Tag: scale

  • Graduate apprenticeships are failing to scale in Scotland – here’s why

    Graduate apprenticeships are failing to scale in Scotland – here’s why

    This HEPI blog was authored by Elaine Jackson, Lecturer in Business and Management at the University of the West of Scotland.

    Imagine earning a full salary while studying for your degree, graduating debt-free, and having a guaranteed job at the end. This isn’t fantasy, it’s exactly what graduate apprenticeships offer. Yet these programmes represent just 8% of Scotland’s university intake, despite employers desperately needing skilled workers in the very sectors where apprenticeships thrive.

    The story of what’s possible starts with people like Donna. Through her graduate apprenticeship with a Local Authority, she delivered a project that secured £280,000 in funding and earned recognition as a nominee for the 2025 Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) excellence awards. Her success demonstrates the transformative potential of combining work and study but it also highlights a troubling question: if graduate apprenticeships work so well, why aren’t there more of them?

    Graduate apprenticeships (GAs), also known as Degree Apprenticeships (DAs) in the UK, represent a specific model of work-based learning where the apprentice is an employee who is simultaneously studying for a full undergraduate or master’s degree. These programmes typically last three to six years, with apprentices spending approximately 20% of their time studying and 80% working.

    The scale challenge reveals a deeper problem

    The numbers reveal a stark reality. Since these programmes launched in 2017, only 37,000 Scots have enrolled in Foundation and Graduate Apprenticeships combined across all years combined. To put that in perspective, 16,340 Scottish 18-year-olds accepted traditional university places in just 2024 alone. Graduate apprenticeships are growing alongside regular university degrees, offering an alternative pathway rather than replacing traditional routes, but they’re growing far too slowly.

    This slow growth becomes even more puzzling when we consider the demand. Skills Development Scotland reports that social work faces a 9.3% vacancy rate, while engineering, digital technology, healthcare, and business management show similar patterns of unmet need. These are exactly the sectors where graduate apprenticeships are proving most successful, yet only 1,378 new opportunities are projected for 2024-25 across all Scottish universities.

    So, what would realistic growth look like? Based on current university capacity, documented employer partnerships, and persistent skills shortages, Scotland could reasonably support 2,000-2,500 new apprentices each year, nearly doubling current numbers. This figure accounts for genuine employer capacity to provide meaningful workplace learning, not just any company willing to take on apprentices. It represents growth that the system could absorb without compromising quality.

    But three fundamental barriers prevent this expansion from happening and understanding them reveals why good intentions alone aren’t enough to scale successful programmes.

    Why growth remains elusive: Three critical barriers

    The first barrier is financial, and it’s more complex than simply needing more money. Graduate apprenticeships cost significantly more to deliver than traditional degrees, yet they’re funded as if they were the same thing. Think about how a typical university lecture works: one professor teaches 200 students in a hall, students complete assignments independently, and most learning happens through individual study. Now consider how apprenticeships work: Glasgow Caledonian University provides one-to-one mentoring and three-way liaison between each student, their employer, and university staff throughout the entire programme. Class sizes on these programmes are typically 15-35 students, not 200, and every apprentice needs dedicated support to balance work and study successfully.

    This intensive approach works, apprentices like Donna achieve remarkable outcomes. But it is expensive. Evidence from England’s apprenticeship system shows funding ranges from £1,500 to £27,000 depending on complexity, with degree-level programmes requiring the higher amounts. Yet Scottish universities, already facing a £4,000 to £7,000 funding gap per student, receive the same amount whether they’re delivering a large lecture or providing intensive one-to-one support. This creates a perverse incentive: the better the apprenticeship programme, the more money the university loses.

    The second barrier involves employer readiness, and here Scotland faces a fundamental difference from countries where apprenticeships work at scale. In Germany and Switzerland, companies must meet standardised quality criteria before they can take on apprentices. They need qualified supervisors, structured learning programmes, and formal assessment processes. This ensures every apprentice receives genuine training, not just a work placement.

    Scotland takes a different approach: any employer can participate without meeting specific training standards. While this sounds more flexible, it creates wildly inconsistent experiences. Some employers, like those partnering with the University of the West of Scotland, provide excellent mentoring and career development. Others treat apprentices more like temporary staff, offering limited learning opportunities. This inconsistency doesn’t just harm individual apprentices, it undermines confidence in the entire system, making other employers hesitant to participate and students uncertain about programme quality.

    The third barrier is bureaucratic complexity that would frustrate even the most determined institutions. Universities wanting to create new apprenticeship programmes must navigate approval processes across Skills Development Scotland, degree-awarding bodies, and professional accreditation requirements. The Scottish Funding Council’s guidance spans multiple pages covering compliance requirements across 14 different subject areas. When universities are already struggling financially, investing scarce resources in complex approval processes for programmes that may not even cover their costs becomes increasingly difficult to justify.

    These barriers explain why graduate apprenticeships remain promising but small-scale, despite clear demand from both employers and students. Early evidence suggests positive retention outcomes among graduate apprentice cohorts, though comprehensive longitudinal data is still emerging given the programmes’ recent introduction. This contrasts with broader patterns where Scotland faces challenges retaining skilled graduates, particularly in STEM fields where migration to other regions for career opportunities remains a persistent concern.

    The investment case

    The solutions are straightforward, though not simple to implement. First, funding must reflect delivery reality. Universities need premium funding of 125-135% of standard degree rates to cover the intensive support that makes apprenticeships effective. Given that Scottish universities already receive £2,020 less per student than English institutions, this investment would address both general underfunding and apprenticeship-specific costs.

    Second, Scotland should build employer capacity systematically rather than simply recruiting more participants. This means developing quality standards for workplace learning, supporting successful employers to mentor others, and focusing on sustainable growth rather than rapid expansion that compromises quality.

    Third, approval processes need streamlining. Rather than navigating multiple agencies with overlapping requirements, universities should face consolidated processes that maintain quality while reducing bureaucratic barriers to innovation.

    The investment required, approximately £20-35 million annually to reach 2,000-2,500 starts, is significant but justified. Graduate apprenticeships address multiple policy priorities simultaneously: reducing student debt, developing skills where shortages are most acute, and retaining talent in Scotland rather than losing graduates to other regions.

    Funding viability: A realistic investment in Scotland’s economic future

    The question of funding viability deserves a data-driven response. The proposed £20-35 million annual investment represents just 0.03-0.06% of Scotland’s £59.7 billion public budget—smaller than typical annual budget variations. Scotland already invests £185 million annually in apprenticeships, making this 11-19% increase both modest and strategically targeted.

    A phased expansion demonstrates fiscal responsibility while addressing urgent skills gaps. Starting with £15 million (expanding from 1,200 to 1,500 graduate apprentices), scaling to £25 million by year three (2,000 apprentices), and reaching £35 million by year five (2,500 apprentices) aligns expansion with demonstrated employer capacity while allowing quality oversight.

    This investment timeline is economically viable because Scotland’s economy is projected to achieve 1.7% growth by 2027. Based on Scottish Fiscal Commission projections of economic growth averaging 1.5% over the implementation period, the apprenticeship investment would represent less than 1% of projected economic expansion—a sustainable allocation that directly addresses the 9.3% vacancy rate in social work and similar shortages across engineering and digital sectors.

    International benchmarking supports this scale. England’s apprenticeship system spends £1,500-27,000 per apprentice depending on complexity, with degree-level programmes requiring higher investments. Scotland’s proposed £14,000-20,000 per graduate apprentice (including university premium funding) sits within this proven range while delivering superior outcomes through integrated workplace learning.

    The return on investment is compelling: each graduate apprentice avoids approximately £15,000 in student debt compared to the Scottish average, while earning during their studies and contributing immediately to productivity. Graduate apprentices also avoid the debt burden that affects traditional students, providing a genuine alternative to debt-financed higher education.

    Rather than adopting loan models that would undermine the fundamental “earn while learning” proposition, Scotland should view this as infrastructure investment—comparable to the £150 million being invested in offshore wind manufacturing. Both create sustainable employment, address skills shortages, and position Scotland competitively in growth sectors. Analysis of successful apprenticeship systems consistently shows that sustainable models rely on public investment rather than employer or student financing.

    The choice is strategic, not fiscal. Scotland can afford this investment; the question is whether it can afford not to make it when facing documented skills shortages in sectors critical to economic growth and the net-zero transition.

    Conclusion

    The choice facing Scottish policymakers is ultimately about ambition and fiscal realism. The evidence shows what works, the economic case is compelling, and the investment is demonstrably affordable through phased implementation. Scotland can accept that graduate apprenticeships remain a valuable but limited option, or it can make a modest, strategic investment to unlock their transformative potential for addressing skills shortages and retaining talent. Now it’s time to scale what works.

    Source link

  • Getting it ‘right’ – a reflection on integrating Service Learning at scale into a large Faculty of Science and Engineering

    Getting it ‘right’ – a reflection on integrating Service Learning at scale into a large Faculty of Science and Engineering

    This blog was kindly authored by Professor Lynne Bianchi, Vice Dean for Social Responsibility & Equality, Diversity, Inclusion and Accessibility, at the University of Manchester

    I recently had the fortune to be part of a panel discussing the place of Service Learning in higher education, chaired by HEPI. My reflections before and since may inspire you to take time to think about your perspective on the nature and role of Service Learning in fast-changing university and civic landscapes. In its simplest sense, Service Learning is an educational approach that combines academic study with community service.

    In my role within a large science and engineering faculty, I have rallied our staff and students to think seriously about the features, advantages and benefits of Service Learning in science and engineering contexts. For our university, this teaching and learning approach isn’t new, with expertise in the biomedical sciences and humanities teaching us much about the way in which undergraduate students can create benefit for our local communities whilst enriching their own academic experiences.

    In this blog, I build on my own background as a teacher and higher education academic and draw on my experience in curriculum design when focusing on how we can provide authentic and impactful Service Learning experiences for our undergraduates.

    What do we mean by the ‘right’ learning experiences?

    It doesn’t take long working in this area to unearth a wide range of terms that are used interchangeably – from place-based learning, real-world learning, community-engaged learning, practice-based learning, critical urban pedagogy, industry-inspired learning and more. A gelling feature is that to get Service Learning working well there must be an authentic benefit to each party involved. The students should develop skills and understanding directly required within their degree, and the partner should have a problem explored, solved, or informed. In essence, the experience must lead to a ‘win-win’ outcome(s) to be genuine.

    In our context in science and engineering, we have envisioned Service Learning working well, and considered this to include when:

    For students:

    • Learning has relevance: work on a project, individually or in groups, is contextualised by a problem, issue or challenge that is authentic (as opposed to hypothetical).
    • Learning has resonance: developing and applying skills and knowledge to inform the problem, issue or project that dovetails with existing course specifications and requirements.

    For partners:

    • They are engaged: partners are involved in the design and delivery of the project to some extent. This may vary in the depth or level of engagement and requires both sides to appreciate the needs of each other.
    • They are enriching: partners identify real issues that matter and expose elements of the work environment that enrich students’ awareness of the workplace and career pathways.

    When is the right time for students to engage in service learning?

    I am still pondering this question as there are so many variables and options that influence the choice. Which year group should service learning drop into? Or, does a developmental over time approach suit better? Is Service Learning more impactful in the later undergraduate years, or should it be an integral part of each year of their experience with us? Realistically, there won’t be a one-size-fits-all all model, and there are benefits and challenges to each. What will need to underpin whichever approach we take, will be the focused need to elicit the starting points of our students, our staff and our partners in whichever context.

    Going from ‘zero to hero’ in Service Learning will require training and support for all parties. My experience working across the STEM sector for nearly three decades has taught me that no one partner is the same as another – what is a big deal to one can mean nothing to another. My thinking is that we need to see each person involved in the Service Learning experience as a core ‘partner’ and each has learning starting points, aspirations and apprehensions. Our role as programme leaders is to identify a progression model that appreciates that this is ‘learning’ and that scaffolds and key training will be required at different times – even within the process itself.

    What support will be required to mobilise this model at scale?

    In my early career at this university, I spent time within the Teaching & Learning Student Experience Professional Support teams, where I saw firsthand the integral way that any university programme relies on expertise in taking theoretical ideas into practice. The interplay between project management, planning, timetabling, eLearning, marketing and communications and student experience support teams, to name some, will have play such critical roles in achieving excellence in Service Learning. Working at scale in our faculty across 10 different discipline areas, will require integrated work with other faculties to harness the power of interdisciplinary projects and digital support for course delivery and assessment that can embrace an internal-external interface.

    Support for scaling up will also require a culture of risk-taking to be valued and championed. Over the introductory years, we need to provide a sense of supported exploration, a culture of learning and reflection, and an ethos where failure is rarely a negative, but an opportunity. Of course, science and engineering disciplines bring with them our obligations to accrediting bodies, and a close dialogue with them about ambition, relevance and need for this enriching approach needs to be clearly articulated and agreed so that any course alteration becomes a course invigoration rather than a compromise.

    Faculty culture and the way the university and the sector views and reviews SL will have a significant implication on practice and people feeling safe to innovate. As the university forges and launches its 2035 strategy the spaces for innovation and development are increasingly championed, and the months and years ahead will be ones to watch in terms of establishing a refreshed version of teaching and learning for our students.

    In closing this short exploration of Service Learning, I can feel a positive tension in the air – the excitement to work together to further invigorate our student experience whilst supporting our staff and partners to embrace varied new opportunities. The ‘getting it right’ story will have many chapters, many endings as the genres, characters and plots are there for us all to create – or more pertinently ‘co-create’! What drives me most to remain in this space of uncertainty for a while longer is the anticipation of creating experiences that truly make a difference for good. As our universities transform themselves over the coming years, I invite you to join us in the dialogue and development as we have so much to learn through collaboration.

    Source link

  • Why Faculty Buy-In Is the Key to Scale

    Why Faculty Buy-In Is the Key to Scale

    Developmental education reform has made significant strides in the past two decades, however, if the goal is equity, completion and lasting change in gateway courses, the work to reform developmental education isn’t done—not even close. Nationally, states have passed laws and higher education systems have issued mandates requiring the use of specific high-impact practices and restricting the offering of standalone remedial courses.

    Institutions have redesigned placement systems to incorporate multiple measures and, with growing popularity, have begun using self-directed placement. Corequisite models, where students receive concurrent support for a gateway math or English course, have received increased attention and expansion. Using just-in-time content support and devoting time to student success techniques, corequisite courses have proven to support students’ retention rates.

    While we know which practices are impactful, it is still common for them to be used alongside traditional approaches, such as stand-alone developmental courses and high-stakes placement tests. That is, these practices are not the default means of how students interact with gateway courses; they are an option. There are many reasons for this lack of scale, with skepticism from faculty being a common refrain from those in academic leadership.

    Recent research reinforces what many of us in the trenches already know: Corequisite support is a powerful tool, but it is not the only solution to gateway course reform; it was never going to be. Without scaled and nuanced implementations, corequisite models are not enough on their own. Too often, states and institutions have pursued top-down solutions without sufficient attention to the people who impact scaled implementation the most: faculty.

    In fact, reformers and leaders in higher education spaces may have overlooked the hardest and arguably most important part: the classroom. If gateway course reform is the goal, we have to shift from a mainly structural reform emphasis (e.g., pathways, corequisites and placement) to incorporating classroom reforms that impact curriculum, instruction and assessment. These changes are some of the most difficult ones to make but are also the ones that have shown to matter the most. Structural reform is essential, but so is reform in the space where learning occurs.

    Why Early Reforms Didn’t Get Higher Education to a New Normal of Scale

    Early corequisite reform efforts found initial momentum by engaging supportive policymakers and system leaders and by using clear levers for change such as legislation or funding changes. However, even where reforms have been adopted, outcomes have been mixed. Completion rates have increased in some states but remain below expectations set in goal initiatives, such as Illinois’s 60 by 25 and Tennessee’s Drive to 55. Despite a broad commitment to increasing equity in higher education, equity gaps by race, income and age persist. In states with strong shared governance structures or influential faculty unions, the pace of reform has been slower and more complex.

    The common thread I’ve come to realize is this: Significant faculty cooperation and intentional faculty involvement are key to successful reforms at scale. I’ve seen this firsthand during my career in Illinois as a tenured math professor for many years who was also a union member and went on strike in 2015. Faculty have an incredible impact on students’ learning experience and outcomes; as such, faculty should be involved in the decision making that impacts them directly. However, in faculty-driven systems, the reality is that change is harder and takes longer. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible.

    My company, Almy Education, has worked with dozens of institutions across governance models and states. We have learned that scaled reform comes from meaningfully working with faculty. While that work may be more challenging than going around faculty, it will allow an institution to get the roots of what can hold back a scaled implementation. We’ve found when we intentionally integrate faculty as part of the institutional conversation, we can achieve the following:

    • Decide what courses and materials to remove or shift away from, not only add new ones.
    • Choose how many courses and sections of stand-alone developmental courses will be retained, even if that may mean someone’s position at the institution changes.
    • Determine how the class schedule needs to evolve to better support student needs and outcomes.
    • Adjust student intake practices to the institution that have the greatest impact on outcomes, even if it means a shift in human and financial resources.
    • Prioritize use and maintenance of data tools so that ongoing decision making is well informed.
    • Set the expectation that academic and student affairs will continually work together to improve gateway course success, not in silos or temporarily during an initiative.

    To reach scale, administrators, staff and faculty have to work together in an ongoing fashion as well as compromise for the greater good of student outcomes. We all have to own our roles in contributing to the aforementioned bulleted barriers when it comes to higher education reform. While usually unintended, they are barriers nonetheless. Reducing and removing these barriers to change often requires having hard conversations. The conversations are not always comfortable, but the results for students are worth it.

    More students complete gateway math and English courses and establish course momentum when developmental education reform is implemented at scale and improved upon over time. Scaled reform allows for more students to complete two-year degrees and certificates and/or transfer to complete a four-year degree. Increased student completion results in well-prepared adults in the workforce, the outcome nearly everyone in higher education is working toward.

    How to Effectively Integrate Faculty Into Your Reform Initiatives to Achieve Success at Scale

    So how do administrators, staff and faculty work together on scaling gateway course reform, especially when resistance occurs? Many faculty are not resistant to reform; they are resistant to being handed a one-size-fits-all solution from someone who doesn’t understand their students, classrooms or institutional realities. Research has shown that there isn’t one particular way to implement reforms like corequisites that work the best; finding the best solution is a process that must include faculty in deliberate ways.

    Faculty are also exhausted. The post-pandemic classroom is more demanding than ever, with student engagement seeming to be at an all-time low. Asking faculty to make massive changes without the support to do so can bring a reaction of resistance. Similarly, student affairs staff are also stretched thin with insufficient staffing and higher demands from students. They, too, need resources to make adjustments at scale that impact gateway course outcomes.

    To minimize resistance and thoughtfully add support where it can have the most impact, there are tangible ways to assist faculty and staff with scaling implementation of gateway course reform at the institutional and classroom levels. In our work across two-year and four-year institutions, we’ve observed what works:

    • Custom strategies tailored to each institution’s context, culture and capacity based on best practice and its own data.
    • Embedded professional learning that supports both pedagogy and content that’s ongoing, not one-and-done.
    • Support for using backward design strategies with gateway curriculum and instruction from the perspective of student needs, career pathways and transfer goals.
    • Staffing and funding so that corequisites are paired with intentional support, providing not just more time, but better use of time.
    • Deliberate use of corequisites where they make sense, alongside better-designed stand-alone options for a small number of students who may need them.
    • Pathways that provide clarity to connect math courses to students’ actual goals and are implemented purposefully, not as an option.
    • Focus on throughput, not just pass rates, and disaggregated outcomes that can support equity work.

    This next phase of gateway course reform requires the higher education industry to go deeper. We will have to face the structural barriers and the pedagogical ones. We must be willing to say the quiet parts out loud and have difficult conversations. We must be brave enough to make decisions and ultimately changes that work for the good of the students. Those changes should have broad support, but they may not make each individual at an institution content 100 percent of the time. Doing this work is not simple or easy. But it is necessary if we want real reform at scale that lasts.

    Kathleen Almy is the CEO and founder of Almy Education, specializing in gateway course reform at scale.

    Source link

  • Making an impact at scale

    Making an impact at scale

    The path from early promise to widespread impact requires one thing and one thing only: scalability – the capacity to grow and expand in a robust and sustainable way. Put simply: you can only change the world at scale.

    John List

    To tackle inequality in higher education, we need scalable interventions. The interventions that make the biggest difference will be those that we can successfully expand from a small group to a much bigger one.

    Across many policy areas, ideas that appear promising after being tested at a small scale often have a much lower impact when expanded. Existing evidence suggests the majority of interventions – somewhere in the range of 50% to 90%  – will have weak effects when scaled. This is what the economist John List terms a ‘voltage drop’: ‘when an enterprising idea falls apart at scale and positive results fizzle’.

    Interventions in higher education are frequently designed at either the module or school level, with the intention to eventually scale up. Often, interventions are started by a single enthusiastic practitioner, who then tries to scale up the intervention later on.  For example, a student support programme may go from being implemented within the school of psychology to across the whole institution. Similarly, policymakers may seek to scale an idea that was successful at one institution by implementing it across a range of other institutions.

    As a result, higher education emerges as a prime area where we should consider the intended scale of implementation from the outset. While many interventions struggle to scale, List argues this challenge is surmountable by building into our processes an understanding of five key factors that impede scaling.

    1. False positives

    The first major cause of voltage drops is the prevalence of false positives: concluding there is a significant effect when there is not. False positives can arise in a manner of ways, but we can split them into three categories: statistical error, human error, and fraud.

    We can go a long way to addressing this trifecta of false positives by embracing the open science movement. Key tenets of this approach include pre-registration of trials, independent evaluation, and open publication of data and code. Opening our research up in this way not only helps to prevent fraud (more prevalent than we might think in academia) but also encourages more collaboration with peers and enables others to build on your work.  

    2. Know your intended audience

    When testing your intervention, consider whether this initial group is representative of the broader population you hope to impact. If the intervention is not designed for only one group, we should not test it with only one group.

    For example, say we trial an intervention with Engineering students before rolling it out across the institution. This could cause difficulties if Engineering students are different from the wider population we are interested in. It may be that the intervention only works on our sampled population (in this case Engineering students) and no longer works when we roll it out to the entire student population. 

    3. Spillovers

    Interventions often give us evidence of what works at a small scale, but it is difficult to anticipate how this could change when an intervention becomes a large-scale movement.

    This is particularly important when we look at scaling interventions from one institution to many. We should consider that the positive effects of an intervention at the institution level may disappear once the programme is scaled further. For example, consider a career guidance programme that improves graduate outcomes at an institution. When rolled out across the country, it may alter the dynamics of the graduate labour market in such a way that the original benefits are negated.

    4. Is the success due to the practitioner, or the idea?

    We should consider whether the intervention, as tested, accurately reflects the characteristics it will have when deployed widely.

    The key analogy here is one of chefs and ingredients. If the reason behind a restaurant’s success is its ingredients, it will be more likely to scale well, as the ingredients can be scaled across many branches. But a restaurant will struggle to scale if its success is down to the unique magic of the chef.

    Similarly, an intervention may fail to scale if we can mainly attribute its positive impact to a practitioner’s individual brilliance at a specialised skill: the talented practitioner cannot be so easily scaled. 

    5. Rising costs

    If the costs grow disproportionately with the intervention, it will struggle to scale. For example, at a small scale, it may be relatively easy to find an effective practitioner who can deliver the intervention as it was intended and have a high impact on students.

    But, as we’ve seen, if the success of a programme rests on the talent of practitioners, this is unlikely to scale well. As the intervention scales and hires more staff, finding staff who can have the desired impact will become increasingly difficult and expensive.

    Moving towards having an impact at scale

    It is a worthwhile pursuit to make incremental but meaningful changes that improve the lives of students. Many practitioners, not to mention students themselves, will be able to attest to the difference a small-scale intervention can have on a student’s life, helping to break down barriers, narrow gaps and open up doors.

    But to move the dial on inequality in higher education, we should build considerations around scaling into our interventions. In doing so, we can move our focus towards building an evidence base that helps us make a much larger change. By making this move, we can realise List’s powerful assertion: ‘you can only change the world at scale’.

    Source link

  • Seven strategies to build global learning community at scale

    Seven strategies to build global learning community at scale

    In higher education, your relationship with learners shouldn’t end when their program does. If fostered correctly, they’re applying the knowledge they gained, sharing their experiences with their personal and professional networks, and staying engaged with your institution.

    Strengthening your relationships post-program will not only enhance the learning experience and create a sense of belonging, but inspire lifelong learning and repeat engagement, build awareness in a competitive education landscape, and transform your learners into your brand’s biggest advocates.

    Building a vibrant community is vital for maintaining these post-program relationships. In a survey by the community marketing platform TINT, 73 percent of consumers reported having a positive opinion of brand communities, while 84 percent said the community surrounding a brand impacts their feelings about it.

    Many online learning providers must battle the misperception that community-building and networking only happen in person. At Harvard Business School Online, we launched our Community in 2018 to provide online learners the chance to connect off-line by forming chapters worldwide. Over the last six years, we’ve expanded to nearly 40 chapters and more than 650,000 members from 190 countries. And importantly, we’ve evolved beyond in-person meetups to also host virtual events and discussions through our Community platform.

    If you’re interested in building a global community at scale, here are seven tips to consider.

    Tips for Building an Engaged Global Community

    1. Find Your Superusers Early

    Start by identifying your most active, engaged learners. Perhaps they’re always the first to comment on their peers’ responses and provide feedback. Or maybe they’re sharing their certificate and learning experiences on LinkedIn, taking multiple programs, or promoting your school and proactively addressing questions in Reddit threads. Determine your engagement metrics and use them to spot your superusers early.

    Programs should offer multiple connection points throughout the experience. HBS Online offers networking opportunities before, during and after courses. Anyone can join a public chapter to learn more about the brand and build knowledge. Once enrolled and upon course completion, they’re added to different private discussion boards and gain access to exclusive networking opportunities.

    The earlier you integrate community into their experience, the faster they’ll become familiar with it and the more engaged they’ll be over the long term—helping you more easily surface your superusers.

    1. Transform Your Superusers Into Brand Ambassadors

    Communities are stronger when everyone is involved. Once you’ve identified your superusers, empower them to be brand ambassadors. Provide ownership of the community experience to keep them invested and committed to fueling its success. In turn, you can scale faster by delegating some of the event and community management.

    Our chapters are run by chapter organizers—volunteers who’ve taken at least one HBS Online course and been vetted by our team. These volunteers are responsible for hosting an event a quarter and posting on their chapter’s discussion board.

    This structure enables us to grow our Community globally and offer in-person and virtual events and networking opportunities throughout the year. Our learners forge real-world connections while our chapter organizers gain experience they can add to their LinkedIn profiles and résumés.

    1. Provide Them With Helpful Tools, Training and Tactics

    To help your learners become brand ambassadors, equip them with the right tools, tips and training. Onboard them to your community software, develop documentation and responses to frequently asked questions, and regularly host training sessions to explain new and existing platform features.

    Data is another powerful tool. Track which conversations garner the most engagement or the events with the highest registrations, and share those insights with your community leaders. It will provide a jumping-off point and help them build stronger networking opportunities and relationships.

    1. Establish and Share Clear Guidelines

    During onboarding, share clear brand guidelines and expectations with your community leaders, including:

    • Your community’s goals and objectives
    • What their role entails and how to refer to it
    • How they should attribute your brand, and if/when they can leverage your logo
    • Your social channels and any campaign hashtags
    • Examples of effective content, whether a social post, forum discussion or event
    • Specific brand style guidelines

    By providing this material, you can empower them to be stronger advocates and alleviate branding concerns as you grow and scale your community.

    1. Highlight Achievements and Incentivize Advocacy

    For your community to be successful, it needs to be mutually beneficial. Your learners are likely juggling their education alongside various personal and professional commitments. Acknowledge their time spent volunteering.

    At HBS Online, we share our praise in various ways, including dedicated learner profiles, Community engagement and recognition badges, social media callouts, a monthly Community-focused newsletter where we promote upcoming events and achievements, and free tickets to and dedicated recognition at our annual hybrid learner conference, Connext.

    Consider how you can leverage gamification to encourage engagement or incentivize your community leaders to promote your brand. Perhaps you gift them exclusive swag if they hit certain engagement metrics or welcome them to beta-test new products. Determine what works best for your institution, but ensure you’re meaningfully saying, “Thank you.”

    1. Give Your Community Meaning

    Purpose fuels passion. Find ways to make your community something your learners are proud to participate in. Survey them to discover how they view your community and the value they derive from it and leverage those insights to create programming aligned with your institution’s mission.

    Six years ago, HBS Online introduced the Community Challenge to empower our learners to enact global change. Through the challenge, we collaborate annually with a nonprofit and ask for a pressing issue facing their business. We then share that problem with our learners, who gather worldwide to develop and pitch solutions. Over the years, they’ve tackled topics like food insecurity, climate change and education access while applying the business knowledge gained through our courses and fostering teamwork globally.

    1. Create an Internal Support System

    For any of these community efforts to take off, you need buy-in from senior leadership. Without it, you’re unlikely to get the necessary tools and resources to grow an engaged community. Communicate the value to your institution’s key stakeholders and provide them with the talking points to advocate for the initiative organizationwide since you’ll need support from multiple teams—like tech, program delivery and marketing—to make this work possible.

    If feasible, having a dedicated community manager can also help supercharge your efforts. That employee can provide a safe space for your community leaders, give them a direct point of contact, listen to and enact feedback, and ensure brand guidelines and expectations are met.

    Build Lifelong Relationships

    Your learners are your higher education brand’s most valuable asset. They can provide insights to help you develop new programs, advocate on your brand’s behalf, build awareness and drive repeat engagement.

    To foster lifelong learning, you must prioritize building lifelong relationships. Is your institution missing out on a competitive advantage?

    Lauren Landry is the director of marketing and communications at Harvard Business School Online, overseeing its organic marketing strategy, brand messaging, Community and events. Prior to joining HBS Online, she served as an associate director of content marketing at Northeastern University and as a reporter and editor covering higher education and start-ups for the likes of BostInno and Boston Magazine.

    Source link