Tag: News

  • Dept. of Ed Clarifies What Race-Based Data Must Be Reported

    Dept. of Ed Clarifies What Race-Based Data Must Be Reported

    President Trump first issued the executive action Aug. 7 mandating colleges and universities submit data to verify that they are not unlawfully considering race in admissions.

    Roman Didkivskyi/Getty Images

    The Trump administration released further details on its order for colleges to supply more racially disaggregated admissions data and wants to hear from the public about its plan.

    A draft of the proposal, which will officially be published Friday on the Federal Register, states that certain institutions will be required to collect and report comprehensive data about their admissions decisions going back five years. It must be broken down by race and sex and include students’ high school GPA, test scores, time of application (early decision, early access or regular decision) and financial aid status, among other things.

    However, the new survey component, which the Department of Education is calling the Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement, will not affect all colleges and universities—just four-year institutions that use “selective college admissions,” as they “have an elevated risk of noncompliance with the civil rights laws,” officials wrote in the notice.

    (The document does not say anything about reporting data on legacy admissions, another practice that, like affirmative action, has received public pushback in recent years.)

    Members of the public will have 60 days to comment on the notice. Among other things, the department wants feedback on what institutions should be subject to the new reporting requirements as well as the anticipated burden the request will place on university staff.

    Some higher education scholars and officials are already chiming in with their concerns informally.

    University of Tennessee higher education professor Robert Kelchen wrote in a post on LinkedIn that not only will the request be a “substantial lift” for colleges, but also for staff at the department who run the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System and will manage the data on the back end.

    The Department of Education laid off nearly half its staff—including most of the employees at the National Center for Education Statistics, which would collect and analyze the data—in March.

    “I’d love to see the survey form where all of this data would be collected—because after years of sitting in [meetings] where we figured these things out, the sheer number of variables/elements and the lack of any definition around the vagueness of them demonstrates the loss of the knowledgeable NCES staff they lost,” wrote Carolyn Mata, a consultant who works in institutional research, in a response to Kelchen’s post. “This is a case of throwing everything possible at the wall.”

    Source link

  • District Court Judge Continues to Demand OCR Reinstate Staff

    District Court Judge Continues to Demand OCR Reinstate Staff

    The Office for Civil Rights handles complaints concerning discrimination in federally funded education institutions.

    Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

    A federal district court judge refused the Trump administration’s request to vacate a previous ruling that prohibited the Department of Education from laying off nearly half its Office for Civil Rights staff.

    The decision was made by Massachusetts judge Myong Joun on Wednesday and involved the case Victim Rights Law Center v. Department of Education. It comes just a month after the Supreme Court reversed a preliminary injunction in a similar case, New York v. McMahon, which Joun also oversaw. 

    In the new order, the district court judge argues that the cases, and therefore their related rulings, are separate. 

    The New York case, which was filed by multiple state attorneys general, addressed the reduction in force more broadly, Joun said. By comparison, the Victim Rights Law Center case more specifically addresses the RIF at OCR and how it may hold the office back from completing its statutory mandate of protecting students from discrimination.

    So, although the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to continue with the reduction in force broadly, Joun argues, it does not mean the enjoinment of layoffs within OCR is no longer applicable.

    Trump officials “present two arguments for why vacatur or a stay are appropriate: first, that the Supreme Court granted the stay in a related case, and second, that the two related cases are ‘indistinguishable in all pertinent respects.’ I am unconvinced by either argument,” Joun wrote. “Although this case and New York are related, I issued a separate Preliminary Injunction Order to address the unique harms that Plaintiffs alleged arose from their reliance on the OCR.”

    He also noted that even though the high court judges reversed one preliminary injunction, that does not mean they have made a final ruling on the merit of the RIF.

    Finally, Joun went on to say that the defendants’ motion for stay has little standing, as “they have not substantially complied with the preliminary injunction order” in the first place. Reporting from The 74 backs this up, showing that none of the 276 fired OCR employees have been reinstated.

    Source link

  • Rethinking Pathways for Students in Rural Communities

    Rethinking Pathways for Students in Rural Communities

    In rural parts of the U.S., 36 percent of jobs that pay enough for an individual to be self-sufficient require at least a bachelor’s degree, yet only 25 percent of rural workers hold such degrees. Many rural communities do not have a university or four-year college nearby. As a result, students in these communities are likely to start their educational journey to a bachelor’s at a community college. Of the nearly 1,000 community colleges nationwide, more than a quarter are in rural areas and many others are designated as rural-serving.

    The paths to a bachelor’s degree for rural students are not as straightforward as they are for students in urban or suburban areas with higher concentrations of four-year institutions. For rural community college students, there are four primary routes to earning a bachelor’s degree. As described below, the first three, more conventional, paths do not always work well. But there is also a fourth path—the community college bachelor’s degree program. While still relatively rare, this path is growing in popularity because, when well designed, it is effective in enabling place-bound students to earn bachelor’s degrees and secure good jobs in their communities.

    Path 1: Transfer to a Four-Year University

    The first path is to transfer to a four-year college and either become a residential student there or commute a long distance to get back and forth to campus from home. Laramie County Community College, where one of us is president, has worked with the University of Wyoming, the state’s only university, located in Laramie, to develop guaranteed transfer pathways to UW bachelor’s programs in major fields of economic importance to the region and state.

    But only a minority of LCCC students—mostly younger students who have financial support from their families—can realistically afford to become full-time residential students at UW. Most community college students have jobs and families they can’t leave for several months a year, even if they could afford room and board in addition to tuition (which few can). Commuting to UW is difficult even for LCCC students who live in relatively nearby Cheyenne, almost an hour’s drive from Laramie on a road that crosses the highest point on the Continental Divide and is often closed in the winter. For LCCC students who live in outlying areas and for students at other Wyoming community colleges, commuting to UW is not realistic.

    Path 2: Pursue a Bachelor’s Degree Online

    Theoretically, this should be an effective option for rural, place-bound community college students. In reality, this avenue is not feasible for the many rural students who live in “digital deserts” or face “last-mile” barriers to broadband access.

    Even when internet access is not a problem, many students struggle to complete online programs. Only a quarter of community college students who transfer to online universities complete a bachelor’s degree within four years of transferring. This compares to 57 percent of community college starters who transfer to a public four-year institution. In general, undergraduates who take all their courses online are less likely to succeed than those who take just some courses online. And online success rates are especially low for low-income students, those from other underserved groups or those who face other challenges typical in rural areas, such as limited access to transportation and childcare.

    Path 3: Complete a Bachelor’s Degree Through a Community College–Based University Center

    The third path is for students to take upper-division coursework through a university center arrangement, where the four-year university has a physical presence on the community college campus. These arrangements vary in design but typically involve university faculty teaching courses on the community college campus. While reasonable in concept, university centers are often challenging to operate. Beyond common issues of ownership, oversight and authority associated with programs run by two separate institutions, in rural colleges, such programs also often do not enroll enough students to make it worth the investment by the university and thus are difficult to sustain, financially and politically.

    A Fourth Path: The Community College Bachelor’s Degree

    That leaves community college bachelor’s degree programs, which are often the best option for rural students. Research indicates that these programs not only provide effective access to bachelor’s programs for older working students with families and others who are place-bound but also enable these students to secure good jobs.

    Some question whether community colleges should offer bachelor’s degrees, arguing that they duplicate university offerings and represent a form of mission creep. But community college bachelor’s degrees tend to be unlike conventional bachelor’s degrees from universities. First, they are explicitly designed as applied credentials to meet specific regional workforce needs. In the best cases, community college bachelor’s degrees are reverse-engineered collaboratively with employers to meet these needs.

    Second, they are also often designed to help the many applied associate degree graduates of community colleges find a more effective path to completing a bachelor’s degree, in which their applied coursework is built upon, not disregarded. Finally, they are delivered at home so that graduates of community colleges who are tied to their local area can advance into family-supporting jobs. They are offered through institutions that most students are already familiar with and by people with whom students already have relationships.

    For example, LCCC offers a bachelor’s of applied science in health-care administration, with accelerated eight-week courses, offered at convenient times and through a combination of online and in-person modalities. The program is designed to provide the many working health-care clinicians with applied associate degrees (e.g., nurses, sonographers, radiology techs, etc.) a path to management jobs. This program was developed collaboratively with numerous health-care employers to address the strong demand for talent in health-care administration and provide their employees with a viable path to a bachelor’s degree, without requiring them to start over or relocate to another community.

    The number of bachelor’s degrees awarded by community colleges nationally is still small: fewer than 17,000 annually, compared to more than 1.3 million awarded by public universities. Still, policymakers in a growing number of states are recognizing that rural community colleges are well positioned to meet the needs of students and employers for workforce bachelor’s programs not available from other providers. Currently, community colleges in 24 states are authorized to offer bachelor’s degrees in particular fields, yet the majority (nearly 80 percent) of these colleges are located in just seven states. Thus, there is plenty of room to grow. Bachelor’s programs offered by rural community colleges provide a model for what we hope is becoming a national movement to rethink bachelor’s education for the large number of place-bound students who must work and care for their families but need a bachelor’s degree to advance in their careers.

    Joe Schaffer is president of Laramie County Community College. Davis Jenkins is a senior research scholar and Hana Lahr is assistant director of research and director of applied learning at the Community College Research Center at Columbia University’s Teachers College.

    Ascendium Education Group provided funding for this work.

    Source link

  • How to Read a Memo

    How to Read a Memo

    By now, the memo from the attorney general’s office outlining the administration’s interpretation of civil rights laws as they apply to higher education has made the rounds.

    It took me back to my grad school days. I took a seminar in literary theory—the ’90s were a different time—and remember being struck particularly by reader-response theory. As I understood it, it argued that the meaning of a text is determined by the reader rather than the writer. Meanings aren’t as random as that might make it sound; “interpretive communities” take shape around a host of sociological, as well as personal, variables. In other words, we learn how to interpret texts partially by modeling on how people around us do. The same text can be read differently depending on your social location.

    I’ve had personal experience of that in rewatching beloved movies or rereading beloved books from my teen years. In high school, Revenge of the Nerds struck me as funny and refreshing. As an adult, I can’t get past its sexism. The movie hasn’t changed, but I have.

    The assumptions that different interpretive communities make aren’t always conscious. They don’t work like geometric proofs. In my experience, the most frustrating conflicts happen when different unconscious assumptions (or givens) crash into each other. Having to defend something you take as obviously true feels like either a complete dismissal or a slap in the face; it quickly moves discussion from reasoned disagreement to exasperated incomprehension. (“How can you possibly say that?”)

    If you don’t recognize when those assumptions clash, it’s easy to get stuck in cycles of verbal shadowboxing. Is someone arguing against single-payer health insurance because they believe that a regulated market system would be more efficient? If so, a reasoned discussion may be worthwhile. Or are they arguing against it because they believe that poor people deserve to die? In that case, arguments around relative efficiency are pointless. Some folks are skilled at disingenuously using reasonable-sounding arguments to defend horrific assumptions; the tip-off is when they switch from one argument to a contradictory one as soon as they start to lose. The sooner you detect that move, the more time and emotional energy you can save.

    The AG’s memo offers a glimpse into the unconscious (or at least unspoken) assumptions animating the administration.

    Take, for instance, the assertion that “geographic or institutional targeting” is a proxy for discrimination. The only way that can make sense is if you assume the colleges and universities they had in mind are private ones that draw students from around the country. In the case of community colleges, most have a geographic boundary in their name and/or a defined service district. Monroe Community College, in Rochester, N.Y., is defined by its location in Monroe County. It gives a discount—economists call that price discrimination—to residents of its county. Students from out of county pay more.

    And that’s not unique to MCC; it’s the way most community colleges work. Even those that don’t have out-of-county or out-of-district price premiums usually have out-of-state premiums. The same is true of most public universities. I’ve personally had the experience of paying out-of-state tuition for two kids at public universities; it’s not fun. Is that illegal now? If so, I’ll apply for a refund from the Universities of Virginia and Maryland, posthaste.

    Of course, the vast majority of colleges and universities draw overwhelmingly from their own state. That’s a direct version of geographic targeting. A national higher ed policy based on the presumption that geographic targeting is the problem simply ignores the vast majority of the sector.

    The issues are also more granular than that. The memo ignores scholarships offered by donors for graduates of particular high schools. Are those illegal now? Private donors frequently favor graduates of their own high schools, or people from the towns in which they grew up. Do we have to turn those donors away now? Or only if the towns in which they grew up are too diverse? Are sports scholarships only OK if they don’t draw too diverse a group of students? If so, then sailing is fine and basketball is suspect. Hmm. I think there’s a word for that.

    I imagine the answer the attorney general would offer would be something like “as long as geographic preferences aren’t about increasing diversity, they’re OK.” But that presumes a lot. For example, New York City is more diverse than, well, just about anywhere; if a struggling small college on Long Island starts recruiting aggressively in New York City, is that about diversity or about enrollment? And how do you know?

    Discerning institutional intent isn’t straightforward. Mixed motives are entirely normal. For example, is the movement to improve graduation rates meant to help students, budgets or institutions’ public images? The answer is all of the above. Is making colleges more inclusive of people of different backgrounds for the benefit of the newly included, the folks already there or institutional budgets? Again, yes.

    A serious discussion would look less at intentions and more at incentives. If decades of public disinvestment force public institutions to behave more like private ones, basing more of their budgets on tuition, then we shouldn’t be surprised to see them compete for students. They’ll do what they have to do. If we want colleges to stop competing for students, we should insulate them from the economic need to do so. It has been done before.

    The universe assumed in the memo tells us a lot about the people behind it. It presumes a world in which economic issues don’t matter, intentions are obvious, people have only one motive at a time and elite institutions constitute the entire industry. It reflects the kid who thought Revenge of the Nerds was a breath of fresh air. But that kid eventually grew up and learned that there was more to the world than was dreamt of in his philosophy. The word for that process is education.

    Source link

  • Post-pandemic, student academic recovery remains elusive

    Post-pandemic, student academic recovery remains elusive

    Key points:

    Five years after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, academic recovery has stalled nationwide, and achievement gaps have widened, according to the State of Student Learning 2025 report from from Curriculum Associates.

    The report offers one of the most comprehensive looks at Grades K–8 student performance in reading and mathematics, based on data from close to 14 million students who took the i-Ready Diagnostic assessment in the 2024–2025 school year.

    The report shows that most students have not yet reached pre-pandemic achievement levels, and some are falling even further behind. The report does find some bright spots: Some historically underserved schools, especially majority-Black schools, are seeing modest, positive gains in both reading and mathematics. However, those gains have not yet translated into closing longstanding disparities.

    “This report shows that disrupted schooling due to the pandemic continues to impact student learning, particularly for students who are in early grades, are lower performing, or are from historically underserved communities,” said Kristen Huff, head of measurement at Curriculum Associates. “Academic recovery has never been one-size-fits-all, and these results reaffirm the importance of nuanced, data-informed approaches. Above all, they underscore the vital work educators are doing every day to meet students where they are and help them move forward.”

    Key findings

    • Academic progress has plateaued. Since spring 2023, national achievement has remained flat. While many students are growing at pre-pandemic rates, that growth isn’t closing the gap caused by pandemic disruptions.
    • The achievement gap has grown in many cases. Students who were already behind, particularly those scoring in the bottom 10th percentile, continue to fall behind, while top-performing students have often recovered or surpassed their pre-pandemic levels.
    • Younger students experienced greater learning losses. Even though they were not yet in school during the pandemic, elementary students, especially in Grades K and 1, saw the largest drops in achievement after the pandemic. 
    • Vulnerable populations are experiencing uneven recovery. The report shows widening gaps between the nation’s highest and lowest performers. Across most grades, the differences between higher and lower percentiles have increased over time.

    A data-driven, nationwide look

    The 2025 report examines data through the critical years pre- and post-pandemic, from spring 2019 to spring 2025. Using a nationally representative sample of more than 11.7 million reading and 13.4 million mathematics assessments, the research examines:

    • Grade-level placement: how many students are performing at or below grade level
    • Scale scores by percentile: how learning differs across performance groups
    • Annual growth: whether students are making enough academic progress during the school year to recover lost ground

    The findings reinforce that targeted support is needed to ensure every student can thrive academically, especially younger students, lower-performing students, and historically underserved communities.

    This press release originally appeared online.

    eSchool News Staff
    Latest posts by eSchool News Staff (see all)

    Source link

  • ASU Projects 18% Drop in International Student Enrollment

    ASU Projects 18% Drop in International Student Enrollment

    Arizona State University ranks fourth among four-year colleges and universities in terms of total international students enrolled.

    yongyuan/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    Arizona State University typically welcomes over 17,900 international students to its four campuses each year, but this fall, due to a variety of complications, the university expects only 14,600 international students will attend this fall—an 18 percent drop.

    If the projection holds, international students will account for 7.5 percent of ASU’s 194,000 students this fall, according to an Aug. 11 news release. In comparison, during the 2023–24 academic year, ASU hosted 18,400 international students, with a total enrollment of 183,000, or more than 10 percent.

    The change is in part due a drop in master’s applications from international students, but primarily driven by challenges to visa appointments, according to a university spokesperson.

    ASU’s president, Michael Crow, told Bloomberg that as of early August, 1,000 of the university’s incoming international students (a third of the new cohort of 3,313 students) were still waiting on their visas. The university is providing several pathways for students unable to make it to campus, including online programs, study abroad, starting later in the semester or enrolling in a partner institution overseas, the spokesperson said.

    “We anticipate that our enrollment of international students will continue to grow throughout the year,” said Matt López, deputy vice president of academic enterprise enrollment, said in the university news release. “When students have their visa in hand, we will welcome them with open arms and the classes they need to continue their degree without delay.”

    ASU has the largest share of international students in Arizona, providing $545.1 million in revenue to the state and supporting 5,279 jobs, according to data from NAFSA, the association of international educators.

    ASU also ranks fourth among four-year colleges and universities in terms of total international students enrolled, according to 2023–24 OpenDoors data, behind New York University, Northeastern University and Columbia University.

    Nationally, international student enrollment is projected to decline by about 15 percent this fall due to federal changes to visa issuance and other actions against international students.

    Source link

  • Why Student Motivation Matters (opinion)

    Why Student Motivation Matters (opinion)

    In Jarek Janio’s Inside Higher Ed opinion column, “Beyond ‘Grit’ and ‘Growth Mindsets,’” Janio argues that, to promote better student learning, college instructors should ignore questions about student motivation and focus solely on changing student behavior. He focuses on two ideas from the motivation field—grit and growth mindset—as examples of “traits” that have weak associations with student learning. Instead of focusing on what goes on “inside the student’s head,” he argues we should instead focus on “what’s happening in the environment and change that instead.”

    As educational psychology researchers, we are also interested in how to get students to engage in effective learning behaviors. We fully agree with—and our research supports—the idea that it is important for instructors to structure learning environments to support student learning, such as by offering opportunities for students to revise their work and providing clear, well-defined feedback. However, it is a mistake to ignore what is going on inside students’ heads. In doing so, we miss a very crucial piece of the puzzle.

    Students Are Unique Individuals

    As anyone who has taught a college class knows, students are not robots. There are vast differences between them. Take the example of offering your students an opportunity to revise and resubmit their work, after receiving feedback, for a higher grade. Just because you provide this opportunity does not mean that all your students will take it. Some students will enthusiastically revisit their work, dig into the feedback provided, seek additional feedback and deepen their learning. Others will half-heartedly look over the feedback and make shallow attempts to revise. Still others will not glance at the feedback at all and will not turn in a revision.

    These differences are, in part, due to more stable traits that students may have, such as their conscientiousness, their perfectionism and—yes—their grit. However, these differences may also be a function of other individual differences that are less stable. Take growth mindset, for example. Those of us who study growth mindset tend to think about it as a belief rather than a trait. It is something that can change based on the context.

    Imagine a student who has been told by their statistics instructor that statistics is something that anyone can learn—you just need the right strategies. Their art professor, on the other hand, has told them that you need a special, innate talent to be good at art—you either have it or you don’t. These factors can shape students’ beliefs, and in turn, their behaviors. For example, this student may be much more likely to engage in revising and resubmitting their work in their statistics class (where they have stronger growth-mindset beliefs) than their art class (where they have stronger fixed-mindset beliefs). This pattern is also true for when students feel confident about their abilities or have a desire for learning. Such students seek out help more proactively, and they engage with feedback more constructively.

    Beyond Grit and Growth Mindset

    Although grit and growth mindset are perhaps the most well-known (and have some legitimate weaknesses), researchers in the educational psychology and motivation fields study many other factors that impact student engagement and learning. These include students’ interests, values, goals, needs, emotions, beliefs and perceptions of the instructor and their classroom—all things that are going on inside the student’s head but that are critically important to understanding their behavior.

    Theories of motivation articulate the processes through which students’ beliefs, values, needs and goals shape their engagement, behaviors and choices. Researchers have created and tested effective tools to observe, measure and assess these different factors. Decades of research have given us robust understandings of how these factors are both shaped by and interact with the environment to predict students’ behavior and learning. These aspects of the individual student matter.

    The Student and the Environment Are Both Important

    It is important to focus both on what is going on in students’ heads and what is going on in the environment. Instructors have the power to shape their classroom environment in different ways that can influence student behavior.

    We do not disagree with the strategies Janio proposed instructors should focus on. Instead, we want to emphasize that these strategies are effective because of how they are motivationally supportive. For instance, incorporating a revision process into course assignments is based on mastery goal structures, or the environments instructors can nurture so that students focus on their improvement and growth. Normalizing failure is a growth mindset–teaching practice that helps students see the effort they put into the learning process as being something of value. Providing feedback is an important way to inform a student’s self-confidence and show them how they can be more competent in the future.

    Motivation is the central mechanism through which these strategies can help students persist through learning challenges. By understanding student motivation, these teaching strategies and approaches can be fine-tuned and adapted to differently motivated students to maximize student learning. That is exactly what motivation scientists in education have been investigating for decades. Simply discarding learner motivation is dismantling the science that undergirds motivationally supportive teaching.

    Concluding Thoughts

    A return to behaviorism essentially disregards the last 50 years of psychological research emphasizing the important role students’ cognition, emotion and motivation plays in the classroom. It is critical to understand these psychological processes that have been rigorously tested across many studies. Students are also agentic and complex in their thinking and motivations, so a one-size-fits-all approach rarely works. By harnessing students’ motivation, instructors can better adapt their teaching approaches to match students’ interests and goals in addition to creating motivationally supportive environments that promote persistence and deeper learning. When instructors understand their students’ motivation, it can unlock the type of engagement and behaviors meaningful for learning.

    Katie Muenks is an associate professor of educational psychology at the University of Texas at Austin. Carlton J. Fong is an associate professor of postsecondary student success at Texas State University.

    Source link

  • Visa Appointment Slowdown Hinders ASU International Enrollment

    Visa Appointment Slowdown Hinders ASU International Enrollment

    Arizona State University ranks fourth among four-year colleges and universities in terms of total international students enrolled.

    yongyuan/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    This article has been revised to reflect more enrollment data provided by Arizona State University after publication to correct Inside Higher Ed’s previous analysis.

    Arizona State University welcomed over 15,100 international students to its four campuses in fall 2024, but this fall, due to a variety of complications, the university expects only 14,600 international students will attend.

    If the projection holds, international students will account for 7.5 percent of ASU’s 194,000 students this fall, according to an Aug. 11 news release. In comparison, during the 2023–24 academic year, ASU hosted 18,400 international students, with a total enrollment of 183,000, or more than 10 percent.

    The change is in part due a drop in master’s applications from international students, but primarily driven by challenges to visa appointments, according to a university spokesperson.

    “We anticipate that our enrollment of international students will continue to grow throughout the year,” said Matt López, deputy vice president of academic enterprise enrollment, said in the university news release. “When students have their visa in hand, we will welcome them with open arms and the classes they need to continue their degree without delay.”

    ASU’s president, Michael Crow, told Bloomberg that as of early August, 1,000 of the university’s incoming international students (a third of the new cohort of 3,313 students) were still waiting on their visas. The university is providing several pathways for students unable to make it to campus, including online programs, study abroad, starting later in the semester or enrolling in a partner institution overseas, the spokesperson said.

    ASU has the largest share of international students in Arizona, providing $545.1 million in revenue to the state and supporting 5,279 jobs, according to data from NAFSA, the association of international educators.

    ASU also ranks fourth among four-year colleges and universities in terms of total international students enrolled, according to 2023–24 OpenDoors data, behind New York University, Northeastern University and Columbia University.

    Nationally, international student enrollment is projected to decline by about 15 percent this fall due to federal changes to visa issuance and other actions against international students.

    Source link

  • College Creates 101 Course on Gen AI for Students, Faculty

    College Creates 101 Course on Gen AI for Students, Faculty

    As generative artificial intelligence skills have become more in demand among employers, colleges and universities have expanded opportunities for students to engage with the tools.

    Indiana University is no exception. It’s developed a free, online course for campus community members to gain a basic understanding of generative AI and how the tools could fit into their daily lives and work. GenAI 101 is available to anyone with a campus login and comes with a certificate of in-demand skills for people who complete it.

    Survey says: Artificial intelligence tools have gained a significant foothold on college campuses, especially in teaching and learning.

    A 2023 study by Wiley found over half (58 percent) of instructors say they or their students are using generative AI in their classrooms, and a similar number believe AI-based tools, virtual reality or coursework with flexible assignment types will be important in delivering their courses in three years.

    Even before entering college, learners have said they’re familiar with generative AI and expect their institutions to help them develop their skills in using it. A 2024 survey found 69 percent of high school seniors planning to attend college have used generative AI tools, and 54 percent anticipate their college will engage in AI usage and education in some way. But exposure to AI is not ubiquitous; a different 2024 study of young people (ages 14 to 22) found nearly half of respondents had never used AI tools or didn’t know what the AI tools were.

    AI literacy and safety concerns have presented a growing challenge as well. A February 2025 survey from Microsoft found 73 percent of individuals say spotting AI-generated images is difficult.

    How it works: GenAI 101 at Indiana is free to anyone in the university community, including students, instructors and staff members at all campuses. The course is optional and has no academic credits attached, which allowed faculty designers to be flexible and creative with how content is presented.

    Brian Williams, faculty chair of the Kelley School of Business’s Virtual Advanced Business Technologies Department, serves as the lead course instructor and he, alongside a team of other faculty members, identified key topics to know about generative AI. The goal is to prepare participants to engage in an AI-influenced world with practical takeaways and insights, Williams said.

    The self-paced course has eight modules and 16 lessons that include short, YouTube-style video lectures. Students learn practical examples of how to use generative AI tools, including managing their schedule or planning an event, and content areas range from prompt engineering, data storytelling and fact-checking content to how to use AI ethically. In total, GenAI 101 takes approximately four to five hours to finish.

    The course features an AI character, Crimson, that teaches content, and an embedded AI tutor, Crimson Jr., that can address participants’ questions as they come up.

    After completing the course, participants earn a certificate they can display on their LinkedIn profile or résumé.

    What’s next: The course launches Monday, Aug. 25, and the first person to take it will be IU president Pamela Whitten, according to a university press release. She’ll gain early access to the course on Friday, Aug. 15, Williams said.

    Students will be auto-enrolled in GenAI 101, making it easy to access. Some faculty instructors have also said they’ll embed the content into their syllabus or curriculum, according to Williams, in part to reduce gaps in who’s engaging with generative AI resources and education.

    How is your college teaching students how to use generative AI? Tell us more.

    This article has been updated to correct the date in which the course will launch to the IU community, August 25.

    Source link

  • Community College Research Collateral Damage at Columbia

    Community College Research Collateral Damage at Columbia

    Research on community colleges has taken a hit amid the Trump administration’s ongoing war against the Ivy League.

    The Community College Research Center, an independent organization based at Columbia University’s Teachers College, found out in March that four of its grants totaling at about $12 million were immediately cancelled, despite being multiple years into their grant cycles. The remaining grant money expected from the Institute of Education Sciences amounted to at least $3.5 million. Four half-completed research projects relied on the funding. Now CCRC leaders are scrambling to find ways to continue the work.

    The grants were swept up in the Trump administration’s slashing of $400 million in grants to Columbia University to cow the institution into agreeing to a set of demands. Columbia has since reached an agreement with the administration to restore its federal funding, but the deal only restored grants administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health. Education Department grants, like the CCRC’s, didn’t return.

    The center, now almost 30 years old, conducts rigorous research into community college programs and practices, like guided pathways and dual enrollment, to help institutions improve the student experience and student outcomes.

    The canceled grants funded two efforts focused on pandemic recovery, including a study into a program at Virginia community colleges to support adults earning short-term credentials in high-demand fields. CCRC researchers were also using IES money to evaluate the Federal Work-Study program and for a fellowship that placed doctoral students in apprenticeships at education agencies and nonprofits. Teachers College has agreed to take over funding for the fellowship program for at least the upcoming academic year.

    Thomas Brock, CCRC’s director, worries the field of community college research—and its benefits for students—are at risk at a time when federal funding has grown more tenuous. He spoke with Inside Higher Ed about how the center is moving forward in the absence of these funds. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

    Q: How did you react when you first heard from the Education Department about the nixed IES grants?

    A: It got us completely by surprise. We did not see that coming. The notification came on a Friday morning. We had to be finished with our work by the end of the day that Friday—we could have no further charges beyond that point. So, there was just no time to prepare. And all of our communications with IES until that point had been very positive. We were on track to complete the goals of our grants. We had been in frequent conversation with our program officers. So, there was simply no inkling that this would be coming.

    Q: What was the extent of the funding loss for you?

    A: The overall funding loss amounted to about $3.5 million. Most of the grants that we were working on were pretty far along. The total berth of the grants was well above $3.5 million, but that was about the amount we had remaining. Most of the work that was canceled was in the last year or two. It was all the more disappointing then, because we were so close to having results that we could share with the field. And that is important, of course, not just to CCRC but to the states and colleges that we partner with more broadly to accomplish our mission of informing community colleges, policymakers, practitioners about strategies that work to improve student outcomes.

    Q: Going forward, what’s going to happen to projects funded by the canceled grants?

    A: So, everything had to be put on hold. I will say we’ve been in discussion with some foundations about what they are calling last-mile funding to complete some of the IES-funded work. We don’t have the grants in hand just yet but invited proposals and ones we think have a good chance of funding.

    We should hear news this fall about some of those. With the last-mile funding, we had to narrow the scope. Generally speaking, foundations don’t have the kinds of resources that the federal government does. So, most of these grants are just to really get out the final results and not putting as much emphasis on dissemination as we would have done with the federal funding. But nonetheless, we’re very grateful to have those opportunities.

    We were lucky at CCRC. We’ve been around for a while. So, over many years, we’ve built up a reserve fund for rainy days, and we decided if this wasn’t a rainy day, we didn’t know what was. So, we have dipped into those reserves to keep many of our staff fully employed while they work on these proposals and to continue to have the ability to do the work if we get refunded. Those funds won’t last forever. We will have to make some tough decisions later this year about just what size of organization we can continue to support with foundation funds. And, I should note, we have already made a few layoffs and have had a couple of voluntary departures. So we are already smaller than we were, but we hope to maintain a critical core.

    Q: Columbia recently reached an agreement with the Trump administration to have some of its research funds restored. Were you hopeful that your funds would be restored as well in that agreement?

    A: We were, yes. We were not part of the negotiations. That was handled by Columbia University. And one of the complications here—really, going all the way back to the initial cancellation of our grants—was a misunderstanding, honestly, by the current administration of Teachers College’s relationship to Columbia. We are an affiliated institution, but we are independent—legally, financially, administratively. We have our own president, our own Board of Directors. We are a separate nonprofit organization, a separate 501(c)(3), so the affiliation we have is a loose one. It allows our students to cross-register and take courses at Columbia. But we do not benefit in any way from Columbia’s endowment or its wealth as an institution. Teachers College is a relatively poor stepchild within the Columbia University constellation.

    So, when we first lost our grants, we appealed as we were instructed to do if we had an issue with the cancellation. The beginning of our appeal was just that we are a separate institution. Whatever complaints the administration may have about Columbia University and how it handled the student protests last year, that had no bearing on what happened at Teachers College. And indeed, we had no student protests. We had no actions that were of concern to the administration or to anyone. So, we hope, just on that basis, we might win on appeal.

    Our appeals were acknowledged, but they have not ever been acted upon as the university went forward with its negotiations. We were hopeful that perhaps [the agreement] would benefit us as well. And when the settlement was reached, I had maybe 24 hours when I was I was really holding my breath. But unfortunately, as we looked at the details of the settlement, it only applied to grants made to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health. Department of Education grants were not included.

    Q: You touched on this, but what comes next for the CCRC? How are you thinking about moving forward and how you might have to pivot?

    A: In the near term, we will have to depend on foundation funding exclusively or primarily. We are fortunate in that we have a long history of foundation funding, so that’s not new, but our model has always involved a blending of federal and foundation resources. And that’s just very important to an organization like ours, because foundations and the federal government have typically funded different kinds of things. They both are really critical to advancing a research agenda.

    What is the most important about the federal funding is, No. 1, the strong emphasis on scientific rigor. So, things like the randomized controlled trials that we’re doing on Federal Work-Study, it’s possible you could get a foundation to pick up a project like that, but that is much more in the bailiwick, or at least traditionally has been in the bailiwick of the U.S. Department of Education and its Institute of Education Sciences—not just randomized controlled trials but rigor in all ways, the emphasis on nationally representative samples on longitudinal research. IES funding has been really important for that.

    A second way IES has been so critical is this emphasis on dissemination. IES has been criticized, and justifiably so, for the What Works Clearinghouse, for instance, being a bit indecipherable at first and having too much in it that really wasn’t showing effectiveness. But it’s come a long way in improving that resource and also really in encouraging grantees to get their findings out into the field. We depended heavily on federal funding for our website, for our social media efforts, for attending practitioner conferences. It was really vital support for those purposes. So, that is largely what concerns us. Perhaps some new foundation supporters will be interested in that kind of work. [It’s] not likely we will find the level of funding that was available through the federal government, but we hope at least enough to keep our essential communications and outreach efforts intact.

    Our agenda will probably have to shift a little bit. This is also what’s disappointing about the Department of Education and IES stepping back—we could count on them to really help set the national agenda and things that were of importance to all 50 states and students in all parts of the country. It’s not to say foundations don’t have that interest, but it is much more typical with foundations to find that they are investing in particular places. There simply are not that many foundations with the resources to kind of take the national view, and that is a concern moving forward. So, it’s something that we’re addressing or trying to think about strategically, but it will be a challenge.

    Q: How does the uncertainty with federal funding affect the broader field of community college research?

    A: Well, obviously I am biased here. I think research matters, or I would not have entered this profession.

    There have been major advances in how community colleges think about developmental education, for example. The models that were in place 20 years ago just turned out to be fundamentally wrong. Most community college students coming in were assessed and placed into developmental education courses that actually did them more harm than good. It was years of careful research that documented that fact and that then supported partnerships with community colleges interested in trying different strategies.

    And thanks to all of that work, we now have multiple-measures assessment, where students’ high school grades and other indicators are used. It’s resulting in far fewer students being placed in developmental courses. We also have corequisite remediation, where students are placed in college-level work right away with extra support, as opposed to requiring them to do what was known as prerequisite remediation before starting college-level work. So, those are strategies that we would not have known about, but for this kind of investment, and strategies that have been widely picked up now by the field that are demonstrably leading to improve student outcomes.

    So, I guess what I worry about is the cessation, or near cessation, of those kinds of research and development efforts that lead to new insights, that lead to new ways of doing business that really could be transformative for students. And if you think about today’s challenges, they are no different or less concerning.

    Artificial intelligence is transforming education. What will it mean for community college students? How could institutions best harness those tools to really ensure students are learning and moving forward? That’s a big, big area that I think cries out for deeper investigation. Another big area of interest is short-term training. Congress is prepared to make Pell Grants available for short-term training. Past evidence has shown not much effectiveness there. But what are the program areas that do lend themselves to short-term training? How might community colleges focus these efforts so that they really do lead to a payoff for students and for taxpayers?

    These are big questions that, if we don’t have some of the foundational work in place, we’re not going to have answers five or 10 years from now. And the field as a whole, students specifically, will suffer as a result.

    Source link