Tag: Resources

  • Sparking civic engagement as we approach America’s 250th

    Sparking civic engagement as we approach America’s 250th

    Key points:

    Imagine students who understand how government works and who see themselves as vital contributors to their communities. That’s what happens when students are given opportunities to play a role in their school, district, and community. In my work as a teacher librarian, I have learned that even the youngest voices can be powerful, and that students embrace civic responsibility and education when history is taught in a way that’s relevant and meaningful. 

    Now is the moment to build momentum and move our curriculum forward. It’s time to break past classroom walls and unite schools and communities. As our nation’s 250th anniversary approaches, education leaders have a powerful opportunity to teach through action and experience like never before. 

    Kids want to matter. When we help them see themselves as part of the world instead of watching it pass by, they learn how to act with purpose. By practicing civic engagement, students gain the skills to contribute solutions–and often offer unique viewpoints that drive real change. In 2023, I took my students [CR1] to the National Mall. They were in awe of how history was represented in stone, how symbolism was not always obvious, and they connected with rangers from the National Park Service as well as visitors in D.C. that day. 

    When students returned from the Mall, they came back with a question that stuck: “Where are the women?” In 2024, we set out to answer two questions together: “Whose monuments are missing?” and “What is HER name?” 

    Ranger Jen at the National Mall, with whom I worked with before, introduced me to Dr. Linda Booth Sweeney, author of Monument Maker, which inspired my approach. Her book asks, “History shapes us–how will we shape history?” Motivated by this challenge, students researched key women in U.S. history and designed monuments to honor their contributions. 

    We partnered with the Women’s Suffrage National Monument, and some students even displayed their work at the Belmont-Paul Women’s Equality National Monument. Through this project, questions were asked, lessons were learned, and students discovered the power of purpose and voice. By the end of our community-wide celebration, National Mall Night, they were already asking, “What’s next?” 

    The experience created moments charged with importance and emotion–moments students wanted to revisit and replicate as they continue shaping history themselves. 

    Reflecting on this journey, I realized I often looked through a narrow lens, focusing only on what was immediately within my school. But the broader community, both local and online, is full of resources that can strengthen relationships, provide materials, and offer strategies, mentors, and experiences that extend far beyond any initial lesson plan. 

    Seeking partnerships is not a new idea, but it can be easily overlooked or underestimated. I’ve learned that a “no” often really means “not yet” or “not now,” and that persistence can open doors. Ford’s Theatre introduced me to Ranger Jen, who in turn introduced me to Dr. Sweeney and the Trust for the National Mall. When I needed additional resources, the Trust for the National Mall responded, connecting me with the new National Mall Gateway: a new digital platform inspired by America’s 250th that gives all students, educators and visitors access to explore and connect with history and civics through the National Mall. 

    When I first shared the Gateway with students, it took their breath away. They could reconnect with the National Mall–a place they were passionate about–with greater detail and depth. I now use the platform to teach about monuments and memorials, to prepare for field trips, and to debrief afterward. The platform brings value for in-person visits to the National Mall, and for virtual field trips in the classroom, where they can almost reach out and touch the marble and stone of the memorials through 360-degree video tours. 

    Another way to spark students’ interest in civics and history is to weave civic learning into every subject. The first step is simple but powerful: Give teachers across disciplines the means to integrate civic concepts into their lessons. This might mean collaborating with arts educators and school librarians to design mini-lessons, curate primary sources, or create research challenges that connect past and present. It can also take shape through larger, project-based initiatives that link classroom learning to real-world issues. Science classes might explore the policies behind environmental conservation, while math lessons could analyze community demographics or civic data. In language arts, students might study speeches, letters, or poetry to see how language drives change. When every subject and resource become hubs for civic exploration, students begin to see citizenship as something they live, not just study. 

    Students thrive when their learning has purpose and connection. They remember lessons tied to meaningful experiences and shared celebrations. For instance, one of our trips to the National Mall happened when our fourth graders were preparing for a Veterans Day program with patriotic music. Ranger Jen helped us take it a step further, building on previous partnerships and connections–she arranged for the students to sing at the World War II Memorial. As they performed “America,” Honor Flights unexpectedly arrived. The students were thrilled to sing in the nation’s capital, of course. But the true impact came from their connection with the veterans who had lived the history they were honoring. 

    As our nation approaches its 250th anniversary, we have an extraordinary opportunity to help students see themselves as part of the story of America’s past, present, and future.

    Encourage educator leaders to consider how experiential civics can bring this milestone to life. Invite students to engage in authentic ways, whether through service-learning projects, policy discussions, or community partnerships that turn civic learning into action. Create spaces in your classes for collaboration, reflection, and application, so that students are shaping history, not just studying it. Give students more than a celebration. Give them a sense of purpose and belonging in the ongoing story of our nation. 

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Cutting costs without cutting corners

    Cutting costs without cutting corners

    Key points:

    With the end of federal COVID-19 emergency funding and the inherent volatility of state income tax revenues, California school districts are in an era of financial uncertainty. Fortunately, Jurupa Unified School District is already several years into the process of finding ways to track and control expenses while still supporting teachers and staff so they can provide the best possible educational experience for our students. Here’s how we’re making staffing and payroll processes more efficient, starting with the perennially challenging extra duty.

    Getting a handle on extra duty

    In addition to our salaried staff, we have a number of part-time, hourly, and what we call “extra duty” assignments. Because a significant amount of our funding comes from grants, many of our assignments are temporary or one-time. We fill those positions with extra duty requests so we’re not committed to ongoing payroll obligations.

    For many years, those extra duty requests and time cards were on paper, which meant the payroll department was performing redundant work to enter the information in the payroll system. The request forms we used were also on paper, making it very difficult to track the actual time being used back to the request, so we could be sure that the hours being used were within the limitations of the request. We needed a better control mechanism that would help school sites stay within budget, as well as a more formal budget mechanism to encumber the department and site budgets to cover the extra duty requests.

    Budgeting can get very complicated because it’s cross-functional. It includes a position-control component, a payroll component, and a financial budgeting component. We needed a solution that could make all of those universes work together. The mission was either to find a system or build one. Our county office started a pilot program with our district to build a system, but ultimately decided against continuing with this effort due to the resources required to sustain such a system for 23 county districts. 

    Our district engaged in a competitive process and chose Helios Ed. Within six months, our team developed and launched a new system to address extra duty. Since then, we have saved more than $100,000 in staffing costs, time expenses, and budget overruns because of the stronger internal controls we now have in place.

    A more efficient (and satisfied) payroll department

    Eliminating redundant data entry and working with data instead of paper has allowed us to reduce staffing by two full-time equivalents–not through layoffs, but through attrition. And because they have a system that is handling data entry for them, our payroll department has more time to give quality to their work, and feel they are working at a level more aligned to their skills.

    Finding efficiencies in your district

    While Jurupa Unified has found efficiencies and savings in these specific areas, every school district is different. As many California district leaders like to say, we have 1,139 school districts –and just as many ways of doing things. With that in mind, there are some steps to the process of moving from paper to online systems (or using online systems more efficiently) that apply universally.

    1. Sit down and identify your objectives. What are the critical components that you must have? 
    2. Make the decision to make or buy. When COVID first hit, Jurupa Unified created its own invoice-routing system through SharePoint. We’ve also built an excursion request process in PowerApps that handles travel, conferences, and field trips. As our county office found out, though, when you’re bringing a number of functionalities together, it can make more sense to work with a vendor you trust.
    3. If you choose to buy software, be certain that it can do precisely what you need it to. If a vendor says they can develop a functionality along the way, ask to see the new feature before you buy.
    4. Be certain the vendor will be responsive. When it comes to a function such as payroll, you’re dealing with people’s livelihoods, and you need to know that if there’s something wrong with the system, or if you need help, that help is just a phone call away.

    Putting in a new payroll management system has made an enormous difference for our district, but it’s not the end of our cost-cutting process. We’re always looking at our different programs to see where we can cut back in ways that don’t impact the classroom. Ultimately, these changes are about ensuring that resources stay focused where they matter most. While budgets fluctuate and funding streams remain unpredictable, my team and I come to work every day because we believe in public education. I’m a product of public education myself, and I love waking up every day knowing that I can come back and support today’s students and teachers.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer Resources, Spring 2026

    Higher Education Inquirer Resources, Spring 2026

    [Editor’s note: Please let us know of any corrections, additions, or broken links.  We always welcome your feedback.]  

    This list traces how U.S. higher education has been reshaped by neoliberal policies, privatization, and data-driven management, producing deepening inequalities across race and class. The works examine the rise of academic capitalism, growing student debt, corporatization, and the influence of private interests—from for-profit colleges to rankings and surveillance systems. Together, they depict a sector drifting away from its public mission and democratic ideals, while highlighting the structural forces that created today’s crises and the reforms needed to reverse them.

    Ahn, Ilsup (2023). The Ethics of Educational Healthcare: Student Debt, Neoliberalism, and Justice. Palgrave Macmillan.
    Alexander, Bryan (2020). Academia Next: The Futures of Higher Education. Johns Hopkins Press.
    Alexander, Bryan (2023). Universities on Fire. Johns Hopkins Press.

    Alexander, Bryan (2026). Peak Higher Ed. Johns Hopkins Press.

    Angulo, A. (2016). Diploma Mills: How For-profit Colleges Stiffed Students, Taxpayers, and the American Dream. Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Apthekar, Bettina (1966). Big Business and the American University. New Outlook Publishers.

    Apthekar, Bettina (1969). Higher Education and the Student Rebellion in the United States, 1960–1969: A Bibliography.

    Archibald, R. & Feldman, D. (2017). The Road Ahead for America’s Colleges & Universities. Oxford University Press.

    Armstrong, E. & Hamilton, L. (2015). Paying for the Party: How College Maintains Inequality. Harvard University Press.

    Arum, R. & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses. University of Chicago Press.

    Baldwin, Davarian (2021). In the Shadow of the Ivory Tower: How Universities Are Plundering Our Cities. Bold Type Books.

    Barr, Andrew & Turner, Sarah (2023). The Labor Market Returns to Higher Education. Oxford University Press.

    Bennett, W. & Wilezol, D. (2013). Is College Worth It? Thomas Nelson.

    Berg, I. (1970). The Great Training Robbery: Education and Jobs. Praeger.

    Berman, Elizabeth P. (2012). Creating the Market University. Princeton University Press.

    Berman, Elizabeth Popp & Stevens, Mitchell (eds.) (2019). The University Under Pressure. Emerald Publishing.

    Berry, J. (2005). Reclaiming the Ivory Tower: Organizing Adjuncts to Change Higher Education. Monthly Review Press.

    Berry, J. and Worthen, H. (2021). Power Despite Precarity: Strategies for the Contingent Faculty Movement in Higher Education. Pluto Books.

    Best, J. & Best, E. (2014). The Student Loan Mess. Atkinson Family Foundation.

    Bledstein, Burton J. (1976). The Culture of Professionalism. Norton.

    Bogue, E. Grady & Aper, Jeffrey (2000). Exploring the Heritage of American Higher Education.

    Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the Marketplace. Princeton University Press.

    Bousquet, M. (2008). How the University Works. NYU Press.

    Brennan, J. & Magness, P. (2019). Cracks in the Ivory Tower. Oxford University Press.

    Brint, S. & Karabel, J. (1989). The Diverted Dream. Oxford University Press.

    Burawoy, Michael & Mitchell, Katharyne (eds.) (2020). The University, Neoliberalism, and the Politics of Inequality. Routledge.

    Burd, Stephen (2024). Lifting the Veil on Enrollment Management: How a Powerful Industry is Limiting Social Mobility in American Higher Education. Harvard Education Press

    Cabrera, Nolan L. (2018). White Guys on Campus. Rutgers University Press.

    Cabrera, Nolan L. (2024). Whiteness in the Ivory Tower. Teachers College Press.

    Cantwell, Brendan & Robertson, Susan (eds.) (2021). Research Handbook on the Politics of Higher Education. Edward Elgar.

    Caplan, B. (2018). The Case Against Education. Princeton University Press.

    Cappelli, P. (2015). Will College Pay Off? Public Affairs.

    Carney, Cary Michael (1999). Native American Higher Education in the United States. Transaction.

    Cassuto, Leonard (2015). The Graduate School Mess. Harvard University Press.

    Caterine, Christopher (2020). Leaving Academia. Princeton Press.

    Childress, H. (2019). The Adjunct Underclass. University of Chicago Press.

    Chomsky, Noam (2014). Masters of Mankind. Haymarket Books.

    Choudaha, Rahul & de Wit, Hans (eds.) (2019). International Student Recruitment and Mobility. Routledge.

    Cohen, Arthur M. (1998). The Shaping of American Higher Education. Jossey-Bass.

    Collins, Randall (1979/2019). The Credential Society. Columbia University Press.

    Cottom, Tressie McMillan (2016). Lower Ed.

    Cottom, Tressie McMillan & Darity, William A. Jr. (eds.) (2018). For-Profit Universities. Routledge.

    Domhoff, G. William (2021). Who Rules America? Routledge.

    Donoghue, F. (2008). The Last Professors.

    Dorn, Charles (2017). For the Common Good. Cornell University Press.

    Eaton, Charlie (2022). Bankers in the Ivory Tower. University of Chicago Press.

    Eisenmann, Linda (2006). Higher Education for Women in Postwar America. Johns Hopkins Press.

    Espenshade, T. & Walton Radford, A. (2009). No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal. Princeton University Press.

    Faragher, John Mack & Howe, Florence (eds.) (1988). Women and Higher Education in American History. Norton.

    Farber, Jerry (1972). The University of Tomorrowland. Pocket Books.

    Freeman, Richard B. (1976). The Overeducated American. Academic Press.

    Gaston, P. (2014). Higher Education Accreditation. Stylus.

    Gildersleeve, Ryan Evely & Tierney, William (2017). The Contemporary Landscape of Higher Education. Routledge.

    Ginsberg, B. (2013). The Fall of the Faculty. Oxford University Press.

    Giroux, Henry (1983). Theory and Resistance in Education. Bergin and Garvey Press.

    Giroux, Henry (2014). Neoliberalism’s War on Higher Education. Haymarket Books.

    Giroux, Henry (2022). Pedagogy of Resistance. Bloomsbury Academic.

    Gleason, Philip (1995). Contending with Modernity. Oxford University Press.

    Golden, D. (2006). The Price of Admission.

    Goldrick-Rab, S. (2016). Paying the Price.

    Graeber, David (2018). Bullshit Jobs. Simon and Schuster.

    Groeger, Cristina Viviana (2021). The Education Trap. Harvard Press.

    Hamilton, Laura T. & Kelly Nielson (2021). Broke.

    Hampel, Robert L. (2017). Fast and Curious. Rowman & Littlefield.

    Hirschman, Daniel & Berman, Elizabeth Popp (eds.) (2021). The Sociology of Higher Education.

    Johnson, B. et al. (2003). Steal This University.

    Kamenetz, Anya (2006). Generation Debt. Riverhead.

    Keats, John (1965). The Sheepskin Psychosis. Lippincott.

    Kelchen, Robert (2018). Higher Education Accountability. Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Kezar, A., DePaola, T., & Scott, D. (2019). The Gig Academy. Johns Hopkins Press.

    Kinser, K. (2006). From Main Street to Wall Street.

    Kozol, Jonathan (1992). Savage Inequalities. Harper Perennial.

    Kozol, Jonathan (2006). The Shame of the Nation. Crown.

    Kraus, Neil (2023). The Fantasy Economy: Neoliberalism, Inequality, and the Education Reform Movement. Temple University Press, 2023.

    Labaree, David (1997). How to Succeed in School Without Really Learning. Yale University Press.

    Labaree, David F. (2017). A Perfect Mess. University of Chicago Press.

    Lafer, Gordon (2004). The Job Training Charade. Cornell University Press.

    Loehen, James (1995). Lies My Teacher Told Me. The New Press.

    Lohse, Andrew (2014). Confessions of an Ivy League Frat Boy. Thomas Dunne Books.

    Lucas, C.J. (1994). American Higher Education: A History.

    Lukianoff, Greg & Haidt, Jonathan (2018). The Coddling of the American Mind. Penguin Press.

    Maire, Quentin (2021). Credential Market. Springer.

    Mandery, Evan (2022). Poison Ivy. New Press.

    Marginson, Simon (2016). The Dream Is Over. University of California Press.

    Marti, Eduardo (2016). America’s Broken Promise. Excelsior College Press.

    Mettler, Suzanne (2014). Degrees of Inequality. Basic Books.

    Morris, Dan & Targ, Harry (2023). From Upton Sinclair’s ‘Goose Step’ to the Neoliberal University.

    Newfeld, C. (2011). Unmaking the Public University.

    Newfeld, C. (2016). The Great Mistake.

    Newfield, Christopher (2023). Metrics-Driven. Johns Hopkins Press.

    O’Neil, Cathy (2016). Weapons of Math Destruction. Crown.

    Palfrey, John (2020). Safe Spaces, Brave Spaces. MIT Press.

    Paulsen, M. & Smart, J.C. (2001). The Finance of Higher Education. Agathon Press.

    Piketty, Thomas (2020). Capital and Ideology. Harvard University Press.

    Reynolds, G. (2012). The Higher Education Bubble. Encounter Books.

    Rojstaczer, Stuart (1999). Gone for Good. Oxford University Press.

    Rosen, A.S. (2011). Change.edu. Kaplan Publishing.

    Roth, G. (2019). The Educated Underclass. Pluto Press.

    Ruben, Julie (1996). The Making of the Modern University. University of Chicago Press.

    Rudolph, F. (1991). The American College and University.

    Rushdoony, R. (1972). The Messianic Character of American Education. The Craig Press.

    Schrecker, Ellen (2010). The Lost Soul of Higher Education: New Press.

    Selingo, J. (2013). College Unbound.

    Shelton, Jon (2023). The Education Myth. Cornell University Press.

    Simpson, Christopher (1999). Universities and Empire. New Press.

    Sinclair, U. (1923). The Goose-Step.

    Slaughter, Sheila & Rhoades, Gary (2004). Academic Capitalism and the New Economy. Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Smyth, John (2017). The Toxic University. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Sperber, Murray (2000). Beer and Circus. Holt.

    Stein, Sharon (2022). Unsettling the University. Johns Hopkins Press.

    Stevens, Mitchell L. (2009). Creating a Class. Harvard University Press.

    Stodghill, R. (2015). Where Everybody Looks Like Me.

    Tamanaha, B. (2012). Failing Law Schools. University of Chicago Press.

    Tatum, Beverly (1997). Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? Basic Books.

    Taylor, Barret J. & Cantwell, Brendan (2019). Unequal Higher Education. Rutgers University Press.

    Thelin, John R. (2019). A History of American Higher Education. Johns Hopkins Press.

    Tolley, K. (2018). Professors in the Gig Economy. Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Trow, Martin (1973). Problems in the Transition from Elite to Mass Higher Education. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. 

    Twitchell, James B. (2005). Branded Nation. Simon and Schuster.

    Vedder, R. (2004). Going Broke By Degree.

    Veysey, Lawrence R. (1965). The Emergence of the American University.

    Washburn, J. (2006). University Inc.

    Washington, Harriet A. (2008). Medical Apartheid. Anchor.

    Whitman, David (2021). The Profits of Failure. Cypress House.

    Wilder, C.D. (2013). Ebony and Ivy.

    Winks, Robin (1996). Cloak and Gown. Yale University Press.

    Woodson, Carter D. (1933). The Mis-Education of the Negro.

    Zaloom, Caitlin (2019). Indebted. Princeton University Press.

    Zemsky, Robert, Shaman, Susan & Baldridge, Susan Campbell (2020). The College Stress Test. Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Zuboff, Shoshana (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. PublicAffairs. 

    Activists, Coalitions, Innovators, and Alternative Voices

     College Choice and Career Planning Tools

    Innovation and Reform

    Higher Education Policy

    Data Sources

    Trade publications

    Source link

  • 50+ AI Resources for Teachers

    50+ AI Resources for Teachers





    50+ AI Resources for Teachers | Shake Up Learning













































    Privacy & Cookies Policy





    Source link

  • Rethinking icebreakers in professional learning

    Rethinking icebreakers in professional learning

    Key points:

    I was once asked during an icebreaker in a professional learning session to share a story about my last name. What I thought would be a light moment quickly became emotional. My grandfather borrowed another name to come to America, but his attempt was not successful, and yet our family remained with it. Being asked to share that story on the spot caught me off guard. It was personal, it was heavy, and it was rushed into the open by an activity intended to be lighthearted.

    That highlights the problem with many icebreakers. Facilitators often ask for vulnerability without context, pushing people into performances disconnected from the session’s purpose. For some educators, especially those from historically marginalized backgrounds, being asked to disclose personal details without trust can feel unsafe. I have both delivered and received professional learning where icebreakers were the first order of business, and they often felt irrelevant. I have had to supply “fun facts” I had not thought about in years or invent something just to move the activity along.

    And inevitably, somewhere later in the day, the facilitator says, “We are running out of time” or “We do not have time to discuss this in depth.” The irony is sharp: Meaningful discussion gets cut short while minutes were spent on activities that added little value.

    Why icebreakers persist

    Why do icebreakers persist despite their limitations? Part of it is tradition. They are familiar, and many facilitators replicate what they have experienced in their own professional learning. Another reason is belief in their power to foster collaboration or energize a room. Research suggests there is some basis for this. Chlup and Collins (2010) found that icebreakers and “re-energizers” can, when used thoughtfully, improve motivation, encourage interaction, and create a sense of safety for adult learners. These potential benefits help explain why facilitators continue to use them.

    But the promise is rarely matched by practice. Too often, icebreakers are poorly designed fillers, disconnected from learning goals, or stretched too long, leaving participants disengaged rather than energized.

    The costs of misuse

    Even outside education, icebreakers have a negative reputation. As Kirsch (2025) noted in The New York Times, many professionals “hate them,” questioning their relevance and treating them with suspicion. Leaders in other fields rarely tolerate activities that feel disconnected from their core work, and teachers should not be expected to, either.

    Research on professional development supports this skepticism. Guskey (2003) found that professional learning only matters when it is carefully structured and purposefully directed. Simply gathering people together does not guarantee effectiveness. The most valued feature of professional development is deepening educators’ content and pedagogical knowledge in ways that improve student learning–something icebreakers rarely achieve.

    School leaders are also raising the same concerns. Jared Lamb, head of BASIS Baton Rouge Mattera Charter School in Louisiana and known for his viral leadership videos on social media, argues that principals and teachers have better uses of their time. “We do not ask surgeons to play two truths and a lie before surgery,” he remarked, “so why subject our educators to the same?” His critique may sound extreme, but it reflects a broader frustration with how professional learning time is spent.

    I would not go that far. While I agree with Lamb that educators’ time must be honored, the solution is not to eliminate icebreakers entirely, but to plan them with intention. When designed thoughtfully, they can help establish norms, foster trust, and build connection. The key is ensuring they are tied to the goals of the session and respect the professionalism of participants.

    Toward more authentic connection

    The most effective way to build community in professional learning is through purposeful engagement. Facilitators can co-create norms, clarify shared goals, or invite participants to reflect on meaningful moments from their teaching or leadership journeys. Aguilar (2022), in Arise, reminds us that authentic connections and peer groups sustain teachers far more effectively than manufactured activities. Professional trust grows not from gimmicks but from structures that honor educators’ humanity and expertise.

    Practical alternatives to icebreakers include:

    • Norm setting with purpose: Co-create group norms or commitments that establish shared expectations and respect.
    • Instructional entry points: Use a short analysis of student work, a case study, or a data snapshot to ground the session in instructional practice immediately.
    • Structured reflection: Invite participants to share a meaningful moment from their teaching or leadership journey using protocols like the Four A’s. These provide choice and safety while deepening professional dialogue.
    • Collaborative problem-solving: Begin with a design challenge or pressing instructional issue that requires participants to work together immediately.

    These approaches avoid the pitfalls of forced vulnerability. They also account for equity by ensuring participation is based on professional engagement, not personal disclosures.

    Closing reflections

    Professional learning should honor educators’ time and expertise. Under the right conditions, icebreakers can enhance learning, but more often, they create discomfort, waste minutes, and fail to build trust.

    I still remember being asked to tell my last name story. What emerged was a family history rooted in migration, struggle, and survival, not a “fun fact.” That moment reminds me: when we ask educators to share, we must do so with care, with planning, and with purpose.

    If we model superficial activities for teachers, we risk signaling that superficial activities are acceptable for students. School leaders and facilitators must design professional learning that is purposeful, respectful, and relevant. When every activity ties to practice and trust, participants leave not only connected but also better equipped to serve their students. That is the kind of professional learning worth everyone’s time.

    References

    Aguilar, E. (2022). Arise: The art of transformative leadership in schools. Jossey-Bass.

    Chlup, D. T., & Collins, T. E. (2010). Breaking the ice: Using ice-breakers and re-energizers with adult learners. Adult Learning, 21(3–4), 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/104515951002100305

    Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 48(10), 748–750.

    Kirsch, M. (2025, March 29). Breaking through. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/29/briefing/breaking-through.html

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • The triple Rs of scholastic esports

    The triple Rs of scholastic esports

    Key points:

    I know what it feels like to stand in front of a classroom that does not have enough. Not enough computers. Not enough up-to-date software and technical tools. Not enough resources to give every student the experience they deserve. When students notice these gaps, they notice more than the missing tools. They begin to question whether their education and, by extension, their potential really matters. That doubt can quietly drain their confidence.

    This is why dependable resources are not simply a bonus in education. They are a lifeline. In my role leading the Scholastic Esports Academy in the Five Carat Choice Program at Palm Beach Lakes High School, I have watched how access to quality equipment and meaningful project-based learning transforms students from the inside out. It is not only about what they learn but about how they begin to see themselves.

    I have been fortunate to develop partnerships with organizations like Cleverlike Studios, changing the game for my students by bringing advanced technology and creativity directly into the classroom. For example, they learned how to create new characters for Minecraft and designed custom esports jerseys for their Minecraft characters. Students were engaged while learning in games they know and love. These experiences allow them to express their creativity and see their ideas come to life while building complex skills such as coding, digital media, and game design.  

    When students make the leap from simple play to design, careers in technology and digital media suddenly seem accessible, even if they have never seen themselves in these fields before. Scholastic esports is an avenue within the educational landscape that merges the captivating realm of the video game industry with project based learning and educational objectives. It capitalizes on students’ existing interests for STEM subjects, including gamification, digital media, robotics, and financial literacy, directing them towards a structured and educational setting.

    In just five years, the Palm Beach Lakes Scholastic Esports Academy has grown from a small club of ten students to more than five hundred, becoming a full CTE academy that operates both during the school day and after school. Through this experience, students are earning four to five industry certifications along their four year pathway. Their success demonstrates what happens when resources are reliable, relatable, and creativity is encouraged. Students are now able to see themselves in real time through 3D models and their own digital designs, creating new characters for Minecraft and customizing their own esports jerseys.

    Recognizing this success, the Pew Foundation invested nearly $500,000 to expand our infrastructure and transform the program from an after school club into a full daytime classroom experience, creating even greater opportunities for growth and student success. Now, when our students walk into the Esports classroom, they enter a space built around their passions. They see powerful gaming computers, professional streaming equipment, and projects that speak their language. Suddenly, the skills they once thought were only for others become reachable. They begin to realize that their love for video games, robotics, and digital media can open doors to real world careers and college opportunities.

    The results speak for themselves:

    • In FY23 Palm Beach Lakes High School used a Pew Grant to launch the esports course and compared outcomes with a matched group of students.
    • Students who participated in esports had significantly lower rates of in-school or out-of-school suspension, with about half as many incidents as their non-esports peers.
    • Absenteeism among esports students was also slightly lower.
    • While GPA and certification pass rates were similar, the behavioral improvements were clear and meaningful.

    These numbers match what I see every day. Students who once struggled to stay engaged now show up early to practice. They stay late to collaborate. They treat each other with a level of respect and teamwork that carries over into their other classes.

    None of this would be possible without reliable and relatable resources that connect directly to students’ interests and experiences. In a Title I school, these tools make learning meaningful by turning abstract ideas into hands-on projects that students can see, touch, and create. Expanding their minds through hands-on learning and project based materials from companies like Cleverlike Studios, our students gain access to educational tools that connect classroom lessons to real world applications. Coding challenges, game design projects, and digital media activities inspire creativity, critical thinking, and collaboration. Most importantly, this work helps students see that their ideas and talents have value and that their creativity can open doors to future opportunities. 

    For many of my students’ resources have always been scarce. But in the Scholastic Esports Academy they find more than equipment. They find opportunity. They discover that their skills have value beyond the game and that their voices and ideas matter. They begin to picture themselves as leaders in technology, media, and STEM fields.

    Student Alyssa Chavez said, “Last year, we completed an assignment to design a jersey for our esports teams to wear on Minecraft. The Esports Jersey assignment was very helpful and even inspiring to me because it helped me learn to adapt and appeal to the suggestions and requirements that a client or partner would want me to apply to a project.   The use of the Blockbench program helped me to understand the importance of knowing how to navigate and use a program to do my best work for certain projects. When making the jersey, I took the elements and colors of our ‘Retro Rams’ branding and applied them to the jersey to create a design that represents unity and teamwork, showcasing the unity of our esports team.”

    This is why I believe scholastic esports is not just about gaming. It is about creating a bridge between curiosity and opportunity. It is about giving students in under-resourced communities the confidence to dream bigger and the tools to make those dreams real.

    The ongoing success of our academy is proof that when education is supported with vision, dedication, and the right resources, students will rise. We have created a space where learning feels real, where creativity thrives, and where confidence is built through experience. Partners like Cleverlike Studios have played a part in this progress by providing educational tools that enhance what we do every day. Together, we are demonstrating that reliable and relatable learning environments not only inspire achievement but also prepare students to succeed beyond the classroom.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Smart strategies to help students find the perfect college

    Smart strategies to help students find the perfect college

    Key points:

    You’ll often hear two words come up in advising sessions as students look ahead to college: match and fit. They sound interchangeable, but they’re not.

    Match refers to what colleges are looking for from students. It’s mostly determined by admissions requirements such as GPA and test scores, and in some cases, other criteria like auditions, portfolios, or athletic ability. Fit is more of an art than a science; it refers to what the student is looking for in a college, including personal preferences, social and cultural environment, financial factors, and academic offerings. When we talk to students about college fit, it’s an opportunity for them to ask themselves whether they like what a certain institution offers beyond being admitted.

    In the college admissions process, both terms matter. A strong match without a good fit can leave a student disengaged and negatively affect their chances of graduating from college. Nearly a quarter of undergraduate freshmen drop out before their second year, and it seems likely to me that a lot of these cases boil down to bad fits. On the other hand, a great fit that isn’t a match could be difficult for admission in the first place, and if a student is admitted anyway, the rigorous coursework they encounter might be more than they’re ready for. To maximize postsecondary success, advisors, families, and students alike should fully understand the difference between match and fit and know how to approach conversations about each of them.

    Match: Reach, target, and solid

    As I’ve worked with advisors over the years, one of the best ways we’ve found to guide students on match is using the categories of “Reach,” “Target,” and “Solid” schools. We can determine which schools belong to what category using the data that colleges share about the average incoming GPAs and test scores of admitted classes. Typically, they report weighted GPAs and composite test scores from the middle 50 percent of accepted applicants, i.e., from the students who fall anywhere from the 25th to 75th percentile of those admitted.

    • Reach: These are schools where admission is less likely, either because a student’s test scores and GPA are below the middle 50 percent or because the school traditionally admits only a small percentage of eligible applicants.
    • Target: These are schools where either GPA or test scores fall in the middle 50 percent of admitted students.
    • Solid: These are schools where students are well within the middle 50 percent for both GPA and test scores.

    Building a balanced college list across these categories is essential in the college planning process. Often, I see high-achieving students over-index on too many Reach schools, which may make it hard for them to get accepted anywhere on their list, simply because their preferred schools are ultra-selective. Meanwhile, parents and guardians may focus heavily on fit and overlook whether the student actually meets the college’s admission criteria. Advisors play a key role in keeping these data-informed conversations grounded with the goal of a balanced list of college options for students to pursue.

    The importance of early planning

    Timing matters. In general, if you meet with students early enough, conversations about fit are productive, but if you’re meeting with students for the first time in their senior year, the utmost priority should be helping them build a balanced list. Ideally, we want to avoid a situation where a student thinks they’re going to get into the most competitive colleges in the country on the strength of their GPA and test scores, only to find out that it’s not that easy. If advisors wait until senior year to address match, students and families may already have unrealistic expectations, leading to difficult conversations when options are limited.

    On the other hand, we would stress that although GPA is the factor given the most weight by admissions offices, there are ways to overcome match deficits with other elements of a college application. For instance, if a student worked part-time to support their family or participated in co-curricular activities, colleges using holistic review may see this as part of the student’s story, helping to balance a GPA that falls outside the typical range. These experiences highlight a student’s passions and potential contributions to their chosen major and campus community. We don’t want students to have unrealistic expectations, but we also shouldn’t limit them based on numbers alone.

    In any case, advisors should introduce both match and fit concepts as early as 9th grade. If students have a specific college in mind, they need to be aware of the match requirements from the first day of freshman year of high school. This allows students to plan and track academic progress against requirements and lets families begin exploring what kind of environment, resources, and financial realities would make for the right fit.

    Fit: A personal process

    Once match is established, the next step is making sure students ask: “What do I want in my college experience?” The answers will involve a wide range of factors:

    • Institutional type: Public or private? Small liberal arts college or large research university?
    • Academic considerations: What majors are offered? Are there study abroad programs? Internship opportunities?
    • Student life: What is the student body like? What kind of extracurriculars, sports, and support services are offered? Are there fraternities and sororities? What is the campus culture?
    • Affordability: What financial aid or scholarships can I expect? What is the true net cost of attendance?
    • Outcomes: What a student hopes to gain from their postsecondary experience, including specific degrees or credentials, career preparation, financial benefits, personal growth, and skill development.

    Fit also requires conversations within families. I’ve found that open communication can reveal misunderstandings that would otherwise falsely limit students’ options. Sometimes students assume their parents want them close to home, when in fact, parents just want them to find the right environment. Other times, families discover affordability looks very different once they use tools like free cost calculators. Ongoing dialogue about these topics between advisors, students, and families during the high school years helps prepare for better decisions in the end.

    Bringing it all together

    With more than 4,000 colleges and universities in the U.S. alone, every student can find a college or university that aligns with their goals and abilities. Doing so, however, is both an art and a science. Advisors who help families focus on both dimensions, and start the conversation early, set students up to receive those treasured acceptance letters and to thrive once they arrive on campus.

    For school districts developing their proficiency in postsecondary readiness factors, like advising, there is an increasing amount of support available. For one, TexasCCMR.org, has free guidance resources to strengthen advising programs and other aspects of college and career readiness. While Texas-focused, many of the insights and tools on the site can be helpful for districts across the country in building their teams’ capabilities.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Learn SPSS Online for MBA Projects: Free Resources Inside

    Learn SPSS Online for MBA Projects: Free Resources Inside

    How to do regression analysis in spss

    Regression Analysis is a analysis process where the relationship between one dependent variable is evaluated with one or more independent variables. Regression Analysis are mainly used for prediction and forecasting. To define as an example, a doctor can quantify how much each factor will contribute to the overall risk of patients.

    Regression Analysis is a analysis process where the relationship between one dependent variable is evaluated with one or more independent variables. 

    Types of Regression Analysis

    1. Simple Linear Regression: Used for evaluating the relationship of one dependent variable with one independent variable.

    Formula: Y=a+bX+

    Where:

    Y=Dependent Variable (Outcome)

    X=Independent variable (Predictor)

    a= Intercept (Value of Y when X=0)

    b=Slope (how much Y changes for a one unit increase in X)

    = Error Term.

    1. Multiple Linear Regression: It is used for evaluating two or more independent variable to predict a dependent variable.

    Formula:Y=a+b_1 X_1+b_2 X_2+⋯+b_n X_n+ϵ

    Performing Regression Analysis in SPSS

    In SPSS performing regression analysis is extremely easy as it used a menu driven interface which allows user to perform the analysis in a few clicks. Once the dataset is imported in the system the user has to select the dependent and independent variables. The software will immediately calculate regression coefficient, R-squared values and the model fit statistics.

    Source link

  • Strengthening family engagement to support the science of reading

    Strengthening family engagement to support the science of reading

    Key points:

    While most teachers are eager to implement the science of reading, many lack the time and tools to connect these practices to home-based support, according to a new national survey from Lexia, a Cambium Learning Group brand.

    The 2025 Back-to-School Teacher Survey, with input from more than 1,500 K–12 educators nationwide, points to an opportunity for district leaders to work in concert with teachers to provide families with the science of reading-based literacy resources they need to support student reading success.

    Key insights from the survey include:

    • 60 percent of teachers are either fully trained or interested in learning more about the science of reading
    • Only 15 percent currently provide parents with structured, evidence-based literacy activities
    • 79 percent of teachers cite time constraints and parents’ work schedules as top barriers to family engagement
    • Just 10 percent report that their schools offer comprehensive family literacy programs
    • Teachers overwhelmingly want in-person workshops and video tutorials to help parents support reading at home

    “Teachers know that parental involvement can accelerate literacy and they’re eager for ways to strengthen those connections,” said Lexia President Nick Gaehde. “This data highlights how districts can continue to build on momentum in this new school year by offering scalable, multilingual, and flexible family engagement strategies that align with the science of reading.”

    Teachers also called for:

    • Better technology tools for consistent school-to-home communication
    • Greater multilingual support to serve diverse communities
    • Professional learning that includes family engagement training

    Gaehde concluded, “Lexia’s survey reflects the continued national emphasis on Structured Literacy and shows that equipping families is essential to driving lasting student outcomes. At Lexia we’re committed to partnering with districts and teachers to strengthen the school-to-home connection. By giving educators practical tools and data-driven insights, we help teachers and families work together–ensuring every child has the literacy support they need to thrive.”

    The complete findings are available in a new report, From Classroom to Living Room: Exploring Parental Involvement in K–12 Literacy. District leaders can also download the accompanying infographic, What District Leaders Need To Know: 5 Key Findings About Family Engagement and Literacy,” which highlights the most pressing data points and strategic opportunities for improving school-to-home literacy connections.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • AI Chatbot Provides Resources for Student Support

    AI Chatbot Provides Resources for Student Support

    As generative AI tools become more common, a growing number of young people turn first to chatbots when they have questions. A survey by the Associated Press found that among AI users, 70 percent of young Americans use the tools to search for information.

    For colleges and universities, this presents a new opportunity to reach students with curated, institution-specific resources via chatbots.

    In the most recent episode of Voices of Student Success, Jeanette Powers, executive director of the student hub at Western New England University, discusses the university’s chatbot, Spirit, powered by EdSights, and how the technology helps staff intervene when students are in distress.

    An edited version of the podcast appears below.

    Q: Can you give us the backstory—how Spirit got to campus and what need you all were looking to fulfill?

    A: Sure, Western New England, we are the Golden Bears, and our mascot’s name is Spirit. So, Spirit is behind the scenes of our chatbot.

    In the year 2023–24, we were trying to look at ways that we could get student voices at the center of what we’re doing. The Western New England philosophy and kind of core values really is about student-centered learning and support. We wanted to try to find a way to engage students earlier than our typical reporting systems come out, and we really wanted to hear the student voice.

    Over the course of the year, we did some research and [looked] at different AI platforms that would provide some resources for us. And we landed on EdSights, which is an amazing company that has helped us really bring Spirit to life, where students are using the chatbot on a regular basis to get questions answered, to get resources to know where to go on campus and to also give us information so that we can better support them. We really wanted our chatbot to be reflective of our community, which is why we use our mascot as kind of behind the scenes to reach out to students.

    Q: Yeah, it probably seems a little less scary to talk to your mascot than maybe an anonymous administrator.

    A: Exactly, especially for our first-year students. When they’re coming on campus, they’ve met the mascot at many open house services and orientation, so they have that connection right away.

    Q: You mentioned that this was a semirecent addition to your campus. For some people, AI can still be kind of scary. Was there a campus culture around AI? Or, how would you describe the landscape at WNE when it comes to embracing AI or having skepticism around using AI, especially in a student-facing way like this?

    A: AI is so new, and it’s changing rapidly. Western New England has really embraced it. I think one of the biggest things that we looked at was just to make sure that there’s a human side to this AI system. And that’s, I think, one of the most powerful pieces about our AI chatbot … yes, it’s a chatbot, but we also have human helpers, myself and a colleague, who are monitoring and able to reach out to students when there’s any concern.

    There’s a lot of systems in place, I think, to protect students. If there’s something going on or they share something with the chatbot, we’re here to help, and we let them know that there are humans behind the chatbot. I think that was probably one of the wider concerns before we started, was, how do we make sure we don’t miss anything that might be reported to a chatbot?

    It really also helps with managing time. Students can ask the chatbot questions about WNE 24-7. The student hub, we’re open Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., but then we’re not around on the weekends and at night. Students still have questions at that time, so they can reach out [to Spirit]. It’s an extension of the Student Hub. We’ve really been able to get students resources and information right away.

    That’s been really helpful for them to know where to go and who to connect with. A lot of our first-year students are the main users, but all of our students are using the chatbot. The system’s been really great to be able to support students and get information from them but also give them information.

    Q: I wonder if you can talk us through how you all customized it to make it campus-specific and really ensure that students know what’s available to them and how this is their community and their college experience?

    A: That’s so key, because it’s not an external chatbot—it’s not ChatGPT, where you can google how to do your homework. I’ve had students ask [Spirit], “Help me with this math problem,” and Spirit’s like, “I’m really sorry, but I can’t do that.” It’s really an internal system, and students only have access to it because they are students, and we give them information directly there.

    What we did with the program is the company sets you up with, here are the main questions that this chatbot typically gets, and then we back-feed it with all this information. Each department took a look at these questions, so we filled it all in. It’s called the knowledge base. In the knowledge base, we have all these different things, like, when are things open? Who to contact about this? All sorts of options that students can get.

    One piece is students use it almost like a Siri or Alexa, where you get that quick answer. We really wanted to meet students where they were and wanted to make sure that, you know, it was real-time information for them.

    We have really filled it with all information about Western New England that they can access and get information right away. So that’s the one piece of the chatbot that’s really powerful. It helps save time, keep students from having to wait in line or make appointments, and then it directs them in the right place.

    The other piece of the chatbot, which is really a more powerful piece that this individual chatbot has, is a proactive approach. We have a system that the company has developed, based on research, [with] certain questions we ask students throughout the year.

    Depending on the time of the year, what’s going on, we may be asking them about academics, financial, personal wellness and health, mental health, as well as engagement on campus. When we ask those questions, we’re hearing the student’s voice right away. Those questions start early; in early September we have the first questions going out. Typically, you may get a report from faculty or staff almost midsemester. We’re getting it really early so that we can intervene right away.

    Intervening is that human helper side. We have that chatbot who’s going to be there to answer your questions. But when the chatbot reaches out, make sure you respond, because now as a staff, we can say, this group of students, or these individual students, need something more, and how can we connect with them? It really enhances the relationship.

    I think sometimes there’s a fear that AI takes away from a relationship, but it truly enhances the relationship, because once a student is willing to talk to the chatbot, they’re more likely to talk to the staff who reaches out to them because of what they said to the chatbot.

    Q: When you are setting up those prompts, looking at those early alerts or things that you might want to know from students, what are you all asking and what have you found is important to identify early on?

    A: The first question that goes out is “How do you feel so far about the term?” Students respond with numbers: one, great, two, neutral, three, not so great. And then the chatbot will follow up if it’s neutral or not so great: Why? Is it finances? Is it belonging and connections, academics? Then the students respond there. If students are willing to keep chatting, Spirit will ask, why, can you give any more information?

    So last year was the first year that we really implemented it for a full year, and that first question is so powerful because myself and my colleague were able to jump in right away and connect with students, specifically first-year students who in this first two or three weeks of classes are feeling stuck and lost and not quite sure how to move forward.

    That’s been really powerful, because not only are they telling us they need help, they’re telling us why they need help and in what direction, and then our job is to reach out and say, “Thanks so much for connecting with Spirit. Now here we are. What can we do to help? Come on in and meet us in the Student Hub, and then we can help you navigate the various offices on campus.”

    Q: We’re seeing more students reach out to these third-party services online, trying to look for help and support. Now you all are providing a service for them that is safe, secure and run by staff members who are really looking for their best interests and trying to make sure that they get plugged in and that they don’t stay online.

    A: That’s really important. I think the biggest thing is putting it out there and saying, “Here’s how I’m feeling, who’s going to do anything about it?” And knowing that there’s staff that are going to get you connected if students are feeling like they are not involved on campus—we have so many different clubs and organizations, and just having that conversation with a staff member of, like, what’s your interest? We have a club for that. Or, we have a professor who is an expert in this field, and it really helps us tailor and personalize the student experience. That’s information we wouldn’t know otherwise.

    As educators, we get a ton of information about students, and we don’t always get that student voice, and that’s what this system does. It allows us to get the voice and allows us to get it early. And we do have that safeguard in place, where students may be having struggles, but they get resources right away, and there are alert systems set up on the back end, so if there are any issues, faculty and staff are able to respond.

    Q: What kind of data have you all looked at when it comes to understanding the student experience as a whole? Have there been any insights or trends that have surprised you or driven change on campus?

    A: The data is fascinating. I think the biggest thing for looking at this data is, yes, you can do the individual outreach and the individual support, but we can look across the board. We can look at first-generation students. We can look at athletes. We can look at first-year students versus seniors. So there’s a lot of data based on what we have in the system.

    Over the past 12 months, we’ve had 17,000 texts back and forth between Spirit and the students, which is phenomenal. We have a 98 percent opt-in rate. So students get a text from Spirit in the beginning of the year, and they can opt out, but 98 percent of students are using it. During the year, our engagement fluctuates between 64 and 70 percent.

    The other thing we’ve been able to see, and this is more recent … is we have a higher retention rate for students who are engaged with the chatbot than students who aren’t. So just recently, we’re getting this report from EdSights that 90.6 percent of students who actually engage in the chatbot persisted from fall 2024 to fall 2025. The difference was 75.3 percent who didn’t engage persisted. We are seeing a growth.

    I think the reason that that’s so important is because retention and persistence are all about connection and belonging and feeling like you have someone, even if it’s a chatbot, who is connecting with you and making sure that you’re feeling [like] a valued member of our campus community.

    We’ve been able to connect with hundreds of students that we may not have been able to connect with or [who we] didn’t even know were struggling because of this chatbot.

    We did a huge marketing campaign last year to really get students to use it. This fall, we have the largest freshman class we’ve ever had, and so encouraging them to use this chatbot as a resource has been amazing.

    I did a comparison to last year where the first week of classes, we didn’t ask any questions in the first week, but we make it available if students have questions. In the first week of classes last year [fall 2024], students asked 72 questions, or 72 texts to Spirit. This year, in the first year of classes, it was 849.

    Q: Wow.

    A: So students are using the chatbot. Now, it’s the second year, so we’ve got returning students who also are engaged and understand what it’s all about. It’s showing that students have those questions. Think about all the different questions they got answered that they may not have either went somewhere to get it answered or time didn’t allow them to have it answered.

    They’re not going to get perfect answers, either. They may ask a question and the chatbot may say, “I’m not sure I exactly know that answer, but here’s who on campus will,” and it gives them the website. It gives them the contact, it gives them the phone number, so if the chatbot doesn’t know the exact answer, it gives them resources right away, so that they can then follow up on their own.

    Q: When it comes to staff capacity, have you seen any impact on the amount of redundant emails students are sending?

    A: I think that’s been really helpful, because students can ask the chatbot right away. The other amazing piece about this tool that we’re using is that we can add information pretty quickly. For example, we have a student involvement fair that’s coming up tomorrow, and I had a student ask me a question. I’m like, “Well, let’s ask the chatbot.” And it wasn’t in [the information base]. So I was like, “Well, you’re probably not the only student [with this question].”

    So I went in and I added it on the back end, and then I said, “All right, let’s try it again.” Five minutes later, he got the answer for the question from the chatbot.

    The system is set up so that we can customize it. There are over 500 questions with answers in the system. We went over those this summer to make sure they’re accurate. We use some of the common language, like, instead of dining hall, you know, we said “D Hall”; we added the common language that students are using, so that the chatbot is even smarter and students are going to get responses even quicker.

    I do think it saved time, and hopefully it keeps that redundancy away, because if a student’s going to get an answer, they’re going to tell their classmate or their roommate or their peer, “Hey, just ask [Spirit]” or “Let’s ask together,” and again, save time on the end of the staff. That frees up those little questions to delve into some other things that may be meatier that they would need to deal with for students.

    Q: For a peer at a different institution who’s considering implementing a chatbot or experimenting with their own, what lessons have you learned or what advice would you give?

    A: The biggest thing I can think of is you have to put in the time and the effort to build the back end. You can add questions really easily, but if you don’t have that robust answer back in the system, it doesn’t give students what they need, or it gives them an OK answer, and they’re less likely to use the chatbot again.

    I think the time and the energy you put into the back end and the setup is really important before launching, so that you ensure that students are getting the most accurate information and the simplest. We’re trying to save them from having to google the answer or go onto the website to find it.

    I think the other thing is not every student is going to respond, and that’s OK. We have a 98 percent opt-in rate, which means that people are getting those messages from Spirit. That doesn’t mean they’re always responding when we reach out to them. Your engagement is going to be lower than your opt-in, because sometimes students are just going to ignore the text, and that’s OK.

    We hope that if they need to respond, or in that moment, that the question that’s coming to them, whether it’s about academics or if they’re struggling with finances, or are they homesick? All these questions that we ask, if they need to respond, we hope that they respond. Just being aware that not every student is going to use it as a tool. Some students will use the chatbot more than they want to come see you.

    We’ve reached out to students after they get flagged on our system, and sometimes they ignore us. And so just making sure you have another way to check in on that student or bring them up at a meeting, so that you can say, “I’ve reached out, and the student isn’t coming back and wanting to meet with me,” and that’s OK. Are they still using the chatbot? They still have resources, and they’re getting that information.

    I think the biggest thing that we’re trying to improve and move into this year, in our second year of implementation, is, how do we make this data more relevant and shareable to our institution as a whole? This past year, the data has really been sitting within Student Life … Let’s make that available to faculty and staff so that they can get a sense of what our students are feeling and how can maybe I change or implement something that’s going to help. As well as sharing with our student leadership so that students get a sense of how people are feeling. That’s our next step.

    We’re still going to do the individual outreach and the whole group support and programming. But how do we use this data now as a larger institution that really wants to focus in on student support?

    Q: You mentioned a little bit about what’s next, but is there anything else on the horizon that we should know about as you all move into year two of Spirit?

    A: I think the biggest thing is really emphasizing the blended AI-human interaction. The system gives us a number of risk factors and measures how students are doing, and we want to use that information as a proactive approach to support students. Whether it’s programming for specific needs or for specific groups of students, whatever it may be to get proactive, so that we know, in a sense, what students are doing and what their needs are.

    The other thing we’re going to see over the next year or two is hopefully we’ll start to see some trends and patterns of how students are responding. Going into year two, I assume that we’re going to have some similar responses. But who knows? Every class is different and every year is different, so trying to see, what are some trends? We can use that data to be proactive and plan what students may need, before they even know they need it, in a way. Using this information and making it actionable so it’s not just data that’s sitting in a system is so important to us.

    Source link