Tag: sense

  • Making sense of specialisation: what the Post-16 White Paper means for university identity

    Making sense of specialisation: what the Post-16 White Paper means for university identity

    Over the weekend we published blogs on the art of reimagining universities and on why the TEF could collapse under the weight of DfE and the OfS’ expectations.

    Today’s blog was kindly authored by Nick Barthram, Strategy Partner at Firehaus and Merry Scott Jones, Transformation Partner at Firehaus and Associate Lecturer at Birkbeck, University of London.

    It is the tenth  blog in HEPI’s series responding to the post-16 education and skills white paper. You can find the other blogs in the series here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

    The government’s Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper sets a new tone for tertiary education in England. It is not just another skill or funding reform. It is a statement of intent about how universities, colleges, and employers should work together to build the country’s economic capability.

    The paper sets out a broad reform agenda built around stronger employer collaboration, higher-quality technical education, and a more flexible lifelong learning system. Initiatives such as Local Skills Improvement Plans and the Lifelong Learning Entitlement illustrate how the system is being reshaped to enable post-16 institutions to play distinct, complementary roles within a shared ecosystem of skills and innovation. All of this will unfold against a backdrop of constrained funding, uneven regional capacity, and growing regulatory pressure, making clarity of role more important than the White Paper itself acknowledges.

    While the paper avoids overt market language, the phrase comparative advantage does a lot of work. It invites universities to reflect on what they are best at and how that compares with others, without requiring them to openly compete. The intention is clear: to encourage institutions to define, and then demonstrate, their unique value. This is not new thinking. Advance HE, supported by a sector steering group including representation from AHUA, CUC, Guild HE and UUK, published a discussion paper last year on Measuring What Matters, exploring institutional performance and the importance of evidencing and communicating value creation.

    For some, that will mean sharper choices about subjects, audiences, partnerships, and purpose. For others, it will be about aligning their contribution to regional priorities. Not every university serves its region in the same way. The most prestigious universities will act as lighthouses, shaping national and international ecosystems through research and innovation. Others will play a more local role, deepening their community impact and supporting regional industry.

    The common thread is focus. Universities can no longer rely on breadth as a badge of strength. The challenge now is to identify what makes their contribution distinct and coherent, and to express that with clarity.

    From strategy to articulation

    Responding to the White Paper will be a demanding process. It will call for rigorous analysis, evidence-gathering, and an honest evaluation of institutional strengths and weaknesses. It will also require a sophisticated understanding of stakeholders’ and audiences’ needs. And of course, diplomacy will be required to manage the trade-offs that follow. Every decision will carry consequences for identity, culture, and relationships.

    In time, many universities will produce credible strategies: detailed statements of focus, lists of priorities, and maps of partnerships. But the real risk is stopping there. Institutional strategy alone will not create coherence.

    Universities often complete strategic work and then move straight to execution, adding imagery or campaigns before uniting everything around a purpose that aligns what you offer and who it’s for. The step that often gets missed is articulation – translating strategic intent into something people can understand, believe in, and act on.

    The White Paper calls for coherence across regions and the sector. Universities need to mirror that with coherence within their own walls. When purpose, culture, and communication line up behind a shared sense of direction, policy responses become practice, not just strategy. And this, fundamentally, is what the Government is seeking.

    The groundwork for meeting these changes is only just beginning, with many hard yards still to come. While covering that ground, there are lessons from outside the sector worth remembering.

    1. Specialisation  is relative
      A university’s strengths mean little in isolation. What matters is how those strengths stand out within the broader system of institutions, partners, and employers. Understanding where your work overlaps with others and where it uniquely contributes is essential. Knowing what not to do is often as important as knowing where to lead.
    1. Demand is defined by more than the UK Government
      The White Paper rightly highlights the importance of the national industrial strategy in shaping what is ‘in demand’. But universities should also consider the needs and motivations of their wider audiences: students, partners, and communities. Clarity about who your work matters to is as important as clarity about what that work is.
    1. Purpose must be expressed, not just defined
      Defining purpose is a strategic exercise; expressing it is an act of leadership. Purpose that remains on paper does not change behaviour, attract talent, or inspire partners. It must be made visible and tangible across everything the institution says and does, from how staff describe their work to how the university presents itself to the world.
    1. Perception matters as much as reality
      Universities are naturally driven by research and evidence. Yet specialisation is as much about being perceived as specialised as it is about being so in practice. The most successful institutions will work not only to build genuine expertise but also to occupy space in their audiences’ hearts and minds. Shifting perception requires consistency in both story and substance.
    1. Alignment is critical to success
      The institutions that succeed will be those that align intent, culture, and message. When leadership, staff, and students share a single understanding of what the university stands for, decision-making becomes simpler, collaboration easier, and communication more powerful. Alignment is not achieved through a campaign but through ongoing dialogue and consistent behaviour.

    A catalyst for clarity

    The Post-16 White Paper is ultimately a call for focus. For universities, that means not only deciding where they fit but demonstrating that fit clearly and consistently to students, partners, and staff.

    Those who stop at strategy will adapt. Those who move beyond it — articulating their role with confidence, coherence, and conviction — will help define what a purposeful, modern university looks like in the decade ahead.

    Source link

  • Common Sense Media releases AI toolkit for school districts

    Common Sense Media releases AI toolkit for school districts

    Key points:

    Common Sense Media has released its first AI Toolkit for School Districts, which gives districts of all sizes a structured, action-oriented guide for implementing AI safely, responsibly, and effectively.

    Common Sense Media research shows that 7 in 10 teens have used AI. As kids and teens increasingly use the technology for schoolwork, teachers and school district leaders have made it clear that they need practical, easy-to-use tools that support thoughtful AI planning, decision-making, and implementation.

    Common Sense Media developed the AI Toolkit, which is available to educators free of charge, in direct response to district needs.

    “As more and more kids use AI for everything from math homework to essays, they’re often doing so without clear expectations, safeguards, or support from educators,” said Yvette Renteria, Chief Program Officer of Common Sense Media.

    “Our research shows that schools are struggling to keep up with the rise of AI–6 in 10 kids say their schools either lack clear AI rules or are unsure what those rules are. But schools shouldn’t have to navigate the AI paradigm shift on their own. Our AI Toolkit for School Districts will make sure every district has the guidance it needs to implement AI in a way that works best for its schools.”

    The toolkit emphasizes practical tools, including templates, implementation guides, and customizable resources to support districts at various stages of AI exploration and adoption. These resources are designed to be flexible to ensure that each district can develop AI strategies that align with their unique missions, visions, and priorities.

    In addition, the toolkit stresses the importance of a community-driven approach, recognizing that AI exploration and decision-making require input from all of the stakeholders in a school community.

    By encouraging districts to give teachers, students, parents, and more a seat at the table, Common Sense Media’s new resources ensure that schools’ AI plans meet the needs of families and educators alike.

    This press release originally appeared online.

    eSchool News Staff
    Latest posts by eSchool News Staff (see all)

    Source link

  • Does higher ed still make sense for students, financially? (Bryan Alexander)

    Does higher ed still make sense for students, financially? (Bryan Alexander)

    [Editor’s note: This article first appeared at BryanAlexander.org.]

    Is a college degree still worth it?

    The radio program/podcast Marketplace hosted me as a guest last week to speak to the question.  You can listen to it* or read my notes below, or both.  I have one reflection at the end of this post building on one interview question.

    One caveat or clarification before I get hate mail: the focus of the show was entirely on higher education’s economics.  We didn’t discuss the non-financial functions of post-secondary schooling because that’s not what the show (called “Marketplace”) is about, nor did we talk about justifying academic study for reasons of personal development, family formation, the public good, etc.  The conversation was devoted strictly to the economic proposition.

    The hosts, Kimberly Adams and Reema Khrais, began by asking if higher ed still made financial sense.  Yes, I answered, for a good number of people – but not everyone.  Much depends on your degree and your institution’s reputation.  And I hammered home the problem of some college but no degree.  The hosts asked if that value proposition was declining.  My response: the perception of that value is dropping.  Here I emphasized the reality, and the specter, of student debt, along with anxieties about AI and politics.  Then I added my hypothesis that the “college for all” consensus is breaking up.

    Next the hosts asked me what changing (declining) attitudes about higher education mean for campuses.  I responded by outlining the many problems, centered around the financial pressures many schools are under.  I noted Trump’s damages then cited my peak higher education model.  Marketplace asked me to explain the appeal of alternatives to college (the skilled trades, certificates, boot camps, etc), which I did, and then we turned to automation, which I broke up into AI vs robotics, before noting gender differences.

    Back to college for all: which narrative succeeds it?  I didn’t have a good, single answer right away.  We touched on a resurgence of vocational technology, then I sang the praises of liberal education.  We also talked about the changing value of different degrees – is the BA the new high school diploma? Is a master’s degree still a good idea?  I cited the move to reduce degree demands from certain fields, as well as the decline of the humanities, the crisis of computer science, and the growing importance of allied health.

    After my part ended, Adams and Khrais pondered the role of higher education as a culture war battlefield.  Different populations might respond in varied ways – perhaps adults are more into the culture war issues, and maybe women (already the majority of students) are at greater risk of automation.

    So what follows the end of college for all?

    If the American consensus that K-12 should prepare every student for college breaks down, if we no longer have a rough agreement that the more post-secondary experience people get, the better, the next phase seems to be… mixed.  Perhaps we’re entering an intermediary phase before a new settlement becomes clear.

    One component seems to be a resurgence in the skilled trades, requiring either apprenticeship, a short community college course of study, or on the job training.  Demand is still solid, at least until robotics become reliable and cost-effective in these fields, which doesn’t seem to be happening in at least the short term.  This needs preparation in K-12, and we’re already seeing the most prominent voices calling for a return to secondary school trades training.  There’s a retro dimension to this which might appeal to older folks. (I’ve experienced this in conversations with Boomers and my fellow Gen Xers, as people reminisce about shop class and home ec.)

    A second piece of the puzzle would be businesses and the public sector expanding their education functions.  There is already an ecosystem of corporate campuses, online training, chief learning officers, and more; that could simply grow as employers seek to wean employees away from college.

    A third might be a greater focus on skills across the board. Employers demand certain skills to a higher degree of clarity, perhaps including measurements for soft skills.  K-12 schools better articulate student skill achievement, possibly through microcredentials and/or expanded (portfolio) certification. Higher education expands its use of prior learning assessment for adult learners and transfer students, while also following or paralleling K-12 in more clearly identifying skills within the curriculum and through outcomes.

    A fourth would be greater politicization of higher education.  If America pulls back from college for all, college for some arrives and the question of who gets to go to campus becomes a culture war battlefield.  Already a solid majority of students are women, so we might expect gender politics to intensify, with Republicans and men’s rights activists increasingly calling on male teenagers to skip college while young women view university as an even more appropriate stage of their lives.  Academics might buck 2025’s trends and more clearly proclaim the progressive aims they see postsecondary education fulfilling, joined by progressive politicians and cultural figures.  Popular culture might echo this, with movies/TV shows/songs/bestsellers depicting the academy as either a grim ideological factory turning students into fiery liberals or as a safe place for the flowering of justice and identity.

    Connecting these elements makes me recall and imagine stories.  I can envision two teenagers, male and female, talking through their expectations of college. One sees it as mandatory “pink collar” preparation while the other dreads it for that reason.  The former was tracked into academic classes while the latter appreciated maker space time and field trips to work sites. Or we might follow a young man as he enters woodworking and succeeds in that field for years, feeling himself supported in his masculinity and also avoiding student debt, until he decides to return to school after health problems limit his professional abilities.  Perhaps one business sets up a campus and an apprenticeship system which it codes politically, such as claiming a focus on merit and not DEI, on manly virtues and traditional culture. In contrast another firm does the same but without any political coding, instead carefully anchoring everything in measured and certified skill development.

    Over all of these options looms the specter of AI, and here the picture is more muddy.  Do “pink collar” jobs persist as alternatives to the experience of chatbots, or do we automate those functions?  Does post-secondary education become mandatory for jobs handling AIs, which I’ve been calling “AI wranglers”?  If automation depresses the labor force, do we come to see college as a gamble on scoring a rare, well paying job?

    I’ll stop here.  My thanks to Marketplace for the kind interview on a vital topic.

    *My audio quality isn’t the best because I fumbled the recording. Sigh.

    Source link

  • Machine learning technology is transforming how institutions make sense of student feedback

    Machine learning technology is transforming how institutions make sense of student feedback

    Institutions spend a lot of time surveying students for their feedback on their learning experience, but once you have crunched the numbers the hard bit is working out the “why.”

    The qualitative information institutions collect is a goldmine of insight about the sentiments and specific experiences that are driving the headline feedback numbers. When students are especially positive, it helps to know why, to spread that good practice and apply it in different learning contexts. When students score some aspect of their experience negatively, it’s critical to know the exact nature of the perceived gap, omission or injustice so that it can be fixed.

    Any conscientious module leader will run their eye down the student comments in a module feedback survey – but once you start looking across modules to programme or cohort level, or to large-scale surveys like NSS, PRES or PTES, the scale of the qualitative data becomes overwhelming for the naked eye. Even the most conscientious reader will find that bias sets in, as comments that are interesting or unexpected tend to be foregrounded as having greater explanatory power over those that seem run of the mill.

    Traditional coding methods for qualitative data require someone – or ideally more than one person – to manually break down comments into clauses or statements that can be coded for theme and sentiment. It’s robust, but incredibly laborious. For student survey work, where the goal might be to respond to feedback and make improvements at pace, institutions are open that this kind of robust analysis is rarely, if ever, the standard practice. Especially as resources become more constrained, devoting hours to this kind of detailed methodological work is rarely a priority.

    Let me blow your mind

    That is where machine learning technology can genuinely change the game. Student Voice AI was founded by Stuart Grey, an academic at the University of Strathclyde (now working at the University of Glasgow), initially to help analyse student comments for large engineering courses. Working with Advance HE he was able to train the machine learning model on national PTES and PRES datasets. Now, further training the algorithm on NSS data, Student Voice AI offers literally same-day analysis of student comments for NSS results for subscribing institutions.

    Put the words “AI” and “student feedback” in the same sentence and some people’s hackles will immediately rise. So Stuart spends quite a lot of time explaining how the analysis works. The word he uses to describe the version of machine learning Student Voice AI deploys is “supervised learning” – humans manually label categories in datasets and “teach” the machine about sentiment and topic. The larger the available dataset the more examples the machine is exposed to and the more sophisticated it becomes. Through this process Student Voice AI has landed on a discreet number of comment themes and categories for taught students and the same for postgraduate research students that the majority of student comments consistently fall into – trained on and distinctive to UK higher education student data. Stuart adds that the categories can and do evolve:

    “The categories are based on what students are saying, not what we think they might be talking about – or what we’d like them to be talking about. There could be more categories if we wanted them, but it’s about what’s digestible for a normal person.”

    In practice that means that institutions can see a quantitative representation of their student comments, sorted by category and sentiment. You can look at student views of feedback, for example, and see the balance of positive, neutral and negative sentiment, overall, segment it into departments or subject areas, or years of study, then click through to see the relevant comments to see what’s driving that feedback. That’s significantly different from, say, dumping your student comments into a third party generative AI platform (sharing confidential data with a third party while you’re at it) and asking it to summarise. There’s value in the time and effort saved, but also in the removal of individual personal bias, and the potential for aggregation and segmentation for different stakeholders in the system. And it also becomes possible to compare student qualitative feedback across institutions.

    Now, Student Voice AI is partnering with student insight platform evasys to bring machine learning technology to qualitative data collected via the evasys platform. And evasys and Student Voice AI have been commissioned by Advance HE to code and analyse open comments from the 2025 PRES and PTES surveys – creating opportunities to drill down into a national dataset that can be segmented by subject discipline and theme as well as by institution.

    Bruce Johnson, managing director at evasys is enthused about the potential for the technology to drive culture change both in how student feedback is used to inform insight and action across institutions:

    “When you’re thinking about how to create actionable insight from survey data the key question is, to whom? Is it to a module leader? Is it to a programme director of a collection of modules? Is it to a head of department or a pro vice chancellor or the planning or quality teams? All of these are completely different stakeholders who need different ways of looking at the data. And it’s also about how the data is presented – most of my customers want, not only quality of insight, but the ability to harvest that in a visually engaging way.”

    “Coming from higher education it seems obvious to me that different stakeholders have very different uses for student feedback data,” says Stuart Grey. “Those teaching at the coalface are interested in student engagement; at the strategic level the interest is in strategic level interest in trends and sentiment analysis and there are also various stakeholder groups in professional services who never get to see this stuff normally, but we can generate the reports that show them what students are saying about their area. Frequently the data tells them something they knew anyway but it gives them the ammunition to be able to make change.”

    The results are in

    Duncan Berryman, student surveys officer at Queens University Belfast, sums up the value of AI analysis for his small team: “It makes our life a lot easier, and the schools get the data and trends quicker.” Previously schools had been supplied with Excel spreadsheets – and his team were spending a lot of time explaining and working through with colleagues how to make sense of the data on those spreadsheets. Being able to see a straightforward visualisation of student sentiment on the various themes means that, as Duncan observes rather wryly, “if change isn’t happening it’s not just because people don’t know what student surveys are saying.”

    Parama Chaudhury, professor of economics and pro vice provost education (student academic experience) at University College London explains where qualitative data analysis sits in the wider ecosystem for quality enhancement of teaching and learning. In her view, for enhancement purposes, comparing your quantitative student feedback scores to those of another department is not particularly useful – essentially it’s comparing apples with oranges. Yet the apparent ease of comparability of quantitative data, compared with the sense of overwhelm at the volume and complexity of student comments, can mean that people spend time trying to explain the numerical differences, rather than mining the qualitative data for more robust and actionable explanations that can give context to your own scores.

    It’s not that people weren’t working hard on enhancement, in other words, but they didn’t always have the best possible information to guide that work. “When I came into this role quite a lot of people were saying ‘we don’t understand why the qualitative data is telling us this, we’ve done all these things,’” says Parama. “I’ve been in the sector a long time and have received my share of summaries of module evaluations and have always questioned those summaries because it’s just someone’s ‘read.’ Having that really objective view, from a well-trained algorithm makes a difference.”

    UCL has tested two-page summaries of student comments to specific departments this academic year, and plans to roll out a version for every department this summer. The data is not assessed in a vacuum; it forms part of the wider institutional quality assurance and enhancement processes which includes data on a range of different perspectives on areas for development. Encouragingly, so far the data from students is consistent with what has emerged from internal reviews, giving the departments that have had the opportunity to engage with it greater confidence in their processes and action plans.

    None of this stops anyone from going and looking at specific student comments, sense-checking the algorithm’s analysis and/or triangulating against other data. At the University of Edinburgh, head of academic planning Marianne Brown says that the value of the AI analysis is in the speed of turnaround – the institutionl carries out a manual reviewing process to be sure that any unexpected comments are picked up. But being able to share the headline insight at pace (in this case via a PowerBI interface) means that leaders receive the feedback while the information is still fresh, and the lead time to effect change is longer than if time had been lost to manual coding.

    The University of Edinburgh is known for its cutting edge AI research, and boasts the Edinburgh (access to) Language Models (ELM) a platform that gives staff and students access to generative AI tools without sharing data with third parties, keeping all user data onsite and secured. Marianne is clear that even a closed system like ELM is not appropriate for unfettered student comment analysis. Generative AI platforms offer the illusion of a thematic analysis but it is far from robust because generative AI operates through sophisticated guesswork rather than analysis of the implications of actual data. “Being able to put responses from NSS or our internal student survey into ELM to give summaries was great, until you started to interrogate those summaries. Robust validation of any output is still required,” says Marianne. Similarly Duncan Berryman observes: “If you asked a gen-AI tool to show you the comments related to the themes it had picked out, it would not refer back to actual comments. Or it would have pulled this supposed common theme from just one comment.”

    The holy grail of student survey practice is creating a virtuous circle: student engagement in feedback creates actionable data, which leads to education enhancement, and students gain confidence that the process is authentic and are further motivated to share their feedback. In that quest, AI, deployed appropriately, can be an institutional ally and resource-multiplier, giving fast and robust access to aggregated student views and opinions. “The end result should be to make teaching and learning better,” says Stuart Grey. “And hopefully what we’re doing is saving time on the manual boring part, and freeing up time to make real change.”

    Source link

  • Will Trump’s school discipline order drive wider disparities or ‘restore common sense’?

    Will Trump’s school discipline order drive wider disparities or ‘restore common sense’?

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    A new White House executive order calling for “common sense” in school discipline policies by removing practices based on “discriminatory equity ideology” will drive even wider racial disparities in discipline than currently exist, critics say.

    Rather than being common sense, the directive would “permit school discipline practices that target and punish students of color and students with disabilities at disproportionate rates,” said Denise Forte, president and CEO of EdTrust, in a statement Thursday, a day after President Donald Trump signed the order. EdTrust, a nonprofit, works with school systems to close opportunity gaps for students of color and students from low-income backgrounds.

    Additionally, EdTrust in a separate Thursday statement to K-12 Dive said, “When the dust settles from the education chaos being created by Trump administration, students — especially students from low-income backgrounds, students of color, students with disabilities, English learners, and students in rural areas — will be worse off, and the Trump administration wants to make sure we don’t have the data and research to prove it.”

    Dan Losen, senior director of education at the National Center for Youth Law, said the Trump administration is creating a false dichotomy that schools either need harsh discipline practices or they deal with out-of-control and unsafe student behaviors.

    The reality, Losen said, is that well-trained educators and administrators have many approaches to reducing student misconduct that are evidence-based. “Many schools and superintendents are aware that the best antidote to violence, to drug involvement, to gang involvement, is to try to find ways to keep more kids in school,” Losen said.

    Closing racial gaps in school discipline has been a priority at the local, state and national levels for many years. Schools have also shunned strict zero-tolerance discipline policies in favor of responsive and restorative practices and other approaches that help students examine their behavior and make amends to those harmed. 

    Supporters of alternatives to suspending or expelling students — or what’s called “exclusionary discipline” — say those different approaches help keep students connected to school and reduce the school-to-prison pipeline. They also note that alternative strategies help reduce racial disparities in school discipline. 

    The U.S. Department of Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection found that even though Black students represented 15% of K-12 student enrollment in the 2021-22 school year, they accounted for 19% of students who were secluded and 26% who were physically restrained. And while Black children accounted for 18% of preschool enrollment, 38% received one or more out-of-school suspensions, and 33% were expelled. 

    In the years following the COVID-19 pandemic, schools have reported an uptick in mental health and disruptive behaviors in students. In fact, 68% of respondents said behavioral disruptions have increased since the 2019-20 school year in an EAB survey of school employees published in 2023.

    At the same time, schools said they lack the funding and staffing to adequately address students’ mental health needs. Furthermore a 2024 Rand Corp. report found that challenging student behaviors contribute to teacher burnout.

    On Thursday, the departments of Education, Homeland Security, Justice, and Health and Human Services issued a resource for K-12 threat assessment practices to help prevent school violence and create a safe school environment. 

    The order’s expectations

    Student discipline policies are set at the school or district level. However, the federal government can issue guidance and hold schools accountable for discriminatory practices.

    The executive order signed by President Donald Trump on Wednesday lays out a timeline of expectations for U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon. In one month, McMahon, along with the U.S. attorney general, is to issue school discipline guidance that reminds districts and states of their obligations under Title VI to protect students against racial discrimination. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin in federally funded programs.

    Source link

  • A Blueprint for College Students’ Sense of Belonging

    A Blueprint for College Students’ Sense of Belonging

    A Dr. Terrell L. Strayhornfew years ago, Liu (2023) published, “Everyone is Talking about ‘Belonging’” in The Chronicle of Higher Education. Her opening lines were perennial: “It’s everywhere. College t-shirts, notepads, and posters proclaim, “You Belong!” That was true then and it still rings true today. Indeed, belonging is proudly displayed on a larger-than-life sign at Kent State’s library. It’s part of wayfinding signage at University of Washington and LeMoyne-Owen College. It’s a button at William & Mary. A landing page for student-facing websites at University of Michigan and Amherst College, just to name a few. It’s a cabinet-level position at Belmont University, Harvard University, and University of Massachusetts Boston. 

    There can be no question that this reflects a growing infrastructure to support belonging for all faculty, staff, and students in higher education. Despite these shifts and scaling of efforts, “no one has perfected a blueprint for belonging,” Liu concluded. That’s likely because though everyone is talking about it, few seem to know what to do about it. This is the topic we took to task in “Fostering Healthier Campuses: Applying Sense of Belonging Theory to Student Affairs Research and Practice” at the recent annual meeting of NASPA–Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education. 

    2025 NASPA CONFERENCE

    NASPA brought together over 6,600 student affairs professionals from across the country to New Orleans, Louisiana for connection, reflection, and renewal, three anchors of this year’s theme. Being in “The Big Easy” is significant according to NASPA President and long-time student success champion, Dr. Amelia Parnell, who shared on LinkedIn: “I’ll tell anyone that student affairs professionals are some of the most thoughtful people in higher education and our time together in New Orleans confirmed it for me again.” The 5-day annual meeting consisted of keynote speakers, sponsored receptions, and dozens of educational sessions and programs. Interestingly, dozens of conference sessions, like ours, had “belonging” somewhere in the title, according to NASPA’s mobile app.  

    Likely a testament to the urgency of the moment and relevance of the message, our 50-minute session was standing-room only. Typical of what happens when we join forces, fueled by our commitment to a shared mission, we stood on business and spoke to everyone’s mind straight from the heart in ways that would renew many souls. At one point, Terrell exclaimed, “Belonging’s a feeling so it can’t be fabricated, faked, or funked. It must be built…but building it can’t break us!” Builders need blueprints and we offered one using belonging theory as a guide, detailing how to move from having good intentions to making systemic change, from talking about belonging to creating conditions for it where all students, faculty, and staff truly feel it, just the way they are.

    Figure 1 is a visual representation of points shared in the session. 

    Figure 1. Sense of belonging model as a blueprint

    BELONGING 1.0

    Dozens of studies agree that sense of belonging is defined as “a basic…need [and human right], a fundamental motivation, sufficient to drive behaviors and perceptions. Its satisfaction leads to positive gains such as happiness, elation, wellbeing, achievement, and optimal functioning” (Strayhorn, 2019, p. 9). Belonging has seven core elements, one of which is it must be renewed continuously as conditions and circumstances change. For example, students may face new challenges that impact their sense of belonging at every stage of their academic journey. New challenges may require different supports that change semester to semester or year to year. Early on, students may need help navigating the physical terrain of campus, but, as seniors, they may desire coaching for career success. Any blueprint for belonging must consider these factors as part of the masterplan in design.

    J'Quen JohnsonJ’Quen JohnsonRECOMMENDATIONS: BELONGING 2.0 & BEYOND

    During Q&A, a chorus of voices confirmed that many campus professionals are convinced about the importance of belonging and what it can do for students, even some faculty and staff. But what’s much less clear is how to facilitate, engender, or boost belonging for all students, using theory as a blueprint. To this, we etched a few recommendations for “promising practices” on the canvas of gathered minds. Here are three evidence-backed ideas that hold promise for boosting students’ belonging on college campuses:

    Meeting Basic Needs. One building block for belonging is satisfying students’ basic needs: air, water, food, shelter, sleep, and personal enjoyment. When campuses take proactive steps to ensure that students have access to what they need, they open up possibilities for them to become who they are or aspire to be in terms of learning and development. Rutgers’ new, state-of-art Basic Needs Center is a prime example, offering extended operating hours, a mobile pantry, textbook loans, and life skills courses, just to name a few.

    Designing Culturally Relevant Programs. Another building block for belonging is tied to how students’ identities shape their experiences on- and off-campus. College women are more prone to feeling unsafe and recent reports show rising rates of trans violence, especially in light of anti-LGBTQ+ laws. Feeling unsafe and unwanted off campus heightens students’ need for belonging on campus. Hosting trans awareness events, safe zone training, “Take Back the Night,” and “Walk a Mile in Her Shoes,” for instance, are effective strategies for creating inclusive campus climates. University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Educational Justice and Community Engagement hosts events like Women’s Community Love and Leadership Dinner, LGBTQ+ Career Conference, and Feminist Film Fridays.

    Creating Positive Connections. A third building block for belonging is drawn from the middle of the blueprint–underscoring the importance of care, connectedness, and community. Community on campus flows from frequent, positive interactions with others, namely peers, faculty, and staff like advisors, coaches, and mentors. Architects of belonging pay attention to the quantity of students’ interactions with campus personnel, finding ways to nudge more frequent connections with academic advisors through micromessaging campaigns or faculty through first-year experience (FYE), undergraduate research, or “Take Your Professor to Lunch” initiatives. Alongside quantity, belonging builders assess the quality of such interactions to assure they’re warm, welcoming, and supportive.

    CONCLUSION

    If nothing else, we hope this provides higher education professionals a blueprint for boosting belonging on college campuses. It’s a blueprint, not the blueprint as what works best for Institution A may reap little for Institution B, and vice versa. Remember, belonging is a feeling. Just like bricks, feelings can be mixed and hardened over time. Changing people’s feelings is hard work, but that’s no excuse for retreat. Hard work is good work, and we must do good work. Anything less would be unbecoming and yes…unbelonging.

    Dr. Terrell L. Strayhorn is Professor of Education and Psychology at Virginia Union University, where he also serves as Director of Research in the Center for the Study of HBCUs.

    J’Quen Johnson is a research associate and consultant at Do Good Work Consulting Group and a Ph.D. candidate at University of the Cumberlands.

    Source link

  • Tackling accent bias in Higher Education could improve students’ success, sense of belonging, and wellbeing

    Tackling accent bias in Higher Education could improve students’ success, sense of belonging, and wellbeing

    Accent Bias in Higher Education

    UK Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) have a diverse population, encompassing students and staff from numerous linguistic backgrounds. Yet this linguistic diversity is often overlooked in university strategies, discourse, and practices, and students report experiencing accent-based stigmatisation. Worryingly, 30% of university students report having their accent mocked at university and 33% are concerned about their accent affecting their future success.

    Accent bias can have profound negative consequences throughout an individual’s life, affecting their school experience, job opportunities, work performance evaluations, and access to housing. These biases arise because accents trigger stereotypes about the social class, ethnicity, region, nationality, gender (and more) of the speakers. Such stereotypes can lead us to perceive certain speakers as more or less intelligent, competent, or fluent.

    In line with the Government’s mission to “Break Down Barriers to Opportunity”, addressing the negative consequences of accent bias in Higher Education (HE) is essential to ensure equal opportunities for young people to thrive at university and “follow the pathway that is right for them”.

    But what is the hidden impact of accent bias across UK HE? How does it influence students’ academic life, belonging and wellbeing?

    The Hidden Impact

    In our current research (Tomé Lourido & Snell, under review), we conducted an accent bias survey with over 600 students at a Russell Group University in the North of England. It showed that a significant number of students experience accent-based disadvantages that have a lasting negative impact on their academic life. Negative experiences were most frequently reported by students from the North of England, especially from working-class backgrounds, and students who did not grow up speaking English, especially from minoritised ethnic backgrounds. These include:

    • Being marked as different or inferior through negative evaluation, miscategorisation and frequent microaggressions, such as having their accent mimicked, mocked and commented on.
    • Facing barriers to academic engagement and success. Students from these groups report feeling that their contributions in academic settings are not valued because of their accent, which makes them reluctant to participate in class. Some feel pressured to change their accent, adding an additional cognitive burden to in-class participation. These students are disadvantaged because they miss opportunities to develop and refine their thinking through dialogue with others.
    • Impacts on wellbeing and career aspirations: Due to negative past experiences, some students internalise negative perceptions of their accent, affecting their confidence and wellbeing, and making them reluctant to take up new opportunities or follow certain career paths. This can have a knock-on effect on their mental health.   

    The accent-based disadvantages reported by students are not simply representative of wider societal prejudices; for many, the university context was unique in highlighting and amplifying these prejudices. Students also recognised that accent bias intersects with other forms of discrimination – class, race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality and disability – in complex ways.  Thus, we argue that HEIs should turn an analytic lens on themselves and take action to tackle accent bias and related inequities.

    From Awareness to Action: A Collaborative Approach

    There is work to be done for all of us in HEIs to embrace a true multilingual and multicultural ethos and challenge the idea that there is an idealised type of university student. We must “de-normalise” the microaggressions against students with accents perceived as “regional” or “foreign” and ensure that students from all backgrounds are able to participate in the classroom without feeling out of place. We propose four areas of interdisciplinary and collaborative work across the organisation:

    1. Raise awareness of accent bias and its negative consequences in collaboration with students and student unions. Create a communications campaign, provide targeted student and staff training, engage with career offices and employers.
    2. Tackle accent-based inequities by adopting a good practice statement about linguistic diversity and incorporating action into Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) policy and practice. Include content on linguistic diversity and discrimination in relevant university policies (e.g. mutual respect), strategies, student communications, and training (e.g. induction).
    3. Create a safe report and support route within existing systems for linguistic discrimination, bullying and harassment. Train staff supporting students, including personal tutors, on accent bias and its impact on academic life.
    4. Evaluate the effect of accent bias on students’ success, belonging and wellbeing. Track linguistic diversity. Assess the success of initiatives. 

    In addition to our own work, recent projects highlight the need for HEIs worldwide to address linguistic discrimination and its role in perpetuating existing inequalities. Initiatives led by Walt Wolfram (NC State University, US), John Hellerman and collaborators (Portland State University, US), and Christian Ilbury and Grace Mai Clark (University of Edinburgh, UK) have implemented cross-campus programs within their institutions. However, to effect sector-wide change, many more HEIs need to get involved.

    A Call for HEI Senior Leaders to Lead the Change

    Accent bias remains a largely unaddressed issue in large organisations. HEIs can play a pivotal role in leading a much-awaited societal change.

    Addressing accent bias in Higher Education is about breaking down barriers to opportunity and creating an environment in which all students, regardless of their background, can succeed in their studies, secure jobs, and contribute positively to society. By doing so, HEIs will support the employability of their students, a key metric for prospective students when selecting a university, and contribute to economic growth and social mobility.

    We encourage senior leaders to take proactive steps to tackle the negative consequences of accent bias and foster a more inclusive and equitable Higher Education system where students from all linguistic backgrounds can thrive.

    Source link

  • Making Sense of the Loneliness Epidemic – CUPA-HR

    Making Sense of the Loneliness Epidemic – CUPA-HR

    by Julie Burrell | August 21, 2024

    Editor’s Note: This is the first of two posts that will explore the loneliness epidemic and practical ways HR can help combat it in the workplace.

    Loneliness can be as bad for you as smoking 15 cigarettes a day, according to a Surgeon General’s report from last year.

    The report identifies loneliness as a national epidemic experienced by about one in two adults. Loneliness is “associated with a greater risk of cardiovascular disease, dementia, stroke, depression, anxiety, and premature death.” That means human connection is as necessary for your long-term survival as food and water.

    Feeling isolated can also decrease general well-being. People who say they’re lonely are more likely to experience sadness, worry, stress, anger and physical pain, according to a recent Gallup poll. Their research shows that over one in five people globally feel lonely “a lot.”

    When Loneliness Is Worrisome

    Of course, we have all felt lonely sometimes, when changing jobs, getting a divorce, moving to a new city, or recovering from an illness. But when does a temporary feeling of loneliness become chronic?

    Chronic loneliness occurs when the feeling of isolation goes on for a long time and the inability to connect to other people is constant or prolonged. Chronic loneliness can occur even among very social people — you can still feel lonely in a crowd — and is often connected to self-doubt or low self-esteem.

    Taking Away the Stigma 

    Feeling lonely can come with a sense of shame. However, it’s important to understand that loneliness isn’t about who you are, but about a lack of deep social connection driven by factors in our sociocultural environment.

    Even though loneliness has been on rise since before COVID-19, the pandemic and recent political divisiveness have contributed to the epidemic. Social media is likely exacerbating the problem. People who report more than two hours of social media use a day are twice as likely to report feelings of isolation (versus people who use social media less than a half hour).

    The good news is that loneliness can be addressed in part by deliberately strengthening engagement in our workplaces, communities and other social networks.

    While workplace changes alone won’t combat political and social divisions, it’s still a key starting point for helping to decrease loneliness — especially considering how much time we spend at work. When implementing programs targeted at the loneliness epidemic, it can be best to frame your efforts as a positive: increasing social connection.

    One Small First Step

    Efforts to boost connection may help increase employees’ job satisfaction. The Surgeon General’s report stresses that “supportive and inclusive relationships at work are associated with employee job satisfaction, creativity, competence, and better job performance.” Connection at work prevents stress and burnout and can even be linked to fewer missed days of work after injury or illness.

    In the next post in this two-part series, we’ll focus on concrete steps that higher ed HR can take to combat loneliness at work, including for hybrid and remote employees.

    But you can take a meaningful first step by making a small personal change, such as tracking how much time you spend on social media, practicing short mindfulness sessions, or scheduling one phone-free lunch per month with a work friend. Even a positive interaction with a colleague you don’t know well, a barista or cashier, or someone in line with you at the coffee shop can have lasting mental health benefits by expanding your “relational diversity” — the variety of relationship categories you have daily.



    Source link

  • Go Higher – a true sense of community and support, by Skye Brocklebank – ALL @ Liverpool Blog

    Go Higher – a true sense of community and support, by Skye Brocklebank – ALL @ Liverpool Blog

    I joined the GoHigher programme at just 19, I had always wanted to opportunity to be able to help others and wanted to serve justice and after doubting my self, it gave me an opportunity to follow my dream. I didn’t think I was capable of Law after leaving  school so took an NVQ route and planned on going into engineering.

    As a woman in STEM, it was extremely difficult to be taken seriously, so I thought, why not just put the shift in to do what I really wanted to do? Not only did I get into my goal university studying my dream subject, but I for the first time enjoyed learning, I felt a real sense of community and belonging in GoHigher, with students from different backgrounds and life experiences; it really is a shared learning experience with your peers. You’re all in it together and everyone in my time at GoHigher was incredibly open minded and accepting, with that being the tone set for the environment.

    The Go Higher teachers adore the subjects they teach and it really inspires people and makes the learning experience extremely enjoyable and rewarding. The broad range of subjects that are taught on this course are incredibly thought provoking and eye opening. I was able to engage in creative subjects that I know and love such as literature and arts and cultures, and also be intrigued by philosophy and social sciences, I also found a new liking to maths, which I always struggled with at school. The patience and support from all GoHigher staff is outstanding and all teachers, lecturers and professors should take a leaf out of their book.

    Image by Freepic

    Source link