Tag: model

Lessons from innovating in our student support model

Over the last ten years – and particularly since the pandemic – the complexity of student wellbeing issues in higher education has increased significantly. It became clear to us at the University of Exeter that the traditional model of academic tutoring alone was no longer sufficient to meet the needs of our students.

Like many other higher education institutions, we had long utilised an academic support model where most academic staff were allocated groups of tutees to provide both academic and pastoral support alongside a range of professional services in areas such as welfare, wellbeing, accessibility and financial support. Our review and research into higher education institutions best practice – both in the UK and internationally, and drawing on approaches from schools and further education providers, identified a clear need for dedicated expertise to provide pastoral support at Exeter.

This led to the development of our Pastoral Mentor model, which we began piloting in autumn 2023. By 1 August 2025, we will have rolled out Pastoral Mentors to every department. Our model was described briefly in Wonkhe last year but you can also read more about it in the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. In summary, Pastoral Mentors are dedicated, non-teaching student support staff embedded in departments, serving as a friendly first point of contact for students facing challenges affecting their studies. They proactively reach out to students based on engagement and attainment data, offer a non-judgmental space for conversations, and connect students with specialist support services as needed. Our pastoral mentors work closely with discipline based staff and wider support services to identify the best way to assist students and ensure that the help they need is connected and timely.

Lessons from transformation

While institutions will adopt different approaches to student support, in this piece we reflect on what we’ve learned from implementing institutional change at Exeter, and share the key principles which underpin our model – offering insights we hope will be useful for others working in this space.

Early identification is key. The earlier students identify they are struggling the easier it is to provide support and put remedies in place. Often, the causes of student failure and drop out begin as relatively low-level challenges, but these can escalate over time – non-attendance leads to missed submissions, which in turn result in failed modules, referrals and potentially withdrawal. If we can identify students whose attendance pattern drops early and support them to get back into the classroom, we can mitigate against many of these larger issues.

Data is key to this. All institutions now hold large amounts of data on our students; attendance, engagement with the VLE, submissions, grades. We need to use this to support students and at Exeter we developed a bespoke engagement dashboard to enable us to identify students who might be struggling.

Clear lines of responsibility are vital. It’s no good having access to data if it’s not clear who is going to act on it. Our Pastoral Mentors are responsible for using the engagement dashboard to identify students of concern and do the initial reach out. They then are responsible for linking students who require more specialist support with the correct service, not just telling the student who to contact but in some cases making that contact for them or following up with the student later to ensure they have accessed the support they need. It’s vital that students don’t slip through the net – whether because no one acts on the data or because they fall unnoticed between services.

Clear escalation processes need to be established. It’s critical to have a clear understanding of where one person’s responsibility ends and when a student should be confidently referred to a specialist. We’ve developed well-defined escalation processes so that our Pastoral Mentors don’t feel pressured to take on issues beyond their expertise and remit, and to ensure we make full use of the specialist staff elsewhere in the institution – helping to maintain the integrity of the overall support ecosystem.

Presence is a must. Early feedback from our students’ union and students’ guild highlighted the importance of face-to-face, named support, with students finding it easier to seek help from someone they already know. Our Pastoral Mentors are present in departments, they attend welcome and transition events, informal department gatherings and department social events for students. Students should know who the Pastoral Mentor is before they need help to facilitate that first conversation. As a core part of the education team, Pastoral Mentors also become specialists in the rhythm and challenges of the discipline and can thus provide contextualised support and advice relevant to the students’ programme.

Clarity of message for students is essential. Students are often put off seeking support because they fear disciplinary or fitness to study processes, in particular international students sometimes do not seek support from traditional academic tutors because they do not want to disclose problems to those teaching them or marking their work. Our Pastoral Mentors aim to decouple support from formalised processes around unsatisfactory progress or visa compliance and rather focus on reaching out compassionately, emphasising the importance of a students’ wellbeing and success. Students have reported that this enhanced their sense of belonging and mattering, making it easier to seek support early.

Supporting colleagues through change

Institutional change is never easy and while many staff recognise the need to enhance our student support offer to students, it remains an emotive issue. Some departments embraced the new model from the outset, while others found the transition more difficult. There’s never “enough” evidence, particularly when the change you are implementing is both transformative and innovative.

As academics we often spend a lot of time seeking and compiling evidence to support a theory, but sometimes we have to be brave enough to enact change because it’s the right thing to do and have confidence that we can bring people along over time. If everyone waits for the evidence from others, innovation will never happen. We have found that co-creation is powerful; in order to address the “evidence” challenge, we had to deploy compassion and communication rather than additional data.

We have to meet colleagues where their concerns lie, not t diminish those concerns but to listen to and recognise both the opportunities and risks associated with change. At Exeter, we adopted a phased co-creation model for our Pastoral Mentor approach, being open with departments that we didn’t have all the answers upfront and that we needed to work together to meet students’ needs. Through this iterative approach we were able to take all our departments with us at a pace that suited them and subsequent feedback on the roll out has been overwhelmingly positive.

Student support is an emotive area, and it’s important to recognise existing best practice alongside the benefits of change. While we should acknowledge the great work many have done and continue to do, it is also important to recognise the pressure providing pastoral support can put on colleagues. We were keen to ensure that specialising support wasn’t seen as a criticism but a way to relieve pressure on colleagues and ensure more sustainable support for our whole community.

Source link

May 15, 2025
Lean, Global, and Tuition-Free: The University of the People Model

One of the most consistent problems in higher education, one that bedevils systems around the globe, is that of cost containment. Costs in higher education grow inexorably, both due to the Baumol effect, that is, services in labor intensive industries like education tend to have costs that grow faster than inflation. And the Bowen Effect, which states that because quality and education is unmeasurable and expenditures are often mistaken for quality, there’s a permanent ratchet effect on university costs limited only by the amount of resources a university can amass. Education’s expensive and getting ever more so.

But what if I told you there was a university out there that had the cost problem licked? It’s a university based in the United States and accredited by the very respected Western Association of Schools and Colleges. It delivers education the world over with 150,000 students in more than 200 countries and territories. And it educates all these students tuition free, for a grand total of about $150 US per year per student. Sound miraculous? Well, it is in a way, and it’s not easily replicable, but it is real and it’s worth learning from. It’s called the University of the People, an online institution founded in 2009 and based in California.

Today, my guest is the University of the People’s Founder and President Shai Reshef. He’s received global recognition for his work at University of the People. He’s an Ashoka fellow. He’s one of Fast Company’s Most Creative in Business, named the Top Global Thinker by Foreign Policy Magazine, and most impressively, he was winner of the 2023 Yidan Prize for Educational Development, which is probably the highest form of global recognition in the field of education.

In our chat today, Shai and I cover the basic economics of running a mega online university. We answer the questions: how do you serve students across 20 plus time zones? How does a university without government support stay tuition free? And most importantly, how — even if most of your staff are volunteer — are you able to manage things like academic governance and quality assurance on a shoestring?

And as I said, not everything Shai is going to tell us today is going to be transferrable to other institutions, but his message should have at least some resonance and the University of the People’s experiences can lead to change elsewhere.

But enough for me. Let’s listen to Shai.

The World of Higher Education Podcast
Episode 3.29 | Lean, Global, and Tuition-Free: The University of the People Model

Transcript

Alex Usher (AU): Shai, let’s start with the basics. For listeners who might not be familiar—what is the University of the People? Who does it serve? And how does that make it different from a traditional university?

Shai Reshef (SR): The University of the People is the first nonprofit, tuition-free, accredited American online university. Our mission is to open the gates of higher education to anyone in the world who is qualified but has no other way to access it—either because it’s too expensive, like in the U.S., or because they live in countries where there aren’t enough universities. Africa would be a great example.

We also serve people who are deprived of access for political or cultural reasons—refugees, women in Afghanistan, or anyone else who, for personal reasons, can’t attend a traditional university. We use the internet to bring higher education to them.

AU: How big is the institution? How many students do you have? Where are they from? And what’s the breadth of programming that you offer?

SR: We started in 2009. As of now, we have 153,000 students from 209 countries—so, pretty much from almost every country in the world.

Our students are typically people who did go to high school but didn’t attend university afterward. Many of them started working and later realized they needed a degree to advance their careers. Our student body tends to be older; they’re not your typical 18-year-olds. They come to us because they want a better future.

That’s why we only offer degrees that are likely to help them find jobs. At the undergraduate level, we offer degrees in business administration, computer science, and health science. At the graduate level, we offer programs in education, information technology, and business—specifically, the MBA.

AU: That’s huge. This must cost an awful lot of money. You’re not a public university in the sense of being government funded, and you’re not charging tuition. So how does it work? What does it cost, and how do you make ends meet?

SR: Well, first of all, we are nonprofit. So, we’re not making money—maybe a small surplus, but not profit. And we are tuition-free. That means students can study for free, but when they get to the exams, we ask them to pay $140 USD per exam.

Now, for some students—especially those from developing countries—even that amount is too much. So we provide scholarships where we can. About half of our students pay the exam fees, and the other half receive scholarships.

We’re able to stay sustainable and tuition-free because we run a very lean operation. We rely heavily on technology. We offer only a few degree programs, all of which are directly relevant to the job market. We also operate in many parts of the world where we can deliver quality education at lower costs.

We don’t have buildings—since we’re fully online—and importantly, we lean heavily on volunteers. I’m a volunteer. The deans are volunteers. Our professors and faculty are volunteers too. In fact, we have over 40,000 volunteers supporting the university.

AU: But surely $140 per exam on its own isn’t enough to run the institution, right? You must have other sources of income, I imagine?

SR: Our budget—running a university with 153,000 students—is about $20 million USD. Two-thirds of that comes from student fees. The remaining one-third comes from donations. These include contributions from wealthy individuals and foundations such as the Gates Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Ulet Foundation. We also receive some government support—for example, from the German government.

So, about $7 million comes from donations, and $13–14 million comes from student fees. But again, we operate on just a fraction of the budget that any other university of our size would require.

AU: I’m just looking at the numbers—$20 million to teach 150,000 students. That’s about $120 or $130 per student. That’s very, very low. And one of the ways you manage that, I understand, is through your use of volunteers. How do you get people to teach for free?

SR: It’s a good question. In my previous life, before I started the University of the People, I launched and ran the first online university in Europe. So I had a good understanding of how an online university should operate.

When I decided to start the University of the People and make it tuition-free, the main difference—among several—was to rely on volunteers rather than paid faculty and staff. At the time, I wasn’t sure how well that would work.

I announced the university in January 2009 at a conference in Munich. The next day, The New York Times ran a full-page article about it. And the day after that, I already had hundreds of professors writing to me saying, “We love this idea. We want to help.”

So people come to us. I’m not out there recruiting them—they come because I’m not the only one who believes higher education should be a basic right, and that money shouldn’t be a barrier. I came with the idea of tuition-free higher education, and a lot of people believe in that mission. They want to be part of it and help.

AU: What kind of support services are you able to offer students? I mean, student services, academic support—how can you do that within a tuition-free model? Are there still some things you’re able to provide?

SR: Oh, we’re able to do a lot. First of all, all of our courses are written in advance by subject matter experts. They go through a peer review process, just like any other academic program. Once finalized, they’re taught in our online classes.

When students sign up, they’re placed in a class of 20 to 30 students—each time with peers from 20 to 30 different countries. Every course runs for eight weeks. On the first day of the week, students receive their lecture notes, reading assignments, homework, and discussion question.

The core of our pedagogy is peer discussion—students engage in week-long discussions around the topic of the week. Every class has a professor who reads and moderates the discussion daily.

Each student also has a program advisor who follows them from the moment they enroll until they graduate. So there is a lot of support. If a student stops showing up to class, they’ll typically get an email asking where they are.

Even though our professors are volunteers, they commit 10 to 15 hours per week, per course, to support students with everything they need. So it’s a full-service university.

The difference between us and a traditional university is that we don’t offer the “nice-to-haves.” We don’t have a football team, a gym, or psychological services—which are important, but we simply can’t afford them. But everything core to the academic experience is there—and delivered with high quality.

AU: Shai, I want to ask—one of the things you must have to navigate when you’ve got students from all over the world and you’re operating in so many jurisdictions is accreditation. That seems like something that’s very bureaucratic and time-consuming. So how do you handle that? Do you do any jurisdiction shopping? Where are your degrees accredited, and is that part of the reason people pursue them?

SR: Originally, in 2014, we were accredited by DEAC, which is a national accreditation agency in the U.S. And just a couple of weeks ago, we were accredited by WASC—the Western Association of Schools and Colleges—which is one of the six regional accrediting bodies in the U.S.

That puts us in the same group as Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA. Some might argue they need to work a little harder to meet our standards—but in any case, we’re now in the same accreditation category.

Now, even though our students come from around the world, many of them admire American education. That’s a big part of why they choose us. In a few countries, we’re not locally recognized because we’re fully online. But still, thousands of students study with us because they value the American degree, and because local employers recognize and appreciate the quality of our education.

Was it easy to get accredited? No, it was hard. It took a lot of work. We had to prove that what we offer is equivalent, in terms of outcomes, to what traditional universities offer. That includes how we admit students, how we support them, and how we assess their learning outcomes.

In the end, we did everything required to meet those expectations—and we succeeded. That’s why we were granted accreditation.

AU: It just occurred to me, as I was thinking about this, that maybe this is your secret sauce. These are the kinds of things that cost millions of dollars at many universities. And if you’re able to do it without complex quality assurance structures, academic senates, registrar’s offices, and all those kinds of things—if you’re able to do it with the leanest version of those—isn’t that something other institutions could learn from?

SR: Yes, they can learn. But do they want to learn? That’s a different question.

One of the challenges we pose to other universities is this: when you’re charging $30,000 to $50,000 a year, and then here comes a university charging just $1,400 a year—if students pay in full and study full time—that’s a huge contrast. And when traditional institutions see that, they often just turn around and say, “No way,” because they don’t believe it’s real.

The truth is, our advantage comes from the fact that we built a new institution from scratch. That allowed us to decide what to do—and what not to do.

Let me give you an example. At a university our size, the admissions office alone might have thousands of people reading student résumés, essays, checking social media, verifying every detail—thoroughly evaluating each application.

We do it differently. We say: if you have a high school diploma, come and take two courses. If you pass, you’ve shown us you meet our standards. You get credit for those courses and become a degree-seeking student. If you can’t pass, you can’t continue.

Now, not only is that a better system in my view—because it tests students based on how they actually perform, not how well someone coached them on an application—but it also saves a ton of money. We don’t need a large admissions operation. Just come in and prove yourself.

It’s a different way of operating—and a much more efficient one. And I think that’s our real secret. It’s not really a secret—but it works.

AU: You’ve scaled up incredibly quickly—15 years to reach 150,000 students, and to be embedded in, I guess, just about every country in the world. What were the biggest hurdles in that scaling process? Were there moments where you stumbled and thought, “Wow, I’m not sure we can grow this quickly?” Or was it pretty smooth?

SR: Well, if you ask me, I’d actually answer a different question: Why aren’t we even bigger than we are?

Because the truth is, we’re online—there are no physical seat limits. Nobody has to stand at the back of the lecture hall. So, in theory, we could double our student body. Why haven’t we?

The main challenge is that most people in the world haven’t heard of us. Even when I travel and someone asks what I do, and I say, “University of the People,” I’m surprised if they’ve heard of it. Most people haven’t—and especially not the ones who need us most, like refugees or people in remote or underserved regions.

The second challenge is that even when people do find us, we don’t have enough resources to support everyone. For example, we have 4,300 Afghan women currently hiding and studying with us inside Afghanistan—but we received 20,000 applications from there. So yes, it’s incredible that we can serve over 4,000 women, but we simply can’t accommodate all who apply.

To go back to your original question about the difficulties we’ve encountered—yes, there are some. For instance, there are countries that still don’t recognize online education. In those places, we’re just waiting for governments to become more open to 21st-century technologies and new models of learning.

So that’s been one of our biggest challenges: growing awareness and overcoming regulatory barriers.

AU: In lots of traditional universities, success is measured through things like research output, income, or rankings. How do you measure success at the University of the People?

SR: Well, the first thing we look at is how many people we’ve given the opportunity to pursue higher education—people who had no other alternatives. That’s a key measure for us.

I was once interviewed by a student journalist from an Ivy League school, and he said, “You’re setting up competition for my institution.” And I told him, “Anyone who wants to go to your institution should absolutely do so. But we’re here for those who don’t have that option.”

So one measure of our success is how many doors we open. Another is how many of our students actually graduate—and what they go on to do. We have graduates working at Amazon, Google, Apple, IBM, the World Bank—that’s another sign of success.

Ultimately, we measure ourselves by whether we’ve helped people build a better life. Are they better off while studying with us? That’s what matters to us.

We don’t participate in rankings competitions. We don’t try to be the most expensive institution—though in some parts of the sector, it seems the more expensive you are, the better you’re perceived to be. That’s a strange way to measure quality, but it’s common in higher ed.

We’re proud to be different. We’re changing the model of higher education to make it accessible, affordable, and high-quality.

AU: A few days ago in The New York Times, there was an article by the Russian writer Masha Gessen. They were talking about the attacks on higher education in the United States and mentioned that the ideal model right now might be the University of the People in Poland—a communist-era, tuition-free university. As I was preparing for this interview, I thought, “Wait a minute, that sounds a lot like your University of the People.” I’m curious what you think about that argument. Given all the challenges in U.S. higher education—even before Trump—are approaches like yours part of the solution?

SR: I actually read that very article. Believe it or not, we just sent them an email today saying the same thing—basically, “It sounds like you’re talking about the University of the People.” I assume they don’t know about us—otherwise, they probably would have mentioned us directly.

I truly believe we are the future. Every person should have the right to higher education. Universities should open their gates far wider than they do now. The more people who are educated, the stronger the country: people have better futures, the economy improves, and society benefits from individuals who are well-rounded and capable of critical thinking. That’s what the world needs.

The American system has created some of the best universities in the world—there’s no question about that. I’m not against those institutions. What I’m against is the lack of opportunity for everyone else. And I think what we’ve demonstrated is that higher education can be accessible and affordable for all.

That’s part of why we’ve grown so quickly—we want to show that this model works, that it’s sustainable, and that others can follow it, in the U.S. and around the world. The challenges facing higher education aren’t unique to one country; they’re global. And anyone can look at what we’ve done and replicate it—or ask us to help them replicate it. We’d be happy to help.

AU: So, you’ve been around for just over 15 years. If I ask you to look ahead—what does the University of the People look like in 2040? Will you be twice as big? Even bigger than that? Will you offer different kinds of degrees? How do you see the next decade and a half playing out?

SR: You know, in 2010, following the earthquake in Haiti, we announced that we would take in 250 Haitian students and teach them for free. What I didn’t realize at the time was that, after the earthquake, many of them were living in tents, without electricity or internet.

Still, two months later, the first group of 15 or 16 students began studying. I went to Haiti to welcome them, and I met many students while I was there. One of them asked me what the future of University of the People looked like. I gave them the same answer I’d give today:

We’ll keep growing to serve more and more students—until one day we wake up and realize that all the students in the world who need access to higher education are being served. And then, maybe, we’ll go back to sleep and wake up with another dream.

Until then, we have a long way to go. So yes, we’ll continue to grow, we’ll continue to serve more people, and hopefully, others will replicate what we’re doing. We don’t need to educate the entire world—just help show that it’s possible.

AU: Shai, thank you so much for being with us today.

SR: Thank you very much for this interview. It was fascinating—thank you.

AU: And it just remains for me to thank our excellent producers—Tiffany MacLennan, Sam Pufek—and you, our viewers, listeners, and readers, for joining us. If you have any questions about this podcast or suggestions for future episodes, please don’t hesitate to get in touch at podcast@higheredstrategy.com. Quick request from us: head over to our YouTube page and subscribe to the Higher Education Strategy Associates channel so you never miss an episode of The World of Higher Education.

Join us next week—my guest will be John Stackhouse. He’s the Senior Vice President at RBC and former Editor-in-Chief of The Globe and Mail. He’ll be joining me to talk about a new post-secondary education initiative that RBC is undertaking, in partnership with the Business + Higher Education Roundtable and us here at Higher Education Strategy Associates. I’ll be asking in particular about the future of Canadian higher education and how better links can be forged between universities and the private sector. See you then.

*This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service. Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.

This episode is sponsored by KnowMeQ. ArchieCPL is the first AI-enabled tool that massively streamlines credit for prior learning evaluation. Toronto based KnowMeQ makes ethical AI tools that boost and bottom line, achieving new efficiencies in higher ed and workforce upskilling.

Source link

May 1, 2025
How You Can Habituate the Circular Model of Reflection: Before-Action, During-Action, After-Action, and Beyond-Action – Faculty Focus

As scholar-teachers, we know that the habit of reflection can be a powerful tool for workplace learning and performance, which can separate high-performance professionals from mediocre ones.

Notedly, when educators engage in reflection, it is usually in the form of John Dewey: “We do not learn from experience…we learn from reflecting on experience.” This type of reflection is called after-action or on-action. However, often overlooked is that there are other forms of reflection. Further, reflection-after-action may not have the highest return of effort; or be the main task that drives the 20% of the effort that could result in the 80% of desired outcomes, the so-called 80/20 rule of which has been integrated in higher education.

That is, according to Donald Schon, who has written several of the most remarkable texts on reflection in the past several decades, educational practitioners should sift their reflection through during-action (or in-action), rather than primarily relying on after the action.

In contrast to Dewey, Schon’s reflection-during-action explicitly aligns with the idea that there is intellectual rigor in professional practice, such as those of us who are scholar-teachers. Here, Schon demonstrates that intellectual rigor lies in our knowing-in-action, which is tacit and gained through doing and experimenting. However, we are often unaware of tacit knowledge that underlies our activities and actions, especially when things do not go as planned.

Therefore, Schon has designed reflection-during-action in which we learn to frame and reframe unexpected outcomes, “talking-back” and “back-talking” to ourselves while teaching simultaneously. In turn, our actions and reactions can adequately address those unexpected classroom issues in real time. By implication, if the focal reflection is towards after the action, the classroom can become a bottleneck that hinders learning flows and creates more bad teaching days.

For Schon, while reflection-during-action is the most difficult to do, it has the highest RoE™ among the different types. Yet, Schon does not dismiss the importance of setting and reflecting a direction before the action in order to have a strategic plan before entering the classroom. Additionally, when leaving the classroom, the reflection-during-the action becomes the primary material for reflection after the action.

How I Approach the Circular Model of Reflection

In general, Schon’s model of reflection is practicable, where unexpected class issues can be identified and sufficiently solved immediately; together with before the action and after the action, the problem-setting and problem-solving can be iterated until desired results come about. Not to be overlooked is when educators circulate their knowing-in-action with and for others, this signifies beyond-action, cultivating double-loop learning for all to benefit from.

In experimenting with Schon’s reflective practices, I see the importance of connecting and sequencing the four types of reflection, as this has been implemented in practitioner fields such as nursing education and medical education. In particular, I have utilized this model when I teach a new course for the first time, improving an existing course, and/or experimenting with new teaching practices.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, I set a before-action directive in my international business for students to engage in a virtual consulting-based learning. This was done with one of the biggest US medical suppliers, which had to resolve a supply-chain bottleneck of importing medical supplies to American hospitals. The before-action directive included the anticipation of a good deal of messiness and muddling through during classes.

In the above context, I saw my pandemic classroom as a laboratory to prototype and test new pedagogical moves, and where unexpected issues are expected to come to light. Thus, I paid attention and reflected during the action in order to construct adjustments, while doing hybrid-teaching at the same time. Through reflection-after-action I then take a step back and “replay” why, how, and what effects did adjustments have; whether how I could handle those adjustments better; and whether those adjustments change my way of knowing. I then crafted those takeaways into my reflection-before-action for the next class.

In context of the 80/20 rule and its variation, I estimated that my effort in reflection during-action for the above was about 20 percent; and in which about 50 percent of the messiness and unexpected surprises were adequately addressed. Whereas my effort in reflection after-action was about 10 percent and with results about 20 percent, while before-action was about 5 percent with 10 percent in terms of results.

I see the 80/20 rule has an on-going process in which the next time I teach the same course, my goal is to move towards achieving 90% of desired outcomes. As a matter of good practice, I wrote up a Faculty Focus article, sharing my experiences of reflective practice through beyond-action.

Why You Should Engage in the Circular Model of Reflection

By some accounts, Schon’s reflective practice has ushered and advanced that professional practitioners such as scholar-teachers exhibit a form of intelligence, a complex form of professional creativity. As scientists produce new knowledge in their labs, Schon believes that practitioners like scholar-teachers should generate their knowing-in-action –  connecting knowledge generation, best practices, and administration policy.

“When someone reflects in action,” Don Schon states, “he becomes a researcher in the practice context” (Schön, 1983, p.68). For scholar-teachers, I interpret this to mean that we learn more about good teaching as we teach, and even more so when we deliberately integrate reflective practice to generate knowledge for ourselves and for our profession.

When we engage in the circular model of reflection – before-action, during-action, after-action, and beyond-action – we are explicitly creating new data. In turn, we can immediately utilize new information to further our faculty assessment reports, professional development, academic writings, and research publication.

If “we teach who we are,” the circular model of reflection can inform us for our espoused theory (i.e. we say what we do) and our theory in action (i.e. what we actually do). That is, when do make our reflective practice ‘modus operandi,’ we declare our commitment in developing our professional knowledge and artistry.

However, there is an ongoing criticism of the circular model of reflection, where reflection-during-action is thought to be too difficult for scholar-teachers; and there aren’t enough quality examples of when and how to do it in higher education. Interestingly, Schon would probably agree with the above. Ideally, faculty development programs could promote and illustrate that reflection during the action can be learned. That being said, Schon’s reflection-during-action is indeed being practiced in nursing education, medical education, acting schools, and professional sports.

How You Can Apply the Circular Model of Reflection

As mentioned earlier, reflection can be done in four ways: before-action, during-action, after-action, and beyond-action. In contrast to conventional practice of primarily reflecting after the action or significantly sifting to Schon’s reflection during the action, engage in all four types of reflection. First, decide what class is appropriate, such as a course that you expect a good deal of unexpected issues and problems due to the newness of teaching the course topics; experimenting new curriculum materials; new pedagogical approaches to a course; or improving and addressing student course evaluation and student feedback.

Before the action or before the lecture, set directive goals for your action, including naming the purpose and intention for that lecture along with anticipation of surprises and struggles that could emerge. Write them down and have it with you as you start the lecture.

During the lecture, focus on reflection-during-action. That is, while you are lecturing on the content knowledge, have a reflective conversation with yourself (i.e., back-talk and talk-back) on whether the delivery of the content is aligned with your directive goals. When blind spots and shortcomings arise, pay attention to how you reframe them in order to get back on track. When your class ends, write down the during-action reflection as soon as possible.

After the lecture, step back before assessing your reflection notes that you written down. Here, you could significantly benefit by recording your class. When you reflect after the action, see it as replaying or “watching film” of your teaching. Focus on the knowing-in-action, so that if a similar situation occurs, you can talk-back to yourself and reframe the situation more effectively. Write them down for the next class, including adjustment needed for before-action and during-action.

For beyond-action or when the course is over, assess the efficiency of the above reflective practices through the 80/20 rule. That is, estimate the percentage of effort for each reflection, as well as how the effort of each affected the overall desired outcomes. Organize the materials related to the reflective practices and embed them in your faculty assessment report.

Lastly, determine and share with others whether you would use the above reflective practices again.

Conclusion

Overall, the circular model of reflection is designed and promoted as a means to advance professional practitioners, including scholar-teachers. In particular, scholar-teachers can develop and exhibit a form of intelligence and a complex form of creativity. So that they are well equipped to adequately make moment-to-moment decision making and in-time adjustment during class.

Long Le is an Associate Teaching Professor in Management & Entrepreneurship at Santa Clara University. He is also a Faculty Fellow for Collaborative Development for Innovative Teaching.

References

Argyris, C. (1977). “Double Loop Learning in Organizations,” Harvard Business Review.

Baily, J. and S. Rehamn (2022). “Don’t Underestimate the Power of Self-Reflection,” Harvard Business Review.

Dewey, J. (1938, reprinted 1997). Experience and Education. New York: Touchstone.

Edwards, S. (2017). “Reflecting Differently. New dimensions: Reflection-Before-Action and Reflection-Beyond-Action,” International Practice Development Journal 7 (1) [2].

Lurie, S. (2015). “Boost Your Efficiency With the 80/20 Rule,” Inside Higher Ed, Feb. 3.

Lynch, G. (2014). “What We Can Learn from a Bad Day of Teaching,” Faculty Focus, May 12.

Munby, H. (1989). “Reflection-In-Action and Reflection-On-Action,” Current Issues in Education, Volume 9, Fall.

Russel, T. (2005). “Can Reflective Practice be Taught?,” Reflective Practice, 6(2)

Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Guildford, UK: Arena.

Schön, D. (1991). The Reflective Turn: Case Studies in and One Educational Practice. New York: Teachers Press, Columbia University.

Source link

April 25, 2025
How You Can Habituate the Circular Model of Reflection: Before-Action, During-Action, After-Action, and Beyond-Action – Faculty Focus

As scholar-teachers, we know that the habit of reflection can be a powerful tool for workplace learning and performance, which can separate high-performance professionals from mediocre ones.

Notedly, when educators engage in reflection, it is usually in the form of John Dewey: “We do not learn from experience…we learn from reflecting on experience.” This type of reflection is called after-action or on-action. However, often overlooked is that there are other forms of reflection. Further, reflection-after-action may not have the highest return of effort; or be the main task that drives the 20% of the effort that could result in the 80% of desired outcomes, the so-called 80/20 rule of which has been integrated in higher education.

That is, according to Donald Schon, who has written several of the most remarkable texts on reflection in the past several decades, educational practitioners should sift their reflection through during-action (or in-action), rather than primarily relying on after the action.

In contrast to Dewey, Schon’s reflection-during-action explicitly aligns with the idea that there is intellectual rigor in professional practice, such as those of us who are scholar-teachers. Here, Schon demonstrates that intellectual rigor lies in our knowing-in-action, which is tacit and gained through doing and experimenting. However, we are often unaware of tacit knowledge that underlies our activities and actions, especially when things do not go as planned.

Therefore, Schon has designed reflection-during-action in which we learn to frame and reframe unexpected outcomes, “talking-back” and “back-talking” to ourselves while teaching simultaneously. In turn, our actions and reactions can adequately address those unexpected classroom issues in real time. By implication, if the focal reflection is towards after the action, the classroom can become a bottleneck that hinders learning flows and creates more bad teaching days.

For Schon, while reflection-during-action is the most difficult to do, it has the highest RoE™ among the different types. Yet, Schon does not dismiss the importance of setting and reflecting a direction before the action in order to have a strategic plan before entering the classroom. Additionally, when leaving the classroom, the reflection-during-the action becomes the primary material for reflection after the action.

How I Approach the Circular Model of Reflection

In general, Schon’s model of reflection is practicable, where unexpected class issues can be identified and sufficiently solved immediately; together with before the action and after the action, the problem-setting and problem-solving can be iterated until desired results come about. Not to be overlooked is when educators circulate their knowing-in-action with and for others, this signifies beyond-action, cultivating double-loop learning for all to benefit from.

In experimenting with Schon’s reflective practices, I see the importance of connecting and sequencing the four types of reflection, as this has been implemented in practitioner fields such as nursing education and medical education. In particular, I have utilized this model when I teach a new course for the first time, improving an existing course, and/or experimenting with new teaching practices.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, I set a before-action directive in my international business for students to engage in a virtual consulting-based learning. This was done with one of the biggest US medical suppliers, which had to resolve a supply-chain bottleneck of importing medical supplies to American hospitals. The before-action directive included the anticipation of a good deal of messiness and muddling through during classes.

In the above context, I saw my pandemic classroom as a laboratory to prototype and test new pedagogical moves, and where unexpected issues are expected to come to light. Thus, I paid attention and reflected during the action in order to construct adjustments, while doing hybrid-teaching at the same time. Through reflection-after-action I then take a step back and “replay” why, how, and what effects did adjustments have; whether how I could handle those adjustments better; and whether those adjustments change my way of knowing. I then crafted those takeaways into my reflection-before-action for the next class.

In context of the 80/20 rule and its variation, I estimated that my effort in reflection during-action for the above was about 20 percent; and in which about 50 percent of the messiness and unexpected surprises were adequately addressed. Whereas my effort in reflection after-action was about 10 percent and with results about 20 percent, while before-action was about 5 percent with 10 percent in terms of results.

I see the 80/20 rule has an on-going process in which the next time I teach the same course, my goal is to move towards achieving 90% of desired outcomes. As a matter of good practice, I wrote up a Faculty Focus article, sharing my experiences of reflective practice through beyond-action.

Why You Should Engage in the Circular Model of Reflection

By some accounts, Schon’s reflective practice has ushered and advanced that professional practitioners such as scholar-teachers exhibit a form of intelligence, a complex form of professional creativity. As scientists produce new knowledge in their labs, Schon believes that practitioners like scholar-teachers should generate their knowing-in-action –  connecting knowledge generation, best practices, and administration policy.

“When someone reflects in action,” Don Schon states, “he becomes a researcher in the practice context” (Schön, 1983, p.68). For scholar-teachers, I interpret this to mean that we learn more about good teaching as we teach, and even more so when we deliberately integrate reflective practice to generate knowledge for ourselves and for our profession.

When we engage in the circular model of reflection – before-action, during-action, after-action, and beyond-action – we are explicitly creating new data. In turn, we can immediately utilize new information to further our faculty assessment reports, professional development, academic writings, and research publication.

If “we teach who we are,” the circular model of reflection can inform us for our espoused theory (i.e. we say what we do) and our theory in action (i.e. what we actually do). That is, when do make our reflective practice ‘modus operandi,’ we declare our commitment in developing our professional knowledge and artistry.

However, there is an ongoing criticism of the circular model of reflection, where reflection-during-action is thought to be too difficult for scholar-teachers; and there aren’t enough quality examples of when and how to do it in higher education. Interestingly, Schon would probably agree with the above. Ideally, faculty development programs could promote and illustrate that reflection during the action can be learned. That being said, Schon’s reflection-during-action is indeed being practiced in nursing education, medical education, acting schools, and professional sports.

How You Can Apply the Circular Model of Reflection

As mentioned earlier, reflection can be done in four ways: before-action, during-action, after-action, and beyond-action. In contrast to conventional practice of primarily reflecting after the action or significantly sifting to Schon’s reflection during the action, engage in all four types of reflection. First, decide what class is appropriate, such as a course that you expect a good deal of unexpected issues and problems due to the newness of teaching the course topics; experimenting new curriculum materials; new pedagogical approaches to a course; or improving and addressing student course evaluation and student feedback.

Before the action or before the lecture, set directive goals for your action, including naming the purpose and intention for that lecture along with anticipation of surprises and struggles that could emerge. Write them down and have it with you as you start the lecture.

During the lecture, focus on reflection-during-action. That is, while you are lecturing on the content knowledge, have a reflective conversation with yourself (i.e., back-talk and talk-back) on whether the delivery of the content is aligned with your directive goals. When blind spots and shortcomings arise, pay attention to how you reframe them in order to get back on track. When your class ends, write down the during-action reflection as soon as possible.

After the lecture, step back before assessing your reflection notes that you written down. Here, you could significantly benefit by recording your class. When you reflect after the action, see it as replaying or “watching film” of your teaching. Focus on the knowing-in-action, so that if a similar situation occurs, you can talk-back to yourself and reframe the situation more effectively. Write them down for the next class, including adjustment needed for before-action and during-action.

For beyond-action or when the course is over, assess the efficiency of the above reflective practices through the 80/20 rule. That is, estimate the percentage of effort for each reflection, as well as how the effort of each affected the overall desired outcomes. Organize the materials related to the reflective practices and embed them in your faculty assessment report.

Lastly, determine and share with others whether you would use the above reflective practices again.

Conclusion

Overall, the circular model of reflection is designed and promoted as a means to advance professional practitioners, including scholar-teachers. In particular, scholar-teachers can develop and exhibit a form of intelligence and a complex form of creativity. So that they are well equipped to adequately make moment-to-moment decision making and in-time adjustment during class.

Long Le is an Associate Teaching Professor in Management & Entrepreneurship at Santa Clara University. He is also a Faculty Fellow for Collaborative Development for Innovative Teaching.

References

Argyris, C. (1977). “Double Loop Learning in Organizations,” Harvard Business Review.

Baily, J. and S. Rehamn (2022). “Don’t Underestimate the Power of Self-Reflection,” Harvard Business Review.

Dewey, J. (1938, reprinted 1997). Experience and Education. New York: Touchstone.

Edwards, S. (2017). “Reflecting Differently. New dimensions: Reflection-Before-Action and Reflection-Beyond-Action,” International Practice Development Journal 7 (1) [2].

Lurie, S. (2015). “Boost Your Efficiency With the 80/20 Rule,” Inside Higher Ed, Feb. 3.

Lynch, G. (2014). “What We Can Learn from a Bad Day of Teaching,” Faculty Focus, May 12.

Munby, H. (1989). “Reflection-In-Action and Reflection-On-Action,” Current Issues in Education, Volume 9, Fall.

Russel, T. (2005). “Can Reflective Practice be Taught?,” Reflective Practice, 6(2)

Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Guildford, UK: Arena.

Schön, D. (1991). The Reflective Turn: Case Studies in and One Educational Practice. New York: Teachers Press, Columbia University.

Source link

April 25, 2025
What Is the Good, Better, Best Model?

Leveraging Staged Growth for Online Learning Infrastructure

When it comes to building a successful online learning ecosystem in higher education, there’s no magic switch to flip — and certainly no one-size-fits-all strategy to follow. For colleges and universities navigating the complex shift to digital, growth isn’t linear. It’s staged. Enter the Good, Better, Best model, one of the most effective techniques an institution can use to grow online.

Unlike blanket approaches that assume every school has the same staff, resources, and readiness level, Good, Better, Best offers a practical, capacity-driven road map — a flexible framework that honors where an institution is while guiding it toward where it wants to go.

At its core, this model isn’t about chasing perfection; it’s about committing to measurable progress over time. “Best” isn’t a static end point. It’s a moving target that evolves alongside the institution’s goals, stakeholders, and capabilities.

At Archer, we view Good, Better, Best not as a ranking system, but as a framework for institutional improvement — one that works only when there’s transparency, alignment, and shared ownership across departments. Whether your institution is just beginning its online learning journey or fine-tuning an established program, Good, Better, Best meets you where you are — and grows with you.

You Might Need a Good, Better, Best Strategy If …

If your institution is experiencing any of the following roadblocks, you may benefit from adopting a Good, Better, Best strategy.

You’re not sure where to start to improve your online operations.

With so many moving pieces — in areas ranging from tech platforms to student support — it can be hard to know what to tackle first. Good, Better, Best helps you identify which areas should be your priority based on capacity, not guesswork.

Your leadership team’s alignment with your long-term goals is unclear.

When leaders aren’t on the same page, it’s easy to spin your wheels. Good, Better, Best creates a common language and plan that fosters alignment across departments and roles.

You’ve outgrown your current partner model and want more control.

If your outsourced solutions no longer fit your evolving needs, Archer’s Good, Better, Best partnership model can help you reclaim ownership of your operational processes with a scalable, strategic framework tailored to your team.

Teams aren’t sure who owns what (and it’s slowing you down).

Role clarity is critical to success. Good, Better, Best surfaces ownership gaps and overlaps so you can streamline your operations and empower your teams to move forward confidently.

You have an institutional vision, but no shared plan to execute it.

Ambition is great — but it needs direction. Good, Better, Best turns a vision into action with clear phases, milestones, and accountability across stakeholders.

You’ve made progress, but need a strategy to maintain it and scale it.

Momentum is hard-won, and sustaining it takes intention. Good, Better, Best supports continuous improvement so you can build on your success without burning out your team.

Why Good, Better, Best Matters in Enrollment Strategy

For institutions looking to grow their online programs, knowing where to go next starts with understanding where they are now.

At Archer, we help colleges and universities assess their current state across the core functions that shape the online student experience — from marketing and enrollment to student support and information technology (IT). Our Readiness Assessment is the first step in building a road map rooted in the Good, Better, Best model.

Rather than applying a rigid, one-size-fits-all playbook, we use Good, Better, Best to create a customized path forward for each institution, shaped by its unique capacity and goals. Each department involved in the assessment — whether it’s admissions, advising, IT, or marketing — gets to define what “Good,” “Better,” and “Best” look like for them.

This is what makes the framework so powerful. It’s not prescriptive; it’s practical and flexible, built around what institutions have today and where they want to grow tomorrow.

By anchoring their enrollment strategy in this kind of honest, department-level reflection, institutions can align their efforts, set realistic goals, and build momentum toward long-term success.

The Challenge of Transformation

In today’s competitive higher ed landscape — where enrollment patterns are shifting and online options are expanding — many institutional teams find themselves overwhelmed. They’re trying to do everything at once, often with stretched resources, siloed decision-making, and no clear sense of what should come first.

The result? Progress that feels more reactive than strategic.

But what’s missing isn’t more effort. It’s more structure.

We’ve seen that the most successful institutions don’t attempt to leap straight to “Best” on day one. Instead, they take the time to map out a clear, achievable path forward. That’s where the Good, Better, Best model makes a difference. It gives teams a way to define their current state, envision their future goals, and understand the phased steps required to get there.

This kind of structured transformation allows institutions to move with purpose — prioritizing what matters most, aligning cross-functional teams, and building momentum one phase at a time.

Is Your Institution Ready for Good, Better, Best?

At its core, the Good, Better, Best model isn’t about doing everything at once — it’s about doing the right things, at the right time, with the right people. It’s a strategic framework that meets institutions where they are and guides them forward with clarity and intention.

At Archer, we don’t just help you design your road map — we walk it with you. As your partner in strategy, delivery, and implementation, we’re here to support you as you achieve sustainable, long-term growth that’s aligned with your mission and built for your team’s unique capacity. With Good, Better, Best, progress isn’t just possible. It’s practical.

Contact us today to learn more.

Subscribe to the Higher Ed Marketing Journal:

Source link

April 22, 2025
Harvard’s resistance to Trump is a model for US universities

This article was originally published on April 15, 2025, at UnHerd and is republished here with permission.

They say that where Harvard goes, others follow. For the first time in a while, supporters of free expression on American campuses should hope that’s true.

Late last week, the Ivy League university received a letter from the federal government demanding changes to its governance, leadership structure, hiring practices, and admissions processes, as well as a “discontinuation of DEI” and reform of “programs with egregious records of antisemitism or other bias.” If it failed to carry out these changes, Harvard would risk losing its government investment. In other words, “Nice school you’ve got there. It’d be a shame if something happened to it.”

Thankfully, Harvard pushed back. Yesterday the university’s president Alan Garber published a response, firmly committing to the preservation of academic freedom and institutional independence on campus. The government’s mandates, Garber wrote, “[threaten] our values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge. No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”

In retaliation, the Trump administration moved to freeze $2.2 billion in funds to the university. That’s a high price to pay, but the costs of giving in would be far greater. For one thing, that sum is a drop in the bucket of Harvard’s $50 billion endowment. More importantly, if a school with such resources and influence doesn’t fight back against government strong-arming, it will send a chill down the spine of every other university in the Trump administration’s crosshairs.

Columbia, for example, recently caved to similar pressures. But in the wake of Harvard’s pushback, the New York university published a statement rejecting “heavy-handed orchestration from the government that could potentially damage our institution” and “any agreement in which the government dictates what we teach, research, or who we hire.”

This is a welcome development. How many other institutions, facing millions in contract cancellations, will stand up for themselves now that Harvard has set an example? There is good reason to push back against the excesses of DEI on campus, much of which amounts to bureaucratic ideological gatekeeping and a chilling of dissent. Combatting discrimination is also a worthy goal — but not by way of overly broad definitions of antisemitism which prohibit criticizing the state of Israel and wind up restricting campus speech.

Among other issues, the government’s provisions ignore the existing process for adjudicating alleged violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act — the federal law banning discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in federally funded programs or activities. Under these demands, Harvard’s hiring and admissions processes would be forced to employ government-approved “ideological diversity” litmus tests that would rival, if not supersede, the DEI mandates many in this administration pledged to oppose.

What’s more, the provisions are fundamentally at odds with the university’s First Amendment rights. If Harvard were to acquiesce, any free speech or academic freedom on campus would exist only according to the administration’s preferences. That is no way to facilitate the free exchange of ideas, which is at the core of any university’s mission.

The principle is clear: the government cannot condition a school’s federal funding on giving up First Amendment rights. When the Obama and Biden administrations demanded universities restrict student free speech and due process rights under Title IX — the law prohibiting sex discrimination in federally funded educational programs or activities — this was clearly unlawful. The same argument applies now.

There is no doubt that higher education needs serious reform. But the solution to censorious and discriminatory policies isn’t more censorious and discriminatory policies. It certainly shouldn’t involve allowing the federal government to hold US universities hostage to its own preferences. For better or worse, other universities have long followed in Harvard’s steps. Anyone invested in the future of American higher education should hope that this fightback inspires a further wave of copycats.

Source link

April 16, 2025
Mid-Semester Course Corrections: Using the MSF Model to Engage Students and Improve Courses – Faculty Focus
In general, educators recognize the value of student feedback: it can help us better understand the classroom experience, modify learning activities, or adjust our policies and practices to improve student outcomes. Unfortunately, the most common form of feedback that instructors receive, the mandatory end-of-semester evaluation, is primarily intended to assess faculty rather than the teaching and learning experience. It rarely asks questions focused on student learning. Moreover, it takes place at a point in time that provides no opportunity to make the type of changes that might benefit the students who complete it (George, 2017; Holton, et al., 2016; Kahn, 1993; Medina, 2011; Nilson, 2016).

In contrast, the Midterm Student Feedback (MSF) mechanism, which is generally voluntary, is fundamentally focused on teaching and learning. The MSF asks students simple, direct questions focused on the teaching and learning process in their current course. Put more simply, it asks students to discuss what is and isn’t helping them learn (Dangel & Lindsey, 2014; Nelms, 2015; Payette & Brown, 2018; Ufland, 2020; Veeck, et al., 2016). The students’ feedback is then analyzed and used by the instructor to make any changes that he or she believes will help the students improve their learning outcomes over the course of the rest of the semester (Gooblar, 2017; Harris & Stevens, 2013; McGrath, 2014; Veeck, et al., 2016).

How It Works

The are several different forms of MSF that can be employed to attain feedback on the student learning process. For the purposes of clarity and simplicity, we feel that two are worth discussing here: the Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID) and Bare Bones Questions (BBQ). While these methods vary in terms of the time and resources required to conduct them, all MSFs share certain key elements:
1. They must be conducted at a point in the semester when students have had enough time to become familiar with the course pedagogy, yet still early enough for meaningful changes to be made;
1. They must be a voluntary effort to improve learning, as opposed to an evaluation mandated by the institution;
1. They must be anonymous;
1. They must be conducted, analyzed, conveyed to the instructor, and discussed with the students in a timely fashion, usually within a week (Ufland, 2020).
Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID)

The SGID is a collaborative form of MSF that requires the cooperation of a facilitator, typically a teaching and learning specialist or a trusted colleague. The process requires about thirty minutes of class time, so it is fairly efficient.

Before the evaluation, the facilitator and the instructor identify three or four open-ended questions to structure the MSF. The questions should encourage students to focus on the learning experience, not on the instructor. We’ve found the following questions effective: 
1. What in this course has helped to improve your learning? 
1. What in this course has hindered your learning? 
1. Is there anything you would like the instructor to change? 
On the day of the MSF, the instructor should introduce the facilitator and encourage students to be honest in their feedback, then leave the room. The facilitator then provides an overview of the process, divides students into groups of five to eight students, and asks them to discuss the three questions. 

Once students have worked through the questions together, the facilitator reconvenes the full group and elicits responses. The facilitator records all the responses for the class but also takes note of those points that seem to represent a consensus. The facilitator asks follow-up questions as needed to understand the context in which the responses are being offered. If the suggested questions above are used, the third can serve to synthesize responses. 

After the session, the facilitator writes a brief report synthesizing feedback from the class. The facilitator can use their judgment here: not all feedback needs to be shared, since the goal is to provide contextualized, actionable feedback. One way to achieve this more easily is to focus on those views that emerged as consensus points across the class. Indeed, one of the benefits of the MSF is that unhelpful feedback can be filtered out before the instructor sees it (Ufland, 2020). The facilitator may also provide a short, immediate “act now” list of items to the instructor and provide a more detailed report subsequently. This can enable the instructor to have an immediate discussion of the feedback with students, which is critical to the success of the model (Weimer, 2016).

Bare Bones Questions (BBQ)

The BBQ is a highly simplified form of midterm feedback that requires considerably less time than the more formal SGID. It also may be conducted without the assistance of a facilitator and can be effective in very small classes.

In this mode, the instructor provides written or digital copies of the questions – we suggest those listed above – to students near the end of a class session. The students then meet in small groups, compile their own responses, and elect one student to send the results to the faculty member. Once the students’ responses have been received the process of analysis continues in the same manner as that of an SGID (Ufland, 2020).

What It Does

The MSF has several clear benefits. For instructors, it provides nuanced, detailed feedback at a point in the semester when change is still possible. This feedback helps the instructor better understand the students’ experience and provides information about how to improve both the class environment and the learning process. Further, it helps build greater rapport between the instructor and students, as it shows students that the instructor values their input on the learning experience (Harris & Stevens, 2014; Holton, et al., 2016; McGrath, 2014). It also provides documentation both of teaching effectiveness and ongoing work to improve teaching effectiveness.

For students, it provides a forum to discuss their shared learning experience in the course and to identify shared challenges. Inasmuch as the instructor can make suggested changes, it can also enhance their learning experience. Perhaps most importantly, MSF provides a means of empowering students in the teaching and learning process. By providing students with an opportunity to collectively share their views and potentially effectuate change, students are given the chance to become active partners in the teaching and learning process and, in so doing, help improve their own learning outcomes (Berk, 2005; Harris & Stevens, 2013; Holton, et al., 2016; Kite, et al., 2015; Warner & Simmons, 2015).

Peter Ufland is Associate Professor of History at the University of the District of Columbia Community College. His latest research focuses on evaluation of history course syllabi in higher education and whether they conform to the best practices of teaching and learning.

Christian Aguiar is Assistant Professor of English at the University of the District of Columbia Community College. His research focuses on multimodal and collaborative assessments, approaches to teaching writing, and the experiences of first-generation and low-income college students in first-year composition. 

References

Berk, Ronald A. “Survey of 12 Strategies to Measure Teaching Effectiveness.” International Journal of Teaching and Learning 17 (2005), no. 1: 48-62.

Dangel, Harry and Lindsey, Peter. “What are Students (Really) Telling Us?” The Journal of Faculty Development 28 (2014), no. 2: 27-33.

George, Phillis L. “Reimagining the Student Evaluation: Using Democratic Frameworks in College Teaching and Learning.” In Willermet, Cathy, et al., Promoting Social Justice through the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Indiana University Press, 2017.

Gooblar, David. “The Midsemester Course Correction.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (October 31, 2017) https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-midsemester-course-correction/

Harris, G.L.A. and Stevens, Danielle D. “The Value of Midterm Student Feedback in Cross Disciplinary Graduate Programs.” Journal of Public Administration Education 19 (2013), no. 3: 537-558.

Holton, Doug, Hajara Mahmood, Kathyrn Cunningham, Miriam R. Diamond, Mary Wright, CRLT, University of Michigan, Maha Bali, Susan Brown, Eulises Dominguez. Midterm Student Feedback Guidebook. (2016) https://bit.ly/msfguidebook

Kahn, Susan. “Better Teaching Through Better Evaluation: A Guide for Faculty and Institutions.” To Improve the Academy 12 (1993), no. 1: 111-126.

Kite, Mary E., Prabin C. Subedi, Kinsey B. Bryant-Lees. “Student Perceptions of the Teaching Evaluation Process.” Teaching of Psychology 42 (2015), no. 4: 307-314.

McGrath, Laura B. “Mid-Semester Evaluations: How to Do Some Spring Cleaning in Your Classrooms.” Inside Higher Ed (March 11, 2014). https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/gradhacker/mid-semester-evaluations

Medina, Brenda. “As Emphasis on Student Evaluations Grows, Professors Increasingly Seek Midcourse Feedback.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (October 30, 2011). https://www.chronicle.com/article/as-emphasis-on-student-evaluations-grows-professors-increasingly-seek-midcourse-feedback/

Nilson, Linda B. Teaching at its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College Instructors, 4^th ed. Jossey-Bass, 2016.

Ufland, Peter. “Empowering Students and Improving Learning Through Midterm Student Feedback.” The Cross Papers (2020), no. 23.

Veeck, Ann, Kelley O’Reilly, Amy MacMillan, Hongyan Yu. “The Use of Collaborative Student Evaluations to Provide Actionable Results.” Journal of Marketing Education 38 (2016), no. 3: 157-169.

Warner, Janis and Aneika Simmons. “Giving Voice to Students: A Preliminary Analysis of Midterm Evaluations and Procedural Justice.” Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 19 (2015), no. 1, 71-79.

Weimer, Maryellen. “Benefits of Talking with Students about Course Evaluations. Faculty Focus, June 15, 2016. https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/faculty-development/benefits-talking-students-mid-course-evaluations/
Source link
April 7, 2025
Mid-Semester Course Corrections: Using the MSF Model to Engage Students and Improve Courses – Faculty Focus
In general, educators recognize the value of student feedback: it can help us better understand the classroom experience, modify learning activities, or adjust our policies and practices to improve student outcomes. Unfortunately, the most common form of feedback that instructors receive, the mandatory end-of-semester evaluation, is primarily intended to assess faculty rather than the teaching and learning experience. It rarely asks questions focused on student learning. Moreover, it takes place at a point in time that provides no opportunity to make the type of changes that might benefit the students who complete it (George, 2017; Holton, et al., 2016; Kahn, 1993; Medina, 2011; Nilson, 2016).

In contrast, the Midterm Student Feedback (MSF) mechanism, which is generally voluntary, is fundamentally focused on teaching and learning. The MSF asks students simple, direct questions focused on the teaching and learning process in their current course. Put more simply, it asks students to discuss what is and isn’t helping them learn (Dangel & Lindsey, 2014; Nelms, 2015; Payette & Brown, 2018; Ufland, 2020; Veeck, et al., 2016). The students’ feedback is then analyzed and used by the instructor to make any changes that he or she believes will help the students improve their learning outcomes over the course of the rest of the semester (Gooblar, 2017; Harris & Stevens, 2013; McGrath, 2014; Veeck, et al., 2016).

How It Works

The are several different forms of MSF that can be employed to attain feedback on the student learning process. For the purposes of clarity and simplicity, we feel that two are worth discussing here: the Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID) and Bare Bones Questions (BBQ). While these methods vary in terms of the time and resources required to conduct them, all MSFs share certain key elements:
1. They must be conducted at a point in the semester when students have had enough time to become familiar with the course pedagogy, yet still early enough for meaningful changes to be made;
1. They must be a voluntary effort to improve learning, as opposed to an evaluation mandated by the institution;
1. They must be anonymous;
1. They must be conducted, analyzed, conveyed to the instructor, and discussed with the students in a timely fashion, usually within a week (Ufland, 2020).
Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID)

The SGID is a collaborative form of MSF that requires the cooperation of a facilitator, typically a teaching and learning specialist or a trusted colleague. The process requires about thirty minutes of class time, so it is fairly efficient.

Before the evaluation, the facilitator and the instructor identify three or four open-ended questions to structure the MSF. The questions should encourage students to focus on the learning experience, not on the instructor. We’ve found the following questions effective: 
1. What in this course has helped to improve your learning? 
1. What in this course has hindered your learning? 
1. Is there anything you would like the instructor to change? 
On the day of the MSF, the instructor should introduce the facilitator and encourage students to be honest in their feedback, then leave the room. The facilitator then provides an overview of the process, divides students into groups of five to eight students, and asks them to discuss the three questions. 

Once students have worked through the questions together, the facilitator reconvenes the full group and elicits responses. The facilitator records all the responses for the class but also takes note of those points that seem to represent a consensus. The facilitator asks follow-up questions as needed to understand the context in which the responses are being offered. If the suggested questions above are used, the third can serve to synthesize responses. 

After the session, the facilitator writes a brief report synthesizing feedback from the class. The facilitator can use their judgment here: not all feedback needs to be shared, since the goal is to provide contextualized, actionable feedback. One way to achieve this more easily is to focus on those views that emerged as consensus points across the class. Indeed, one of the benefits of the MSF is that unhelpful feedback can be filtered out before the instructor sees it (Ufland, 2020). The facilitator may also provide a short, immediate “act now” list of items to the instructor and provide a more detailed report subsequently. This can enable the instructor to have an immediate discussion of the feedback with students, which is critical to the success of the model (Weimer, 2016).

Bare Bones Questions (BBQ)

The BBQ is a highly simplified form of midterm feedback that requires considerably less time than the more formal SGID. It also may be conducted without the assistance of a facilitator and can be effective in very small classes.

In this mode, the instructor provides written or digital copies of the questions – we suggest those listed above – to students near the end of a class session. The students then meet in small groups, compile their own responses, and elect one student to send the results to the faculty member. Once the students’ responses have been received the process of analysis continues in the same manner as that of an SGID (Ufland, 2020).

What It Does

The MSF has several clear benefits. For instructors, it provides nuanced, detailed feedback at a point in the semester when change is still possible. This feedback helps the instructor better understand the students’ experience and provides information about how to improve both the class environment and the learning process. Further, it helps build greater rapport between the instructor and students, as it shows students that the instructor values their input on the learning experience (Harris & Stevens, 2014; Holton, et al., 2016; McGrath, 2014). It also provides documentation both of teaching effectiveness and ongoing work to improve teaching effectiveness.

For students, it provides a forum to discuss their shared learning experience in the course and to identify shared challenges. Inasmuch as the instructor can make suggested changes, it can also enhance their learning experience. Perhaps most importantly, MSF provides a means of empowering students in the teaching and learning process. By providing students with an opportunity to collectively share their views and potentially effectuate change, students are given the chance to become active partners in the teaching and learning process and, in so doing, help improve their own learning outcomes (Berk, 2005; Harris & Stevens, 2013; Holton, et al., 2016; Kite, et al., 2015; Warner & Simmons, 2015).

Peter Ufland is Associate Professor of History at the University of the District of Columbia Community College. His latest research focuses on evaluation of history course syllabi in higher education and whether they conform to the best practices of teaching and learning.

Christian Aguiar is Assistant Professor of English at the University of the District of Columbia Community College. His research focuses on multimodal and collaborative assessments, approaches to teaching writing, and the experiences of first-generation and low-income college students in first-year composition. 

References

Berk, Ronald A. “Survey of 12 Strategies to Measure Teaching Effectiveness.” International Journal of Teaching and Learning 17 (2005), no. 1: 48-62.

Dangel, Harry and Lindsey, Peter. “What are Students (Really) Telling Us?” The Journal of Faculty Development 28 (2014), no. 2: 27-33.

George, Phillis L. “Reimagining the Student Evaluation: Using Democratic Frameworks in College Teaching and Learning.” In Willermet, Cathy, et al., Promoting Social Justice through the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Indiana University Press, 2017.

Gooblar, David. “The Midsemester Course Correction.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (October 31, 2017) https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-midsemester-course-correction/

Harris, G.L.A. and Stevens, Danielle D. “The Value of Midterm Student Feedback in Cross Disciplinary Graduate Programs.” Journal of Public Administration Education 19 (2013), no. 3: 537-558.

Holton, Doug, Hajara Mahmood, Kathyrn Cunningham, Miriam R. Diamond, Mary Wright, CRLT, University of Michigan, Maha Bali, Susan Brown, Eulises Dominguez. Midterm Student Feedback Guidebook. (2016) https://bit.ly/msfguidebook

Kahn, Susan. “Better Teaching Through Better Evaluation: A Guide for Faculty and Institutions.” To Improve the Academy 12 (1993), no. 1: 111-126.

Kite, Mary E., Prabin C. Subedi, Kinsey B. Bryant-Lees. “Student Perceptions of the Teaching Evaluation Process.” Teaching of Psychology 42 (2015), no. 4: 307-314.

McGrath, Laura B. “Mid-Semester Evaluations: How to Do Some Spring Cleaning in Your Classrooms.” Inside Higher Ed (March 11, 2014). https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/gradhacker/mid-semester-evaluations

Medina, Brenda. “As Emphasis on Student Evaluations Grows, Professors Increasingly Seek Midcourse Feedback.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (October 30, 2011). https://www.chronicle.com/article/as-emphasis-on-student-evaluations-grows-professors-increasingly-seek-midcourse-feedback/

Nilson, Linda B. Teaching at its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College Instructors, 4^th ed. Jossey-Bass, 2016.

Payette, Patricia R., and Marie Kendall Brown. “Gathering Mid-Semester Feedback: Three Variations to Improve Instruction.” IDEA Paper No. 67, IDEA Center, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED588349

Ufland, Peter. “Empowering Students and Improving Learning Through Midterm Student Feedback.” The Cross Papers (2020), no. 23.

Veeck, Ann, Kelley O’Reilly, Amy MacMillan, Hongyan Yu. “The Use of Collaborative Student Evaluations to Provide Actionable Results.” Journal of Marketing Education 38 (2016), no. 3: 157-169.

Warner, Janis and Aneika Simmons. “Giving Voice to Students: A Preliminary Analysis of Midterm Evaluations and Procedural Justice.” Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 19 (2015), no. 1, 71-79.

Weimer, Maryellen. “Benefits of Talking with Students about Course Evaluations.” Faculty Focus, June 15, 2016. https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/faculty-development/benefits-talking-students-mid-course-evaluations/
Source link
April 7, 2025
Louisiana Sees Improved Pass Rates With Corequisite Model

During the 2020–21 academic year, only 12 percent of students attending a public institution in Louisiana who attempted to complete a credit-bearing English class passed. This past fall, success rates among learners jumped to 60 percent.

The change reflects an overhaul of remedial education courses at the state level, led by the Louisiana Board of Regents, to improve completion rates across the system’s 28 colleges and universities.

The initial numbers, coupled with high passing rates among mathematics courses, are a step in the right direction to support credential attainment for adults in Louisiana, said Tristan Denley, deputy commissioner of academic affairs and innovation for the Board of Regents.

What’s the need: The overhaul of remedial education is tied to the state’s strategic initiative, Louisiana Prospers, which sets a goal for 60 percent of the state’s adult population to have at least a credential of value. At present, the state is at 51 percent attainment, up six percentage points from 2021.

“One of the fundamental changes that had to be made to be able to increase that attainment in that way is really the barrier of early math and English success,” Denley explained.

Compared to remediation, corequisite courses reflect an asset-based approach to student success that indicates institutional readiness for student achievement. Resea r ch shows students who are placed in corequisite courses are more likely to retain, save money and graduate earlier, compared to their peers.

“A traditional approach to remediation sort of says, ‘Well, I know you think you’re in college, but maybe not quite yet,’” Denley said.

Other states, including California, Georgia, Illinois and Tennessee have also prioritized corequisite courses over remedial education offerings to boost student success.

Building better: The process of rolling out corequisite education began in spring 2022, providing each of the state’s 28 institutions 18 months to launch the math program and then another 18 months for English courses.

Louisiana launched its corequisite course structure for math courses in starting in fall 2023, and during that academic year, 52 percent of students in a corequisite class completed a college-level math course, up 41 percentage points from 2020–21, when only 11 percent of remedial math students completed a credit-bearing course.

Implementing corequisite education at scale is a large undertaking, requiring work from math and English faculty as well as the registrar’s office and others, and each rollout looked a little different depending on the college and its needs.

The system office hosted technical assistance and professional development events to support campuses, including semesterly corequisite academies, which brought together 150 faculty who teach corequisite math and English to share best practices, identify common challenges and establish a community of practice.

“Interestingly, there are lessons to be learned from the math folk for the English folk, and vice versa, as well as among themselves in those different disciplines,” Denley said.

One important facet of the corequisite model is addressing students’ self-perceptions of themselves as learners—particularly in math courses where students experience math anxiety—so the board established “Mindset Meauxtivators,” a faculty development course that emphasizes a growth mindset. Two hundred–plus corequisite faculty have completed the course, and a dozen or so serve as faculty champions for this work within their own campuses or regions.

What’s next: The state will continue to collect data and parse through to identify trends in completion of credit-bearing English and math courses across student groups and institutions.

Identifying opportunities to support faculty with modern pedagogy that assist with corequisite education is another focus for the board, because the teaching style is much different from remedial.

Attainment is the goal of this current strategic plan, but future student success work in Louisiana will address socioeconomic mobility and ensuring students “make good on the credential they earn,” Denley said. “After they’ve earned that, what are ways in which we can make sure that that credential is life-changing, both to themselves and to their families and their communities?”

We bet your colleague would like this article, too. Send them this link to subscribe to our newsletter on Student Success.

Source link

March 25, 2025
Nvidia, Microsoft Stock Fall in Wake of New AI Model From DeepSeek (Bloomberg Podcasts)

Higher Education Inquirer : Nvidia, Microsoft Stock Fall in Wake of New AI Model From DeepSeek (Bloomberg Podcasts)

Nvidia, Microsoft Stock Fall in Wake of New AI Model From DeepSeek (Bloomberg Podcasts)

Source link

January 27, 2025