Tag: Rethinking

  • 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

  • New HEPI and University of London Report: Rethinking Placement: Increasing Clinical Placement Efficacy for a Sustainable NHS Future

    New HEPI and University of London Report: Rethinking Placement: Increasing Clinical Placement Efficacy for a Sustainable NHS Future

    Author:
    Professor Amanda Broderick and Robert Waterson

    Published:

    The NHS faces a growing clinical placement crisis that threatens the future of its workforce. A new HEPI and University of London report calls for bold, system-wide reform to ensure students get the real-world experience they need to deliver safe, high-quality care.

    HEPI and the University of London’s new report, Rethinking Placement: Increasing Clinical Placement Efficacy for a Sustainable NHS Future, which has been published with the support of the Council for Deans of Health, warns that the NHS cannot meet its ambitious workforce goals without bold reform of how students gain real-world experience. Co-authored by Professor Amanda Broderick and Robert Waterson of the University of East London, the report calls for a shift from simply creating more placements to delivering better ones—equitable, flexible, digitally enabled and aligned with the future of healthcare.

    Drawing on innovation across London and beyond, the authors propose practical steps including simulation-based learning, new supervision frameworks and community-based models that can expand capacity without compromising quality. With over 106,000 vacancies across secondary care, the report urges policymakers, universities and NHS providers to act now to secure a sustainable, skilled and compassionate workforce for the next decade and beyond.

    You can read the press release and access the full report here.

    Source link

  • Rethinking Leadership Development in Higher Ed (opinion)

    Rethinking Leadership Development in Higher Ed (opinion)

    Higher education is in the midst of a crisis of confidence that has long been building. In this time of volatility, complexity and uncertainty, the steady hand of leaders matters more than ever. Yet academia does—at best—a very uneven job of preparing academic leaders for steady-state leadership, much less for times when the paradigm is shifting. This moment is creating an opportunity to reconsider how we prepare leaders for what will come next.

    Why Is Leadership So Uneven in Higher Ed?

    A primary reason lies in how we select and develop leaders. In academia, searches for department chair, dean and provost often emphasize top-level scholarly and research credentials and only secondarily consider an individual’s experience, perspective and ability to influence and motivate others to support shared missions. Academics in general do not respond well to directives: They expect to be persuaded, not commanded. Additionally, it is often only after being hired that those in formal positions of authority are provided with leadership-development opportunities to help foster those interpersonal skills—too late for foundational growth.

    These approaches to recruiting formal leaders are rooted in flawed assumptions about how leadership works. True leadership is not about commanding compliance but about shaping unit culture through influence. Many leaders fail by not understanding the difference. An effective leader is a person of strong character who can build trusting relationships with others; these skills take time to develop and usually take root even before a person assumes a leadership role.

    Another important reason that leadership in higher ed is uneven arises from conceptualizing leadership as a “heroic” individual endeavor. The same skills that help a formal leader to be successful—such as understanding the alignment of their actions with the unit’s mission; strong communication skills, including listening; the ability to navigate conflict, negotiation and conflict resolution; and formulating and articulating clear collective goals— are equally crucial for others to exercise to be fully engaged participants.

    Leaders with formal roles and titles play a crucial role in promoting a productive and collegial culture. At the same time, they do not do so alone: It is equally important that participants who are not in formal administrative roles are also seen (and see themselves) as central in shaping these environments, and that they are aware of how their own actions and interpersonal dynamics contribute to their working and learning experiences.

    In short, leadership responsibility is not limited to administrators. There are layers of formal leadership roles embedded inside departments and schools, visible whenever faculty members and staff take on responsibilities for shared governance and advisory roles; lead team research or manage grant portfolios; and select (hire), supervise, evaluate and mentor colleagues and other early-career individuals. These faculty and staff are leaders, too, whether or not they see, accept or internalize those roles.

    When leadership is viewed simply as an individual attribute rather than a process that emerges from the relationships among people in teams, organizations miss the opportunity to develop cultures of excellence that support integrity, trust and collaboration at all levels. Thus, we argue that leadership ought to be understood as an ongoing process of character development and a responsibility shared by all members of an organization—not something that can be addressed in a one-off workshop, but as an integral dimension of the work.

    The Foundations of Leadership: Influence Before Authority

    Rather than framing leadership as something only people with formal authority do, a more productive model is to view leadership as influence. By influence we mean modeling the behaviors we seek to share and promote in our groups so that we can better shape the way we solve problems collectively. Leadership is not in essence a position; it is contributing to an ongoing process of shaping culture, norms and behavior within a unit.

    Social psychology shows that we influence each other constantly. The more time we spend with people, the more we become like them and vice versa. This means that bad habits can spread as easily as good ones. When everyone is given an opportunity to develop good habits, they are more likely to spread throughout the community. Our character affects how we influence others. We are much more likely to be influenced by a person who demonstrates integrity and curiosity than we are by someone who is demanding and unwilling to listen.

    Here are some areas of practice for developing better influence:

    • Self-awareness and self-management: Focusing on oneself first helps individuals identify their strengths and areas for growth, while encouraging them to recognize and respect their roles and responsibilities in the current situation. Understanding oneself, one’s values, habits and motivations, is foundational to recognizing how we affect and are affected by those around us.
    • Conflict resolution: Healthy debate is foundational to innovation and growth. Developing strong conflict-resolution skills contributes to increased perspective-taking, depersonalizing disagreement and yielding more effective discussion and problem solving.
    • Decision-making: Understanding how we make decisions, and more importantly how heuristics influence and bias our decision-making, can help people slow down to make more ethical and effective decisions.

    Opportunities for influence are available to everyone, not just those in formal leadership roles. Early-career faculty, staff and students can cultivate influence by setting examples for collaboration, through ethical behavior and by contributing to collective problem-solving. Leadership is not centrally about having authority over others; it is about shaping an environment in which ethical decision-making, respect and shared purpose flourish.

    Reimagining Leader Development in Higher Ed

    Now more than ever, individuals need support in managing their careers with integrity and purpose—aligning their personal values and goals with those of their institutions. Leadership development should not be viewed as a costly add-on. In fact, it can be integrated into the everyday fabric of academic life through accessible and scalable methods, including:

    • Peer-learning cohorts that provide space for discussion and reflection on leadership challenges.
    • Guided personal reflections on workplace dynamics, communication and decision-making.
    • Structured mentoring programs that cultivate leadership skills through real-world interactions.
    • Deliberative conversations around such themes as research ethics, authorship and collaboration to build trust and integrity within teams.
    • Conflict-resolution training embedded in routine professional development activities.

    Our experience at the National Center for Principled Leadership and Research Ethics shows that even modest efforts—like those above—can spark essential conversations between mentors and mentees, improve communication, and positively influence both unit climate and individual well-being. To support this work, we offer a free Leadership Collection—an online collection of tools, readings and practical exercises for anyone seeking to lead more effectively, regardless of their title or career stage.

    When leadership development is embraced as a core part of academic life—not just a formal program or a luxury for a few—it can become a catalyst for healthier, more purpose-driven institutions.

    Conclusion: Leadership Development as a Cultural Foundation

    Reserving leadership-development programming only for when people reach formal leadership roles is a missed opportunity to develop broader and more inclusive working cultures. Such cultures emerge from the relationships among the members of a group. Building better relationships starts with personal growth, self-awareness and emotional intelligence for each member. Taking responsibility for one’s own professional growth and for one’s influence on others is also an important kind of leadership.

    True leadership, therefore, is not about directing others but about fostering environments in which good habits, strong ethics and meaningful engagement flourish. If universities want to build sustainable cultures of excellence, in which leadership is no longer an individual endeavor but a shared commitment to collaboration, they should start embedding it in professional development and routine practice for all. As uncertainty prevails, budgets are cut and people are navigating deep change, now is the moment to reconsider how we shape leaders in higher education.

    Elizabeth A. Luckman is a clinical associate professor of business administration with an emphasis in organizational behavior and director of leadership programs at the National Center for Principled Leadership and Research Ethics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

    C. K. Gunsalus is the director of NCPRE, professor emerita of business and research professor at the Grainger College of Engineering’s Coordinated Sciences Laboratory at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

    Nicholas C. Burbules is the education director of NCPRE and Gutgsell Professor Emeritus in the Department of Education Policy, Organization and Leadership at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

    Source link

  • Rethinking the OPM Model: Shifting from Outsourcing to Enablement

    Rethinking the OPM Model: Shifting from Outsourcing to Enablement

    Higher education is rapidly evolving, and so are institutional approaches to online program growth. We’re consistently finding that schools are no longer interested in handing over full control to third-party vendors. Rather, they want to build and enhance the internal capabilities of their teams, maintain ownership over their data and brand, and deliver a student experience uniquely aligned with their mission.

    This approach requires a flexible partner that’s focused on enablement vs. the traditional black-box outsource model.

    The traditional OPM model is flawed

    In my conversations with institutional leaders across the country, a common theme that keeps emerging is the frustration with traditional OPMs and the diminishing viability of this model. Leaders feel boxed in by long-term contracts, inequitable financial terms, a lack of visibility into performance data, and limited control over the student experience.

    What many institutions seek is a partner who will deeply integrate with their teams, augmenting their talent and resource gaps. An ideal partner will enhance the institution’s strengths, not replace them. In many cases, schools have ambitions to in-source certain areas of expertise over time and need support, guidance, and best practices to achieve this.

    More simply stated, many schools are seeking an enablement partner.

    What is enablement?

    At Collegis, we define enablement as helping institutions build their own internal strengths. It’s about equipping campus teams with the data, technology, and operational expertise they need to grow. This sets them up to thrive long after our work is done.

    Instead of taking the reins, we help institutions empower themselves to take ownership and control of their future over time. That distinction matters.

    Our model is intentionally modular and tech-agnostic, allowing partners to engage only the services they need, when they need them. There are no bundles to untangle or one-size-fits-all solutions to force-fit. In practice, we integrate ourselves in lockstep with the institutional teams and work alongside them as trusted collaborators. This contrasts with other models where external vendors operate in a black box.

    For us, enablement is about delivering lasting value, strengthening internal capacity, and helping institutions move forward and own their futures.

    A real-world example of enablement in action

    When institutions embrace this model, the outcomes are real and measurable.

    One example comes from a public institution that was working with an OPM on some of its online programs. They brought Collegis in to help build a foundation they could truly own, starting with data strategy and enrollment support tailored to their internal goals.

    Throughout our partnership, we’ve worked closely with their teams to refine processes, optimize student experience, openly share best practices, and enhance internal capabilities. The outcome? A 59% year-over-year increase in new online enrollments in the programs we support.

    It’s a powerful reminder of what institutions can achieve when they choose a partner who builds alongside them, not in place of them.

    Why ownership matters

    When institutions retain ownership of their tech stack, data, and student experience, they stay agile and in control. They’re able to pivot when needed, maintain high standards for compliance and privacy, and continuously improve outcomes across the student lifecycle.

    Our job at Collegis is to make that ownership attainable. We integrate with existing systems, design transparent reporting, and support processes that campus teams can run and refine on their own. True enablement means recommending and implementing sustainable practices that align with the mission and objectives of the institution.

    Redefining “partnership” in a new digital era

    Partnership today should mean transparency, collaboration, and shared purpose. And it should be built on trust.

    When institutions evaluate potential partners, I encourage them to ask:

    • Will we retain control of our data and decisions?
    • Is this a flexible relationship or a one-size-fits-all model?
    • Does this partner strengthen our internal teams?
    • How will this approach improve and enhance the impact of our staff?
    • Will this partnership contribute to the betterment of our student experience?

    Let’s build something that lasts

    Your institution shouldn’t have to choose between doing it all alone or giving it all away. There’s a better way forward that can empower your team, adapt to changing needs, and help you thrive in a competitive, fast-moving environment.

    You deserve a partner who helps you lead on your terms with clarity, control, and confidence. That’s the path Collegis is committed to support.

    Innovation Starts Here

    Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.

    Matt Lachey is Associate Vice President of Partner Solutions at Collegis Education, where he leads strategic partnerships and custom solution design to help institutions address challenges in enrollment, operations, and technology. With 16+ years of higher education experience, Matt focuses on aligning institutional goals with scalable, performance-driven strategies. He works closely with senior leaders to design programs and processes that balance innovation with practicality, helping colleges improve experience, efficiency, and growth.

    Source link

  • When AI Meets Engineering Education: Rethinking the University 

    When AI Meets Engineering Education: Rethinking the University 

    This HEPI blog was kindly authored by James Atuonwu, Assistant Professor at the New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering (NMITE). 

    Where machines of the past multiplied the strength of our hands, AI multiplies the power of our minds – drawing on the knowledge of all history, bounded only by its training data. 

    We are living through a moment of profound transition. The steam engine redefined labour, the computer redefined calculation, and now AI is redefining thought itself. Unlike earlier technologies that multiplied individual workers’ power, AI, particularly large language models (LLMs), multiplies the collective intelligence of humanity. 

    For engineering practice and universities alike, this shift is existential. 

    AI as Servant, Not Master 

    The old adage is apt: AI is a very good servant, but a very bad master. 

    • As a servant, AI supports engineers in simulation, design exploration, and predictive maintenance. For students, it provides on-demand access to resources, enables rapid testing of ideas, and helps them reframe problems.  
    • As a master, AI risks entrenching bias, undermining judgment, and reshaping educational systems around efficiency rather than values. 

    The challenge is not whether AI will change engineering education, but whether we can train engineers who command AI wisely, rather than being commanded by it. 

    This logic resonates with the emerging vision of Industry 5.0: a paradigm where technology is designed not to replace humans, but to collaborate with them, enhance their creativity and serve societal needs. If Industry 4.0 was about automation and efficiency, Industry 5.0 is about restoring human agency, ethics, and resilience at the heart of engineering practice. In this sense, AI in engineering education is not just a technical challenge, but a cultural one: how do we prepare engineers to thrive as co-creators with intelligent systems, rather than their servants 

    Beyond ‘AI Will Take Your Job’ 

    The phrase ‘AI won’t take your job, but a person using AI will’ has become a cliché. It captures the competitive edge of AI literacy but misses the deeper truth: AI reshapes the jobs themselves.  

    In engineering practice, repetitive calculations, drafting, and coding are already being automated. What remains – and grows in importance – are those tasks requiring creativity, ethical judgment, interdisciplinary reasoning, and decision-making under uncertainty. Engineering workflows are being reorganised around AI-enabled systems, rather than human bottlenecks. 

    Universities, therefore, face a central question: Are we preparing students merely to compete with each other using AI, or to thrive in a world where the very structure of engineering work has changed? 

    Rethinking Assessment 

    This question leads directly to assessment – perhaps the most urgent pressure point for universities in the age of AI. 

    If LLMs can generate essays, solve textbook problems, and produce ‘good enough’ designs, then traditional forms of assessment risk becoming obsolete. Yet, this is an opportunity, not just a threat. 

    • Assessment must shift from recalling knowledge to demonstrating judgment. 
    • Students should be evaluated on their ability to frame problems, critique AI-generated answers, work with incomplete data, and integrate ethical, social, and environmental perspectives. 

    A further challenge lies in the generational difference in how AI is encountered. Mature scholars and professionals, who developed their intellectual depth before AI, can often lead AI, using it as a servant, because they already possess the breadth and critical capacity to judge its outputs. But students entering higher education today face a different reality: they arrive at a time when the horse has already bolted. Without prior habits of deep engagement and cognitive struggle, there is a danger that learners will be led by AI rather than leading it. 

    This is why universities cannot afford to treat AI as a mere technical add-on. They must actively design curricula and assessments that force students to wrestle with complexity, ambiguity, and values – to cultivate the intellectual independence required to keep AI in its rightful place: a servant, not a master. 

    Rediscovering Values and Ethics 

    AI forces a rediscovery of what makes us human. If algorithms can generate correct answers, then the distinctive contribution of engineers lies not only in technical mastery but in judgment grounded in values, ethics, and social responsibility. 

    Here the liberal arts are not a luxury, but a necessity. 

    • Literature and history develop narrative imagination, allowing engineers to consider the human stories behind data. 
    • Philosophy and ethics cultivate moral reasoning, helping engineers weigh competing goods. 
    • Social sciences illuminate the systems in which technologies operate, from environmental feedback loops to economic inequities. 

    In this light, AI does not diminish the need for a broad education – it intensifies it. 

    Reimagining the University 

    Yet, values alone are not enough. If universities are to remain relevant in the AI era, they must reimagine their structures of teaching, learning, and assessment. Several approaches stand out as particularly future-proof: 

    • Challenge-based learning, replacing rote lectures with inquiry-driven engagement in authentic problems. 
    • Industry and community co-designed projects, giving students opportunities to apply knowledge in practical contexts 
    • Interdisciplinary integration across engineering, business, and social perspectives. 
    • Block learning, enabling sustained immersion in complex challenges – a counterbalance to the fragmenting tendencies of AI-enabled multitasking. 
    • Professional skills and civic engagement, preparing graduates to collaborate effectively with both people and intelligent systems. 
    • Assessment through projects and portfolios, rather than traditional exams, pushing learners to demonstrate the judgment, creativity, teamwork and contextual awareness that AI can only imitate but not authentically embody. 

    These approaches anticipate what the AI era now demands of universities: to become sites of creation, collaboration, and critique, not simply repositories of content that AI can reproduce at scale. Some newer institutions, such as NMITE, have already experimented with many of these practices, offering a glimpse of how higher education can be reimagined for an AI-enabled world. 

    Closing Reflection 

    AI may be the greatest machine humanity has ever built – not because it moves steel, but because it moves minds. Yet, with that power comes a reckoning. 

    Do we let AI master our universities, eroding integrity?  
    Or do we make it serve as a co-creator, multiplier of human intelligence, and a tool for cultivating wise, ethical, creative engineers? 

    The answer will define not just the future of engineering training and practice, but the very shape of university education itself. 

    Source link

  • Phones, devices, and the limits of control: Rethinking school device policies

    Phones, devices, and the limits of control: Rethinking school device policies

    Key points:

    By now, it’s no secret that phones are a problem in classrooms. A growing body of research and an even louder chorus of educators point to the same conclusion: students are distracted, they’re disengaged, and their learning is suffering. What’s less clear is how to solve this issue. 

    Of late, school districts across the country are drawing firmer lines. From Portland, Maine to Conroe, Texas and Springdale, Arkansas, administrators are implementing “bell-to-bell” phone bans, prohibiting access from the first bell to the last. Many are turning to physical tools like pouches and smart lockers, which lock away devices for the duration of the day, to enforce these rules. The logic is straightforward: take the phones away, and you eliminate the distraction.

    In many ways, it works. Schools report fewer behavioral issues, more focused classrooms, and an overall sense of calm returning to hallways once buzzing with digital noise. But as these policies scale, the limitations are becoming more apparent.

    But students, as always, find ways around the rules. They’ll bring second phones to school or slip their device in undetected–and more. Teachers, already stretched thin, are now tasked with enforcement, turning minor infractions into disciplinary incidents. 

    Some parents and students are also pushing back, arguing that all-day bans are too rigid, especially when phones serve as lifelines for communication, medical needs, or even digital learning. In Middletown, Connecticut, students reportedly became emotional just days after a new ban took effect, citing the abrupt change in routine and lack of trust.

    The bigger question is this: Are we trying to eliminate phones, or are we trying to teach responsible use?

    That distinction matters. While it’s clear that phone misuse is widespread and the intent behind bans is to restore focus and reduce anxiety, blanket prohibitions risk sending the wrong message. Instead of fostering digital maturity, they can suggest that young people are incapable of self-regulation. And in doing so, they may sidestep an important opportunity: using school as a place to practice responsible tech habits, not just prohibit them.

    This is especially critical given the scope of the problem. A recent study by Fluid Focus found that students spend five to six hours a day on their phones during school hours. Two-thirds said it had a negative impact on their academic performance. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 77 percent of school leaders believe phones hurt learning. The data is hard to ignore.

    But managing distraction isn’t just about removal. It’s also about design. Schools that treat device policy as an infrastructure issue, rather than a disciplinary one, are beginning to implement more structured approaches. 

    Some are turning to smart locker systems that provide centralized, secure phone storage while offering greater flexibility: configurable access windows, charging capabilities, and even low admin options to help keep teachers teaching. These systems don’t “solve” the phone problem, but they do help schools move beyond the extremes of all-or-nothing.

    And let’s not forget equity. Not all students come to school with the same tech, support systems, or charging access. A punitive model that assumes all students have smartphones (or can afford to lose access to them) risks deepening existing divides. Structured storage systems can help level the playing field, offering secure and consistent access to tech tools without relying on personal privilege or penalizing students for systemic gaps.

    That said, infrastructure alone isn’t the answer. Any solution needs to be accompanied by clear communication, transparent expectations, and intentional alignment with school culture. Schools must engage students, parents, and teachers in conversations about what responsible phone use actually looks like and must be willing to revise policies based on feedback. Too often, well-meaning bans are rolled out with minimal explanation, creating confusion and resistance that undermine their effectiveness.

    Nor should we idealize “focus” as the only metric of success. Mental health, autonomy, connection, and trust all play a role in creating school environments where students thrive. If students feel overly surveilled or infantilized, they’re unlikely to engage meaningfully with the values behind the policy. The goal should not be control for its own sake, it should be cultivating habits that carry into life beyond the classroom.

    The ubiquity of smartphones is undeniable. While phones are here to stay, the classroom represents one of the few environments where young people can learn how to use them wisely, or not at all. That makes schools not just sites of instruction, but laboratories for digital maturity.

    The danger isn’t that we’ll do too little. It’s that we’ll settle for solutions that are too simplistic or too focused on optics, instead of focusing  not on outcomes.

    We need more than bans. We need balance. That means moving past reactionary policies and toward systems that respect both the realities of modern life and the capacity of young people to grow. It means crafting strategies that support teachers without overburdening them, that protect focus without sacrificing fairness, and that reflect not just what we’re trying to prevent, but what we hope to build.

    The real goal shouldn’t be to simply get phones out of kids’ hands. It should be to help them learn when to put them down on their own.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Rethinking Pathways for Students in Rural Communities

    Rethinking Pathways for Students in Rural Communities

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

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

    Path 1: Transfer to a Four-Year University

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

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

    Path 2: Pursue a Bachelor’s Degree Online

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

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

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

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

    A Fourth Path: The Community College Bachelor’s Degree

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Ascendium Education Group provided funding for this work.

    Source link

  • Weekend Reading: Rethinking the Role of Place in UK Higher Education Policy

    Weekend Reading: Rethinking the Role of Place in UK Higher Education Policy

    • This HEPI guest blog was kindly authored by John Goddard OBE, Emeritus Professor of Regional Development Studies at Newcastle University.

    In a HEPI note prompted by a Centre for Skills, Knowledge and Organisational Performance (SKOPE) conference, Nick Hillman asked: Should the seminal Robbins report inform the forthcoming post-16 strategy? He referenced the point made by Professor Robson of SKOPE about the need ‘to encourage place-based approaches … and replace competition with coordination.’ As Nick points out, the challenge of place and coordination are not new, but as I will argue, these are not being confronted by policymakers right now.

    The Robbins’ report led to new universities being established. But these were in county towns and as we observe in our volume on The University and the City, overlook the growing urban crisis of that period. The Education Reform Act of 1988 severed the link between polytechnics and local government. The Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which allowed polytechnics to apply for university status, had the Government’s desired impact of reducing the unit cost of higher education and moving the UK instantly up the OECD rankings in terms of participation in higher education. But it also signalled a further disconnection with cities. The creation of new universities in the 1970s to meet a 50% participation rate was also unplanned in geographical terms. So, unlike many countries, the UK has not had a plan for the geography of higher let alone further education.

    Indeed, UK higher education policy and practice has ignored the lessons of history as well as being geographically blind. It has not been sensitive to the different local contexts where universities operate and the evolution of these institutions and places through time.

    It is important to remember that locally endowed proto-universities like Newcastle, Sheffield and Birmingham supported late 19th-century urban industrialisation and the health of the workforce. They also played a role in building local soft infrastructure, including facilitating discourse around the role of science and the arts in business and society. This was also a time in which new municipal government structures were being formed. In short, universities helped build the local state and create what the British Academy now calls social and cultural infrastructure, in which universities play a key role

    These founding principles became embedded in the DNA of some institutions. For example, in 1943, the Earl Grey Memorial lecturer in King’s College Newcastle noted,

    Ideal Universities… should be an organic part of regional existence in its public aspects, and a pervading influence in its private life. …Universities to be thus integrated in the community, must be sensitive to what is going on in the realm of business and industry, of practical local affairs, of social adaptation and development, as well as in the realm of speculative thought and abstract research.

    In the later 20th century, most so-called redbrick universities turned their back on place as the central state took on direct funding of higher education and research and did not prioritise the local role of universities. But this was challenged by the Royal Commission on the Future of Higher Education in 1997, chaired by Lord Dearing. He noted that: ‘As part of the compact we envisage between HE and society, each institution should be clear about its mission in relation to local communities and regions.’ For him, this ‘compact’ was wide-ranging, had a strong local dimension and was one where the university’s contribution to ‘the economy’ could not be separated from the wider society in which it was embedded.

    Many of Dearing’s ideas were subsequently incorporated into the work of Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) that were established in 1989 to promote economic development and regeneration, improve business competitiveness, and reduce regional disparities. This included investment, (matched by European regional funds ) into university-related research and cultural facilities. These capital and recurrent investments contributed to ‘place making’ and university links with business and the arts. For example, the former Newcastle brewery site was purchased by Newcastle University, Newcastle City Council and RDA, which they named ‘Science Central’. The partnership was incorporated as Newcastle Science City Ltd., a company limited by guarantee with its own CEO and independent board. The organisation’s portfolio included:

    Support for business, facilitating the creation of new enterprises drawing on the scientific capabilities of the region’s universities and work with local schools and communities, particularly focussed on promoting science education in deprived areas.

    The initiatives recognised the role that universities could play in their places by building ‘quadruple helix partnerships’ between universities, business, local and central government and the community and voluntary sectors.

    But from 2008, with the onset of public austerity, a focus on national competitiveness and a rolling back of the boundaries of the state, we saw the abolition of the RDAs in 2012, the creation of Local Enterprise Partnerships with more limited powers and resources and a cutting back on non-statutory local government activities, notably for economic development. My 2009 NESTA provocation Reinventing the Civic University was a reminder that universities had to go back to their roots and challenge broader geo-political trends, including globalisation and the creation of university research excellence hierarchies that mirrored city hierarchies.

    Marketisation was subsequently embedded into law in the 2017 Higher Education Act. This abolished the Higher Education Funding Council for England and its network of regional consultants working with formal university associations. The act unleashed competition regulated via the Office for Students (OfS) and supported by an enhanced discipline-based research excellence funding scheme. Both were place blind. Some of us raised the possibility of the financial collapse of universities in less prosperous places where they were so-called ‘anchor institutions’

    It was a recognition of this place blindness that contributed to the case for the establishment of the Civic University Commission, chaired by the late Lord Kerslake. The Commission argued that the public – nationally and locally – needed to understand better the specific benefits that universities can bring in response to the question: ‘We have a university here, but what is it doing for us? Institutions that were ultimately publicly funded needed to be locally accountable given our place-based system of governance – parliamentary constituencies and local authorities.

    For the Commission, accountability meant something different from a top-down compliance regime. Rather, sensitive and voluntary commitments made between a diverse set of actors to one another, whose collective powers and resources could impact local economic and social deficiencies

    The Commission therefore proposed that universities wishing to play a civic role should prepare Civic University Agreements, co-created and signed by other key partners and embracing local accountability. Strategic analysis to shape agreements should lead to a financial plan that brings together locally the many top-down and geographically blind funding streams that universities receive from across Whitehall – for quality research, for health and wellbeing, for business support, for higher-level skills and for culture.

    Some of these national funds now need to be ring-fenced to help universities work with partners to meet local needs and opportunities, including building capacity for collaborative working within an area. As the Secretary of State for Education has suggested in her letter to VCs, this might include a slice of core formulaic Quality Research (QR) funding. Such processes would be preferable to the ad-hoc interventions that have hitherto failed to establish long-term trust between universities and the community. At the same time, a place dimension could be included in the regulation of the domestic student marketplace. This could all form part of a compact or contract between universities and the state which enshrined a responsibility to serve the local public good.

    Going forward, I would argue that the coincidence of multiple crises across the world has far-reaching implications that universities cannot ignore. Indeed, if they do not step up to the plate and assert their civic role as anchor institutions in their places, their very existence may be at stake. The issues are well set out in this Learning Planet Institute Manifesto for the Planetary Mission of the University.

    Reading this Manifesto should help policy makers and institutional leaders in the UK recognise that the current financial crisis facing universities is an outward and visible sign of deeper threats, not least those arising from popularism and being fanned by Donald Trump. And popularism has its roots in the experience of people in left behind places.

    Therefore, Government support for the role of universities in their communities is not only beneficial to them but also to society at large. To respect institutional autonomy, this requires the right incentives (sticks and carrots). For example, universities throughout England could be required to support the Government’s plans for devolution as part of the compact I suggest. Questions to be answered by the Departments for Education; for Housing, Communities and Local Government and for Science, Innovation and Technology working TOGETHER could include:

    • What structures need to be put in place inside and outside of universities to facilitate joint working between universities and Mayoral Combined Authorities (MCAs)?
    • How should universities be included in upcoming Devolution Deals?
    • How might these differ between MCAs at different stages of development and different levels of prosperity?
    • How should universities link their work with business, with the community and the priorities of MCAs for inclusive growth and with the Industrial Strategy White paper?
    • How should Combined Authorities work with different universities and colleges in their area to meet skills gaps?
    • How can areas without MCAs work with universities to deliver equivalent outcomes?

    In summary, universities must recognise that they are part of the problem identified by populism, but can contribute to solutions through purposive local actions supported by the government.

    Source link

  • Rethinking Exams in the Age of AI: Should We Abandon Them Completely?

    Rethinking Exams in the Age of AI: Should We Abandon Them Completely?

    • By Dr Andrew Woon, Senior Lecturer in Strategic Management at Queen Mary, University of London.

    In recent years, universities around the world have been moving away from traditional exams in an effort to improve assessment practices, address equity concerns and adapt to the evolving educational landscape.

    Top institutions such as Oxford and Cambridge are also shifting towards more inclusive forms of assessment to reduce awarding gaps. This raises the question: Do inclusive assessments omit certain opportunities for students’ learning and development?

    Critics argue that exams often measure test-taking ability rather than genuine understanding and may fail to assess all students’ knowledge and skills accurately. Others contend that exams do little to prepare students for their future careers.

    As a result, universities are adopting a range of assessment methods to support student learning and ensure inclusivity. These approaches aim to recognise a broader range of skills and attributes essential for future success.

    I believe the key argument for retaining exams is not that they are more ‘secure’, but that their true value lies in ensuring students, especially those in high-stakes professions like Medicine and Education, could develop a deep, internalised understanding of their subject matter.

    Take Medicine, for example. We wouldn’t want to be treated by a doctor who relies on ChatGPT to make clinical decisions. While AI can assist with diagnostics and offer suggestions, it lacks the human ability to assess a patient holistically, considering subtle symptoms, emotional cues and contextual factors. These are skills that must be trained, practiced and tested rigorously.

    This is why accounting professional bodies such as ACCA and ICAEW continue to use exams as a primary assessment method, as they provide a standardised and objective measure of knowledge and skills. Exams help ensure that future professionals are not just good at looking up answers, but are also able to think critically, connect the dots, and make informed decisions independently.

    Moreover, the purpose of exams extends beyond evaluating academic knowledge; they also help students identify their weaknesses and develop critical skills. While in-person exams can be stressful and inflexible, they offer benefits beyond knowledge testing. They cultivate vital skills such as time management, organisation and resilience under pressure, key competencies for both interpersonal growth and employability.

    Many students shy away from exams because they struggle to perform well in a high-pressure, time-constrained environment with limited support. This may indicate a need to develop key competencies, such as time management and stress regulation, rather than suggesting that exams are inherently flawed.

    Traditionally, students were trained to master literacy skills — to read, write, and think critically. While exams may miss opportunities to develop other important skills such as teamwork, communication and leadership, removing exams altogether may also reduce opportunities for students to improve their academic literacy. Writing, in particular, requires a good understanding of content and the ability to think critically, skills that are often cultivated through exam preparation and performance.

    One of the most common arguments against exams is that they are not authentic and offer limited opportunities for skill development. According to Newman et al. (1998), assessment is considered authentic when it evaluates products or performances that hold meaning or value beyond mere academic success. Similarly, Wiggins (1989) defines authentic assessment as involving tasks that represent real-world challenges within a given discipline. These tasks are designed to mirror complexity, requiring depth over breadth.

    Clearly, a well-designed exam can be authentic when it provides opportunities for meaningful skill development. For example, incorporating case studies into exams allows students to engage in deeper learning, apply knowledge to real-world contexts, and strengthen academic literacy at the same time.

    After all, traditional exams, when thoughtfully designed, can play a valuable role in developing traditional literacy skills, including reading, writing and critical thinking, which remain essential in the age of AI.

    As AI tools increasingly streamline reading and writing tasks across the education system, reinforcing these foundational skills becomes even more important. Promoting reading and writing through assessment can help combat aliteracy — a growing issue where students are capable of reading but choose not to, often due to the influence of social media and digital distractions.

    I believe exams offer a rare opportunity and space for students to engage in undivided intellectual immersion, because exams create structured, distraction-free environments that demand focused engagement. They encourage deep reading, critical analysis and articulation without reliance on external assistance. Over time, such training can help counter aliteracy by reinforcing the value and interest of independent intellectual engagement.

    I embrace new technologies and innovative forms of assessment, but that doesn’t mean we should completely abandon traditional exams. Exams can and should coexist with other assessment methods, including those supported by AI, to enrich student learning. The purpose of assessment goes beyond assigning grades or preparing students for their first job; it is about equipping them for life in all its dimensions.

    While technologies will continue to evolve, essential skills such as reading, writing, and critical thinking will remain foundational. Therefore, students must be literate to effectively process information and use AI intelligently.

    Importantly, every assessment method has its advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, educators need to take a holistic approach to assessment design and policymaking. For example, using low-stakes, open-book exams can help reduce student stress while still supporting skill development. Additionally, providing tailored support for students with ADHD during exams can enhance their learning experience and ensure they are not placed at a disadvantage.

    Lastly, I hope this opinion piece encourages fellow colleagues to reflect before the new academic year begins. Rather than simply jumping on the AI bandwagon, we must remember the critical role we play in safeguarding our students’ futures. Our responsibility is to equip them with the life skills they need to thrive in an ever-evolving world.

    Source link

  • Rethinking our approach to maths anxiety

    Rethinking our approach to maths anxiety

    As higher education professionals, we encounter a wide spectrum of emotional responses to mathematics and statistics.

    This could vary from mild apprehension to teary outbursts, and often, it can also lead to complete avoidance of the subjects, despite their value in achieving success both in university and after.

    Behaviours such as procrastination can hinder student learning, and as such, it is imperative that students are taught to challenge these feelings.

    An analogy that we have used is fear of spiders – we may be likely to avoid places that house spiders, and in the same way, students may procrastinate or completely avoid maths-related tasks due to their “discomfort”.

    Additionally, cultural attitudes, gender, and past educational experiences can all influence how someone responds to mathematics.

    The term “maths anxiety” is commonly used to describe any negative emotion related to mathematics. However, when viewing it from a psychological viewpoint, we argue that there needs to be a distinction made between clinical anxiety and general apprehension.

    Most of us would feel worried if we were taking an exam that included mathematics or statistics – it is normal to feel some level of worry about being tested, and we can learn to manage this.

    Clinical anxiety, on the other hand, is more extreme, and significantly impairs the ability to manage daily tasks – it requires psychological support. By conflating these experiences, we run the risk of over-medicalising a typical reaction to potentially challenging material, and we might miss opportunities to provide appropriate support, or to help students to self-regulate their emotions.

    Various approaches have proven successful in our practices for dealing with worries.

    What works

    We’ve found that opening up the conversation about anxiety early on – creating a safe space where students can explore what it is, when it shows up, and how it affects them. With each new group, we try to start this discussion as soon as possible, framing it in broad terms to keep it inclusive and non-threatening. Students often respond well when asked to think about situations that make them feel nervous – things like sitting an exam, taking a driving test, or speaking in public.

    From there, we invite them to notice the physical and emotional effects anxiety has on them. Common responses include sweating, shortness of breath, feeling jittery or nauseous, difficulty concentrating, or an urge to get away. These are usually sensations they’ve experienced before, even if they haven’t named them. When we approach it this way – shared, grounded in real life, and without judgement—it tends to normalise the conversation. We’re always conscious of the potential for some students to feel overwhelmed by the topic, so we stay attuned and pause when needed, signposting to further support if things get too heavy.

    Asking students what they already do when they feel anxious helps too. Giving everyone a chance to reflect and share helps surface the small strategies – breathing deeply, taking a walk, positive self-talk – that they may not realise they’re using. It affirms that they do have tools, and that managing nerves is something within their control.

    Simply asking students how they feel about using maths or statistics in their studies can also help. More often than not, a few will admit to feeling nervous – or even anxious – which opens the door to normalising those feelings. From there, we can connect the strategies they already use in other situations to the challenges they face with maths, helping them build a toolkit they can draw on when the pressure mounts.

    Some strategies that students find helpful include mindful breathing, visualising a calming place, or even splashing cold water on the face to reset. Others involve filtering out negative messages that chip away at confidence, re-framing self-talk to be specific and encouraging – like swapping “I can’t do maths” for “I’ve learned before, I can learn again” – and, crucially, building skills and confidence through steady learning and practice.

    There may, however, be cases where a student’s anxiety is not assuaged by employing these techniques, and a level of clinical anxiety may be suspected, requiring further support from counsellors or other professionals. In these cases, ensuring the students are guided, even taken, to access the relevant support services is key. This may lead to requests for reasonable adjustments as well as prescribed treatments, thus enabling the student to face the challenge and hopefully emerge successfully on the other side.

    Prizes for all

    Of course, these are all interventions that are useful for students who are struggling with worries about maths – but there are also things we can do to support all of our students. Some students will be struggling quietly; some will have other learning differences that might impact on their ability to learn maths, such as ADHD.

    One approach we might consider is Universal Design for Learning, where we make learning accessible for all our diverse students, regardless of the specific issues that they might experience, or whether they tell us about those issues. Giving students choice in how they complete their assessments, allowing them access to resources or notes (open book) during test situations, and not imposing tight timescales on assessments can be one way to support students to achieve their best. Taking this approach also removes some of the administrative work involved in working out reasonable adjustments!

    Sometimes there are professional requirements that mean that such adjustments are not possible (for example, calculating doses in nursing where achieving 100% is a requirement), but often it can be helpful to consider what we are assessing. Do we need to assess a student’s ability to solve a maths problem from memory and under time pressure, or do we want to know that they can solve a problem they may encounter in a typical graduate role when they might be able to search how to approach it?

    Authentic assessment can be a useful tool for making maths learning and assessment less scary and more accessible.

    Differentiating between a regular level of apprehension and clinical anxiety will help us to be better placed to implement strategies to support students and staff in succeeding on their mathematical or statistical journey. This can begin at the curriculum design and development stage, extending beyond our work with individual students.

    Supportive relationships between learning development tutors, students and teaching staff enable us to implement tailored strategies for minimising maths anxiety. By working together, we can reframe maths learning to be seen as an opportunity for growth, and not something to fear.

    Source link