Tag: Nature

  • The Nature of Expertise in the Age of AI

    The Nature of Expertise in the Age of AI

    For several years, I’ve been providing content and student support for the University of Kentucky’s Changemakers program, designed and managed by the Center for Next Generation Leadership. It’s an online one year continuing education option where Kentucky educators can get a rank change for successful completion.  I appreciate that Next Gen believes in “parallel pedagogy”; while it provides valuable resources and materials to be read, viewed, and reflected on, it also requires the program’s students to complete meaningful transfer tasks, pursue an action research project, and participate in a final defense of learning that demonstrates how transformative practices are happening in the Changemaker’s own classroom. 

    This professional learning pathway to rank change involves mostly asynchronous work through online modules focused on the awareness and implementation of what Kentucky calls “vibrant learning” in the classroom, with module topics such as Learner Agency and Inquiry Based Learning.  It’s my contribution to the latter module where the content below originally began, but I’ve expanded and added more detail for this blog entry.

    Inquiry-based learning is a powerful pedagogy.  For students, it can be as extensive as working on a multi-week project-based learning unit, or as simple as asking more high-quality questions in class.  Inquiry comes from curiosity, and the attempt to answer challenging questions and solve problems that have no obvious solution.

    Complicated problems requires help.  Two heads are better than one, after all.  With this in mind, seeking community partners can make perfect sense.  (As an aside, this teacher guide can help shape your conversations when you attempt to bring the community into your classroom; while it mentions PBL, the strategies can help for any scale project or problem you want your students to tackle.)   
    These community partners or “outside experts” can authenticate what may seem abstract into real world problems, and even motivate students to “dig in” when the work gets difficult, to echo the title of this excellent Next Generation Learning Challenges article.  But before we consider how bringing in experts from outside of your classroom can increase vibrant learning, let’s first discuss inside experts, and even the idea of “expertise.”

    Keep in mind that traditionally, and for decades (centuries!), you have been considered to be the expert in the room – of your content, of your pedagogy, of your ability to manage your classroom.  The professionalism required of the vocation, much less the idea of professional standards boards that grant, review, and in some cases revoke certification to teach, adds to the foundational belief that a teacher has earned their well-deserved “expert” credentials.

    But you are usually one human in a room of thirty.  Leaning into the expertise of your students can be at its most basic level a strategy of smartly leveraging your numbers.  Viewing your classroom through an asset mindset, we can see students as learners that bring their own powerful POVs which can enrich your culture and community.  For example, with the right scaffolding, structures, and practice, your students are capable of providing peer-to-peer feedback.

    However, some of our stumbling blocks in education are self-induced, born out of a desire to remain humble.  For example, calling yourself or anyone else an “expert” can sound or feel lofty and divisive.  Educators are sometimes their own worst critic, and may wonder aloud what right they have to declare themselves the expert on such-and-such.  As for students, they may view their own bountiful and beautiful knowledge with a shrug of their shoulders.  If someone in middle school knows how to disassemble and reassemble a car engine, it simply reflects their personal interests, or the fact that their mother loves hot rods.  They are told early and often in traditional school that such knowledge isn’t “book learnin’.”  Loving hot rods or diesel mechanics doesn’t matter, thinks the student, because it’s not a part of my third period class, and it won’t show up on my multiple choice test on Friday.

    Therefore, let’s consider a broadening of our definition of “expert,” and look more at the first five letters of the word.  What we really hope to provide, increase, articulate and bring into a classroom is experience.  From another person’s POV, your experience may be long and traveled (which can make you “more experienced”), or simply a road I’ve never traveled upon (which makes your experience a novel one, compared to mine).   Viewing expertise in this kind of inclusive light opens up what an “expert” is.  We can see an expert as simply (but powerfully!) a person with a different, valued perspective.   The key word is “valued.”  You may have a different POV, you may have twelve degrees on the wall, but if I don’t care about you and especially if you don’t care about me, your “expertise” won’t matter much.  We can also see an expert as a person who is recognized as skillfully applying knowledge.  The key word is “applying.” Remember that old chestnut that answers the question, “What’s the difference between intelligence and wisdom?”  Intelligence is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, but wisdom is knowing you would never put a tomato in a fruit salad.  Expertise that feels too detached and theoretical, or a bunch of random facts you can Google anyway, won’t personally matter very much to your learners.

    With our new, more expansive definition of “expert” behind us, how do these experts from outside of a classroom still have potential to help?  Vibrant learning is memorable and authentic, and community partners can be both.  A parent who is a car mechanic might come in to demonstrate the torque caused by automobile engines.  Not only does that make abstract laws of motion and physics seem more relevant to students, it also has a far greater chance of making tonight’s dinner conversation when the student is asked “What did you do at school today?”  By permitting alternative voices into your learning space, you open up different perspectives and bring the outside community inside of your classroom community. Outside partners could also provide feedback to students as they ideate and prototype a solution in a PBL, or serve as a panel audience for defenses of learning. Of course, in a world full of wondrous technology, we are not limited to in-person guest speakers.  Someone from a European museum might Zoom in for a mini-lecture and a Q & A.  There are over twenty billion uploaded YouTube videos, so with the right discernment and curation skills, an expert is just a click away.

    You might have noticed that artificial intelligence wasn’t mentioned above as a potential “outside expert.”  Going back to our expanded definition, it certainly can seem to checkmark the same boxes.  AI can offer a different perspective, powered by code and fueled by billions of artifacts from our culture and knowledge.  Is that perspective valued, or valuable?  It might, although AI is not always accurate, unbiased, or trustworthy; however, the same can be said of Wikipedia entries created by humans, or the theory from a popular scientist of the past which has been discredited in the present.  Discernment and critical thinking is key, particularly from the teacher who should be monitoring, filtering, and observing the AI usage (and teaching students to be critical AI users as well).  AI can also certainly apply its knowledge scraped across the terabytes of the Internet within (milli)seconds of being prompted.  Is that knowledge skillfully applied?  Based on the uploaded rubric of a teacher alongside the first draft of a student’s essay (being mindful of your platform’s privacy protections, of course), or the public domain text of an author, AI could provide nuanced feedback on student writing or pretend to be a character in a book for a fascinating interactive conversation.  But some of the proficiency of AI’s application will depend on qualitative measures: of the rigor of the rubric you uploaded, or the veracity and bias of the knowledge it grabbed from its database, or the depth of skills the AI has been taught to emulate. And again, AI hallucinations can happen.  

    What will hopefully emerge, as we become more skilled and critical users of AI, is that our ethical priorities will shape the machines instead of letting the machines shape us.  A promising example is the “Dimensions in Testimony” website, a partnership between the University of Southern California and the Shoah Foundation.  The site began by digitizing recorded interviews of actual survivors of the Holocaust and the Nanjing Massacre.   Next, an interviewee has a separate page where, via a looping video, they seem to sit and wait for your questions.  

    When prompted, a short video plays where the interviewee “answers” your question, creating a virtual conversation.  You can do this via your microphone or by typing.  What may seem miraculous is really just clever programming – the interviews were transcripted and time-coded, so AI simply takes your prompt, scans the text, finds a corresponding clip that seems to best answer your question, and plays from that particular time-stamped portion of the interview. Still, you can see the power of providing such “expertise” to students, giving them a chance to be both empathetic as well as practicing their questioning/prompting skills.  (It should also be noticed the dignity and care given to the subject matter by USC and Shoah.  The interviews were real, using genuine survivors of genocide and the Holocaust, not actors.  While you technically could have AI “pretend” to be a survivor of a war crime as a customized chatbot, or have students interact with some kind of digital fictionalized Holocaust survivor avatar, there are many reasons why this would be an unethical and inappropriate use of such technology.)

    As you ponder ways to increase and improve inquiry, reflect on the nature of “expertise,” both inside and outside of your own four walls.  As you do so, you can cautiously consider how AI can be one of many types of “outside experts” you can bring into your classroom.

    For more information on Changemakers, be sure to check out this page for the latest links to sign up for updates and apply to join the next cohort.

    Source link

  • The Unsustainable Nature of University-Related Health Care

    The Unsustainable Nature of University-Related Health Care

    University-related health care has become a sprawling and increasingly unsustainable enterprise. What began as a mission to train doctors, nurses, and medical researchers in service of the public good has morphed into a vast, profit-driven complex. Tied to the branding of universities, the financial imperatives of Big Medicine, and the precarious economics of higher education, this “Medugrift” reflects many of the same dysfunctions we see across American higher ed.

    The University as Health Care Conglomerate
    Major research universities often operate sprawling medical centers that rival Fortune 500 corporations in both revenue and expenses. Academic health systems like those at Johns Hopkins, Duke, Michigan, or USC bring in billions annually. Yet despite this scale, their finances are increasingly fragile. They rely heavily on a combination of government reimbursements, philanthropy, and sky-high tuition from medical students—many of whom graduate with debt loads exceeding $200,000.

    For universities, medical schools and hospitals serve as prestige engines and revenue streams, but they also drain resources, saddle institutions with debt, and expose them to scandals involving fraud, patient neglect, or mismanagement.

    The Student and Worker Burden
    The workforce supporting university health systems—residents, nurses, adjunct faculty, contract staff—often face long hours, low pay relative to the work demanded, and little job security. Meanwhile, students in health care disciplines are treated less as apprentices of the healing profession and more as revenue sources for both the university and affiliated corporations.

    Many young doctors-in-training are funneled into a system where their debt and exhaustion make them more compliant with the corporatization of medicine. Universities profit from this cycle, while students and patients carry the costs.

    Ballooning Costs and Broken Promises
    Despite claims of providing cutting-edge care and serving communities, university health systems often contribute to the nation’s crisis of affordability. Hospital charges at university facilities are often higher than at non-teaching hospitals, reflecting not only the real costs of research and training but also the administrative bloat, marketing budgets, and executive compensation packages that mirror the rest of higher ed.

    Patients face sticker shock, insurers pass costs to the public, and communities are left to wonder whether these “nonprofit” institutions are truly accountable.

    Medugrift and the Future
    The term Medugrift captures the contradictions: universities use the prestige of medical schools and hospitals to attract funding and political clout, but the system feeds on debt, underpaid labor, and inflated costs. It is not financially or ethically sustainable.

    As university debt rises and student loan defaults grow, the Medugrift may become a central fault line in the higher education crisis. Already, some universities have been forced to sell or spin off their hospitals. Others double down, betting on health care revenue streams to subsidize declining undergraduate enrollments.

    But this path cannot hold indefinitely. Like the broader higher education bubble, the university health care complex rests on fragile assumptions: endless student demand, limitless patient reimbursements, and unquestioned public trust. If those foundations crack, the consequences for both higher education and health care will be profound.

    Source link

  • Life at a modern university in 2025: the changing nature of study

    Life at a modern university in 2025: the changing nature of study

    This blog was kindly authored by Rachel Hewitt, Chief Executive, MillionPlus, the Association of Modern Universities

    Every year, surveys like HEPI’s Student Academic Experience Survey offer a snapshot of university life. But behind the charts and statistics is a changing story about what higher education looks like, especially at modern universities. These institutions are showing that studying in 2025 rarely follows a single, conventional route.

    Modern universities have long been known for their openness and ties to local communities. Now, they are also shaping a very different kind of student journey—one that does not always follow the traditional three-year residential degree. Instead, it reflects the realities of a diverse student body: people working while studying, commuting from home, caring for family, or building new careers later in life.

    Beyond the “traditional” student

    For many students at modern universities, higher education is less about stepping away from life for three years and more about weaving learning into a busy, complicated existence. As the Student Academic Experience Survey shows, almost half (45%) of modern university students are in paid employment—often out of necessity, not choice. Many are parents, carers, or career-changers. For these students, study isn’t a bubble; it’s one delicate strand in a web of responsibilities.

    For some, this results in a very different kind of campus life: less time spent living in halls, more commuting (40% travel over 10 miles) and a stronger pull between work, family and academic priorities.

    New models of participation

    While financial pressures for students and wider society remain acute—38% of students who need work can’t find it, and 30% say cost-of-living concerns affect their ability to focus—modern universities are adapting their teaching and support models. Many now offer blended delivery, intensive block teaching, alongside established flexible provision such as degree apprenticeships and part-time study. These approaches allow students to earn, care, and live at home while progressing towards qualifications.

    Supporting non-traditional students

    This is a student population that remains deeply committed to learning. Despite all the pressures, modern university students show up, participate, and persist. Approaching a fifth of students has caring responsibilities, comfortably higher than their peers at older institutions. Some 40% report that their tutors actively encourage class discussion and help them explore personal areas of interest. They value that their feedback is accessible and constructive, helping them improve and stay on track.

    While their circumstances may be more complex, their commitment to learning is strong. These students also place a high value on being heard and report a sense of belonging, often shaped by feeling that their opinions matter and that support services are there when needed. These aren’t just “nice to haves”—they’re essential in a system where so many are juggling competing demands.

    Their experience may look different from the “classic” university model, but it is no less valid.

    For institutions, the challenge is that this is all happening against a backdrop of unsustainable finances, with their resources being stretched increasingly thinly.

    The financial strain on universities

    While much of the conversation around student experience rightly focuses on individuals, universities across the sector are also under growing pressure, the reasons for which are by now well established. Modern universities typically receive less research funding and fewer philanthropic donations than many of their older counterparts, with their international student income potentially next on the chopping block if the government follows through on its proposed levy.

    They also face higher staff costs, with significant increases in pensions cost (recent changes to the Teachers’ Pension Scheme which modern universities are bound to offer are estimated to cost the sector £125 million per year) and this year are facing an 11% fall in Office for Students recurrent grants, compared to 5% at pre-92s. This is coupled with recent defunding of Level 7 apprenticeships, provision into which many modern universities had put significant investment to support the skills system. Yet they educate a high proportion of students from disadvantaged or underrepresented backgrounds, often with greater support needs.

    Balancing quality education with constrained budgets is becoming increasingly unsustainable. The financial model that underpins higher education in the UK is coming apart at the seams. These universities are doing vital work—widening participation, supporting local economies, and offering first and second chances—but they’re being asked to do more with less.

    The case for a new funding model

    The current system is simply not fit for purpose. If modern universities are to continue serving their students effectively—and if those students are to thrive—there needs to be a shift in how higher education is funded. This could mean more targeted government support, reforms to tuition fee and maintenance structures, or increased investment in student support services. In order to maintain a world-leading higher education sector, vital to help meet the government’s stated goals, there must be a clear strategy for higher education from Westminster and Holyrood. The sector waits in hope for the government’s promised HE reform package.

    Without change, inequality will be further entrenched and institutions that play a crucial role in social mobility will be immeasurably lessened. In 2025, with the support of their institutions, modern university students are doing everything they can to succeed. It’s time the system worked just as hard for them.

    Source link

  • Trump Admin. Cuts NIH’s Springer Nature Subscriptions

    Trump Admin. Cuts NIH’s Springer Nature Subscriptions

    Citing an unnamed source, Axios reported this week that the Trump administration has cut “about $20 million in grants covering subscriptions” with Springer Nature, which publishes more than 3,000 journals, including the prestigious Nature.

    The article didn’t specify which agency cut these subscriptions. Axios reported that Springer Nature “has long received payments for subscriptions from National Institutes of Health and other agencies.” The NIH originally told Inside Higher Ed in an email Thursday that it “has not terminated any contracts with Springer Nature.” But the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes NIH, sent a new statement Thursday evening.

    “All NIH staff currently have full access to Springer Nature journals through the NIH Library—and that access will continue uninterrupted,” the NIH wrote in the initial email. “NIH is not, in any way, limiting access to scientific publications. On the contrary, the agency actively encourages the use of these resources to advance scientific discovery and promote transparency and replicability in research.”

    But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote in a statement that “all contracts with Springer Nature are terminated or no longer active. Precious taxpayer dollars should be not be [sic] used on unused subscriptions to junk science.”

    A National Science Foundation spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed in an email that “NSF has not canceled subscriptions to Springer or Nature publishing journals.”

    In a statement, a Springer Nature spokesperson said, “We are proud of our track record in communicating U.S. research to the rest of the world for over a century and continue to have good relationships with U.S. federal agencies.”

    The spokesperson wrote, “We don’t comment on individual contracts, but across our U.S. business there is no material change to our customers or their spend.”

    The White House didn’t provide comment to Inside Higher Ed.

    Source link

  • HEI and the Nature of Work

    HEI and the Nature of Work

    Source link