Tag: questions

  • 3 Questions for MIT’s Luke Hobson

    3 Questions for MIT’s Luke Hobson

    Luke Hobson does it all. He is not only assistant director of instructional design for MIT xPRO and a lecturer at the University of Miami’s School of Education and Human Development, but Luke also writes books, hosts a podcast, blogs, publishes a newsletter, creates videos on YouTube and seems to know everyone in our field.

    I asked if Luke would be willing to step away from all these commitments and projects to answer my questions, and he graciously agreed.

    Q: How did your career progress from an individual learning design contributor to advancing into a leadership role at your institution, as well as a thought leader and creator in the learning, technology and design space? What advice do you have for others in our field looking to increase their campus and national impact?

    A: I have a bit of an obsession within our field. I still find it remarkable that, for a living, I get to care about designing learning experiences. Funny enough, I had no idea this field even existed until I met an instructional designer back in 2013. As soon as I learned that this was a career, I went all in. That obsessive mentality stayed with me when I became a contributor at Northeastern University and later at MIT. I wanted to find every possible way to create the most effective and meaningful kinds of courses and programs.

    Through all of my seldom successes and many, many failures, I learned a thing or two along the way, and I decided to start sharing these stories online. It began with answering questions in Facebook groups, which eventually turned into a blog, a podcast, a YouTube channel, a book and more. What I discovered through sharing these moments is that I developed a love for teaching about instructional design. This led me to pursue a leadership role at MIT and to build a team of instructional designers. It also led me to teach in the University of Miami’s online Ed.D. program. Being able to teach future leaders in learning science has been an incredibly rewarding experience.

    The best piece of advice I can give is to share. Share everything. Share your wins. Share your losses. Share your moments of glory. Share the times you fall flat on your face. People appreciate transparency. That’s how I built my brand online and my presence at MIT. I didn’t realize how much of an impact I was having until multiple faculty members mentioned following me on LinkedIn and asked how they could hire an instructional designer for their team. It’s been amazing to see the growth of IDs here from when I first started to now.

    Another step you can take today is to build your network. Dig the well before you’re thirsty. You mentioned how it seems like I know everyone in our field and I chuckled, thinking back to when I didn’t know a soul in instructional design. The pandemic opened my eyes: Everyone was stuck at home and on Zoom, so I took advantage of that. I reached out to people on LinkedIn for virtual coffee chats, invited them on my podcast, gave webinars for universities and companies, and more. All of this was to get to know people. If you want to make an impact, you can’t do it alone. You need the support of others, and there is no better community than the learning nerds.

    Q: Your Ed.D. is in educational leadership. Please tell us about your program and how completing a terminal degree in this field has impacted your career. For our community of nonfaculty educators—learning nerds—what are your recommendations around pursuing a doctorate while working?

    A: I’m thankful that I had a truly fantastic Ed.D. experience. I have to give all the credit in the world to Dr. Peg Ford for what she built at Southern New Hampshire University. I was on the fence about pursuing this degree, but after speaking with current students at the time, I felt like it was the right place for me. The program was built on a core foundation of a cohort-based model and forging strong bonds with fellow members. Dr. Ford understood the perils and curve balls life throws your way when you’re pursuing a doctorate and how easily those challenges can land you in A.B.D. limbo. It didn’t take long to see she was absolutely right. Our cohort faced major life events—losing loved ones, taking on new roles, having children, relocating to new cities and more. Through it all, we stuck together.

    What I appreciated most about my Ed.D. in educational leadership was the range of educators I met. From business professors to special education teachers, from deans to superintendents, I had the opportunity to hear a wide variety of perspectives on education and what it means to support students and fellow educators. I was introduced to the good, the bad and the ugly. By taking in all of those voices, I was able to apply their teachings and life lessons to my own learning experiences. That program shaped me into the educator I am today.

    What I find most surprising is that I now teach in an online Ed.D. program in applied learning sciences at the University of Miami. I often share with my students the same message about sticking together as a cohort and how those bonds will carry them through. While Dr. Ford is no longer associated with SNHU’s program, my dissertation chair, Dr. Audrey Rodgers, is now leading it. I recently had the chance to speak with current students, and it’s amazing to see how much the program has grown since I graduated.

    Here’s what I wish I knew before pursuing a doctorate: It’s absolutely possible to do, but it will be the hardest thing you’ve ever done. There’s a reason why only a small fraction of the population holds the title of doctor. No matter which school you attend, it’s going to be difficult. But in my opinion, it’s worth it. I knew I wanted to work in academia, and after speaking with a few colleagues, they all advised me to go back to grad school. Every role I wanted in the future required either an Ed.D. or a Ph.D., so it was the logical choice.

    With all that said, the first step in your journey as a working professional should be finding the right program for your needs. Not all programs are created equal. After all, you’re about to commit at least three to seven years of your life to this institution, so it’s important to choose wisely. Do your due diligence. Contact the institution and ask as many questions as you want. Watch program webinars. Find currently enrolled students on LinkedIn and ask for a quick chat about their experience. Connect with faculty and administrators. Read online reviews. Go the extra mile before starting this journey.

    Once you’ve found the right program for your goals, my best advice is to set up a system that works for your life. Your schedule has to shift to make space for classwork, research, lectures, readings and everything else. For me, this meant starting my days earlier. I found myself constantly distracted during the day, so I decided to wake up before everyone else. Surprisingly, it worked. Once you find a system that fits, it needs to become sacred and a top priority. I also relied heavily on the Pomodoro technique to stay focused and on track. If you haven’t used the “study with me” videos on YouTube, you’re missing out. Whatever helps you get into a state of flow is going to be key.

    And I know your question was about going back to school while working, but honestly, work wasn’t the hardest part of my academic journey. For me, it was family and my social life. Work will always be there. But when you start missing family functions, birthdays and social events, it’s tough. I essentially became a hermit during the final stretch of my dissertation. That was the only way I could stay focused and meet my goals.

    Q: The growth of online programs has increased the demand for learning designers. There is concern within our profession that in the (near) future, AI will be able to do much of the work that learning designers have traditionally done. How worried should learning designers be and what can they do to ensure they are not replaced by AI?

    A: Ah yes, the million-dollar question. What’s funny is that I’ve been designing AI courses long before the generative AI boom, and I could’ve never predicted that AI would find its way into our space. In health care, medication discovery or 3-D printing? Sure. But instructional design? That thought never crossed my mind. Yet here we are.

    Let’s break down your question a bit, starting with the concern around AI. You’re going to see this come in waves. A new breakthrough will happen, there will be mass pandemonium online and, within a few weeks, it fades. AI tools will continue to evolve and become more helpful, but someone still has to drive the bus. AI can’t do everything for you. I think that’s where many decision-makers are getting confused. Everyone is trying to add AI into their products, but do people actually want those features? The answer is often no.

    AI can be helpful for kick-starting ideas. But if you’re a student and you find out that your entire course was generated by AI and not created by a human, you’d likely be furious.

    A great source of insight on this is Reddit. You’ll find post after post from students deeply concerned about how AI is being used, whether by classmates or even by professors. LLMs tend to have a certain tone and style. It’s hard to describe exactly, but the writing often feels off. Unnatural. AI isn’t magical, even though that’s exactly how marketers are presenting it. LLMs work by predicting patterns based on data and trying to say the next most probable thing to please the user. In many cases, this doesn’t add up.

    Now, on to the second part of your question: What can instructional designers do to ensure they’re not replaced?

    We do what we’ve always done. We learn. Become the most knowledgeable person on your team when it comes to the ins and outs of AI. For many, AI still feels like a black box, and that’s understandable. But if you know which tool serves which purpose and how to use these tools to enhance your designs, ensure accessibility, create flexible learning pathways, transform content into different formats and generate compelling visuals, you’ll be far ahead of the curve.

    As you experiment, you’ll also encounter the limits of these tools. And when you see where AI stumbles, you’ll feel much more secure about your place in this evolving landscape. It’s not there yet. And getting an entire industry to adopt something at scale, especially something as complex as AI, is a massive undertaking.

    Source link

  • 3 Questions for Professor Mary Wright

    3 Questions for Professor Mary Wright

    Last year, Brown University announced that Mary Wright was embarking on a new adventure in early 2025.

    If you are anywhere near or around the CTL world, you likely know (or know about) Mary Wright. Her 2023 JHU Press publication, Centers for Teaching and Learning: The New Landscape in Higher Education, is a must-read for every university leader. Mary—along with Tracie Addy, Bret Eynon and Jaclyn Rivard—also has a forthcoming book with Johns Hopkins (2026), which will provide a 20-plus-year look at continuities and changes in the field of educational development.

    Therefore, it was big news earlier this year when Mary moved from her role as associate provost for teaching and learning and executive director of Sheridan Center at Brown to a new position as a professor of education scholarship at the University of Sydney. With Mary now more than six months in her new role, this was a good time to catch up with how things are going.

    Q: Tell us about your new role at the University of Sydney. What does a faculty appointment in Australia constitute in terms of teaching, research and administrative responsibilities?

    A: As in the U.S., a faculty appointment (here, called an academic appointment) varies greatly across and even within Australian institutions. In my role, I serve as a Horizon Educator, an education-focused academic role, which carries a heuristic of 70 percent time to education, 20 percent to scholarship and 10 percent to leadership or service-related activities. Like my prior 20-plus years of experience in the U.S., I am still an academic developer (called an educational developer in the U.S.), which means that education most frequently involves teaching and mentoring other academics as learners.

    I am a level-E academic, which is akin to a full professor role in the U.S. (The trajectory starts at level A, which encompasses associate lecturer and postdoctoral fellows and goes through level B [lecturer], level C [senior lecturer], level D [associate professor] and level E [professor].)

    There are many differences between U.S. and Australian higher education, but I’ll highlight two here in relation to those who work in CTLs. The first and most significant is that, in the U.S., educational developers are often positioned as professional staff. In Australia, many universities treat this work with parity to other academics. I feel that this substantially raises the credibility and value of academic development.

    Second, professional learning around teaching is a required part of many academics’ contracts, initially or for “confirmation,” and it is structured into their workloads. I first worried that this would prompt a good deal of reactance, but I have not found this to be the case. I now find this to be a more equitable system for students (and academic success), compared to the U.S.’s (primarily) voluntary approach.

    Q: Moving from Rhode Island to Australia is a big move. What is it about the University of Sydney that attracted you to the institution, and why did you make this big move at this point in your career?

    A: Three factors attracted me to the University of Sydney. First, I was attracted to what I will call their organizational honesty. The institution was very open that they were not where they wanted to be in regard to teaching and the student experience; they wanted to be a different kind of institution. They also had a very clear theory of change, mapping very much onto metaphors I write about elsewhere: requiring convening and community building (hub); support of individual career advancement (incubator); development of evidence-based practice, such as the scholarship of teaching and learning (sieve); and advancing the value of teaching and learning through recognition and reward (temple).

    Specifically, USyd was investing in over 200 new Horizon Educator positions, education-focused academics charged to be educational leaders. One part of my role is to work with this amazing group of academics to advance their own careers, as well as to realize the institution’s ambitions for enhanced teaching effectiveness. To anchor this work at a macro level, USyd also had been working very hard on developing and rolling out a new Academic Excellence Framework, which provides a clear pathway to the recognition and reward of education—in addition to other aspects of the academic role

    The University of Sydney is also making a significant investment in grants to foster the scholarship of teaching and learning, which has been a long-standing interest of mine but was often done “off the side of the desk.” My role involves working with people, programs and practices to facilitate SoTL.

    In addition to university strategy, I was attracted by the opportunity to work with Adam Bridgeman and colleagues in the university’s central teaching and learning unit. Educational Innovation has been engaged in very interesting high-level work around AI and assessment, as well as holistic professional learning to support academics, but like many CTLs, it has been stretched since COVID to advance a growing number of institutional aims. Because of my prior leadership in CTLs, I felt like I could also contribute in this space.

    Q: Pivoting from a university leadership staff role to a faculty role is appealing to many of us in the nonfaculty educator world. (Although I know you also had a faculty position at Brown). Can you share any advice for those who might want to follow in your footsteps?

    A: For some context, I started my career in the early 2000s in a professional staff role in a CTL and also occasionally adjuncted. I became a research scientist in the CTL, then moved to direct a CTL in 2016 and had an affiliate faculty position (with the staff/administrative role as primary). In 2020, I then moved to a senior administration role (again, my primary role was professional staff). So, I have worn a number of hats.

    Three factors have been helpful in transitioning across roles. First, I love to write, and while the scholarly work rarely “counted” for anything in these series of positions, I think it helped me advance to the next step. Second, it’s important to read a lot to stay current with the vast literature on teaching and learning. I think this can add value to my work with individual academics—to help them publish—as well as my work on committees, where there is often some literature to cite on the topic at hand.

    Finally, I think professional associations can be very helpful in building bridges and networks, especially for those considering an international transition. In the U.S., the POD Network was a key source of support. Now, before even applying to my current role, I subscribed to the newsletter of HERDSA (Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia) and I participated in one of their mentoring programs. I also serve as a co-editor of the International Journal for Academic Development, which exposed me to articles about Australian academic development, and I got some generous and wise advice from Australian and New Zealand IJAD colleagues about the job search.

    Source link

  • 3 Questions for Fractional COLO Jeremiah Grabowski

    3 Questions for Fractional COLO Jeremiah Grabowski

    Jeremiah Grabowski’s LinkedIn article “Announcing Fractional Chief Online Learning Officer (COLO): Building Independence in Online Higher Education” caught my attention. Setting aside my worry that a fractional hire could replace my full-time role, I decided to reach out to Jeremiah to understand what this offering is all about. 

    Q: What is a fractional COLO? What types of schools might this service be a good fit for? Why would a college or university invest in a fractional COLO instead of recruiting for a full-time online learning leader?

    A: A fractional COLO is a senior-level executive, chief online learning officer, who embeds within an institution on a part-time basis, providing executive-level expertise without the full-time commitment.

    This service is particularly well suited for small to midsize universities that recognize the need to invest in online learning but lack the start-up capital for a full-time executive position, which can be quite expensive when you factor in salary and benefits at the senior level.

    Many institutions approach fractional COLO services because they need to see a return on investment before making larger commitments. Building online learning programs requires significant up-front investment, and schools don’t always see returns in the first year. (I recently wrote an article exploring this: “Can You Build a Brand New Online Program for Half a Million Dollars?”)

    Essentially, many schools know they need to make the investment in online learning leadership, but they can’t commit to a full-time hire right out of the gate. A fractional COLO allows them to get started with expert guidance while building revenues, which go towards that larger investment.

    Q: Help us understand the fractional COLO from the provider perspective. How do you provide this service? How scalable is the model? How does the fractional COLO idea differ from the work of consultants/consulting companies, in terms of methods, deliverables, costs and outcomes?

    A: I offer several service levels to meet schools where they are. Some institutions want an assessment of their current online operations—essentially an outsider’s perspective on their strengths and opportunities. I’ve developed a comprehensive rubric covering 10 key areas, from strategic planning to marketing, admissions, course design, faculty support and student services. I spend two days on campus meeting with staff, faculty and administrators to understand how they holistically support online students, then deliver a report with actionable improvements for six- and 12-month time frames.

    From there, service levels scale up. Some schools need help launching specific programs, while others commit to the full fractional COLO engagement.

    When I begin working with any institution, I always visit campus first to meet everyone, from senior leaders to registrars, financial aid staff, instructional designers and the entire support team. After conducting my assessment, we then develop a six- to 12-month strategic plan tailored to that institution’s specific needs.

    Regarding scalability, that’s a great question. As a new venture, I haven’t reached my bandwidth limit yet. Hopefully, that becomes a good problem to have! If demand grows, I’d look for individuals with a similar mindset: individuals with a teacher’s heart who want to roll up their sleeves and help institutions learn and implement best practices. I like to say I “teach institutions how to fish.”

    What differentiates my approach from traditional consulting or vendors is the hands-on, DIY element. There are many excellent consultants and companies that do great work for institutions and achieve results. I focus on teaching and blending consultation with implementation. I’ll conduct assessments and provide strategic guidance, but I also get my hands dirty helping different departments across the institution implement those strategies.

    This approach works best for institutions that want to build online learning capabilities internally [and] retain all tuition revenue and can commit to a one- to two-year development timeline. The costs are significantly less than a full-time hire, without the overhead of salary and benefits, and deliverables are always scaled to meet each institution’s specific needs.

    Q: Why have you decided to build up this fractional COLO business instead of pursuing a more traditional COLO role at a single institution? Tell us about your educational and professional background and how that prepared you to create this concept.

    A: I’ve always had an entrepreneurial itch, even though I spent over 20 years of my career in higher education in traditional roles. I was fortunate to serve as COLO at an institution for eight years. That was a valuable experience since fewer than 10 percent of institutions have an online learning leader serving on the cabinet or reporting directly to the president. That role gave me a unique perspective on integrating online learning throughout an institution rather than keeping it siloed.

    My educational background combines business and education, which prepared me for this venture. My undergraduate degree was in business, which seeded those entrepreneurial interests, but I transitioned to education for my master’s and completed a Ph.D. in learning sciences.

    In my previous role, we were essentially building from scratch, so I referred to our team as a start-up. We developed new standard operating procedures, created budget models and hired new team members. In some ways, I felt like I was running a business within the university. That unique combination of business skills, educational expertise and start-up experience prepared me for this role. Also, maybe most importantly, if you’re going to start a new company, you’d better have a supportive spouse because it’s not easy, lol. 

    One last comment related to the intro—my goal isn’t to replace full-time COLOs. It’s actually the opposite. My intent is that as institutions work with me and see the value a COLO brings, they’ll eventually hire their own full-time leader once operations are established. I hope this work helps more schools recognize the importance of dedicated online learning leadership, ultimately growing the pool of full-time COLO positions across higher education. I don’t want to take work away from anyone. I want to grow the position and demonstrate the value these roles bring to institutions.

    Source link

  • What happens when universities stop asking questions?

    What happens when universities stop asking questions?

    For the last 15 years, I have used my knowledge as a barrister and former university lecturer to advise students on their academic appeals and misconduct cases.

    In that time, I have seen the best and worst of student behaviour. I have dealt with students who paid others to write their entire PhDs and who recruited stand-ins to attend clinical placements.

    I have encountered countless methods of cheating, from tiny notes hidden in pockets, to phones concealed in toilets, to modified ear protectors.

    Only recently, a law student told me she had seen classmates slip earphones beneath their hijab during exams, whispering questions and receiving answers from a distant accomplice.

    The ethics of representation

    Occasionally, students ask me to act unethically on their behalf. I recall one student who had failed a resit exam and been withdrawn from his course.

    In a moment of panic, he told the university that his parents had been killed in a terrible accident shortly before his exam. He begged me to repeat the lie in my formal appeal statement to the university. I refused.

    As barristers, we will fight tooth and nail for our clients, whatever they have done, but only within the confines of the truth.

    I remember one Russian client who had paid someone to write every single essay and eventually been caught. I explained that the evidence against him was strong, that the prospects of success were slim, and that I could not advise him to lie to the university.

    He shook his head in disgust:

    What is wrong with this country? In Russia, we pay the professor and everything is okay!

    Recently, I had a conversation with a person – a non-lawyer – who had set up a university appeals business abroad. Like me, he had seen the underside of higher education.

    He told me that students regularly cheat in the English language proficiency tests required by universities as a condition of entry. These tests ensure that students have sufficient command of English to cope with academic study.

    According to him, cheating on these tests is widespread, with some companies approaching him directly with answers to the language tests.

    He explained that there were several “university appeal services” in his home country offering forged medical certificates. They also provide fabricated “essay notes” for students wishing to convince their universities they had worked on an assignment.

    With a plausible medical note or a set of backdated essay drafts, a dishonest student can present a convincing case for leniency or mitigation.

    Despite many years in the business, I was horrified by these revelations. I searched online and quickly found websites that sell fake tests. Thus, Legit Certify states:

    We help you legally obtain an official, verifiable TOEFL certificate without taking the test…The certificate is identical to one earned through exams, fully accepted by universities…

    And DoctorsNoteStore.com offers, or £10.99:

    …fake/replica sick notes in the United Kingdom and Australia.

    Are universities aware of this? Do they know that some of their international students gain admission, or overturn decisions, on the basis of falsified or manipulated documents? What checks do they make to ensure the authenticity of medical and other documentary evidence?

    Conflicts of interest

    With 40 per cent of English universities in financial deficit, there is also the uncomfortable question of money. The revenue from international students is so significant that many institutions may struggle to survive without it.

    This financial dependence creates a conflict of interest. If a university uncovers widespread cheating in English language tests, or if it learns that students gained entry or remained on a course with false credentials, how should it react? If it investigates properly, the findings may threaten the much-needed flow of income.

    Handling the growing number of cases of misconduct and appeals is itself resource-intensive and costly. A professor friend of mine, who examines PhDs, told me that he never fails a PhD student because, in his words, “it’s not worth the hassle of an inevitable appeal”.

    A university that turns a blind eye may preserve the balance sheet but corrodes academic standards.

    Some universities take the issue seriously. They invest in resources to detect cheating, run hundreds of misconduct panel hearings, and occasionally expel students. However, I doubt all institutions appreciate the scale of the problem or the sophistication of the cheating industry.

    There is an international trade in dishonesty that exploits the pressure on students to succeed and the reluctance of universities to jeopardise their financial health and reputation.

    If universities are not already alive to this reality, they need to wake up. Every forged medical letter that passes unchecked, every essay or thesis written by a ghostwriter, every fraudulent placement report that slips through the net, undermines the credibility of the institution and the degree it awards.

    Paying the price

    The harm is not limited to universities themselves. Employers, patients, clients and the public at large may pay the price if unqualified or dishonest graduates enter professional roles. Who wants to hire a lawyer or engineer who cheated in their exams, or be treated by a doctor who paid someone to attend clinical placements for them?

    The purpose of higher education is not simply to hand out degrees in exchange for fees but to cultivate knowledge and skill, to educate. If universities fail to address the growing industry of deception, they risk betraying that purpose.

    The question is not whether students cheat – they plainly do and probably more than ever before with the advent of generative AI – but whether universities have the courage to confront it, even at the cost of short-term financial loss and reputational damage.

    Source link

  • 3 Questions for Coursera’s Tom Fail

    3 Questions for Coursera’s Tom Fail

    Tom Fail and I work together on my institution’s Coursera portfolio, with Tom serving as our main point of contact. So far, I’ve enjoyed this collaboration, as Tom has been an effective and energetic partner. Tom not only works for Coursera, but he was also a consumer of university/Coursera partnerships as an online M.B.A. student (and now graduate) from the Gies College of Business at the University of Illinois. As I’m always interested in colleagues who combine full-time work and full-time learning, I was excited to engage Tom in a conversation about his career and education.

    Q: Tell us about your role at Coursera. What are your primary accountabilities and responsibilities? What does a typical day look like?

    A: As a strategic account manager at Coursera, I’m passionate about improving access to affordable, high-quality education from leading universities and industry partners. I’ve been with Coursera for nearly four years, initially as a technical account manager, where I focused on platform functionality and project success. Over time, I’ve had the opportunity to expand my scope both with the volume of partners as well as building strong partnerships focused on aligning their goals with Coursera’s mission to expand global learning opportunities.

    On a typical day, I’m collaborating with university and industry leaders and internal teams to design, scale and optimize online programs. Some days I’m pitching new features or program designs to partners; other days I’m focused on marketing strategies and learner life-cycle experiments that drive engagement and retention. I’m also listening to our partners for opportunities, big and small, to improve workflows both for staff and students that allow our strategy to scale and work in reality. I love getting into the weeds to understand exactly how something works and coming up with solutions that can be adopted to improve outcomes.

    I’m accountable to my partners to help them get the most out of Coursera; internal stakeholders rely on me to ensure we’re driving key priorities, features and work streams with our partners. And, of course, my first priority is the learner. Everything we do is about making sure learners can gain access to the skills they need to advance their careers and thrive in a rapidly changing world. Ultimately, success means creating programs that deliver real value, are accessible at scale and help drive better outcomes for learners everywhere.

    Q: How did the process of working towards your iMBA influence how you think about Coursera’s role in working with universities on online degrees? What should universities be doing to make graduate degrees more accessible, feasible and high value for full-time working adults?

    A: The most helpful part of earning my M.B.A. while working at Coursera has been understanding our platform from the learner perspective and what really differentiates content on our platform. Since I started at Coursera, I’ve completed my M.B.A., as well as professional certificates in data analytics and project management and Specializations in business strategy and data visualization. I always have fresh strategies and love getting to demo features from the lens of my own student account to give partners a real-world view of our learner experience and the outcomes they can drive with course design.

    When it comes to any offerings on the platform, flexibility and accessibility are absolutely critical. Not all working adults have the means, or the desire, to leave their jobs and return to school full-time. I have a ton of respect for anyone who does, but that wasn’t the path for me. The iMBA gave me the opportunity to earn my degree over two years while continuing to work, and that flexibility made all the difference. It wasn’t easy, but the program’s design and curriculum kept me engaged and excited.

    Every single class had a direct connection to my day-to-day work at Coursera, which kept me going forward and learning within the program. When I got my first master’s in management and leadership back in 2012, I didn’t have the professional context to apply what I was learning, so this was really meaningful, and I’m proud of completing the degree.

    For universities, the key is designing programs that allow learners to learn on their own terms and start programs more like a consumer purchase. Having stackable content available in open courses that can be applied towards the degree allows learners to try the content and gain confidence in the program and themselves before they fully commit to a full program. Also, performance-based admissions pathways offer learners the opportunity to earn their way into degrees regardless of their background. Some people want live sessions; others prefer fully asynchronous options. Some enjoy group work; others need flexibility to work independently. There’s no one-size-fits-all model, and that’s where universities can differentiate themselves—by striking a healthy balance between structure and flexibility, best practices and personalization. Ultimately, accessibility, flexibility and relevance are what make these programs high value for working professionals.

    Looking forward, a critical element for universities is the evolution of content. Two to three years ago, AI was barely part of the conversation; now every instructional design team and faculty member is grappling with its implications, from academic integrity to assessing skills in a new economy. You can’t “set it and forget it” with your curriculum and courses anymore. Learners have endless options, and that competition will only intensify. The partners that stand out will be the ones that prioritize continuous improvement: integrating learner feedback, refreshing content to stay aligned with industry trends and delivering programs that feel robust, relevant and career-focused.

    Q: Reflecting on your career and educational path, what advice do you have for early and midcareer professionals interested in building a career at the intersection of technology and education?

    A: When I started in undergrad at East Stroudsburg University, I wanted to be a high school social studies teacher. I hit a turning point when I realized all high school students—myself included—can be a handful, so I pivoted into economics and history. My adviser, Dr. Christopher Brooks, and my first boss, hall director and now friend Patrick Monoghan, helped me beyond words to figure out where I excelled and pushed me to shape my career. At ESU, I had so many incredible people invest time and energy into me, and I especially love my career in ed tech because I can help other students gain access to technology and education that helps them figure out their path.

    As I think about my early career at EAB, I had the opportunity to work with almost 100 schools deploying student success technology to help identify at-risk students and get them the help and resources they need. You learn a lot as a 24-year-old explaining to provosts and CTOs how the system works, what the road map is and what you did to mitigate after a self-inflicted data error occurs. Coursera has taken that even further, as I get the opportunity to work with some of the most prestigious universities and companies in the world to improve education and build programs that can improve people’s careers and lives, the way education improved mine.

    For anyone looking to build a career in education, I’d say this: You can work in any industry—telecom, banking, pharmaceuticals, whatever—but education offers a unique chance to make a meaningful difference. It’s not lip service to say that education lifts people up and improves lives, and being part of a team focused on making learning more accessible, scalable and affordable worldwide is incredible.

    Source link

  • The New COVID Vaccine Rules Leave Parents with More Questions than Answers – The 74

    The New COVID Vaccine Rules Leave Parents with More Questions than Answers – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    The federal government’s latest guidelines for COVID-19 vaccines make it difficult to know who, exactly, will be able to access shots this fall. While Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and some of his staff claim anyone will be able to access a shot in consultation with their doctor, medical groups are warning that the new guidance will impact a broad swath of people, including postpartum people and healthy children.

    “For children and young adults that I see, there are constraints, and they are significant,” said Dr. Molly O’Shea, a pediatrician in Michigan and a spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

    It might also take several more weeks to know who will be able to receive no-cost COVID-19 vaccines covered by health insurance. That decision partly depends on formal recommendations from a vaccine panel that isn’t scheduled to meet until mid-September. 

    Actions by the Food and Drug Administration last week mean that none of the COVID-19 vaccines that are slated to be on the U.S. market this fall will have an emergency use authorization that had allowed their quick (yet still rigorously tested) approval at the height of the pandemic. The removal of this designation means the drug company Pfizer will no longer offer COVID-19 vaccines to very young children, limiting parents’ brand options and potentially impacting supply.

    Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax, the three main COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers, have all shared news releases about what they’ve been approved to offer:

    • Moderna, Pfizer or Novavax will offer shots to anyone who is 65 and older, irrespective of medical history.
    • Pfizer will offer shots to anyone between the ages of five and 64 if they have at least one underlying condition that puts them at high risk for severe outcomes from COVID-19.
    • Moderna will offer shots to anyone between six months and 64 if they have at least one underlying condition that puts them at high risk for severe outcomes from COVID-19.
    • Novavax, the only company providing a non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, will offer shots to anyone between 12 and 64 if they have at least one underlying condition that puts them at high risk for severe outcomes from COVID-19.

    The vaccine panel known as the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP) is expected to make formal recommendations on these FDA-approved vaccines, and those recommendations have historically determined whether insurance providers will cover a vaccine at no cost under insurance.

    An HHS spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for information and comment from The 19th, but in a post on X, Kennedy said: “These vaccines are available for all patients who choose them after consulting with their doctors.” Separately, USA Today reported on a document from HHS stating the FDA’s actions do “not affect access to these vaccines for healthy individuals. These vaccines remain available to those who choose them in consultation with their healthcare provider.”

    Dr. Marty Makary, FDA commissioner, added in a separate X post: “100% of adults in this country can still get the vaccine if they choose. We are not limiting availability to anyone.”

    But what that means practically for everyday people who want to access a COVID-19 shot — everything from whether their doctor will prescribe it, or if a pharmacy will be able to administer it, and whether there will be an out-of-pocket cost — is unclear for now. 

    How will it impact postpartum people?

    Pregnant people are expected to still have access to the vaccine because the CDC continues to list pregnancy as an underlying condition that puts an individual at high risk for severe outcomes from COVID-19. (The list of at least two dozen conditions also includes chronic health conditions and immunocompromised conditions.)

    But Kennedy, who has repeatedly questioned the safety of COVID-19 vaccines despite research that shows their effectiveness, announced in May that the CDC would no longer formally recommend such vaccines to pregnant people and healthy children, a move that seemed to contradict his own department. 

    Lactating and postpartum individuals must have an underlying medical condition to be eligible for one of the FDA’s approved vaccines, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)’s understanding of the announcement. ACOG continues to recommend COVID-19 vaccination to people who are contemplating pregnancy, are pregnant, were recently pregnant or are now lactating.

    “We recognize that now, disappointingly, only lactating and postpartum individuals with an underlying condition will be eligible for vaccination. Still, it remains critical that pregnant patients receive the vaccines so that they are able to provide passive immunity from COVID-19 to their infants in those first few months of life before they can be vaccinated,” said ACOG President Steven J. Fleischman in an email.

    How will it impact healthy children?

    Healthy children will likely still be able to access the COVID vaccine, but the cost for a parent or guardian, as well as availability, will be impacted by these decisions.

    Charlotte A. Moser, co-director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said parents who want to get their kids the COVID-19 vaccine should still be able to do so through what is called shared clinical decision-making in consultation with their child’s health care provider, according to the CDC’s current vaccine schedule. But it’s unclear whether this will change when ACIP meets again.

    But physicians who prescribe a COVID-19 vaccine outside of the parameters of how the FDA approved them would be OKing use of the shot “off-label” — a designation that means a medical product is being used outside of how the FDA approved it. That raises questions about access and cost. Physicians might not be willing to prescribe off-label because of concerns about liability.

    “I think that there will be a substantially smaller number of pediatricians, pharmacies, etc., who will be comfortable taking that risk,” O’Shea said.

    Dr. Dial Hewlett, medical director of tuberculosis services at Westchester County Department of Health in New York and a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said an off-label prescription might also not be covered by insurance.

    “A mother or father can go in with their child and say, ‘I’d like for them to have the vaccine,’ but they may be told, ‘Well we’ll give it, but you’re going to have to pay $200,’” he said.

    The science on COVID vaccines has consistently indicated they are safe for children to receive.
    (Joseph Prezioso / AFP / Getty Images)

    Depending on the circumstances, pharmacists may also not be able to provide off-label vaccines. Some states tie pharmacist immunization authority to FDA approval,which has the potential to create a hodgepodge of access. The New York Times reported that CVS and Walgreens, the country’s largest pharmacy chains, have begun restricting COVID-19 shots in some states to people with a prescription. 

    “There may be some variability from state to state, but it’s a big barrier if FDA approval is not there, and the FDA approvals have been pulled back from where they were previously,” Hewlett said.

    The FDA announcement is “concerning,” added Moser, who noted that limiting Pfizer’s vaccine will make it more difficult for all children to get a COVID-19 vaccine this year because of anticipated supply limitations.

    O’Shea, the pediatrician in Michigan, said her office is currently deciding how many COVID-19 shots to stock, and it’s proving tricky as they weigh the cost vs. demand — the percentage of children under 18 getting the shot is under 15 percent.

    “Figuring out how much we want to have at any one time, and how we are going to give it to people — this really makes it a lot more complicated,” she said.

    What happens next?

    Moser said the announcement adds confusion for providers and families, and noted that the unilateral approach by Kennedy so far when it comes to vaccine policy “removes hundreds of voices of clinicians and scientists that were part of the process.” Moser recently served on ACIP and is among the members that Kennedy removed. He has replaced the panel with people who do not have relevant experience.

    “That army of voices ensured a process informed by clinical experience and scientific expertise to which the small group making these decisions now cannot possibly compare,” she said in an email.

    The revamped ACIP panel is scheduled to meet over two days beginning on September 18. Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, a doctor who is chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, is now questioning whether that panel has enough legitimacy to meet, especially amid a leadership shakeup at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

    “Serious allegations have been made about the meeting agenda, membership, and lack of scientific process being followed for the now announced September ACIP meeting,” he said in a statement. “These decisions directly impact children’s health and the meeting should not occur until significant oversight has been conducted. If the meeting proceeds, any recommendations made should be rejected as lacking legitimacy given the seriousness of the allegations and the current turmoil in CDC leadership.”

    AAP called Kennedy’s latest COVID guidelines “deeply troubling” and urged COVID vaccine decision-making to remain between medical experts and families. 

    Dr. Susan J. Kressly, president of AAP, said in a statement that any barrier to COVID-19 vaccination as the nation enters the respiratory virus season creates “a dangerous vulnerability for children and their families.”

    “Any parent who wants their child vaccinated should have access to this vaccine,” she said, adding that HHS’ action “not only prevents this option for many families, but adds further confusion and stress for parents trying to make the best choices for their children.”

    This story was originally reported by Barbara Rodriguez of The 19th. Meet Barbara and read more of their reporting on gender, politics and policy.


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • 3 Questions for Senior Learning Designer Heather Hans

    3 Questions for Senior Learning Designer Heather Hans

    On Aug. 12, senior learning designer Heather Hans posted on LinkedIn,

    After 7 years of service with a great team, I’ve been laid off from Duke, like many of my colleagues. 

    I’m taking some time to consider what I want to do next. This includes any of my areas of expertise, from learning design and libraries to visual art and journalism. I’m also keeping my eye out for roles that combine my experience in new ways.

    If you have 5 minutes, could you please share this post, connect me with someone you think I should talk to, or share any relevant job openings?

    I’m looking for hybrid roles in the Triad and Triangle of NC and remote roles anywhere (willing to travel some, too).

    I saw Heather’s post, read all the supportive comments the post generated and had two questions: 1) Which university or organization will be smart and lucky enough to recruit Heather? 2) Would Heather be willing to share her story in this space for this community? 

    On my second question, Heather graciously agreed to participate in this Q&A.

    Q: Tell us about your professional and educational background. What are the projects, initiatives and services that you have contributed to and led? What are your superpowers that potential employers should know about?

    A: I’m an art major who worked in journalism for five years after college, doing writing and editing. Then I pursued my master’s in library and information studies and worked for several years as an academic librarian focused on teaching and learning. I moved into instructional design for online learning at UNC Chapel Hill and then worked at Duke University for seven years, most recently as a senior learning experience designer. 

    My recent accomplishments include: 

    • Establishing digital education strategies with five professional schools and developing certificate programs in UAS (Drones) Applications and Operations in Environmental Science, Church Administration and Human Resources, and Healthcare Leadership for Climate Science.
    • Leading continuous improvement initiatives to develop new or updated workflows, create standard operating procedures and update team roles and responsibilities.
    • Mentoring and coaching newer designers in project leadership and advanced learning design skills, like creating assessments and drafting course content.
    • Developing team AI guidelines that set expectations for how generative AI is used in course development work.

    My superpowers are empathy, strategy and creativity. I excel at building relationships, collaborating and coaching, whether that be to design an online course for the first time or to grow as a professional. I think analytically and strategically about work processes, projects and goals. I generate a lot of ideas, and I enjoy figuring out how to take an idea or vision and implement it successfully.

    Q: In thinking about your next role, what is the organizational culture and institutional priorities that you are looking for in determining the fit with your strengths and values?  

    A: As I look for roles, I keep going back to the idea of work being human-centered. Does the organization value its people and its impact more than its profits? Does it genuinely want to improve educational access for everyone? How has it shown that it keeps humans centered in discussions of technology and AI? Further, is it continuing to prioritize equity and inclusivity, and does it ask, “Who needs a seat at the table?” when embarking on new projects and initiatives?

    Like people, organizations are works in progress—ultimately, what I care about is follow-through. Do you set human-centered intentions and see them through? I want a workplace where leaders embrace empathy and difficult conversations while encouraging healthy collaboration and boundaries. Finally, I want a workplace where workers have agency to think deeply and creatively.

    Q: From your experience navigating the fallout of the federal attack on higher education, what advice do you have for all of us also dealing with job uncertainty and professional stress?  

    A: I’ve been asking everyone else this question! What I’ve learned so far is that we are a community of educators that is much bigger than any particular institution or organization. How can we help each other and continue to do the important work we care about? 

    I wasn’t expecting the outpouring of support I received, and it reminded me that it’s okay to reach out and ask for help. It also strengthened my resolve to help others when I can.

    Finally, remember that you are much more than your role and your organization–you can figure it out, and you contain multitudes that may end up surprising you.

    Source link

  • 3 Questions for Online Learning Pioneer Robert Ubell

    3 Questions for Online Learning Pioneer Robert Ubell

    Whenever I write something halfway decent (sometimes) or astoundingly dumb (often), I can count on a thoughtful response from Bob Ubell. Our conversation took place during the period when Bob published two books, Going Online (2017) and Staying Online (2021), as well as numerous articles in EdSurge, IHE, The Evollution and other publications.

    Bob’s online education career goes at least back to 1999, where he was the dean of online learning at Stevens Institute of Technology. Subsequent leadership roles include vice dean of online learning at New York University Tandon School of Engineering and vice dean emeritus, online learning, at NYU Tandon.

    Bob is a 2011 Fellow of the Online Learning Consortium and a member of the Advisory Board of Online Learning. In 2012, the Online Learning Consortium (then called the Sloan Consortium) awarded Bob with the A. Frank Mayadas Leadership Award, the organization’s “highest individual recognition for leadership in online education.” Most recently, Bob took up a role serving on the CHLOE Advisory Panel for the Quality Matters Changing Landscape of Online Education Project.

    In a profession where many of us are making things up as we go, Bob stands out for his long-term experience thinking about and leading online learning initiatives. I asked Bob if he would answer my questions about his career and the future of online learning, and he graciously agreed.

    Q: According to your Wikipedia page, you have been working at the intersection of higher education, technology and publishing since you graduated from Brooklyn College in 1961. What does the next decade hold for you as you think about your contributions to our online learning community?

    A: I’m not optimistic about what’s ahead, not only for digital education, but also for the nation’s wider academic enterprise. It’s impossible to answer your question in isolation without reckoning with the ugly scene now taking place in higher ed. Challenged by the federal government’s attacks, early this spring, 600 higher ed leaders warned about “unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education.” Since then, the present administration has continued to follow a treacherous path, destabilizing campuses across the country, targeting faculty and student academic freedom, and, in a new Supreme Court decision, ultimately dismantling the U.S. Department of Education.

    In an opinion column in this publication earlier this year, I predicted that American colleges and universities faced a terrifying cascade of autocratic moves “set by leaders in Hungary, Turkey and elsewhere … selecting college presidents, controlling faculty hiring and advancement, punishing academic dissent and imposing travel restrictions.” Many of these despotic actions have already been implemented and continue to be imposed on schools in this country.

    Last month, to restore about $400 million in federal research funding, Columbia University bowed to tyrannical demands by officials. In an unprecedented agreement, Columbia will pay more than $200 million in fines for dubious accusations of antisemitic student theatrics. It also opened the gates for government intrusion in the school’s academic prerogatives in hiring, admissions and curriculum. Keeping Columbia in academic handcuffs, the deal will be overseen by an outside monitor, reporting to officials every six months.

    The midcentury philosopher and cultural critic Hannah Arendt, in her masterful account of totalitarian regimes, revealed that they rely on systematic suppression of individual thought and freedom to maintain control, undermining the very purpose of universities—institutions that encourage critical thinking, open debate and intellectual autonomy, essential in a democracy. Recent power plays against Columbia, Harvard, Brown, Duke—and, just this week, UCLA—show how brutal our government can be in imposing its will.

    The noted Columbia genocide scholar Marianne Hirsch, the daughter of Holocaust survivors, who teaches a class on genocide with a book by Arendt, is considering leaving Columbia following its adoption of a new definition of antisemitism, which casts criticism of Israel as hate speech, a provision in the new pact with the federal government. Hirsch fears it may force her to face official sanction for even mentioning Arendt, who criticized Israel’s founding.

    “A university that treats criticism of Israel as antisemitic and threatens sanctions for those who disobey is no longer a place of open inquiry,” Hirsch told the Associated Press. “I just don’t see how I can teach about genocide in that environment.” Reactionary governments always find an innocent mark to target. In the 1950s, it was American Communists. Today, it’s pro-Palestinian faculty and students.

    The downstream effects on remote learning are already being felt, with the perception overseas—following arrests of foreign students and other threats against students and scholars from abroad—that the U.S. is turning its back on international recruitment, undermining our reputation as a leading destination for higher education and potentially impacting foreign student tuition revenue, face-to-face and online. In the U.S., the demand to shut down DEI programs will surely affect the greatest number of online students—80 percent of whom work and a third [of whom] are first in their families to attend college.

    On a personal note, I worry that closing the [Education Department] will cripple and may even end higher ed data collection and reporting, giving us less reliable information on the status of American college students. Over my career in higher ed, I’ve depended on federal government data, especially in supporting findings I’ve disclosed in my writing. “We’ll soon be in the dark,” I warned in a recent IHE column.

    Turning to your question, asking what sort of contribution I might make to the remote learning community. Like so many others, I don’t feel my voice possesses much force against what’s happening. Nor do I feel competent to articulate what might make a difference. Academic opposition to what we face has been scattershot and largely ineffective, except for various successful legal maneuvers. More broadly, on a national scale, resistance has been disappointing, with few voices, in and out of electoral politics, with enough momentum to capture our yearning for democratic fresh air. To get us out of this nightmare, I dream that someone will rise in this desperate time to gather all of us together in an inspiring and powerful national movement against tyranny.

    Q: There is a growing concern across higher education about the job market for new college graduates, as employers are increasingly utilizing AI to accomplish the work previously done by entry-level workers. What role should online learning leaders be playing at our institutions in evolving and adapting our institutions to the AI revolution?

    A: Since the pandemic, it hasn’t been that easy for recent college graduates to find a job in our digital economy–even before the invasion of AI. In March, recent college grad unemployment was at 5.8 percent, the highest in the last decades, excluding the pandemic, and nearly double the rate of all workers with a college degree, now at 2.7 percent, nearly a historic low.

    “For the first time in modern history, a bachelor’s degree is failing to deliver on its fundamental promise: access to professional employment,” observes a troubling report from Burning Glass, the big labor market analysis firm. “Young graduates face unemployment rates that are rising faster than any other education or age cohort, while over half of them land into jobs they didn’t need college to get. The traditional pathway from college to career is becoming less reliable.” In addition to other causes, the report singles out AI.

    As with all radical technological innovations, the reception of AI is fraught with contradictory predictions on its impact. Touted by champions as an economic miracle, others fear it as a devilish intrusion, disrupting our material well-being, especially for college grads who have historically outpaced the economic success of others. In the postwar years, most American workers found middle-class manufacturing or clerical jobs, but in the last 40 years, new jobs are either in highly paid professional fields or low-wage service industries, a disastrous national calamity that has largely generated our present political trouble.

    Sorry, but I don’t have exciting new ways to recommend to recent college grads to extricate themselves from the present dilemma, other than—not a very original idea—encourage them to enhance their knowledge gained in college classrooms with online or in-person nondegree courses in AI and other technical disciplines, giving them a leg up with attractive additional credentials.

    Not being knowledgeable about AI, I reached out to Alfred Essa, an insightful colleague and author of the forthcoming Artificial Intelligence: Shaping the Future of Innovation, who advised, “Students must think of themselves as designers, creating AI-powered applications to solve problems, not just in the short-term, but over their careers, positioning themselves in industry, capable of building and changing things with AI.” Essa emphasized that his advice is not only for technically savvy students, but for others who are creative in aesthetics, humanities and other disciplines.

    Essa worries that the present higher ed leadership is obsolete. “For colleges to succeed,” he urged, “they must be led by a new generation who will adopt the new AI environment.” In the meantime, for my part, higher ed needs to welcome AI as a technical innovation, in the long tradition of typewriters, calculators, computers and digital education. Once the genie is out of the bottle, you can’t stick it back in. Restrictive, retrograde rules are foolish or punishing—or both.

    Q: What advice do you have for folks like me who are thinking about ways to stay active and engaged in online learning and higher education once we retire from our university administrative roles?

    A: Cicero found that the way we lived in our youth prepares us for retirement. The choices we made when we were young naturally lead to the life we will live as we age. He argued that preparation for our later years is not a separate phase, but a continuation of the life we led all along. “The harvest of old age is the recollection and abundance of blessings previously secured,” he wrote (Cicero De Senectute, translated with an introduction and notes by Andrew P. Peabody [Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1887]).

    Source link

  • 3 Questions for Higher Ed Market Researcher Scott Jeffe

    3 Questions for Higher Ed Market Researcher Scott Jeffe

    We have a long history of working with Scott Jeffe during his time as the VP of research at RNL. Recently, Scott moved on from RNL to begin working as an independent higher ed market research consultant and adviser to universities. To learn more about the work that Scott does and to hopefully gain some insight into where things may be going with online and graduate programs, we asked Scott the following questions.

    Q: Tell us about what it means to be an independent higher ed market researcher. What sort of projects do you work on? How does what you do for universities differ from the services available from traditional consulting firms?

    A: In higher education, the best market research means more than just gathering data—it means showing up as a consultant. That’s something I’ve really learned throughout my career. Too often, I see research reports that are, frankly, hard to interpret or apply. The data might be sound, but it’s overly complex, the visualizations are unclear or the recommendations are disconnected from the realities of how colleges and universities actually operate.

    I’ve had those moments—looking at a data visualization and spending several minutes just trying to figure out what it’s supposed to say. And I know that no dean, provost or president has the time to do that. I’ve also read plenty of conclusions that are technically accurate but completely impractical in the real-world context of higher ed. That’s the kind of disconnect that leads campus leaders to quietly shelve the report, walk away and think, “Well, that was a waste of money.”

    That is exactly what my work today seeks to avoid. My research and consulting prioritize being more direct, actionable and grounded in higher ed’s current challenges. My work now spans both institutional consulting and national research, and I think that balance is part of what makes my approach effective. For example, I’ve recently completed national studies on graduate student expectations and mentorship, which give me insight into broader trends that I can then bring into highly tailored campus-level work.

    Over the past six months, I’ve developed four core services designed specifically for this moment in higher ed—politically, economically and culturally. They’re affordable, practical and fast to implement. I don’t believe in one-size-fits-all solutions, but I do believe institutions deserve work that respects their time, their context and their need to move quickly on what matters.

    That’s ultimately the difference between what I offer and what many vendors often provide. I’m not just delivering a report—I’m helping institutions make real decisions, grounded in both the data and the dynamics of higher ed today.

    Q: What are the most significant challenges and opportunities for universities wanting to grow graduate and/or online enrollment today?

    A: At the graduate level, one of the biggest looming challenges is the likely decline in international enrollment, which has quietly propped up graduate enrollment growth for the past several years. Under the Biden administration, we saw international graduate enrollment rise by more than 117,000 students—reaching over 500,000 total. Just last year, international students made up a full one-third of new graduate enrollments in the U.S., and over 200 institutions reported that international students represented more than 30 percent of their total graduate population.

    But we have to be clear-eyed: Not only is that level of growth not sustainable, but decline is coming. Whether due to shifting geopolitics, visa policy changes or growing global competition, institutions will need to refocus their efforts on the domestic graduate market—and fast.

    That said, there’s opportunity in the challenge. In fact, the current job market will likely nudge more adults to consider graduate study as a buffer or springboard during economic uncertainty. The catch? Institutions are now facing unprecedented competition. By some counts, we’re adding 800 new master’s programs each year. To grow—or even maintain—enrollment, institutions must have an acute understanding of what today’s graduate students expect. That means building a blueprint rooted in student preferences and behaviors and then aligning everything—program design, marketing, recruitment and support—around those insights.

    That’s where much of my work comes in. Over the last two decades, I’ve helped institutions do exactly this through tools like my Scorecard and Playbook and the Audience Alignment Study, which zero in on how to position programs for today’s increasingly selective learners.

    Now, on the online education side, the landscape is a bit more favorable at the moment—particularly due to the regulatory environment calming down. The Biden administration’s push to more heavily regulate online programs—particularly around OPMs and state reciprocity—has largely been shelved. That’s good news for smaller institutions, where online offerings often represent the best path to enrollment stability or growth. Interestingly, one of the unintended effects of that regulatory scrutiny is that OPM contract terms are now much more favorable than they were a few years ago. Institutions have more leverage.

    In terms of opportunity, there are two major areas I’m watching closely. First, the long-discussed but rarely well-executed effort to serve the 30 to 40 million U.S. adults with some college and no credential is almost entirely an online opportunity. However, most institutions struggle to fully serve this group. The barriers tend to fall into three key areas: restrictive credit transfer policies, pricing models that remain out of reach and a misplaced assumption that these students will return to campus for their courses. Institutions that succeed here build fully online programs with wraparound support—advising, tech help, financial aid guidance—specifically designed for students who haven’t set foot on a campus in years. And when they do that, it doesn’t just help this population—it improves online education quality for everyone.

    The second opportunity is more subtle but just as important: the increased demand from traditional undergraduates for access to online courses. While this isn’t online program growth in the classic sense, it presents a major advantage. A robust online course infrastructure doesn’t just support distance learners—it makes the entire campus experience more flexible, more attractive and more resilient. For institutions, that’s a strategic win across multiple audiences.

    Q: How can universities better choose which programs to start and invest in and then grow enrollments to financially sustainable numbers?

    A: At all levels, I think most institutions are doing a much better job now of integrating market data into their program decision-making. There’s a pretty direct line between the era when those insights were missing and the wave of program cuts we’re seeing now. For instance, Inside Higher Ed recently reported that Indiana’s public institutions have combined or eliminated over 400 programs that weren’t meeting fairly modest graduation thresholds. That’s a clear example of the consequences of earlier decisions made without solid market alignment.

    When I work with institutions on program strategy, my role is really to facilitate a conversation that balances market data and institutional strengths. I bring the external perspective—labor market demand, competitor analysis, growth trends—and they bring the internal knowledge of what they’re truly good at. The goal isn’t just to chase hot programs, but to find areas where there’s strong or emerging market demand and where the institution already has expertise, capacity and visibility. That combination is where real opportunity lives.

    Why take that approach? Because institutions need quick wins. We’re often working with limited time and resources and pressure to show results. If you can build momentum by improving or reconfiguring an existing program—something that already has a foundation—you get to impact faster and more cost-effectively. In fact, across dozens of program prioritization studies I’ve been involved in, I’ve rarely seen a proposed new program with more short- or midterm market potential than several underperforming existing ones. That’s why I usually recommend a 3-to-1 or 4-to-1 investment ratio favoring existing programs over net-new launches.

    Once we identify the right programs to focus on, differentiation becomes key—especially in the online space, where commodification is a real concern. Institutions need detailed competitor intelligence, not just high-level benchmarking. We’re looking at how programs are positioned, how they’re structured and what messages they’re putting in front of students. That kind of granularity allows us to develop a true blueprint for differentiation—one that goes beyond clichés like “small class sizes” or “personalized attention” and speaks to what really sets a program apart.

    And finally, with federal regulations increasingly focused on graduate outcomes and return on investment, it’s more important than ever to bake those metrics—job openings, wage growth, projected earnings—into the program planning process from the beginning. We’re entering a new phase where programs will be judged not just on academic merit or enrollment numbers, but on how they impact students’ long-term economic success.

    So to me, the smartest institutions are those that align their strengths with market needs, invest in what they already do well and differentiate with purpose—grounded in real data.

    Source link

  • 3 Questions for Karina Kogan of Education Dynamics

    3 Questions for Karina Kogan of Education Dynamics

    In the small world of higher education, Karina Kogan and I know many of the same people. An introduction from one of these colleagues got Karina and me talking, and out of those conversations came this Q&A. I asked if Karina would be willing to share some thoughts about her company, EducationDynamics; her role (VP of partnership development); and her career advice for other aspiring leaders in her industry.

    Q: How does EducationDynamics work with colleges and universities for online and other academic programs? Where does EducationDynamics fit into the ecosystem of companies that partner with universities?

    A: That’s a great question and one I love answering, because this space is full of players, but not all of them are moving higher education forward. At EducationDynamics, we focus on the institutions that are ready to take bold steps forward. Not just in marketing or enrollment, but in how they grow strategically, strengthen their brand and generate revenue in a way that’s built to last.

    We want to help institutions stop doing what they’ve always done. We need to serve modern learners, which takes a fundamentally different approach. These students are focused on cost, convenience and career outcomes. They’re not influenced by tradition alone and they don’t respond to disconnected efforts that don’t reflect who they are or where they’re headed.

    That’s why we start with research. We don’t push a standard playbook or a prebuilt product. We look at the market, the student behavior, the school’s position, and we use those insights to build strategy that aligns with their enrollment priorities while also reinforcing the institution’s brand and reputation. Because those things are not separate anymore. A school’s ability to grow its revenue is directly connected to how it is perceived in the market. If your brand lacks clarity or credibility, students move on.

    Over the past few years, we’ve seen how much student expectations have changed. They’re more in control of their academic path than ever and they defy outdated categories like traditional or nontraditional. At the same time, reputation has become a major factor in their decision-making. That’s why, in 2024, we brought the RW Jones Agency into the EDDY family. They’ve built a national reputation for helping institutions shape perception, elevate their voice and lead through complexity. Bringing that expertise into our ecosystem has allowed us to connect performance with purpose in a way that’s truly differentiated.

    And we don’t just build the plan. We execute. We run the campaigns, manage enrollment outreach and support student engagement. It’s a full life cycle approach from awareness to enrollment to retention with everything working together and accountable to outcomes. That’s what it takes to grow in today’s market. It’s not about lead volume alone. It’s about attracting the right students, setting the right expectations and making sure the institution delivers on its promise.

    As for where we fit in the ecosystem? Well … honestly, we don’t fit the mold and we’re not trying to and that’s intentional. Most institutions are still working with a handful of disconnected partners, each focused on one piece of the puzzle. That model no longer works. We bring brand, communications, marketing and enrollment strategy together, because when those areas are aligned, the institution grows in a way that’s both measurable and meaningful.

    I’ve been in higher ed for more than 20 years, and this moment feels different. There’s real urgency, but also real openness to change. Our new CEO, Brent Ramdin, has brought a clear and future-facing vision that’s aligned our team and elevated our work. He understands where this sector is headed and what it will take to succeed there.

    Q: Tell us about your role at EducationDynamics. What are your primary responsibilities and accountabilities? What career path brought you to your current leadership position within the company?

    A: I serve as vice president of partnerships at EducationDynamics, and in many ways, it’s the role I’ve spent my entire career building toward. My focus is on developing strong, strategic relationships with colleges and universities across the country where I work closely with institutional leaders and our internal teams to craft unique solutions that help schools not only meet but exceed their enrollment goals.

    It’s a highly collaborative role and one that demands both strategic insight and real operational follow-through. Every institution is different, so the work is never one-size-fits-all. I spend my time listening deeply, understanding the nuances of each partner’s challenges and helping shape the path forward, always with the modern learner in mind.

    My career in higher ed started more than 20 years ago at the University of Phoenix, where I held several leadership roles over the course of more than a decade while simultaneously expanding my leadership development through structured curriculum. That experience gave me a strong foundation in enrollment strategy, team leadership and cross-functional execution. From there, I served as chief partnerships officer at a division of Excelsior University, where I helped institutions launch and scale their first online programs.

    That’s what ultimately led me to EducationDynamics, and the transition from the institutional side to the partner side has been both natural and energizing. I understand what it feels like to be inside an institution navigating change, and that perspective helps me show up as a true partner to the schools we work with today.

    Q: What advice do you have for early and midcareer professionals interested in eventually moving into a leadership role in a for-profit company in the higher education and digital marketing spaces?

    A: I always tell people to be deliberately curious. So, one of the biggest pieces of advice I can offer is this: Develop a deep understanding of both the mission of higher ed and the mechanics of the business side of institutions. The sweet spot in this space, especially in leadership, is being able to translate institutional goals into scalable, market-responsive strategies. That takes more than just technical skill. It takes empathy, agility and a strong sense of purpose.

    If you’re coming from the university side, spend time learning how businesses that serve higher ed operate—how they measure success, how they use data, how decisions get made. And if you’re coming from the corporate side, take the time to understand the culture, values and pace of higher education. The people who lead effectively in this space are the ones who can bridge those two worlds with credibility and clarity.

    Also, be proactive about expanding your perspective. Step outside your job function. Learn the language of marketing, enrollment, analytics, finance, because in a leadership role, you’ll need to connect all those dots. What’s key for me is I don’t focus on being the expert in the room; I focus on being useful.

    I’ve also found that relationships are everything. Build your network early, nurture it often and don’t be afraid to show up for others before you need anything in return. Platforms like LinkedIn have made that easier than ever, but the real value is in the follow-up, the conversations and the genuine connections.

    And finally: Get close to the work. The best leaders I know are the ones who stay connected to the impact their work has on students, on institutions and on outcomes that actually matter. That connection is what makes the hard work worth it, and it’s what keeps your leadership grounded in purpose.

    So, if I had to sum it up: Keep learning, look for ways to be of service and stay connected. That mindset opens doors, builds trust and prepares you for leadership in any space, especially in one as dynamic as this one.

    Source link