Tag: Landscape

  • Redefining active learning in a digitally transformed higher education landscape

    Redefining active learning in a digitally transformed higher education landscape

    Join HEPI for a webinar on Thursday 11 December 2025 from 10am to 11am to discuss how universities can strengthen the student voice in governance to mark the launch of our upcoming report, Rethinking the Student Voice. Sign up now to hear our speakers explore the key questions.

    This blog was kindly authored by Dr Andrew Woon, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Management, Monash University Malaysia.

    After teaching in the UK for nearly five years, I returned to Malaysia and joined Monash University. There I noticed a  striking difference in the approach to teaching and learning methodologies.

    Many universities have been grappling with low student attendance, a trend particularly acute since the onset of COVID-19. Additionally, the increasingly diverse student body (including a higher proportion of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, mature-age learners and those studying with disabilities) requires greater flexibility in learning modes to accommodate their varied responsibilities and commitments. These pressures have significantly altered the traditional image of a bustling university campus filled with students, prompting institutions to rethink how education is delivered and experienced.

    Some universities have taken dramatic steps to address these challenges, Adelaide University decided to discontinue face-to-face lectures, and many other major Australian universities have redefined their course delivery formats to incorporate digital content and self-paced modules.

    Monash University has implemented both asynchronous and synchronous learning approaches as part of its transformative teaching and learning initiatives, aligned with the Impact 2030 strategic plan. At Monash, we view the Moodle learning platform not merely as a content repository, but as a dynamic “classroom” space. It serves as an interactive environment where educators can engage students through structured modules, collaborative activities, and timely feedback – going beyond simply sharing materials and resources.

    At Monash, we have transitioned lectures to an asynchronous format, which we refer to as “own-time learning.” This allows students to engage with content at their convenience. Our tutorials, which represent the synchronous component of learning, are designed to be interactive and focused on higher-order thinking and practical application.

    The goal is to redefine active learning across both asynchronous and synchronous learning spaces to empower students to take ownership of their educational journey. With the rapid advancement of AI fundamentally reshaping the educational landscape, it is high time for bold, intentional changes in how we design, support, deliver, and assess learning.

    In an era where information and knowledge are readily accessible, we have reimagined passive lecturing by breaking it down into microlearning blocks. Traditional lectures are now delivered as short, topic-specific videos accompanied by thought-provoking questions and scaffolded learning activities. This structure prepares students for synchronous sessions by stimulating curiosity, promoting cognitive engagement, and cultivating practical skills.

    Of course, this method is not without its challenges. Many educators rightly raise concerns about how many students actually complete the pre-session “own-time learning” and how effectively they engage with the material before attending tutorials. Yet, this very concern also applies to traditional live, large lecture sessions, where passive attendance does not necessarily equate to meaningful engagement or preparation. The shift to asynchronous formats simply makes this issue more visible and measurable, prompting us to rethink how we scaffold, motivate, and support student learning across modalities.

    This transformation not only responds to the diverse needs of our student population (including those balancing work, caregiving, or accessibility challenges), but also enables more effective utilisation of physical classroom spaces. Traditional lecture theatres can be reimagined as interactive, collaborative learning environments that foster deeper engagement, peer dialogue, and practical application.

    In addition, shifting classroom activities to online spaces enables students to better plan their timetables, reducing scheduling conflicts and long gaps between classes. This flexibility not only supports time management but also cultivates essential skills in online collaboration, digital communication, and self-directed learning — competencies that are increasingly vital in both academic and professional spheres.

    The shift to asynchronous lectures represents a significant cultural change in learning, requiring adaptation from both students and educators. As educators, we must evolve from being mere content deliverers to becoming facilitators who thoughtfully design learning activities that promote engagement, critical thinking, and autonomy. This pedagogical shift challenges us to create meaningful learning experiences that guide students through inquiry, application, and reflection, rather than relying on the passive delivery of content typical of large lecture formats.

    As a result, I do not see asynchronous lectures as a lesser form of teaching or an intellectual compromise, but rather as a strategic shift that empowers students to learn at their own pace, revisit complex concepts, and prepare more meaningfully for interactive sessions. When thoughtfully designed, asynchronous learning fosters autonomy, deepens engagement, and complements synchronous tutorials in cultivating higher-order thinking and practical skills.

    I believe UK institutions should take a bold step forward, as the current format of delivery is unlikely to drive meaningful progress. The traditional reliance on large, live lectures and rigid timetabling no longer aligns with the evolving needs of students or the realities of a digitally transformed educational landscape. Embracing asynchronous and blended learning models that are paired with thoughtful curriculum design can foster deeper engagement, greater flexibility, and more inclusive learning experiences for all.

    Source link

  • Accreditors Venture Into the Microcredential Landscape

    Accreditors Venture Into the Microcredential Landscape

    The microcredential landscape is often called a “wild west” in higher ed circles.

    The field is crowded with tens of thousands of program providers, in and outside of academia, online and in person. Short-term programs vary widely, from certificates to badges to boot camps, spanning weeks to months to over a year. And while some programs offer high returns, others yield little to none or insufficiently track outcomes.

    Now, two accrediting agencies are stepping into that murky terrain, hoping to bring some order—and branch out into a new market. Both the New England Commission of Higher Education and the Higher Learning Commission, which has been researching short-term programs for eight years, are gearing up to assess whether providers of these programs meet their standards.

    This past spring, NECHE voted to start endorsing noncredit program providers, including traditional four-year and two-year higher ed institutions and external organizations that offer these programs. For colleges and universities, NECHE’s recognition will be a bonus marker of quality on top of their existing accreditation. The move comes after the accreditor spent two years developing a microcredential-focused quality framework and testing it out on a cohort of six providers as part of a pilot project funded by the Lumina Foundation. Now, NECHE plans to launch its new recognition process for noncredit providers this upcoming spring.

    The goal is to start with at least 30 applicants for recognition. But NECHE officials expect to see greater demand as noncredit providers vie for students and employer partnerships in a competitive market and seek to strengthen pipelines from noncredit programs to jobs and degrees.

    Laura Gambino, vice president of NECHE, said the stamp of approval will also signal to students which programs are worthwhile.

    “There’s virtually no quality assurance in that space,” she said. “At the end of the day, this is all about ensuring that students have access to high-quality learning opportunities” as millions of students flock to these programs.

    This fall, the Higher Learning Commission is launching its own endorsement for microcredential providers, specifically those outside higher ed. The accreditor has been working since 2017 to think through the role it could play in an evolving higher ed landscape. With funding from Lumina and ECMC, it started a think tank on the topic to consult with experts and, two years later, launched its Credential Lab, a hub to help institutions and students navigate the rapid expansion of short-term credentials.

    HLC conducted a pilot project this year, starting with four microcredential providers from outside higher ed, to create and try a possible endorsement system. Now that endorsement process is set to launch before January. (Both the HLC and NECHE are recognizing program providers, not assessing individual programs.) The HLC’s Credential Lab is also in the process of selecting higher ed institutions to participate in its Innovation Center, a series of webinars for colleges and universities interested in growing their microcredential offerings or taking their first forays into the field.

    “We are knee-deep in this,” said Barbara Gellman-Danley, president of the Higher Learning Commission.

    A 2023 survey of HLC member institutions found that 91 percent expected alternative credential offerings to grow at their institutions and 86 percent wanted help parsing the quality of external providers to explore potential partnerships.

    As traditional higher ed institutions struggle with a range of challenges, from declining traditional-age student enrollments to funding losses, Gellman-Danley sees them exploring partnerships with external providers to expand their offerings as a way to be “competitive.”

    “They’re looking for some kind of solution, and we want to make sure that they don’t grab a solution that’s a temporary one and that they’re prepared,” she said. Meanwhile, microcredential providers, also eager for these partnerships, are looking for “credibility.”

    An ‘Essential’ Step

    Accreditation experts say it’s high time accreditors ventured into evaluating alternative credentials, both to keep up with students’ shifting preferences and to defend them from bad actors.

    “Reviewing microcredential programs and providers is essential for protecting students,” Nasser H. Paydar, president of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, said in an email to Inside Higher Ed. “Accrediting organizations recognized by CHEA and the U.S. Department of Education have already demonstrated their ability to review providers and programs. The review of these programs should begin as soon as possible, validating their quality, thereby protecting students.”

    Paul Gaston III, an emeritus Trustees Professor at Kent State University, said quality assurance for microcredentials “really needs to be done” and he believes accreditors are clearly the bodies to do it.

    “Accreditors have the advantage of 100 years or more of experience in evaluation procedures,” he said. “The challenge lies in adapting those procedures to a kind of credential that is not traditional.”

    Evaluating a New Landscape

    Officials at NECHE and HLC say they’ve drawn on decades of know-how as evaluators to reimagine quality standards for a world of shorter, faster credentials.

    For example, NECHE’s quality framework for noncredit program providers includes “agility” as a marker, alongside more traditional benchmarks like qualified faculty and student supports.

    “Noncredit providers have to be able to respond to employer needs, state workforce needs, very, very quickly,” Gambino said, unlike degree programs, which “move a little more slowly” when it comes to change. As a former faculty member and chair of a curriculum committee, “‘agility’ is never a word I used to describe our process.”

    That’s why NECHE plans to recognize noncredit program providers over five-year cycles, with annual data reporting requirements, rather than the 10-year accreditation cycles it uses for degree-granting institutions. Reviews by peer evaluators will also be offered online and in hybrid form to accommodate online providers.

    Alongside agility, measuring returns on investment, such as employment and job-promotion rates, is especially important for short-term programs, Gambino said, because so many students come to these programs with such goals in mind. NECHE and HLC also plan to evaluate providers on whether their noncredit offerings can serve as on-ramps to credit-bearing programs if students choose to continue their education.

    Gellman-Danley said adapting accreditors’ skills and processes to the microcredential landscape also comes with the added challenge that some providers outside academia don’t collect the data higher ed institutions traditionally track. For example, she found some showed high job-placement rates but had few metrics to show proof of student learning.

    She hopes that the HLC’s endorsement process encourages alternative credential providers to keep better data, but at the end of the day, an endorsement is not required to access financial aid, unlike at the colleges and universities HLC accredits and can command to shape up.

    “These companies don’t all have the financial data that we might want to see to make sure that they’re sustainable,” she said. “They don’t all have outcomes metrics—even really good [providers]. They’re new to it. It’s kind of a nascent industry … We’ve been amazed at how complex it is when we got into this.”

    Models for the Future

    Gaston believes NECHE and HLC could serve as “bellwethers,” modeling how other accreditors could go about venturing into the microcredential landscape.

    By evaluating new kinds of providers, accreditors are also asserting their ongoing value and relevance at a time when more Americans are questioning traditional higher education and accreditation, he said. He pointed out there have been recent challenges to the existing accreditation system, notably an effort by six state university systems to start their own accrediting agency.

    Accreditors would be “off-putting” to students if they ignored the burgeoning nondegree programs they’re embracing, Gaston said. But accreditors “taking seriously these opportunities that are increasingly popular has to contribute to a more positive regard for the accreditation process and for higher education in general.”

    Larry Schall, president of NECHE, also noted that as workforce Pell becomes a reality and federal dollars start to flow to low-income students in eligible short-term programs, it’s an opportune time to have tools to evaluate these program providers. States are going to be responsible for certain quality checks on these programs, so he can foresee NECHE potentially partnering with states to help with that process, depending on the final details of the workforce Pell program.

    As HLC and NECHE—and perhaps other accreditors down the line—start to work with microcredential providers, there’s bound to be some competition. But accreditors aren’t too worried.

    Gellman-Danley said with hundreds of thousands of alternative credential providers, it’s a “very big market” with plenty of room to go around. She’s particularly proud of the process HLC has developed, she said, but “we applaud our colleagues who are looking into this or doing this as well.”

    Schall agrees there’s space for multiple accreditors in the expansive microcredentialing wild west.

    “We don’t mind competition,” Schall said. “The number of colleges is actually shrinking. The number of noncredit providers is growing. And so, the supply is going to be huge.”

    Source link

  • Working Students Face New Challenges in a Shifting Policy Landscape

    Working Students Face New Challenges in a Shifting Policy Landscape

    Most undergraduates today are juggling academics with paid work, many logging 40 or more hours a week. That load leaves little margin: more non-academic responsibilities, less time for coursework, and fewer opportunities to engage on campus mean these students often feel the effects of federal policy changes first.

    The budget reconciliation bill signed into law on July 4 threatens to make those challenges worse, reshaping student loans and public benefit programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid in ways that risk cutting off critical financial lifelines. On Pell Grants, the news is mixed: the bill restores a revised Workforce Pell program that could open doors to short-term training, but makes other changes that may reduce access for some students.

    For working students already balancing jobs, school, and basic needs, these changes could tip the balance toward longer time to degree, greater debt, or leaving school altogether. Using recent data, we explore how these students are making ends meet now, and what colleges, universities, and policymakers can do to protect and strengthen the supports that help them stay enrolled and graduate.

    Profile of student workers

    According to the 2020 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:20), nearly three-quarters of undergraduate students work while enrolled, with around a third of those students working full time. Results from Trellis Strategies’ 2024 Student Financial Wellness Survey (SFWS) identified similar rates of employment, allowing the ability to cross-reference specific questions about overall financial wellness. In this post, we compare SFWS respondents who answered “yes” to the question “Do you work for pay?” with those who answered “no.”

    About half of all SFWS respondents reported using income from their employment to pay for school. However, many working students have additional financial commitments beyond their education. For example, 19 percent of working respondents indicated they provide financial support to a child, and 18 percent provide the same support to their parents or guardians. Overall, about half of working SFWS respondents (47 percent) shared that it was important for them to support their family financially while in college, compared to 38 percent of their non-working peers.

    This heightened familial commitment is reflected in the fact that many working students—36 percent of those responding to the 2024 SFWS—identify primarily as workers who go to school, rather than students who work. Furthermore, working students attend part-time at higher rates (38 percent) compared to their non-working peers (28 percent).

    How working students pay for college

    Most students who were working at the time the 2024 SFWS was administered self-reported using their employment to pay for college (see Figure 2). Many used personal savings as well, but only seven percent were able to “work their way through college” using employment and/or personal savings alone. Instead, working students, similar to their peers who don’t work, depend upon aid such as grants and loans to be able to access higher education.

    Nationally representative data from NPSAS:20 show that almost 40 percent of working students receive Pell Grants and more than a third borrow federal student loans (non-working students receive federal aid at similar rates).

    For these students, losing part of their federal aid could mean they can no longer afford higher education. This is especially true for those students with limited financial flexibility to fall back on. Working students in the SFWS were more likely to report using credit cards to pay for college and were less likely to receive financial support from parents or family, as compared to their non-working peers.

    Implications of policy changes

    The reconciliation bill passed by Congress in July 2025 (the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) includes many changes that impact students, with particularly significant consequences for those who work.

    On Pell Grants, the bill offers both opportunities and new concerns. It restores a revised Workforce Pell Grant program, starting July 2026, that expands the traditional Pell Grant to include eligible short-term non-degree programs at accredited institutions, an option that could help working students earn credentials more quickly and move into higher-paying jobs.

    At the same time, the bill restricts Pell eligibility when other scholarships, grants, or non-federal aid fully cover a student’s cost of attendance. Under this system, a working student who receives a private scholarship that might otherwise allow them to decrease their working hours could instead see their Pell Grant decrease. While intended to prevent Pell from being awarded in “full-ride” situations, the change could also affect working students who have substantial financial responsibilities beyond the calculated cost of attendance.

    The bill also includes significant changes to federal student loan programs and repayment options, with most of the changes effective as of July 1, 2026. Parents borrowing Parent PLUS loans will now have annual and aggregate borrowing caps. About one in 10 undergraduate students, including among working students, reported that their parents borrowed loans for their education. Limits on this borrowing may constrain the financial resources of some students, with possible negative consequences for their academic momentum.

    Changes to SNAP and Medicaid will affect state budgets, putting higher education at risk and making it harder for people to enroll in and complete a credential while meeting their basic needs. Many students, despite also working, already face significant barriers such as food and housing insecurity, as found in the 2024 SFWS.

    While no changes were made to student-specific eligibility criteria in SNAP, new work requirements in SNAP and Medicaid prioritize work over education, making it harder for people to complete a credential while maintaining access to food and health assistance. These work requirements will also create new administrative hurdles, which research shows result in people being kicked off of Medicaid despite being eligible.

    The net effect of these changes will relegate more people to low-wage work by delaying or denying their ability to complete credentials that would provide higher wages, lower unemployment and poverty rates, and less use of public benefits. While the Medicaid work requirement changes don’t begin until January 2028, the SNAP changes were effective upon signing of the bill. However, states are awaiting further guidance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture on how to administer those changes.

    Any reduction in financial aid or public assistance resources for students may mean that more students will need to work longer hours while enrolled to make ends meet. Besides reducing the number of hours available to study, work schedules can also directly conflict with class schedules and other campus activities.One-quarter of working respondents in the 2024 SFWS reported missing at least one day of classes due to conflicts with their job, and 56 percent of students with jobs agreed or strongly agreed that their job interfered with their ability to engage in extracurricular activities or social events at their school. Students with a weaker sense of connection and belonging at their institution have been shown to have worse academic performance and retention rates than their peers.

    Supporting working students

    While changes to federal student aid programs are still being debated, colleges and universities can ensure they have programs and processes in place to support working students at their campuses. Institutional leaders can:

    • Develop or enhance robust support systems, such as emergency grants, connection to public services, and adequate financial aid, to help students weather financial challenges, develop a stronger connection to their institution, and remain enrolled.
    • Implement strategic course scheduling that can help students more effectively plan employment, child care, transportation, and other needs so they can enroll in and complete more classes in a timely way.
    • Leverage regular data collection to respond to the needs of their specific student body. Participating in the annual Student Financial Wellness Survey is free and provides institutions with a customized report, benchmarking insights, and de-identified student data.
    • Policymakers should consider how programs can best serve students juggling multiple time commitments and financial priorities. Robust social services, such as child care and access to public assistance programs, can allow more working students the opportunity to thrive. Adequate financial aid can help students work less and complete their credentials sooner, opening the door to higher wages.

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

    Source link

  • Measuring AI Density within the Evolving Search Marketing Landscape

    Measuring AI Density within the Evolving Search Marketing Landscape

    This fundamental shift demands a re-evaluation of how we evaluate, measure, and evolve our SEO and website marketing efforts. For higher education institutions, staying ahead of this curve isn’t just about visibility; it’s about connecting with prospective students in new and impactful ways.

    The world of Search Engine Optimization (SEO) is in constant flux, and never has this been more evident than in the current era of artificial intelligence. AI-driven search experiences are fundamentally shifting how prospective students search for schools and programs, and what worked yesterday won’t be enough to drive success going forward.

    Gone are the days when organic traffic and keyword rankings were the sole arbiters of SEO success. While still important, the reasons for their diminishing effectiveness are becoming increasingly clear:

    • Traffic is no longer a perfect proxy for exposure: With the rise of AI-powered search features like Google’s AI Overviews, users are increasingly finding answers directly on the Search Engine Results Page (SERP) without needing to click through to a website. This “zero-click” phenomenon means your content can provide value and influence prospective students even if it doesn’t result in a website visit. A high ranking might lead to less traffic if the answer is provided directly on the SERP, skewing traditional traffic metrics.
    • Keyword rankings don’t capture semantic understanding: AI excels at understanding natural language and user intent. While a keyword ranking tells you if you’re visible for a specific phrase, it doesn’t tell you if your content is truly satisfying the underlying need or being recognized as authoritative for a broader topic. Users are asking more complex questions, and AI is providing more nuanced answers, making a simple keyword ranking less indicative of true search performance.

    The Rise of AI Overviews and Our “AI Density” KPI Approach

    Google’s AI Overviews (formerly Search Generative Experience) are transforming how information is consumed. These AI-generated summaries appear prominently at the top of the SERP, synthesizing information from multiple authoritative sources to provide immediate answers.

    Google AI Overview example within a higher education SERP

    For higher education marketers, this means that even if a user doesn’t click on your link, your institution’s content can still be featured, influencing their perception of your brand and their enrollment decision-making. With this, it is necessary to expand your measurement framework to encompass new KPIs; one such KPI is AI density.

    AI density measures how often your institution’s content is cited or referenced within AI Overviews for relevant queries. This KPI goes beyond clicks, focusing on the ultimate visibility and attribution your brand receives within these AI-powered summaries. A high AI Density signifies that your content is considered a trusted and valuable source by AI models, driving more visibility among high-intent prospective students.

    How to Influence Your Website’s AI Density:

    • Optimize for authority and trustworthiness: AI models prioritize content from credible and authoritative sources. Focus on building E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness) through high-quality, in-depth content, expert authors, and strong internal and external linking.
    • Structure your content for AI readability: Use clear headings, concise answers to common questions, and structured data (schema markup) to help AI models easily understand and extract information from your pages.
    • Analyze source citations: Pay attention to which websites Google’s AI Overviews are sourcing their information from. Are you among them?

    Beyond the Click: Other Essential Modern SEO KPIs

    While AI density is a powerful new addition, a holistic view of your SEO performance in the AI era requires tracking a broader set of KPIs. Here are some that will become increasingly vital:

    • Search Share of Voice: This metric moves beyond individual keyword rankings to assess your institution’s overall visibility for a set of relevant topics or queries compared to your competitors. In the modern search landscape, this encompasses your website, your social media presence, your external brand mentions, and more.
    • On-Platform Visibility: Students are searching on more platforms than ever before, from social platforms like Reddit, YouTube, and TikTok, to chatbots like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude. Your SEO strategy needs to consider visibility on these platforms, and your KPIs should reflect your presence and engagement there.
    • Brand Search Volume: As AI provides direct answers, users may be exposed to your brand without visiting your site. Monitor branded search queries in Google Search Console and Google Trends. An increase in branded searches indicates growing brand awareness and recall, even if the initial search didn’t lead to a click.
    • Engagement Quality (Beyond Bounce Rate): Instead of solely focusing on bounce rate, delve into metrics that indicate true engagement. Look at “engaged sessions” in GA4, video views, downloads of resources, and repeat visits. These metrics show that your content is truly resonating with users, even if the conversion isn’t immediate.
    • Conversion Influence (aka Assisted Conversions): SEO’s role in the user journey is becoming more complex. It might not always be the last click, but it often initiates or assists a conversion. Utilize GA4’s attribution models to understand how organic search influences conversions further down the funnel, even if other channels get the “last click” credit.

    Adapting for the Future

    The shift in the SEO landscape is not a threat but an opportunity for marketers to become more strategic and meet prospective student needs more effectively. By evolving our KPIs to reflect the realities of AI-powered search, higher education institutions can gain a deeper understanding of their online performance and adapt their strategies to thrive.

    EducationDynamics is committed to helping institutions navigate this evolving digital terrain. By focusing on these modern KPIs, you can ensure your SEO efforts are not just about ranking for keywords, but about building genuine visibility, authority, and engagement in an increasingly intelligent search environment. Contact us to learn how we can support your strategy.

    Source link

  • Navigating higher education in a changing landscape

    Navigating higher education in a changing landscape

    • Ahead of TASO’s annual conference, How to evaluate, on 29–30 April, Omar Khan, CEO of TASO (the Centre for Transforming Access and Student Outcomes in Higher Education) discusses the challenges facing higher education, particularly in the face of wider discussions around the value and purpose of higher education in the UK and beyond.

    We all know of the challenges facing higher education. The questions can feel existential: from the financial sustainability of institutions to the social consensus on the value and purpose of higher education itself.

    Without seeming pollyannish, I believe higher education can and must continue to argue for its value and purpose in these difficult times. There remains significant agreement that higher education brings value, for individuals as well as the economy, with reputational benefits for the UK internationally too. Similarly, there is broad consensus that addressing inequalities of participation as well as of the student experience is a priority. While we shouldn’t be complacent about the impact of criticism of ‘DEI’ (diversity, equity and inclusion) in the US, so far UK higher education has remained committed to the widening participation agenda and the sector has not been subject to sustained public attacks from the government.

    One reason that widening participation remains on the agenda is the legislative and regulatory environment. Significantly, for over a decade, the principle has been established that rising fees should be matched by a clear commitment to demonstrating improved access. As the sector will now know, in England this is delivered through providers submitting access and participation plans (APPs) to the Office for Students.

    A commitment to evaluation

    APPs are now also expected to have a clear commitment to evaluation. Unsurprisingly, given my role as CEO of the higher education What Works Centre TASO, I think this is a good thing. At TASO we’ve seen a significant improvement in the number and robustness of evaluations across the sector since our founding some five years ago.

    As we gather for our fourth annual conference (29–30 April), we will continue to support the sector on understanding the evidence base on inequalities in higher education. We do this in two main ways: through synthesising and commissioning research, and by producing more practical guidance for the sector to deliver effective evaluation themselves.

    A library of providers’ evaluations

    Recently, we’ve announced a key way we will bring this work together: the Higher Education Evaluation Library, or HEEL (like the rest of the sector, we too love an acronym), working in partnership with HEAT, the Higher Education Access Tracker, to deliver it. The library will bring together higher education evaluations in one place, which are otherwise published across the wide range of institutions across the sector.

    At our conference, we will continue our consultation with the sector about the library to ensure we understand and are responsive to how evaluators and others can best use this resource. Once we have consulted and worked with HEAT to develop the infrastructure for HEEL, and once providers upload their evaluations into this online library, we will produce regular digests summarising what we find. Ultimately, the goal or promise is that these digests will improve the evidence base, reduce duplication across the sector and improve outcomes for students.

    Navigating the financial landscape

    At TASO we are optimistic about the future of evaluation in the sector, not least as we have seen a wider cultural and institutional commitment to joint learning as well as to the value of equal opportunity and social mobility that motivates all of us to do this work. However, I want to recognise and to flag a serious concern that TASO (and no doubt many others) is seeing across the sector, that is, how the financial situation impacts widening participation activity.

    To effectively evaluate and assess whether activities improve outcomes for students, those activities need to be adequately resourced. We have heard evidence that redundancies and cost-cutting across the sector are impacting on the ability of staff to deliver these activities, as well as to evaluate them. This is in a context where child poverty is increasing, where inequalities in school attainment are rising, and where the higher education attainment gap between free school meal students and their more advantaged counterparts is at its widest at over 20.8 percentage points.

    A refocus on values and mission

    We recognise that times are tight, that tough decisions need to be made and that this has an impact on staff morale. At the same time, higher education must continue to prioritise its values and mission: a commitment to evidence as well as to equality and social mobility. Furthermore, at a time of increased public scepticism of how the sector is delivering on these aims, delivering for the most disadvantaged students becomes a matter of public support and democratic consensus.

    As we’ve spent the past decade building the foundations to better address inequalities in higher education, it’s vital we continue to work together to make the promise of higher education a reality for everyone who wants to access it, regardless of their background.

    While TASO is here to support the sector to do this, we cannot do this alone, and I want to recognise and thank all of those who do this important work day in and day out: senior leaders, evaluators, practitioners, third sector organisations, teachers, parents and of course student leaders and activists committed to ensuring better lives for themselves and their peers.

    Source link

  • Three Questions With Lee Bradshaw on the Evolving Online Program Landscape

    Three Questions With Lee Bradshaw on the Evolving Online Program Landscape

    Last time we checked in with Lee Bradshaw, the founding CEO of Rhodes Advisors, he shared insights into how universities might grow online programs without breaking the bank. As a follow-up, I wanted to pick Lee’s brain about what he is hearing from the higher education leaders he works with on the evolving online program landscape.

    Q: As the online program ecosystem has grown and a few large universities have invested heavily in scaling their offerings, do you still see room for colleges and universities to enter the online degree market?

    A: Yes, the demand is still there, but the landscape has changed. We’re supporting universities launching new programs that achieve substantial first-term numbers—even in saturated markets. Growth is happening, but expecting 1,000 percent five-year ROIs like a decade ago isn’t realistic. Universities must temper expectations and/or focus on innovative, sustainable wins. That said, as we address in your third question later, I’m unaware of many investments an institution can make that carry a 275 percent ROI over five years. 

    If institutions want to launch online degrees that start strong and stay strong, here are four things they should prioritize.

    1. Market research that drives big decisions. Legacy OPMs excelled at data-driven market research before launching a program. Universities taking control of their growth need to do the same. Predictive, high-quality market research isn’t cheap or easy, but it’s indispensable. I’m bullish on how AI-facilitated deep research is advancing—within two years, I expect the cost to drop by 90 percent or more. However, the need for sound, evidence-based planning remains the same.
    2. Regionalization for most institutions. The earliest entrants focused on scaling national brands. But for universities growing in-house, regional strategies pay off, too. Think targeted regional marketing, employer partnerships tied to local workforce needs and even weaving apprenticeships or other learn-and-earn models directly into degree pathways. It’s not about being everywhere—it’s about playing to your strengths in your region.
    3. Breaking down silos to build relevant programs. One trend I like and am supporting is cross-campus collaborations leading to hybrid or interdisciplinary graduate programs. Northeastern’s combined majors model is well-known in undergraduate circles. We’re seeing more deans replicate that at the graduate level—joint programs, additional tracks and revenue-sharing agreements between schools. They’re savvy partnerships that pull together institutional strengths rather than competing internally.
    4. Scrutinize your tech stack. When I started the company, I assumed going inside universities would be illuminating. I wasn’t prepared for the delta in capability between OPM and campus technology stacks. Technology should be frictionless to the point that it’s invisible. And you should feel your stack moving from software as a service to results as a service. Before spending hundreds of thousands or millions in digital marketing to grow, I suggest a rigorous evaluation and professionally led tech discovery phase before doing any significant online endeavors. We’ve begun doing assessment and development work on Salesforce, Slate, WordPress, Drupal and more to unlock technological gains for our partners. Candidly, it wasn’t on my 2025 bingo card. But it’s critical work, so we had to add it as a service.

    Q: Given the pricing pressures on online degrees, with some well-known universities offering sub-$30,000 online master’s, how might institutions unable to offer lower-cost online degrees compete?

    A: Josh, I founded my first business in high school and my second in college—so I always nerd out on the entrepreneurial edges of higher education. And, of course, I’m in favor of lowering the cost of degrees while preserving quality. Some innovative higher education leaders and friends I deeply respect have entered the low-cost arena. They’ve gone to market with the support of MOOC platforms, which point millions of course takers’ eyes to the programs. 

    And if you’ve spent enough time around John Katzman, you’ve probably heard him say, “Low cost generally means low faculty.” That’s stuck with me. So, if that’s the architecture, we need to ask ourselves where the “low-faculty” model can work before stripping away any components required for quality learning outcomes. For example, I wouldn’t point that strategy at clinical nursing, education or health sciences degrees anytime soon. And frankly, we haven’t seen rigorous, long-term research on these $30,000 degrees yet, outside of self-published enrollment and graduation rates. Before diving in headfirst, I’d argue it’s worth conducting objective studies on the ROI for learners.

    To your question about institutions that might not have access to that scale, I’d advise them to call me. My team will sign an NDA and pressure-test their plan as a favor. I won’t tiptoe around this: I predict a MOOC-fed degree correction within a year from now. So, Rhodes Advisors is architecting solutions that leverage a next-gen course platform, AI-guided admissions and fresh tactics to drive lead volume, should that correction happen.

    MOOC platforms (and, to an extent, significant B2B relationships) are the only proven route for low-cost degrees to compete at scale in the hand-to-hand combat environment of online degree growth. Why? Fundamentally, platforms reduce your marketing overhead and let you tap into sophisticated conversion practices they’ve been working hard on.

    If you’re using a low-cost degree to serve a mission-driven purpose, you don’t need millions of learners from a platform. I’d suggest covering the delta in tuition with a foundation or donor. And I’d focus heavily on messaging and positioning so learners see you’ve struck the right balance between value and price. Rhodes Advisors is often brought in to do that work, too.

    Q: Let’s talk numbers. Say a university wants to build a new online master’s degree or certificate program. How much money does developing, launching, recruiting and running that program cost? To set some boundaries, let’s say that the online master’s tuition is about $50,000 and the target enrollment at steady state is 150. Help us understand the economics of the online learning business.

    A: I prefer talking numbers and using them to cut through the noise, so I’m glad you went there. We’ve recently run this analysis for several universities evaluating alternative revenue strategies. I’ll extend this answer beyond the basic analysis data and into some significant trends I’m seeing that your readers will find helpful. 

    But first, any degree analysis requires a few caveats—there are a lot of variables when estimating costs to launch a stand-alone program. But assuming you have a competent tech stack, a skilled team and you’re building something the market favors, you can launch a 30-credit online master’s degree for roughly $900,000 to $1.2 million in the early years before breaking even as enrollment comes in. As your readers know, most of those costs fall into course development, faculty compensation and marketing/enrollment services. Assuming steady demand, the five-year ROI will land around 275 percent, or about $3.7 million. Anyone quoting a smaller up-front investment number is likely at a small private with fully centralized operations—or running programs with a few dozen students, not 150-plus as you asked about. And anyone quoting a significantly larger ROI has been lucky enough to find a niche.

    On the certificate side, launching a 12-credit stand-alone certificate typically requires $200,000 to $400,000 up front, with a best-case five-year ROI of around 70 percent or $500,000 total return. But certificates face steeper competition: They’re up against degrees in the digital keyword bids, and the market heavily favors industry certifications (Google, Microsoft, etc.) or programs offered by elite universities in business, tech, or licensure-required fields. So, while master’s degrees demand more up front, long-term economics almost always favor them.

    Reducing costs while maintaining growth has never been more critical than it is in 2025. Improving ROI, especially in new ventures, requires scrutinizing every operational lever—especially in learning design, marketing and enrollment management. There are two things I’m seeing play out that have a material impact on efficiency:

    1. Integrating core online and in-person program operations and functions like admissions, recruitment, student services, alumni affairs and career services has become essential. When universities unify these areas, they eliminate redundancies, lower operational costs and deliver a seamless experience for students moving between all modalities. That said, I typically see skill and knowledge gaps surface quickly when tasking a residentially focused function with online program efforts, so we’ll usually dedicate capacity-building and training efforts during a transitional period.
    2. Anywhere AI can streamline effort or lower direct costs should be surfaced immediately and prioritized. For instance, we’ve worked closely with the University of Virginia this year, and they have been able to drive down centralized course production directionally by applying AI tools in specific and strategic ways. Another partner is preparing to launch a master’s degree in our co-pilot DIY model, intentionally designing enrollment operations to be AI-first. Applicants interact with an AI chat bot to handle basic program details before reaching a human adviser. Early signs suggest that approach will cut costs by more than 50 percent—though we’ll let the data speak as it matures.

    I hope this check-in was helpful. And I’d love to come back and share more as we continue down an exciting and fulfilling path at Rhodes Advisors!

    Source link

  • Strengthening data and insights into our changing university research landscape by Jessica Corner

    Strengthening data and insights into our changing university research landscape by Jessica Corner

    The UK continues as a global leader in research and innovation and our universities are uniquely strong contributors, among which are the highest performing in the world. We have some of the highest-intensity innovation ecosystems in the world, with universities as the core driver. As a country, our invention record is well recognised. The UK, with its powerful life sciences effort, delivered one of the first UK COVID-19 vaccines, saving millions of lives around the world and only possible because of long-standing investment in research that became serendipitously essential. In cities across the UK, universities act as pillar institutions with positive and reinforcing effects on their local economies. We have a rich network of specialist institutions that excel in music, the arts, medicine and life sciences. Our universities continue to deliver discoveries, technologies, creative insights, talent for our industries and public services and so much more. Many have the scale and reach to deliver across the full span of research and innovation to enterprise and commercialisation.

    A unique feature, and underpinning this extraordinary record, is our dual support funding system. That system balances competitive grant funding from UKRI Research Councils, charities, business, and others with long-term stable underpinning funds to enable universities to pursue ambitious and necessary strategies, develop research strengths, foster talent, pivot towards new fields, collaborate and maintain research infrastructure.

    However, the sector faces unprecedented challenges. Erosion of the value of student fees and the growing costs of delivering education, disruptions to anticipated income from international student fees, a slow erosion of the value of QR, rising costs of research and a mismatch between this and cost recovery from grants has created a perfect storm and unsustainable operating models for most institutions. The additional £5bn a year in funding from universities’ own surpluses towards research and innovation is no longer guaranteed. The sector has and continues to evolve in response to a changing landscape, but consideration is needed about how best to support the sector to change.

    Research England’s role is to support a healthy, dynamic, diverse, and inclusive, research and innovation system in universities in England6. We work by facilitating and incentivising system coherence, acting as both champion and challenger. In partnership we aim to create and sustain the conditions for the system to continue delivering excellence and leverage resources far beyond funding provided by government. We are working to enhance the data and evidence to support our role as expert, evidence-based funder and on the outcomes that the funding delivers. In fulfilling this role and against the current context, Research England has two initiatives that we will be taking forward in the coming weeks.

    Our ongoing programme to review the principles underpinning our funding and mechanisms by which we allocate research funds to institutions has reached a point where we are seeking to increase the visibility and transparency of how these funds are deployed by institutions. We are developing an approach, designed to be light touch and low burden that asks universities to report back on their use of strategic institutional research funding. We will begin testing the approach with a selection of institutions in the coming months and, subject to the outcomes of this initial engagement, aim to roll out a pilot with institutions in the 2025/26 academic year. We will be communicating to institutions directly about the pilot in the early Autumn. In the second phase of this work, we intend to work with institutions to develop a forward-looking strategic element that will give insight into plans and then how decisions are made about the deployment of funding. For the programme, we are also reviewing the effectiveness of the different unhypothecated and ring-fenced research funds provided to institutions. When fully implemented, the information we will acquire will enable Research England greater visibility of the role of institutions and the contribution of our formula-based research funding (including QR) to the research and innovation system while also contributing to efforts to have more systematic and timely data.

    A second strand of work is our programme to monitor the implications for the sustainability of research in universities against the current financial context. We are seeking to better understand how challenges are impacting universities’ ability to deliver research and innovation and maintain research capabilities, capacity, and facilities and, in turn, further strengthen assurance with more robust data. In partnership with the Department for Innovation Science and Technology, we have commissioned the Innovation Research Caucus with OMB Research Ltd to undertake a survey into how institutions are responding to current pressures with respect to research and innovation. The survey will provide important data that can support advice to government and others on the extent of universities’ financial challenges, how these issues are being managed, and how this impacts their investment and planning in the research and innovation space. The approach is to provide insights that are currently not available at an aggregate level or in a timely way through national data sets. Additionally, Research England will be asking institutions to report on material changes they are making to research and innovation capabilities and capacity or in relation to wider changes in institutional form or organisation when these may affect the basis on which our funding is awarded.

    We continue to see our role as facilitator, enabler and partner and believe we have a strong reputation for having timely and robust insights into the conditions underpinning our great research and innovation system. These two programmes of work are being taken forward in support of universities and, against the current backdrop, will strengthen Research England’s fundamental role in the research and innovation system. We look forward to working in close partnership with universities as we take these critical work programmes forward.

    Source link

  • Cybersecurity Landscape 2022 [eBook]

    Cybersecurity Landscape 2022 [eBook]

    Cybersecurity Landscape 2022 Ebook

    Home >Cybersecurity Landscape 2022 [eBook]

    The number of cyberattacks on educational institutions has grown faster than in any other sector, according to recent research. While all industries face rapidly growing security challenges, higher education is an especially appealing target for cybercriminals. Why is this?

    Download our Higher Ed Cybersecurity Landscape ebook — and check out our updated edition for 2024 — to understand how and why cybercriminals are focused on colleges and universities, as well as actions your institution can take to prevent attacks and safeguard data.

    In this ebook, you’ll learn:

    • Why colleges and universities are targets for hackers
    • Common types of cyberattacks in higher ed
    • The risks and consequences of security breaches
    • Ways to increase your security and prevent attacks

    Don’t let hackers shut your college down. Fill out the form to download our ebook and get tips to keep your school secure in 2022.

    Download Now

    MktoForms2.loadForm(“//087-TII-060.mktoweb.com”, “087-TII-060”, 1379);

    Additional Resources

    Transform Challenges Into Opportunities 

    Facing challenges in enrollment, retention, or tech integration? Seeking growth in new markets? Our strategic insights pave a clear path for overcoming obstacles and driving success in higher education.

    Unlock the transformative potential within your institution – partner with us to turn today’s roadblocks into tomorrow’s achievements. Let’s chat.

    MktoForms2.loadForm(“//087-TII-060.mktoweb.com”, “087-TII-060″, 1022);

    // START Analytics scripts //////////////////////////////////
    function readCookie(name) {
    name += ‘=’;
    for (var ca = document.cookie.split(/;s*/), i = ca.length – 1; i >= 0; i–)
    if (!ca[i].indexOf(name)) return ca[i].replace(name, ”);
    }

    function PrepareCookieForRead() {
    var d = new Date();
    d.setTime(d.getTime() + 1800000);
    var expires = “expires=” + d.toGMTString();
    document.cookie = “idSession=1; ” + expires + “; path=/”;
    }

    function PlaceAnalyticsCookieValuesIntoForm() {
    PrepareCookieForRead();
    document.getElementsByName(“gAClientId”)[0].value = readCookie(“ga_clientId”);
    document.getElementsByName(“gacampaign”)[0].value = readCookie(“ga_campaign”);
    document.getElementsByName(“gasource”)[0].value = readCookie(“ga_source”);
    document.getElementsByName(“gamedium”)[0].value = readCookie(“ga_medium”);
    document.getElementsByName(“gacontent”)[0].value = readCookie(“ga_content”);
    document.getElementsByName(“gaterm”)[0].value = readCookie(“ga_term”);
    document.getElementsByName(“gagclid”)[0].value = readCookie(“ga_gclid”);
    }

    document.addEventListener(“DOMContentLoaded”, function(){
    window.setTimeout(function(){
    PlaceAnalyticsCookieValuesIntoForm()
    }, 750);
    });

    // END Analytics Scripts //////////////////////////////////

    The post Cybersecurity Landscape 2022 [eBook] appeared first on Collegis Education.

    Source link

  • Higher Education Cybersecurity Landscape in 2024

    Higher Education Cybersecurity Landscape in 2024

    Facing challenges in enrollment, retention, or tech integration? Seeking growth in new markets? Our strategic insights pave a clear path for overcoming obstacles and driving success in higher education.

    Unlock the transformative potential within your institution – partner with us to turn today’s roadblocks into tomorrow’s achievements. Let’s chat.

    Source link

  • The Changing Landscape of Internships in Higher Education

    The Changing Landscape of Internships in Higher Education

    Title: Internships Index 2025

    Source: Handshake

    The latest research from Handshake reveals a troubling reality in higher education: the internship landscape is becoming both more competitive and less accessible, particularly for students already facing systemic barriers. Based on a November 2024 survey of over 6,400 students and recent graduates, combined with job posting and application data from over 15 million students and 900,000 employers on Handshake, this report highlights key trends shaping the internship experience today.

    Internship listings have fallen by more than 15 percent from January 2023 to January 2025. At the same time, applications have dramatically increased, doubling the competition for each available position. The decline is even more severe in high-paying fields—technology postings dropped by 30 percent, and professional services postings dropped by 42 percent.

    There are persistent participation gaps:

    • First-generation college students (50 percent) lag behind their peers (66 percent) in internship participation.
    • Students at institutions classified as “inclusive” in the Carnegie Classifications (those with less selective admissions) have much lower internship participation rates (48 percent) compared to students at institutions classified as “selective” or “more selective” (70 percent).
    • Students at these inclusive institutions are twice as likely as those at selective schools to cite financial constraints as their main reason for not pursuing internships.

    These disparities are exacerbated by practical realities. More than 80 percent of first-generation students and those at inclusive institutions report struggling to balance internships with coursework or employment. The timing of internship recruitment adds another challenge, with larger employers typically concentrating on hiring in fall and winter while smaller employers tend to recruit later into the spring.

    Yet internships remain transformative experiences when students can access them. Among those who have completed internships, 56 percent report that the experience was essential in making progress toward their career goals and 79 percent say the experience had a moderate or significant impact on their interest in working for that employer. Of students who haven’t yet participated in internships but hope to do so, 59 percent believe internships will be essential to clarifying their career goals.

    Quality of experience matters as much as access to the opportunity itself. Students who felt fairly compensated were more likely to accept a job offer from that employer (82 percent) versus those who felt underpaid (63 percent), and over half (58 percent) report that mentorship had a major influence on their desire to work for their internship employer.

    Internships have long been a critical bridge from college to career, offering more than just a line on a resume. By investing in robust internship programs, we not only nurture individual potential but also cultivate a dynamic, forward-thinking workforce prepared to meet the challenges of tomorrow’s workplace.

    To read the full report, click here.

    —Alex Zhao

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

    Source link