Tag: Lens

  • The Candace Owens–Erika Kirk Controversy Through a Higher Education Lens

    The Candace Owens–Erika Kirk Controversy Through a Higher Education Lens

    The September 2025 assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk sent shockwaves through the political and academic worlds. It also ignited a public feud between two figures whose influence stretches across campus activism and national media: Candace Owens, a former Turning Point USA (TPUSA) strategist turned media provocateur, and Erika Kirk, the widow of Charlie Kirk and newly appointed leader of TPUSA. The conflict exposes not only the personal and political stakes involved but also the broader dynamics of media influence, ideological factionalism, and the politics of grief in contemporary higher education.

    Charlie Kirk: Architect of Campus Controversy

    Charlie Kirk built his public persona on provocation and confrontation. He staged highly orchestrated debates on college campuses, often targeting liberal-leaning students with “Prove Me Wrong” events that were designed to go viral. Turning Point USA’s social media strategy amplified these conflicts, rewarding spectacle over substantive discussion. Kirk also courted controversy through statements on race and opportunity, claiming in interviews that a Black woman had “taken his slot” at West Point, and through his unabashed support of fossil fuels, rejecting many climate mitigation policies.

    Under Kirk’s leadership, TPUSA expanded its influence with aggressive initiatives. The Professor Watchlist cataloged faculty allegedly promoting leftist propaganda, drawing condemnation from academic freedom advocates who argued it chilled open debate and exposed professors to harassment. In 2019, TPUSA, through its affiliated nonprofit Turning Point Action, acquired Students for Trump, integrating campus organizing with national political campaigns. These moves cemented Kirk’s reputation as a strategist who thrived on conflict, spectacle, and the orchestration of young conservative voices, setting the stage for the posthumous clashes between Owens and Erika Kirk.

    Candace Owens: Insider Knowledge Meets Provocation

    Candace Owens leveraged her experience as a TPUSA strategist into a national media presence. Her commentary is known for being provocative, frequently conspiratorial, and sometimes antisemitic. After Kirk’s death, Owens publicly questioned the official narrative, hinting that TPUSA leadership may have failed Kirk or been complicit. She amplified unverified reports, including accounts of suspicious aircraft near the crime scene, drawing criticism for exploiting tragedy for attention. Owens’ stature as a former insider gave her claims credibility in some circles, but her approach exemplifies the hazards of insider knowledge weaponized against organizations and individuals in moments of vulnerability.

    Erika Kirk: Navigating Grief and Ideological Contradiction

    Erika Kirk’s public response has been markedly different. As TPUSA’s new CEO and widow of its co-founder, she emphasized factual communication, transparency, and respect for grieving families. Yet her messaging presents a striking tension. She has publicly urged women to “stay at home and have children,” even as she leads a major national organization herself. This contradiction highlights the challenges faced by leaders whose personal actions do not neatly align with ideological prescriptions, especially within high-profile, media-saturated contexts.

    Erika Kirk’s stance against conspiracy and misinformation underscores the responsibilities of institutional leadership in politically charged environments. By rejecting Owens’ speculation and emphasizing ethical communication, she models crisis management that prioritizes credibility and accountability, even as ideological tensions complicate her public image.

    The Groypers: External Pressure on Campus Politics

    The feud did not remain internal. The Groypers, a far-right network led by Nick Fuentes, inserted themselves into the controversy, criticizing TPUSA for insufficient ideological purity and aligning with Owens’ confrontational rhetoric. Their intervention escalated tensions, highlighting how external actors can exploit internal disputes to influence narratives, polarize supporters, and pressure campus organizations. The Groypers’ involvement illustrates the precarious environment student-focused organizations face, where internal conflict can quickly become a battleground for external ideological agendas.

    Media, Campus Power, and Ethical Considerations

    The Owens–Kirk conflict exemplifies the challenges inherent in politically engaged campus organizations. Insider knowledge can confer authority, but it can also be leveraged in ways that destabilize institutions. Personal grief and tragedy can be amplified in the media, creating narratives that are part advocacy, part spectacle. Organizations like TPUSA, with expansive networks, high-profile donors, and initiatives such as the Professor Watchlist and Students for Trump, are uniquely vulnerable to reputational damage and internal discord. Kirk’s legacy of confrontation and spectacle created fertile ground for sensationalism, factionalism, and opportunistic interventions by groups such as the Groypers.

    Toward Responsible Leadership

    The feud offers a cautionary lesson for student-focused political organizations and higher education at large. While former insiders may provide valuable insight, amplification of unverified claims can destabilize leadership, undermine institutional credibility, and warp student engagement. Erika Kirk’s insistence on restraint, transparency, and fact-based discourse demonstrates the importance of ethical leadership, media literacy, and principled decision-making in sustaining credible campus organizations.

    Entangled Worlds as Spectacle  

    The conflict between Candace Owens and Erika Kirk is more than a personal dispute. It reflects the entangled worlds of media influence, ideological factionalism, and institutional accountability in higher education. For observers, the episode offers a vivid study of how grief, ideology, and spectacle collide, and how effective leadership must navigate these pressures with clarity, ethical judgment, and a steady commitment to institutional integrity.

    Sources

    Candace Owens – Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candace_Owens

    Owens vs. Erika Kirk, AOL News: https://www.aol.com/news/candace-owens-strangely-accuses-erika-154928626.html

    Erika Kirk public statements, WABC Radio: https://wabcradio.com/2025/12/11/erika-kirk-snaps-back-at-candace-owens

    Megyn Kelly mediation reports, AOL: https://www.aol.com/articles/megyn-kelly-reveals-she-helped-220748120.html

    Charlie Kirk career and assassination, UPI: https://www.upi.com/Voices/2025/09/11/charlie-kirk-activist-fatal-shooting/5321757598392

    Conflict-driven persona, Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/09/10/charlie-kirk-dead/

    Campus engagement and media amplification, PBS: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/charlie-kirk-dead-at-31-trump-says

    Charlie Kirk’s statements on race and West Point, Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/09/13/charlie-kirk-turning-point-politics-debates

    Professor Watchlist – Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_Point_USA

    Students for Trump acquisition, Charlie Kirk – Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Kirk

    Groypers intervention, Nick Fuentes – Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Fuentes

    Source link

  • Charlie Kirk’s Assassination Through the Lens of Collins and Hoffer (Glen McGhee and Dahn Shaulis)

    Charlie Kirk’s Assassination Through the Lens of Collins and Hoffer (Glen McGhee and Dahn Shaulis)

    The assassination of Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, offers a stark illustration of how violent acts against movement leaders can reconfigure political energy on U.S. campuses. Kirk was the leader of Turning Point USA, Turning Point Action (formerly Students for Trump), and Turning Point Faith. He was also the creator of the Professor Watchlist and the School Board Watchlist. 

    Far from diminishing conservative student mobilization, Kirk’s death appears to have amplified it—at least in the short term. Randall Collins’ sociology of interaction ritual chains and Eric Hoffer’s classic analysis of mass movements provide a useful lens for understanding both the surge and the likely limits of this moment.

    Collins’ Emotional Energy Framework Applied to Kirk’s Death

    Collins identifies four outcomes of successful ritual gatherings: group solidarity, emotional energy, sacred symbols, and moral righteousness. In the wake of Kirk’s assassination, conservative students and evangelical leaders have experienced all four in compressed, amplified form.

    Pastors quickly declared Kirk a “Christian martyr.” Rob McCoy invoked biblical precedent, while Jackson Lahmeyer described the murder as “spiritual in nature and an attack on the very institution of the church.” This religious framing elevates Kirk from activist to sacred symbol.

    The immediate response has been extraordinary. Turning Point USA claims more than 32,000 requests for new chapters in the 48 hours following his death. Collins would interpret this as emotional energy seeking new ritual outlets. In this sense, Kirk’s martyrdom has become not just a grievance but a generator of collective action.

    The memorial scheduled for September 21 at State Farm Stadium—with capacity for more than 60,000 and featuring Donald Trump—is set to be the largest ritual gathering in the history of conservative student politics. Collins would predict this to be a high-intensity moment of “collective effervescence,” the kind of event that extends emotional energy for months if not years.

    Hoffer’s Mass Movement Dynamics and Conservative Student Mobilization

    Hoffer’s The True Believer provides a complementary angle. He argued that mass movements thrive on frustration, doctrine, and the presence of either a leader or a transcendent cause. Kirk’s assassination intensified frustration while transforming him into a more powerful symbolic figure than he was in life.

    Student conservatives now have all three: grievance (left-wing violence), a sacred cause (free speech framed as religious duty), and a heroic narrative (following a martyred leader). In Hoffer’s words, martyrdom provides both “grievance and transcendent meaning.”

    The shift from Kirk as a living leader to Kirk as martyr reflects Hoffer’s principle of substitutability. Loyalty has already migrated from the man himself to the mythology of his sacrifice. College Republicans chairman William Donahue compared the killing to Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination, framing it as a watershed for the movement.

    Sustainability and the Ritual Problem

    The paradox is that Kirk’s most important contribution—the high-energy confrontational rituals of his “Prove Me Wrong” campus debates—cannot be replicated without him. These events generated viral spectacle, solidified conservative identity, and created sacred moments of confrontation. They were, in Collins’ terms, engines of emotional energy.

    The September 21 memorial may provide a one-time boost, but Collins emphasizes that emotional energy must be renewed through repeated rituals. Without Kirk’s charisma and willingness to create confrontational spaces, conservative students risk energy dissipation. Already some students report greater enthusiasm for activism, while others express fear of being targeted themselves.

    The dilemma is clear: the rituals that generated the most energy (public confrontations) are the very ones most likely to invite violence. This tension may limit the sustainability of the movement’s current surge.

    The Profit Motive: Martyrdom as Marketplace

    Beyond the sociology of solidarity lies a material reality: martyrdom is also a business model. Conservative organizations are already converting Kirk’s death into a revenue stream. Within hours of the assassination, Turning Point USA launched fundraising appeals invoking Kirk’s “sacrifice,” while conservative merchandisers began selling commemorative t-shirts, hats, and wristbands emblazoned with slogans like “Martyr for Freedom” and “Charlie Lives.”

    Publishing houses are reportedly fast-tracking hagiographic biographies, while streaming platforms are negotiating for documentaries. Memorial events, livestreams, and “Martyrdom Tours” are being packaged as both spiritual rituals and ticketed spectacles. Kirk’s death, in other words, is generating not only emotional energy but also financial capital.

    This profit motive raises questions about the sincerity of the rhetoric surrounding Kirk’s martyrdom. While Collins and Hoffer help explain the emotional pull, the commodification of grief ensures that the “sacred symbol” is also a lucrative brand. Conservative student organizing may thus be sustained less by spontaneous devotion than by a well-financed industry of grievance, merchandise, and media spectacle.

    Indicators to Watch

    Several markers will reveal whether Kirk’s martyrdom produces lasting transformation or burns out in ritual dissipation:

    • Memorial impact: Attendance and intensity at the September 21 gathering will test whether Kirk’s death can generate lasting solidarity.

    • Chapter formation: The real test of Turning Point USA’s 32,000 claims will be functioning chapters in six months.

    • Leadership succession: Hoffer reminds us that movements need charismatic leaders. At present, Trump appears to be monopolizing the emotional energy, raising doubts about the rise of new student leaders.

    • Counter-mobilization: Collins’ conflict theory suggests left-wing backlash could shape whether conservative students double down or retreat.

    The Probable Trajectory

    For the next 6–18 months, conservative student mobilization is likely to grow. The movement now has the grievance, sacred symbolism, and transcendent narrative that both Collins and Hoffer identify as powerful motivators.

    But sustaining this surge will be difficult without Kirk’s unique talent for generating high-energy campus rituals. Unless new leaders emerge who can replicate or reimagine those ritual forms, the emotional energy of martyrdom may eventually dissipate.

    At the same time, the financial infrastructure now growing around Kirk’s death suggests the movement has a fallback strategy: keep the martyrdom alive as long as it remains profitable. In this way, Kirk’s assassination may prove to be not just a sociological event but also a business opportunity—one that reveals the convergence of politics, religion, and profit in contemporary conservative student life.

    Source link

  • Adding a trauma-responsive lens for student support

    Adding a trauma-responsive lens for student support

    Key points:

    Across the country, our schools are being taxed beyond their capacity to support educational success. We’ve known for a long time that students need a three-dimensional structure of guidance and encouragement to thrive. That’s why the Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) framework was created–it’s a prevention framework for early identification of varying student needs and the responses needed to maximize academic success. In theory, an MTSS supports academic, social-emotional, and behavioral needs in equal measure. However, in practice, many schools are struggling to incorporate social-emotional and behavioral components in their MTSS–even as many of their students come to school bearing the effects of adversity, trauma, or crisis.

    This imbalance is leaving millions of children behind.

    Each year, at least 1 in 7 children in the United States experience abuse, violence, natural disasters, or other adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). By age 16, roughly two-thirds of children will have been exposed to at least one traumatic event. This can impair their ability to learn well and contribute to absenteeism, while secondary trauma spirals out from these students to classmates and teachers, multiplying the overall impact. Left unaddressed, the imprint of such events could warp the future of our school and public communities.

    Since COVID-19, schools have reported unprecedented levels of absenteeism and student distress, and supporting trauma-exposed students without training puts more pressure on teachers, who are already burned out and leaving the profession at high rates. Therefore, it is clear to me that creating school-wide networks of trauma-informed adults is essential for fostering supportive learning and growth for students, enhancing educator capacity to nurture trauma-affected learners, and ensuring effective trauma resource management within districts.

    Research has identified a supportive school community as a strong childhood protective factor against the effects of trauma. We should be hopeful about our path forward. But the vision and blueprint for this enhancement of MTSS need to come as soon as possible, and it needs to come from state-level education leaders and school district leaders.

    Gaps in support and expertise

    Consider this scenario: A student who recently experienced a traumatic car accident sits near a window in class, experiencing significant distress or dysregulation without outward signs. A sudden screech of tires outside activates their sympathetic nervous system (the one associated with fight or flight), and the student shuts down, withdrawing into themselves. Their teacher, unaware of the student’s trauma history and unequipped with relevant training, interprets the response as a continuation of past misbehavior or as an academic deficit.

    This sort of misunderstanding takes place in a thousand places every day. I would stress that this isn’t a reflection of bad intentions, but rather a symptom of fragmented systems and knowledge. Even when trauma is recognized, lack of intentional collaboration and training often result in missed opportunities or inconsistent support, which cannot maximize recovery from trauma and may, in fact, hinder it, as research on retraumatization suggests.

    There might be mismatched expectations when teachers send students to the counselor, not knowing that they themselves have a role to play in the healing. In other cases, students may be referred to a school counselor and have a productive support session–but on their way back to class, a seemingly benign statement from a third party can be misconstrued or cause dysregulation, unintentionally undoing the support they’ve received. The solution to all these problems is school-wide training on trauma-informed skills. This way, all educators and staff alike develop a shared knowledge, understanding, language, and responses as they collaborate and connect with students. With the right tools, adults on campus have better trauma-informed strategies to use in their relationships with students and in building a safe and supportive school community.

    The proof is all around us

    Trauma training works synergistically within MTSS: social-emotional and trauma-responsive support allows for better academic outcomes, which work to further reduce behavioral problems, and so on. At the Center for Safe & Resilient Schools and Workplaces, we see this play out often with our school district partners. For example, at Pasadena Unified School District, which was recently ravaged by the Eaton Canyon Fire, trauma-informed best practices and preparations have enabled district leaders to reopen schools with sufficient psychological understanding and interventions along with the needed material support for the 10,000 students who were affected.

    A truly effective MTSS model does not treat trauma as a peripheral concern. It integrates trauma-responsive strategies into every tier of support–from universal practices, to targeted interventions, to intensive mental health services. In that environment, every adult who comes in contact with students has the training to adhere to trauma best practices.

    We are at a juncture where the impact of trauma poses serious risks to the education system, but evidence-based approaches exist to solve the problem. Change from the state level down is the best way to transform school cultures quickly, and I urge state education leaders to take action. Any MTSS plan isn’t complete without a trauma-informed foundation, lens, and programming. And our students–each and every one–deserve nothing less.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Reframing student voice through a rights-based lens

    Reframing student voice through a rights-based lens

    Student voice has never been more central to the higher education conversation.

    Across the sector, there’s growing consensus that higher education institutions must not only listen to their students but actively build institutions around their insights and experiences.

    Yet, for all the best intentions and sincere efforts, turning student feedback into meaningful, institution-wide change remains a challenge.

    At the University of Kent, we’ve been reflecting critically on our own approach. Like many, we’ve long celebrated the volume of student engagement we facilitate, such as surveys, focus groups, informal conversations.

    But we’ve come to recognise that collecting feedback isn’t the same as using it, and that celebrating the act of “listening” can sometimes obscure a harder truth – we didn’t always know what to do with what we heard.

    Reframing student voice through a rights-based lens

    Our turning point came through an unlikely source – the work of Professor Laura Lundy. Originally developed to support children’s rights under Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Lundy’s model provides a practical framework for ensuring young people’s voices are not only heard, but also acted upon.

    It centres around four interdependent elements – Space, Voice, Audience, and Influence.

    We began to ask – what if we adapted this model to the higher education widening participation context?

    Applying Lundy’s model in this way helped us shift our thinking from engagement as consultation, to engagement as partnership.

    It challenged us to ask harder questions about power, process, and accountability in the way we involved underrepresented students in our outreach and access work.

    We already had a thriving cohort of over 300 student ambassadors – many young, idealistic, and deeply committed to helping shape a more inclusive university. But too often, when they shared ambitious or creative ideas, we found ourselves retreating behind operational constraints – “That won’t get through the next committee,” or “It’s a great idea, but we don’t have the budget.”

    We weren’t dismissing their input out of disinterest, on the contrary, we were invested. But in practice, without the power to act, we were unintentionally reinforcing the idea that their contributions didn’t lead to change.

    Feedback gathered with care and enthusiasm was left to languish in reports and spreadsheets. There was no systematic way of translating insight into action, and no clear feedback loop to close the gap.

    Space

    The development of our new Access and Participation Plan (APP) back in 2023 offered the ideal opportunity to put this into practice. The Office for Students made student involvement a clear expectation and we chose to go beyond compliance.

    In partnership with Kent Students’ Union, we launched a Widening Participation Student Advisory Panel, inspired by a successful model from the University of Southampton. We recruited 25 students, most from underrepresented backgrounds, and built a structure that allowed their contributions to be actioned.

    Voice

    If we wanted students to play a meaningful role in shaping our widening participation strategy, we had to go beyond asking for ideas. We had to equip them to contribute in an informed way.

    That meant building knowledge, not just platforms. We didn’t just ask for feedback, we trained them:

    • We explained the regulatory context
    • We shared internal data and metrics
    • We discussed financial constraints and institutional parameters
    • We connected them directly to our APP Operations and Steering Groups

    Our aim wasn’t to dampen creativity, but to anchor it in context. Students needed to understand the world they were trying to change. That understanding made their input sharper, more strategic, and ultimately more powerful.

    Audience

    Students invest time and energy into sharing thoughtful feedback. They deserve more than tokenistic “thank yous” or vague assurances that their views have been “noted.”

    We took steps to ensure student voice reached the people who could act on it. That meant involving senior leaders and decision-makers in engagement processes, creating spaces where feedback was taken seriously and visibly discussed and being transparent with students about the limits of our authority, namely what we could or couldn’t change.

    One of the students was even elected to sit on the operations group itself, ensuring a direct student voice at the decision-making table.

    Honesty builds trust. And trust is the foundation of sustained, meaningful student engagement.

    Influence

    Acting on feedback is only half the equation. The other half is showing that we acted.

    We’ve become intentional about creating “You said, we did” moments: making visible the link between student insight and institutional change.

    We’ve made sure those changes are not just confined to our team, but acknowledged at all levels – in committees, in strategic plans, and in senior leadership conversations.

    Influence should be traceable. Students should be able to see evidence of their ideas across the university.

    One powerful example of student-led change is the revision of the Kent Financial Support Package (KFSP), driven directly by student feedback. We co-created the process by modelling different support options and inviting students to choose the approach they felt was most equitable.

    While we initially considered concentrating funds among fewer students, students overwhelmingly voiced the importance of broader support, even though this meant slightly lower individual amounts, to ensure more of their peers could benefit.

    They also pushed for smaller changes which would make a big difference, including support for students repeating a year and extended eligibility for those who become estranged during their studies.

    We listened, we acted, and now they can see their voices reflected in a policy that benefits future students.

    From consultation to co-creation

    This is still a work in progress.

    But adapting Lundy’s model has helped us ask better questions about how we build student voice into the DNA of our widening participation work. It’s helped us move from hearing students views to embedding them into decision-making, and from consultation to co-creation.

    If we’re serious about equitable access and success in higher education, then the voices of those most affected must not be optional extras. They must be at the centre, resourced, respected and able to help shape the institutions they are a part of.

    Source link

  • The Student Assistant: Through the Student Lens

    The Student Assistant: Through the Student Lens

    Reading Time: 4 minutes

    You first met our game-changing GenAI-powered Student Assistant in August 2024, and we’ve been keeping you up to date on all of the exciting developments ever since. We’ve told you how it helps personalize your students’ learning experience on a whole new level with content that’s specific to your course textbook — but now we want to show you how. 

    Let’s dive in and explore some visual examples of student interactions that demonstrate its full capabilities.

    Points students in the right direction  

    Do your students ever get stuck on how to begin working on a question or topic? Using the Student Assistant, students can ask for a solid jumping-off point to get the ball rolling in the right direction. They can also ask it to clarify points of confusion, so they can successfully progress through an assignment.  

    Student Assistant tells student where to start by making sure they understand the key terms in the question.

    Student Assistant I'm lost prompt

    Promotes critical thinking and academic integrity 

    The Student Assistant guides students to help them identify the correct answer, without giving it away, promoting the development of critical thinking skills and putting emphasis on self-reliance. Students are also discouraged from simply guessing a correct answer and are asked to explain their logic behind a selection.

    Student asks the Student Assistant to just give them the answer, and the Student Assistant tells them they cannot provide answers directly. The Student Assistant Is it the first answer prompt.

    Simplifies complex topics 

    If students are struggling to comprehend what they’re learning, they can ask for topics to be elaborated on, rephrased or broken down. They can also ask for brief definitions of key terms. 

    Student asks the Student Assistant to make the topic simpler. Student Assistant provides simpler explanation. Student asks Student Assistant to explain topic in a different way. Student Assistant responds with a different explanation.

    Student asks Student Assistant to give a short definition. Student Assistant provides a concise definition for each term.

    Makes real-world connections 

    With the Student Assistant, students can ask for explanations of how topics they’re studying connect to real-world scenarios. It can generate discipline- and career-specific use-cases, helping students understand the relevancy of course content within the framework of their future careers.  

    Student asks the Student Assistant to give them a real-world example of topic. Student Assistant provides an example. Student asks the Student Assistant how topic applies to nursing? Student Assistant provides explanation.

    Student asks the Student Assistant when they'll use this topic after college. Student Assistant provides a detailed explanation.

    Keeps students on track 

    Getting distracted during a task is something that can happen to the best of us, and students are no exception. If students ask to be shown external or entertaining web content, the Student Assistant will redirect and keep them focused on the assignment at hand. This tool will never provide or rely on external content.  

    Student asks the Student Assistant for a cat video. The Student Assistant redirects student back to assignment.

    Motivates and encourages

    The Student Assistant lets students know that it’s okay to struggle through an assignment by encouraging them with a positive, motivational tone. With positive reassurance from the Student Assistant, students can complete assignments with confidence.  

    Student tells the Student Assistant, this is so hard. The Student Assistant replies with encouragement and motivation.

    Reframes course content  

    When students aren’t making personal connections with course content, it can be easy for them to lose interest in the topic altogether. Students can ask for their course topics to be turned into an engaging story, helping them key into critical themes and ideas that they may have initially overlooked.  

    Student asks Student Assistant to turn topic into a story. The Student Assistant provides a story.

    Can’t wait to begin using the Student Assistant in your courses? 

    The Student Assistant is currently available in beta with select titles, including “Anatomy & Physiology”, “CompTIA Network+ Guide to Networks” and “Economics.”  To get started, create a course with any of the titles available with the Student Assistant and start using it today. 

    We’re gearing up for more titles to feature the Student Assistant this fall. In the meantime, you can currently explore this tool’s capabilities, its current list of titles where it’s featured and AI at Cengage.   

     

    Source link