Tag: Skills

  • Building Skills to Lead | Diverse: Issues In Higher Education

    Building Skills to Lead | Diverse: Issues In Higher Education

    Building on a career with impact, Chartarra Joyner continues to embody a sense of purpose to become an even stronger leader in academia.

     Chartarra JoynerJoyner is assistant vice chancellor, budget and planning, at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University (NC A&T). She oversees the administration, analysis and strategic management of the university’s $470 million budget. As head of the budget and planning team, she is responsible for compliance and fiscal integrity while managing the comprehensive budget and reporting process.

    Having attended Fisk University as an undergraduate, where she studied accounting, Joyner appreciates working at a Historically Black College and University but admits that a career in academia happened unexpectedly. After graduating from college, she spent more than a decade working in fi nancial services. Her last position before NC A&T was as a senior business analyst clinical services at HCA Healthcare, noting that her diverse background enables her to bring a unique lens to higher education.

    “In my positions, I led cross-functional teams, cost reduction strategies and other process improvement initiatives,” she says. “All this combined experience helps me. I started out in accounting, but most of my roles then progressed, and I found a love for operational excellence and process-improvement initiatives.”

    When her family moved to Greensboro, North Carolina, she planned to be a stay-at home mother but realized that was not where her strengths lie. Twelve years ago, she took on a contract assignment at NC A&T, which evolved into a full-time position. While the industry was different, she saw the move as a natural progression. Joyner has been in her current position since 2016. Because NC A&T is a large employer in Greensboro, her work has had a positive impact on the local economy.

    “I was able to apply my skills and experience in financial strategies,” Joyner says. “I wanted to help assist with the educational access for students as well as equity for those students. NC A&T has a lot of fi rst-generation college students. This is what brought me and made me stay in academia. It’s been fulfilling to see the student success stories that resulted from the strategic 
    financial leadership decisions made here at the university.”

    NC A&T initiated a “bring your child to work” program, and her three children have all experienced the campus and seen her busy at work. Then, as part of their coursework in school, there were assignments where they described what she does.

    “Children’s natural curiosity, they just ask questions,” she quips. Joyner is a third generation college graduate—stretching back to her grandmother
     (also an HBCU graduate)—and her second oldest son is fourth generation, having graduated from NC A&T. While higher education is the norm in her family, she thrives in an environment where first-gen students are able to flourish. She says that in her current role, she is able to mentor students and other professionals and contribute to the larger mission of the university.

    “I value thought leadership,” she says. “There’s a lot of collaboration in academia and there is continuous learning, which aligns with my personal mission and my core values. It also gives me the opportunity to make an impact through student support and developing our future global leaders. [At NC A&T] we have over 14,000 students that we have an impact on every day who are future global leaders.

    “I found a place where I can lead strategically and contribute to the larger mission of the university and the global community,” she adds. “What is meaningful to me is having an impact on the students to ensure that the students have the resources and support needed. [We’re] helping to produce engineers, doctors, lawyers and other professions… and the cooperative extension programs we do with the community and the research.”

    With the goal of becoming a chief business officer (CBO), Joyner applied for the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) Fellows Program and was recently selected to take part in the highly competitive immersive leadership development program. The NACUBO program will help her refine her leadership skills and deepen her ability to communicate complex financial information. This includes aligning resources with institutional goals, developing flexible budget models and exploring diversified revenue streams. Due to current university priorities, she has postponed her participation until next year.

    As part of her work at NC A&T, Joyner has chaired and participated in strategic committees and spearheaded initiatives in staff development, operational efficiency and implementation of best practices to support long-term financial planning and institutional effectiveness.

    She describes her career trajectory as building a diverse portfolio that has helped her grow and lead at the executive level.

    “I want to create a path for other people, drive innovation while effectively managing resources of the institution,” Joyner says with confidence. “I also hope to contribute to national conversations on equity, sustainability and operational excellence for higher education. Ultimately, my goal is to make a lasting impact.”

     

    Source link

  • Beyond Digital Literacy: Cultivating “Meta AI” Skills in Students and Faculty – Faculty Focus

    Beyond Digital Literacy: Cultivating “Meta AI” Skills in Students and Faculty – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • How skills drive productivity – Campus Review

    How skills drive productivity – Campus Review

    Sector voices discussed how skills could drive productivity at the Applied Learning Conference at the Singapore Institute of Technology.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Bridging the Gap: How Smart Technology Can Align University Programmes with Real-World Skills

    Bridging the Gap: How Smart Technology Can Align University Programmes with Real-World Skills

    • By Pete Moss, Business Development Director at Ellucian.

    ‘Pouvez-vous s’il vous plaît me dire où se trouve la gare?’ – this is the extent that a colleague of mine can remember from his Introductory French module that he completed as part of a computing degree in the late 90s.  That institution’s attempt at the time to embed flexibility and cross-curriculum choice to help students develop skills out of their discipline to help with employability.  ‘It was easier to pass than the programming courses’  was the authentic feedback that my colleague gave in retrospect, but they did at least have the choice to expand their learning experience and gain some broader foundational skills.  That institution, however, has long abandoned much of that flexibility, largely due to the apparent complexity of administration.

    That is not to say that there are not fantastic examples of employability related skills initiatives across the sector, but the recent policy landscape (not least the Skills England Sector evidence on the growth and skills offer) and ever-present national growth agenda are now firmly putting the spotlight on the role of HE in this area.  The if element of HE holding that key role in the skills agenda is widely held, but now the thorny problem of how must be addressed.  Technology advancements, specifically AI, will play a contributory factor in how institutions can remove barriers that caused institutions to reduce flexibility in the past, but what of the wider considerations?

    To explore this topic further I asked Ben Rodgers, an experienced academic registrar and AHEP consultant, for his views on the topic:

    In today’s fast-moving global economy, the value of a university education is increasingly measured not just by academic achievement, but by the employability of graduates. Employers are no longer looking solely for degrees, they’re looking for skills: digital fluency, critical thinking, communication, and technical know-how that align with the needs of their industries. Meanwhile, universities are under pressure to demonstrate that their programmes deliver real-world value. The challenge is clear: how do we bridge the gap between what is taught and what is needed?

    This is where technology can make a transformative difference. At the forefront of this change is a new wave of AI-powered innovation designed to bridge the gap between academic programmes and real-world skill demands. These emerging technologies can analyse curricula, extracting the skills embedded within them and mapping those against labour market data to identify areas of alignment and gaps.

    Crucially, they work in both directions; institutions can see what skills a course develops, while students or employers can start with a desired competency like coding or digital marketing and trace back to the programmes that build those capabilities.

    It is the kind of innovation that higher education has long needed. For too long, the link between the classroom and the workplace has been inconsistent or poorly articulated. Universities may know they are delivering valuable learning, but haven’t always had the means to evidence that value in terms that resonate with employers and prospective students. These technologies bring much-needed clarity, offering structured and data-informed ways to demonstrate how academic learning contributes directly to employment readiness.

    A Game-Changer for the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE)

    This kind of technology becomes even more important as the UK rolls out the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE). The LLE is set to reshape the educational landscape by allowing individuals to access student finance for short courses, modular learning and skills-based development over the course of their lives. This shift away from traditional three-year degrees opens new possibilities, but also new challenges.

    How will learners know which modules to pick? How will they know what skills they need for the job they want or even the job they haven’t yet imagined? With the support of emerging AI-driven tools, learners can begin to reverse-engineer their career goals. Want to become a Data Scientist? These systems can help identify which combinations of modules across a university lead to that destination. Interested in project management? The technology can pinpoint where those skills are taught, and which courses offer them. It’s like having a careers advisor, curriculum guide, and labour market analyst all in one—offering personalised insights that connect educational choices with professional ambitions.

    This sort of capability is vital if LLE is to be more than just a funding mechanism. It needs to be supported by intelligent infrastructure that empowers learners to make informed choices. Otherwise, there’s a risk that modular study becomes a confusing patchwork of disconnected learning.

    Towards a Shared, Inter-University Skills Ecosystem

    Now imagine if we took this even further. What if a skills platform were adopted not just by individual institutions but as a shared framework across regions or even nationally? In this model, students in Glasgow, Cardiff, Birmingham, or Belfast could see the skills they need for local job markets and be directed to the institutions offering them. This would create a more agile, responsive, and learner-centred education system. Universities wouldn’t just be competing with each other; they’d be collaborating to build a broader skills ecosystem.

    The scale of opportunity here is significant and growing fast. Consider this: if every individual in the workforce has access to around £1,800 in personal development funding each year, the cumulative potential across a university’s learner base is vast. Multiply that by hundreds or thousands of learners, and you’re looking at a transformative funding stream that’s currently underutilised.

    This is not just an opportunity for students, it’s a strategic imperative for institutions. By enabling individuals to build relevant, targeted skills, universities position themselves as essential engines of workforce development, driving economic resilience at local, regional, and national levels. It’s a win-win: empowered learners, future-ready graduates, and sustainable new revenue for the sector.

    Of course, this requires a shift in thinking from institutional autonomy to inter-institutional alignment. But the benefits are compelling: more efficient use of public funding, stronger regional economies, and better outcomes for students.

    Making Programme Design More Purposeful

    Beyond helping students choose what to study, this technology also has the power to influence what universities choose to offer. If data consistently shows that a particular programme has little connection to current or emerging job markets, it is worth investigating. It does not mean the course should be cut. There may be academic or social reasons to preserve it, but it does mean the institution is equipped with the intelligence needed to make informed decisions.

    It also invites a more purposeful approach to curriculum design. Are we including this module because it is pedagogically valuable, or because it’s always been there? Are we assessing this way because it builds a skill, or because it is the easiest to administer? When you can map outcomes to employment skills, these questions become easier to answer.

    Moreover, it provides a compelling framework for conversations with students, parents, and policy-makers about the value of university education. It shows that we are listening to what the world needs and responding with academic rigour and strategic intent.

    Global Potential, Local Application

    The skills gap is not just a UK issue; it’s a global one. The World Economic Forum reports that nearly half of all workers (66 per cent) will need reskilling by 2030. Universities worldwide are grappling with how to stay relevant in an era of automation, AI and constant disruption. Emerging AI tools offer the potential for a globally shared skills taxonomy that could, with appropriate localisation, apply anywhere.

    Conclusion

    As universities continue to evolve, their role as engines of economic and social mobility becomes more important than ever. To fulfil that role, we must ensure that what we teach aligns with what the world needs. That does not mean turning every degree into job training, but it does mean being thoughtful, strategic, and transparent about the skills our programmes provide.

    Emerging technologies offer an exciting glimpse into a more connected, skills-aware future. They empower students to take greater control of their learning, help universities refine and align their programmes and ensure that the promise of Higher Education translates into meaningful, real-world opportunities.

    After all, education is a journey. It’s time the map caught up.

    Source link

  • Creative higher education isn’t a skills pipeline, it’s a cultural force

    Creative higher education isn’t a skills pipeline, it’s a cultural force

    Creative education is not a conveyor belt. It’s a crucible.

    In the UK’s industrial strategy, the creative industries are rightly recognised as a pillar of national growth. But this recognition comes with a familiar risk: that education will be seen merely as a supplier of skills, a passive pipeline feeding talent into pre-existing systems.

    This is a pervasive attitude, which so strongly influences the possibilities for students, they can be anxious about being “industry ready” before they’ve had the chance to explore or define fully what kind of practitioners they want to become. This is a reductive view and one we must resist. Creative higher education is not a service department for industry. It is a cultural force, a site of disruption, a collaborator and a generator of futures not yet imagined.

    Partners not pipelines

    Creative education does not simply serve industry – it co-shapes it. Our job is not just to deliver talent into predefined roles, but to challenge the boundaries of those roles altogether. We cultivate new forms of knowledge, artistic practice, and cultural leadership. As Michael Salmon has noted, HE’s relationship with the industrial strategy needs rethinking – we think especially in fields where “skills” are not easily reduced to training targets or labour force projections. Education is not just about plugging gaps; it’s about opening space for new kinds of thinking.

    Christa van Raalte and Richard Wallis have called for “a better quality of conversation” about the skills agenda in screen and creative sectors. Their point that simplistic, linear approaches to “skills gaps” are not fit for purpose should land hard within our own walls too. We need a better quality of conversation around the creative skills agenda. Narrow, supply-side thinking is not only reductive, it risks cutting off the very dynamism on which the industry depends.

    Our graduates don’t only “enter” the creative industries. They redefine them. They found new companies, invent new formats, challenge power structures, and expand what stories get told and who gets to tell them. To conceive of specialist creative HE as mainly a workforce provider is to misunderstand its essence. Our institutions are where risk-taking is possible, where experimentation is protected, and where the creative freedoms that industry often cannot afford are made viable.

    Resistance from within

    The danger isn’t just external. It’s internal too. Even within our own institutions, we sometimes absorb the language and logic of the pipeline. We begin to measure our worth by the requirement to report on short-term employability statistics. We are encouraged by the landscape to shape curricula around perceived “gaps” rather more than emerging possibilities. The pressure of metrics, league table and reputation help us to believe that our highest purpose is to serve, rather than to shape.

    This internalisation is subtle and corrosive. It narrows our vision. It makes us reactive instead of generative. And it risks turning spaces of radical creativity into echo chambers of industry demand. It is a recipe for sameness and status quo, a situation many call to change.

    We must be vigilant. We must ask ourselves: are we designing education for the world as it is, or for the world as it could be? Are we opening access, nurturing the disruptors, the visionaries, the cultural architects — or only the job-ready?

    When creative institutions start to measure their value predominantly through short-term employability metrics, or shape curriculum mainly around perceived industry gaps, we lose the distinctiveness that makes us valuable in the first place.

    We risk:

    • Designing education around current norms, not future needs
    • Prioritising technical proficiency over critical inquiry
    • Favouring students most likely to succeed within existing structures, rather than supporting those most likely to change them

    If we define our purpose only in terms of industry demand, we abandon much responsibility.

    From pipeline to ecosystem

    What we need is a new compact: not “education as service provider,” but “education as ecosystem partner.” A pipeline feeds. An ecosystem nurtures, nourishes and grows.

    This approach:

    • Recognises specialist creative HE as a site of research, innovation and values-driven practice
    • Treats industry as a collaborator, not a master – collaboration is especially present in research activity and creative projects led by industry professionals
    • Encourages co-creation of skills agendas, not top-down imposition
    • Embraces long-term thinking about sector health, sustainability, and inclusion – not just short-term workforce readiness

    The creative economy cannot thrive without imagination, critical thinking, inclusion, and cultural complexity; all things specialist institutions are powerfully placed to nurture. But this can only happen if we reject limiting narratives about our role. The industrial strategy may frame education as an economic lever to support the growth in the creative industries, but we must resist being reduced to a lever alone. Meeting the opportunities in the strategy is both an invitation to engage with sector needs, help shape the future and a challenge to the cultures of training, pedagogy and research whose long roots exercise power in specialist HE.

    If we want to protect and evolve the value of creative higher education, we must speak with greater clarity and confidence to government, to industry, and to ourselves. This is not about resisting relevance or rejecting partnership. It’s about ensuring that our contribution is understood in full: not only as a supply chain, but as a strategic and cultural force.

    Importantly, we must acknowledge that our graduates are not just contributors to the UK’s creative economy – they are cultural ambassadors on a global stage. From Emmy, Oscar and BAFTA winning actors to internationally celebrated designers, technical artists, writers and directors (and so much more) UK-trained creatives shape discourse, aesthetics, and industries across the world. To frame their education in purely national economic terms is to limit its scope and power.

    Because the purpose of creative education isn’t just to help students find their place in the industry. It’s to empower them – and us – to shape what that industry becomes.

    Source link

  • We need a better quality of conversation about education and the skills agenda for the screen industries

    We need a better quality of conversation about education and the skills agenda for the screen industries

    Every few years, the drumbeat of the skills agenda grows louder in higher education.

    Those of us who teach media courses are reminded (again) that universities are held responsible for the screen sector’s talent pipeline. Policymakers and industry voices call for greater ‘relevance’ in our course content, and stronger ties between academia and the screen industries.

    Yet, genuine collaboration has remained elusive, in part, because of layers of misunderstanding about both HE and the media industries. A better quality of conversation is now needed.

    So, let’s start by clearing the ground and challenging several of the persistent myths that have undermined progress in this area. By myths, we simply mean common assumptions that are not always entirely false but collectively oversimplify and distort what is both possible and desirable for collaboration between these sectors.

    Universities exist primarily to serve the needs of employers

    Wrong. Universities serve a range of stakeholders and beneficiaries, but their priority is their students. Certainly, we put considerable energy and resources into improving our students’ chances of finding suitable work, but the model of employment has changed. Today’s graduate is unlikely to be heading for a stable, consistent, long-term occupation.

    Work in the screen industries is based on contingent work arrangements and ever-evolving skillsets. If employability is to mean anything it is in the notion of career readiness – being prepared to manage an individual career over time. Of course, we want to ensure that industry can draw on a broad skills base for the graduate workforce, but we do so by prioritizing the immediate and long-term interests of our students, rather than the shifting “needs of the employer”.

    The screen industries do not require a graduate workforce

    Wrong. Despite there being no formal qualification requirement for many jobs in the screen industries, a degree matters a great deal. It is true that the graduate nature of media work is often downplayed within the industry, not least by the culture of “paying one’s dues” – the idea that whatever their qualifications, new entrants must prove themselves in the menial aspects of the job before they can progress.

    But over 70 per cent of the workforce are graduates (and a higher proportion of new entrants). In the words of a recent report commissioned by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Creative Diversity, “a degree will not guarantee an individual a job in the creative industries; but an individual is unlikely to get a creative industries job without a degree.”

    Media work requires media graduates

    Wrong. Media degrees are not a prerequisite for most screen industry roles. While certain degrees may offer added value for specific positions, the primary qualification sought is simply a degree.

    Media employers appear to be more interested in what used to be called “graduateness” – a broader set of skills, attributes, and intellectual capabilities not limited to subject-specific knowledge. Graduates who work within the screen industries, therefore, are drawn from the full gamut of science, social science and humanities degree programmes.

    The value of a media degree is determined by how well it prepares students for entry-level media jobs

    Wrong. Given that graduates working in the screen industries are not drawn in any systematic way from media courses, it must follow that media courses are not necessarily any better placed to provide successful new entrants than are others. Conversely, skills developed on media courses make for graduates employable in a range or roles and sectors.

    This is not to argue that these courses have no distinctive value for media industry employers. On the contrary, as employer-led entry-level training provision has been eroded, subject-specific knowledge, critical insight or practical media skills and experience can provide a valuable grounding for many media roles. Yet to fixate on ‘industry relevance’ is to miss the point that media work is now integral to all economic and cultural development and extends far beyond the screen industries.

    Practice-based and “practical” courses exist primarily to produce “set-ready” graduates for specific industry roles

    Wrong. This may be the pitch that many universities make to potential students and it may be the reason that students give when asked why they chose their degree programme. But both the complexity of student motivations and the critical purpose that practice plays within pedagogy are frequently misunderstood.

    Many students who choose courses that foreground their practical components identify themselves as practical people who learn in a practical way. For many such students, these courses provide a path through HE that others do not. Thus, in opening the door of the university to a wider constituency, courses that contain practical elements ensure a richer diversity of talent for employers to draw from. Put simply, the value of university-based media practice is less as an end, than as a means.

    Universities are a barrier to industry diversity

    Wrong. The greatest challenges for those from minority groups are their lower employment prospects following graduation. The UK screen industries have historically been affected by a conspicuous lack of diversity. This has remained a problematic feature of the sector and is currently getting worse.

    A more diverse industry is clearly an important goal towards which greater HEI-industry partnership and collaboration could profitably be focused, but this is unlikely to happen if the idea prevails that universities are the principal barrier.

    Beyond the mythos

    While collectively incoherent, these myths have tended to dominate initiatives for sector collaboration and partnership. Education and industry alike need to move beyond these unhelpful misconceptions to develop collaborative ventures based on authentic reciprocal relationships and a recognition that while employers bring industry insight and expertise, universities are leaders in education – a field in which industry is both a contributor and a beneficiary.

    But for this to happen, there must be greater honesty and pragmatism about both the nature of work in the screen sector and the responsibility of universities to develop the broader career readiness of their students.

    For a more detailed discussion of this topic, see our recently published open access article: Higher Education and the screen industries in the UK: the need for authentic collaboration for student progression and the talent pipeline

    Source link

  • Gen Z turns to ‘Adulting 101’ for a crash course on basic life skills

    Gen Z turns to ‘Adulting 101’ for a crash course on basic life skills







    Higher Education Inquirer : Gen Z turns to ‘Adulting 101’ for a crash course on basic life skills




    Source link

  • Solving our literacy crisis starts in the lecture hall

    Solving our literacy crisis starts in the lecture hall

    Key points:

    The recent NAEP scores have confirmed a sobering truth: Our schools remain in the grips of a literacy crisis. Across the country, too many children are struggling to read, and too many teachers are struggling to help them. But why? And how do we fix it?

    There are decades of research involving thousands of students and educators to support a structured literacy approach to teaching literacy. Teacher preparation programs and school districts across the nation have been slow to fully embrace this research base, known as the science of reading. Since 2017, consistent media attention focused on the literacy crisis has created a groundswell of support for learning about the science of reading. Despite this groundswell, too many educators are still entering classrooms without the skills and knowledge they need to teach reading.

    While there is steady progress in teacher preparation programs to move toward the science of reading-aligned practices, the National Council on Teacher Quality’s latest report on the status of teacher preparation programs for teaching reading (2023) still shows that only 28 percent of programs adequately address all five components of reading instruction. Furthermore, according to the report, up to 40 percent of programs still teach multiple practices that run counter to reading research and ultimately impede student learning, such as running records, guided reading, leveled texts, the three cueing systems, etc. This data shows that there is still much work to be done to support the education of the teacher educators responsible for training pre-service teachers.

    The disconnect between theory and practice

    When it comes to literacy instruction, this problem is especially glaring. Teachers spend years learning about teaching methods, reading theories, and child development. They’re often trained in methods that emphasize comprehension and context-based guessing. However, these methods aren’t enough to help students develop the core skills they need to become proficient readers. Phonics–teaching students how to decode words–is a critical part of reading instruction, but it’s often left out of traditional teacher prep programs.

    One primary reason this disconnect happens is that many teacher prep programs still rely on outdated methods. These approaches prioritize reading comprehension strategies that focus on meaning and context, but they don’t teach the foundational skills, like phonics, essential for developing fluent readers.

    Another reason is that teacher prep programs often lag when it comes to incorporating new research on reading. While the science of reading–a body of evidence built from decades of research and studies involving thousands of students and educators about how humans learn to read and the instructional practices that support learning to read–has been gaining deserved traction, it’s not always reflected in the teacher preparation programs many educators go through. As a result, teachers enter classrooms without the knowledge, skills, and up-to-date methods they need to teach reading effectively.

    A way forward: Structured literacy and continuous professional development

    For real progress, education systems must prioritize structured literacy, a research-backed approach to teaching reading that includes explicit, systematic instruction in phonics, decoding, fluency, and comprehension. This method is effective because it provides a clear, step-by-step process that teachers can follow consistently, ensuring that every single student gets the support they need to succeed.

    But simply teaching teachers about structured literacy is not enough. They also need the tools to implement these methods in their classrooms. The goal should be to create training programs that offer both the theoretical knowledge and the hands-on experience teachers need to make a lasting difference. Teachers should graduate from their prep programs not just with a degree but with a practical, actionable plan for teaching reading.

    And just as important, we can’t forget that teacher development doesn’t end once a teacher leaves their prep program. Just like doctors, teachers need to continue learning and growing throughout their careers. Ongoing professional development is critical to helping teachers stay current with the latest research and best practices in literacy instruction. Whether through in-person workshops, online courses, or coaching, teachers should have consistent, high-quality opportunities to grow and sharpen their skills.

    What do teacher educators need?

    In 2020, the American Federation of Teachers published an update to its seminal publication, Teaching Reading is Rocket Science. First published in 2000, this updated edition is a collaboration between the AFT and the Center on Development and Learning. Although some progress has been made over the past 20 years in teaching reading effectively, there are still too many students who have not become proficient readers.

    This report outlines in very specific ways what pre-service and in-service teachers need to know to teach reading effectively across four broad categories:

    1. Knowing the basics of reading psychology and development
    2. Understanding language structure for word recognition and language comprehension
    3. Applying best practices (based on validated research) in all components of reading
    4. Using validated, reliable, efficient assessments to inform classroom teaching

    There should be a fifth category that is directly related to each of the four areas listed above: the knowledge of how to address the specific oral language needs of multilingual learners and speakers of language varieties. Structured, spoken language practice is at the heart of addressing these needs.

    Moving forward: Reimagining teacher training

    Ultimately, fixing the literacy crisis means changing the way we think about teacher preparation and ongoing professional development. We need to create programs that not only teach the theory of reading instruction but also provide teachers with the practical skills they need to apply that knowledge effectively in the classroom. It’s not enough to just teach teachers about phonics and reading theory; they need to know how to teach it, too.

    Literacy instruction must be at the heart of every teacher’s training–whether they teach kindergarten or high school–and ongoing professional development should ensure that teachers have the support they need to continuously improve.

    It’s a big task, but with the right tools, knowledge, and support, we can bridge the gap between theory and practice and finally begin to solve a literacy crisis that has stubbornly endured for far too long.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Degrees and Skills: A More Promising Approach

    Degrees and Skills: A More Promising Approach

    Earlier this week, we announced a new partnership between the University of Michigan and Google to provide free access to Google Career Certificates and Google’s AI training courses for more than 66,000 students across U-M’s Ann Arbor, Dearborn and Flint campuses. These high-demand, job-ready programs are now available through the university’s platform for online and hybrid learning, Michigan Online. The courses and certificates help students to develop in-demand skills in areas like cybersecurity, data analytics, digital marketing, UX design, project management and foundational AI.

    We’re both proud graduates of the University of Michigan. Our undergraduate experiences in Ann Arbor were transformational, shaping how we think, who we are and the lives we’ve led. There are countless ways to take advantage of an extraordinary place like U-M. But with the benefit of hindsight, one lesson stands out: Learning how to learn may be the most valuable thing you can take with you.

    That has always been true. But it’s becoming more essential in a world where technological change is accelerating and the life span of a “job-ready” skill is shrinking.

    A False Choice We Can’t Afford to Make

    Today’s learners are navigating a noisy debate: Is a degree still worth it? Should they invest in college—or seek out a set of marketable skills through short-term training?

    Too often, this is framed as an either-or choice. But our new partnership underscores the power of both-and.

    A college degree is a powerful foundation. And when paired with flexible, high-impact programs like Google Career Certificates, AI Essentials and Prompting Essentials, students are positioned to thrive in a dynamic global workforce. This is not about diluting the value of higher education. It’s about enhancing it—by equipping students with the durable intellectual tools of a university education and the technical fluency to succeed in real-world roles.

    The stakes are high. Nearly 70 percent of recent college graduates report needing more training on emerging technologies, while a majority of employers expect job candidates to have foundational knowledge of generative AI. As noted in a New York Times opinion piece by Aneesh Raman, chief economic opportunity officer at LinkedIn, the rise of AI and automation is reshaping the skills required for many jobs, making it imperative for educational institutions to adapt their curricula accordingly. This underscores the importance of integrating practical, technology-focused training into traditional degree programs to ensure graduates are prepared for the modern workforce. The world of work is changing rapidly. Higher education can and must evolve with it.

    Rethinking What It Means to Prepare Students for the Future

    This partnership is part of a larger effort at the University of Michigan to reimagine what it means to support lifelong learning and life-changing education. Through Michigan Online, U-M students already have access to more than 280 open online courses and series created by faculty in partnership with the Center for Academic Innovation, as well as thousands of additional offerings from universities around the world. These new certificates and AI courses deepen that commitment, creating new on-ramps to opportunity for every student, regardless of background or campus.

    Through Google’s flexible online programs, we’ve seen how high-quality, employer-validated training can make a meaningful difference. More than one million learners globally have completed Google Career Certificates, and over 70 percent report a positive career outcome—such as a new job, raise or promotion—within six months of completion. Google’s employer consortium, including more than 150 companies like AT&T, Deloitte, Ford, Lowe’s, Rocket Companies, Siemens, Southwest, T-Mobile, Verizon, Wells Fargo and Google itself, actively recruits from this pool of talent. Google partners with over 800 educational institutions in all 50 states, including universities, community colleges and high schools, to help people begin promising careers in the Google Career Certificate fields.This new partnership extends these opportunities to U-M students to further support career readiness.

    By offering accessible, skill-based programs like the Google Career Certificates, we aim to provide additional scaffolding for student success and career readiness, alleviating some of the pressures associated with traditional academic routes and recognizing diverse forms of achievement.

    An Invitation to Higher Ed and Higher Ed Ecosystem Leaders

    We believe this partnership is a model for how industry and education can come together to create scalable, inclusive and future-forward solutions.

    But it’s just one step.

    As we reflect on this moment, we invite fellow leaders in higher education, industry and government to ask,

    • How can your institution better integrate career-relevant skills into the student journey without sacrificing the broader mission of a liberal arts education?
    • What partnerships or platforms might allow your students to benefit from both a degree and credentials with market value?
    • In an era defined by AI, how will your institution ensure students are not just informed users of new tools, but thoughtful, responsible and empowered innovators?
    • How can your institution or organization expand equitable access to high-value learning opportunities that lead to social and economic mobility?
    • What role should public-private partnerships play in shaping the future of education, work and innovation, and how can we design them for long-term impact?

    The path forward isn’t a binary choice. It’s a commitment to both excellence and access, both degrees and skills, both tradition and transformation.

    We’re honored to take this step together. And we look forward to learning alongside our students and our peers as we navigate what’s next. In a rapidly shifting higher education environment, we see reason for optimism: opportunities to reimagine student success, forge lasting strategic partnerships and strengthen the bridge between higher education and the future of work.

    James DeVaney is special adviser to the president, associate vice provost for academic innovation and the founding executive director of the Center for Academic Innovation at the University of Michigan.

    Lisa Gevelber is the founder of Grow with Google.

    Source link

  • Teaching Students Practical Life Skills

    Teaching Students Practical Life Skills

    Higher education is designed to prepare students for their future lives and careers by imparting technical and soft skills, but what about practical, hands-on tasks, like managing a home or vehicle?

    A 2023 survey found that young adults lack practical life skills, with two-thirds (68 percent) of millennials and Gen Z unable to change their car oil, nearly half (48 percent) unable to change a tire and 46 percent unable to tie a tie. Eighty percent of Gen Z respondents said they do not feel like they have figured out adulting.

    A workshop series at George Mason University in Virginia, titled Now What?, helps build students’ practical knowledge and well-being by giving them life advice and skills, such as how to change a tire.

    In this episode of Voices of Student Success, host Ashley Mowreader spoke with Ethan Carter, associate director of programs, well-being and assessment, and graduate student assistant Dianna Philipps, to learn more about the program offerings and how it supports student success.

    An edited version of the podcast appears below.

    Inside Higher Ed: I wonder if we can just start by talking about the inspiration for this program. Where did the idea come from?

    Ethan Carter: I came up with the idea, because as a [student activities] programmer, it is difficult to replicate things. When I thought a lot about being a college student—which was several years ago—I was like, “Man, what were the things that I wish I had known back then?” And so I kind of tried to think about something catchy, and I said, “Well, there were lots of things— I would do something, and then I’d be like, ‘So now what?’’ And so I was like, “Oh, that would be a really good little catchy phrase.”

    Also, from a programming standpoint, it is very adaptable to what we want to do. I don’t have to replicate my programs, but we can have the theme of Now What?, and seeking what students would want to know more about in their lives. Not that what I wanted to learn was bad. It was just, things change.

    Inside Higher Ed: When you address that question of Now What?, what are some of the themes you all have talked about? What has programming looked like practically?

    Dianna Philipps: One of our main ones would be the “how to change a tire” one. I feel like most people on campus have a car, [but] they don’t really think of the things that come with having a car.

    So when you see the tire-changing [workshop], you’re like, “Oh, what if I do get a flat tire? Like, maybe I should learn how to handle that if I’m on my own on the road or something.” I feel like things like that really stand out to students when they see it.

    Inside Higher Ed: Something I thought was cool is that your roles focus on well-being and recreation and this program is an interesting intersection of those two ideas. I wonder if you can talk about how this contributes to students’ well-being and thriving on campus.

    Carter: When you work on a college campus, and the big theme behind the campus is about well-being, you try and find out, where do you fit? And for us, it wasn’t just in the fitness realm. We wanted to think about something that was what we would consider our niche.

    I settled on practical well-being because it is adaptable and relatable. Recreation is usually seen as something that does provide movement, but I wanted to capitalize on that and build off of the aspect of, just, living in general can be tough. It also opens the door for us to be able to partner, because a lot of our programs within themselves are not things that we run, and it’s not our expertise, but it is a place where we can be a hub and connect individuals, which kind of ties in with the well-being aspect, like, you need to find your own well-being.

    Inside Higher Ed: Who are those partners across campus, and how do they participate in this?

    Carter: Anyone and everyone is actually who we get to partner with. The [change a] tire one is done with our facilities group and specifically the auto shop—they help us with any vehicle-based activities that we have going on.

    We’ve also connected with Student Health Services for ones that are related to health insurance, with anything about self-care. And then we did another [event] with academics for a little bit, talking about preparing for exams and test-taking and things like that.

    One of my other favorite [events] is intercollaboration within a department. So like, how to do a hike, how to change a flat tire on a bike.

    I think we had one more connection, oh, with dining. Dining teaches us how to cook, and so we’ve done a Super Bowl one where we made a special dip and some other little fun delicacies.

    Inside Higher Ed: What have you learned from students and their feedback as you’ve done the events over the past year or so? What did they enjoy about it?

    Philipps: I would say the main feedback is that it was very helpful for them. I think most of the people who have come to one event, they’re the ones who continue going to each of the events. I think it just helps them learn the things that they don’t know, because they’re like, you don’t know what you don’t know until you, I guess, go to the event. So that kind of helps them a lot.

    Inside Higher Ed: There are knowledge gaps for all students as they come on college campuses—whether that’s academic preparedness or just life skills that you might not know. If you’ve never owned a car before, you might not know how to jump your car or change a tire, or if you’ve never had a full-size kitchen before, you might not know how to cook a Super Bowl dish. So I think it’s really cool that you all give them the opportunity to identify what they don’t know, but then also just close those gaps and help them feel like they’re not left behind or unsure of what they do next.

    Carter: I would also add that they’ve enjoyed putting their hands on the tools that help them.

    We do one [workshop] on how to use hand tools, and sometimes the power drill is the [tool] that we get to play around with. Other times it’s a hammer and nail. Sometimes we play around with a tape measure. And I’ve appreciated the vulnerability of the students and admitting like, “Hey, this is what I don’t know,” and it provides an opportunity for me to talk more about like, “Hey, this is what I was feeling when I was a college student.”

    When you are thinking about all the resources that are available to you on campus, it’s important that you’re able to admit that you don’t know how to do something, and then go out and ask someone, because most of the time, most of those tools are readily available for you on campus. You just have to be pointed in the right direction, and people can’t give you what they don’t know you need. So that would be something else that I would say has been a great benefit for me in connecting with other campus partners and connecting with those students.

    Inside Higher Ed: I remember when I was a college student, I was really afraid of the makers’ studio, where the VR lab and the 3-D printing are. It just felt so intimidating to go in and actually try things out. But once you have an experience like this, where it’s a little more hands-on and assisted, you feel like you have the skills to do it.

    I bet there’s also an element of introduction to staff on campus. Maybe students have never met a facilities manager before, and now, after changing a tire with them, they can ask for help in other ways. Or if you’ve never talked to the Student Health Center, now you feel more comfortable talking about health insurance or other things like that.

    If you had to give advice or insight to another college or university that was looking to replicate your idea, what would you say you’ve learned? Or what are some best practices for people to know?

    Carter: First one is, what I actually tell the students all the time, is to be yourself within your organization. You maybe have a limited budget, and you only have certain resources available to you, so it’s important for you to not try and go and do what everybody else is doing. It’s important for you to do what you’re able to do, and then to connect with your students and allow them to be part of the construction of what your program is going to be.

    It may start out as just being something where you’re looking at budgets, and then another student comes in—because you are making this for the students. So if you don’t have the student audience that is available for what you’re providing, like, it isn’t super helpful.

    So do that, and then the adaptability aspect: Be OK with something not working. Because when you hear “no” or no one comes, that is good information; you know not to do that anymore. A lot of people get offended by that and are like, “Oh, I’m a horrible programmer” or whatnot.

    It could be that you’re doing it at the wrong time, or it’s just that students are not available for that. Why would we do something that’s related to budget and all the students that need to do the budget stuff are in class in the a.m., so maybe I should try it in the evening. Things of that nature. So be OK not always having everything get hit out of the ballpark. And then if you do find something, you try and make it better as you go.

    Inside Higher Ed: You mentioned that this is a different sort of programming and something that you all can adapt to reflect student needs. I’ve heard a lot from people who work on college campuses that post-COVID, it’s just been harder to get students to show up for things or feel like you’re being responsive to their needs. Have you felt like this has accomplished that goal in being adaptable, but also engaging students?

    Carter: I would say it depends, and it really depends on what’s going on and what the particular group you’re working with is all about. So, Dianna, if you don’t mind sharing some of your ideas to try and help us get some people coming.

    Philipps: One of the main ones would be changing locations. Especially if you’re on a bigger campus, trying to make it more central so it can target different types of people, either coming from class or coming from the dining hall or things like that.

    Just back to what Ethan had said about being creative with it, and if something doesn’t work, look at what did work, keep that and then change what didn’t work. You can learn from that. See what things people are actually going to, what they actually need help with. So, again, being adaptable to things.

    Inside Higher Ed: You mentioned earlier that students who come to one event might come to multiple—like, they really appreciate the skills that they’re building. Have you seen that that’s true of a handful of students or more?

    Carter: It makes you feel good when you see somebody that you’ve seen before; it kind of increases your self-esteem. You’re like, “Oh, I did something, right?”

    I think the bonus is that they invite their friends and they make them aware. I think that a lot of times, even as an adjunct professor, I’ve had to change my perspective of it isn’t what the student looks like, because most of the time when I’ve talked to my students, they look like they don’t care about my class. But then I mentioned that to them, and they’re like, “No, you’re one of the coolest professors that I’ve ever had.” I’m like, “I can’t tell from looking at your face.”

    So when we’re doing our programming, it may not be that the students don’t like it, they just may not be aware, which is why we’ve tried really, really hard to go to the students to make the things available—not just putting a flier in front of their face, but providing them an opportunity where they can go and do something.

    I would say we’ve gotten the greatest number of students coming to things when we went to another class with content that was in line with what we were doing; we were complimenting what an instructor was teaching. And then the students are like, “We had no idea that this was going on; what other programming do you have available?”

    So I would say that that has been super, super helpful, going to the students and just becoming more and more visible, shaking hands and getting to know people, which, again, it seems like it’s common sense, but you do have to become visible in a way that is helpful and not harmful.

    Inside Higher Ed: You mentioned working with other staff on campus; have faculty been a partner in this work as well?

    Carter: We have gotten to work with them. And like I said, when we invite ourselves to their class, it doesn’t work out so well. When we are paying attention to what it is that they’re teaching and ask them, “Hey, this is something that we’re offering. Is there, maybe, 15 or 20 minutes that we can come and complement some of the stuff that you’re teaching?” That actually ends up being a two-way thing, because usually that instructor is willing to come over to our workshops and provide some informational knowledge, and so that has been super, super helpful with that. So having a crossover is good.

    Inside Higher Ed: This series is all about helping Gen Z prepare for unknown futures and navigate their world after college. When we talk about the role of higher education, I think we talk a lot about careers, about students building life skills like critical thinking and things like that. But there’s also this idea of helping students just be people, having that practical wellness. I wonder if you can tie this all together—why this is important for colleges and universities to do, and how this is foundational to not only the students’ success, but also just being responsive to their needs?

    Carter: We have a saying in our well-being practices—our goal is to help students to live just as they breathe.

    When you think about well-being and the holistic aspect of it, it’s important that people realize that eating well can be tied into you, just coming and sitting in a facility, being around people. It can also be exercise. It can also be yoga. It can also be about you being able to get the job done, or even going through a bout of anxiety and finding out you know how to be resilient in that space, or how to ask for help.

    When it comes to our programming, we want to do what’s going to help people to be the best version of themselves. And that’s a journey that students have to take, and we’re on that journey with them.

    We want to walk alongside the student and provide the things that they need, to help them to feel like, “Hey, you know, I feel like I’m a better adult,” and at the end of the day, want to come back and give to other students. So being a human being is what we’re all about, and we want to support that in the best way possible, through our programming. And if we don’t have the programming, we can point them to other services and other individuals on a college campus, because that’s what universities are here for.

    In higher education, the more that we acknowledge the humanity of others, I think the better off that we’ll be, as opposed to trying to figure out things in a box. We’re not people built in boxes; we’re people with unique qualities and differences.

    Philipps: I would add that these events also teach us how to ask for help. Because I feel like that’s a big thing, especially when we’ll have actual careers and stuff, you don’t know everything as much as you may think you do. So just having that skill of asking for help, or just even getting assistance collaborating with others, is really important, and I think we get that from these events.

    Get more content like this directly to your inbox. Subscribe here.

    Source link