Tag: Making

Making the most of degree apprenticeships requires collaboration across the whole of the UK

Less than a decade after their introduction, degree apprenticeships have become a significant feature of higher education provision across the United Kingdom. Despite this shared initiative, institutions in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland continue to operate largely independently, creating a fragmented UK landscape that limits collective learning and improvement.

This separation has resulted in a fragmented landscape that undermines opportunities for mutual learning and improvement. The absence of sustained dialogue means each nation continues to trial and refine its own approach in relative isolation, an approach that leaves apprentices short-changed.

If we want better outcomes for everyone involved, we need to stop running four parallel experiments and start talking to one another.

As a consortium of educational leaders committed to work-based higher education across the UK, we’ve collectively observed a concerning trend during our extensive engagement with employers, universities, and apprentices: the persistent siloing of knowledge and practice between our four nations. While Scotland has established its graduate apprenticeships program, England has developed its degree apprenticeships framework, and both Wales and Northern Ireland have implemented their own distinct approaches. Despite facing remarkably similar implementation challenges, there remains a troubling lack of systematic knowledge-sharing and collaborative learning across these national boundaries.

Enhanced cross-border collaboration could lead to better outcomes for institutions, apprentices, and employers alike, preventing duplication of efforts and fostering collective improvements based on shared experiences.

Diverse approaches

Each UK nation has developed its distinct approach to integrating apprenticeships within higher education, despite common policy objectives and implementation challenges.

In 2024, the Labour government announced the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill, paving the way for the establishment of Skills England. Previously employers defined apprenticeship standards, with apprentices required to dedicate at least 20 per cent of their training time away from the workplace, concluding with an end-point assessment. The new legislation gives the government powers to bypass employer groups to design and approve standards and apprenticeship assessment plans in a move argued to make the skills system more “agile” to employer needs and allow Skills England to become central to Labour’s five missions.

In Scotland, graduate apprenticeships managed by Skills Development Scotland similarly prioritise employer involvement. However, Scotland employs a more centrally controlled skills system, directly influencing university offerings through funded apprenticeship places. This approach is further reinforced by the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill – introduced in February 2025 – which centralises responsibility for the delivery and funding of apprenticeships within the Scottish Funding Council. By consolidating these responsibilities, the bill aims to enhance system efficiency, transparency, and alignment with the Scottish labour market, thereby facilitating improved outcomes for learners and employers.

Wales introduced a novel structure by establishing the Commission for Tertiary Education and Research (Medr), a single governing body overseeing the entire tertiary education sector, including apprenticeships. This model represents a significant structural departure from other nations.

Northern Ireland’s strategy aligns apprenticeships with broader economic ambitions, specifically targeting a transformation to a “10X economy” by 2030. Apprenticeships play a pivotal role in this ambitious economic development strategy, not merely seen as educational pathways, but as strategic instruments for workforce development and sectoral transformation.

Shared challenges, isolated solutions

Despite the distinct policy approaches, institutions in each nation encounter remarkably similar operational difficulties. Institutions consistently face challenges integrating workplace experiences within academic curricula, navigating multiple regulatory frameworks, and establishing comprehensive support mechanisms for apprentices. These recurring issues highlight a fundamental inefficiency: duplicated efforts across borders without coordinated learning.

For instance, Middlesex University’s Sustainable Degree Apprenticeships report identifies common struggles across the UK, particularly with managing supernumerary positions for nursing apprentices and reconciling workplace assessments with academic expectations.

The widespread nature of these issues emphasises the potential value of a collective, cross-border approach to sharing effective strategies and solutions.

Exemplifying untapped collaborative potential is the University of the West of Scotland’s (UWS) approach to graduate apprenticeships. UWS’ graduate apprenticeship business management programme has introduced dedicated “link tutors” who act as a consistent point of contact for both apprentices and employers. These tutors navigate the complex relationship between universities and employers, support apprentices in managing the demands of full-time work alongside academic study and help ensure alignment between on-the-job experience and academic outcomes. For apprentices who have struggled in more traditional learning environments, this targeted, consistent support has been especially impactful.

The UWS example points to a broader truth – that the success of degree apprenticeships depends not just on academic content or employer engagement, but on the quality of the relationships built around the apprentice. UWS link tutors demonstrate what is possible when those relationships are given structure and sustained attention. However, without mechanisms for knowledge-sharing across the UK, such practices risk becoming isolated successes rather than the foundation for a more consistent and effective system.

Barriers to effective collaboration

The persistence of fragmentation across the UK is not accidental but reinforced by several systemic barriers. Firstly, the varied regulatory and quality assurance frameworks across each nation create natural divisions. These distinct regulations complicate collaborative efforts and reinforce separation.

Competition among institutions for apprenticeships and employer partnerships further discourages cooperation. Institutions often perceive cross-border collaboration as potentially undermining competitive advantage, despite potential long-term benefits for shared knowledge. Divergent policy frameworks across the four nations intensifies these tensions. Employers operating across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland face significant challenges navigating the inconsistent apprenticeship standards, funding mechanisms, and regulatory requirements, thereby limiting the scale and effectiveness of apprenticeship programs and potentially undermining broader national objectives of skills development and economic growth.

Additionally, frequent policy shifts undermine the stability required for effective collaborative planning. Institutions, wary of unpredictable policy changes, prefer short-term, autonomous strategies rather than investing in potentially unstable cross-border collaborations.

And the absence of structured platforms for meaningful cross-border exchange remains a significant barrier. Resource constraints, particularly in staff workloads and budgetary limitations frequently hinder the capacity of institutions to engage in sustained, meaningful dialogue with counterparts in other UK regions. This lack of institutional infrastructure and resourcing limits the development of collaborative practices essential for a cohesive UK-wide degree apprenticeship ecosystem.

The imperative for collaborative platforms

Addressing these barriers requires deliberate action to create structured, cross-border collaborative forums. Recent informal discussions among apprenticeship providers across the UK indicate widespread acknowledgment of these missed collaborative opportunities. Academics frequently express frustration about facing common challenges without access to shared resources or systematic opportunities to learn from peers in other parts of the UK. This is despite frequent calls from the sector.

What is lacking is a coordinated infrastructure that supports regular exchange of pedagogical models, assessment strategies, and institutional policies. Cross-nation working groups, joint practitioner networks, and shared digital platforms could help bridge this divide. These would not only allow for the exchange of effective practice but also aid in the development of more consistent approaches that benefit apprentices and employers alike.

The challenge is not a lack of innovation, but a lack of connection. Many institutions already possess effective, well-tested solutions to the very problems others are still grappling with. Without formal channels to communicate these solutions, valuable knowledge remains isolated and difficult to access. If higher education institutions across the UK are to realise the full potential of degree apprenticeships, they must find ways to turn informal acknowledgement into formal collaboration.

The benefits of greater cross-border collaboration are substantial. Institutions could significantly improve the quality of apprenticeship programmes by collectively addressing shared challenges. Enhanced efficiency could reduce duplication of effort, allowing institutions to focus resources more strategically and effectively.

Moreover, apprentices themselves stand to gain significantly. Improved programme coherence, stemming from collective learning, could ensure apprentices receive uniformly high-quality education and training, irrespective of their geographic location.

Employers – essential stakeholders in apprenticeship programmes – would similarly benefit from improved programme consistency and quality. Collaborative cross-border dialogue could help standardise employer expectations and streamline their participation across multiple jurisdictions.

A collective future

Degree apprenticeships represent a substantial collective investment aimed at reshaping higher education and addressing key skills shortages within the UK economy. Apprentices at the heart of this initiative deserve integrated, high-quality experiences informed by the best practices and shared knowledge of institutions across the entire UK.

Institutions and policymakers must therefore commit to overcoming existing fragmentation by prioritising structured cross-border collaboration. This approach not only maximises the effectiveness of the significant resources already committed but also establishes a more coherent, effective educational framework for future apprentices.

Ultimately, collaboration among UK higher education institutions represents not only good educational practice but a strategic imperative, ensuring that apprenticeships fully realise their potential as transformative educational opportunities.

Our apprentices deserve better than four parallel experiments. They deserve the best of what all four nations have learned. It’s time we started talking to each other.

Source link

July 16, 2025
Making things happen: Coventry University’s contribution to regional growth
- This blog is by Dr Clive Winters, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Strategy and Governance) at Coventry University Group.
- Today is Josh Freeman’s last day at HEPI. Josh has run the HEPI blog alongside his other duties for most of the past two years and has been a fabulous colleague. We will miss him and wish him all the best for the future and in his new role at the Office for Students.
When levelling up was popular in political and media circles, it was a source of bemusement to some of us in Higher Education. After all, universities as anchor institutions have been helping level up our communities and delivering economic impact for decades, or even longer.

Coventry University Group is now a global education provider, but its roots go back to 1843 when entrepreneurs and industrialists created Coventry School of Design to deliver a skilled workforce. Nearly two centuries later, we have never lost that core ethos of meeting local needs and we continue to work with businesses to provide job-ready graduates with the skills and creative thinking to improve their communities.

Our emblem is a Phoenix, chosen because of the city’s long history of regeneration and rebirth – a story only possible through our ongoing commitment and agility to evolve with the city and deliver the skills and innovation ecosystem needed to raise and maintain aspirations, mobility and prosperity. We have always been of the city and for the city of Coventry and have transplanted our mission of creating better futures into more cities and regions with campuses in London, Scarborough and Poland.

Education is based on place and each location is different, with social, economic and geographical factors driving local need and the gaps in skills, health and prosperity that we can help to fill. Our research and knowledge exchange activity complements our excellence in teaching to allow us to operate as a collaborative partner of choice, developing holistic solutions for local communities. We deliver technical, professional and vocational education and research that impacts on people and places. We co-create our courses with employers, our research is undertaken in collaboration and partnership, and knowledge exchange activity is designed with businesses not for them.

When trying to capture this in an economic impact report on our activity in Coventry, we assumed the figures would be large, impressive and surprising to some but would not tell the full story of how we contribute to place and society. So, we asked the consulting team at Hatch to look at our wider impacts and not just add up the pounds.

In simple economic terms, our main campus had a gross quantifiable economic footprint of 6,730 FTE jobs and £320m in Gross Value Added (GVA) in Coventry (2021/22). One in every 20 jobs in the city can be traced back to our presence. For every four direct on-campus jobs, a further three are supported across the city through the multiplier effects generated by the Group’s activity.

But that doesn’t calculate the true extent to which we are woven into the economic and social fabric of Coventry, helping the city adapt and grow for 180 years. Our 5,000 health students on placements populate the teams in the wards and clinics of our local hospital, working alongside our alumni in the health and care sector in Coventry. The Research Centre for Care Excellence is a partnership with University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire (UHCW) empowering staff to develop ideas to make ‘patient first’ improvements. Patients feel the benefits, almost certainly without ever knowing the role we played. We are also working with UHCW and other NHS bodies to use our city centre estate to bring health services closer to patients and are the first university to be co-located in a Community Diagnostic Centre. Real people benefit from our work.

Coventry was the home of bicycle design and manufacturing before becoming the UK’s motor city and is now vying to position itself at the forefront of the net zero transport revolution. Many of the brightest and best car designers and engineers in the UK have Coventry degrees, and we continue to meet the evolving needs of the city – upskilling 1,200 JLR staff though an electrification development programme and conducting 34 net zero collaborative research projects in just two years. We are moving the city forwards into a brighter, better future.

The song We’ll Live and Die in These Towns seems an unusual choice for any place to have as an (unofficial) anthem, as it speaks of desperation and resignation to the fate of the working classes. But it has been embraced, not least by supporters of Coventry City, possibly because it somehow transmits a strong sense of identity based on where you are from, of place. Alongside the defiant chorus, the lyrics include the line, ‘nothing ever happened on its own’. People have to make things happen and Coventry is a city where we make things happen, but we don’t do that on our own. We do it with someone and for someone in collaboration and partnership as an anchor institution, that is the key to real economic impact.
Source link
July 11, 2025
Making a Meaningful Environment for Belonging – Faculty Focus

Belonging and mattering are crucial for creating educational environments where learners feel connected to their department and classmates (Hale et al., 2019). Student success has become a major outcome measure for many academic units(Accreditation Council for Occupational Therapy Education, 2005 and Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education, 2025). Researchers have found that learners’ sense of belonging enhances psychological flexibility, learner satisfaction, motivation, and professional identity, thereby increasing student success (Carter et al., 2023 and Tejero-Vidal et al., 2025). Measuring a learner’s perception of belonging can be challenging for educators. To support this effort, a social-ecological model has been developed to conceptualize the different layers that contribute to a learner’s sense of belonging(Johnson, 2022). The Departmental Sense of Belonging (DeSBI) tool specifically measures this sense within the context of department and peer relationships(Knekta et al., 2020).

I explored how an increased involvement in the belonging social-ecological model was associated with learners’ sense of belonging within their department. The goal was to help departments refine their model to enhance learners’ connection to faculty and peers, thereby increasing learners’ success. The hypothesis was that higher interactions in the social-ecological model would correlate with a higher sense of belonging. Sixty-eight learners from three allied health programs completed the survey, which found the results a statistically significant association between the learner’s involvement in the belonging social ecological model and a learner’s sense of belonging to a department.

Practical Application of the Belonging Social-Ecological Model

The study underscores the pivotal role of departmental culture and environment in shaping a learner’s sense of belonging. This is an essential consideration for departments when evaluating the factors provided to learners at each level of the belonging social ecological model.

Intrapersonal Level

Activities within the interpersonal level are journaling, professional development, and mental health practices. It is crucial for faculty to consider encouraging learners to journal at the end of a class session or to include journaling as a graded activity within their course. Supporting learners in building these habits helps foster psychological flexibility and self-awareness. This approach can also provide an opportunity strengthen the therapeutic alliance between individual faculty.

Interpersonal Level

Activities within this level include meals with classmates and faculty, physical activities, and social gatherings. Faculty should strongly consider whether their academic space provides the area for learners to study and have meals together. If your department lacks such space, advocating for one in or near your department should be a priority. If your academic unit has the gathering space, it will be important for faculty to evaluate if it will attract learners to use it effectively, or if learners will avoid the areas because of its set-up and location. Ensuring a dedicated space is not only available but actively used is a critical step for faculty when evaluating their effectiveness in fostering a sense of belonging within the department.

Additionally, faculty should encourage learners to spearhead the organization of social events outside the department so to strengthen connections between one another. With mentorship and engagement from faculty, learners will be empowered to create inclusive events that help all feel welcome.

Institutional Level

The institutional level considers what activities are offered by the university to the learners. Every university, regardless of its size, hosts various events each week for its learners. It is crucial for faculty to consider how their learners are engaging with university announcements about these events. Faculty should consider how the department reinforces these activities on its own announcement board. Should faculty hang signs near the department, or employ other creative strategies to ensure learners are fully informed about campus activities?

Community and Societal Level

The social ecological model is the community and society encompasses activities that extend beyond campus and occur within the community and at the society level. Each university is an integral part of the community in which it is located. Therefore, it is important for faculty to consider how learners are kept informed about the events occurring within the community they live. Ensuring the department highlights events, beyond the favorite coffee shop, restaurant, or activity spot, is crucial for fostering a sense of belonging. Considering each community offers unique experiences, making sure learners are aware of these activities is important. By combining the dissemination of institution activities with community events, faculty can address two domains with one strategic plan.

Physical and Virtual Space

Physical and virtual spaces are in the outer most layer in this social-ecological model and include the structure of class breaks, classroom setup, and online activities. Faculty should consider how physical and virtual learning environments impact social connections. For example, it is important for faculty to thoughtfully consider how breaks are structured – not just when they are given. Encouraging learners to leave the room for a short walk outside with peers, play a quick game of four-square, or throw a frisbee is beneficial, as it promotes learners to be active shift their mindset, and foster conversations beyond classroom content.

A final consideration involves the layout of the classroom. Is the classroom arranged traditionally with everyone facing forward, or can it be reorganized into pods or small groups, which will facilitate discussion during group projects? If the goal is to engage the entire room, can the seating be arranged into a large circle to allow learners to see each other’s body language while speaking? These small yet significant environmental factors can impact the learning environment and the sense of belonging for each learner in the room.

Conclusion

Increased engagement across all layers of the belonging social-ecological model significantly enhances the learners’ sense of connection and inclusion. This sense of belonging is not a peripheral benefit – it is foundational to learner motivation, participation, and overall success. Faculty play a key role in implementing thoughtful strategies that promote belonging at every level of the belonging social ecological model. In doing so, they help create a dynamic and inclusive learning community where every learner can thrive – leading to greater success and personal fulfillment in their learners’ academic journey.

Dustin Cox, PT, DPT, PhD, is an Associate Professor at Augusta University and a licensed physical therapist with advanced certifications in therapeutic treatment for Parkinson’s and lymphedema. He received his Doctor of Physical Therapy in 2011 and his Ph.D. in Health Sciences in 2023 from Northern Illinois University. Since 2016, Dustin has been dedicated to helping learners achieve their goals in becoming effective healthcare practitioners. Currently, Dustin teaches in a DPT program and clinically works with clients that are in the pediatric stage of life and clients with bleeding disorders.

References

Accreditation Council for Occupational Therapy Education. (2025, March 15). 2018 and 2023 ACOTE Standards. Accreditation Council for Occupational Therapy Eudcation. https://acoteonline.org/accreditation-explained/standards/

Carter, B. M., Sumpter, D. F., and Thruston, W. (2023). Overcoming Marginalization by Creating a Sense of Belonging. Creative nursing, 29(4), 320–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/10784535231216464

Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education. (2025, March 15). Accreditation Handbook. Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy. https://www.capteonline.org/faculty-and-program-resources/resource_documents/accreditation-handbook

Hale, A. J., Ricotta, D. N., Freed, J., Smith, C. C., and Huang, G. C. (2019). Adapting Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs as a Framework for Resident Wellness. Teaching and learning in medicine, 31(1), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2018.1456928

Johnson, Royel. (2022). A socio-ecological perspective on sense of belonging among racially/ethnically minoritized college students: Implications for equity-minded practice and policy. New Directions for Higher Education, Spring 2022, pages 59 – 68. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20427

Knekta, E., Chatzikyriakidou, K., and McCartney, M. (2020). Evaluation of a Questionnaire Measuring University Students’ Sense of Belonging to and Involvement in a Biology Department. CBE life sciences education, 19(3), ar27. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-09-0166

Tejero-Vidal, L. L., Pedregosa-Fauste, S., Majó-Rossell, A., García-Díaz, F., and Martínez-Rodríguez, L. (2025). Building nursing students’ professional identity through the ‘Design process’ methodology: A qualitative study. Nurse education in practice, 83, 104256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2025.104256

Source link

June 9, 2025
How to get started making a podcast

She suggests teaming up with a buddy. “Looking back on all the stuff I’ve produced, I’ve never produced it alone or in a silo,” she said. “You really need to connect with other people. And I think that’s a great way to do it.”

4. Find your mango. Colter said that piece of advice came from climate journalist Katherine Dunn, who runs the Oxford Climate Journalism Network. It means connecting climate to the things that people care about. “Yummy, delicious mangoes are struggling to thrive on a heating planet right now,” Colter said. “So that’s something that actually is under threat. It’s something that people love. The thing I like about it is that mangoes are really visual. Everybody knows them.”

5. Make small splashes as opposed to big waves. You don’t need to think about a massive climate headline, Colter said. It can and should be stories that you’re personally interested in that have a climate element to them. Climate is everywhere, Colter said. “It’s just about finding your route into it,” she said. “Find small ways to connect the dots to climate change.”

6. Keep it simple: Listeners want to feel like they are part of a conversation. So talk like you’d normally talk. “It doesn’t need to sound like a science textbook,” Colter said. “Like we’re not all climate scientists and I don’t think we should feel that we have to communicate in such a way.”

7. Keep it human: We tend to focus climate stories around some aspect of the planet: air, water, wildlife, plants. But it is a mistake to ignore people. “That’s who is mainly suffering and who will suffer,” Colter said. “Nature will go on, humans won’t.” She said center a story around humans and speak directly to the people that your story affects by reaching out to them and interviewing them.

“It’s amazing now you you can pretty much contact anyone all over the world,” she said. “And what I would say is just go for it because you’d be surprised at who replies.”

8: Give people ways that take action. Colter said that you don’t want to lecture people or demand that they change the way they live. But you can make suggestions and give them blueprints of how others have taken action. “It’s very much about taking stock of what’s going on in your life and your community and taking action within that,” she said.

9. Find technology you are comfortable with. There are seemingly endless apps and software programs and hardware you can buy and download and install and use. But you don’t need expensive equipment or complicated programs. There are simple, inexpensive microphones you can buy or use the one that comes on your laptop or phone. You can use free software that called a digital audio workspace. On an Apple device there is an app for recording called Voice Memos, for example. “So you literally just open that, hit go and you’re good to go,” she said.

You will need an editing program. Again there are fancy programs you can get such as Adobe Audition but there are simpler programs as well. Colter pointed to Descript, which allows you to edit the audio by editing the words. “So you can literally highlight a whole sentence and click delete if you don’t want that sentence,” she said. “I think Descript is a really good entry tool if you just want to have a play around.”

10. Publish. Like with recording and editing technology, there are a lot of publishing platforms like Buzzsprout, Acast and Simplecast and all will enable people to find your podcast on Apple, Spotify and other commonly used streaming services. Some are free and some cost money. You might want to explore and compare.

Questions to consider:

1. Why is there more to podcasting than just talking into a mic?

2. What are some ways you can connect to an audience?

3. If you were to create a new podcast, what would it be about?

Source link

May 23, 2025
Making Fourth Generation Universities intentional: sounds good but what does it mean?
- By Lucy Haire, Director of Partnerships at HEPI.
At a recent roundtable discussion of university leaders convened by HEPI with Elsevier, the focus was the concept of the Fourth Generation University. If first-generation universities focused on teaching, second-generation universities on research, third-generation universities on knowledge exchange, then fourth-generation universities combine all those things for the express purpose of addressing real-world challenges. Rather than universities beavering away and occasionally ‘throwing something out there,’ commented one roundtable guest, the idea is to link university delivery to specific goals in partnerships with other agencies.

‘It is tempting in a time of financial crisis in the UK university sector to withdraw into core activities’ continued the discussion contributor, ‘when in fact the opposite is needed – bold steps into more explicit civic engagement.’ One former head of a medical school said that he had never been asked what society needed of his institution. Fourth Generation Universities, conversely, link their work to health priorities and any number of other pressing public concerns. They respond head-on to the UK Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Philipson’s Five Priorities for Universities outlined in her letter to vice-chancellors in autumn 2024, especially number two about economic growth and number three about civic roles. In addition, the Government has stated that it will be publishing a document this summer setting out some plans for higher education reform.

Elsevier is at the heart of developments, establishing a Fourth Generation University global community and a basket of metrics to analyse progress. Eindhoven University of Technology is a trailblazer in the field, and early adopters in the UK include the Universities of Newcastle, Swansea, Aston and Strathclyde, among others. Robert Jan-Smits, recently retired president of the executive board of Eindhoven University of Technology (TUE), and also former Director General of Research and Innovation at the European Commission, offers his reflections on the initiative which, he states, might not suit every institution.

One HEPI and Elsevier roundtable participant who has analysed and encouraged university civic engagement across the UK explained that the three components for success were strong leadership, strong relationships and a strong sense of intentionality. He cautioned that the country is divided in terms of public engagement: swaths of the country never or seldom set foot on a university campus, nor have knowledge of higher education’s work and impact. A chorus of university leaders at the discussion acknowledged their need to do more in terms of better serving and communicating with such groups. University-speak and the dreaded sector acronyms should be banned!

There are plenty of success stories of universities acting as anchor institutions in their regions. Many boast start-up business support, science and innovation parks and strategic collaboration with regional authorities. Others address skills shortages, health inequalities, local transport deficits and low university participation rates. They are all important employers and many serve local, national and global communities simultaneously. Cybersecurity and defence projects which bring together industry and academia, often from multiple institutions, are in ever-increasing demand. One discussion participant reminded the group that some higher education institutions, such as Coventry University, had been set up with civic goals in mind, while another said that resource and planning were needed to develop the right ecosystems and infrastructure in which Fourth Generation Universities can thrive.

While there could be pockets of resistance, most academics can be persuaded that if their students’ job prospects are improved and their own research sharpened, the aims of Fourth Generation Universities are worthwhile. Fully integrating the student voice was key, with a special mention for Arts and Humanities graduates whose storytelling capabilities should be deployed to showcase the positive impact of Fourth Generation initiatives.

One roundtable contributor advised that the UK should take note of what is happening in American universities in terms of heated anti-intellectual rhetoric and huge funding cuts since the start of Donald Trump’s second administration. People need to see the ‘tangible impact’ of universities and understand the connections between their lives and the Academy as a bulwark against aggression.

Attention around the table turned to the recent UK local elections in which a relative political newcomer, Reform, made huge strides. Those universities working in partnership with councils now controlled by Reform reported positive early engagement and an understanding among new councillors of the importance of the success of their local universities. Meanwhile, when it comes to national politics, higher education policy is not seen as a vote-winner.

Perhaps if universities could make their impact on the economy better known, the sector could garner more strategic attention from the government, not least to support the growth agenda. One guest suggested posing a counterfactual: ‘What if there were no, or far fewer, universities? What would the impact be on the economy?’ Another speaker referenced the trend in Australia of universities reporting outcomes like how much growth and employment they had delivered. UK funding systems such as Higher Education Innovation Funding (HEIF) and the Research Excellence Framework (REF) could be developed to better incentivise Fourth-Generation initiatives. The gathered group also remembered that developing more rigorous and consistent methods to measure both the private and public benefits of universities, including social and civic outcomes, was a key priority in Universities UK 2024 Opportunity, Growth and Partnership: a blueprint for change. The metric frameworks being developed by the Fourth Generation University global community could provide a basis on which to start.

From publican to professor, fishmonger to founder, cabbie to the cabinet, Fourth Generation Universities need to make sense, deliver outcomes and foster a sense of shared endeavour in a turbulent world.
Source link
May 23, 2025
Making a sustained case for international student mobility
Today on the HEPI blog, Professor David Phoenix OBE and Dr. Katerina Kolyva explore how England’s post-16 education system can move beyond competition to create a more integrated, collaborative approach that benefits learners, local economies, and national prosperity. You can read the blog here.

Below, colleagues at the University of Surrey explore the evolving landscape of global student mobility, highlighting innovative programmes and making the case for a new approach to student placements.
- Professor Amelia Hadfield is Associate Vice-President for External Engagement and Founding Director of the Centre for Britain in Europe, and Liz Lynch is International Mobility Manager, both at the University of Surrey.
In recent years, the UK’s governments have developed new initiatives such as the Turing Scheme, the Taith Scheme in Wales, and the Scottish Government’s Scottish Education Exchange Programme (SEEP). These mobility programmes aim to support students’ global experiences. While they have undoubtedly provided valuable opportunities for students – particularly for those from disadvantaged backgrounds – what is truly needed is a longer-term commitment from government to sustain and expand these life-changing opportunities.

At the end of February, the annual Global Mobility conference hosted by Universities UK International (UUKi) brought together higher education professionals and thought leaders to explore the latest developments in global student mobility and what the future looks like. The conference showcased how universities are leveraging these funding opportunities to create meaningful and impactful programmes. However, it also highlighted the significant challenges faced by UK institutions, particularly in the aftermath of Brexit, the Covid-19 pandemic, the UK’s withdrawal from Erasmus+ and the ongoing financial pressures on both universities and students. These factors have created a complex landscape, making investment in international mobility more crucial than ever.

The Impact of Mobility on Student Outcomes: Insights from UUKi Research

During the conference, UUKi presented early-stage findings from their latest research, Gone International: A New Generation, conducted in collaboration with Jisc and the Northern Consortium. While the data revealed a significant decline in the number of students going abroad, perhaps reflecting the impact of recent global challenges, there remains strong evidence of the benefits to students. Reaffirming 2019 findings, the data continues to show students participating in mobility programmes not only attain higher degrees but are also more likely to earn higher salaries, secure professional-level jobs and experience lower unemployment rates. The research underscores the important role of global mobility in fostering social mobility.

Nevertheless, while those of us working in the sector already understand the intrinsic value of international experiences, having concrete data to back up these claims strengthens the case for continued support and expansion of such opportunities. The University of Manchester, for example, has been evaluating the impact of its international mobility programmes on student outcomes, and the findings have helped raise the profile and importance of these opportunities across their institution. This kind of evidence-based approach is essential for ensuring that the sector – and governments – remain committed to facilitating global mobility for students.

The Broader Benefits of International Mobility

The British Council highlights the broader societal benefits of international student mobility, particularly in fostering cross-cultural understanding and long-term relationships between nations. By participating in mobility programmes, students develop cross-cultural competence, language proficiency, and global perspectives – all vital skills for success in today’s interconnected world. Inbound mobility, in particular, contributes significantly to the UK economy, with international students bringing cultural diversity, innovation, and fresh perspectives to campuses. These exchanges also build cross-cultural networks, which can endure long after students return to their home countries, fostering greater trust and understanding between nations and supporting the UK’s soft power overseas.

All of this is in addition to the economic benefit that stems from the UK’s ability to attract international students, as discussed recently on the HEPI blog.

Blended Mobility: Enabling flexibility and accessibility

Blended mobility programmes represent a forward-thinking solution for making global education more accessible and flexible. Cardiff Metropolitan University, for example, has embraced a hybrid model supported by the Taith funding, combining one week of virtual learning with one week of physical mobility. This approach not only maintains the essence of cultural exchange but also offers students the flexibility to engage in international experiences that might otherwise be logistically or financially out of reach. The combination of virtual, blended, and physical mobility opens doors for students who might not be able to commit to a full-term study abroad programme, making global learning more inclusive and scalable.

Whilst the Turing Scheme in its current form does not include blended mobility, the recent reduction in minimum duration to 14 days is a positive step towards providing greater accessibility for students. Hopefully, in future years, blended mobilities and shorter 7-day mobilities could be incorporated into future Turing projects, taking the impactful examples from both Taith and Erasmus+ as evidence of the value and enabling engagement from the most disadvantaged and underrepresented groups. This, along with funding for staff mobility (offered by both Taith and Erasmus+), will only serve to enhance Turing overall.

Surrey’s Approach: Empowering Students through International Mobility

At the University of Surrey, we are committed to increasing the participation of our students in a range of international opportunities, whilst simultaneously expanding the international dimension of the student experience at our Guildford campus. In this respect, placement training options, study abroad opportunities, enhanced ‘global and cultural intelligence’ and ‘collaborative online international learning’ (COIL) content in degree pathways, as well as our Global Graduate Awards, ‘international’ is necessarily widely defined, and ‘mobility’ can take place intellectually, culturally, and socially, as well as just physically,

Mobility also brings together traditional approaches to cross-border opportunities with enhanced approaches to supporting new demographics. A key strategic objective at Surrey, therefore, is focusing on access for underrepresented groups. We target Turing funding and additional grant funds to students who meet Surrey’s widening participation criteria to address inequality amongst underrepresented groups who may wish to experience international mobility but are unable to do so without grants. The portfolio of both longer-term and shorter mobility options we have developed facilitates equal access for all. As previous placements have illustrated, longer-term mobility provides deeper cultural experiences and learning opportunities for those able to commit to a full semester/year abroad. Shorter options can widen access for students from disadvantaged backgrounds and underrepresented groups.

Through their international experiences, our students build global academic and professional networks and improve their job prospects. They return to Surrey as confident, resilient, and globally minded individuals, prepared to tackle the challenges of tomorrow’s world. Feedback from students who participated in Surrey’s Turing 2023 project shows the impact mobility has on their personal and professional development. 94% reported an increase in intercultural awareness, and 93% felt the experience enhanced their employability and professional skills.

Looking Ahead: The Future of Global Mobility

The global mobility landscape is changing, with rapid technological advancements and a growing emphasis on inclusivity and sustainability. At Surrey, we are embracing technological innovations that will enhance both the student experience and the efficiency of mobility programme management. Process automation, for example, is helping streamline administrative tasks, freeing up resources to better support students. We are also starting to use virtual reality (VR) to promote international opportunities, allowing students to virtually explore campus life abroad. Future opportunities for blended learning, as well as the incorporation of COIL projects within the curriculum, will nurture the skills necessary for students to engage with the world and develop the confidence and curiosity needed to thrive in an interconnected society.

By incorporating data-driven approaches, we will continue to assess the impact of our mobility programmes, identifying areas for improvement and ensuring that our offerings align with both institutional and student goals. As the sector evolves, collaboration and innovation will be key in ensuring that all students can access transformative international experiences.
Source link
March 25, 2025
Making Higher Ed’s Back Office More Efficient and Student-Centric

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

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

Source link

March 18, 2025
Supporting Non-Major Biology Students: Making the Classroom YOUnique – Faculty Focus
Supporting biology courses for non-majors involves addressing the diverse needs of students with little intrinsic motivation to study the subject. Many take these courses as part of general education, not personal interest, creating a challenge in maintaining engagement and fostering deeper understanding (Haak et al. 2011). Non-majors often struggle to connect course content to their lives, making it harder to see the subject’s value (Labrov and Singer, 2010). These students come from varied academic backgrounds, resulting in different levels of preparedness and confidence (Tobias 1990; Gormally and Heil 2022). Some may experience anxiety or feel science is irrelevant to their careers (Rice et al. 2013). 

To address these challenges, educators must adopt approaches that make biology accessible and meaningful. By creating a learning environment tailored to various majors, addressing barriers, and demonstrating real-world applications, instructors can make the classroom “YOUnique.” Making the classroom “YOUnique” tailors the experience to individual needs, fostering belonging and showing biology’s relevance. This article explores how strategies—fostering engagement, connecting biology to real-world contexts, and to students’ majors—can support non-major biology students. These strategies will help students build confidence to apply biological knowledge in their careers. 

1. Fostering Engagement in Non-Major Biology Students through a Studio Environment

Engaging students not inherently drawn to biology requires innovative teaching methods. Active learning strategies, where students actively engage in the learning process, promote participation and retention (Freeman et al. 2014). These include group discussions, hands-on experiments, problem-solving activities, and creative assessments that encourage critical thinking and peer collaboration. 

A case study of engagement is the studio-style introductory biology classroom at Kansas State University (Manhattan, KS, USA). This innovative teaching environment blends engaged lectures with hands-on, collaborative activities, with the instructor as a facilitator. The studio integrates lecture, lab, and group work in a flexible learning environment, allowing students to actively participate in problem-solving, discussions, and projects, and it supports diverse learning activities and styles. This approach fosters an interactive environment which is beneficial for student learning. 

Here are some ways the studio-style classroom helps non-major biology students: 
- Active Learning: The classroom setup encourages active engagement, helping non-majors grasp complex biological concepts through hands-on experiences, computer tutorials, and group activities, rather than passive listening. 
- Collaborative Learning: Students work in small groups, promoting peer interaction and problem-solving, which supports non-majors who may feel less confident in their knowledge. 
- Integrated Learning: Combining lecture and lab time allows students to apply theoretical knowledge to practical experiments, helping solidify learning and making complex concepts more understandable. 
- Personalized Attention: The instructor can circulate among groups, providing targeted support and reassurance, which is especially beneficial for non-majors needing more guidance. 
- Flexible Space: The studio classroom’s flexibility to use various technology allows instructors to adapt teaching styles and activities, ensuring responsiveness to the diverse needs of non-major students.
2. Connecting Biology to Real-World Contexts

For non-majors, understanding how biology applies to everyday life is crucial for maintaining interest and motivation. Without a clear connection to their personal or professional lives, students may view biology as abstract or irrelevant. By demonstrating how biological principles impact their world, educators can foster greater engagement. When students recognize the value of what they are learning—whether through daily applications or career relevance—they are more likely to stay motivated, actively participate, and retain information. 

A highly effective way to establish relevance is through interdisciplinary connections that show how biology extends beyond the classroom (Beers and Jensen 2009; Morales and Boulware 2020). Prior to the first day of class, there is a discussion board asking why biology is important to them, and instructors use the responses as an avenue to connect biology and their lives during a class discussion. For every class period, the instructor connects what they are learning to their lives. For instance, using a computer simulation called “Kansas feeds the world” students can explore how photosynthesis and cellular respiration (cell biology unit), along with energy and nutrient dynamics (ecology unit), interconnect with real world issues. In the genetics unit, students connect molecular genetics and biotechnology using an assignment where the students develop a biotechnology product and generate a print ad or video commercial. The ads are shared during class, showcasing how biological processes can drive innovations like medical devices and biofuels. Each unit follows a pattern of building basic knowledge followed by exploring implications and applications to people’s lives.  

Another effective method is case-base active learning (Chaplin 2009; Dewi and Rahayu 2023). Presenting real-world scenarios, like infectious diseases or genetic testing, makes biology come alive. For example, the instructors use a readily available MMR vaccine autism case study to explore the process of science, and let students come to their own conclusions about vaccine efficacy. 

Inviting guest speakers from diverse fields can help students see biology’s broad applications (D’Andrea and Mertens 2006; Marx et al. 2021). For example, we have graduate students presenting on the benefits of “long-term ecological research stations” (LTERs) such as the Konza Prairie Biological Center (Kansas, USA), or the Scientist Spotlights, which is biography about them and their research showing that biologists are real people. These speakers not only provide real-life examples but also inspire students to think critically about how biological knowledge could inform their own career aspirations. Hearing from professionals at the intersection of biology and their disciplines broadens students’ perspectives, reinforcing biology’s fundamental role in life and work.

3. Demonstrating Relevance to Students’ Majors

For non-majors, a significant barrier to success in biology is the perception that the subject lacks relevance to their lives or careers (Gormally and Hall 2022). Students in fields like business, art, or education may struggle to see how topics like cellular respiration or ecology apply to their goals, which can hinder motivation and engagement. 

To address this challenge, educators must emphasize biology’s connections to different majors and to generate connections that have career relevance. Highlighting interdisciplinary applications, such as the role of biology in public health (communications majors), technology (computer science majors), or environmental policy (pollical science majors), can help students appreciate its broad impact. For example, a lesson on climate change might include discussions on the biological effects of carbon emissions, connecting the topic to social and economic issues like the displacement of communities due to rising sea levels and the economic costs of extreme weather events, such as hurricanes and wildfires. 

Another effective approach is personalized assignments (Driessen et al. 2024). Personalized projects allow students to explore biology in ways that resonate with their own lives. One such assignment is a “Biology Connections” activity, where students reflect on how biological concepts connect to their major and career. For example, a business student might describe how ecological sustainability impacts corporate strategies, while an education major might reflect on the importance of understanding human development in teaching practices. This reflection promotes motivation, showing students that biology has practical applications in their daily lives and careers. These personalized assignments allow instructors to make biology “YOUnique”. 

Conclusion

Supporting non-major biology students requires efforts to foster engagement, connect material to real-world contexts, and demonstrate relevance to different majors and backgrounds. Active learning, real-world connections, and ties to their major create a supportive environment where students thrive. By addressing unique challenges and interests, educators can empower non-majors to appreciate biology’s relevance and develop skills beyond the classroom. When students see content as meaningful and tied to their lives and careers, they are more likely to engage, retain knowledge, and apply it. This approach enhances understanding and equips them with critical thinking and problem-solving skills essential in any profession. By “Making the Classroom YOUnique,” educators can foster an environment where students feel valued, leading to greater motivation, academic achievement, and personal growth. A “YOUnique” approach helps students connect with the subject matter and realize their potential as learners in the biology classroom, regardless of their major. 

Jack Sytsma is a doctoral graduate teaching assistant in the Division of Biology at Kansas State University. While his research is at the forefront of understanding how plants respond to climate, Jack is equally passionate about teaching. He finds great fulfillment in educating and mentoring undergraduate students, particularly in courses that bridge ecological principles with real-world applications. With aspirations of becoming a teaching professor in biology, Jack aims to inspire the next generation of scientists by fostering curiosity and a deeper understanding of the subject.

Robert ‘Robbie’ Bear is a Senior Biology Instructor in the Division of Biology at Kansas State University. Robbie started teaching 33 years ago as an undergraduate and ever since then he has synthesized his experiences on either side of the podium into his pedagogy of an inquiry-based student centered learning. He is currently teaching his dream course and finds happiness and purpose in people discovering the importance of Biology in their life. In the remaining years of his career, Robbie wants future educators (the Jack Sytsma’s) to have the foundational pedagogy that allows them to explore, grow, and succeed as teachers.

Eve S. McCulloch, PhD, is a teaching associate professor in the Division of Biology at Kansas State University. Eve has been teaching biology courses for 12 years, ranging from introductory to upper-level classes. Eve’s research background is in mammalogy, ecology, and conservation genetics. She is in her dream job, working to support undergraduate students both in and outside of the classroom. Eve is passionate about making the biological sciences accessible to students of all backgrounds and fields of interest, and promoting undergraduate student success while at university at beyond.

References  

Armstrong, N., and S. M. Chang. “Teaching Non-Majors Biology: Pedagogical Challenges and Opportunities.” Journal of College Science Teaching (2007).

Beers, S. F., and M. Jensen. “Integrating Science and Literacy: Enhancing Understanding of Science Through Interdisciplinary Instruction.” Science Scope 32, no. 2 (2009): 20-27.

Brewer, C. A., and D. Smith. Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action (2011).

Chaplin, S. “Assessment of the Impact of Case Studies on Student Learning Gains in an Introductory Biology Course.” CBE—Life Sciences Education 8, no. 3 (2009): 297–306.

Cooper, K. M., et al. “The Impact of Active Learning on Retention of Non-Majors in Biology” (2019).

Cotner, S., S. Thompson, and R. Wright. “Do Biology Majors Really Differ from Non–STEM Majors?” CBE—Life Sciences Education 16, no. 3 (2017): ar48.

D’Andrea, M. L., and D. M. Mertens. “Creating Meaningful Connections: The Role of Guest Speakers in the Classroom.” Journal of College Science Teaching 35, no. 1 (2006): 40–45.

Dewi, C.A., and S. Rahayu. “Implementation of Case-Based Learning in Science Education: A Systematic Review” (2023).

Driessen, E. P., K. E. Walker, T. Hallman, A. Casper, S. L. Eddy, J. R. Schneider, and A. K. Lane. “‘It’s Been a Process’: A Multiple Case Study of Biology Instructor Efforts to Reform Their Sex and Gender Curriculum to be More Inclusive of Students with Queer Genders and Intersex Students.” CBE—Life Sciences Education 23, no. 4 (2024): ar51.

Freeman, S., et al. “Active Learning Increases Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, no. 23 (2014): 8410–8415.

Gormally, C., and A. Heil. “A Vision for University Biology Education for Non-Science Majors.” CBE—Life Sciences Education 21, no. 4 (2022): es5.

Haak, D. C., J. HilleRisLambers, E. Pitre, and S. Freeman. “Increased Structure and Active Learning Reduce the Achievement Gap in Introductory Biology.” Science 332, no. 6034 (2011): 1213-1216.

Labov, J. B., and S. R. Singer. “Community Colleges in the Evolving STEM Education Landscape” (2010).

Marx, M. A., R. L. Glaser, C. E. Moran, and K. P. Tucker. “A Creative Model for an Interdisciplinary Approach to Service-Learning.” Integrative and Comparative Biology 61, no. 3 (2021): 1028-1038.

Morales, E., and R. Boulware. “A Cross-Disciplinary Approach to Teaching Biology and Environmental Science: The Intersection of Biology and Policy.” Journal of College Science Teaching 49, no. 6 (2020): 40–47.

Rice, L., J. M. Barth, R. E. Guadagno, G. P. Smith, and D. M. McCallum. “The Role of Social Support in Students’ Perceived Abilities and Attitudes Toward Math and Science.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 42, no. 7 (2013): 1028–1040.

Tobias, S. They’re Not Dumb, They’re Different: Stalking the Second Tier (1990).
Source link
March 12, 2025
Making space for commuter students

Residential living at university has been prevalent since the 15^th Century, originally as a way to instil discipline and promote a moral education amongst students.

University College London’s founding in the 1820s as the first non-residential UK university disrupted this tradition. However, debates around the correct model of living have continued ever since.

The Robbins Report in 1963 described the “educational and social advantages of living away from home” and it was often understood that the desire to live in halls was to emulate the “Oxbridge ideal.”

The rise of 1960s plate glass universities, with new on-campus halls led the way for the expected “way of being” for university students.

As recently as 2019 the Augar Report stated “leaving home to go to university is a deep-seated part of the English culture.”

Clearly not much has changed.

Across my time as a student and working in higher education, it was always apparent that space is crucial to the student experience for commuter students where they don’t have a residence on campus.

Whilst the debate around commuter students has shifted in recent years with the introduction of commuters into the Equality of Opportunity Risk Register, more holistic support is needed.

In fact, making space for commuter students is not just about their teaching and learning but it’s also about accommodating their extracurriculars and social lives.

As rising numbers of commuter students challenge the historical ideas of what students should look like, how can institutions make space for commuters on campus?

The rest of the student experience

Arriving at university, it became clear I was one of two commuter students in my cohort of around 200 and that this was going to create problems for me.

The extra curricular student experience was defined by student society socials and trips, socialising in halls and consuming alcohol on nights out.

It was awkward when the first question I’d always get asked in first year was “what halls are you in?”

Skip forward to my final year dissertation, I investigated the barriers to social engagement for commuter students at Leeds University.

My research findings from six interviews with current commuter students found participation in social activities was difficult for many for financial, transport, religious and other reasons.

We respectively think a lot about supporting commuter students’ experience of teaching and learning on and off campus but the student experience isn’t just limited to the classroom.

Issues included last trains home being too early, spaces of engagement centred around halls, hidden costs to participate such as additional meals or transport and hygiene barriers (sleeping on sofas and not having their toiletries).

Commuter students have often been invisible in the way institutions treated them, and we struggled to find each other due to the stigma, with constant questioning by peers “don’t you feel like you’re missing out?”

Rush hour socials

As a student, finding people to support the creation of the Leeds University Commuters’ Society was challenging.

From my own experiences of imposter syndrome and othering, it was essential to create a society to address the needs of this group and advocate for further inclusion.

I founded the Leeds University Commuters’ Society to find others with shared experiences, to share travel tips, support wellbeing and hold “rush hour” socials.

Through my dissertation research, I also explored commuter students’ sense of belonging. I found commuter students who worked for the university in part-time roles, such as ambassadors, had a stronger sense of belonging and pride. The society also boosted feelings of belonging for the students, and some had found lifelong friends on their course who they didn’t realise were commuter students.

Finding space

The pandemic shifted working patterns for many staff, plus the opening of a new building on campus freed up space. The society campaigned for a common lounge for commuter students.

The Student Ideas Fund granted us £5000 to create the lounge, originally on a two-year pilot basis. The lounge contains a refurbished social area with a games table, TV, kitchen, lockers and private study space.

The kitchen offers students the opportunity to save money on lunches and evening meals, as students previously relied on eating out or consuming to feel comfortable in a cafe.

The lounge is now a permanent feature of campus and is visited on campus tours and mentioned at open days.

Where there’s space in residential halls, the University of Leeds team are consulting with commuter students about opening a commuter hotel, offering stays between 1-14 nights, at budget prices.

Commuter students would then be able to participate in a range of activities like attending society socials, concerts, theatre, sports events, and staying the night before a morning exam.

By giving commuter students a space, either a common room, lounge or even a temporary bed for a night in a hotel, it gives them autonomy and agency to fully participate in the wider student experience.

They can participate in the things that make university enriching without being at a disadvantage.

The narrative around commuter students has shifted significantly since the Robbins and Augar report with commuters being included in more Access and Participation Plans in England. However, cost of living pressures are pushing even more students to consider commuting and more still needs to be done.

Making spaces on campus for commuter students is one way of enabling them to have a more enriching and wide-reaching student experience.

Institutions could find spare spaces to give to commuter societies, advertise them as commuter lounges or utilise spare rooms to offer short stays for commuter students. Above all, listening to what commuter students want is the best way of including and further supporting this group.

This blog is part of our series on commuter students. Click here to see the other articles in the series.

Source link

March 12, 2025
Making an impact at scale

The path from early promise to widespread impact requires one thing and one thing only: scalability – the capacity to grow and expand in a robust and sustainable way. Put simply: you can only change the world at scale.

John List

To tackle inequality in higher education, we need scalable interventions. The interventions that make the biggest difference will be those that we can successfully expand from a small group to a much bigger one.

Across many policy areas, ideas that appear promising after being tested at a small scale often have a much lower impact when expanded. Existing evidence suggests the majority of interventions – somewhere in the range of 50% to 90% – will have weak effects when scaled. This is what the economist John List terms a ‘voltage drop’: ‘when an enterprising idea falls apart at scale and positive results fizzle’.

Interventions in higher education are frequently designed at either the module or school level, with the intention to eventually scale up. Often, interventions are started by a single enthusiastic practitioner, who then tries to scale up the intervention later on. For example, a student support programme may go from being implemented within the school of psychology to across the whole institution. Similarly, policymakers may seek to scale an idea that was successful at one institution by implementing it across a range of other institutions.

As a result, higher education emerges as a prime area where we should consider the intended scale of implementation from the outset. While many interventions struggle to scale, List argues this challenge is surmountable by building into our processes an understanding of five key factors that impede scaling.

1. False positives

The first major cause of voltage drops is the prevalence of false positives: concluding there is a significant effect when there is not. False positives can arise in a manner of ways, but we can split them into three categories: statistical error, human error, and fraud.

We can go a long way to addressing this trifecta of false positives by embracing the open science movement. Key tenets of this approach include pre-registration of trials, independent evaluation, and open publication of data and code. Opening our research up in this way not only helps to prevent fraud (more prevalent than we might think in academia) but also encourages more collaboration with peers and enables others to build on your work.

2. Know your intended audience

When testing your intervention, consider whether this initial group is representative of the broader population you hope to impact. If the intervention is not designed for only one group, we should not test it with only one group.

For example, say we trial an intervention with Engineering students before rolling it out across the institution. This could cause difficulties if Engineering students are different from the wider population we are interested in. It may be that the intervention only works on our sampled population (in this case Engineering students) and no longer works when we roll it out to the entire student population.

3. Spillovers

Interventions often give us evidence of what works at a small scale, but it is difficult to anticipate how this could change when an intervention becomes a large-scale movement.

This is particularly important when we look at scaling interventions from one institution to many. We should consider that the positive effects of an intervention at the institution level may disappear once the programme is scaled further. For example, consider a career guidance programme that improves graduate outcomes at an institution. When rolled out across the country, it may alter the dynamics of the graduate labour market in such a way that the original benefits are negated.

4. Is the success due to the practitioner, or the idea?

We should consider whether the intervention, as tested, accurately reflects the characteristics it will have when deployed widely.

The key analogy here is one of chefs and ingredients. If the reason behind a restaurant’s success is its ingredients, it will be more likely to scale well, as the ingredients can be scaled across many branches. But a restaurant will struggle to scale if its success is down to the unique magic of the chef.

Similarly, an intervention may fail to scale if we can mainly attribute its positive impact to a practitioner’s individual brilliance at a specialised skill: the talented practitioner cannot be so easily scaled.

5. Rising costs

If the costs grow disproportionately with the intervention, it will struggle to scale. For example, at a small scale, it may be relatively easy to find an effective practitioner who can deliver the intervention as it was intended and have a high impact on students.

But, as we’ve seen, if the success of a programme rests on the talent of practitioners, this is unlikely to scale well. As the intervention scales and hires more staff, finding staff who can have the desired impact will become increasingly difficult and expensive.

Moving towards having an impact at scale

It is a worthwhile pursuit to make incremental but meaningful changes that improve the lives of students. Many practitioners, not to mention students themselves, will be able to attest to the difference a small-scale intervention can have on a student’s life, helping to break down barriers, narrow gaps and open up doors.

But to move the dial on inequality in higher education, we should build considerations around scaling into our interventions. In doing so, we can move our focus towards building an evidence base that helps us make a much larger change. By making this move, we can realise List’s powerful assertion: ‘you can only change the world at scale’.

Source link

March 7, 2025