Tag: Online

  • Online Enrollment Strategy in a Search-Driven Market

    Online Enrollment Strategy in a Search-Driven Market

    Online enrollment now happens in a national, search-driven market where visibility, clarity, and trust determine which programs students consider. This article explains how search, AI-driven discovery, and brand clarity shape how students find online programs—and what institutions must do to compete.

    Why “Build It and They Will Come” No Longer Works

    Online learners aren’t discovering programs by chance. They’re searching, comparing, and shortlisting in a national marketplace—and higher education institutions that rely on legacy enrollment assumptions are being left out of the conversation.

    If it feels like launching new online programs used to be easier, you’re not imagining it.

    For years, online growth was driven by access and availability. Institutions moved programs online because learners couldn’t get what they needed locally. Demand outpaced supply. If you built something credible and made it available, enrollment followed.

    That era is over.

    Today’s online market is crowded, sophisticated, and national by default. Learners have more choices than at any point in the history of higher education. And they’re not discovering online programs by accident.

    They’re searching.
    They’re comparing.
    They’re shortlisting.

    Scarcity is gone. Choice defines the market.This is the mindset shift many institutions haven’t fully made yet. Online enrollment no longer rewards availability. It rewards visibility, clarity, and trust.

    The National Online Market Is Coming to You—Whether You’re Planning for it or Not

    Online Programs Compete Nationally, Not Regionally

    One of the most common disconnects I see with higher ed enrollment leaders is how competition is defined.

    We still talk about “peer institutions,” “regional competitors,” or “schools we usually go up against.” That framing made sense when geography mattered.

    Online learning changes that completely.

    Online removes physical boundaries for learners.  Institutions are no longer compared only to nearby or familiar schools—they’re compared to whoever shows up and feels credible in the moment of search. 

    Search and AI Collapse the Market Into a Single Comparison Set

    Search engines, paid ads, review platforms, and now AI tools collapse the entire online market into a single results page. 

    From the learner’s perspective, everything sits side by side.

    They’re not just asking, Who’s nearby? Or who they already know?
     They’re asking, Who looks credible? Who fits me? Who’s going to help me achieve my goals? 

    Whether institutions plan for it or not, they’re competing nationally—not just with similar schools, but with whoever shows up first and feels trustworthy in the moment of search.

    That’s the reality. Ignoring it doesn’t protect you from it.

    AI is Redefining How Students Are Discovering Online Programs

    Search as the Virtual Campus Visit

    For years, search and institutional websites have functioned as the virtual campus visit for online learners.

    They’ve been where legitimacy is established.
    Where perceived risk is reduced.
    Where prospective students quietly decide whether an institution feels credible, relevant, and worth further consideration.

    That hasn’t changed.

    AI Systems as the New Gatekeepers

    What’s changing now isn’t whether that evaluation happens digitally—it’s how it happens.

    AI-powered search and large language models (LLMs) are reshaping how students discover online programs. Learners are no longer just comparing lists of results or clicking through multiple websites. 

    Increasingly, they’re asking questions directly to AI systems and receiving synthesized answers that compress research, comparison, and judgment into a single moment.

    In that environment, higher ed institutions don’t just compete for clicks, they compete to be understood, recommended, and trusted by systems that summarize the online market on the learner’s behalf.

    That raises the stakes for clarity, credibility, and differentiation. Search visibility still matters, but so does how clearly your programs, outcomes, and value proposition are articulated across your site and content ecosystem. AI models draw from what they can easily interpret. Generic language, outdated messaging, or unclear positioning makes it harder for an institution to surface meaningfully, even if the program itself is strong.

    Institutions that adapt by tightening messaging, strengthening authority signals, and aligning their digital presence with how modern search works, give themselves a chance to compete. Those that don’t risk being filtered out before a learner ever reaches a form, a conversation, or an application.

    The Shortlist Problem: Where Online Enrollment Is Actually Won or Lost

    Here’s the part that often gets missed.

    Learners don’t compare dozens of institutions in depth. They narrow quickly.

    Why Brand Clarity Determines the Shortlist

    They build a shortlist of online programs that feel safe, credible, and aligned with what they’re trying to accomplish. Everything else falls away.

    That shortlist is where enrollment is actually won or lost.

    And brand clarity is what helps learners navigate the complexity. Not flashy marketing. Not volume. Clarity.

    Learners consistently associate “top online institutions” with recognizable brands and clear program identities—not necessarily the biggest schools or the ones with the most programs.

    You Don’t Need to Win Nationally—You Need to Compete for Attention

    This is an important reframe for leaders:

    You don’t need to win nationally.
    You do need to compete nationally for attention.

    The goal isn’t to be everything to everyone. The goal is to be unmistakably relevant to the right learners when they’re searching.

    Where “Build It and They Will Come” Still Shows Up

    None of this is about blame. The constraints are real.

    Budgets are flat. Teams are stretched. Expectations keep rising.

    The Gap Between Priority and Investment

    But when you look at how institutions are investing—or not investing—in online enrollment strategy, a pattern emerges.

    Only about 42% of leaders say strengthening brand is an online priority. Nearly three-quarters don’t use a dedicated online enrollment marketing partner. Close to 60% rely on general university marketing budgets to support online growth. And only about a quarter believe their staffing and budgets for online marketing are actually adequate.

    At the same time, more than 80% of leaders say online enrollment growth is a moderate or high priority. Nearly half say it’s a top institutional priority.

    That’s the contradiction.

    Online enrollment is strategically important, but investment hasn’t shifted to match how learners actually choose.

    In practice, many institutions are still operating with an implicit belief that strong online programs will eventually find an audience. That’s “build it and they will come”—just wearing modern clothes.

    What Competing in a National Online Market Actually Requires

    The good news is this: competing in a national, search-driven market doesn’t require unlimited budgets or national-scale ambition.

    It requires focus.

    Here’s what I’d do first.

    Compete on relevance, not reach.

    You don’t need to outspend national brands. You need to out-clarify them for specific learners. Relevance beats volume every time.

    Be explicit about who your online programs are for.

    If everyone is your audience, no one is. Clarity reduces friction for learners and improves performance across search, ads, and conversion.

    Align search, ads, and web strategies around learner and personalization.

    Marketing and enrollment can’t operate in silos here. What online learners search for, what they see in ads, and what they experience on your site all need to tell the same story.

    Treat brand clarity as enrollment infrastructure.

    Brand isn’t a “nice to have.” It’s what makes demand convert. If learners can’t quickly understand who you are and why you’re credible, efficiency breaks down across the funnel.

    National competition doesn’t require national ambition. It requires strategic focus.

    The New Reality of Online Enrollment

    Let’s be honest about what’s changed.

    The market has changed.
    Learners have changed.
    And online enrollment strategies have to change with them.

    Online growth used to be driven by access. Now it’s driven by discoverability and trust. Higher education institutions don’t get chosen because they exist. They get chosen because online learners can find them, understand them, and feel confident moving forward.

    You don’t have to do everything.
    But you do need an integrated plan that reflects how the online market actually works today.

    Because the era of “build it and they will come” is over. In a national, search-driven market, visibility and clarity aren’t marketing tactics. They’re enrollment fundamentals.

    If online enrollment growth is a priority, clarity has to start with how the market actually behaves. The Online Learner/Leader Analysis compares how prospective online learners search, evaluate, and shortlist programs with how institutional leaders are planning and investing today—revealing where alignment exists and where opportunity is being missed.

    Explore the analysis to see how your assumptions stack up against learner reality.

    Frequently Asked Questions About Online Enrollment Strategy

    How do students find online programs today?

    Students primarily discover online programs through search engines, paid ads, review platforms, and increasingly through AI-powered tools that summarize and compare options. Discovery happens nationally, not locally, and programs compete based on visibility, clarity, and credibility.

    What is an online enrollment strategy?

    An online enrollment strategy aligns search visibility, digital marketing, web experience, and brand clarity to help institutions compete for online learners in a national market. It focuses on helping the right students find, understand, and trust an institution’s programs.

    Why is visibility so important for online enrollment?

    Strong programs don’t succeed if learners can’t find or understand them. Visibility ensures institutions are present at the moment of search, while clarity and trust determine whether they make the learner’s shortlist.

    How is AI changing online enrollment marketing?

    AI-powered search tools are changing how learners research online programs by delivering synthesized answers instead of lists of results. Institutions now compete to be accurately understood and recommended by AI systems.

    How does Carnegie help institutions compete for online enrollment?

    Carnegie helps institutions compete by aligning enrollment strategy, brand clarity, search and digital marketing, and web experience—improving discoverability, credibility, and conversion across the online enrollment funnel.

    Source link

  • The Future of Online Learning Is AI-Powered

    The Future of Online Learning Is AI-Powered

    AI-powered online learning is reshaping how higher education supports students, scales care, and prepares learners for an evolving workforce. This article explores how AI can help institutions close support gaps, improve outcomes, and lead intentionally in the future of online education—grounded in insights from Carnegie’s Online Learner & Leader Study.

    Online Learning Is Now Central to Institutional Strategy

    Higher education has always evolved in response to new tools, new learners, and new expectations. What makes this moment different is not just the pace of change, but the opportunity it presents.

    Online learning now sits at the center of institutional strategy. It is where access, innovation, workforce relevance, and financial sustainability intersect. And increasingly, it is where presidents and academic leaders have the greatest leverage to shape the future rather than react to it.

    AI is accelerating that shift toward AI-powered online learning. 

    Not as a disruption to fear, but as a capability to design for scale, support students more intentionally, and lead with clarity in a complex moment.

    This Moment Is About More Than Technology

    There is growing recognition that online learners are not a monolith. They are career builders, caregivers, degree completers, and explorers and they’re often balancing work, family, financial pressure, and uncertainty about what the future of work will demand.

    At the same time, higher education leaders are navigating an equally complex reality. Online enrollment growth is a priority. Budgets are not keeping pace. Staffing models were not designed for always-on, asynchronous, national audiences. Support teams are stretched thin.

    The result is a widening gap between what students need and what institutions can sustainably provide.

    This is not a failure of commitment. It is a structural mismatch.

    And it is precisely where AI creates a meaningful opportunity.

    AI as the Bridge Between Need and Capacity in Online Learning

    When leaders talk about AI in higher education, the conversation often jumps to tools, policies, or risk. Those matter. But they miss the larger shift underway.

    AI as Institutional Infrastructure

    AI is not just another system to adopt. It is a new layer of infrastructure.

    AI is like water. It should not live in a single pipe or department. It should flow through the entire institution—quietly, consistently, and in service of core needs.

    Nowhere is that more evident than in online student support.

    What Online Learners Say They Need

    Findings from Carnegie’s Online Learner & Leader Study demonstrated this clearly. Learners overwhelmingly said they value flexibility and autonomy. Most prefer asynchronous formats. But that same flexibility increases demand for timely, personalized, and reliable support—often outside traditional business hours. 

    Higher ed leaders in our study acknowledge the challenge. They also acknowledge the constraint: limited staffing and limited budgets.

    Scaling Support Without Replacing Human Connection

    This is where AI in online education can change the equation.

    Thoughtfully deployed AI support does not replace human connection. It scales it.

    AI enables institutions to provide consistent, responsive assistance for high-volume needs—course navigation, program policies, technology troubleshooting—while ensuring students can escalate to a human when it matters most. It helps institutions move from reactive support to proactive guidance. From fragmented touchpoints to a more seamless experience across the student lifecycle.

    Just as importantly, it allows institutions to do so in a way that is financially sustainable. By absorbing routine, high-volume interactions, AI frees human teams to focus on moments that require judgment, empathy, and expertise—protecting both the student experience and the institutional cost structure as online enrollment scales.

    In other words, AI becomes the connective tissue between student expectations and institutional reality.

    Differentiation Will Belong to the Institutions That Embed AI—Not Bolt It On

    As online options proliferate, differentiation has become harder to claim and easier to lose. Program quality remains foundational. But quality alone no longer determines which institutions students consider.

    Students navigate a crowded, search-driven marketplace. They look for clarity. Credibility. Signals that an institution understands their lives and is equipped for what comes next.

    AI as a Signal of Readiness and Relevance

    Increasingly, how institutions use AI in online education will be one of those signals.

    Not because students want novelty. But because they expect modern, technology-forward experiences that reflect the world they already inhabit.

    Integration Across the Student Lifecycle

    The institutions that stand apart will not be those with the most pilots or the flashiest tools. They will be the ones that integrate AI intentionally across systems:

    • Across the student lifecycle, from recruitment and onboarding to advising, persistence, and completion
    • Across support functions, ensuring consistency, transparency, and availability
    • Across academic and co-curricular experiences, reinforcing relevance and readiness

    This kind of integration sends a powerful message: we are prepared for this moment—and for the future our students are walking into.

    The inverse is also true. Institutions that delay or limit AI to isolated pilots risk falling behind not because of rankings or prestige, but because the lived experience they offer no longer matches learner expectations. Inaction is not neutral—it is a strategic choice with competitive consequences.

    Student Success and Workforce Readiness Are Now Intertwined

    AI is reshaping how learners think about their futures. Many express optimism about its potential. Just as many express anxiety—about job stability, ethical use, and keeping pace with change.

    They are not just asking institutions for credentials. They are asking for preparation.

    Preparing Students to Work Alongside AI

    The responsibility for higher education is clear. Institutions must help students develop not only knowledge, but fluency. Not only skills, but judgment.

    That does not require turning every online program into a technical degree. It does require embedding AI literacy, ethical reasoning, and applied use across disciplines—so graduates understand how to work alongside AI, not compete against it.

    Online learning is uniquely positioned to lead here. Its scale, flexibility, and digital foundation make it an ideal environment to normalize responsible AI use as part of learning itself—not an optional add-on, but an expected competency.

    When AI is embedded thoughtfully, student support and workforce preparation reinforce one another. Students experience AI as a tool for organization, exploration, and problem-solving. Institutions model how complex systems can be used responsibly, transparently, and in service of human goals.

    Supporting Faculty While Preserving the Human Core

    The same is true for faculty. 

    When AI is used to reduce administrative burden, support feedback and personalization, and streamline course management, it preserves faculty time for mentorship, inquiry, and teaching—reinforcing, rather than eroding, the human core of education.

    Governance Matters—But It Cannot Be the Only Strategy

    Many institutions are appropriately focused on AI governance, ethics, and integrity. Policies are essential. Guardrails matter.

    But governance alone does not constitute leadership.

    Balancing Discipline With Momentum

    The risk is not that institutions move too quickly. It is that they move cautiously without moving strategically.

    The Online Learner & Leader Study reveals a familiar pattern: learners are already engaging with AI in their daily lives, even as institutions deliberate. They are experimenting, adapting, and forming habits—often without institutional guidance.

    This creates an opportunity for higher education to lead with purpose.

    The most effective approaches balance discipline with momentum:

    • Clear guidance on ethical and acceptable use
    • Transparency about where and how AI is deployed
    • Human-centered design that keeps people—not tools—at the center
    • A focus on outcomes, not novelty

    Central to this balance is trust. Responsible stewardship of student data, clear boundaries around use, and transparency about decision-making are not compliance exercises—they are differentiators in a landscape where trust increasingly shapes choice.

    AI readiness is not about perfection. It is about alignment.

    What This Means for Higher Ed Leadership

    For senior leaders, the question is no longer whether AI will shape online learning. It already is.

    The question is whether institutions will allow that future to emerge unevenly—or design it intentionally.

    What Leadership Looks Like in an AI-Powered Future

    The institutions that lead will:

    • Treat AI as enterprise infrastructure, not a side project
    • Use AI to close support gaps, not widen them
    • Embed AI across the student lifecycle to improve experience and outcomes
    • Prepare students for an AI-enabled workforce with confidence and clarity
    • Differentiate themselves through coherence, not complexity

    Practically, this means starting where impact is greatest—often at key lifecycle moments like onboarding, advising, and student support—while building governance and implementation in parallel. AI readiness is not an IT initiative; it is a cabinet-level responsibility.

    This is not about replacing what makes education human. It is about protecting it—by ensuring systems can scale care, guidance, and opportunity in a moment of constraint.

    Looking Ahead: The Future of Online Learning

    Online learning is no longer peripheral. It is central to institutional resilience, relevance, and reach.

    AI will not determine the future of online education on its own. Leadership will.

    The data is clear. The expectations are rising. The tools are here.

    The opportunity now is to integrate AI in higher education like water—quietly, purposefully, and everywhere it can make learning more accessible, more supportive, and more aligned with the futures students are trying to build.

    For leaders interested in grounding these decisions in research and real learner insight, the Online Learner & Leader Study offers a clear view into where expectations and realities diverge—and where alignment can unlock meaningful impact.

    Frequently Asked Questions About AI in Online Education

    How is AI being used in online education today?

    AI is increasingly used to support online learners through personalized assistance, timely support, and scalable student services. Common applications include course navigation, advising support, technology troubleshooting, and proactive outreach.

    Why is AI important for online student support?

    Online learning increases flexibility but also raises expectations for responsiveness and personalization. AI helps institutions meet these expectations at scale while allowing human teams to focus on moments requiring judgment, empathy, and expertise.

    Does AI replace human interaction in online learning?

    No. When deployed thoughtfully, AI supports and scales human connection rather than replacing it. It handles routine, high-volume needs so faculty and staff can focus on meaningful engagement.

    How does AI prepare students for the future of work?

    AI-enabled online learning helps students build fluency, ethical awareness, and applied experience with AI tools—preparing them to work alongside AI in evolving professional environments.

    What insights does Carnegie’s Online Learner & Leader Study provide?

    The study highlights gaps between learner expectations and institutional capacity, particularly around flexibility, support, and preparedness for an AI-enabled future—offering leaders data-driven guidance for aligning strategy and execution.

    Source link

  • How to make online courses more engaging – Campus Review

    How to make online courses more engaging – Campus Review

    Surveys show the challenge clearly. In New Zealand, students report feeling less engaged online than in traditional classrooms. In the US, 78 per cent of learners say face-to-face courses hold their attention better.

    This pattern appears globally, and universities often identify the same cause: conventional courses are simply too long and dense for digital formats. So how do we make online learning both simpler and more engaging?

    Why engagement drops in online university courses

    Most online courses still mirror traditional academic structures. Long lectures, heavy materials, and limited interaction assume learners will consume content the same way they would in person – but that rarely happens.

    In physical classrooms, engagement comes naturally through conversation, questions, and shared energy. Online, those moments are harder to recreate. Without interaction, digital learners can easily feel isolated or overwhelmed by complicated terms and information overload – and motivation quickly drops.

    The three pillars of engagement

    Fortunately, research and practice point to three proven solutions: microlearning, interaction, and personalization.

    1. Microlearning
    Bite-sized modules help learners absorb information faster and stay focused. Studies show microlearning leads to up to 60 per cent faster completion and 50 per cent higher engagement. Over 70 per cent of Gen Z and millennials prefer short, digestible content over long lectures – and it’s easy to see why. Smaller lessons feel manageable, rewarding, and easy to complete.

    2. Interaction
    Gamified tasks, simulations, and quizzes turn learners from passive viewers into active participants. Studies show that interactive simulations can boost retention by 67 per cent. In some cases, gamified online learning can be even more engaging than traditional classroom discussions because every learner participates equally.

    3. Personalisation
    When training adapts to a learner’s goals or progress, it becomes more meaningful. 78 per cent of teachers confirm that personalisation drives higher motivation and completion rates. It makes learners feel seen, and helps them focus on what really matters to their growth.

    Why short courses are easier to build than ever

    Many institutions want to create short, interactive, and personalised courses but worry it will take too much time or too many resources. That was true in the past, when updating course structure meant redoing everything manually.

    Now, new authoring tools make the process fast and scalable. For instance, iSpring Suite AI helps educators design short courses directly in PowerPoint, complete with quizzes, interactive scenarios, and gamified elements. Its templates and built-in content library significantly cut course creation time down from months to weeks.

    Middlesex University adopted iSpring Suite to increase learner participation through shorter, interactive, and personalised experiences. The result? Over 12,000 quiz views in a single academic year.

    With AI-assisted authoring, educators can also now test and refine ideas in real time – no large teams or budgets required.

    Creating digital courses is as easy as designing a presentation, and you can try it free for two weeks.

    The bottom line

    To keep learners engaged, universities must rethink course design and focus on shorter, interactive, and personalised learning experiences. These formats match how people actually consume information today.

    The next generation of online education won’t just replicate traditional classrooms It will redefine engagement. And with the right tools, creating meaningful digital learning experiences is now faster, simpler, and more accessible than ever.

    Find out how iSpring Suite AI can turn slides into engaging courses in minutes and register for your two week free trial.

    Do you have an idea for a story?
    Email [email protected]

    Source link

  • Online speech is powerful. That’s why Iran is silencing it.

    Online speech is powerful. That’s why Iran is silencing it.

    This essay was originally published in The Washington Examiner on Jan. 14, 2026.

    If the Islamic Republic of Iran has its way, the news you read and the social media you follow won’t show the truth of the shocking events happening right now within the country. A mass internet shutdown orchestrated by the government this month is threatening to silence expression from courageous Iranians, at least 12,000 of whom are now dead at the brutal hands of the state, who are fighting back against their oppressors.

    Protesters took to the streets in late December 2025, furious over out-of-control inflation, empty shelves, and the country’s dire economic situation. Protesters’ outrage is not just limited to the economy, with widespread sentiment among demonstrators against the regime and its conduct more broadly. Some of the rhetoric echoes that from the 2022 protests against the theocratic government after the death of Mahsa Amini, arrested and then killed by police for violating the country’s mandatory religious dress code for women.

    Though censorship on the part of the government has made an exact analysis of the breadth and turnout of the protests difficult, reports indicate these protests are massive — and spreading. Demonstrators took to the streets in every province, reportedly turning out in at least 185 cities.

    Earlier in the protests, authorities promised a $7 monthly payment to residents in an attempt to paper over rising dissent. That effort failed. And the authorities’ tone — and behavior — has since swiftly grown more hostile.

    Attorney General Mohammad Movahedi Azad warned that “charges against all rioters are the same,” regardless of whether they “are individuals who have helped rioters and terrorists in the destruction and damage of public security and property, or mercenaries who have taken up arms and caused fear and terror among citizens.” Judiciary chief Gholamhossein Mohseni-Ejei promised that the state’s response would be “decisive, maximum and without any legal leniency.” Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has likewise made clear that he will not tolerate these challenges to his power, calling the movement terroristic and “mercenaries for foreigners.”

    Punishment for detained protesters may ultimately include the death penalty. These are not idle threats. Iran shocked the global human rights community last year with its spike in executions. By September, authorities had already executed over 1,000 people in 2025.

    Authorities’ ultimate aim is to limit what their subjects can say — and what the rest of the world can know about it.

    And protesters are already paying the price. Authorities arrested at least 10,000 demonstrators, and thousands upon thousands have lost their lives. Doctors report a gruesome scene at hospitals from security forces “shooting from rooftops and terraces” rather than “on the street where people can see and run away.” In northern Iran, a morgue and hospital were so full that the “bodies were placed on top of one another.” And another horrific relic from the Mahsa Amini protests is resurfacing: hundreds of patients in Tehran “with pellets lodged in their eyes,” intentionally blinded by authorities.

    But Iran isn’t just using brute force to escalate the crackdown on its people. It’s also deploying a repressive tactic that’s become increasingly common: suppression of the tools government critics use to broadcast their message on a mass scale. Authorities’ ultimate aim is to limit what their subjects can say — and what the rest of the world can know about it.

    Starting on Jan. 8, the Iranian government enforced a suffocating internet blackout on the country, with a shocking 90% drop in traffic within 30 minutes after the ban began. These blackouts are a favorite tool of the regime; the government enacted blackouts in 2019 and 2022, too, to limit the spread of protesters’ words and also global attention on security forces’ violence against them. But experts warn this latest one represents a “new high-water mark” of online censorship in the country in its breadth and precision.

    Iranian authorities have maintained their own internet access and ability to post on platforms such as X and Telegram while cutting off their people’s ability to do so. This suggests that the blackout is “more sweeping, but also appears to be more fine-tuned, which potentially means Tehran will be able to sustain it for longer.” In some places, authorities have even managed to inhibit access to Elon Musk’s Starlink system. Residents are experiencing a total cutoff of cellphone reception.

    Authoritarians would not work this hard to silence you if they believed you were powerless. This is always the case with censorship.

    Iran isn’t alone in using this tactic against its people. Last year marked the most severe year yet for internet shutdowns, with researchers tracking nearly 300 disruptions and blackouts in dozens of nations. India, Myanmar, Pakistan, and Russia stood among the worst offenders. “As internet access becomes consistently weaponized, restricted, and precarious, we are seeing pervasive patterns of crushing censorship and an urgent need for greater accountability,” Access Now cautioned.

    If the early days of this year are any sign of what’s to come, 2026 may prove to be yet another repressive one. “This might be for the long haul,” Doug Madory, a researcher of internet blackouts, told the Guardian regarding Iran’s censorship. “I’ve been doing this for a while, and I think it’s going to be a big one.”

    The killings, censorship, and shutdowns sweeping Iran are a tragedy and a warning bell. But they also signal a small spark of hope to the world’s oppressed: Authoritarians would not work this hard to silence you if they believed you were powerless. This is always the case with censorship. The more aggressively an authoritarian attempts to crack down, the more it advertises its weakness and its fear.

    The responsibility now rests on the rest of the world to make sure we’re doing all we can to listen — and to fight for the future of a free internet. That future hangs in the balance, with new threats every day, from every sector.

    Authoritarian regimes such as Iran, Russia, and China all exert varying degrees of vast power upon the internet, whether in outright blocks or technologically complex systems that place immense firewalls between their people and the rest of the world.

    But even freer democracies are trying their hand at alarming and illiberal tech regulation, from Australia’s privacy-threatening and speech-chilling social media age-gating to the recent, and ripe for abuse, United Nations Cybercrime Treaty, and the United Kingdom’s byzantine Online Safety Act. Indeed, because the content itself depicts violence — which is simply the nature of what Iran’s people are suffering — the Online Safety Act may even hinder U.K. citizens, young and old alike, from accessing information on the internet about what’s happening in Tehran. Censorship does not make the British safer. It just makes them ill-informed.

    Here in the United States, we are not immune from these threats either, from jawboning to unconstitutional state and federal legislation, which all too often receive support from across the political aisle. That has to change.

    As we advocate a freer future for Iran’s protesters, we also need to protect on a global scale the tools they need to share their story with the rest of the world.

    The future of freedom depends on the internet. We must start acting like it.

    Source link

  • Check Revised Last Date, Eligibility and How to Apply Online at gujcet.gseb.org

    Check Revised Last Date, Eligibility and How to Apply Online at gujcet.gseb.org

    GUJCET 2026 Application Deadline Extended: The Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board (GSEB), Gandhinagar, has extended the application deadline for the Gujarat Common Entrance Test (GUJCET) 2026. According to the official notification, eligible candidates can submit their online applications until January 6, 2026. The application should be filled out on the official websites gseb.org and gujcet.gseb.org.

    The exam is open to students who have either passed or are currently appearing for the HSC examination in the Science stream, including those from Groups A, B, and AB. The GUJCET 2026 exam will be conducted on March 29, 2026, and only those candidates will be considered eligible for the exam whose application form meets the board’s criteria.

    Eligibility

    –Candidates must be citizens of India and have a domicile in Gujarat.

    –Those who wish to take the GUJCET 2026 exam must have passed or be appearing for their class 12 exam or an equivalent qualification.

    –For those applying for Engineering programmes, it is mandatory to have studied Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics as main subjects.

    –For Pharmacy programmes, candidates must have studied either Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics or Physics, Chemistry, and Biology as main subjects.

    Passing criteria

    To be eligible, candidates must have achieved a minimum score of 45% in their class 12 exams. Candidates from reserved categories must have scored at least 40% in their class 12 exams.

    Story continues below this ad

    GUJCET Registration 2026: How to apply

    Step 1: Visit the official GSEB website — gujcet.gseb.org.

    Step 2: On the home page click on the ‘Application for GUJCET 2026’’ link and register.

    Step 3: Enter credentials to log in.

    Step 4: Fill in the application form

    Step 5: Upload the required documents

    Step 6: Make the payment for the application form and download the receipt

    Step 7: Submit the application form.

    Step 8: Download the confirmation page and save it for further use.

    Story continues below this ad

    Application Fees

    The application fee is Rs 350, payable online via SBI ePay using credit card, debit card, or net banking. Applicants may also opt for cash payment at designated SBI branches through the “SBI Branch Payment” option.

    GUJCET serves as the gateway for admission to degree engineering and degree/diploma pharmacy programmes across Gujarat. For more updates on GSEB GUJCET notification, application and more, students can check at education.indianexpess.com.

     

    © IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd

    Source link

  • Online Teaching & Learning Manifesto

    Online Teaching & Learning Manifesto

     Soon, I’ll teach a graduate course centered around teaching and learning online. In my roles as an adjunct instructor in higher education and the Director of Distance Learning for a community college, I live and breathe this modality. One of the assignments my students will be asked to do is to create an “Online Teaching and Learning Manifesto” in which they share their current beliefs. I love the reflective nature of this assignment and thought it was the right time to put mine on (digital) paper. In no particular order, here are some of the tenets that shape my beliefs and reflect how I teach graduate courses asynchronously and how I would like to be taught.

    Design matters. From user experience (UX) to interaction design (IX/ID), every decision made by an online instructor is important. Many students (and instructors) have bitter memories of in-person courses being moved online during 2020’s Emergency Remote Learning. Taking an in-person course and moving it online with no change to design or pedagogy is a disservice to the modality and to the students. Online courses should be constructed to help students easily navigate the interface while interacting with classmates, content, and the instructor. 

    Content knowledge matters. Good teachers never stop learning and are open to learning alongside their students. Using materials that are current and relevant helps students stay engaged and connect course concepts to real-world experiences. I keep a living document throughout the year that contains links, articles, and ideas to implement each time I teach. Updating content, checking links, and being mindful of accessibility every time a course runs should be the norm for all teachers. 

    Passion matters. Each semester, I give an anonymous survey to my students asking for feedback on design, pedagogy, and content. Regularly, I receive comments about how well the course is designed and how my passion for technology in education comes through. These are asynchronous courses- yet my passion for my subject matter still comes through to my students. Having a sense of curiosity and wonder, along with continuous learning on my own and with my students, helps them feel connected to the content. Some begin to develop passions of their own.

    Multimodal content is important. We live in a world where snackable content and short attention spans are the norm. This isn’t a judgment or an excuse; it’s our reality. To meet our students where they are (and how they learn), we need to provide content that is tactile, visual, auditory, and more. In 2025, this isn’t difficult to do, and we owe it to our students to meet them where they are, not where we are.

    Building community is important. I am a strong believer in Participant Pedagogy. I am not the ‘keeper of all knowledge’ for my students. I want to learn with them and from them! I help my students take ownership of their learning by providing a safe space for them to share ideas, express wonderings, and connect with classmates, all while adding their own personal touch. My students blog instead of using our LMS discussion platform. Expressing themselves and responding to classmates in this format makes them feel more connected to each other, as if they are having casual conversations instead of meeting a course requirement.

    Learner agency is important. In education, there is no such thing as ‘one size fits all!’ This is another reason why multimodal content is so important. Students not only learn in complex, individual ways but should have the ability to demonstrate this learning through multiple avenues. I offer choice in assignments and allow students to tailor work to fit their current or intended career paths.

    This isn’t a complete list of my beliefs, and I didn’t arrive here overnight. Throughout my time in education, I’ve had to learn to move away from being the ‘center of attention’ in my courses and acting more in the interest of policy than in individuals. I’m continuing to practice showing more grace and assuming positive intent. 

    I’m still a work in progress- and I always hope to be.

    P.S. I inserted my manifesto into NotebookLM and asked it to generate two infographics based on my writing. The results are below!

    A vertical infographic created by NotebookLM based on my manifesto text.



    Source link

  • Unique Data About the Online Student Experience

    Unique Data About the Online Student Experience

    The Priorities Survey for Online Learners (PSOL) is the instrument in the Satisfaction-Priorities Survey family that best reflects the unique experiences of students in online two-year and four-year programs, including at the graduate level. The Priorities Survey for Online Learners provides the perspectives of online students aside external national benchmarks to inform decision-making for 150 institutions across the country. 

    It is critical to understand the full experience of online students who may have limited interactions with the institution, and the Priorities Survey for Online Learners allows leadership to know what matters to their online students in both their academic and non-academic interactions. Students respond on items related to instructional, enrollment, academic and enrollment services along with their general perceptions of the institution. This broad view provides direction to campus leaders to be able to best serve what may be a growing population for the institution. Online students indicate a level of importance and satisfaction with just over two dozen items.

    The combination of satisfaction and importance scores identifies strengths (areas of high importance and high satisfaction) to be celebrated and challenges (areas of high importance and low satisfaction) to be improved. Along with the external national comparison data specific to online students published annually, institutions can compare their students’ perceptions internally over time with annual or every-other-year administrations. In addition, the provided reporting gives institutions the opportunity to review their data for demographic subpopulations to focus initiatives appropriately. 

    All students enrolled in online programs, undergraduate and graduate alike, can be invited to complete the Priorities Survey for Online Learners. Like the Student Satisfaction Inventory and the Adult Student Priorities Survey (the other survey instruments in the Satisfaction-Priorities family), the data gathered by the survey can support multiple initiatives on campus including to inform student success efforts, to provide the student voice for strategic planning, to document priorities for accreditation purposes, and to highlight positive messaging for recruitment activities. Student satisfaction has been positively linked with higher individual student retention and higher institutional graduation rates, getting right to the heart of higher education student success. 

    “Having an independent organization with a well-known brand provide the student perspective is hugely important to us. The data is valued by our Board of directors and by our accrediting organizations. It shows how we are performing when it comes to institutions that are similar to us,” said Ada Uche, director of assessment and institutional effectiveness at Colorado Technical University (CO) about their regular administration of the Priorities Survey for Online Learners. 

    Learn more about best practices for administering the Priorities Survey for Online Learners at your institution, which can be done any time during the academic year on the institutions’ timeline.

    Ask for a complimentary consultation with our student success experts

    What is your best approach to increasing student retention and completion? Our experts can help you identify roadblocks to student persistence and maximize student progression. Reach out to set up a time to talk.

    Request now

    Source link

  • Committing to online learners – Campus Review

    Committing to online learners – Campus Review

    A panel of experts, led by University of Technology Sydney deputy-vice-chancellor Kylie Readman, discussed the importance of online learning in the latest episode of HEDx.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • You can’t eliminate real-world violence by suing over online speech

    You can’t eliminate real-world violence by suing over online speech

    With so much of our national conversation taking place online, there’s an almost reflexive tendency to search for online causes — and online solutions — when tragedy strikes in the physical world. The murder of Charlie Kirk was no exception. Almost immediately, many (some in good faith, and others decidedly less so) began to postulate about the role played by online rhetoric and polarization.

    Taking the stage at Utah Valley University to discuss political violence last week, Sens. Mark Kelly and John Curtis shared the view that social media platforms are fueling “radicalization” and violence through their content-recommendation algorithms. And they previewed their proposed solution: a bill that would strip platforms of Section 230 protections whenever their algorithms “amplify content that caused harm.”

    This week, the senators unveiled the Algorithm Accountability Act. In a nutshell, the bill would require social media platforms to “exercise reasonable care” to prevent their algorithms from contributing to foreseeable bodily injury or death, whether the user is the victim or the perpetrator. A platform that fails to do so would lose Section 230’s critical protection against being treated as the publisher of user-generated content — and injured parties could sue the platform for violating this “duty of care.”

    The debate over algorithmic content recommendation has been going on for years. Lower courts have almost universally held that Section 230 immunizes social media platforms from lawsuits claiming that algorithmic recommendation of harmful content contributed to terrorist attacks, mass shootings, and racist attacks. When faced with the question in 2023, the Supreme Court declined to rule on the scope of Section 230 — opting instead to hold the claims of algorithmic aiding and abetting at issue would not survive either way.

    Forcing social media platforms to do the dirty work of censorship on pain of expensive litigation and expansive liability is no less offensive to the First Amendment than a direct government speech regulation.

    But there’s an important question that usually gets lost in the heated debate over Section 230: Would such lawsuits be viable even if they could be brought?

    In a Wall Street Journal op-ed making the case for his bill, Sen. Curtis wrote, “We hold pharmaceutical companies accountable when their products cause injury. There is no reason Big Tech should be treated differently.”

    At first blush, this argument has an instinctive appeal. But it ultimately dooms itself because there is a reason to treat social media platforms differently. That reason is the First Amendment, which enshrines a constitutional right to free speech — a protection not shared by prescription drugs.

    Perhaps anticipating this point, Sen. Curtis argues that the Algorithm Accountability Act poses no threat to free speech: “Free speech means you can say what you want in the digital town square. Social-media companies host that town square, but algorithms rearrange it.” But free speech doesn’t only protect users’ right to post online free of government censorship; it also protects the editorial decisions of those that host those posts — including algorithmic “rearranging,” to use the senator’s phrase. As the Supreme Court recently affirmed in Moody v. NetChoice:

    When the platforms use their Standards and Guidelines to decide which third-party content those feeds will display, or how the display will be ordered and organized, they are making expressive choices. And because that is true, they receive First Amendment protection.

    The “rearranging” of speech is just as protected as the speech itself, as when a newspaper decides which stories to print on the front page and which letters to the editor to publish. That is no less true for social media platforms. In fact, the term “content-recommendation algorithm” itself points to its expressive nature. Recommending something is a message — “I think you would find this interesting.”

    The Moody Court also acknowledged the expressive nature of arranging online content (emphasis added): “Deciding on the third-party speech that will be included in or excluded from a compilation — and then organizing and presenting the included items — is expressive activity of its own.” Similarly, while dismissing exactly the kind of case the Algorithm Accountability Act would enable, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held this past February: “Facebook’s decision[s] to recommend certain third-party content to specific users . . . are traditional editorial functions of publishers, notwithstanding the various methods they use in performing” them.

    The NO FAKES Act is a real threat to free expression

    In Congress, the “NO FAKES” bill claims to promise deepfake fixes, but their restrictions on expression would chill news, history, art, and everyday speech.


    Read More

    So the First Amendment is at least implicated when Congress institutes “accountability” for a platform’s arrangement and presentation of user-generated content, unlike with pharmaceutical safety regulations. But does it prohibit Congress from imposing the kind of liability the Algorithm Accountability Act creates?

    Yes. Two well-established principles explain why.

    First: As the Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear, imposing civil liability for protected speech raises serious First Amendment concerns.

    Second: Except for the exceedingly narrow category of incitement — where the speaker intended to spur imminent unlawful action by saying something that was likely to cause such action — the First Amendment demands that we hold the wrongdoer accountable for their own conduct, not the people whose words they may have encountered along the way.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concisely explained why these principles preclude liability for “negligently” conveying “harmful” ideas:

    If the shield of the first amendment can be eliminated by providing after publication that an article discussing a dangerous idea negligently helped bring about a real injury simply because the idea can be identified as ‘bad,’ all free speech becomes threatened.

    In other words, faced with a broad, unmeetable duty to anticipate and prevent ideas from causing harm, media would be chilled into publishing, broadcasting, or distributing only the safest and most anodyne material to avoid the risk of unpredictable liability.

    For this reason, courts have — for nearly a century — steadfastly refused to impose a duty of care to prevent harms from speech. A few noteworthy examples are illustrative:

    • Dismissing a lawsuit alleging that CBS’ television programming desensitized a child to violence and led him to shoot and kill his elderly neighbor, one federal court wrote of the duty of care sought by the plaintiffs:

    The impositions pregnant in such a standard are awesome to consider . . . Indeed, it is implicit in the plaintiffs’ demand for a new duty standard, that such a claim should exist for an untoward reaction on the part of any ‘susceptible’ person. The imposition of such a generally undefined and undefinable duty would be an unconstitutional exercise by this Court in any event.

    • In a case brought by the victim of a gruesome attack alleging that NBC knew of studies on child violence putting them on notice that some viewers might imitate violence portrayed on screen, the court ruled:

    [T]he chilling effect of permitting negligence actions for a television broadcast is obvious. . . . The deterrent effect of subjecting [them] to negligence liability because of their programming choices would lead to self-censorship which would dampen the vigor and limit the variety of public debate.

    • Affirming dismissal of a lawsuit alleging that Ozzy Osbourne’s Suicide Solution caused a minor to kill himself, the court noted the profound chilling effect such liability would cause:

    [I]t is simply not acceptable to a free and democratic society to impose a duty upon performing artists to limit and restrict the dissemination of ideas in artistic speech which may adversely affect emotionally troubled individuals. Such a burden would quickly have the effect of reducing and limiting artistic expression to only the broadest standard of taste and acceptance and the lowest level of offense, provocation and controversy.

    • When the family of a teacher killed in a school shooting sued makers and distributors of violent video games and movies, the court rejected the premise of the suit:

    Given the First Amendment values at stake, the magnitude of the burden that Plaintiffs seek to impose on the Video Game and Movie Defendants is daunting. Furthermore, the practical consequences of such liability are unworkable. Plaintiffs would essentially obligate these Defendants, indeed all speakers, to anticipate and prevent the idiosyncratic, violent reactions of unidentified, vulnerable individuals to their creative works.

    In his op-ed, Sen. Curtis wrote, “The problem isn’t what users say, but how algorithms shape and weaponize it.” But the “problem” this bill seeks to remedy very much is what users say. A content recommendation algorithm in isolation can’t cause any harm; it’s the recommendation of certain kinds of content (e.g., radicalizing, polarizing, etc.) that the bill seeks to stymie.

    And that content is overwhelmingly protected by the First Amendment, regardless of whether the posts might, individually or in the aggregate, cause an individual to commit violence. When the City of Indianapolis created remedies for people who viewed pornography, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected the municipality’s justification that pornography “perpetuate[s] subordination” and leads to cognizable societal and personal harms:

    [T]his simply demonstrates the power of pornography as speech. All of these unhappy effects depend on mental intermediation. Pornography affects how people see the world, their fellows, and social relations. If pornography is what pornography does, so is other speech.

    [ . . . ]

    Racial bigotry, anti-semitism, violence on television, reporters’ biases — these and many more influence the culture and shape our socialization. None is directly answerable by more speech, unless that speech too finds its place in the popular culture. Yet all is protected as speech, however insidious. Any other answer leaves the government in control of all of the institutions of culture, the great censor and director of which thoughts are good for us.

    And that’s why the Algorithm Accountability Act also threatens users’ expressive rights. There’s simply no reliable way to predict whether any given post might, somewhere down the line, factor into someone else’s independent decision to commit violence — especially at the scale of modern social media. Faced with liability for guessing wrong, platforms will effectively have two realistic choices: aggressively re-engineer their algorithms to bury anything that could possibly be deemed divisive (and therefore risky), or — far more likely — simply ban all such content entirely. Either road leads to the same place: a shrunken public square where whole neighborhoods of protected speech have been bulldozed.


    WATCH VIDEO: A warning label on social media? | So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast

    “What a State may not constitutionally bring about by means of a criminal statute,” the Supreme Court famously wrote in New York Times v. Sullivan, “is likewise beyond the reach of its civil law.” Forcing social media platforms to do the dirty work of censorship on pain of expensive litigation and expansive liability is no less offensive to the First Amendment than a direct government speech regulation.

    Political violence is a real and pressing problem. But history has already taught us that trying to scrub away every potential downstream harm of speech is a dead end. And a system of free speech requires us to abstain from the temptation of trying in the first place.

    Source link

  • A NEST for Online Learning: Supporting Students in Virtual Education – Faculty Focus

    A NEST for Online Learning: Supporting Students in Virtual Education – Faculty Focus

    Source link