Tag: Learning

  • Why student engagement starts with teacher clarity

    Why student engagement starts with teacher clarity

    Key points:

    In Alpine School District, we serve a wide range of students, from Title I to highly affluent communities. While our population has traditionally been predominantly white and middle income, that’s changing. In response to this growing diversity and shifting needs, one of my missions as professional learning and curriculum director for secondary schools has been to provide needs-based professional learning, just in time for educators, and to give them a real voice in what that looks and feels like.

    I lead a team of full-time educator equivalents across every discipline: math, science, social studies, ELA, the arts, health, and PE. Together, we guide professional learning and instructional support. Over the past several years, we’ve had to take a hard look at how we teach, how we engage students, and how we prepare educators for long-term success.

    Where we started: Tier 1 challenges and high turnover

    When I first became curriculum director, I noticed in our data that our schools were not making much progress, and in some cases had stagnated in growth scores. We were leaning heavily on Tier 2 interventions, which told us that we needed to shore up our Tier 1 instruction.

    At the same time, we were hiring between 400 and 500 teachers each year. We’re located near several universities, so we see a continuous flow of new educators come and go. They get married, they relocate, or a spouse gets into medical school, which translates to a constant onboarding cycle for our district. To meet these challenges, we needed professional learning that was sound, sustainable, and meaningful, especially early in a teacher’s career, so they could lay a strong foundation for everything that would come after.

    Teacher clarity and engagement by design

    Several years ago, we joined the Utah State Cohort, doing a deep dive into the Teacher Clarity Playbook. That experience was a real turning point. We were the only team there from a district office, and we took a train-the-trainer approach, investing in our strongest educators so they could return and lead professional learning in their content areas. Since then, we’ve used Engagement by Design as the framework behind much of our PD, our classroom walkthroughs, and our peer observations. It helped us think differently: How do we support teachers in crafting learning intentions and success criteria that are actually meaningful? How do we align resources to support that clarity? We’ve embedded that mindset into everything.

    Coming out of the pandemic, Alpine, like many districts around the country, saw decreased student engagement. To focus deeply on that challenge, we launched the Student Engagement Academy, or SEA. I co-designed the Academy alongside two of our content specialists, Anna Davis and Korryn Coates. They’re both part-time teacher leaders at the district office and part-time visual arts teachers in schools, so they live in both worlds. That was important because we believe professional learning should always be contextualized. We don’t want teachers burning extra bandwidth trying to translate strategies across subject areas.

    SEA is a yearlong, job-embedded learning experience. Teachers participate in PLCs, conduct peer observations, and complete a personalized learning project that showcases their growth. Our PLC+ coaches work directly with our lead coach, Melissa Gibbons, to gather and analyze data that shapes each new round of learning. We also included classroom observations, not for evaluation, but to help teachers see each other’s practice in action. Before observations, Anna and Korryn meet with teachers in small groups to talk through what to look for. Afterward, they debrief with the teachers: What did we see? What evidence did we see of student engagement? What did we learn? What are we still wondering? As we answer these questions about teaching, we’re also asking students about their experience of learning.

    Learning from student surveys

    Hearing from our students has been one of the most powerful parts of this journey. With the support of our Director of Student and Educator Well-eing, we created a student survey. We asked a random group of students questions such as:

    • What are you learning?
    • How are you learning it?
    • How do you know how you’re doing?
    • Why does it matter?

    The responses were eye-opening. Many students didn’t know why they were learning something. That told us our teachers weren’t being as clear or as intentional as they thought they were. One specific question we asked was based on the fact that attendance in world language classes stayed high during the pandemic, while it dropped in other subjects. We asked students why. The answer? Relationships, expectations, and clarity. They said their world language teachers were clear, and they knew what was expected of them. That led other disciplines to reflect and recalibrate.

    Today, teachers across subjects like ELA, math, and social studies have participated in a SEA cohort or aligned learning. We’re seeing them plan more intentionally, better target skills, and align instruction with assessment in thoughtful ways. They’re starting to see how mirroring instruction with how learning is measured can shift outcomes. It’s been truly exciting to witness that change. Engaging students through improved teacher clarity, positive classroom relationships (with each other, the teacher, and the content), and providing the students with appropriate levels of rigor has been a game changer.

    Building teacher leadership teams

    Next year, we’re focusing on developing teacher leadership skills, knowledge, and dispositions across the full geographic area of our district. We’re building professional capacity through leadership teams using the PLC+ model, with an emphasis on facilitation skills, research-based practice, and advocacy for strong instruction in every discipline.

    If you’re a district leader looking to boost student engagement through professional development, my advice is simple: You can’t do it alone. You need a team that shares your values and your commitment to the work. You also have to be guided by research–there’s too much at stake to invest in strategies that don’t hold water. Finally, this is a marathon, not a sprint. Aim for small, incremental changes. There’s no silver bullet, but if you stay the course, you’ll see real transformation.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • 3 Questions for Online Learning Pioneer Robert Ubell

    3 Questions for Online Learning Pioneer Robert Ubell

    Whenever I write something halfway decent (sometimes) or astoundingly dumb (often), I can count on a thoughtful response from Bob Ubell. Our conversation took place during the period when Bob published two books, Going Online (2017) and Staying Online (2021), as well as numerous articles in EdSurge, IHE, The Evollution and other publications.

    Bob’s online education career goes at least back to 1999, where he was the dean of online learning at Stevens Institute of Technology. Subsequent leadership roles include vice dean of online learning at New York University Tandon School of Engineering and vice dean emeritus, online learning, at NYU Tandon.

    Bob is a 2011 Fellow of the Online Learning Consortium and a member of the Advisory Board of Online Learning. In 2012, the Online Learning Consortium (then called the Sloan Consortium) awarded Bob with the A. Frank Mayadas Leadership Award, the organization’s “highest individual recognition for leadership in online education.” Most recently, Bob took up a role serving on the CHLOE Advisory Panel for the Quality Matters Changing Landscape of Online Education Project.

    In a profession where many of us are making things up as we go, Bob stands out for his long-term experience thinking about and leading online learning initiatives. I asked Bob if he would answer my questions about his career and the future of online learning, and he graciously agreed.

    Q: According to your Wikipedia page, you have been working at the intersection of higher education, technology and publishing since you graduated from Brooklyn College in 1961. What does the next decade hold for you as you think about your contributions to our online learning community?

    A: I’m not optimistic about what’s ahead, not only for digital education, but also for the nation’s wider academic enterprise. It’s impossible to answer your question in isolation without reckoning with the ugly scene now taking place in higher ed. Challenged by the federal government’s attacks, early this spring, 600 higher ed leaders warned about “unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education.” Since then, the present administration has continued to follow a treacherous path, destabilizing campuses across the country, targeting faculty and student academic freedom, and, in a new Supreme Court decision, ultimately dismantling the U.S. Department of Education.

    In an opinion column in this publication earlier this year, I predicted that American colleges and universities faced a terrifying cascade of autocratic moves “set by leaders in Hungary, Turkey and elsewhere … selecting college presidents, controlling faculty hiring and advancement, punishing academic dissent and imposing travel restrictions.” Many of these despotic actions have already been implemented and continue to be imposed on schools in this country.

    Last month, to restore about $400 million in federal research funding, Columbia University bowed to tyrannical demands by officials. In an unprecedented agreement, Columbia will pay more than $200 million in fines for dubious accusations of antisemitic student theatrics. It also opened the gates for government intrusion in the school’s academic prerogatives in hiring, admissions and curriculum. Keeping Columbia in academic handcuffs, the deal will be overseen by an outside monitor, reporting to officials every six months.

    The midcentury philosopher and cultural critic Hannah Arendt, in her masterful account of totalitarian regimes, revealed that they rely on systematic suppression of individual thought and freedom to maintain control, undermining the very purpose of universities—institutions that encourage critical thinking, open debate and intellectual autonomy, essential in a democracy. Recent power plays against Columbia, Harvard, Brown, Duke—and, just this week, UCLA—show how brutal our government can be in imposing its will.

    The noted Columbia genocide scholar Marianne Hirsch, the daughter of Holocaust survivors, who teaches a class on genocide with a book by Arendt, is considering leaving Columbia following its adoption of a new definition of antisemitism, which casts criticism of Israel as hate speech, a provision in the new pact with the federal government. Hirsch fears it may force her to face official sanction for even mentioning Arendt, who criticized Israel’s founding.

    “A university that treats criticism of Israel as antisemitic and threatens sanctions for those who disobey is no longer a place of open inquiry,” Hirsch told the Associated Press. “I just don’t see how I can teach about genocide in that environment.” Reactionary governments always find an innocent mark to target. In the 1950s, it was American Communists. Today, it’s pro-Palestinian faculty and students.

    The downstream effects on remote learning are already being felt, with the perception overseas—following arrests of foreign students and other threats against students and scholars from abroad—that the U.S. is turning its back on international recruitment, undermining our reputation as a leading destination for higher education and potentially impacting foreign student tuition revenue, face-to-face and online. In the U.S., the demand to shut down DEI programs will surely affect the greatest number of online students—80 percent of whom work and a third [of whom] are first in their families to attend college.

    On a personal note, I worry that closing the [Education Department] will cripple and may even end higher ed data collection and reporting, giving us less reliable information on the status of American college students. Over my career in higher ed, I’ve depended on federal government data, especially in supporting findings I’ve disclosed in my writing. “We’ll soon be in the dark,” I warned in a recent IHE column.

    Turning to your question, asking what sort of contribution I might make to the remote learning community. Like so many others, I don’t feel my voice possesses much force against what’s happening. Nor do I feel competent to articulate what might make a difference. Academic opposition to what we face has been scattershot and largely ineffective, except for various successful legal maneuvers. More broadly, on a national scale, resistance has been disappointing, with few voices, in and out of electoral politics, with enough momentum to capture our yearning for democratic fresh air. To get us out of this nightmare, I dream that someone will rise in this desperate time to gather all of us together in an inspiring and powerful national movement against tyranny.

    Q: There is a growing concern across higher education about the job market for new college graduates, as employers are increasingly utilizing AI to accomplish the work previously done by entry-level workers. What role should online learning leaders be playing at our institutions in evolving and adapting our institutions to the AI revolution?

    A: Since the pandemic, it hasn’t been that easy for recent college graduates to find a job in our digital economy–even before the invasion of AI. In March, recent college grad unemployment was at 5.8 percent, the highest in the last decades, excluding the pandemic, and nearly double the rate of all workers with a college degree, now at 2.7 percent, nearly a historic low.

    “For the first time in modern history, a bachelor’s degree is failing to deliver on its fundamental promise: access to professional employment,” observes a troubling report from Burning Glass, the big labor market analysis firm. “Young graduates face unemployment rates that are rising faster than any other education or age cohort, while over half of them land into jobs they didn’t need college to get. The traditional pathway from college to career is becoming less reliable.” In addition to other causes, the report singles out AI.

    As with all radical technological innovations, the reception of AI is fraught with contradictory predictions on its impact. Touted by champions as an economic miracle, others fear it as a devilish intrusion, disrupting our material well-being, especially for college grads who have historically outpaced the economic success of others. In the postwar years, most American workers found middle-class manufacturing or clerical jobs, but in the last 40 years, new jobs are either in highly paid professional fields or low-wage service industries, a disastrous national calamity that has largely generated our present political trouble.

    Sorry, but I don’t have exciting new ways to recommend to recent college grads to extricate themselves from the present dilemma, other than—not a very original idea—encourage them to enhance their knowledge gained in college classrooms with online or in-person nondegree courses in AI and other technical disciplines, giving them a leg up with attractive additional credentials.

    Not being knowledgeable about AI, I reached out to Alfred Essa, an insightful colleague and author of the forthcoming Artificial Intelligence: Shaping the Future of Innovation, who advised, “Students must think of themselves as designers, creating AI-powered applications to solve problems, not just in the short-term, but over their careers, positioning themselves in industry, capable of building and changing things with AI.” Essa emphasized that his advice is not only for technically savvy students, but for others who are creative in aesthetics, humanities and other disciplines.

    Essa worries that the present higher ed leadership is obsolete. “For colleges to succeed,” he urged, “they must be led by a new generation who will adopt the new AI environment.” In the meantime, for my part, higher ed needs to welcome AI as a technical innovation, in the long tradition of typewriters, calculators, computers and digital education. Once the genie is out of the bottle, you can’t stick it back in. Restrictive, retrograde rules are foolish or punishing—or both.

    Q: What advice do you have for folks like me who are thinking about ways to stay active and engaged in online learning and higher education once we retire from our university administrative roles?

    A: Cicero found that the way we lived in our youth prepares us for retirement. The choices we made when we were young naturally lead to the life we will live as we age. He argued that preparation for our later years is not a separate phase, but a continuation of the life we led all along. “The harvest of old age is the recollection and abundance of blessings previously secured,” he wrote (Cicero De Senectute, translated with an introduction and notes by Andrew P. Peabody [Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1887]).

    Source link

  • Learning is the defining characteristic of modern leaders

    Learning is the defining characteristic of modern leaders

    Are leaders born to the role? Does one simply come into the world with the charisma, ability to inspire, take tough decisions and communicate well? Or, is it within the ken of any individual to develop themselves as a leader?

    Whether we believe the answer to be one or the other or a combination of both, the bottom line will always remain “learning.” Leadership is a complex business, requiring an equally complex set of skills and these can be developed and honed over time through continuous learning. Even those who are born blessed with the key leadership traits can only become true learning leaders if they are willing to become conscious of their experiences and practice.

    Definitions of leadership are wide and varied. Everyone, it seems, has some idea of what it is and what makes the best leaders. For our purposes we can draw on a simple, and perhaps profound, definition that I picked up from an Ethiopian cohort:

    If you think you are a leader and you don’t have any followers you are just taking a walk.

    And, given the world we are living in, it’s worth adding that true learning leaders will have willing followers, as opposed to those coerced into following whether through fear or manipulation – or even hierarchy for that matter.

    To ask what makes a good leader is therefore to think about the qualities that make someone “followable.” And without much doubt we are looking at the traits of authenticity, courage, empathy, vision and, most of all, someone who can “walk the talk” and follow through on their promises.

    Learning is life

    The Learning Leader course is a reflection of this philosophy; conceived and designed around leaders who want to learn and develop themselves. It is designed for people who are ready to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills, but also to explore their own beliefs and values so that they are as consciously authentic as they can be. It takes as a maxim the view frequently attributed to Mark Twain that “continuous improvement is better than delayed perfection.”

    Learning Leaders is founded on four foundation pillars: learning; leadership; consciousness; change. And it is consciously focused on learning that keeps pace with change, drawing on the Reg Revins formula:

    Rate of learning > Rate of change = Life

    Rate of learning

    The course is intentionally more about facilitation than teaching. It is focused on learning “outputs” much more than teaching “inputs.” We provide frameworks to help participants make sense of the outputs, but these are deliberately simple – though not necessarily easy – and can be adopted at a personal and collective level. In other words they are much less culture bound than other (largely Western) theories and models.

    Most of all we use tools and techniques that create a safe and respectful environment wherein participants feel so comfortable with each other they not only exchange their own experiences and insights but also help each other to explore the deeper meaning of what it is to be a leader in today’s world.

    To have Learning Leaders as part of the Global Majority Mentoring Programme throws up other dimensions relating to culture and diversity. Participants are exclusively from Global Majority backgrounds and are more conscious than most of their diversity. It is interesting, too, that the dominant profile has been a female one.

    We could all readily agree that leadership in this modern, fast changing, complex world should always be open to learning, indeed, it is learning or the ability to learn in a conscious way that is a defining characteristic of the modern leader.

    Consciousness raising

    Over two days participants worked through multiple course elements including change framework, philosophical inquiry and practising disagreement, a “walk the talk” exercise and a reflection instrument. But a key collective “Aha!” moment arose from an exercise to explore individual learning leader styles. That was a moment where all of us, myself included, found a new way to look at diversity: not just as a “nice” thing to do but as an essential strengthening underpinning to all that we do.

    The assessment of learning leader styles begins with introducing a learning cycle model. We emphasise at this point that our world has become a place where “Plan-Do” is dominant and that this, more visible, element is what organisations like to encourage and reward. This has come at a cost to “Reflect-Think” and consequently to our ability to learn. This helps to frame where our focus will be and why. The participants will have a rare chance to really indulge in some quality individual and collective reflection and thinking.

    By segmenting the cycle into four quadrants we find that we have four different areas that accommodate or position leadership learning styles or preferences.

    • Body (between Plan and Do) – learning from experience and being aware of our behaviour.
    • Heart (between Do and Reflect) – learning from emotion and being aware of our instinctive intelligence.
    • Mind (between Think and Plan) – learning from knowledge and being aware of our ego.
    • Spirit (between Reflect and Think) – learning from wisdom and being aware of our beliefs.

    With the use of a short questionnaire, we are able to identify our leadership learning styles and the relative position on the cycle. This is a good visual to discuss further what having a particular approach might mean for an individual and to explore the consequences of our collective preferences. The below diagram illustrates where different people might position themselves on the various quadrants.

    Having someone in each quadrant gives us a more complete learning group. I like to see things get done offering practical insights. M and Z remind the group how important it is to be aware of our feelings and be open to creativity and new ideas. S and J require that questions are asked, and sense is made before rushing onto the next thing. Finally, we have N who also likes to make sense but who is unlikely to procrastinate too long and can help a group converge learning into a decision and way forward.

    Provided we become and remain conscious of this diversity it becomes a real strength in any group or team. Only when we are unconscious can differences lead to division, fragmentation and misunderstanding. Without this awareness learning is non-complimentary and will erode respect and trust.

    Having looked at our complimentary styles we applied this insight into all that we did for the rest of the two day course. For example, participants enhanced the effectiveness of the “walk the talk” exercise when they paired up with a complimentary style and experienced new perspectives, insights and ideas. But most of all we could see graphically how diversity is always a strength (especially in a leadership team) when we are conscious of ourselves and others’ approaches and preferences.

    That this is the real and positive message from any EDI initiative. With the consciousness of a Learning Leader we could never be divided! I am already looking forward to next year’s Global Majority Mentoring Programme cohorts and to enjoy the diversity and experience the profound insights that come out of this potent mix of leaders.

    This article is one of four exploring London Higher’s Global Majority Mentoring Programme – you can find the others here. Keith would like to extend special thanks to the University of Westminster and Dr. Randhir Auluck, Head of School, Organisations, Economy & Society at Westminster Business School without whose vision, not to mention organisational skills, this Learning Leaders course would not have seen the light of day.

    Source link

  • Integrating AI into education is not as daunting as it seems

    Integrating AI into education is not as daunting as it seems

    Key points:

    Forty-some years ago, students sat in straight rows with books, papers, and pencils neatly lined up on their desks. But beginning in the 1990s, educators faced very different classrooms as computers found their way into schools.

    For most teachers, it felt daunting to figure out how to integrate new tools into curriculum requirements–and how to find the time to make it happen. To help this digital transformation then, I joined the South Dakota Department of Education to lead summer immersion teacher training on technology integration, traveling the state to help schools understand how to use new tools like video systems. I was one of many who helped educators overcome that initial learning curve–and now tools like computers are an integral part of the education system.

    Let’s face it: The advent of new technologies can be overwhelming. Adjusting to them takes time. Now, with the coming of age of AI, teachers, administrators, students, and parents have endless questions and ideas on how it might positively or negatively influence education. I’ve seen it in my current role, in which I continue to empower educators and states to use modern technology to support student learning. And while concerns about AI are valid, there are many positive potential outcomes. For educators in particular, AI can be a huge value-add, automating certain administrative tasks, helping understand and predict student success and struggles, and even helping tailor instruction for individual students.

    The upside is huge. As schools embark on their AI journeys, it’s important to remember that we’ve been here before–from the introduction of the internet in classrooms to the abrupt shift to e-learning at the outset of COVID-19. Superintendents, boards of education, and other education leaders can draw on important lessons from prior technological transformations to fully take advantage of this one.

    Here are some rules of the road for navigating the integration of disruptive technologies:

    1. Choose the right tools. The AI tool(s) you choose can have varying results. School districts should prioritize proven technologies with a track record in education. For students, this includes adaptive learning platforms or virtual tutors. Some of the best tools are those that are specifically designed by and for educators to expedite administrative tasks such as grading and lesson planning. Even more valuable is the ability to support education-specific issues such as identifying struggling students with early warning systems and using AI to provide projections for student futures.

      2. Training is everything. With proper training, AI can be less intimidating. We don’t expect students to understand a new concept by reading a few paragraphs in a textbook, and we shouldn’t expect teachers to figure out how to best use AI on their own. President Trump’s recent executive order prioritizes the use of AI in discretionary grant programs for teacher training, which is an important step in the right direction.

      3. Engage parents. Moms and dads may be concerned if they hear–without a deeper explanation–that a school board is rolling out an AI tool to help with teaching or administrative tasks in their children’s education. Keep an open line of communication with the guardians of students about how and why AI is being used. Point parents to resources to help them improve their own AI literacy. To a reasonable degree, invite feedback. This two-way communication helps build trust, allay fears and clarify any misconceptions, to the benefit of everyone involved, including, most importantly, the students.

      4. Humans must be involved. The stakes are high. AI is not perfect. Administrators must ensure they and the educators using AI tools are double checking the work. In the parlance of responsible AI, this is known as having a “human in the loop,” and it’s especially important when the outcomes involve children’s futures. This important backstop instills confidence in the parents, students and educators.

      5. Regularly evaluate if the tools are living up to expectations. The point of integrating AI into teachers’ and administrators’ workstreams is to lighten their load so they can spend more time and energy on students. Over time, AI models can decay and bias can be introduced, reducing the effectiveness of AI outputs. So, regular monitoring and evaluating is important. Educators and administrators should regularly check in to determine if the integration of AI is supporting their goals.

      6. The learning curve may create more work at first–but the payoff is exponential. Early adoption is important. I worked with school districts that pushed off integrating digital technologies–ultimately, it put the educators behind their peers. AI can make a difference in educators’ lives by freeing them up from administrative burdens to focus on what really matters–the students.

      This is the start of a journey–one that I believe is truly exciting! It’s not the first nor the last time educators adopt new technologies. Don’t let AI overwhelm or distract you from tried-and-true integration techniques. Yes, the technology is different–but educators are always adapting, and it will be the same with AI, to the benefit of educators and students.

      Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Understanding Value of Learning Fuels ChatGPT’s Study Mode

    Understanding Value of Learning Fuels ChatGPT’s Study Mode

    Instead of generating answers, Study Mode asks students questions about what they know.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | SDI Productions/E+/Getty Images

    When classes resume this fall, college students will have access to yet another generative artificial intelligence tool marketed as a learning enhancement.

    But instead of generating immediate answers, OpenAI’s new Study Mode for ChatGPT acts more like a tutor, firing off questions, hints, self-reflection prompts and quizzes that are tailored to the user and informed by their past chat history. While traditional large language models have raised academic integrity concerns, Study Mode is intended to provide a more active learning experience. It mimics the type of Socratic dialogue students may expect to encounter in a lecture hall and challenges them to draw on information they already know to form their own nuanced analyses of complex questions.

    For example, when Inside Higher Ed asked the traditional version of ChatGPT which factors caused the United States Civil War, it immediately responded that the war had “several major causes, most of which revolved around slavery, states’ rights, and economic differences,” and gave more details about each before producing a five-paragraph essay on the topic. Asking Study Mode the same question, however, prompted it to give a brief overview before asking this question: “Would you say the war was fought because of slavery, or about something else like states’ rights or economics? There’s been debate over this, so I’d love to hear your view first. Then I’ll show you how historians analyze it today.”

    Study Mode is similar to the Learning Mode that Anthropic launched for its chat bot Claude for Education back in April and the Guided Learning version of Gemini that Google unveiled Wednesday. OpenAI officials say they hope Study Mode will “support deeper learning” among college students.

    While teaching and learning experts don’t believe such tools can replace the value faculty relationships and expertise offer students, Study Mode’s release highlights generative AI’s evolving possibilities—and limitations—as a teaching and learning aid. For students who choose to use it instead of asking a traditional LLM for answers, Study Mode offers an on-demand alternative to a human tutor, unbound by scheduling conflicts, payment or feedback delays.

    But in an economy where generative AI’s ability to gather and regurgitate information is threatening the future of entry-level office jobs, students will need to understand what they’re trying to get out of their college coursework if they want Study Mode to deliver on its promise to foster deeper learning.

    “Over all, it does represent a significant departure from how people are normally encouraged to use generative AI, given that the value proposition of this technology is largely couched in the concept of efficiency, speed and offloading things that are not as important,” said Trey Conatser, assistant provost for teaching and learning at the University of Kentucky and director of UK’s Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning. “But Study Mode actually asks us to stick with it for it to work, take some time to sit with the friction of learning and be patient with the practice and feedback.”

    Critical Thinking in Age of AI

    The release of Study Mode comes nearly three years after the debut of ChatGPT—and the many other large language models that have followed—set off ongoing concerns among educators that college students’ increased reliance on traditional LLMs to write papers or solve math problems may erode their critical thinking skills.

    There’s not yet a consensus on if generative AI helps or hurts critical thinking, but at least two studies published in the last year found that adults, including college students, who use LLMs to research and learn about a subject exhibited weaker reasoning and analytical skills. And those may be the exact types of skills the roughly two-thirds who are already using generative AI tools like ChatGPT will need to make Study Mode reach its full potential.

    While ChatGPT’s Study Mode is programmed to query students rather than generate answers, the users themselves also need to be prepared to push the LLM to ask deeper, more nuanced questions. At least, that was Conatser’s experience when he tested out Study Mode over the weekend and asked it to help him study for a hypothetical quiz on Romantic poets from 1780 to 1820.

    First, the LLM asked him more about his education level and the focus of the quiz. He told it that he’s a college junior whose quiz will focus on historical context and specified that he wanted help studying William Wordsworth’s poem “The Prelude.”

    The following conversation, which Conatser shared with Inside Higher Ed, ensued:

    Study Mode: Wordsworth described “The Prelude” as “a poem on the growth of my own mind.” What exact subtitle did he eventually attach to the poem that captures this idea?

    (Give it a try, and we’ll check your answer before moving on.)

    Conatser: That’s not so much what I will need to answer. It will be open book, but I will be asked to provide some interpretations to historical context and literary traditions.

    After some more dialogue asking Study Mode to focus on historical context, it generated the following question:

    Study Mode: “Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive …” Based on that word, “bliss,” what general emotion do you think he felt when he first encountered the early French Revolution—excitement, fear or apathy?

    Conatser: That seems like an obvious question

    Study Mode: Understood—let’s turn up the difficulty. In “The Prelude” (Book X), Wordsworth writes of “how in my heart a dreary weight / Fell, and I turned away …”—a moment that marks his break with the revolution he once celebrated.

    Question (one step): Which single, headline-making event in France during 1793 does this passage point to, and why did that event feel like a betrayal of the revolution’s original ideals for many sympathetic British observers?

    Although it took some prodding to get the LLM to ask the type of questions Conatser wanted to see, “I’m still in the driver’s seat with Study Mode,” he said. “That’s where students are going to need to be when they’re using it.”

    Knowing when to push back against Study Mode when it’s not asking the types of questions that will help students master material will be key to helping them get the most out of its ability to foster critical thinking, Conatser said.

    “If someone is going to be totally passive with Study Mode, it may not drive them to where they need to go and they’ll still need to be thinking about how they’re supposed to be studying, what kind of assessment they’re leading up to and what kinds of skills will be more important for that assessment,” he said. “If you don’t know what you don’t know, then you won’t be very effective at using these tools even if they have the types of guardrails that Study Mode has.”

    And if a student isn’t motivated to use Study Mode to its full potential, they can prompt it to generate complete answers, just like a traditional LLM, according to Christian Carmody, a senior researcher at the Research Institute for Learning and Development, who also tested it out this week.

    “For a current events assignment, I prompted Study Mode right away and told it, ‘Before we engage, I do not want your help with this or [to] encourage me to think through this. I do this on my own another time. I really just want the answers,’” Carmody recalled. “It did exactly that.”

    The ability for students to easily manipulate Study Mode could add more pressure to colleges and universities that are facing growing skepticism from students about the value of degrees in the age of AI.

    “Students should be able to think about why learning is valuable to them and why they should be able to engage with material in a way that’s challenging and force deep thinking,” he said. “Until a student has that mindset, I’m not confident that they are going to use this study and learning tool in the way it’s intended to be used.”

    Source link

  • The urgent need to facilitate environmental justice learning in HE institutions

    The urgent need to facilitate environmental justice learning in HE institutions

    by Sally Beckenham

    The crises we are facing globally, from climate change and climate change dispossession to drought and food insecurity, are intersecting social and environmental issues, which need to be recognized and addressed accordingly through integrated and holistic measures. This can only be achieved by eschewing the tendency of existing governance and economic systems to silo social and environmental problems, as if they are separate concerns that can be managed – and prioritised – hierarchically. Much of this requires a better understanding of environmental injustice – the ways in which poor, racialised, indigenous and other marginalized communities are overlooked and/or othered in this power hierarchy, such that they must face a disproportionate burden of environmental harm.

    This is happening with disconcerting regularity around the world, often going under the radar but sometimes making headlines, as for example in May this year, when institutionalised environmental racism in the U.S. manifested in the placement of a copper mine on land inhabited by and sacred to the Apache indigenous group (Sherman, 2025). With limited political power to challenge it they are left to face dispossession, loss of livelihood and physical and mental health ill-effects (Morton-Ninomiya et al, 2023). We have seen this making headlines closer to home recently too, with evidence suggesting that toxic air in the UK is killing 500 people a week and most affecting those in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas (Gregory, 2025). An environmental problem (such as air pollution) cannot be disentangled from its social causes and effects. Or to put it another way, violence done to the environment is violence done to a particular group of people.

    A transformative response to our global challenges that re-centres environmental justice will require a paradigm shift in the ways that we govern, construct our societies, build our communities, run our economies, design our technologies and engage with the non-human world. The role of higher education will be critical to even a modest move in this direction. This is because, as they are probably tired of hearing, this generation of students will shape our collective futures, so it matters that they are literate in the deep entanglement of environmental and social justice challenges. Moreover, as Stickney and Skilbeck caution, “it is inconceivable that we will meet drastic carbon reduction targets without massive coordinated efforts, involving policymakers and educators working in concert at all levels of our governments and education systems (Stickney and Skilbeck, 2020).

    In Ruth Irwin’s article ‘Climate Change and Education’ she alerts us to Heidegger’s treatise in Being and Time (1962) that the effectiveness of a tool’s readiness is ‘hidden’ – only revealed when it ceases to function. Climate might be viewed as a heretofore ‘hidden’ tool, in that it affords opportunities for human action; it has “smoothly enabled our existence without conscious consideration” (Irwin, 2019). Yet its dynamic quality is now an overt, striking, looming spectre threatening the existence of all life on earth; the ‘environment’ writ large is revealing itself through ecological and social breakdown, surfacing our essential reliance upon it as natural beings. Thus unless higher education is competent in dealing with the issues of environmental crisis at all of its registers – social, environmental, political and ecological – the institution of education will be unable to fulfil its fundamental task of knowledge transfer for what is a clear public good (Irwin, 2019). Put another way, “HEIs have a responsibility to develop their educational provision in ways that will support the social transformation needed to mitigate the worst effects of the environmental crisis.” (Owens et al, 2023).

    Indeed, HE requires a paradigm shift in itself given that these realities are unfolding alongside widespread scrutiny of higher education institutions; including about decolonising the academy (Jivraj, 2020; Mintz, 2021), free speech on university campuses and how they are preparing students to meet these pressing issues (Woodgates, 2025). To keep pace with these changes and meet such challenges, educators from across disciplines will need to commit to embedding environmental justice education more widely across programme curricula, session design and teaching practices. It must be recognised as a vital – rather than token – component of environmental education. Doing so fully and effectively also requires us to recognise that environmental justice education encompasses not only subject matter but pedagogical practice. This is the case for all academic disciplines – including those that might seem peripheral to the teaching of environmental issues.

    EJE in HE is a developing area of scholarship and field of study that has gathered pace only over the last decade. Much of the research to date has been focused on the US, where studies have shown that environmental justice remains marginal to or excluded from the curricular offerings of most environmental studies programmes – let alone those not directly related to environmental education (Garibay et al, 2016). A report by the North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE), which studied the policies of 230 public U.S. HE institutions and 36 state boards of higher education, found that only 6% of institutions with climate change content in their policies referred to climate justice issues and indigenous knowledge practices (MECCE Project & NAAEE, 2023). Other work has shown that STEM education has tended to frame questions around exploitation of natural resources or technological development as disconnected from social and economic inequalities, though this is starting to be challenged (Greenberg et al, 2024).

    Emerging research into EJ in HE encompasses pedagogical approaches (Rabe, 2024; Moore, 2024); classroom and teaching practices (Walsh et al, 2022; Cachelin & Nicolosi, 2022; D’Arcangelis & Sarathy, 2015), the relationship between sustainability and climate justice education (Haluza-DeLay, 2013; Kinol et al, 2023) and curriculum development (Garibay et al, 2016). In identifying what EJE looks like these studies foreground the importance of community-engaged learning (CEL), providing students with the opportunity to learn about a socio-environmental problem from those with lived experience; critical thinking with regards to positionality, power structures and (especially indigenous) knowledge systems, and a deep concern with place. These critical components are crucial because tackling an act or acts of environmental injustice against marginalised populations often cannot be achieved without addressing systemic power imbalances.

    What also links these studies is an acknowledgement of the complexity of EJE. It is a difficult subject and practice to grapple with for several reasons. Firstly, it means exposing students (and educators) to “an onslaught of bad news,” (Cachelin & Nicolosi, 2022) which can elicit feelings of hopelessness and helplessness, so it is little wonder that expressions of anxiety and alarm are growing within these cohorts (Wallace, Greenburg & Clark, 2020) and that needs to be borne in mind. Secondly EJE requires us to find a way to meaningfully connect with philosophical, discursive, historical and practical questions about power, ethics and the relationship between human beings and the natural environment, within the disciplinary parameters of a specific curricula. This means doing difficult work not only to change current systems and processes (Forsythe et al, 2023) but also to make transformative rather than piecemeal efforts. For example, this might mean actively absorbing students into a community partner’s work in an engaged rather than service-learning model, or moving beyond a simple ‘guest lecture’ format to invite more in-depth input into modules or programmes from a community partner.

    This is a challenge that we shouldn’t understate for many academics and institutions already coping with high workloads (Smith, 2023), stress (Kinman et al, 2019) and job insecurity across a beleaguered sector (The Independent, 2024; The Guardian, 2025). Through this emerging EJE scholarship literature, we are starting to see that, “promoting opportunities for HE educators to develop and enact critical and transformative environmental pedagogy… is a complex business mediated by a variety of (personal, material and social) factors. It involves negotiating conflict, and understanding and confronting entrenched structures of power, from the local and institutional to the national and global.” (Owens et al, 2023). 

    A third (though by no means final) challenge in teaching and learning EJ in higher education is in finding and making space for it in a landscape that is strongly oriented towards sustainability education. Although there is certainly overlap – for example to the extent that the liberal logic underpinning the latter also informs distributive justice – sustainability education has different intellectual and ideological origins to EJ scholarship. Both are valuable, but we should be questioning whether we can justify a lack of explicit EJ practice and framing simply because we are already having sustainability conversations, and instead find space for both. It can be easy to (inadvertently) depoliticise environmental education by avoiding the perceived messiness and complexity of justice in favour of the more technocratic and measurable ‘sustainability’ (Haluza-DeLay, 2013).

    My research seeks to develop a better understanding of the state of environmental justice education in the HE landscape, beginning by mapping its development in the UK. This will reveal the extent and means by which EJE is being incorporated across programme curricula, session design and teaching practices in the UK HE context. In doing so we can identify the intersections of EJE with other dominant pedagogies, including sustainability education and solutions-focused approaches. To pursue a provincialising agenda and avoid the parochial perspective that EJE is the preserve of HEIs in the global North, there is also much value in exploring what EJE looks like in HEIs in the global South, and where cross-cultural lessons can be shared. The questions we need to be asking are:

    • How is environmental justice being taught and learnt and where do we go from here?
    • How are educators overcoming the challenges involved in engaging with EJE?
    • What best practices could we champion?

    Sharing methods, strategies and pedagogical approaches for EJE cross-institutionally and cross-culturally will be a step towards helping us build a better collective, collaborative response to the urgency of our intersecting socio-environmental crises.

    Dr Sally Beckenham is Lecturer in Human Geography and Programme Lead and Admissions Tutor for the BA Human Geography & Environment in the Department of Environment & Geography, University of York. She is also Chair of the Teaching Development Pool and member of the Interdisciplinary Global Development Centre (IGDC). She is an interdisciplinary political geographer with degrees in Modern History, International Politics and International Relations, and welcomes collaboration. Email: [email protected] Bluesky: @sallybeckenham.bsky.social.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

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

    Source link

  • What we lose when AI replaces teachers

    What we lose when AI replaces teachers

    Key points:

    A colleague of ours recently attended an AI training where the opening slide featured a list of all the ways AI can revolutionize our classrooms. Grading was listed at the top. Sure, AI can grade papers in mere seconds, but should it?

    As one of our students, Jane, stated: “It has a rubric and can quantify it. It has benchmarks. But that is not what actually goes into writing.” Our students recognize that AI cannot replace the empathy and deep understanding that recognizes the growth, effort, and development of their voice. What concerns us most about grading our students’ written work with AI is the transformation of their audience from human to robot.

    If we teach our students throughout their writing lives that what the grading robot says matters most, then we are teaching them that their audience doesn’t matter. As Wyatt, another student, put it: “If you can use AI to grade me, I can use AI to write.” NCTE, in its position statements for Generative AI, reminds us that writing is a human act, not a mechanical one. Reducing it to automated scores undermines its value and teaches students, like Wyatt and Jane, that the only time we write is for a grade. That is a future of teaching writing we hope to never see.

    We need to pause when tech companies tout AI as the grader of student writing. This isn’t a question of capability. AI can score essays. It can be calibrated to rubrics. It can, as Jane

    said, provide students with encouragement and feedback specific to their developing skills. And we have no doubt it has the potential to make a teacher’s grading life easier. But just because we can outsource some educational functions to technology doesn’t mean we should.

    It is bad enough how many students already see their teacher as their only audience. Or worse, when students are writing for teachers who see their written work strictly through the lens of a rubric, their audience is limited to the rubric. Even those options are better than writing for a bot. Instead, let’s question how often our students write to a broader audience of their peers, parents, community, or a panel of judges for a writing contest. We need to reengage with writing as a process and implement AI as a guide or aide rather than a judge with the last word on an essay score.

    Our best foot forward is to put AI in its place. The use of AI in the writing process is better served in the developing stages of writing. AI is excellent as a guide for brainstorming. It can help in a variety of ways when a student is struggling and looking for five alternatives to their current ending or an idea for a metaphor. And if you or your students like AI’s grading feature, they can paste their work into a bot for feedback prior to handing it in as a final draft.

    We need to recognize that there are grave consequences if we let a bot do all the grading. As teachers, we should recognize bot grading for what it is: automated education. We can and should leave the promises of hundreds of essays graded in an hour for the standardized test providers. Our classrooms are alive with people who have stories to tell, arguments to make, and research to conduct. We see our students beyond the raw data of their work. We recognize that the poem our student has written for their sick grandparent might be a little flawed, but it matters a whole lot to the person writing it and to the person they are writing it for. We see the excitement or determination in our students’ eyes when they’ve chosen a research topic that is important to them. They want their cause to be known and understood by others, not processed and graded by a bot.

    The adoption of AI into education should be conducted with caution. Many educators are experimenting with using AI tools in thoughtful and student-centered ways. In a recent article, David Cutler describes his experience using an AI-assisted platform to provide feedback on his students’ essays. While Cutler found the tool surprisingly accurate and helpful, the true value lies in the feedback being used as part of the revision process. As this article reinforces, the role of a teacher is not just to grade, but to support and guide learning. When used intentionally (and we emphasize, as in-process feedback) AI can enhance that learning, but the final word, and the relationship behind it, must still come from a human being.

    When we hand over grading to AI, we risk handing over something much bigger–our students’ belief that their words matter and deserve an audience. Our students don’t write to impress a rubric, they write to be heard. And when we replace the reader with a robot, we risk teaching our students that their voices only matter to the machine. We need to let AI support the writing process, not define the product. Let it offer ideas, not deliver grades. When we use it at the right moments and for the right reasons, it can make us better teachers and help our students grow. But let’s never confuse efficiency with empathy. Or algorithms with understanding.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Data, privacy, and cybersecurity in schools: A 2025 wake-up call

    Data, privacy, and cybersecurity in schools: A 2025 wake-up call

    Key points:

    In 2025, schools are sitting on more data than ever before. Student records, attendance, health information, behavioral logs, and digital footprints generated by edtech tools have turned K-12 institutions into data-rich environments. As artificial intelligence becomes a central part of the learning experience, these data streams are being processed in increasingly complex ways. But with this complexity comes a critical question: Are schools doing enough to protect that data?

    The answer, in many cases, is no.

    The rise of shadow AI

    According to CoSN’s May 2025 State of EdTech District Leadership report, a significant portion of districts, specifically 43 percent, lack formal policies or guidance for AI use. While 80 percent of districts have generative AI initiatives underway, this policy gap is a major concern. At the same time, Common Sense Media’s Teens, Trust and Technology in the Age of AI highlights that many teens have been misled by fake content and struggle to discern truth from misinformation, underscoring the broad adoption and potential risks of generative AI.

    This lack of visibility and control has led to the rise of what many experts call “shadow AI”: unapproved apps and browser extensions that process student inputs, store them indefinitely, or reuse them to train commercial models. These tools are often free, widely adopted, and nearly invisible to IT teams. Shadow AI expands the district’s digital footprint in ways that often escape policy enforcement, opening the door to data leakage and compliance violations. CoSN’s 2025 report specifically notes that “free tools that are downloaded in an ad hoc manner put district data at risk.”

    Data protection: The first pillar under pressure

    The U.S. Department of Education’s AI Toolkit for Schools urges districts to treat student data with the same care as medical or financial records. However, many AI tools used in classrooms today are not inherently FERPA-compliant and do not always disclose where or how student data is stored. Teachers experimenting with AI-generated lesson plans or feedback may unknowingly input student work into platforms that retain or share that data. In the absence of vendor transparency, there is no way to verify how long data is stored, whether it is shared with third parties, or how it might be reused. FERPA requires that if third-party vendors handle student data on behalf of the institution, they must comply with FERPA. This includes ensuring data is not used for unintended purposes or retained for AI training.

    Some tools, marketed as “free classroom assistants,” require login credentials tied to student emails or learning platforms. This creates additional risks if authentication mechanisms are not protected or monitored. Even widely-used generative tools may include language in their privacy policies allowing them to use uploaded content for system training or performance optimization.

     

    Data processing and the consent gap

    Generative AI models are trained on large datasets, and many free tools continue learning from user prompts. If a student pastes an essay or a teacher includes student identifiers in a prompt, that information could enter a commercial model’s training loop. This creates a scenario where data is being processed without explicit consent, potentially in violation of COPPA (Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act) and FERPA. While the FTC’s December 2023 update to the COPPA Rule did not codify school consent provisions, existing guidance still allows schools to consent to technology use on behalf of parents in educational contexts. However, the onus remains on schools to understand and manage these consent implications, especially with the rule’s new amendments becoming effective June 21, 2025, which strengthen protections and require separate parental consent for third-party disclosures for targeted advertising.

    Moreover, many educators and students are unaware of what constitutes “personally identifiable information” (PII) in these contexts. A name combined with a school ID number, disability status, or even a writing sample could easily identify a student, especially in small districts. Without proper training, well-intentioned AI use can cross legal lines unknowingly.

    Cybersecurity risks multiply

    AI tools have also increased the attack surface of K-12 networks. According to ThreatDown’s 2024 State of Ransomware in Education report, ransomware attacks on K-12 schools increased by 92 percent between 2022 and 2023, with 98 total attacks in 2023. This trend is projected to continue as cybercriminals use AI to create more targeted phishing campaigns and detect system vulnerabilities faster. AI-assisted attacks can mimic human language and tone, making them harder to detect. Some attackers now use large language models to craft personalized emails that appear to come from school administrators.

    Many schools lack endpoint protection for student devices, and third-party integrations often bypass internal firewalls. Free AI browser extensions may collect keystrokes or enable unauthorized access to browser sessions. The more tools that are introduced without IT oversight, the harder it becomes to isolate and contain incidents when they occur. CoSN’s 2025 report indicates that 60 percent of edtech leaders are “very concerned about AI-enabled cyberattacks,” yet 61 percent still rely on general funds for cybersecurity efforts, not dedicated funding.

    Building a responsible framework

    To mitigate these risks, school leaders need to:

    • Audit tool usage using platforms like Lightspeed Digital Insight to identify AI tools being accessed without approval. Districts should maintain a living inventory of all digital tools. Lightspeed Digital Insight, for example, is vetted by 1EdTech for data privacy.
    • Develop and publish AI use policies that clarify acceptable practices, define data handling expectations, and outline consequences for misuse. Policies should distinguish between tools approved for instructional use and those requiring further evaluation.
    • Train educators and students to understand how AI tools collect and process data, how to interpret AI outputs critically, and how to avoid inputting sensitive information. AI literacy should be embedded in digital citizenship curricula, with resources available from organizations like Common Sense Media and aiEDU.
    • Vet all third-party apps through standards like the 1EdTech TrustEd Apps program. Contracts should specify data deletion timelines and limit secondary data use. The TrustEd Apps program has vetted over 12,000 products, providing a valuable resource for districts.
    • Simulate phishing attacks and test breach response protocols regularly. Cybersecurity training should be required for staff, and recovery plans must be reviewed annually.

    Trust starts with transparency

    In the rush to embrace AI, schools must not lose sight of their responsibility to protect students’ data and privacy. Transparency with parents, clarity for educators, and secure digital infrastructure are not optional. They are the baseline for trust in the age of algorithmic learning.

    AI can support personalized learning, but only if we put safety and privacy first. The time to act is now. Districts that move early to build policies, offer training, and coordinate oversight will be better prepared to lead AI adoption with confidence and care.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Digital learning in a new age

    Digital learning in a new age

    Key points:

    Digital learning–in the form of online, hybrid, and blended schools and courses–is growing steadily in U.S. schools. These learning options can transform education because they allow for learning, teaching, and student engagement outside the confines of traditional physical schools.

    Students no longer have to show up at a school building every morning, and millions of students and families are demonstrating their preference for more flexible learning options by choosing their district’s online schools, charter schools, and private schools.

    Digital learning meets the needs of today’s students, who are seeking flexibility in their scheduling. Many high school students want to pursue sports, arts, and career interests in the form os jobs, internships, and other program. Others simply crave the control an innovative school gives them over the time, place, and pace at which they learn. Digital learning also meets the needs of teachers, who, just like knowledge workers around the world, are interested in employment that allows them to choose their schedules.

    Online and hybrid learning is becoming easier to implement as technology grows and improves. Unlike just a few years ago, when teachers were concerned about using multiple technology tools, much-improved integration and interoperability between platforms is making adoption of multiple tools far easier.

    While relatively few students and families prefer their education to be 100 percent online, many students are selecting hybrid options that combine online and face-to-face interactions. Much like young knowledge workers who are increasingly blending home offices with corporate headquarters, digital learning is showing up in unexpected places as well. Let’s take a closer look at two examples: career and technical education (CTE) and physical education (PE).

    CTE is often perceived as being “hands on” in ways that casual observers might expect would not align well with digital learning–but the truth is exactly the opposite.

    Digital learning is broadening the world of CTE for students. Online and hybrid schools provide CTE programs by offering a combination of online career courses and by partnering with businesses, state and regional training centers, and other
    organizations to combine online learning with on-the-ground, real-world jobs, internships, and learning opportunities.

    Hybrid schools and programs, including those run by mainstream districts, provide academic scheduling flexibility to students who seek to prioritize their time in jobs, internships, or career training. No longer do these students have to fit in their career interests after regular school hours or on weekends–when many companies and high-value jobs are not open or available.

    For example, a student interested in a veterinary career can work at a vet’s office during the regular week and school hours, completing some of their online coursework after normal work hours.

    Virtual Arkansas, a state-supported course provider supporting districts across Arkansas, has made digital CTE a central element of its offerings.

    “CTE is a key part of our value to students and schools across Arkansas. Students, teachers, counselors, and the business community, all appreciate that we are providing flexible options for students to gain real-world expertise and experience via our online and hybrid programs,” said John Ashworth, the programs’ executive director.

    Perhaps even more surprising than CTE shifting to digital is the idea that next generation physical education is based on online tools, adept teachers, and student voice and choice.

    Today’s students are accustomed to going into a coffee shop and ordering their drink with a dozen customized features. And yet, in traditional PE classes, we expect students to all want to learn the same sport, activity, or exercise, at the same time and pace. That’s how too many traditional gym classes operate–based on the factory model of education in which all students do the same thing at the same time.

    There’s a better way, which is being embraced by online schools, hybrid schools, and traditional districts. Online and hybrid PE classes shift exercise, activity, and wellness to match student interests and timing. A student chooses from hundreds of detailed instructional videos in dozens of categories, from aquatics to basketball to yoga, trains using the videos combined with instruction provided by a teacher, and tracks her progress.

    This doesn’t sound like a traditional gym class; instead, it mimics the ways that young adults are active in gyms, yoga studios, and sports leagues all around the country. Consider fitness clubs from the local YMCA to the most high-end club–they are all offering a wide variety of classes, on varied schedules to fit busy lifestyles, and at different levels of expertise. No school can match this, of course, by the traditional approach to gym class. But Joe Titus, founder and CEO of Hiveclass, which offers online physical education courses, points out that student agency to
    choose from a wide variety of PE options is possible–when schools are ready to make the leap.

    Online schools and district programs are already doing so, with fantastic outcomes as students lean into their choices and options. As futurist William Gibson said decades ago, “the future is here, it’s just not evenly distributed.”

    Online and hybrid CTE, physical education, and other options prove the point. The next step is to make these options widely available to all the students who are seeking a better alternative.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • The hidden cost of learning: how financial strain Is reshaping student life

    The hidden cost of learning: how financial strain Is reshaping student life

    • This HEPI guest blog was kindly authored by Cheryl Watson, VP of Education, UK at TechnologyOne.

    Rising costs are now a defining feature of the student experience in the UK. What once felt like an educational ‘coming of age’ for young people is, for many, becoming a difficult balancing act between academic ambition and financial survival.

    From housing and transport to food and essential tech, students today face relentless financial pressures just to participate in university life. For institutional leaders, the evidence is clear: the financial landscape is changing, and approaches to student engagement and support must change with it.

    A growing financial gap in UK higher education

    Financial pressures on students are not new but are growing in scale and complexity. The joint Minimum Income Standard for Students (MISS) 2024 research with HEPI and the Centre for Research in Social Policy (CRSP) at Loughborough University found that a typical full-time student living away from home needs around £244 per week to maintain a minimum standard of living. Yet, most face a significant shortfall even with part-time work and maintenance support.

    This gap impacts attendance, well-being, debt levels, and student retention. National data shows that 30% of students take on additional debt to cover basic living costs. At the same time, HEPI and Advance HE’s 2025 Student Academic Experience Survey found that more students are working part-time (68%) than not, often juggling jobs alongside demanding timetables.

    One student from the recent MISS focus groups summed up the reality:

    Even [like] knowing that I’m in my overdraft…I know it’s interest-free and stuff, but having to rely on it is not ideal, and I want to work to try and get out of it, but also like I can’t afford to.”

    It’s a cycle, and you constantly max it out every year, and then you’re constantly working to pay it back.

    This financial tightrope is increasingly common.

    How student life is being redefined by cost pressures

    Students are making tough choices daily between travel, food, work, and study. Financial stress is changing not just what students can afford, but also how they experience university life on a day-to-day basis.

    While pressures vary, the underlying theme remains consistent: rising costs are reshaping the student experience in real-time.

    The new commuter reality

    Many universities still operate around the traditional student living on campus, but according to the Sutton Trust, over 50% of UK students go to university where they grew up and students from poorer backgrounds are three times more likely to commute from home.

    For many, this is often because they cannot afford to live near campus. This has real academic consequences, with many students missing classes due to travel costs and disconnected timetables.

    I live in Sheffield but a lot of the people in my class seem to commute and there’ll be times where like most of the class don’t turn up for a certain seminar and it’s because… it just wouldn’t make sense to pay all that money to come for an hour and a half and then just leave again.

    Without more flexible, student-aware scheduling and targeted support, commuter students risk being structurally disadvantaged.

    Technology isn’t optional

    Access to digital tools is now essential for participation in academic life. From lecture recordings to online submissions, students are expected to stay constantly connected and equipped.

    You definitely need a laptop as well because although the University library provides computers, especially during exam season, you have to book them in advance, and they’ve already been taken up.

    For many, the cost of keeping up with technology adds to financial pressures, creating further barriers to participation.

    Living with financial stress

    Financial pressure is a constant presence for many students. Overdrafts are used regularly, part-time work is essential, and mismatches between payment schedules and bills force difficult choices.

    In 2023, HEPI found that more than a quarter of universities operate food banks to support students, while rising rent costs leave little left for essentials.

    The difference between first year and second year is that you have that comfort blanket of it, but by the time you get into second year, you’ve already used it, and you’ve got nothing to help you anymore.”

    These aren’t one-off lapses in budgeting. They’re the result of an unsynchronised system that does not reflect the financial reality students are working within.

    Missing out on student life

    Financial pressures also limit participation in the social and community aspects of university life that are vital for wellbeing and development.

    Especially in the SU, it’s not ideal because lots of societies will do socials there so if you can’t afford that… It might seem silly, but if you’re part of a sports society then there is some sort of expectation to go to Sports Night on a Wednesday most weeks so that obviously adds up if you’re going most weeks.

    MISS24 found that 55% of students missed out on social experiences and 53% skipped extracurricular activities due to financial constraints.[AC1] 

    Opting out is often the only option, but it comes at a cost to confidence and connection

    Why this matters for universities and policymakers

    Financial stress is no longer a fringe issue in UK higher education. When 30% of students are taking on extra debt just to cover essentials, and many are skipping classes or missing out on key experiences, the impacts on retention, well-being, and academic outcomes cannot be ignored.

    The disconnect between what students need and what current funding models assume continues to grow. Part-time work and family contributions are often treated as standard, despite being unrealistic for many students.

    What’s next: Building an evidence base for change

    If the Minimum Income Standard for Students 2024 brought much-needed clarity to the financial pressures facing undergraduates, this year’s follow-up takes that work a step further.

    The upcoming report, Minimum Income Standard for Students 2025 (MISS25), focuses specifically on first-year students living in purpose-built accommodation, offering the most detailed insight yet into the cost of starting university life in the UK.

    The findings are stark. Those on minimum support face a funding gap that must be filled by family or debt. The report also reveals a growing mismatch between student needs and how maintenance systems are designed, particularly for those without access to parental support.

    For institutional leaders, policymakers and student advocates, we encourage you to read closely, and to consider how your planning, funding and engagement strategies can respond to what today’s students are telling us.

    Click the link below to sign up for a copy of the MISS25 report when it’s ready.

    Sign up for a copy of the report 

    TechnologyOne is a partner of HEPI. TechnologyOne is a global Software as a Service (SaaS) company. Their enterprise SaaS solution transforms business and makes life simple for universities by providing powerful, deeply integrated enterprise software that is incredibly easy to use. The company takes complete responsibility to market, sell, implement, support and run solutions for customers, which reduce time, cost and risk. 

    Source link