Tag: promote

  • How educators can use Gen AI to promote inclusion and widen access

    How educators can use Gen AI to promote inclusion and widen access

    by Eleni Meletiadou

    Introduction

    Higher education faces a pivotal moment as Generative AI becomes increasingly embedded within academic practice. While AI technologies offer the potential to personalize learning, streamline processes, and expand access, they also risk exacerbating existing inequalities if not intentionally aligned with inclusive values. Building on our QAA-funded project outputs, this blog outlines a strategic framework for deploying AI to foster inclusion, equity, and ethical responsibility in higher education.

    The digital divide and GenAI

    Extensive research shows that students from marginalized backgrounds often face barriers in accessing digital tools, digital literacy training, and peer networks essential for technological confidence. GenAI exacerbates this divide, demanding not only infrastructure (devices, subscriptions, internet access) but also critical AI literacy. According to previous research, students with higher AI competence outperform peers academically, deepening outcome disparities.

    However, the challenge is not merely technological; it is social and structural. WP (Widening Participation) students often remain outside informal digital learning communities where GenAI tools are introduced and shared. Without intervention, GenAI risks becoming a “hidden curriculum” advantage for already-privileged groups.

    A framework for inclusive GenAI adoption

    Our QAA-funded “Framework for Educators” proposes five interrelated principles to guide ethical, inclusive AI integration:

    • Understanding and Awareness Foundational AI literacy must be prioritized. Awareness campaigns showcasing real-world inclusive uses of AI (eg Otter.ai for students with hearing impairments) and tiered learning tracks from beginner to advanced levels ensure all students can access, understand, and critically engage with GenAI tools.
    • Inclusive Collaboration GenAI should be used to foster diverse collaboration, not reinforce existing hierarchies. Tools like Miro and DeepL can support multilingual and neurodiverse team interactions, while AI-powered task management (eg Notion AI) ensures equitable participation. Embedding AI-driven teamwork protocols into coursework can normalize inclusive digital collaboration.
    • Skill Development Higher-order cognitive skills must remain at the heart of AI use. Assignments that require evaluating AI outputs for bias, simulating ethical dilemmas, and creatively applying AI for social good nurture critical thinking, problem-solving, and ethical awareness.
    • Access to Resources Infrastructure equity is critical. Universities must provide free or subsidized access to key AI tools (eg Grammarly, ReadSpeaker), establish Digital Accessibility Centers, and proactively support economically disadvantaged students.
    • Ethical Responsibility Critical AI literacy must include an ethical dimension. Courses on AI ethics, student-led policy drafting workshops, and institutional AI Ethics Committees empower students to engage responsibly with AI technologies.

    Implementation strategies

    To operationalize the framework, a phased implementation plan is recommended:

    • Phase 1: Needs assessment and foundational AI workshops (0–3 months).
    • Phase 2: Pilot inclusive collaboration models and adaptive learning environments (3–9 months).
    • Phase 3: Scale successful practices, establish Ethics and Accessibility Hubs (9–24 months).

    Key success metrics include increased AI literacy rates, participation from underrepresented groups, enhanced group project equity, and demonstrated critical thinking skill growth.

    Discussion: opportunities and risks

    Without inclusive design, GenAI could deepen educational inequalities, as recent research warns. Students without access to GenAI resources or social capital will be disadvantaged both academically and professionally. Furthermore, impersonal AI-driven learning environments may weaken students’ sense of belonging, exacerbating mental health challenges.

    Conversely, intentional GenAI integration offers powerful opportunities. AI can personalize support for students with diverse learning needs, extend access to remote or rural learners, and reduce administrative burdens on staff – freeing them to focus on high-impact, relational work such as mentoring.

    Conclusion

    The future of inclusive higher education depends on whether GenAI is adopted with a clear commitment to equity and social justice. As our QAA project outputs demonstrate, the challenge is not merely technological but ethical and pedagogical. Institutions must move beyond access alone, embedding critical AI literacy, equitable resource distribution, community-building, and ethical responsibility into every stage of AI adoption.

    Generative AI will not close the digital divide on its own. It is our pedagogical choices, strategic designs, and values-driven implementations that will determine whether the AI-driven university of the future is one of exclusion – or transformation.

    This blog is based on the recent outputs from our QAA-funded project entitled: “Using AI to promote education for sustainable development and widen access to digital skills”

    Dr Eleni Meletiadou is an Associate Professor (Teaching) at London Metropolitan University  specialising in Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI), AI, inclusive digital pedagogy, and multilingual education. She leads the Education for Social Justice and Sustainable Learning and Development (RILEAS) and the Gender Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (GEDI) Research Groups. Dr Meletiadou’s work, recognised with the British Academy of Management Education Practice Award (2023), focuses on transforming higher education curricula to promote equitable access, sustainability, and wellbeing. With over 15 years of international experience across 35 countries, she has led numerous projects in inclusive assessment and AI-enhanced learning. She is a Principal Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and serves on several editorial boards. Her research interests include organisational change, intercultural communication, gender equity, and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). She actively contributes to global efforts in making education more inclusive and future-ready. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-eleni-meletiadou/

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Most Students Say Colleges Promote Free Speech

    Most Students Say Colleges Promote Free Speech

    While freedom of speech remains a hot-button issue in higher ed, most undergraduates feel like they’re free to speak their minds on campus, according to a new report by the Lumina Foundation and Gallup.

    The report, released Tuesday, found that roughly three-quarters of students earning bachelor’s degrees believe their college does an “excellent” or “good” job of fostering free speech, including 73 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of Democrats. More than two-thirds of students of all races, genders and major political parties report feeling like they belong on campus, and at least three-quarters say they feel respected by faculty members.

    But some topics are more easily discussed than others. Most students feel like they can freely discuss race (66 percent), gender and sexual orientation (67 percent), and religion (62 percent). Discussing the Israel-Hamas war appears to be more fraught. Half of students report that pro-Israel views are welcome on campus, while 57 percent say the same of pro-Palestinian views. Students are also divided on how campuses have handled protests—a little over half, 54 percent, described their campus as doing an “excellent” or “good” job responding to protests and other disruptions.

    The report also showed that students are more likely to believe liberal views are welcome on campus than conservative views, 67 percent and 53 percent respectively. But most Democratic (78 percent), Republican (69 percent) and Independent students (73 percent) individually report that they can discuss their views openly on campus.

    “At a time when public discourse often questions whether free speech is still alive on college campuses, students are telling us a more hopeful story,” Courtney Brown, Lumina’s vice president of impact and planning, said in a news release. “It’s a powerful reminder that, despite the national narrative of polarization, many campuses are doing what higher education is meant to do: foster open dialogue, encourage learning and create a sense of belonging.”

    Source link

  • Encouraging Families to Promote Racial Identity and Pride in Black and Other Minoritized Children

    Encouraging Families to Promote Racial Identity and Pride in Black and Other Minoritized Children

    Dr. Donna Y. FordNow more than ever, race has become salient in politics, higher education, P-12, and the workforce, especially in this anti-DEI era. It is not uncommon for Black and other minoritized individuals to have feelings of anxiety about discussions around race, particularly for families (e.g., parents, caregivers, guardians, etc.). Having “the talk” about racism and bias has been a rite of passage for many Black children and youth in which their parents/caregivers have to discuss the intersection of race and U.S. societal issues such as how to interact with law enforcement because navigating these circumstances can easily lead to imprisonment or a life-or-death situation. Trauma is undeniable. 

    Keeping “the talk” at the forefront of this op-ed, it is imperative that families have the resources to properly discuss, show, and engage their children in active conversation about race relations so Black and other minoritized youth and families can respond appropriately, particularly in proactive ways. Moreover, families must continue to instill confidence and pride in racial identity. To set the tone, we are eager to share this Sesame Street video “Elijah Explains Race to His Son, Wes, and Elmo.”

    Children are Ready, Caregivers (and Educators) Must Be Too

    Here is an overview from Traci Baxley. Research shows that children form race-related ideas long before they can verbalize about race and racism. It may surprise readers to know that racial awareness begins in infancy. Regardless of their age, all children get clues from their experiences (inside and outside of home) to make sense of the world. Therefore, early, intentional/proactive, honest, and age-appropriate conversations are important for promoting racial identity and pride. Here is a developmental look at children’s understanding.

    •Infants show a preference for the faces of people from their own racial group as early as six months. Babies gaze longer and show happy expressions more frequently with people who look like them. Start early by introducing children to people who don’t look like them, and let children see pictures of people with a variety of skin tones and facial features.

    •Toddlers use social cues such as body language and facial expressions to make sense of their world. They watch the way adults respond to differences in people and mimic our attitudes and racial biases without us even realizing it. As young as three, toddlers associate some racial groups with negative traits and use these associations to develop their own understanding about the world/environment around them. As caregivers, we need to be aware of our own biases and reactions to people whose skin color is different. Using books, videos, and music that highlight and celebrate differences.

    •Preschoolers become even more aware of differences such as skin color and hair texture. They are increasingly observant of how others are similar and different from them. Toddlers compare and group/categorize people by race. Note that some children also begin to show a “pro-white” bias. Thus, they may begin to include or exclude playmates on the basis of race. Furthermore, minoritized children may associate White with wealth, power, and/or beauty.

    Dr. Erik M. HinesDr. Erik M. Hines•Kindergartners and first graders are beginning to notice that race is often a taboo topic – the proverbial elephant in the room. They may continue to include and exclude peers based on race. They are more aware of disturbing news, and they often ask questions about it. This is a timely opportunity to have meaningful conversations about race and racism.

    In summary, as soon as children can ask race-based questions and make comments, support their natural curiosity by answering them, even the most difficult ones.  Let them know that it’s fine/not wrong to notice skin color and to talk about race. We concur with Baxley that “the idea is to make differences normal and good!”  We are uncomfortable and not prepared, our children will notice, and experience discomfort. It will be difficult to promote racial understanding and pride, which is so needed for minoritized children in these turbulent times.

    A Final Word

    We are staunch advocates of appreciating Black culture and its legacy of innovation, education, and significant contributions to the history of the United States. Broaching race with children is imperative to ensure that they have the confidence and belief in themselves with no limitations to their talents, creativity, brilliance and genius. These conversations around race not only prepares our youth to thrive but it also normalizes how conversations on race can be proactive as opposed to reactive.

     Dr. Donna Y. Ford is Distinguished Professor of Education and Human Ecology at The Ohio State University.

    Dr. Erik M. Hines is Professor of Counseling in the College of Education and Human Development at George Mason University.

    Dr. Tanya J. Middleton is a Clinical Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Studies at The Ohio State University. 

    Source link

  • Humane societies are thoughtful about how to promote equality, diversity and inclusion

    Humane societies are thoughtful about how to promote equality, diversity and inclusion

    We all knew that the Trump administration’s attacks on diversity, equality and inclusion would have ramifications in the UK, but we probably didn’t expect it to show up quite so quickly.

    This Saturday’s lead in The Times warned that – in tacit contrast to President Trump’s apparent intention that all federal funding should cease to organisations or projects that champion inclusion – UK universities could now lose public money if they do not.

    This refers, of course, to the ongoing consultation on the people, culture and environment measure in the 2029 Research Excellence Framework. Back in 2023, our tongues firmly in our cheeks, we held a panel session at our Festival of HE titled “Has REF gone woke?” That joke no longer looks so funny.

    DK has explained elsewhere on the site exactly what’s wrong with the claims about the REF in The Times, should you need ammunition to fire over the dinner party table. We should hardly be surprised by now to see half truths and scare tactics mobilised in this particular culture war. Its proponents are not in the main motivated by a concern for evidence as by animus against a particular set of values which it suits them to project as being in opposition to [delete as appropriate] common sense/free market economics/honest working people/standards in public services/The Meritocracy.

    While the spectacle in the US of wealthy white men openly deploying their enormous power against those who are minoritised and disenfranchised is truly horrifying, FT science columnist Anjana Ahuja last week pointed to a larger concern: that scientists, funders and research organisations would quietly divest from equality, diversity and inclusion initiatives, or deprioritise vital research into differential experiences of or outcomes from public health, provision of public services, justice, or education, consciously or unconsciously orienting the scientific endeavour towards the locus of power rather than towards truth or justice. Any such reorientation would have a serious impact, both through loss of talent in research, and loss of knowledge that could improve, and save, many lives.

    The politics in the UK

    You might feel that despite the tendency of part of the UK media to promulgate the culture wars, UK research is unlikely to experience anything like as serious as the US. And that is probably correct in the short term, given the current flavour of the Westminster and devolved governments. The temptation when there is a lot of noise but without much real likelihood of action, is to stay quiet, and wait for the noise to pass. That would be a mistake.

    Despite the size of the Labour government’s majority, the current political battle – including the Labour Party – is on the populist right. The Conservatives under opposition leader Kemi Badenoch are locked in a struggle with Reform, which is currently not only beating the Tories in the polls, but is also neck and neck with Labour as a chunk of (socially, if not necessarily economically) conservative voters become impatient with Labour but are not ready to turn back to the big-C Conservatives.

    None of this should be an immediate cause for concern – the next election is a long way off, and Farage remains a good distance from No 10. But it does appear to mean, unfortunately, that political discourse tends to gravitate to the populist right, as it is these potential Reform voters both parties hope to woo back. Badenoch – whose anti-woke credentials formed part of her appeal to Tory members – has called diversity and inclusion work “woke indoctrination.” Labour has been adamant on the need to cut net migration, a perennial Reform issue, despite the likely impact on its stated priority of economic growth. The next Westminster election may yet be fought on an “anti-woke” platform. And Labour may be a one-term government, as Biden was in the US.

    What could the response be?

    An instance last week in which Secretary of State for Health Wes Streeting was asked about diversity, equality and inclusion activity in the NHS gives a sense of the issues higher education institutions will be working through in this space. Streeting’s measured answer acknowledged the cost of such activity in a time of economic constraint but robustly defended the importance of, for example, anti-racist bullying and harassment work in the NHS. He added that on occasion some “daft things” have been done in the name of equality, diversity and inclusion – the part of his answer which inevitably formed the bulk of media headlines.

    On equality, diversity and inclusion there is a principle at stake and a “political fight” to be had, in Streeting’s words, in which organisations that operate in the public interest must continue to stand up for the idea that any just and humane society makes a meaningful effort to address systemic and structural inequality no matter the economic environment or the political backlash.

    But nor should external pressures dissuade the academic and scientific community, higher education institutions or students’ unions, from examining the evidence, and keeping the public conversation open about how such efforts are best accomplished in practice.

    The culture wars thrive on category slippage between principle and practice – when one or two examples of specific initiatives are held to stand for all forms of equality and inclusion work. Anyone may have doubts about the merits of any given approach, and the best way to engage with those doubts is through evidence and good-faith discussion. Higher education has a responsibility not simply to protect and defend its own practice but to subject equality, diversity and inclusion practice to thoughtful scrutiny in the interests of promoting that principle – to contribute to making the public conversation as informed as possible.

    Research England, in its extended consultation and discussion of its people, culture and environment measure, and its mobilisation of evidence, is therefore a shining exemplar of good practice. Inevitably some will feel that the resultant system puts too much weight on equality, while others will wish that the funding mechanisms would lean in harder.

    What is not really arguable is that our collective approach to the management of research and education – what is prioritised, who is supported – has real-world consequences that shape the future of our society. To suggest that it’s wrong for evidenced consideration of how equality, diversity, and inclusion manifests in the funding mechanisms that drive those decisions is simply absurd.

    Source link

  • Colleges promote media literacy skills for students

    Colleges promote media literacy skills for students

    Young people today spend a large amount of time online, with a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report noting teens ages 12 to 17 had four or more hours of daily screen time during July 2021 to December 2023.

    This digital exposure can impact teens’ mental health, according to Pew Research, with four in 10 young people saying they’re anxious when they don’t have their smartphones and 39 percent saying they have cut back their time on social media. But online presences can also impact how individuals process information, as well as their ability to distinguish between news, advertisement, opinion and entertainment.

    A December Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found seven out of 10 of college students would rate their current level of media literacy as somewhat or very high, but they consider their college peers’ literacy less highly, with only 32 percent rating students as a whole as somewhat or very highly media literate.

    A majority of students (62 percent) also indicate they are at least moderately concerned about the spread of misinformation among their college peers, with 26 percent saying their concern was very high.

    To address students’ digital literacy, colleges and universities can provide education and support in a variety of ways. The greatest share of Student Voice respondents (35 percent) say colleges and universities should create digital resources to learn about media literacy. But few institutions offer this kind of service or refer students to relevant resources for self-education.

    Methodology

    Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab polled 1,026 students at 181 two- and four-year institutions from Dec. 19 to 23. The margin of error is 3 percent. Explore the findings yourself  here, here and here.

    What is media literacy? Media literacy, as defined in the survey, is the ability or skills to critically analyze for accuracy, credibility or evidence of bias in the content created and consumed in sources including radio, television, the internet and social media.

    A majority of survey respondents indicate they use at least one measure regularly to check the accuracy of information they’re receiving, including thinking critically about the message delivered, analyzing the source’s perspective or bias, verifying information with other sources, or pausing to check information before sharing with others.

    A missing resource: While there are many groups that offer digital resources or online curriculum for teachers, particularly in the K-12 space, less common are self-guided digital resources tailored to young people in higher education.

    “Create digital resources for students” was the No. 1 response across respondent groups and characteristics and was even more popular among community college respondents (38 percent) and adult learners (42 percent), which may highlight students’ preferences for learning outside the classroom, particularly for those who may be employed or caregivers.

    Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism offers a free self-directed media literacy course that includes webinars with journalism and media experts, as well as exercises for reflection. Similarly, Baylor University’s library offers a microcourse, lasting 10 minutes, that can be embedded into Canvas and that awards students a badge upon completion.

    The University of North Carolina at Charlotte provides a collection of resources on a Respectful Conversation website that includes information on free expression, media literacy, constructive dialogue and critical thinking. On this website, users can also identify online classes, many of which are free, that provide an overview or a deeper level look at additional topics such as misinformation and deepfakes.

    The American Library Association has a project, Media Literacy Education in Libraries for Adult Audiences, that is designed to assist libraries in their work to improve media literacy skills among adults in the community. The project includes webinars, a resource guide for practitioners.

    Does your college or university have a self-guided digital resource for students to engage in media literacy education? Tell us more.

    Source link