Her commitment reminds me of my own—devoted to equity and justice for all, but especially individuals who have been marginalized.”

    Under Ford’s mentorship, Burrell is working on groundbreaking research that applies Ford’s Bloom-Banks matrix for multicultural education to special education contexts — an application that hasn’t been explored before. “I’m really excited to get to look at her work in a new and different way, and she’s been just super supportive,” Burrell says.

    Pursuing a Ph.D. while working full-time and raising three children requires careful orchestration. Burrell works for Ohio State University — a strategic choice that provides both tuition benefits and the health insurance her family needs. Living with Crohn’s disease adds another layer of complexity to her already demanding schedule.

    Despite starting her Ph.D. program just last year, Burrell is already making impressive progress. She’s on track to finish her coursework within the next year and has already written three chapters of her dissertation — a remarkable pace that speaks to both her dedication and the clarity of her vision.

    Burrell’s post-graduation plans reflect her commitment to institutional change rather than traditional academic paths alone. While she’d “love to be in a classroom” and “really flourish in an educational environment,” her sights are set on administrative roles that could reshape how higher education approaches workforce development. 

    “I really feel there’s a lot of opportunity for institutions of higher education to make a pivot towards a more intentional way of pursuing workforce development,” she explains. Whether as a director of workforce development programs or working within student disability services, her goal is to “figure out how to better incorporate individuals who have cognitive disabilities or intellectual disabilities into the mainstream classroom.”

    For others considering graduate school while juggling family and career responsibilities, Burrell’s advice is characteristically direct: “Just do the thing.”

    Her approach centers on backward planning from a clear vision. 

    “I want you to think about what kind of life you want five years from now, ten years from now,” she tells the students she coaches. “Figure out what it is that you want to do, and then once you have that clear thing in mind, it is easier to figure out the path to get there.” 

     

     

     

     

    Source link

  • From Detection to Development: How Universities Are Ethically Embedding AI for Learning 

    From Detection to Development: How Universities Are Ethically Embedding AI for Learning 

    This HEPI blog was authored by Isabelle Bristow, Managing Director UK and Europe at Studiosity, a HEPI Partner.  

    The Universities UK Annual Conference always serves as a vital barometer for the higher education sector, and this year, few topics were as prominent as the role of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI). A packed session, Ethical AI in Higher Education for improving learning outcomes: A policy and leadership discussion, provided a refreshing and pragmatic perspective, moving the conversation beyond academic integrity fears and towards genuine educational innovation. 

    Based on early findings from new independent research commissioned by Studiosity, the session’s panellists offered crucial insights and a clear path forward. 

    A new focus: from policing to pedagogy 

    For months, the discussion around Gen-AI has been dominated by concerns over academic misconduct and the development of detection tools. However, as HEPI Director Nick Hillman OBE highlighted, this new report takes a different tack. Its unique focus is on how AI can support active learning, rather than just how students are using it. 

    The findings, presented by independent researcher Rebecca Mace, show a direct correlation between the ethical use of AI for learning and improved student attainment and retention. Crucially, these positive effects were particularly noticeable among students often described as ‘non-traditional’. This reframes the conversation, positioning AI not as a threat to learning but as a powerful tool to enhance it, especially for those who need it most. 

    The analogy that works 

    The ferocious pace of AI’s introduction to the sector has undoubtedly caught many off guard. Professor Marc Griffiths, Pro-Vice Chancellor for Regional Partnerships, Engagement & Innovation at UWE Bristol, acknowledged this head-on, advocating for a dual approach of governance and ‘​​​​sand-boxing’ (the security practice of isolating and testing to make sure an application, system or platform is safe)  of new technologies. Instead of simply denying access, he argued, we must test new tools and develop clear guardrails for their use. 

    In a welcome departure from ​​​​​​​​the widely used but ultimately flawed calculator analogy (​​read more here Generative AI is not a ‘calculator for words’. 5 reasons why this idea is misleading), Professor Griffiths offered a more fitting one: the overhead projector. Like PowerPoint today, the projector was a new technology that was a conduit for content, but it never replaced the core act of teaching and learning itself. AI, he posited, is simply another conduit. It is what we put into it, and what we get out of it, that matters. 

    Evidenced insights and reframing the conversation 

    The panel also grappled with the core questions leaders must ask themselves. Stephanie Harris, Director of Policy at Universities UK posed two fundamental challenges: 

    • How can I safeguard my key product that I am offering to students? 
    • ​​​​​How can I prepare my students for the workforce if I don’t yet know how AI will be used in the future? 

    She stressed the importance of protecting the integrity of the educational experience to prevent an ‘erosion of trust’ between students and institutions. In response to the second question, both Steph and Marc emphasised the answer lies not in specific tech skills, but in timeless critical thinking skills that will prepare students not just for the next three years, but for the next 15. The conversation also touched upon the need for universities to consider students under 16 as the future pipeline, ensuring our policies and frameworks are future-proof. Steph mentioned further prompts for leaders to think about as listed in a UUK-authored, OfS blog Embracing innovation in high education: our approach to artificial intelligence – which was given a commonsense shorthand by Steph as ‘have fun, don’t be stupid!’.  

    The session drove home the importance of evidence-based insights. Dr David Pike, Head of Digital Learning at the University of Bedfordshire, shared key findings from his own research comparing student outcomes for Studiosity users versus those of non-Studiosity users, stating that the results were ‘very clear’ that students did improve at scale. He provided powerful data showing significant measurable academic progress, along with a large positive correlational impact on retention and progression. Dr. Pike concluded that, given this demonstrated positive impact, we should be calling the technology ‘Assisted Intelligence,’ because when used correctly, that is exactly what it is. 

    A guiding framework of values 

    To navigate this new landscape, Professor Griffiths laid out seven core values that must underpin institutional policy on AI: 

    1. Academic integrity: Supporting learning, not replacing it. 
    1. Equity of access: Addressing the real challenge of paywalls. 
    1. Transparency: Clearly communicating how students will be supported. 
    1. Ethical Responsibility 
    1. Empowerment and Capability Building 
    1. Resilience 
    1. Adaptability 

    These values offer a robust framework for leaders looking to create policies that are both consistent and fair, ensuring that AI use aligns with a university’s mission. 

    The policy challenge of digital inequality 

    The issue of equity of access was explored in greater detail by Nick Hillman, who connected the digital divide to the broader student funding landscape. He pointed out that no government had commissioned a proper review on the actual cost of being a student since 1958. With modern student life costing upwards of £20,000 annually if a student wants to involve themselves fully in student life. He made a powerful case for increased maintenance support to match an increased tuition fee, which would also help prevent further disparity between those who can afford premium tech tools and those who cannot. This highlights that addressing digital inequality is not just a technical challenge; it is a fundamental policy one too. 

    In closing 

    The session’s core message was clear: while the rise of AI has been rapid, the sector’s response does not have to be only reactive. By embracing a proactive, values-led approach that prioritises ethical development, equity and human-centric learning, universities can turn what was once seen as a threat into a powerful catalyst for positive change. 

    Studiosity is AI-for-Learning, not corrections – to scale student success, empower educators, and improve retention with a proven , while ensuring integrity and reducing institutional risk. 

    Source link

  • How Witnessing Violence Impacts Brain Development (opinion)

    How Witnessing Violence Impacts Brain Development (opinion)

    On Sept. 10, a public lecture at Utah Valley University became the site of a nightmare when the political commentator Charlie Kirk was killed before thousands of students. Whatever one thinks of Kirk’s politics, the trauma endured by those young witnesses will last far longer than the news cycle. For adolescents, such moments do not fade when the cameras leave. They etch themselves into the brain—literally. Witnessing violence, even indirectly, negatively impacts brain development.

    At the University of Southern California’s Center for Affective Neuroscience, Development, Learning and Education (CANDLE), our colleagues recently studied how violence exposure shapes young people. Again and again, the evidence is stark: When adolescents witness or hear about violence in their communities, their developing brains bear the burden. The anterior cingulate cortex—a region critical for processing stress and pain, emotional regulation, motivation, learning, and social connection—has a greater decrease in gray-matter volume in adolescents exposed to more community violence. This pattern of gray-matter volume decrease has been seen in ground troops deployed to war and in people affected by post-traumatic stress disorder. It has been linked to anxiety, depression and difficulty sustaining attention.

    Yet neuroscience also points to a path forward. Our newest research, published this year in the Journal of Research on Adolescence, offers a striking counterpoint: Adolescents are not passive victims of their environments. They have within them the capacity to buffer these harms, within themselves and within society. That capacity is what we call transcendent thinking.

    Transcendent thinking is the ability to move beyond the immediate details of an event and consider the complexities that characterize a diverse society, to explore perspectives that differ or conflict with one’s own and to contemplate the bigger picture: What does this mean for me, for my community, for justice and fairness? When teenagers reflect in these ways, they are not escaping reality but engaging it more deeply. They are searching for meaning, considering multiple perspectives and placing their experience in a larger human story. This, in turn, helps them imagine how things might be different, and how they might contribute to the change.

    In our study of 55 urban adolescents, those who more frequently engaged in transcendent reflection about social issues showed a greater increase in gray-matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex two years later—the very brain region seen to be most vulnerable to violence exposure. In other words, transcendent thinking didn’t erase the negative effects, but it appeared to give young people’s brains some scaffolding to adapt and heal.

    This has profound implications for how we respond to political and community violence. The instinct, understandably, is to shield young people from harsh realities. But shielding won’t work. Adolescents are already encountering violence—whether on the street, online or in lecture halls. What they need are the tools to make sense of it, to weave their experiences into narratives of purpose and agency rather than despair. And for this, they need curiosity about the experiences of others and safe opportunities to think across difference.

    Fortunately, transcendent thinking is not rarefied or inaccessible. It is something every young person can do and likely already does spontaneously. The challenge is to nurture it deliberately and thoughtfully. Schools and colleges can make space for students to grapple with complex social issues and to connect classroom learning with ethical and civic questions. Families and communities can invite adolescents into intergenerational storytelling, where young people see how others have wrestled with hardship and injustice. Education that emphasizes civic reasoning and dialogue can strengthen not only academic outcomes but also neurological resilience and long-term well-being.

    This is both a scientific and a civic imperative. Neuroscience is showing us that meaning making changes the brain. We need support for educators to find ways to translate that science into daily practices that help young people transform tragedy into purpose. Our vision is to illuminate the capacities that empower adolescents to question their and others’ beliefs, to engage across difference, to imagine futures and work to create the world they want to live in.

    The tragedy at Utah Valley University underscores how high the stakes have become. America’s young people are coming of age amid rising polarization and public acts of violence. We cannot protect them or shield them from it, but we can equip them to counter its developmental impacts.

    Transcendent thinking is not a cure-all. But it is a proven developmental asset that can buffer the effects of witnessing community violence on the brain. It is also a civic skill we urgently need: the ability to see beyond the present conflicts and tragedies to the larger questions of justice, community and meaning.

    If we want to safeguard both adolescent development and democratic life, we must equip schools, colleges, families and communities with the tools to cultivate transcendent thinking.

    Mary Helen Immordino-Yang is the Fahmy and Donna Attallah Professor of Humanistic Psychology and a professor of education, psychology and neuroscience at the University of Southern California and founding director of the USC Center for Affective Neuroscience, Development, Learning and Education.

    Kori Street is executive director of USC CANDLE.

    Source link