Tag: navigating

5 Tips for Navigating Lame Duck–Ness (opinion)
If you are a leader, chances are you will find yourself in a lame-duck position at some point. When I announced that, after 16 years as chancellor, I would be stepping down to decompress and explore new opportunities, I thought I would be prepared. I was not. Then the calls from colleagues across industries started coming in—not to congratulate me, but to talk about the struggle of being a lame-duck leader. Their stories, filled with familiar struggles and strategies, closely mirrored my own journey. This article aims to help you navigate that transition in ways that benefit both you and your campus or organization.

The first thing to remember is that you are a lame duck the minute you announce your departure. Most leaders believe they will have the same standing in the institution until they walk out the door for the last time. Nope. It doesn’t matter how long you have been at your institution, how important you are or how much you are loved on and off campus: The process of transition has begun. After a flurry of contacts expressing gratitude and inquiring about what is next, the phone will ring a little less each day, substantive email traffic will drop and the work calendar will free up unless you force it not to (not something I would advise). People who used to drop everything when you needed them will take a little longer to get back to you. You may find fewer consultations on day-to-day operations and even fewer on questions pertaining to the future. This trend will accelerate as new leadership becomes more defined. This is normal. Don’t take it personally.

The second thing to remember is that if you have been at your institution for any length of time, you are likely going through a grieving process. This is the end of an important era, one in which your time and thoughts were consumed by your campus. You are going to go through some version of the five stages of grief without realizing it. You may find yourself preparing future strategic plans (denial), overreacting to comments or actions focused on the future (anger), or rushing to implement last-minute initiatives that will solidify or advance your legacy (bargaining). You may start to feel like everything you have done is being overshadowed by a campus focusing in on the excitement of a new era while leaving you behind (depression). Realizing that these stages are affecting your thoughts, moods and actions is important. The faster you can get to the fifth stage, acceptance, the better able you will be to help your campus transition in positive ways and gain a healthier attitude for yourself. However, it is important to remember that the stages of grief are neither distinct nor linear and you can be experiencing more than one at the same time.

From my own experience and those relayed to me by others, the following tips can help you get to the acceptance stage and achieve some level of peace of mind more quickly.
1. Focus on the needs of your faculty, staff and students. Helping to meet the needs of your employees can give you purpose in a world that suddenly has become confusing. They are also grieving, but their reality is different than yours. You’re leaving. They are staying and facing uncertainty in the future. They’re worried about the impact of this transition on their careers, jobs, colleagues and families. Their focus needs to be on the future. As the leader, your public demeanor can either add to their stress or help reduce it. Be positive, upbeat and supportive. Spend some time trying to understand the goals of people on campus and help position them for future success. I found my role became more of an adviser or mentor and less about being the boss, which had the added benefit of allowing me to engage in conversations about the future without feeling as though I had to control or direct it.
2. Reflect on the good you’ve done and stop worrying about what will happen when you leave. I’ve seen too many leaders, including myself, spend their last days worrying about what the next administration will do to their legacy projects or trying to find a way to determine the institution’s future direction. One greatly respected leader I worked for spent the last year of his administration developing a strategic plan that was DOANL (dead on arrival of the next leader). While the intent was good, the exercise wasted a lot of people’s time, limited thinking about new possibilities and even negatively positioned a few people who became inextricably linked to the “old” ideas of the last president instead of being ready to build on the ideas of the new one.
One of my employees was retiring just as budget cuts threatened the successful initiative she had spent 10 years implementing. On her last day, I asked her how she was doing. Her response was “I can’t control what happens to the project. It might end tomorrow. I know that I’ve had a positive impact on tens of thousands of students and teachers over the past 10 years, and I feel good about that.” That is a healthy attitude that I have tried to adopt as my own. Feel good about what you’ve done because that is what you can control. What happens next is not going to be up to you.
1. Check your ego at the door. Let’s face it. Experiencing “your people” turning toward someone new, talking excitedly about a future without you in it or expressing a desire to end something you started will hurt a bit. You may even find criticisms of your leadership in some of these conversations. No leader is perfect, and we all make decisions that upset some of our employees. That is part of the job. However, you will be particularly sensitive during your transition time. Don’t overreact, your lame duck–ness! Take a breath and think about whether your ego is driving your reaction. If it is, step back. Keep focused on what is in the best interest of the people who will remain after you walk out the door.
As you get closer to the end date, particularly when the new leader is named and begins the process of transitioning into office, you may find yourself fading into the background. Some egos can’t take it and their owners begin strutting their feathers around demanding attention. Others head for the shadows and disappear completely. Neither helps your campus, nor your mental state. In the beginning of my transition, I struggled to cut down the time I spent working on campus business, but I soon realized that I was filling the time with projects that would likely be DOANL. Once I realized I was working for my ego and not for the future of the campus, I cut back, rediscovered weekends and evenings, spent some time enjoying the exploration of future opportunities, and felt my mood improve. Balance your involvement. Don’t abandon, but don’t overreach.
1. Embrace the next leader. In the end, it doesn’t matter if your successor is your long-standing archnemesis from grade school, the most annoying person you have ever met or your best friend: It is your responsibility to position the next leader for success. Be honest, but positive and supportive. Build up your successor’s strengths and positive attributes to the campus. Reach out to whoever is taking the leadership wheel and ask how you can help with the transition. Advise where appropriate, try not to judge and remember what would have been helpful to you when you arrived at the institution. At a certain point the best thing you can do is get out of the way. The worst thing you can do is create more stress and tension for the campus community by undermining or opposing your successor.
2. Pay attention to yourself. You are a leader. You are used to keeping your emotions in check so you can focus on what is best for your campus and community. When you are asked how you are doing, you answer positively no matter how you feel and then turn the question around to focus on the inquirer. You may have convinced yourself you are feeling great, but if you are a lame duck, that probably isn’t the case, and how you are feeling may become apparent at odd times. Pay attention to those odd moments, because they’ll likely reveal what phases of the grieving process you are in.
One of my odd moments came a few hours before my farewell dinner, which at my suggestion was a roast (fitting, given my personality). As I was getting ready, I felt sick, my pulse was racing and my blood pressure was alarmingly high. My concerned spouse commented that the event was a significant and emotional one and, by talking with her I realized that I was still in denial. Though I had been working on transitioning others, I still hadn’t come to terms with the fact that I was leaving my job forever. The farewell event was an undeniable sign that my identity and life as the chancellor were ending. Once I realized why I was stressed, my anxiety went down and we were able to enjoy an incredibly fun and heartwarming evening.

Conclusion

The tips mentioned above can help you maintain focus as a positive and productive leader during your lame-duck phase, allowing you to effectively navigate the complex emotions associated with leaving your campus role. It’s essential to recognize that the grieving process is not a linear sequence of emotions but rather a fluid experience in which feelings ebb and flow. By regularly checking in with yourself and acknowledging your emotions while striving to make a positive impact on the campus, you can end your tenure with the appreciation of a community that is well prepared for the future. And as you waddle out the door for the last time as a lame duck, you’ll find yourself striding confidently with enthusiasm and optimism into your next chapter in life.

Kevin Snider retired as chancellor emeritus from Pennsylvania State University New Kensington after 16 years on Dec. 31, 2024.
Source link
December 2, 2025
From Policing to Pedagogy: Navigating AI’s Transformative Power – Faculty Focus

The rapid integration of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) into higher education has reignited a familiar moral panic around academic dishonesty. While much of the immediate institutional response has centered on detection and enforcement, this reaction echoes a familiar pattern—one that treats academic dishonesty as an individual moral failure rather than a symptom of broader systemic issues (Bertram Gallant, 2008). Students, faced with overloaded schedules, mounting debt, and an unforgiving emphasis on grades, often make pragmatic decisions about where to invest their time and effort gravitating toward efficiency and certainty over exploration and risk. In this environment, the ethical clarity around “cheating” becomes murky—not because students don’t understand right from wrong, but because the structures around them reward efficiency and penalize risk. AI tools such as ChatGPT or Grammarly simply fit into this equation as time-saving devices—much like calculators, Google, or even essay mills before them. What has shifted is not the motivation, but the accessibility. A student’s use of AI is a reflection of the transactional nature of how learning is often experienced in contemporary institutions.

The proliferation of AI tools has not so much introduced a new problem as it has exposed the fragility of existing educational structures. Before we focus on what AI changes, we must confront what it reveals: that higher education has long incentivized a culture of performance over learning. Research has shown that when students perceive academic work as irrelevant, overly procedural, or divorced from their goals and identities, they disengage—regardless of whether AI is available (Ambrose et al., 2010). In this light, the question is not “How do we catch them?” but rather, “What kind of learning environments have we built that make outsourcing feel logical or even necessary?” This reframing shifts the pedagogical conversation from one of compliance and control to one of capacity-building and curiosity. If we can use this moment to ask how to foster a culture of learning that values growth over grades, process over product, and understanding over output, then AI may serve not as a threat to education but as a catalyst for its reinvention.

Why Students Turn to AI

When students turn to generative AI to complete assignments, they are not necessarily demonstrating a lack of understanding or unethical behavior—they are often responding rationally to the conditions of their academic lives. In surveys and interviews, students routinely cite overwhelming workloads, unclear expectations, time scarcity, and mental health struggles as reasons they seek shortcuts or support tools (McCabe, Treviño, & Butterfield, 2001; Pascoe, Hetrick, & Parker, 2020). AI fits seamlessly into a landscape where efficiency is often more highly rewarded than curiosity. Faced with tasks that feel repetitive, decontextualized, or performative, many students learn that their survival depends on doing just enough, not necessarily doing it deeply.

When a student uses AI to write a discussion post or summarize an article, the act is not just a form of evasion—it’s often a judgment about the value of the task itself. If the assignment doesn’t ask them to do something personally meaningful, intellectually stimulating, or clearly useful for their future goals, it becomes an obligation to manage rather than a learning opportunity to embrace. This disconnect is further amplified by the unspoken norms that teach students to prioritize grades, speed, and performance over exploration, failure, and growth (Margolis, 2001). In such a climate, using AI can feel less like cheating and more like optimization. Students aren’t necessarily trying to game the system—they’re playing the game as they perceive it was designed.

The challenge, then, is not to eliminate AI from the learning process, but to design learning experiences that make authentic engagement the easier, more meaningful choice. Rather than dismissing AI use as evidence of student laziness or misconduct, educators might ask: What does the pattern of AI usage tell us about how students experience our courses? What if the real issue isn’t student behavior but assignment design and instructional culture? By attending to these questions, we shift the focus from enforcement to empathy—from trying to control student actions to trying to understand their motivations and constraints.

Process Over Product

If generative AI makes it easier for students to produce work without deeply engaging in the learning process, it invites faculty to reconsider what their assessments are really measuring. Too often, traditional assessments prioritize polished outputs—essays, quizzes, presentations—over the messy, iterative, and uncertain processes that lead to genuine understanding. These conventional formats may reward conformity and correctness, but they do little to cultivate the flexibility, reflection, and critical thinking required in a world shaped by automation and ambiguity.

In contrast, AI offers a lens through which educators can reassess their learning goals: Are students being asked to think or to comply? To demonstrate mastery or to demonstrate growth? Increasingly, the competencies that matter most in both life and work—such as collaboration, problem framing, ethical reasoning, and the ability to adapt—are not easily captured through static, time-bound tasks (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018). Nor are they easily outsourced to AI. These are precisely the skills that thrive when assessment shifts from evaluating finished products to examining students’ thinking and decision-making processes along the way.

Emerging research on assessment design suggests that when students are asked to reflect on how they used AI, evaluate its limitations, compare its outputs to their own, or build on AI-generated responses with original insights, they begin to see these tools not as shortcuts but as thought partners (Mollick & Mollick, 2023; Popenici & Kerr, 2017). This approach not only fosters academic integrity, but also helps students develop the judgment, discernment, and contextual understanding that AI cannot replicate. Moreover, process-oriented assessments are more inclusive. They allow students with diverse learning styles, linguistic backgrounds, and levels of prior knowledge to demonstrate learning in multiple ways. They also encourage metacognition—students thinking about their own thinking—which is known to enhance long-term retention and transfer of learning (Ambrose et al., 2010). Rethinking assessment does not mean lowering standards; it means realigning them with the kinds of learning we claim to value. When assessments emphasize authentic engagement over mere output, they become more resilient to automation—and more relevant to the lives students are preparing to lead.

Disciplinary Innovation

While discussions about AI in education often remain abstract or policy-focused, meaningful change is already taking root within disciplines as faculty reimagine how to integrate AI into the logic of their fields. Rather than banning its use outright, many instructors are embedding AI into course design in ways that mirror authentic disciplinary practices. The goal is not just to accommodate new tools, but to cultivate students’ judgment in using them—aligning learning with the actual thinking, creating, and problem-solving expected in professional contexts.

Creative Disciplines

In design, media production, and the arts, instructors are moving beyond static portfolio reviews and embracing reflective, process-based documentation. Students are asked to keep iterative journals that detail how their ideas evolved, what role AI tools played in generating or refining concepts, and how creative decisions were made at each stage. This encourages fluency with new tools while reinforcing core disciplinary values: originality, intentionality, and critique. As Sullivan (2010) and McArthur & White (2021) argue, creative practice is inherently dialogic, and integrating AI into that dialogue allows students to develop their own voices in conversation with machine-generated suggestions.

Simulating Complexity

In fields such as public administration, business, and marketing, instructors are shifting from case-study write-ups to scenario-based simulations and role-playing exercises. These assessments ask students to evaluate data, propose interventions, justify decisions, and communicate across stakeholder perspectives. AI-generated content may be introduced as one data source among many, prompting students to critique its assumptions, identify potential biases, or integrate it with qualitative insights. This simulates real-world complexity and ethical ambiguity—core aspects of professional judgment that cannot be easily automated (Farrell, 2023; Wiggins, 2016).

Modeling Scientific Reasoning

In the sciences, instructors are piloting assignments that blend AI-assisted analysis with human critique. For example, students might be given an AI-generated interpretation of experimental data and asked to assess its validity, identify methodological flaws, or propose alternative explanations. These tasks promote skills fundamental to scientific reasoning: skepticism, data literacy, and peer review. As Wieman (2017) and Holmes, Wieman, & Bonn (2015) have shown, such approaches encourage deeper engagement with the epistemological foundations of science—what counts as evidence, how claims are justified, and why precision matters.

Building AI Fluency Across the Curriculum

To meet the demands of a world increasingly shaped by automation, higher education must move beyond treating AI as an external threat and begin cultivating AI fluency as a foundational component of 21st-century learning. AI fluency goes beyond knowing how to use tools like ChatGPT or Midjourney—it encompasses the ability to understand how AI systems work, critically evaluate their outputs, use them ethically, and reflect on their broader social and disciplinary implications (Long & Magerko, 2020; Luckin et al., 2016).

Integrating AI fluency into the curriculum means designing assignments that treat AI not as a banned shortcut or unexamined assistant, but as a subject of inquiry. Students should be taught to interrogate the design of AI tools, including how they are trained, what kinds of data they rely on, and how they reflect or reinforce existing social biases. Courses across disciplines can include assignments that ask students to compare AI-generated outputs with human-created work, evaluate their quality and assumptions, or explore how different prompts lead to different results. These tasks cultivate what Holmes, Bialik, & Fadel (2019) describe as “cognitive partnership”—the ability to think with, through, and about technology, rather than simply accepting its outputs.

Building AI fluency involves normalizing reflective practice. Students should be encouraged to articulate how and why they used AI tools in the completion of an assignment: What choices did they make? What did the AI get right—or wrong? How did it shape their thinking? This kind of metacognitive work not only deepens learning, but also demystifies AI as a black box and empowers students to use it responsibly (Mollick & Mollick, 2023).

Crucially, AI fluency should not be siloed within STEM or computer science. Every field—from history to healthcare, literature to law—will be transformed by AI in some way, and students in every discipline deserve the opportunity to engage critically with those transformations. Developing AI fluency as a form of literacy positions students to become not just competent users of technology, but thoughtful citizens capable of shaping its role in society.

The task before educators is not merely to regulate AI use, but to reimagine what it means to be educated in an age of intelligent machines. By embedding AI fluency into course outcomes, assessment practices, and institutional values, higher education can help students navigate this new landscape with agency, insight, and integrity.

The text was generated in collaboration with Gemini (2.5 Flash), Google’s large-scale language-generation model. Upon generating draft language, the author reviewed, edited, and revised the language to their own liking and takes ultimate responsibility for the content of this publication.

References

Ambrose, Susan A., Michael W. Bridges, Michele DiPietro, Marsha C. Lovett, and Marie K. Norman. How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010.

Bertram Gallant, Tricia. Academic Integrity in the Twenty-First Century: A Teaching and Learning Imperative. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008.

Farrell, Paul. “Integrating AI into Public Administration Education: Risks and Rewards.” Journal of Public Affairs Education 29, no. 1 (2023): 45–58.

Holmes, Wayne, Maya Bialik, and Charles Fadel. Artificial Intelligence in Education: Promises and Implications for Teaching and Learning. Boston: Center for Curriculum Redesign, 2019.

Holmes, N. G., Carl E. Wieman, and Doug A. Bonn. “Teaching Critical Thinking.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, no. 36 (2015): 11199–204.

Long, David, and Brian Magerko. “What Is AI Literacy? Competencies and Design Considerations.” In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–16. New York: ACM, 2020.

Luckin, Rose, Wayne Holmes, Mark Griffiths, and Laurie B. Forcier. Intelligence Unleashed: An Argument for AI in Education. London: Pearson, 2016.

Margolis, Eric. The Hidden Curriculum in Higher Education. New York: Routledge, 2001.

McArthur, Janine A., and Betty White. “Redesigning Creativity: AI, Agency, and Reflective Practice in the Visual Arts.” International Journal of Art & Design Education 40, no. 2 (2021): 437–51.

McCabe, Donald L., Linda Klebe Treviño, and Kenneth D. Butterfield. “Cheating in Academic Institutions: A Decade of Research.” Ethics & Behavior 11, no. 3 (2001): 219–32.

Mollick, Ethan, and Lilach Mollick. “Assigning AI: Seven Approaches for Students with Prompts.” Working paper. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4573321 (accessed July 8, 2025).

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. How People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2018.

Pascoe, Michaela C., Rosanna M. Hetrick, and Alexandra G. Parker. “The Impact of Stress on Students in Secondary School and Higher Education.” International Journal of Adolescence and Youth 25, no. 1 (2020): 104–12.

Popenici, Stefan C., and Sharon Kerr. “Exploring the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education.” Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning 12, no. 1 (2017): 1–13.

Sullivan, Graeme. Art Practice as Research: Inquiry in the Visual Arts. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010.

Wieman, Carl E. “The Similarities between Research in Education and Research in the Hard Sciences.” Educational Researcher 46, no. 6 (2017): 319–29.

Wiggins, Grant. “A True Test: Toward More Authentic and Equitable Assessment.” Educational Leadership 70, no. 6 (2016): 28–33.

Source link

September 5, 2025
From Policing to Pedagogy: Navigating AI’s Transformative Power – Faculty Focus

The rapid integration of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) into higher education has reignited a familiar moral panic around academic dishonesty. While much of the immediate institutional response has centered on detection and enforcement, this reaction echoes a familiar pattern—one that treats academic dishonesty as an individual moral failure rather than a symptom of broader systemic issues (Bertram Gallant, 2008). Students, faced with overloaded schedules, mounting debt, and an unforgiving emphasis on grades, often make pragmatic decisions about where to invest their time and effort gravitating toward efficiency and certainty over exploration and risk. In this environment, the ethical clarity around “cheating” becomes murky—not because students don’t understand right from wrong, but because the structures around them reward efficiency and penalize risk. AI tools such as ChatGPT or Grammarly simply fit into this equation as time-saving devices—much like calculators, Google, or even essay mills before them. What has shifted is not the motivation, but the accessibility. A student’s use of AI is a reflection of the transactional nature of how learning is often experienced in contemporary institutions.

The proliferation of AI tools has not so much introduced a new problem as it has exposed the fragility of existing educational structures. Before we focus on what AI changes, we must confront what it reveals: that higher education has long incentivized a culture of performance over learning. Research has shown that when students perceive academic work as irrelevant, overly procedural, or divorced from their goals and identities, they disengage—regardless of whether AI is available (Ambrose et al., 2010). In this light, the question is not “How do we catch them?” but rather, “What kind of learning environments have we built that make outsourcing feel logical or even necessary?” This reframing shifts the pedagogical conversation from one of compliance and control to one of capacity-building and curiosity. If we can use this moment to ask how to foster a culture of learning that values growth over grades, process over product, and understanding over output, then AI may serve not as a threat to education but as a catalyst for its reinvention.

Why Students Turn to AI

When students turn to generative AI to complete assignments, they are not necessarily demonstrating a lack of understanding or unethical behavior—they are often responding rationally to the conditions of their academic lives. In surveys and interviews, students routinely cite overwhelming workloads, unclear expectations, time scarcity, and mental health struggles as reasons they seek shortcuts or support tools (McCabe, Treviño, & Butterfield, 2001; Pascoe, Hetrick, & Parker, 2020). AI fits seamlessly into a landscape where efficiency is often more highly rewarded than curiosity. Faced with tasks that feel repetitive, decontextualized, or performative, many students learn that their survival depends on doing just enough, not necessarily doing it deeply.

When a student uses AI to write a discussion post or summarize an article, the act is not just a form of evasion—it’s often a judgment about the value of the task itself. If the assignment doesn’t ask them to do something personally meaningful, intellectually stimulating, or clearly useful for their future goals, it becomes an obligation to manage rather than a learning opportunity to embrace. This disconnect is further amplified by the unspoken norms that teach students to prioritize grades, speed, and performance over exploration, failure, and growth (Margolis, 2001). In such a climate, using AI can feel less like cheating and more like optimization. Students aren’t necessarily trying to game the system—they’re playing the game as they perceive it was designed.

The challenge, then, is not to eliminate AI from the learning process, but to design learning experiences that make authentic engagement the easier, more meaningful choice. Rather than dismissing AI use as evidence of student laziness or misconduct, educators might ask: What does the pattern of AI usage tell us about how students experience our courses? What if the real issue isn’t student behavior but assignment design and instructional culture? By attending to these questions, we shift the focus from enforcement to empathy—from trying to control student actions to trying to understand their motivations and constraints.

Process Over Product

If generative AI makes it easier for students to produce work without deeply engaging in the learning process, it invites faculty to reconsider what their assessments are really measuring. Too often, traditional assessments prioritize polished outputs—essays, quizzes, presentations—over the messy, iterative, and uncertain processes that lead to genuine understanding. These conventional formats may reward conformity and correctness, but they do little to cultivate the flexibility, reflection, and critical thinking required in a world shaped by automation and ambiguity.

In contrast, AI offers a lens through which educators can reassess their learning goals: Are students being asked to think or to comply? To demonstrate mastery or to demonstrate growth? Increasingly, the competencies that matter most in both life and work—such as collaboration, problem framing, ethical reasoning, and the ability to adapt—are not easily captured through static, time-bound tasks (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018). Nor are they easily outsourced to AI. These are precisely the skills that thrive when assessment shifts from evaluating finished products to examining students’ thinking and decision-making processes along the way.

Emerging research on assessment design suggests that when students are asked to reflect on how they used AI, evaluate its limitations, compare its outputs to their own, or build on AI-generated responses with original insights, they begin to see these tools not as shortcuts but as thought partners (Mollick & Mollick, 2023; Popenici & Kerr, 2017). This approach not only fosters academic integrity, but also helps students develop the judgment, discernment, and contextual understanding that AI cannot replicate. Moreover, process-oriented assessments are more inclusive. They allow students with diverse learning styles, linguistic backgrounds, and levels of prior knowledge to demonstrate learning in multiple ways. They also encourage metacognition—students thinking about their own thinking—which is known to enhance long-term retention and transfer of learning (Ambrose et al., 2010). Rethinking assessment does not mean lowering standards; it means realigning them with the kinds of learning we claim to value. When assessments emphasize authentic engagement over mere output, they become more resilient to automation—and more relevant to the lives students are preparing to lead.

Disciplinary Innovation

While discussions about AI in education often remain abstract or policy-focused, meaningful change is already taking root within disciplines as faculty reimagine how to integrate AI into the logic of their fields. Rather than banning its use outright, many instructors are embedding AI into course design in ways that mirror authentic disciplinary practices. The goal is not just to accommodate new tools, but to cultivate students’ judgment in using them—aligning learning with the actual thinking, creating, and problem-solving expected in professional contexts.

Creative Disciplines

In design, media production, and the arts, instructors are moving beyond static portfolio reviews and embracing reflective, process-based documentation. Students are asked to keep iterative journals that detail how their ideas evolved, what role AI tools played in generating or refining concepts, and how creative decisions were made at each stage. This encourages fluency with new tools while reinforcing core disciplinary values: originality, intentionality, and critique. As Sullivan (2010) and McArthur & White (2021) argue, creative practice is inherently dialogic, and integrating AI into that dialogue allows students to develop their own voices in conversation with machine-generated suggestions.

Simulating Complexity

In fields such as public administration, business, and marketing, instructors are shifting from case-study write-ups to scenario-based simulations and role-playing exercises. These assessments ask students to evaluate data, propose interventions, justify decisions, and communicate across stakeholder perspectives. AI-generated content may be introduced as one data source among many, prompting students to critique its assumptions, identify potential biases, or integrate it with qualitative insights. This simulates real-world complexity and ethical ambiguity—core aspects of professional judgment that cannot be easily automated (Farrell, 2023; Wiggins, 2016).

Modeling Scientific Reasoning

In the sciences, instructors are piloting assignments that blend AI-assisted analysis with human critique. For example, students might be given an AI-generated interpretation of experimental data and asked to assess its validity, identify methodological flaws, or propose alternative explanations. These tasks promote skills fundamental to scientific reasoning: skepticism, data literacy, and peer review. As Wieman (2017) and Holmes, Wieman, & Bonn (2015) have shown, such approaches encourage deeper engagement with the epistemological foundations of science—what counts as evidence, how claims are justified, and why precision matters.

Building AI Fluency Across the Curriculum

To meet the demands of a world increasingly shaped by automation, higher education must move beyond treating AI as an external threat and begin cultivating AI fluency as a foundational component of 21st-century learning. AI fluency goes beyond knowing how to use tools like ChatGPT or Midjourney—it encompasses the ability to understand how AI systems work, critically evaluate their outputs, use them ethically, and reflect on their broader social and disciplinary implications (Long & Magerko, 2020; Luckin et al., 2016).

Integrating AI fluency into the curriculum means designing assignments that treat AI not as a banned shortcut or unexamined assistant, but as a subject of inquiry. Students should be taught to interrogate the design of AI tools, including how they are trained, what kinds of data they rely on, and how they reflect or reinforce existing social biases. Courses across disciplines can include assignments that ask students to compare AI-generated outputs with human-created work, evaluate their quality and assumptions, or explore how different prompts lead to different results. These tasks cultivate what Holmes, Bialik, & Fadel (2019) describe as “cognitive partnership”—the ability to think with, through, and about technology, rather than simply accepting its outputs.

Building AI fluency involves normalizing reflective practice. Students should be encouraged to articulate how and why they used AI tools in the completion of an assignment: What choices did they make? What did the AI get right—or wrong? How did it shape their thinking? This kind of metacognitive work not only deepens learning, but also demystifies AI as a black box and empowers students to use it responsibly (Mollick & Mollick, 2023).

Crucially, AI fluency should not be siloed within STEM or computer science. Every field—from history to healthcare, literature to law—will be transformed by AI in some way, and students in every discipline deserve the opportunity to engage critically with those transformations. Developing AI fluency as a form of literacy positions students to become not just competent users of technology, but thoughtful citizens capable of shaping its role in society.

The task before educators is not merely to regulate AI use, but to reimagine what it means to be educated in an age of intelligent machines. By embedding AI fluency into course outcomes, assessment practices, and institutional values, higher education can help students navigate this new landscape with agency, insight, and integrity.

The text was generated in collaboration with Gemini (2.5 Flash), Google’s large-scale language-generation model. Upon generating draft language, the author reviewed, edited, and revised the language to their own liking and takes ultimate responsibility for the content of this publication.

References

Ambrose, Susan A., Michael W. Bridges, Michele DiPietro, Marsha C. Lovett, and Marie K. Norman. How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010.

Bertram Gallant, Tricia. Academic Integrity in the Twenty-First Century: A Teaching and Learning Imperative. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008.

Farrell, Paul. “Integrating AI into Public Administration Education: Risks and Rewards.” Journal of Public Affairs Education 29, no. 1 (2023): 45–58.

Holmes, Wayne, Maya Bialik, and Charles Fadel. Artificial Intelligence in Education: Promises and Implications for Teaching and Learning. Boston: Center for Curriculum Redesign, 2019.

Holmes, N. G., Carl E. Wieman, and Doug A. Bonn. “Teaching Critical Thinking.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, no. 36 (2015): 11199–204.

Long, David, and Brian Magerko. “What Is AI Literacy? Competencies and Design Considerations.” In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–16. New York: ACM, 2020.

Luckin, Rose, Wayne Holmes, Mark Griffiths, and Laurie B. Forcier. Intelligence Unleashed: An Argument for AI in Education. London: Pearson, 2016.

Margolis, Eric. The Hidden Curriculum in Higher Education. New York: Routledge, 2001.

McArthur, Janine A., and Betty White. “Redesigning Creativity: AI, Agency, and Reflective Practice in the Visual Arts.” International Journal of Art & Design Education 40, no. 2 (2021): 437–51.

McCabe, Donald L., Linda Klebe Treviño, and Kenneth D. Butterfield. “Cheating in Academic Institutions: A Decade of Research.” Ethics & Behavior 11, no. 3 (2001): 219–32.

Mollick, Ethan, and Lilach Mollick. “Assigning AI: Seven Approaches for Students with Prompts.” Working paper. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4573321 (accessed July 8, 2025).

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. How People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2018.

Pascoe, Michaela C., Rosanna M. Hetrick, and Alexandra G. Parker. “The Impact of Stress on Students in Secondary School and Higher Education.” International Journal of Adolescence and Youth 25, no. 1 (2020): 104–12.

Popenici, Stefan C., and Sharon Kerr. “Exploring the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education.” Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning 12, no. 1 (2017): 1–13.

Sullivan, Graeme. Art Practice as Research: Inquiry in the Visual Arts. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010.

Wieman, Carl E. “The Similarities between Research in Education and Research in the Hard Sciences.” Educational Researcher 46, no. 6 (2017): 319–29.

Wiggins, Grant. “A True Test: Toward More Authentic and Equitable Assessment.” Educational Leadership 70, no. 6 (2016): 28–33.

Source link

September 5, 2025
Navigating back-to-school anxiety: A K-12 success guide

Key points:

The anticipation of a new school year brings a complex mix of emotions for both students and teachers in K-12 education. As the 2025-2026 academic year approaches, experiencing anxiety about returning to the classroom is a natural response to change that affects everyone differently.

From elementary students facing new classroom environments to high school teachers preparing for curriculum changes, these feelings manifest uniquely across age groups. Young children often worry about making new friends or adjusting to new teachers, while older students grapple with academic performance pressures and social dynamics. Teachers face their own challenges, including meeting diverse student needs, implementing new edtech tools and digital resources, and maintaining high academic standards while supporting student well-being.

Early identification of anxiety symptoms is crucial for both educator and student success. Young children might express anxiety through behavioral changes, such as becoming more clingy or irritable, while older students might demonstrate procrastination or avoidance of school-related topics. Parents and educators should remain vigilant for signs like changes in sleeping patterns and/or eating habits, unusual irritability, or physical complaints. Schools must establish clear protocols for identifying and addressing anxiety-related concerns, including regular check-ins with students and staff and creating established pathways for accessing additional support when needed.

Building strong support networks within the school community significantly reduces anxiety levels. Schools should foster an environment where students feel comfortable expressing concerns to teachers, counselors, or school psychologists. Regular check-ins, mentor programs, and peer support groups help create a supportive school environment where everyone feels valued and understood. Parent-teacher partnerships are essential for providing consistent support and understanding students’ needs, facilitated through regular communication channels, family engagement events, and resources that help parents support their children’s emotional well-being at home.

Practical preparation serves as a crucial anxiety-reduction strategy. Teachers can minimize stress by organizing classrooms early, preparing initial lesson plans, and establishing routines before students arrive. Students can ease their transition by visiting the school beforehand, meeting teachers when possible, and organizing supplies. Parents contribute by establishing consistent routines at home, including regular sleep schedules and homework times, several weeks before school starts. Schools support this preparation through orientation events, virtual tours, welcome videos, and sharing detailed information about schedules and procedures well in advance.

The importance of physical and emotional well-being cannot be overstated in managing school-related anxiety. Schools should prioritize regular physical activity through structured PE classes, recess, or movement breaks during lessons. Teaching age-appropriate stress-management techniques, such as deep breathing exercises for younger students or mindfulness practices for older ones, provides valuable tools for managing anxiety. Schools should implement comprehensive wellness programs addressing nutrition, sleep hygiene, and emotional regulation, while ensuring ready access to counselors and mental health professionals.

Creating a positive classroom environment proves essential for reducing anxiety levels. Teachers can establish predictable routines, clear expectations, and open communication channels with students and parents. Regular class meetings or discussion times allow students to express concerns and help build community within the classroom. The physical space should consider lighting, noise levels, and seating arrangements that promote comfort and focus. Implementing classroom management strategies that emphasize positive reinforcement and restorative practices rather than punitive measures helps create a safe space where mistakes are viewed as learning opportunities.

Technology integration requires careful consideration to prevent additional anxiety. Schools should provide adequate training and support for new educational technologies, introducing digital tools gradually while ensuring equitable access and understanding. Regular assessment of technology needs and challenges helps schools address barriers to effective use. Training should encompass basic operational skills, digital citizenship, online safety, and responsible social media use. Clear protocols for technology use and troubleshooting ensure that both students and teachers know where to turn for support when technical issues arise.

Professional development for teachers should focus on managing both personal and student anxiety through trauma-informed teaching practices and social-emotional learning techniques. Schools must provide regular opportunities for skill enhancement throughout the year, incorporating both formal training sessions and informal peer learning opportunities. Creating professional learning communities allows teachers to share experiences, strategies, and support, while regular supervision and mentoring provide additional support layers.

Long-term success requires commitment from all stakeholders–including administrators, teachers, support staff, students, and families–working together to create a supportive educational environment where everyone can thrive in the upcoming 2025-2026 school year.

Dr. Jason Richardson, Garden City Elementary School & the International University of the Caribbean

Dr. Jason Richardson is a Teacher Leader at the Garden City Elementary School in Savannah, Georgia and a Professor of Graduate Studies at the International University of the Caribbean (Jamaica). He holds a Diploma in Principalship from the National Leadership College of Jamaica, Bachelor of Education from the International University of the Caribbean, Master of Science in Counseling and Consulting Psychology from the International University of the Caribbean, Educational Specialist Degree and a Doctor of Education Degree in Leadership and Management from the William Howard Taft University.

Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

Source link

July 24, 2025
Navigating Anti-DEI in Higher Education
Title: Critical Leadership for Civil Rights in Higher Education: The Experiences of Chief Diversity Officers Navigating Anti-DEI Action

Authors: Jeffrey K. Grim, Arissa Koines, Raúl Gámez, Erick R. Aguinaldo, and Jada Crocker

Source: National Center for Institutional Diversity, University of Michigan

Chief diversity officers (CDOs) in higher education play a critical role in ensuring civil rights and facilitating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) on campuses. In a qualitative study of 40 CDOs by the National Center for Institutional Diversity, authors found that CDOs tend to take one of three approaches.

The first approach, strategic inaction, involves not changing any current practices and watching how political trends change. Proaction involves “responding to foreseen anti-DEI actions to ensure they could successfully support all students, faculty, and staff without the disruption of political attacks on specific naming conventions or activities” (p. 4). The third strategy is reaction, in which CDOs eliminate DEI measures to comply with laws and regulations.

Based on their findings, the authors offer the following seven recommendations for current CDOs in higher education.
1. Resist anti-DEI intimidation tactics: Higher education leaders should remember that these tactics are exactly that: tactics. As such, do not preemptively comply with threats or potential anti-DEI actions.
2. Partner with other institutional leaders: Create a cohesive plan of action and message for DEI. Consider Shared Equity Leadership as a frame for doing collective work.
3. Develop coalitions with external stakeholders: Establish relationships with key higher education stakeholders (alumni, policymakers, nonprofits, etc.). Work together to advocate for DEI in higher education and its role in diversifying the workforce.
4. Make research-informed decisions: Anti-DEI actions tend to be ideologically, rather than empirically, based. Consistently evaluate and track data so that there is justification for DEI work.
5. Maintain organizational accountability: Diversity officers should be regularly assessed and evaluated, with data being used to highlight the impact of their work. Criteria for evaluation should be comparable to metrics for evaluating employees in other offices.
6. Utilize professional development and network: CDOs should harness resources and connect with other CDOs to build a network of support, opportunity, and mentorship.
7. Support health and well-being of DEI professionals: Leaders should be flexible and aware of the physical and mental toll of DEI work right now. Offer CDOs supports that work for them (e.g., compensatory time for after-hours meetings, professional development, etc.).
Read the full report here.

—Kara Seidel

If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.
Source link
May 5, 2025
Student Success Podcast: Navigating Students’ Digital Addictions

This season of Voices of Student Success, “Preparing Gen Z for Unknown Futures,” addresses challenges in readying young people for the next chapter of their lives in the face of large-scale global changes. The latest episode addresses how digitization has made it easier for young people to engage in unhealthy habits, including substance abuse, pathological gambling or social media addiction, compared to past generations.

Host Ashley Mowreader speaks with Amaura Kemmerer, director of clinical affairs for Uwill, to discuss the role of preventive health measures and how existing research can provide a road map for addressing new challenges.

Listen to the episode here and learn more about The Key here.

Read a transcript of the podcast here.

Source link

April 16, 2025
Navigating higher education in a changing landscape
- Ahead of TASO’s annual conference, How to evaluate, on 29–30 April, Omar Khan, CEO of TASO (the Centre for Transforming Access and Student Outcomes in Higher Education) discusses the challenges facing higher education, particularly in the face of wider discussions around the value and purpose of higher education in the UK and beyond.
We all know of the challenges facing higher education. The questions can feel existential: from the financial sustainability of institutions to the social consensus on the value and purpose of higher education itself.

Without seeming pollyannish, I believe higher education can and must continue to argue for its value and purpose in these difficult times. There remains significant agreement that higher education brings value, for individuals as well as the economy, with reputational benefits for the UK internationally too. Similarly, there is broad consensus that addressing inequalities of participation as well as of the student experience is a priority. While we shouldn’t be complacent about the impact of criticism of ‘DEI’ (diversity, equity and inclusion) in the US, so far UK higher education has remained committed to the widening participation agenda and the sector has not been subject to sustained public attacks from the government.

One reason that widening participation remains on the agenda is the legislative and regulatory environment. Significantly, for over a decade, the principle has been established that rising fees should be matched by a clear commitment to demonstrating improved access. As the sector will now know, in England this is delivered through providers submitting access and participation plans (APPs) to the Office for Students.

A commitment to evaluation

APPs are now also expected to have a clear commitment to evaluation. Unsurprisingly, given my role as CEO of the higher education What Works Centre TASO, I think this is a good thing. At TASO we’ve seen a significant improvement in the number and robustness of evaluations across the sector since our founding some five years ago.

As we gather for our fourth annual conference (29–30 April), we will continue to support the sector on understanding the evidence base on inequalities in higher education. We do this in two main ways: through synthesising and commissioning research, and by producing more practical guidance for the sector to deliver effective evaluation themselves.

A library of providers’ evaluations

Recently, we’ve announced a key way we will bring this work together: the Higher Education Evaluation Library, or HEEL (like the rest of the sector, we too love an acronym), working in partnership with HEAT, the Higher Education Access Tracker, to deliver it. The library will bring together higher education evaluations in one place, which are otherwise published across the wide range of institutions across the sector.

At our conference, we will continue our consultation with the sector about the library to ensure we understand and are responsive to how evaluators and others can best use this resource. Once we have consulted and worked with HEAT to develop the infrastructure for HEEL, and once providers upload their evaluations into this online library, we will produce regular digests summarising what we find. Ultimately, the goal or promise is that these digests will improve the evidence base, reduce duplication across the sector and improve outcomes for students.

Navigating the financial landscape

At TASO we are optimistic about the future of evaluation in the sector, not least as we have seen a wider cultural and institutional commitment to joint learning as well as to the value of equal opportunity and social mobility that motivates all of us to do this work. However, I want to recognise and to flag a serious concern that TASO (and no doubt many others) is seeing across the sector, that is, how the financial situation impacts widening participation activity.

To effectively evaluate and assess whether activities improve outcomes for students, those activities need to be adequately resourced. We have heard evidence that redundancies and cost-cutting across the sector are impacting on the ability of staff to deliver these activities, as well as to evaluate them. This is in a context where child poverty is increasing, where inequalities in school attainment are rising, and where the higher education attainment gap between free school meal students and their more advantaged counterparts is at its widest at over 20.8 percentage points.

A refocus on values and mission

We recognise that times are tight, that tough decisions need to be made and that this has an impact on staff morale. At the same time, higher education must continue to prioritise its values and mission: a commitment to evidence as well as to equality and social mobility. Furthermore, at a time of increased public scepticism of how the sector is delivering on these aims, delivering for the most disadvantaged students becomes a matter of public support and democratic consensus.

As we’ve spent the past decade building the foundations to better address inequalities in higher education, it’s vital we continue to work together to make the promise of higher education a reality for everyone who wants to access it, regardless of their background.

While TASO is here to support the sector to do this, we cannot do this alone, and I want to recognise and thank all of those who do this important work day in and day out: senior leaders, evaluators, practitioners, third sector organisations, teachers, parents and of course student leaders and activists committed to ensuring better lives for themselves and their peers.
Source link
April 11, 2025
Navigating the Kafkaesque nightmare of Columbia’s Office of Institutional Equity

Franz Kafka’s masterpiece “The Trial” begins when Josef K discovers that “one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested.”

What follows is the story of his desperate attempt to navigate a nightmarishly opaque bureaucracy — and the bleak results. Like Josef K, Columbia students awoke one morning to find themselves at the mercy of the university’s new Office of Institutional Equity.

In recent weeks, the OIE sent dozens of warnings to students telling them they were under investigation for alleged discriminatory harassment simply for engaging in pro-Palestinian advocacy on campus. Individual acts of protected political expression — social media posts, peaceful demonstrations, and op-eds in the student newspaper — were treated as creating a “hostile environment” for criticizing Israel, with accusations framed in expansive interpretations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

FIRE has since heard from a number of students lost in the maze of Columbia’s cryptic dispatches and confusing accusations, and one thing is clear: the OIE has cast a late-winter chill across campus.

These investigations can take months or even years, and leave students in fear of what they can and cannot do or say while they await the results.

Take the two Columbia seniors who were notified just months before graduation that they were under investigation and subject to expulsion for allegedly writing a student newspaper article signed by a consortium of pro-Palestinian student groups urging divestment from Israel. One student described the situation as “dystopian” and said she is now reluctant to speak out on the issue again. Even worse, the two students were targeted not because there was any evidence they’d actually authored the article, much less created a hostile environment by doing so, but merely because of their involvement with the pro-Palestinian student group consortium.

Another student contacted FIRE to report that they were afraid to return to campus because they feared the administration would retaliate against them for their previous advocacy with Students for Justice in Palestine.

Moreover, Columbia made national headlines this week when Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers detained former student Mahmoud Khalil, who previously tried to fight the OIE. Though he had already successfully appealed the university’s disciplinary charges against him, federal agents showed up on his doorstep and hauled him off to an ICE detention center based on accusations that he led campus protest activities aligned with Hamas.

Trump administration’s reasons for detaining Mahmoud Khalil threaten free speech

News

The government arrested and detained Mahmoud Khalil for deportation, and its explanation for doing so threatens the free speech of millions of people.

Read More

Khalil reported that just before he was due to graduate this past December, the OIE buried him in allegations relating to social media posts with which he was uninvolved. Furthermore, when he stood up for himself and refused to sign a nondisclosure agreement, the university put a hold on his transcript and threatened to block his graduation — until he hired counsel, and the OIE seemed to temporarily back off. The timing of the ICE raid and the OIE’s investigation into Khalil leaves students and faculty with more questions than answers, especially as he has still not yet been criminally charged for anything and is facing deportation.

While Columbia’s OIE is charged with addressing claims of unlawful discrimination and harassment, it cannot do so by employing an overly broad definition of harassment that stretches the meaning beyond recognition. Yet the OIE has done exactly that in interpreting Title VI harassment to include protected criticism of Israel, suppressing political activism under the guise of maintaining a “safe” environment by defining speech against another country as possible discriminatory harassment if “directed at or infused with discriminatory comments about persons from, or associated with, that country.”

Is it possible for such speech to be part of a pattern of discriminatory harassment? Yes. It’s also possible for it not to be harassment. The way Columbia is treating such speech, though, makes that impossible to discern.

The OIE’s needlessly murky investigatory process is also deeply troubling. Students report being left in the dark about the specifics of the charges against them, and being required to sign a nondisclosure agreement in order to see the evidence. In other words, they can’t talk to anyone about their case or get help until after it’s too late and the OIE has already decided their case and potentially sealed their fate.

These investigations can take months or even years, and leave students in fear of what they can and cannot do or say while they await the results. When students are forced to endure lengthy investigations that may result in serious sanctions such as suspension and expulsion, it’s obvious that the process, even if it results in a student’s favor, is the punishment.

The original title of “The Trial” was Der Prozess, or literally “The Process,” because the true horror Josef was forced to confront was that of a Byzantine and convoluted process custom-built to crush dissent. If nothing else, we can perhaps thank Columbia, like so many schools before it, for bringing classic literature to life.

Source link

March 12, 2025
Navigating the path to higher education after local authority care

Young people in England with experience of children’s social care face significant barriers to entering and succeeding in higher education.

Our research at TASO – Pathways into and through higher education for young people with experience of children’s social care – conducted alongside the Rees Centre, University of Oxford, highlights significant and concerning disparities.

For example, at the age of 22, compared with the general population, care leavers and those who have ever been in care are four times less likely to enter higher education – 14 per cent of care-experienced people versus 56 per cent of the general population. Of those care leavers who do make it into higher education, 18 per cent drop out, more than double the withdrawal rate of their peers in the general population.

And it’s not just care leavers who experience unequal outcomes. The research looked more widely at anyone with experience of children’s social care – a group that is around 20 times larger than the care leaver population – and found stark inequalities in their access to and experience of higher education compared not only to the general population, but also compared to those eligible for free school meals. For example, “children in need” are two to three times less likely to attend higher education than the general population.

These results suggest that the experience of children’s social care has a lasting impact on educational prospects, and that the needs of affected young people are not being met by the current support system. Although the findings are perhaps not surprising, they are still shocking. Our report aims to act as a call to action for universities, policymakers and those seeking to close equality gaps in higher education.

Routes to an unlevel playing field

Not only is there an uphill struggle to the higher education “playing field” for those who have been in care, once there, the playing field itself is far from level. The data shows that getting those with experience of children’s social care into university is only the first challenge to address, and the high dropout rate demonstrates that targeted work is required to improve retention and support systems.

Care leavers – and others with experience of children’s social care – often take alternative routes to university. Over one-third (36 per cent) of care leavers take a vocational pathway, compared to just 13 per cent of the general population, and they are more likely to start university later in life rather than at the traditional age of 18. This suggests that the traditional academic pipeline does not serve them effectively, and that policymakers should aim to support these alternative pathways and set strategies for recruiting mature learners.

Care leavers and entry rates

There are some differences between those with experience of children’s social care overall and care leavers specifically. Although care leavers have poorer outcomes on most measures, care leavers have a relatively high entry rate at age 18/19, compared to other groups who have experienced children’s social care.

This could be due to a higher level of support being made available for this group in the transition from post-16 settings to higher education, reinforcing the importance of targeted interventions.

Accommodation outside of term time

Accommodation is another crucial area where care-experienced people are at a disadvantage, often without a stable home to go to during the term breaks. We need closer collaboration between local authorities and higher education providers to ensure they are collectively meeting their duty of support to care-experienced learners, and especially care leavers where the state has a corporate-parent responsibility.

This is one clear area where more joined-up working is needed to help ensure that care-experienced students have somewhere suitable to stay when universities close their doors outside of term time.

The people within the statistics

It is also important to note that many with experience of children’s social care enter higher education and thrive. As with all statistical reports, focusing on averages, however derived, risks missing the many important exceptions. That is, some individuals succeed despite the relatively long odds of doing so, and we should not interpret statistical results in a causal or absolute way.

We hope, in particular, that Virtual School Heads – a regional role that acts as a headteacher for all children with a social worker within a particular local authority – will find the research helpful when working on the strategic goal of improving educational inclusion and participation for care-experienced children and young people.

A call for change

The research underscores the fact that universities – including more selective or prestigious institutions – should rethink their approach to recruiting and supporting those with experience of children’s social care.

We outline some of the ways to support these groups – by recruiting mature learners, those from vocational pathways, and by strengthening retention strategies. One possible idea, previously suggested by the Social Market Foundation, is that providers could be offered an additional £1,000 for each care leaver they recruit as a “student premium”, beyond existing accommodation support. At TASO, we want to see higher education providers evaluating their interventions to attract and support those with experience of children’s social care, so we can start to build a picture of what works to benefit these students.

Our report makes it clear: universities, policymakers and local authorities must work together to ensure that those with experience of children’s social care are not left behind. The challenges they face in accessing and completing higher education are not inevitable but significant and targeted support is required to change the status quo. If higher education is a vehicle for social mobility, the continued focus on underrepresented groups – including those with experience of children’s social care – is vital.

Source link

March 6, 2025
Resilience and Psychological Safety: Navigating Uncertainty
by Julie Burrell | February 26, 2025

The first two months of 2025 have brought no shortage of change and uncertainty to higher ed institutions. Amid that uncertainty, you may find yourself not only navigating a wave of new compliance requirements, but also supporting employees who are feeling overwhelmed or worried. When change is happening at a rapid pace, it can be challenging to think strategically about how to manage emotional responses to change.

However, two approaches you probably honed during the COVID-19 pandemic — fostering resilience and psychological safety — can be particularly useful in times like these.

Resilience is a set of tools we use to regulate our response to stress. It’s what allows us to survive during moments of crisis and learn to grow. Psychological safety is a management approach that allows employees to thrive and adapt to stressful situations. We feel psychologically safe when we’re able to take risks knowing we’ll be supported.

Combined, these workplace strategies tap into emotional resources we already have and can further develop and strengthen.

Strengthening Internal Resilience

You may never have stopped to reflect on how you endured the pandemic, but it likely took a great deal of resilience. Learning to survive, and even flourish, in tough times calls for a store of personal resilience, which the American Psychological Association defines as “successfully adapting to difficult or challenging life experiences, especially through mental, emotional, and behavioral flexibility.”

Some people just appear to be more naturally resilient than others. Maybe they seem tougher or more inclined to go with the flow. But resilience isn’t an innate trait we’re born with. It’s a skill that can be learned and practiced.

In her Resilience in the Workplace webinar, Maureen De Armond, chief human resources officer at Des Moines University Medicine and Health Sciences, identified the four key factors that make up resilience:
1. Identifying your purpose and values
2. Gaining confidence
3. Seeking support from your networks
4. Learning adaptability
A Quick Resilience Exercise on Personal Values

Even a 15-minute resilience-building exercise can be effective, such as this brief reflection shared in the webinar.

First, write down a list of five answers to the question, “why is it worth it to persevere and get through this challenging time?” For example, do you want to model certain behavior for your children? Do you want to be compassionate to your coworkers? Do you want to steward your team through change? Do you want to support your friends and family?

Second, figure out the why behind each of these five answers by identifying the value behind each. Values can include achievement, compassion, economic security, humor, leadership, passion, etc. (Here’s a handy checklist.)

Finally, be proactive about reminding yourself of these values:
- Display photos that represent your values so that you see them every day — a loved one, beloved pet, a favorite spot on a hike, a trip you’re planning, an inspirational public figure.
- Place quotes that illustrate these values around your workspace.
- Craft an inspiration board, either on a digital whiteboard or as a physical craft, that contains photos, symbols, images and words that demonstrate your values.
- Get out of your office and take a walk. Especially if you work on campus, this can be a reminder of your community and of the student population the higher ed workforce serves.
Think of these proactive reminders as a “battery pack,” De Armond says, that will give you a boost or a nudge to get out of a negative head space. Helping employees tap into and strengthen their own resilience will equip them for whatever lies ahead.

The Role of Psychological Safety in Managing Uncertainty

While it’s natural for people to seek safety and solace in a time of upheaval, psychological safety isn’t about providing comfort or promoting kindness, as important as these are. Rather, it’s about candor, trust and accountability among teams. It allows team members to speak up about mistakes (including their own), tolerate risk, and embrace discomfort and change.

Amy Edmonson, an expert on team psychological safety in the workplace, defines psychological safety as “the shared belief that’s it’s okay to take risks, express ideas and concerns, speak up with questions, and admit mistakes without fear of negative consequences.”

For example, what happens when a team member goes to their supervisor with a question, admits a mistake, or notices a colleague’s error? If that supervisor gets angry or becomes dismissive, the employee may stay quiet in the future and even cover up mistakes to avoid that reaction again. But if the supervisor adopts some of the tips below, the team feels safe enough to take risks and can weather storms as a group.

Recommendations to Increase Psychological Safety
- Encourage people to come to you with problems and thank them for doing so. Also ask, “how can I help?”
- Adopt a learning mindset. In the example above, an angry or dismissive supervisor also missed the chance to ask, “what did you learn?” As psychological safety experts know, “organizations characterized by a learning orientation focus on curiosity and continuous improvement, and they make it safe for organizational members to admit what they do not know or perhaps got wrong.” If you have a Learning and Development team, they can offer practices for adopting a learning mindset.
- Listen rather than talk. Leaders are expected to have all the answers, but unless immediate action is needed, pausing and getting all the facts, and listening to feelings, can be an important leadership tool. Reflective listening — repeating or paraphrasing what’s said or reflecting a feeling that’s expressed — is a particularly useful skill for creating trust.
- Say, “I don’t know.” Leaders modeling psychological safety admit when they don’t know something, allowing others in their organization to adopt a curious mindset. This is what Brené Brown calls “the courage to not know.”
- Celebrate small wins. Appreciating your employees matters now more than ever.
- Take care of yourself and your team. HR is often expected, fairly or not, to manage tension and conflicting emotions. How are you showing up for yourself and your team?
For more tips on increasing psychological safety, see the article Why Psychological Safety Matters Now More Than Ever by Allison M. Vaillancourt, vice president and senior consultant at Segal.

Finally, Give Grace

Giving grace to others during stressful and uncertain times can be a small but critical daily practice, one that builds compassion and trust. But we need to extend that same grace to ourselves. Set boundaries, take breaks, practice going slow, and share the load.

Related CUPA-HR Resources

Resilience in the Workplace — This CUPA-HR webinar, recorded in 2021, was designed to serve as resilience training for attendees, as well as a model that could easily be replicated at your institution for HR teams and other employees.

Why Psychological Safety Matters Now More Than Ever — This article offers practical advice for increasing psychological safety, specifically for the higher ed workplace.

Recent Executive Orders and Higher Ed HR’s Role in Creating and Sustaining an Inclusive Campus Community — A message from CUPA-HR President and CEO Andy Brantley.

Mental Health Toolkit — This HR toolkit includes resources on sustaining mental health programs on campus and addressing problems like burnout.

The Great Pivot from Resilience to Adaptability — This article explains how to move from resilience to adaptability and, ultimately, growth in challenging times for higher education.

Managing Stress and Self-Care: “No” Is a Complete Sentence — This highly rated webinar shows how and why setting boundaries is critical to thriving.

Trauma-Informed Leadership for Higher Education — This webinar explores how to develop a supportive leadership style and how to create a culture where team members can depend on each other for support during times of hardship.

Share This Article:
Source link
February 26, 2025