Tag: Engagement

Essay on Faculty Engagement and Web Accessibility (opinion)
Inaccessible PDFs are a stubborn problem. How can we marshal the energy within our institutions to make digital course materials more accessible—one PDF, one class, one instructor at a time?

Like many public higher education institutions, William & Mary is working to come into compliance with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines by April 2026. These guidelines aim to ensure digital content is accessible for people who rely on screen readers and require that content be machine-readable.

Amid a flurry of other broad institutional efforts to comply with the federal deadline, my colleague—coordinator of instruction for libraries Liz Bellamy—and I agreed to lead a series of workshops designed to help instructors improve the accessibility of their digital course materials. We’ve learned a lot along the way that we hope can be instructive to other institutions engaged in this important work.

What We’ve Tried

Our first big hurdle wasn’t technical—it was cultural, structural and organizational. At the same time various groups across campus were addressing digital accessibility, William & Mary had just moved our learning management system from Blackboard Learn to Blackboard Ultra, we were beginning the rollout of new campuswide enterprise software for several major institutional areas, the institution achieved R-1 status and everyone had so many questions about generative AI. Put plainly, instructors were overwhelmed, and inaccessible PDFs were only one of many competing priorities vying for their attention.

To tackle the issue, a group of institutional leaders launched the “Strive for 85” campaign, encouraging instructors to raise their scores in Blackboard Ally, which provides automated feedback to instructors on the accessibility of their course materials, to 85 percent or higher. The idea was simple—make most course content accessible, starting with the most common problem: PDFs that are not machine-readable.

We kicked things off at our August 2024 “Ready, Set, Teach!” event, offering workshops and consultations. Instructors learned how to find and use their Ally reports, scan and convert PDFs, and apply practical strategies to improve digital content accessibility. In the year that followed, we tried everything we could think of to keep the momentum going and move the needle on our institutional Ally score above the baseline. Despite our best efforts, some approaches fell flat:
- Let’s try online workshops! Low engagement.
- What about in-person sessions? Low attendance.
- But what if we feed them lunch? Low attendance, now with a fridge full of leftovers.
- OK, what if we reach out to department chairs and ask to speak in their department meetings? It turns out department meeting agendas are already pretty full; response rates were … low (n = 1).
The truth is, instructors are busy. Accessibility often feels like one more thing on an already full plate. So far, our greatest success stories have come from one-on-one conversations and by identifying departmental champions—instructors who will model and advocate for accessible practices with discipline-specific solutions. (Consider the linguistics professor seeking an accurate 3-D model of the larynx collaborating with a health sciences colleague, who provided access to an interactive model from an online medical textbook—enhancing accessibility for students learning about speech production.)

But these approaches require time and people power we don’t always have. Despite the challenges we’ve faced with scaling our efforts, when success happens, it can feel a little magical, like the time at the end of one of our highly attended workshops (n = 2) when a previously skeptical instructor reflected, “So, it sounds like accessibility is about more than students with disabilities. This can also help my other students.”

What We’ve Learned
Two ingredients seem essential:

Activation energy: Instructors need a compelling reason to act, but they also need a small step to get started; otherwise, the work can feel overwhelming.
Sometimes this comes in the form of an individual student disclosing their need for accessible content. But often, college students (especially first year or first generation) don’t disclose disabilities or feel empowered to advocate for themselves. For some instructors, seeing their score in Ally is enough of a motivation—they’re high achievers, and they don’t want a “low grade” on anything linked to their name. More often, though, we’ve seen instructors engage in this work because a colleague or department chair tells them they need to. Leveraging positive peer pressure, coupled with quick practical solutions to improve accessibility, seems to be an effective approach.
1. Point-of-need support: Help must be timely, relevant and easy to access.
When instructors feel overwhelmed by the mountain of accessibility recommendations in their Ally reports, they are often hesitant to even get started. We’ve found that personal conversations about student engagement and course content or design often provide an opening to talk about accessibility. And once the door is open, instructors are often very receptive to hearing about a few small changes they can make to improve the accessibility of their course content.

Where Things Stand

Now for the reality check. So far, our institutional Ally score has been fairly stagnant; we haven’t reached the 85 percent goal we set for ourselves. And even for seasoned educational developers, it can be discouraging to see so little change after so much effort. But new tools offer hope. Ally recently announced planned updates to allow professors to remediate previously inaccessible PDFs directly in Blackboard without having to navigate to another platform. If reliable, this could make remediation more manageable, providing a solution at the point of need and lowering the activation energy required to solve the problem.

We’re also considering:
- Focus groups to better understand what motivates instructors to engage in this work.
- Exploring the effectiveness of pop-up notifications that appear with accessibility tips and reminders when instructors log in to Blackboard to raise awareness and make the most of point-of-need supports.
- Defining “reasonable measures” for compliance, especially for disciplines with unique content needs (e.g., organic chemistry, modern languages and linguistics).
Leading With Empathy

One unintended consequence we’ve seen: Some instructors are choosing to stop uploading digital content altogether. Faced with the complexity of digital accessibility requirements, they’re opting out rather than adapting. Although this could help our institutional compliance score, it’s often a net loss for students and for learning, so we want to find a path forward that doesn’t force instructors to make this kind of choice.

Accessibility is about equity, but it’s also about empathy. As we move toward 2026, we need to support—not scare—instructors into compliance. Every step we make toward increased accessibility helps our students. Every instructor champion working with their peers to find context-specific solutions helps further our institutional goals. Progress over perfection might be the only sustainable path forward.
Source link
July 9, 2025
Civic engagement offers a firm foundation for universities contributing to regional economic growth agendas

When searching for friendly support or warm words from politicians, the media, and the public, UK universities are increasingly being left empty-handed.

Last year’s modest increase in tuition fees allowed universities a temporary reprieve after years of tightening financial constraints but came with a firm warning that standards must improve and was quickly wiped out by rises in National Insurance. Meanwhile, culture wars and negative perceptions on quality and graduate outcomes continue to dominate discourse around the sector, fuelling criticism of universities from all directions.

Richard Jones, vice president for regional innovation and civic engagement at the University of Manchester posited last week that university leaders may be tempted to look for easy savings in their civic impact work – initiatives that engage with and benefit their local community but ultimately fall outside of a university’s traditional mission of teaching and research. But as he argues, this would be a profound mistake.

The outlook in recent years for universities may have been challenging, but hope lies in Labour’s focus on place-based policy. Place has driven flagship funding decisions and policies including the Spending Review and the Industrial Strategy, with more money being devolved from Whitehall to the regions in pursuit of growth. New Mayoral Strategic Authorities have been empowered to take the reins on transport, investment, spatial planning and skills, with the promise of further autonomy as they mature. A new Green Book – government’s methodology for assessing public investments – is being updated and will broaden the criteria to look more favourably at investments outside London and the South East.

Universities are perfectly placed to be the drivers of Labour’s regional growth ambitions. The priority sectors in last week’s Industrial Strategy – including advanced manufacturing, life sciences, and clean energy industries – are some of UK universities’ best strengths. Moreover, as anchor institutions located in the heart of communities, universities are physically well-placed to address causes of economic decline.

Civic engagement for economic growth

The civic university movement, which champions collaboration between universities and their localities, has an established framework for institutions looking to ramp up civic impact initiatives with their civic university agreements. More than 70 civic university agreements are already in place between universities and their local authorities, with universities in Manchester, Nottingham, Sheffield, Exeter, Derby and London, among others, providing a range of examples for institutions to learn from.

A UPP Foundation series of roundtables held in four regions across England recently has also highlighted that the civic university movement remains active, with a wealth of civic activity taking place across the country. Universities are finding creative ways to engage with their local communities, with examples including offering to host events in university spaces, or running a café that demystifies the benefits of nuclear energy while providing employment and training for local people. For institutions nervous about signing up to lengthy and potentially costly partnerships, participants at the roundtables instead stressed that smaller gestures can be just as meaningful. Rather than draining resources, civic activity can in fact alleviate funding pressures when universities work together to learn from one another.

Irrespective of geography, participants were united in their contention that universities should collaborate with their local partners to develop civic initiatives, working collaboratively to address the real day-to-day problems communities want help with, such as helping local businesses transition to net zero.

Labour’s devolution agenda also offers an opportunity for universities to become visible bridges working across regions and political geographies. While mayoral devolution has been lauded in cohesive urban centres like Manchester and Birmingham, there are concerns the model will work less well in rural areas where proposed Mayoral Combined Authorities will intersect with traditional county borders. For such regions, universities can both serve as bolsters to wider regional identity and can benefit from the flexibility of their own geography that may span mayoral regions.

The opportunities are there for universities to re-embed civic activity into their core work under Labour’s agenda – but it needs brave leadership to embrace them. In the face of tough financial decisions, university leaders must champion the benefits of civic activity. The late Bob Kerslake, chair of the UPP Foundation’s Civic University Commission 2018–19, deeply understood the potential and necessity for universities to be rooted in their local communities. For a higher education sector that has spent recent years on uncertain footing, tapping into Kerslake’s vision could provide a more certain path forward.

The UPP Foundation’s full report UPP Foundation Spring 2025 Roundtables: The Role of Universities in Regional Placemaking explores the key themes of the roundtable discussions. You can download the report here.

Source link

July 2, 2025
Reimagining the Flipped Classroom: Integrating AI, Microlearning, and Learning Analytics to Elevate Student Engagement and Critical Thinking – Faculty Focus

The traditional flipped classroom model, which reverses the conventional lecture-homework structure, has evolved significantly since its inception. In the digital era, especially post-pandemic, this strategy has gained renewed importance for fostering active learning, critical thinking, and academic resilience. Today, the flipped classroom is no longer just about moving lectures online but about curating immersive, personalized learning environments. The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI), microlearning, and learning analytics provides new dimensions to this pedagogical approach, enhancing both student preparation and in-class engagement. This article explores how these three components can reshape flipped learning and address persistent challenges such as student unpreparedness, fear of participation, and lack of motivation.

Flipped Classroom 2.0: Enriching the Core Strategy

The original flipped classroom model aimed to reverse the traditional structure of education by shifting the transmission of basic content, often done through lectures, outside the classroom, while using face-to-face class time for active engagement and problem-solving. While this model offered significant benefits, the ever-changing dynamics of education in the digital era demand a more adaptive and responsive framework. This has led to the evolution of Flipped Classroom 2.0, a pedagogy that not only retains the foundational principles of the original model but enhances them with modern technologies and learner-centered practices.

AI Tools

In the Flipped Classroom 2.0 model, the learning process is amplified by integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, which help personalize student learning pathways. AI-enabled systems such as adaptive learning platforms, chatbots, and generative tools like ChatGPT can provide students with on-demand explanations, simulate peer discussions, offer low-stakes quizzes, and give instant feedback. This technological support allows students to learn at their own pace and revisit complex material without feeling anxious or dependent solely on the instructor. From the educator’s side, AI tools help identify patterns in learner behavior and performance, allowing for more targeted interventions during class time.

Microlearning

Microlearning plays a central role in supporting pre-class preparation under the Flipped Classroom 2.0 framework. Instead of overwhelming students with lengthy video lectures or dense readings, microlearning delivers short, focused modules that concentrate on single learning objectives. These modules are ideal for students who are accustomed to fast-paced digital environments and may have limited attention spans. Microlearning enhances retention by segmenting information and reinforcing key concepts through repetition and brief assessments. It also empowers students to learn efficiently on mobile devices and during flexible hours, which is particularly valuable in hybrid and online learning contexts.

Learning Analytics

Learning analytics represents another foundational component of the Flipped Classroom 2.0 design. By utilizing Learning Management Systems (LMS) and built-in analytics dashboards, instructors can gain valuable insights into which students have completed pre-class activities, how they have performed, and where they may need additional support. Analytics tools also promote student accountability, as learners are able to track their own progress and receive early alerts when they are falling behind. These data-driven approaches make it possible to transition from reactive teaching to proactive guidance.

Collectively, these innovations: AI, microlearning, and learning analytics, enhance the effectiveness of the flipped classroom by aligning content delivery, student support, and real-time feedback. Flipped Classroom 2.0 is not merely a technological upgrade; it is a reimagined learning experience that promotes self-directed learning, critical thinking, and inclusivity. It encourages students to become active participants rather than passive recipients, and it positions educators as facilitators and data-informed decision-makers in the learning process.

Understanding Student Resistance in the Digital Era

Unpreparedness often stems not from laziness or disinterest, but from deeper psychological or contextual barriers that influence a student’s ability to engage. In many cases, students may feel overwhelmed by the unfamiliarity of new instructional models or lack the confidence needed to navigate them successfully. This resistance is especially prominent in environments where flipped classroom strategies are introduced abruptly or without adequate scaffolding. In digitally enhanced learning spaces, Artificial Intelligence tools can serve as diagnostic aids to help educators understand the roots of student resistance.

By monitoring metrics such as time spent on tasks, levels of participation, and types of interactions within pre-class activities, AI systems can identify patterns of disengagement or confusion. For example, if students frequently abandon certain video modules or quiz sections, this may signal content complexity, misalignment with learning styles, or underlying cognitive fatigue. Moreover, many students, especially those transitioning from traditional learning environments, may carry negative assumptions about active learning approaches. They may perceive them as chaotic, unpredictable, or more demanding than passive learning formats. Educators must dig deeper to explore these sentiments and confront the emotional undercurrents that influence classroom behavior. Addressing resistance with empathy, transparency, and gradual acclimatization is crucial for long-term student buy-in.

Addressing Fear Through Technology-Supported Safety

Fear is one of the most formidable barriers to classroom participation. Whether it’s the fear of giving incorrect answers, speaking publicly, or being judged by peers, these emotions can significantly hinder student engagement. In the flipped classroom, where much of the responsibility for learning shifts to students, this fear may become even more pronounced if not properly addressed. Technology, particularly AI-driven tools, can be strategically used to create psychologically safe learning environments. For example, private practice environments powered by chatbots or simulations can offer students a space to make mistakes, ask questions, and rehearse ideas without fear of embarrassment. These tools are particularly beneficial for introverted students or those who lack confidence in their subject knowledge.

Microlearning also plays a vital role in reducing anxiety. By breaking down complex content into manageable chunks, students can focus on mastering one concept at a time. This incremental mastery builds confidence and reduces cognitive overload. When paired with formative assessments and feedback loops, microlearning helps normalize error-making as part of the learning process. Analytics further enhance psychological safety by providing both educators and students with objective data on progress. When students see that others are also struggling with the same concepts or that their performance is gradually improving, they are more likely to perceive learning as a collective and iterative journey.

Making Learning Visible with Analytics and Scaffolds

Visibility of learning progress is essential in maintaining student accountability and fostering meaningful classroom interactions. In traditional flipped classrooms, instructors often face the challenge of determining whether students have genuinely completed pre-class tasks or engaged with the material in a substantive way.

Flipped Classroom 2.0 addresses this issue by leveraging data and scaffolding techniques that make learning both measurable and visible. Learning analytics tools embedded in LMS platforms can track completion rates, quiz scores, engagement time, and areas of difficulty. This data is accessible to both teachers and students through visual dashboards, which serve as powerful motivators and intervention tools. Educators can use this information to adjust instruction, form differentiated groups and provide individualized support. Scaffolding further supports this visibility. Templates, guided note-taking structures, interactive mind maps, and learning journals help students organize their thoughts and reflect on their understanding. When integrated with AI, these scaffolds can be customized based on student performance and learning preferences. This transparency not only improves learning outcomes but also enhances communication between instructors and students.

Designing Pre-Class Work That Drives In-Class Success

A key feature of the flipped classroom model is the dependency on students completing pre-class work so they can actively participate in class discussions and activities. However, the perceived value of pre-class tasks directly influences student compliance and effort. To elevate this value, educators must clearly connect pre-class preparation with in-class success. AI can support this connection by generating customized content summaries, quizzes, and diagnostic questions based on each student’s pre-class performance. For instance, if a student demonstrates mastery of foundational concepts, they can be prompted with higher-order questions to challenge their thinking. Conversely, students who struggle can be provided with remedial resources and practice modules. In-class activities should build directly on pre-class efforts. Group discussions, simulations, debates, and problem-solving exercises should reference or utilize outputs from the pre-class assignments. This integration reinforces the message that preparation is essential for success and ensures that students recognize the practical benefits of investing time in asynchronous learning.

Gamification techniques, such as digital badges, progress milestones, and peer recognition can further motivate students to complete pre-class tasks. When these activities contribute to course grades or unlock exclusive learning opportunities, their relevance is amplified.

Establishing Routine and Engagement with Focusing Activities

The transition from asynchronous pre-class learning to synchronous in-class application can be challenging if not facilitated through structured routines. Focusing activities, particularly those conducted at the beginning of class, serve as critical bridges that help students activate prior knowledge and reorient their attention. These activities may include short reflective prompts, polls, problem-solving warmups, or collaborative brainstorming sessions. When enhanced with technology, focusing activities become even more impactful. For example, AI-driven polling platforms can pose adaptive questions tailored to the students’ recent performance.

Visualization tools can help students construct or revise concept maps based on their understanding of the pre-class content. Establishing predictable routines around these activities builds habits of participation. Over time, students internalize the rhythm of flipped learning: prepare independently, apply collaboratively, reflect continuously. Such engagement patterns increase cognitive readiness and reduce classroom management challenges.

Avoiding Pitfalls in Tech-Enhanced Flipped Classrooms

While Flipped Classroom 2.0 offers numerous benefits, its success is contingent upon thoughtful implementation. Several common pitfalls can undermine the model’s effectiveness. One of the most prevalent mistakes is treating technology as a substitute for pedagogy. Simply replacing lectures with videos or adding quizzes does not constitute a true flip. Without alignment to learning objectives and instructional goals, these tools can confuse rather than support learners.

Another challenge is content overload. Students may feel overwhelmed if asked to review long readings, videos, and quizzes without clear guidance or purpose. Microlearning and scaffolding should be used to break down materials and provide learning pathways that are manageable and coherent. Educator readiness is another often-overlooked factor. Successful adoption of AI tools and data dashboards requires faculty training and support. Instructors must be equipped not only with technical skills but also with an understanding of how to interpret analytics and adjust pedagogy accordingly.

Lastly, student feedback should be incorporated into the design and refinement of flipped classroom practices. Continuous evaluation, surveys, and informal check-ins can reveal usability issues and highlight opportunities for improvement.

Toward a Future-Ready Learning Model

Reimagining the flipped classroom requires more than adopting trendy tools, it demands a philosophical shift. By combining AI, microlearning, and learning analytics, educators can create classrooms that are not only flipped but also fluid, feedback-driven, and future-ready. These strategies support student autonomy, foster critical thinking, and build academic resilience in an unpredictable world. The next frontier of flipped learning is not about technology for its own sake, but about purposeful integration that places learners at the center.

N. P. K. Ekanayake

Ms. Neranjana Priyangani Kumari Ekanayake, a senior lecturer at the University of Kelaniya, teaches Investment and Portfolio Management, Enterprise Resource Planning, Behavioural Finance, and Advanced Management Accounting. She holds a BBA in Accounting (Special) and an MSc in MMs. Neranjana Priyangani Kumari Ekanayake, a senior lecturer at the University of Kelaniya, teaches Investment and Portfolio Management, Enterprise Resource Planning, Behavioural Finance, and Advanced Management Accounting. She holds a BBA in Accounting (Special) first-class and an MSc in Management (Specialized in Finance) and is a CIMA passed finalist. Further she has completed a Diploma in Enterprise Resource Planning in University of Kelaniya.

N.K.L. Silva

Ms. Nilanthige Kaushalya Lakmali Silva is a Lecturer at the Department of Accountancy, University of Kelaniya. She teaches Management, Economics, Human Resource Management, Marketing Management, Strategic Management and Information Management. Ms. Silva holds a B.B.Mgt. (Special) Degree in Accountancy with a First-Class Honours and an M.Sc. in Management with a Merit. Her research interests include major areas of Accounting and Finance, with a particular focus on Sri Lanka’s Capital Markets, Micro and Macro Economic Environment, Corporate Governance, and Corporate Fraud. She has published several research papers in academic journals and conference proceedings. She is a CMA Sri Lanka Passed Finalist and has completed the Diploma in Banking and Finance at the Institute of Bankers of Sri Lanka.

References

Berrett, D. (2012, February 19). How “flipping” the classroom can improve the traditional lecture. Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-flipping-the-classroom-can-improve-the-traditional-lecture/130857

Gerstein, J. (2012, May 15). Flipped classroom: The full picture for higher education. User Generated Education. https://usergeneratededucation.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/flipped-classroom-the-full-picture-for-higher-education/

Source link

July 2, 2025
Co-creation of research agendas could strengthen policy research engagement

The University Policy Engagement Network (UPEN) recently announced that it had been successful in a UKRI bid to develop and expand UK policy to research infrastructure, facilitating connections and engagement between public and civil servants on one hand, and research organisations on the other.

This call is a recent manifestation of a perennial and important interest in evidence-informed policymaking, and policy and research engagement. Policy engagement is also part of an increased focus on engagement with and impact of research, driven by the Research Excellence Framework.

We recently published a journal article exploring what researchers and policymakers need to know and understand when engaging with each other, based on interviews with 11 experts working with higher education regulators, other major sectoral bodies, and higher education institutions who had extensive expertise across the UK higher education sector.

University-based researchers and policymakers respond to different incentives in ways that are not always conducive to engagement. Interviewees described a wide range of influences on policy, including many types of research, much of which is produced outside the university sector. For some types of research, such as rapid research, researchers at higher education institutions were seen as being at a disadvantage. To address these considerations, our interviewees suggested that research co-creation – involving policymakers earlier in the process to develop research ideas and design projects – could promote engagement with policy.

Engagement from the start

In a typical research process, university-based researchers develop, conduct, and publish their research with a high degree of independence from the stakeholders of their research. Once the research is completed, researchers disseminate their findings, hoping to reach external stakeholders, including policymakers. In contrast, co-created research brings research stakeholders into the research process at the beginning and maintains stakeholder influence and co-creation throughout.

When asked how researchers can increase engagement with policy, one participant said: :

Co-designing projects with people involved in policy from the outset rather than, you know, what I often see, which is ‘we’ve done this stuff and now, who can we send it to?’ So, getting people involved from the outset and the running of it through advice.

Because policy priorities shift and because research often takes a long time to complete, co-creation is not a perfect solution for policy research engagement. But co-creation may increase the likelihood that research findings are relevant to and usable for the specific needs of policymakers. Another benefit of co-creation is that, by taking part in the research process, policymakers are more likely to feel invested in the research and inclined to use its findings.

Co-creation of research with policymakers requires access to and some form of relationship with relevant policymakers. While some researchers have easier access to policymakers than others, there are structures in place to facilitate the networking required to build relevant relationships, including through academic fellowship with the UK Parliament. Researchers can sometimes connect more easily to ministers and policymakers via intermediary organisations such as mission groups, representative bodies, think tanks, and professional organisations.

Designing successful co-creation

In a policy-research co-creation model, one of the questions that is worth asking is what is co-created: is research co-created, policy co-created, or both? For example, one participant in our study viewed researcher engagement with policymakers as policy-co-creation, rather than as research co-creation. Researchers can ask themselves: “What policy am I well-positioned to co-create based on my research?” as well as “How can my research benefit from co-creation with its stakeholders?”

Our article highlights that one of the more frequent pathways for researchers based at universities to engage with policy is through conducting commissioned research. Commissioned research is often aligned with policy needs and facilitates co-creation. Yet independence, rigour, and criticality – markers of quality research – still need to be ensured even as part of co-created and commissioned research.

Commissioned research was not the only type of research discussed by our participants that led to policy engagement. Interviewees provided examples of researchers with an established and rigorous body of work that answered policy-relevant questions which were successful in shaping policy. Sometimes, a body of research developed over time and over multiple studies is better suited for policy engagement. Sometimes this takes the form of a systematic review designed to bring a large body of research literature to bear on a current policy problem.

This raises an important consideration for mechanisms that incentivise engagement: how does incentivising engagement affect the multiple priorities that researchers based at higher education institutions need to meet? The danger here is that, as more policy engagement is incentivised, researchers at higher education institutions might prioritise forms and qualities of research which lend themselves to engagement over those which higher education is uniquely placed to offer.

As current efforts to expand UK-wide policy to research infrastructure develop, it is important to consider the multiple complexities associated with policy research engagement. In our view, for policy and research engagement to be meaningful, policy to research infrastructure needs to support high quality research, targeted engagement, and have a clear sense of what each of these means in practice.

Source link

June 18, 2025
Investing in Student Engagement: University of Georgia Equips Faculty and Students with Free Access to Top Hat

New license agreement provides all students and faculty with free access to Top Hat, reinforcing UGA’s strategic focus on affordability, student success, and innovation in teaching.

TORONTO – June 17, 2025 – Top Hat, the leader in student engagement solutions for higher education, today announced that the University of Georgia has entered into a new enterprise agreement that will provide campus-wide access to the Top Hat platform at no cost to students or faculty. This initiative supports UGA’s continued efforts to promote high-impact teaching practices, student affordability, and innovation in the classroom.

Top Hat’s interactive teaching platform as well as content authoring and customization tools will be available to UGA faculty to enhance in-person, online, and hybrid courses across disciplines. With this agreement, UGA joins a growing number of leading institutions investing in Top Hat to empower instructors to improve learning outcomes and student success at scale.

“We are proud to support the University of Georgia in its efforts to deliver proven, student-centered teaching practices,” said Maggie Leen, CEO of Top Hat. “This partnership ensures every student and educator at UGA has access to the tools they need to drive learning and achievement, while reinforcing the university’s focus on affordability, innovation, and evidence-based instruction.”

This initiative reflects UGA’s commitment to both student affordability and instructional excellence. With Top Hat, faculty can adopt and customize low- or no-cost course materials—including OpenStax and OER—helping to reduce costs for students while delivering engaging, evidence-based instruction. The platform enables instructors to easily integrate active learning strategies, such as frequent low-stakes assessments and reflection prompts, which are proven to enhance student engagement and academic outcomes. Top Hat’s AI-powered assistant, Ace, streamlines course prep by generating high-quality questions directly from lecture content, and supports students with on-demand study help and unlimited practice opportunities—reinforcing learning both in and out of the classroom. Real-time data from polls, quizzes, and assignments also empowers educators to continuously monitor progress and improve instructional impact.

The University of Georgia is recognized nationally for excellence in teaching and learning, student completion, and affordability. The enterprise agreement with Top Hat is part of UGA’s broader commitment to building a world-class learning environment and increasing access to affordable, high impact teaching and learning resources.

About Top Hat

As the leader in student engagement solutions for higher education, Top Hat enables educators to employ proven student-centered teaching practices through interactive content and tools enhanced by AI, and activities in in-person, online and hybrid classroom environments. To accelerate student impact and return on investment, the company provides a range of change management services, including faculty training and instructional design support, integration and data management services, and digital content customization. Thousands of faculty at 900 leading North American colleges and universities use Top Hat to create meaningful, engaging and accessible learning experiences for students before, during, and after class.

Contact press@tophat.com for media inquiries.

Source link

June 17, 2025
A Chance for Constructive Engagement (opinion)

Earlier this spring, I was one of hundreds of college, university and scholarly society leaders to sign “A Call for Constructive Engagement” published by the American Association of Colleges and Universities. The statement speaks out against “the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education.” It calls for the freedom to determine, on academic grounds, whom to admit and what is taught, how and by whom, while engaging in constructive reform and openness to legitimate government oversight.

Deciding whether to make such a public statement merits careful consideration. This is because by making the statement, a higher education leader will likely not be reflecting the viewpoints of all of their institution’s constituents.

An email from an alum from the 1970s reminded me of this. The alum chastised me for signing the statement, for overreaching and speaking for some members of our university community such as him, and for banding together with other higher learning institutions that have become “liberal cesspools of propaganda and misinformation … [that] openly permit anti-Israeli protests led by anti-Semitic educators … [and] become another left-wing terrorist organization supporting the likes of Hamas.”

The alum asked me to remove my signature from the AAC&U statement on account of the concerns that he had raised. One higher education leader has so far done so, likely because of receiving input such as that provided by our alum.

I opted to reply to our alum, thereby putting to practice the constructive engagement preached by the AAC&U statement. My reply asked the alum how long it had been since he had last visited campus and whether he knew that, thanks to the philanthropic generosity of some fellow graduates, we renovated our campus’s Hillel House last summer.

I asked the alum whether he had heard of the Common Ground program Alfred instituted in 2018 through the philanthropic support of our trustees. It is a required course for all of our new undergraduate students and consists of small-group dialogue facilitated by a faculty or staff member with two key objectives: 1) to better appreciate the different backgrounds (including geographies, ethnicities and religions), aspirations and interests that our new students bring to Alfred (artists think differently than engineers, liberal arts students think differently than business students), and 2) to arrive at some shared values that our new students will commit to living by as citizens of the Alfred community—such as commitment to constructive dialogue.

By fostering constructive engagement, our Common Ground program likely helped prevent the strife that occurred on many other college campuses in the wake of the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attack on Israel and the ensuing war in the Middle East. When members of campus communities have built meaningful relationships with one another, they are less likely to retreat to their ideological corners when a potential conflict arises. Instead, they talk as friends.

I closed my email by asking the alum whether he had any impactful mentors as a student.

To my pleasant surprise, the alum replied by recounting a particularly impactful faculty mentor in the field of astronomy who had given him many applied learning opportunities and inspired a lifelong interest in stargazing, which he continues to do to this day from his home. He also noted how well his college education had positioned him for the professional success that he has enjoyed.

We have since spoken by phone. While there are certain matters upon which we still disagree, we have found some common ground.

We agree that institutions of higher learning are potent engines for promoting the success of graduates as well as the prosperity of our nation and the health and well-being of our broader population. There are nearly 4,000 institutions of higher learning across our nation—spanning public and private and including community colleges, technical training institutions, arts schools, religious institutions and HBCUs. This constellation, in which anyone can find a place, provides powerful opportunities for professional and personal advancement, social mobility, entrepreneurial innovation, access to health care, national defense, social services and cultural offerings.

We agree that the core focus of institutions of higher learning should be on providing an education of enduring value through fostering knowledge and curiosity.

We also agree that universities, like individuals and nations, do not always uniformly arc toward wisdom. They can stumble and thus benefit from constructive reform. Our field of higher education can and should be better listeners to our public, more concerned about the cost of college and more focused on student success and less on prestige.

Notwithstanding the stumbles, however, institutions of higher learning, as noted by Israeli historian Yuval Hariri in his recent book Nexus, have some powerful self-correcting mechanisms such as peer review. Authoritarian regimes, by contrast, lack such self-correcting mechanisms when they suppress inquiry and criticism.

Consider Katalin Karikó, who emigrated from her native Hungary to the United States with $1,200 cash sewn into her daughter’s teddy bear to do research on mRNA. While at the University of Pennsylvania, her hypothesis regarding the potency of mRNA research was derided by most fellow researchers around the globe. She was denied a tenure-track position and demoted. Yet, the research that she kept pursuing was pivotal to the development of COVID vaccines and earned her a Nobel Prize in 2023.

And while our alum and I still disagree on whether my signature should be affixed to the AAC&U statement, we have ended up agreeing both on the value of constructive engagement and the criticality of promoting it as a central value in higher education.

Mark Zupan is president of Alfred University.

Source link

June 6, 2025
Reviving Engagement in the Spanish Classroom: A Musical Challenge with ChatGPT – Faculty Focus
Halfway through the semester, it’s not uncommon to notice a shift in your students’ energy levels (Baghurst and Kelley, 2013; Kumari et al., 2021). The initial enthusiasm for learning a foreign language may wane as other courses with demanding assignments compete for their attention. Some students prioritize subjects they perceive as more directly tied to their major or career, while others simply feel the weight of mid-semester exhaustion. In the spring, the long winter months can add to this fatigue, making it even harder to keep students engaged (Rohan and Sigmon, 2000).

This is the moment when a language instructor must pivot, shifting the classroom dynamic to reignite curiosity and motivation. Although instructors strive to incorporate activities that cater to the five preferred learning styles (Felder and Henriques, 1995)—visual (learning through images and spatial understanding), auditory (learning through listening and discussion), reading/writing (learning through text-based interaction), kinesthetic (learning through movement and hands-on activities), and multimodal (a combination of multiple styles)—it is beneficial to intersperse these well-structured, and, after a while, predictable classes with activities that break the mold. Introducing something unexpected and different from the established classroom dynamics can reenergize students, foster creativity, and enhance their enthusiasm for learning.

Music, in particular, has long been an ally of instructors teaching a second language (L2)—a language learned after one’s native tongue—especially since the field transitioned toward a more communicative approach. Rooted in interaction and real-world application, the communicative approach prioritizes meaningful engagement over rote memorization, helping students develop fluency in natural, immersive ways. Research has consistently highlighted the benefits of music in L2 acquisition, from improving pronunciation and listening skills to enhancing vocabulary retention and cultural understanding (Degrave, 2019; Kumar et al. 2022; Nuessel and Marshall, 2008; Vidal and Nordgren, 2024).

Building on this tradition, the activity we will share here not only incorporates music but also integrates artificial intelligence, adding a new layer of engagement and critical thinking. By using AI as a tool in the learning process, students not only familiarize themselves with its capabilities but also develop the ability to critically evaluate the content it generates. This approach encourages them to reflect on language, meaning, and interpretation while engaging in text analysis, creative writing, public speaking, and gamification—all within an interactive, culturally rich framework.

Activity Description: Musical Challenge with ChatGPT: “Sing and Discover”

Objective:

Students will improve their listening comprehension and written production in Spanish by analyzing and recreating song lyrics with the help of ChatGPT. While the instructions are presented here in English, the activity should be conducted in the target language—whether Spanish or another language being taught.

Instructions:

1. Listen and Decode
- Divide the class into groups of 2-3 students.
- Choose a song in Spanish (e.g., La Llorona by Chavela Vargas, Oye Cómo Va by Tito Puente, Vivir Mi Vida by Marc Anthony).
- Provide each group with an incomplete version of the lyrics with missing words.
- Students listen to the song and fill in the blanks.
2. Interpret and Discuss
- Within their groups, students analyze the song’s meaning.
- They discuss what they think the lyrics convey, including emotions, themes, and any cultural references they recognize.
  
  Each group shares their interpretation with the class.
  
  What do you think the song is trying to communicate?
  
  Which emotions or feelings do the lyrics evoke for you?
  
  Can you identify any cultural references in the song? How do they shape its meaning?
  
  How does the music (melody, rhythm, etc.) influence your interpretation of the lyrics?
3. Compare with ChatGPT
- After forming their own analysis, students ask ChatGPT:
  
  What do you think the song is trying to communicate?
  
  Which emotions or feelings do the lyrics evoke for you?
- They compare ChatGPT’s interpretation with their own ideas and discuss similarities or differences.
4. Create Your Own Verse
- Each group writes a new verse that matches the song’s style and rhythm.
- They may ask ChatGPT for assistance: “Help us write a new verse for this song in the same style.”
5. Perform and Sing
- Each group presents their new verse to the class.
- If they feel comfortable, they can sing it using the original melody.
- It is beneficial for the professor to have a karaoke (instrumental) version of the song available so that students’ lyrics can be heard clearly.
- Displaying the new lyrics on a monitor or projector allows other students to follow along and sing together, enhancing the collective experience.
6. Election – The Grammy Goes To
Students vote for different categories, including:
- Best Adaptation
- Best Reflection
- Best Performance
- Best Attitude
- Best Collaboration
7. Final Reflection
- What was the most challenging part of understanding the lyrics?
- How did ChatGPT help interpret the song?
- What new words or expressions did you learn?
Source link
June 6, 2025
With better coordination we can break down barriers to academic policy engagement

How can universities best support the UK’s research base to deliver better outcomes for people? This is becoming an ever more urgent challenge for our sector, in the context of a changing geopolitical landscape and the desire of the UK government for research and innovation to better serve the public good.

One route to deriving greater public benefit from academic research lies in research better connecting with and informing public policy development. Recent years have seen a growing number of universities establishing policy units – at least 46, at the last count, and almost certainly more now. There has also been increased investment in policy-focused activity from research funders, for example, Research England’s Policy Support Fund, UKRI policy fellowships, and ESRC investments to increase policymaker engagement with research. New mechanisms to strengthen evidence use, such as government areas of research interest and parliamentary thematic research leads, have been introduced, alongside an increased focus on building capacity for evidence use across sub-national government.

Through the Covid-19 pandemic, we saw the myriad ways in which research evidence informed policy to deliver benefits for people, whether understanding and treating the disease, informing the public health response, or mitigating the wider social impacts.

You can’t always get what you want

“Academic-policy engagement” is becoming increasingly mainstream, as part of universities’ wider knowledge exchange or civic engagement strategies. However, considerable barriers to engagement between academic researchers and policymakers remain. These include significant cultural differences, lack of incentives and investment, mismatched timescales and approaches, lack of access to academic research, and difficulties in parsing an ever-growing volume of information.

Policymakers often express a desire for a streamlined, “one stop” interface with academics to enable them to quickly and easily reach the right expertise at the right time. Given such barriers, this is much easier said than done.

Too often, where interaction does happen, it is short-term, ad hoc, dependent on individual contacts, and enabled through fixed-term funding rather than sustainable approaches. Many institutions lack both the capacity and the necessary capabilities to respond to policy needs.

There is no systematic mechanism for policymakers to engage with universities in order to identify and access the expertise they need, or for universities and researchers to identify policy needs, still less provide a coordinated response. This means that policymakers do not necessarily have access to the best evidence, only that which is most readily available.

What is now required is a serious focus on establishing a more systematic and sustainable approach. Such an approach requires organisational capacity and individual capability, alongside greater collaboration and coordination across the academic-policy ecosystem.

The policy connection cavalry is here

This is where the Universities Policy Engagement Network (UPEN) comes in. Established in 2018 UPEN is a voluntary network of over 120 universities, research centres, and policy organisations across the UK, currently hosted at UCL. Our university members comprise diverse institutions, from large, research-intensive to small, specialist institutions, across all parts of the UK. UPEN provides an interface between all areas of academic research and public policymaking, with strong relationships with the UK’s four national legislatures and 25 government departments and growing links with local and regional policymakers.

UPEN has until now been powered by the contributions of our members: both financial and, crucially, time. With a new funding award from Research England and ESRC, we now have the opportunity to build a national “connective infrastructure” which can respond to growing policy demand, at multiple levels of government, for academic expertise and evidence.

Enhancing UPEN’s ability to provide this interface will enable us as a sector to work in a more coordinated and efficient way. It will also foster greater diversity in academic-policy engagement by ensuring a greater breadth of evidence and voices are heard. And it will build on previous UKRI investments to underpin stronger collaboration and collective action to harness the full potential of the university research base.

Our new programmes of work will focus on three key areas. First, supporting universities to strengthen their academic engagement with public policy by enhancing individual and organisational capabilities. Second, strengthening place-based approaches to academic-policy engagement. Third, developing a national knowledge brokerage function to mobilise academic expertise to respond at the point of policy need.

The UK government is grappling with multiple complex and cross-cutting policy challenges – from bolstering a weak economy, to improving energy security and sustainability, to tackling problems with the health service, to addressing housing needs. It is time for us, as a sector, to better leverage the knowledge of universities to address these challenges in order to deliver better outcomes for citizens across the UK.

Source link

June 4, 2025
How to Significantly Improve Student Engagement and Retained Learning in Higher Education – Faculty Focus

After 13 years of testing higher-order active learning modalities in the classroom, collecting data, building a database, and analyzing student learning results in bi-annual principles of marketing classes, my colleague and I saw two important results emerge. First, all students, regardless of their SES (socio-economic status) standing, showed significantly higher levels of retained learning than the control group which used the time-honored lectures, basic active learning techniques, and case approaches. Secondly, of greater importance, lower-level SES students showed significantly higher retained learning than the general student population. In surveying the literature, significant results have been reported for all students, but not significantly higher than the norm for lower-level SES students.

In the beginning, we decided to build a database measuring what might work better than the currently accepted flipped classroom concept. This step was taken especially since it became more difficult for me over the years in the classroom to keep today’s device-driven students focused beyond 10 seconds or less on an assigned major concept for each of my fifty-minute classes. Retained learning was there but not at the expected levels. In the last 15-20 years as a college professor, especially in marketing and management courses, I have struggled to keep students’ attention, keep them engaged, and keep them on the desired path to improved retained learning of the important course concepts. Fortunately, the classic lecture format, “we speak-you listen”, was replaced years ago by variations of the flipped classroom—students read and studied course content on their own and came to class ready to discuss the major components and issues of what was being studied. However, in this environment, professors must also demonstrate how to apply major concepts to actual problems.

What are the Necessary Steps to Specifically Help SES Students?

We started with guidance from Jean Piaget’s Constructivist Learning Theory, “a process of constructing knowledge based on experience” which embraced active learning modalities as viable examples of the theory. In doing so, we were able to proceed to acceptable testing for TBL/PjBL (Task-Based Learning/Project-Based Learning), simulation, and TBL/PjBL aspects of active learning. With the promise of significantly improving student retained learning experiences, we proceeded to apply the processes to the major classroom concepts under study, connecting them to relevant, firsthand, rigorously applied applications. The best results came from the highest order TBL/PjBL combined modalities where teams chose their own community service projects,

How do you start this process? Some form of testing should be considered if such modalities have not been tried in the past. While our data collection was for entry level classes to a major, it is not recommended that you do that. For that class level, I recommend the simulation modality as offered by some of the major publishers. In addition, we found that problem-based learning, using specific real -world problems, did not work well in my classes as every semester had a different local problem supplied. I also realized that any single problem assignment for the semester in the PjBL format could not be stretched to cover all the semester’s major concepts in the discipline.

Here is a basic framework for using simulation or the TBL/PjBL combination in certain marketing, management, and other related business classes as examples:

1. Choose a Familiar Visualization

To start with, for any principles or like-named introductory classes in the major, regardless of how you introduce the higher order modalities, it is important that you choose a visualization for students to use in their application exercises. In marketing, I use a bookbag (backpack) because of the obvious student familiarity. In management, it might be a company. In sociology, it might be a defined demographic group. In picking a visualization, make sure students have experience with it as a necessary knowledge base on which to build their applications for greater retained learning. This step is essential in all forms of active learning, especially in the higher order modalities. Even though current generational students resist group work, I encouraged them to team up with a study partner (for experience) where they can help each other with content, application, and reporting (even though all submissions must be individual and not just copied from their partner).

If you do not have experience with simulation or TBL/PjBL, it is strongly recommended to test the various forms in a segment of the course, such as in the last four weeks. The easiest way to start this segment is to use a graded, flipped simulation where students apply the application outside of class in that timeframe, with you testing the applied learning results using one concept per week. The way I did this was to have each student submit a written weekly ¾ page minimum response showing how they applied that week’s concept. This will require extra work for you, but the results should be enlightening to your teaching success along with problem areas that should be addressed.

If you choose just simulation, McGraw Hill, for example, uses 8-10 application-based activities (called ABAs) for critical inclusion at set times throughout the semester. Because of the lack of student experience in a general business operation, I allowed three tries at each activity before posting a student’s grade. Two weeks before the end of the semester, I offered students extra credit if they ran the whole marketing process to sell backpacks. Anecdotally, adding TBL/PjBL modalities were too much for them to manage and there was too much group conflict. Thus, a month of individual response classes could be considered a capstone for the class. Now, with the introduction to generative AI, you will now need to review how to let the students use it as a source, just like Google or any other such media; however, be sure to have them quote their source along with properly noting with exact quotes for any AI content used as presented.

For your classes at upper levels such as marketing communications and consumer behavior, use the combined higher order active learning TBL/PjBL model. On the first day of class, define the visualization requirement; however, this will be different for each group as they choose their project. Next, in that same class period, note that they will be working in groups for their TBL/PjBL project with each formed group confirmed by you two weeks in. Define the group size as no more than four students; no less than two students if necessary (class size, resistance etc. may impact choices). Even if you have used or are familiar with higher order modalities in the classroom, you should review the most current literature on how and why components of cooperation must be included (which includes collaboration) and what constitutes an effective TBL/PjBL group. My colleague and I have found that TBL/PjBL projects worked better if developed, designed, and implemented by each student team and with our professorial guidance.

I suggest that you review the details on why the community service project is best, starting with Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, and Whitt (2005) who first mentioned this approach and recognized its benefits, and Kuh (2008) who expanded on them. See also von Freymann and Cuffe (2020) for six reasons to choose community service projects. Our university has been quite pleased with the outcomes and publicity—along with a sizable donation to one of our schools as a thank you.

2. Form Intentional Teams and Track Achievement Data

Be sure to devise measurement methods for data collection from the start of class to record and compare lower-level SES student achievement versus non-lower-level SES student achievements. Allowing groups to form on their own may not allow for using all the aspects of higher-order cooperation. As an aside: Group composition is often the most difficult step in upper-level classes as many may have their friends in class and who they feel more comfortable working with. A class vote has not worked in the past, so you need to consider setting up the teams yourself guided by your experience with these students and their posted GPAs. You will get some pushbacks, but you should explain in class at the beginning of the semester why this will work better for everyone in the end.

3. Syllabus Inclusions

Syllabus inclusions—promise and provide proper guidance throughout the semester with individual teams outside of class. Also review situations and/or results in class that apply to all the groups’ efforts. Once decided, be sure to update your syllabus with the revised details of what’s expected, how to do it, and what graded parts will be needed.

From the beginning, it’s important to clearly explain in your syllabus how the process will be conducted and assessed, including the required written submissions and final presentation for all higher-order modality applications. For TBL/PjBL, part of the process should require a group response of what was found in the literature review. This will help support the plan recommendation in the final written document and presentation. (Students in the simulation classes should be assigned some individual concept research as well to help them get used to using other sources.) Due to the added student workload, the team research should be submitted by mid-semester for acceptance and separate grading by the professor. Each team member must submit three to five supporting articles with an assessment of how it will help the planning process.

Using the tenants of Constructivist Theory for support, explain to students how the theory should work for them and remind them throughout the course to focus on what they might know, can vicariously relate to, and what they have adapted to, as their base experience in learning the course core concepts as they are revealed by you throughout the semester.

Dr. von Freymann spent thirty years in advertising and marketing as a practitioner working with many companies from high tech to consumer products, national to local. Moving on, Jeff earned an MBA and DBA, each with a marketing emphasis and spent the later part of his career teaching, settling at Wingate University as an associate professor. Using his business experience, he was able to show students how the business process works and why it’s essential for them to be able to apply that learning after graduation.

Source link

May 30, 2025
Supporting Student Mental Health in the Classroom: A Faculty Guide to Compassionate Engagement – Faculty Focus

In recent years, higher education has witnessed a surge in conversations around student mental health. National surveys consistently report escalating rates of anxiety, depression, and loneliness among college students (American College Health Association 2023). Yet despite these growing concerns, faculty remain largely underprepared to intervene effectively. While staff in student affairs and counseling centers are often trained in mental health response and early intervention, faculty are frequently left out of these critical conversations. This divide has resulted in a persistent gap—both in knowledge and in action.

Studies show that students are more likely to exhibit early signs of distress in the classroom than in other campus spaces, making faculty key frontline responders (Lipson et al., 2022). However, faculty often report feeling ill-equipped or unsure about how to identify mental health concerns or refer students appropriately. A 2020 national survey of faculty found that only 51% felt confident in recognizing when a student might need help, and fewer than 30% had received any formal training (NASPA, 2020). In addition, given the other responsibilities to achieve tenure, it can be challenging to know how to prioritize a list of competing needs.

Despite the increase in mental health programming across universities, little has changed in how faculty are prepared to support students. Institutions often prioritize staff development in these areas, assuming counseling centers or student affairs teams will manage the bulk of mental health interventions. However, without better integration of faculty into institutional wellbeing strategies, students may continue to fall through the cracks.

Recognizing the Signs: What Faculty Can Do

Common signs of student distress—frequent absences, changes in participation, disorganized thinking, or emotional outbursts—often surface in classroom settings. While faculty are not expected to diagnose or treat mental health conditions, being able to recognize these red flags and respond appropriately can be lifesaving.

It is important for faculty to understand their role in the broader system of care: to notice, approach with compassion, and refer. The role does not include functioning as a therapist. Each faculty member has been socialized in their respective fields for several years. That training should not be set aside. Rather, learning how to refer students is vital. Still, the referral process can be opaque. Many faculty are unaware of what services are available, who to call, or what their responsibility is after making a referral. Closing this knowledge gap requires clear, accessible systems—and consistent faculty inclusion in mental health trainings and initiatives.

From Concern to Connection: The Power of Referral

Faculty can make a difference by normalizing help-seeking behavior and offering concrete pathways to support. A simple statement like, “I’ve noticed you seem a bit off lately—are you okay? If you’d like, I can help you find someone to talk to,” can build trust and remove stigma. Learning the language of how to intervene can help facilitate the appropriate connection to campus services. The goal is to get students connected to care in ways that faculty can provide.

The Divide Between Faculty and Staff

Staff members in counseling services and student affairs are trained in trauma-informed practices, crisis response, and developmental theory. Faculty, by contrast, are rarely required to learn these skills, even as they face growing demands to support student wellbeing.

This disconnect is structural, not personal. The division between academic and student affairs has long been a feature of higher education. Yet if we are to meet the holistic needs of students, institutions must actively dismantle these silos and build collaborative, cross-functional approaches to care. Faculty should be partners in designing wellbeing strategies, not peripheral to them.

Supporting Faculty Mental Health

It’s also essential to acknowledge that faculty are under pressure too. Burnout, compassion fatigue, and rising expectations in teaching and service can make it difficult to engage in additional emotional labor. Supporting student mental health cannot come at the expense of faculty wellbeing. It should also be noted that female presenting faculty are more likely to be approached by students to share about their mental health. Female presenting faculty may be carrying the additional stress of trying to help students in addition to their other duties.

Institutions must invest in faculty support systems—professional development, access to mental health resources, and workload adjustments—to ensure sustainable engagement. Training in student mental health should be framed not as an added burden, but as a shared responsibility that supports teaching, learning, and community resilience.

Toward a Culture of Care

UMBC is advancing a “Culture of CARE” that centers equity, resilience, and connection across the campus experience. For faculty, this means being empowered to recognize when students need help, equipped with tools to respond appropriately, and connected to a broader network of care. It also means ensuring that faculty themselves are cared for, supported, and not left to carry this burden alone.

As the Assistant Vice President for health and wellbeing, I enjoy assisting in bridging the divide between faculty and staff. By embedding mental health into the culture of higher education, we can create campuses where everyone—students and educators alike—can thrive.

Dr. Rae Chresfield is a higher education leader with over 15 years of experience in mental health, wellbeing, and student support. A first-generation college graduate, she began her academic journey at Coastal Carolina Community College and earned a B.S. in Behavioral Science from the University of Maryland University College, an M.A. in Mental Health and Wellness from NYU, and a Ph.D. in Counselor Education and Supervision from SUNY Buffalo.

Dr. Chresfield has held progressive leadership roles in higher education, including Director of Counseling Services, Associate Dean of Health and Wellness, and Assistant Professor. She currently serves as the inaugural Assistant Vice President for Health and Wellbeing at UMBC, where she leads strategic efforts to embed a holistic Culture of CARE across campus. Her work focuses on integrated service delivery and bridging the gap between mental health professionals and institutional leadership.

Widely known as “Dr. Rae,” she is recognized for her compassionate approach and commitment to student-centered systems that support wellbeing, equity, and resilience.

References

American College Health Association. 2023. National College Health Assessment: Spring 2023 Reference Group Data Report. Silver Spring, MD: ACHA.

Lipson, Sarah K., Laura H. Eisenberg, and Daniel Eisenberg. 2022. “Faculty and Mental Health: Knowledge, Confidence, and Responsibility.” Journal of American College Health 70(6): 1491–1500. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2021.1909043.

NASPA. 2020. The Role of Faculty in Student Mental Health: Results of a National Survey. Washington, DC: NASPA Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.

Source link

May 23, 2025