Tag: social

  • US study visa applicants told to make social media accounts ‘public’ amid vetting crackdown

    US study visa applicants told to make social media accounts ‘public’ amid vetting crackdown

    • New social media privacy requirements come just as US government lifts four week-long study visa interview freeze, leading to fears of a backlog.
    • Concerns of added complications where consular officers responsible for social media vetting do not speak the applicant’s language.
    • Policy extends even to those who have been issued US visas in the past.

    In an update sent to consulates last week, the US government has advised that all those applying for F, M or J nonimmigrant visas are “requested” to make their social media accounts available to view by anybody so that their identity can be verified and they can be thoroughly vetted before entering the country.

    Immigration experts have criticised the move because of the huge additional workload it will place on immigration officers, meaning that visa issuance is likely to slow down considerably.

    US immigration lawyer James Hollis said he “almost [felt] bad” for consular officers.

    “It’s going to grind processing to a halt and will likely result in increased wait times for all nonimmigrant visas, let alone the student and exchange visitor applicants,” the business immigration specialist at the McEntee Law Group warned – noting that there are added complications where applicants were posting on social media in their own local language if officers do not understand what they have written.

    It appears that the new policy will be mandatory from June 25 onwards, and all applicants will be vetted in this way even if they have been issued a US visa in the past.

    It’s going to grind processing to a halt and will likely result in increased wait times for all nonimmigrant visas, let alone the student and exchange visitor applicants
    James Hollis, McEntee Law Group

    Consulates are advised that they should consider whether active social media privacy settings “reflect evasiveness or otherwise call into question the applicant’s credibility”.

    Officers have been told to reject a visa application in cases where the applicant has:

    • expressed “hostile attitudes” toward the US in terms of its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles;
    • advocated for or supported “designated foreign terrorists and other threats to US national security”;
    • shown or supported anti-semitism;
    • even if they have otherwise proven they are not an immigration risk;
    • and are not already ineligible for a visa (ie does not post a risk to US national security).

    In these cases, the US can deny entry on national security or foreign policy grounds.

    The US has asked visa applicants to provide social media information on their application forms for the past five years – including all social media names or handles of every platform they have used over the past five years. Failing to include this information could lead to an applicant’s visa being denied and being ineligible for future visas.

    It comes after a tumultuous few weeks for prospective international students eyeing a place at US institutions. After stretching a study visa interview freeze into its fourth week – despite assurances that the pause would be quick – officials last week resumed interviews with additional social media vetting for applicants.

    US stakeholders have repeatedly expressed concerns that the Trump administration’s extreme social media crackdown could inflict untold damage upon the country’s international education sector.

    Source link

  • State Department Screening Visa Applicants’ Social Media

    State Department Screening Visa Applicants’ Social Media

    Rubio paused visa interviews last month while the State Department created rules for the social media screenings.

    John McDonnell/Getty Images

    The U.S. State Department is rolling out sweeping new rules for vetting student visa applicants using their social media presence, according to Politico.

    The new process will include screening for “any indications of hostility towards the citizens, culture, government, institutions or founding principles of the United States,” according to an internal State Department cable. 

    Department officials will also look for posts that signal “advocacy for, aid or support for foreign terrorists and other threats to national security” and “support for antisemitic harassment or violence,” specifically citing support for Hamas—a charge commonly levied against student protesters advocating for Palestinian rights—as grounds for rejection. The cable also directs officials to cull applicants who “demonstrate a history of political activism.”

    The news comes a few weeks after Secretary of State Marco Rubio paused all student visa interviews in order to implement a new screening policy focusing on students’ online activity. The Associated Press reported that the department rescinded the pause, but applicants who don’t allow the government to review their social media accounts could be rejected.

    The cable is the Trump administration’s latest effort to curtail the flow of international students to the U.S., as tens of thousands of foreign students await approval of their visas after months of delays and with only weeks until the start of the fall semester. 

    State Department spokespeople did not respond to a list of questions from Inside Higher Ed in time for publication. 

    Source link

  • Wearable tech helps students overcome central vision challenges

    Wearable tech helps students overcome central vision challenges

    Central vision loss–a condition that impairs the ability to see objects directly in front of the eyes–can have profound academic and social impacts on K-12 students. Because this type of vision loss affects tasks that require detailed focus, such as reading, writing, and recognizing faces, students with central vision impairment often face unique challenges that can affect their overall school experience.

    In the classroom, students with central vision loss may struggle with reading printed text on paper or on the board, despite having otherwise healthy peripheral vision. Standard classroom materials are often inaccessible without accommodations such as large print, magnification devices, or digital tools with text-to-speech capabilities. These students might take longer to complete assignments or may miss visual cues from teachers, making it difficult to follow along with lessons. Without appropriate support, such as assistive technology, students may fall behind academically, which can affect their confidence and motivation to participate.

    As a result, they may be perceived as aloof or unfriendly, leading to social isolation or misunderstanding. Group activities, games, and unstructured time like lunch or recess can become sources of anxiety if students feel excluded or unsafe. Moreover, children with vision loss may become overly dependent on peers or adults, which can further affect their social development and sense of independence.

    While this may seem daunting, there are assistive technologies to help students navigate central vision loss and have fulfilling academic and social experiences.

    One such technology, eSight Go from Gentex Corporation’s eSight, uses an advanced high-speed, high-definition camera to capture continuous video footage of what a user is looking at. Algorithms optimize and enhance the footage and share it on two HD OLED screens, providing sharp, crystal-clear viewing. The user’s brain then synthesizes the images to fill any gaps in their vision, helping them to see more clearly, in real time.

    “The ability to have central perception brought back into your set of tools for education is critically important,” said Roland Mattern, eSight’s director of sales and marketing. “Ease of reading, ease of seeing the board, using tablets or computers–all of these things [lead to] the ability to complete an academic task with greater ease.”

    One key feature, Freeze Frame, lets the user capture a temporary photograph with the device’s camera, such as an image on an interactive whiteboard, a textbook page, or a graphic. The student can magnify the image, scan and study it, and take what they need from it.

    “This eases the ability to absorb information and move on, at a regular pace, with the rest of the class,” Mattern noted.

    Socially, central vision loss can create additional barriers. A major part of social interaction at school involves recognizing faces, interpreting facial expressions, and making eye contact–all tasks that rely heavily on central vision. Students with this impairment might have difficulty identifying peers or teachers unless they are spoken to directly. The glasses can help with these social challenges.

    “There’s a huge social aspect to education, as well–seeing expressions on teachers’ and fellow students’ faces is a major part of communication,” Mattern said.

    What’s more, the glasses also help students maintain social connections inside and outside of the classroom.

    “Think of how much peer-to-peer communication is digital now, and if you have central vision loss, you can’t see your phone or screen,” Mattern said. “The educational part is not just academic–it’s about the student experience that you want to enhance and optimize.”

    Educators, parents, and school staff play a crucial role in fostering inclusive environments–by educating classmates about visual impairments, encouraging empathy, and ensuring that students with central vision loss are supported both academically and socially. With the right accommodations and social-emotional support, these students can thrive in school and build strong connections with their peers.

    “If we can make daily living, hobbies, and education easier and facilitate participation, that’s a win for everybody,” Mattern said.

    For more spotlights on innovative edtech, visit eSN’s Profiles in Innovation hub.

    Laura Ascione
    Latest posts by Laura Ascione (see all)

    Source link

  • Leave to Achieve?: A new framework for universities to drive local social mobility

    Leave to Achieve?: A new framework for universities to drive local social mobility

    • By Dani Payne, Senior Researcher and Education Lead at the Social Market Foundation.

    University remains the most effective pathway for disadvantaged individuals to achieve upward social mobility. Graduates earn more, are less likely to be unemployed, and report higher levels of health, happiness and civic engagement. Yet, despite this individual impact, higher education’s benefits often fail to translate into positive outcomes for local communities.

    Recent research from the Sutton Trust ranked constituencies by social mobility. Most interesting is the bottom 20. More than half have at least one university within their immediate locality, and some have as many as 18 in their wider region. Essentially, having a university – or, indeed, many universities – in your region doesn’t guarantee improved local social mobility.

    The need for a new social mobility framework

    The government’s ‘opportunity mission’ is built on the principle that every child, in every community, should have a fair chance to succeed.

    But rising costs, frozen maintenance support, demographic shifts and widening attainment gaps threaten progress made on access. Moreover, targets tend to be institution-specific, creating duplications and silos, and encouraging competition between providers. Selective universities continue to meet access targets by disproportionately recruiting disadvantaged pupils from high-attaining London boroughs, leaving local disadvantaged learners behind – even when world-class institutions are right on their doorstep.

    We must broaden how we assess universities’ social mobility impact. To be able to understand when, why and how the benefits of an institution do or don’t reach into local communities, we must also consider their roles as major employers, civic actors and research hubs.  

    In our new report, Leave to Achieve?, we set out a new framework for how universities can conceptualise and measure their local social mobility contribution. The framework consists of four key pillars, underpinned by the need for regional collaboration and long-term planning.

    1. Educational opportunities for local people

    Access to higher education varies starkly by region: 27% of disadvantaged pupils in London hold an undergraduate degree by age 22, compared to just 10% in the South West.

    Universities must work with local schools and colleges to raise attainment and create alternative entry pathways. They should be considering the extent to which they nurture and recruit talent locally, supporting pupils to progress and succeed. A place-based approach to widening participation, developed collaboratively with other regional providers, ensures local talent is not just nurtured but retained.

    Some existing initiatives show promise. Durham Inspired North East Scholarships, Middlesex’s guaranteed offer scheme for local applicants, and the Warwick Scholar’s program providing financial, academic and practical support to local disadvantaged pupils, all show how targeted programs can work at a local level. However, articulation agreements with local further education providers are underutilised in England, and inconsistent contextual admissions policies limit impact.  

    2. Good jobs for local people

    Universities are often the largest, or among the largest, employers in the local region. This is often cited to give the impression that they are ‘too big to fail’, particularly in the current financial context. But little has been done to look at the extent to which universities are providing good jobs to local people, and whether these are open to people from different socioeconomic backgrounds.

    Academic roles provide an opportunity for social mobility – for those who can secure one. For someone from a lower socioeconomic background to become a lecturer, for example, they have almost certainly experienced upwards occupational social mobility, if not also absolute (income) social mobility, too. Similarly, professional service roles are often well paid and secure, with a reasonable pension, and working within a university comes with a certain amount of cultural and social prestige, too.

    A university performing strongly in this area would be spearheading initiatives to support local people from disadvantaged backgrounds into some of these roles and supporting staff from lower socioeconomic backgrounds whilst they are there. Southampton’s staff social mobility network stands out here, specifically recognising and seeking to tackle barriers in recruitment, retention and career progress for those from working-class backgrounds.  

    3. Using research to address local needs

    Research within institutions should address local needs and tackle inequalities, with outputs shared with local communities. Local residents should have opportunities to be involved in research and should understand why research carried out in their region is valuable.

    There are excellent examples in this area, such as UWE Bristol’s ‘Engagement with Education‘ programme and London Metropolitan’s participatory knowledge exchange projects. But these remain examples of best – not yet standard – practice.

    4. Civic actors: Lead locally, collaborate regionally  

    As civic institutions, universities must be more deeply integrated within their localities. Despite growing attention to civic engagement, activity is often fragmented and lacking an overarching strategy. Participation in local skills planning is inconsistent, and incentives to foster collaboration across providers are weak.

    Great Manchester’s Civic Agreement is a great example of universities coming together with local leaders to work towards shared goals, recognising that collaboration is far more effective than competition, duplication, or silos. The South West Social Mobility Commission takes this a step further, bringing together all education providers (not just higher education), businesses, local leaders and third-sector organisations to promote better social mobility in the region.

    A call to action

    This framework is not a checklist, but a tool for reflection. We do not expect every institution to be a star performer in every pillar, but we do see value in measuring impact more holistically, across the full range of university activity.

    Universities should ask themselves:

    • Are we reaching local disadvantaged students?
    • Are we getting local people into good jobs, and are these jobs available to those from all social class backgrounds?
    • Is our research making a tangible difference to local challenges?
    • Are we truly embedded as civic leaders in our region?

    Only by addressing these questions can we begin to understand how – and when – the presence of a university does improve social mobility in its immediate communities. And only then can we ensure that local people no longer feel that they must leave in order to achieve.

    Source link

  • It’s the little moments that power social mobility

    It’s the little moments that power social mobility

    Anyone who has gone into higher education from a “non-traditional” background knows that widening participation is a double-edged sword. It is there to promote social mobility – but for individual students this journey, once taken, tends to be irreversible.

    In return for out-earning your family of origin, you are likely to endure a long period of feeling like an outsider. Whether it’s your accent, the words you use, the house you lived in, what you eat, the school you went to, or where (and indeed, if) you go on holiday, there are thousands of ways that you can feel different – and lesser. For some students, this feeling of being an imposter is further compounded by differences in culture, religion and ethnicity. As time goes on you can either continue standing out like a sore thumb or you can start to assimilate and, in doing so, lose little pieces of yourself forever.

    This is the story I heard many times over while carrying out research for a report published today. A Different World explores socioeconomic disadvantage in the transition to university and first year experience. In a partnership between Unite Students, University of Leeds and Manchester Metropolitan University, students took part in interviews, focus groups and co-creation, with most of them contributing directly to the report’s 33 recommendations.

    If this many recommendations seems excessive (even though they are helpfully grouped into six themes) it’s because most of them are about small but meaningful actions. I’ve spent the best part of 25 years advocating for a more inclusive higher education sector, but it’s only since working in student accommodation that I’ve come to see the value of these day-to-day moments as a force for change.

    University visits for schools are good, tutoring projects even better, and the return of grants would be lovely – but wherever the student experience is built on middle-class norms we will continue to see lower enrolment, continuation, completion, attainment and graduate outcomes among students from a different background.

    The change that is needed – and attainable – involves small, local actions in addition to system-level change.

    In their own words

    A Different World enables students to tell their own stories in their own words, which brings a richness of nuance to the topic and reveals opportunities for change.

    For example, there are many ways to cope with alienation, but opportunities to meet others from similar backgrounds really helps. As well as other students, this could also include staff members, and not just academic staff. Student accommodation maintenance teams made a difference for one student, and outside of this research I’ve heard many stories of students whose experience has been transformed by housekeepers or the reception team. Do we recognise and encourage this enough? Students were also reassured by services specifically aimed at them. We British don’t like to talk about social class, but maybe it would be helpful if we did.

    Students also shared the challenges of working and balancing a budget, and financial matters certainly did limit opportunities for socialising and extra-curriculars. However, they talked at least as much about their budgeting skills and ability to find the best bargains, skills usually learned from family. They were so impressive in this respect that they would have been helpful peer coaches for students in financial difficulty.

    A less obvious impact of socioeconomic background is gaps in fundamental knowledge about higher education. If you are the first person in your family to go to university, and especially if your school or college isn’t geared up to preparing you for it, there will be a lot you don’t know, including “unknown unknowns”, which put you at a disadvantage. For some students, unspoken assumptions tripped them up several times in the first year leading to missed opportunities and academic disadvantage.

    A different world

    The good news is that there’s a lot that can be done that would benefit students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and much of it would benefit a wider range of students too. You are probably doing some of these already, or in pockets within the organisation.

    All academics, and especially personal tutors, could explain expectations, terms and how to interact with them. For example, what are “office hours”, how do students get a meeting with you, and what are they allowed to talk about in those meetings? Module leaders could include ice-breakers at the start of every module, which also helps to promote belonging. Campus services staff could be encouraged and trained to develop more meaningful relationships with students, within appropriate boundaries. You could employ more students, especially those on a low income, and encourage your partners and suppliers to do the same. You could work with student-led societies to develop more inclusive practices and clearer communication. Maybe offer targeted bursaries for extra-curricular activities, via a clear and efficient process. For further inspiration I’d recommend reading the case studies from Manchester Metropolitan University and the University of Leeds that are included in the report.

    Widening access has been a success story over the last three decades – but if we’re serious about delivering social mobility as a sector, and as a society, individual students will benefit from better awareness and support while they are undertaking that difficult journey.

    Source link

  • Universities should be architects of economic and social transformation

    Universities should be architects of economic and social transformation

    Britain’s universities stand at a critical juncture.

    The traditional funding model faces unprecedented pressure as costs spiral and resources dwindle, while successive government policy reversals on international students and graduate visas have created a destabilising environment.

    These converging forces threaten the very foundations of our higher education system.

    Simultaneously, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson is challenging universities to deliver more with less – driving economic growth and enhancing student outcomes amidst severe financial constraints. The message is unambiguous – transformation is no longer optional.

    The uncomfortable reality is that with public funding constraints tightening and international income streams becoming increasingly unpredictable, universities can no longer sustain outdated operational models.

    To survive and thrive in this challenging landscape, institutions must fundamentally reimagine their approach – aligning their educational offerings with national priorities and market needs, adopting innovative commercial service models, and leveraging emerging technologies at scale.

    Pioneering a new paradigm

    Aston University’s recent report, Pathways to Success, provides a compelling blueprint for institutional evolution in response to these pressures. By transforming into a more agile, resilient, and globally connected institution, Aston has prioritised both student success and tangible socio-economic impact.

    This strategic pivot beyond traditional funding sources toward a partnership-driven approach has already generated over £1 billion for the regional and national economy, with ambitious plans to double this impact by 2030.

    Today’s most effective universities function as anchor institutions within vibrant innovation ecosystems. The Birmingham Innovation Precinct exemplifies this approach, seamlessly integrating innovative research, commercial ventures, and community development.

    Aston has expanded this concept with its “city within a city” model — a dynamic urban environment featuring public spaces, start-up accelerators, business incubators, community maker spaces, and comprehensive residential, health and recreational facilities.

    This integrated ecosystem drives placemaking and productivity through collaborative place-based innovation.

    Across Britain’s post-industrial cities, such innovation districts are becoming powerful engines of regional economic renewal. Aston’s focus on talent retention has resulted in approximately 70 per cent of graduates remaining in the West Midlands, providing essential high-level skills to local industries for the long run.

    This retention significantly enhances economic resilience, while the university’s three-year support scheme after graduation ensures sustained impact through graduate success.

    The university has constructed a comprehensive innovation ecosystem that accelerates research commercialisation, featuring the Aston Knowledge Transfer Partnership Unit, Aston Business Hub, Enterprise Hub, and Aston University Ventures, as well as a portfolio of partnered accelerators such as SPARK The Midlands Accelerator.

    Collaborative efforts with other institutions through the Midlands Innovation consortium and its investment arm Midlands Mindforge, alongside large-scale research commercialisation projects funded by Research England and Innovate UK, further amplify this impact.

    The results speak for themselves – KTP projects are projected to generate £266 million in pre-tax profit for partner companies and create 541 new jobs within three years, with participating companies achieving an average 1,107% return on investment.

    The quadruple helix: A new framework for innovation

    Forward-thinking institutions are increasingly adopting the “quadruple helix” model — an innovation framework that integrates academia, industry, government, and society.

    This approach has transformed our stakeholder engagement, focusing efforts on health technology, net zero initiatives, digital and engineering technologies, and biological sciences — areas aligned with national priorities and offering substantial employment opportunities.

    We demonstrate leadership in sustainability, on track to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2028, becoming the first university in the region to achieve this milestone, supported by a £35.5 million investment through the UK Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme.

    We have also secured funding to establish the first national Transdisciplinary Research Hub and Doctoral Training Centre, enabling and supporting decarbonisation projects across vast networks of businesses and healthcare providers throughout the West Midlands.

    Those who fear that commercialisation threatens academic independence misinterpret this model. Robust governance frameworks protect intellectual integrity while facilitating meaningful partnerships that enhance rather than compromise research excellence through measurable impact.

    However, widespread adoption of this approach faces significant obstacles, particularly outdated performance metrics that continue to prioritise publication counts and academic citations over student outcomes and real-world impact.

    The forthcoming sector reforms must address these antiquated incentive structures if Britain is to maintain global economic competitiveness.

    Building a sustainable innovation pipeline

    The project-based funding model that dominates British research support creates chronic uncertainty, undermining long-term planning and investment.

    What we urgently need are strategic, decade-long commitments that provide the stability necessary for substantial infrastructure development and deep industry collaboration.

    The government’s forthcoming 10-year R&D budget must prioritise strengthening university-business collaboration. Only through such sustained investment can Britain cultivate the robust innovation pipeline essential for economic revitalisation.

    Universities must simultaneously align their educational offerings with evolving market needs for advanced skills.

    While the government’s focus on skill levels 1-5 is important, it remains insufficient. High-value sectors — artificial intelligence, advanced digital technologies, advanced manufacturing, and medical technology — require sophisticated capabilities that can only be effectively developed at scale through university-industry collaboration.

    University-led programmes, co-designed with industry partners, can deliver intensive training in these critical domains through more agile, flexible, digitally enabled learning approaches.

    The corporate challenge

    We must confront an uncomfortable truth: the firewall between industry and education is rapidly vanishing. Global technology giants, such as Google, Amazon, Microsoft, IBM, and Siemens, are already among the world’s largest training providers.

    Before long, they will either embed their programmes inside universities or create rival institutions that funnel graduates directly into high-value jobs. Students will inevitably gravitate toward whichever pathway offers the strongest prospects for employability and rapid career progression.

    The response must be proactive rather than defensive. Universities should forge strategic partnerships with businesses, policymakers, and private education providers to develop flexible, omni-channel learning models that integrate traditional campus experiences with industry-embedded learning opportunities, supported by sophisticated digital delivery platforms.

    For centuries, British universities have been intellectual powerhouses shaping minds and advancing knowledge. But the future of our higher education system now depends on a fundamental mindset shift.

    Institutions must become more commercially astute and globally connected, while remaining deeply rooted in their communities where their civic mission finds its most powerful expression.

    We must embrace industry and community like never before. That means forging strategic partnerships, embracing commercial imperatives, and converting research and skills into measurable socio-economic benefits.

    We can no longer rely solely on our storied academic traditions. If British universities are to thrive in the twenty-first century, they must transform and become active architects of economic and social transformation — or risk fading into obsolescence as relics of a bygone age.

    Source link

  • Empowering Mature Students through Inclusive AI Literacy: Advancing Digital Equity and Social Justice in Higher Education

    Empowering Mature Students through Inclusive AI Literacy: Advancing Digital Equity and Social Justice in Higher Education

    • By Assoc. Prof. Dr. Eleni Meletiadou, Guildhall School of Business and Law, London Metropolitan University, PFHEA, NTF, UTF, MCIPD, MIIE.

    As higher education embraces artificial intelligence (AI) to drive digital transformation, there is a growing risk that older, non-traditional, or mature students will be left behind. This blog post draws on insights from the QAA-funded “Using AI to promote education for sustainable development and widen access to digital skills” project I have been leading alongside findings from the EU COST Action DigiNet (WG5), where I co-lead research into media portrayals and digital inequalities impacting mature learning workers.

    Through this work, and in collaboration with international partners, we have identified what genuinely supports inclusion and what simply pays lip service to it. While AI is often heralded as a tool for levelling the educational playing field, our research shows that without intentional support structures and inclusive design, it can reinforce and even widen existing disparities.

    Supporting mature students’ AI literacy is, therefore, not just a pedagogical responsibility; it is an ethical imperative. It intersects with wider goals of equity, social justice, and sustainable digital inclusion. If higher education is to fulfil its mission in an age of intelligent technologies, it must ensure that no learner is left behind, especially those whose voices have long been marginalised.

    Why Mature Students Matter in the AI Conversation

    Mature students are one of the fastest-growing and most diverse populations in higher education. They bring a wealth of life and work experience, resilience, and motivation. Yet, they are often excluded from AI-related initiatives that presume a level of digital fluency not all possess. However, they are often left out of AI-related initiatives, which too frequently assume a baseline level of digital fluency that many do not possess. Media portrayals tend to depict older learners as technologically resistant or digitally inept, reinforcing deficit narratives that erode confidence, undermine self-efficacy, and reduce participation.

    As a result, mature students face a dual barrier: the second-order digital divide—inequity in digital skills rather than access—and the social stigma of digital incompetence. Both obstruct their academic progress and diminish their employability in a rapidly evolving, AI-driven labour market.

    Principles that Support Mature Learners

    The QAA-funded project, developed in partnership with five universities across the UK and Europe, embedded AI literacy through three key principles—each critical for mature learners:

    1. Accessibility

    Learning activities were designed for varying levels of digital experience. Resources were provided in multiple formats (text, video, audio), and sessions used plain language and culturally inclusive examples. Mature students often benefited from slower-paced, repeatable guidance and multilingual scaffolding.

    1. Collaboration

    Peer mentoring was a powerful tool for mature students, who often expressed apprehension toward younger, digitally native peers. By fostering intergenerational support networks and collaborative projects, we helped reduce isolation and build mutual respect.

    1. Personalised Learning

    Mature students frequently cited the need for AI integration that respected their goals, schedules, and learning styles. Our approach allowed learners to set their own pace, choose relevant tools, and receive tailored feedback, building ownership and confidence in their digital journeys.

    Inclusive AI Strategies That Work – Based on What Mature Learners Told Us

    Here are four practical strategies that emerged from our multi-site studies and international collaborations:

    1. Start with Purpose: Show AI’s Relevance to Career and Life

    Mature learners engage best when AI tools solve problems that matter to them. In our QAA project, students used ChatGPT to refine job applications, generate reflective statements, and translate workplace policies into plain English. These tools became career companions—not just academic add-ons.

    ‘When I saw what it could do for my CV, I felt I could finally compete again,’ shared a 58-year-old participant.

    2. Design Age-Safe Learning Spaces

    Many mature students fear embarrassment in digital settings. We created small, trust-based peer groups, offered print-friendly guides, and used asynchronous recordings to accommodate different learning paces. These scaffolds helped dismantle the shame often attached to asking for help.

    3. Make Reflection Central to AI Literacy

    AI use can be empowering or alienating. We asked students to record short video reflections on how AI shaped their thinking. This helped them develop critical awareness of what the tool does, how it aligns with academic integrity, and what learning still needs to happen beyond automation.

    4. Use Media Critique to Break Stereotypes

    Drawing on my research into late-life workers and digital media, we used ageist headlines, adverts, and memes as classroom material. Mature learners engaged critically with how society depicts them, transforming deficit narratives into dialogue, and boosting confidence through awareness.

    How We Measured Impact (and Why It Mattered)

    We evaluated these strategies using mixed methods informed by both academic and lived-experience perspectives:

    • Self-reflective journals and confidence scales tracked growth in AI confidence and self-efficacy
    • Survey data from mature students (aged 55+) in the UK and Albania (from my older learners study) revealed the key role of peer support, professional experience, and family encouragement in shaping digital resilience
    • Narrative mapping, developed with COST DigiNet partners, was used to document shifts in learners’ digital identity—from anxious adopter to confident contributor
    • Follow-up interviews three months post-intervention showed sustained engagement with AI tools in personal and professional contexts (e.g., CPD portfolios, policy briefs)

    Policy and Practice: Repositioning Mature Learners in AI Strategy

    As highlighted in our Tirana Policy Workshop (2024), national and institutional policy often fails to differentiate between age-based needs when deploying AI in education. Mature students frequently face a “second-order digital divide,” not just in access, but in relevance, scaffolding, and self-belief.

    If UK higher education is serious about digital equity, it must:

    • Recognise mature learners as a distinct group in AI strategy and training
    • Fund co-designed AI literacy programmes that reflect lived experience
    • Embed inclusive, intergenerational pedagogy in curriculum development
    • Disrupt media and policy narratives that equate older age with technological incompetence

    Conclusion: Inclusion in AI Isn’t Optional – It’s Foundational

    Mature learners are not a marginal group to be retrofitted into digital learning. They are core to what a sustainable, equitable, and ethical higher education system should look like in an AI-driven future. Designing for them is not just good inclusion practice—it’s sound educational leadership. If we want AI to serve all learners, we must design with all learners in mind, from the very start.

    Source link

  • Virginia enacts ban on school cellphone use, limits on social media

    Virginia enacts ban on school cellphone use, limits on social media

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin recently signed legislation banning cellphone use during school hours for all students. The law makes Virginia the 21st state to ban or limit cellphones in schools, according to a legislation tracker by Ballotpedia. 
    • Starting January 2026, children in Virginia under the age of 16 will also only be allowed to use social media for an hour per day under another law signed by Youngkin in early May. That law, SB 854, mandates that social media companies verify a minor’s age and enforce a time limit of one hour per day for children and young teens.
    • In Florida, a similar — albeit stricter — law passed in 2024 that bans social media use for children under 14 years old hit a roadblock in court. On Tuesday, a federal judge temporarily barred parts of HB 3 from being enforced while the case moves forward, saying that the law’s restrictions are “likely facially unconstitutional.”

    Dive Insight:

    Pushes for bans or limits on cellphone and social media use among children are growing as lawmakers and some advocates note the harmful effects of technology on young people’s mental health and wellbeing.

    In 2024, then-U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called for social media platforms to display warning labels similar to messages that accompany alcohol and cigarettes. Murthy said at the time that social media is an “important contributor” to the nation’s worsening teen mental health crisis.

    Teens themselves are also increasingly aware of the harmful impacts social media can have on their mental health. A recent Pew Research Center survey of U.S. teens found that 48% said social media has a mostly negative impact on their peers — up 16 percentage points from 2022.

    Laws enforcing cellphone bans in schools have also largely gained bipartisan support in both liberal and conservative-leaning states.

    Upon signing Virginia’s K-12 cellphone ban, Youngkin said in a May 30 statement that “students will learn more and be healthier and safer” under this new legislation. “School should be a place of learning and human interaction — free from the distractions and classroom disruptions of cell-phone and social media use.”

    Research from Common Sense Media finds that 1 in 4 children had their own cellphone by the age of 8 in 2024. A separate study from 2023 also revealed that 97% of teens use their phones to some extent during the school day, and that students were most likely to turn to social media, YouTube or gaming when doing so.

    However, data privacy and cybersecurity concerns are rising alongside states’ efforts to enforce broader social media bans outside of school.

    In the Florida case, Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice v. James Uthmeier, challenging the state’s 2024 social media ban for children, the plaintiffs have alleged the law violates the First Amendment and puts Floridians’ online security at risk. The recent order from Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker temporarily prevents the law from requiring those in Florida to provide identification to access social media apps, said NetChoice in a Tuesday statement. 

    “HB 3 violates the First Amendment by forcing all Floridians to hand over their personal data just to access lawful, protected speech online,” NetChoice said of Walker’s order. “It requires websites to collect their users’ sensitive documentation, creating a cybersecurity risk by making private data more vulnerable to hackers and predators.”

    Source link

  • Tuition fees are a social contract with small print

    Tuition fees are a social contract with small print

    Amid continued growing global uncertainty, the First Minister has announced Scotland’s Programme for Government for 2025/26, its last before the Scottish election in May next year.

    Amongst its many promises is a commitment to “work with partners to secure a long-term and sustainable future for further and higher education”.

    Does that mean we can draw a collective sigh of relief? Well, not quite. Despite Scotland’s universities continuing to face an uncertain future, there’s little in the government’s plan for the next twelve months which is likely to give the higher (or wider tertiary) education sector much comfort.

    In March, the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland published our first research report, marking the beginning of a new direction for the charity as we seek to increase our impact and voice on issues of equity and inclusion in higher education in Scotland.

    The report by Ipsos highlighted public views on the value, accessibility and funding of universities. The study, the first of its kind in many years, was featured widely in the Scottish media, and appeared on the front pages of the Scotsman, the Herald and the Daily Telegraph.

    Most newspapers led with the headline figure that 48 per cent of respondents to Ipsos’ poll would support a change to Scotland’s university tuition fee model based on ability to pay.

    However, other than on Wonkhe, what wasn’t picked up by many was what the polling tells us about the varied ways in which age, geography and wealth appear to have shaped how Scottish people have experienced and benefitted from the current post-school system.

    Understanding the public’s views

    The Trust’s interest in commissioning the research was to fill a hole in the evidence base – the public voice having been all but absent from recent discussions around the future of post-school education and skills in Scotland. Whether we or our politicians agree with the public is not really the point. Instead, we have a duty to ask why those views exist and what they might mean for the future of the system.

    Alongside the 48 per cent who would support a change in the tuition fee model, a similar figure (49 per cent) expressed the view that studying courses that don’t directly lead to a profession is a waste of time. There are many ways in which higher education brings value to the individual and society underpinned by evidence, but clearly something in that messaging is falling short.

    As a Trust that has always championed funding across the full curriculum, and as someone whose own undergraduate degree did not point to obvious employment, that is a challenging outlook. However, it’s important to acknowledge this opinion and to reflect on the reasons why nearly half the Scottish public feels this way.

    In highlighting some of the nuance within public attitudes, we had hoped that the debate on funding might be able to move forwards from its current stasis – that the ground might be laid or a more open, grown-up and intelligent discussion on how we might address some of the challenges in the current system.

    Unfortunately, the immediate reaction from the government wasn’t to acknowledge the public’s opinions, but to double down on the current policy.

    I suppose, on reflection, this shouldn’t be surprising. Free tuition is a hallmark of Scottish devolution and a promise of what a modern Scotland would offer its people; part of a “social contract” between the government and its citizens.

    To question it would be to question the social and democratic principles which underpin it and, it follows, that stepping away from it, even showing a willingness to entertain alternatives, would be to betray those values. It would certainly involve admission and acceptance that, despite its aspirations, the policy does not necessarily reflect the reality of the structures in which it is implemented.

    But the reality is that free tuition sits in a wider operating context. The policy might be uniquely Scottish (at least in the UK), but as we have seen, the external factors that impact on it, are not within the current government’s direct control.

    Our report was published just days after the latest statistics showed a sharp drop in international students attending university in Scotland, and in the same week as the UK Chancellor’s Spring Statement which the IFS estimated will cut the Scottish Budget by £400m by 2030.

    It also came days before the Scottish Government announced that it had failed to deliver its interim child poverty targets, despite significant additional investment in social security. Continuing to operate the current higher education funding policy, already under strain, against this backdrop looks set to become considerably more challenging in coming years.

    What should the priorities be for post-school education funding?

    Delivering “free tuition” in the current context already means drawing lines in the sand. Currently these are drawn around full-time education (those studying part-time are means-tested and can’t currently access maintenance loans), the number of years of public support (for most people the length of the course plus one – the Trust picks up the tab for many students whose learner journeys are atypical), and around the number of places available to Scottish students (controversially capped according to the available budget and, as such, allegedly more competitive than rUK and international places).

    They are also drawn around undergraduate courses (there are no government grants available for students to access postgraduate study) and university funding itself, despite the implications for colleges and apprenticeships which come from the same portfolio budget. It’s these choices – and they are choices – which determine who benefits from post-school education funding and have led some people to claim the current system is not only unaffordable, but unfair.

    In defending the government’s policy, the Minister was unequivocal that “our support for free tuition is about more than ideology – it was founded on an equity-of-access approach [and] is based on simple logic”.

    This deserves some unpicking because there is a clear difference between a universal approach based on equality, where everyone gets the same, and equity, where resources are directed to those who need them the most in order to deliver equal outcomes.

    In a system of finite and diminishing resources, the former approach can simply serve to further embed inequalities as those with capital (be that economic or social) are better able to navigate the system, making them more likely to reap the rewards. Put simply, it’s not so easy to draw a direct line between free tuition and fair access.

    A more equitable approach?

    When Andrew Carnegie set up the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland, it was equity that was the driving force. His treatise on philanthropy, The Gospel of Wealth sets out that he saw it as the responsibility of those who were fortunate enough to be rich, to use their surplus wealth in a manner which would benefit society.

    Carnegie sought to instill this ideology within the Trust, to ensure that ‘no capable student should be de-barred from attending the university on account of the payment of fees.’ However, he was clear about who should benefit, noting that the honest pride for which my countrymen are distinguished would prevent applications from those who didn’t need the Trust’s assistance.

    He went further and built this benevolence into the Trust’s governance as it became the only one of his Trusts to date that could accept donations to:

    …enable such students as prefer to do so to consider the payments made on their account merely as advances which they resolve to repay if ever in a position to do so….

    In the first half of the 20th century this approach was instrumental in expanding access to higher education to enable individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds, including record numbers of women, to benefit from its rewards.

    By 1910 the Trust was responsible for funding around half of the students going to university in Scotland. To put that in today’s terms, that’s 50 per cent of students in Scotland from “widening access” backgrounds.

    Compare that to the current day. On paper Scotland has made impressive progress on widening access in the last ten years. Recent statistics show 16.7 per cent of Scottish first-degree entrants in 2023/24 were from the poorest neighborhoods.

    But as many have highlighted the current national indicator for widening access, SIMD20, is not a measure of household or individual deprivation, and therefore masks a complex landscape of inequality. In other words, in spite of nearly two decades of free tuition, inequalities exist and persist. Data on graduate outcomes suggests that those from wealthier backgrounds are more likely to complete their degrees and to benefit most in the labour market, and we can see from the Ipsos survey that those from high earning households are also less likely to support changes to funding in which they or their families aren’t direct beneficiaries.

    Is university still worth it?

    To demonstrate the success of free tuition, the government has pointed to the record numbers of students from Scotland securing places at university. But the rewards for those students are also changing. The IFS has noted a worrying downward trend in the graduate premium (the amount a graduate can expect to earn compared to a non-graduate) which has fallen by at least 10 per cent in the period 1997 to 2019.

    This perhaps explains why the Ipsos polling shows that the public are less certain about the value of attending university nowadays. The IFS also note issues of underemployment of graduates. In 2021/22, around a quarter of graduates who participated in the HESA graduate outcomes survey weren’t in graduate jobs and if we dive into access to postgraduate qualifications, where it’s suggested the wage premium jumps by around 20-40 per cent, we would be forgiven for questioning whether inequality has simply shifted further up the pipe.

    It is in this light that the Scottish Government response disappoints. Rather than showing desire to understand the views of their constituents, or to explore the evidence, we just keep returning to the same unqualified maxim, that access to higher education should be based on “ability to learn” rather than “ability to pay”.

    A more intelligent response would surely be to acknowledge the ideals and aspirations underpinning free tuition and engage in an exploration of whether those are being met through the current approach and, if not, how best to deliver them in the current context.

    Were that to happen we might instead be able to have a discussion, not about the concept of free tuition, but about whether it is possible to identify a funding approach that is at once “free”, “equitable” and “sustainable” and about where we might draw lines around public investment in tertiary education in a way that will best deliver on Scotland’s outcomes and ambitions.

    Injecting some democracy into the funding debate

    Central to the success of such a debate should also be a commitment to engage with the public on what they want from the post school system and how we can deliver that in today’s Scotland.

    Our sister organization, Carnegie UK’s Life in the UK 2024 index for Scotland shows that public trust in government and politics has reached a record low with nearly two thirds of people feeling that they have no influence over decisions affecting the country. That’s likely in no small part due to the gap between policy promises and the ways in which they find expression in Scotland’s communities. In this context, continuing to stick to a now decades-old policy position without attempting to evaluate it appears, at best, short-sighted and, at worst, undemocratic.

    To address this there are calls for more participative forms of engagement which have been shown to provide opportunities for diverse groups to be involved in decision-making; shaping and enhancing policy development to deliver improved outcomes that meet a wider range of needs. The Citizen Jury we’ll be running with Ipsos this year intends to do just that.

    It will bring together a diverse group of people from across Scotland to consider evidence on tertiary education funding and make recommendations for the future. This could be an opportunity to rebuild public trust and to develop a new social contract, one that is co-produced with citizens. Our political leaders in Scotland should care about that and not be too quick to dismiss the public attitudes we’re working to uncover.

    Source link

  • State Dept. to Expand Social Media Screening for Intl. Students

    State Dept. to Expand Social Media Screening for Intl. Students

    The plans to expand social media screening, first reported by Politico, were outlined in a memo sent by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

    John McDonnell/Getty Images

    The Trump administration is planning to implement a policy that would require all student visa applicants to undergo social media vetting, according to a cable sent by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Politico reported Tuesday. All new student visa interviews have been paused in preparation for the new policy.

    “The Department is conducting a review of existing operations and process for screening and vetting of student and exchange visitor (F, M, J) visa applicants, and based on that review, plans to issue guidance on expanded social media vetting for all such applicants,” the memo reads, according to a copy published in full on social media by independent journalist Marisa Kabas.

    The planned changes come amid the federal government’s ongoing attacks on student visa holders, which began in March with the detention of multiple students and recent graduates who had been involved in pro-Palestinian protests on their campuses. Shortly after, the administration terminated thousands of student visa holders’ records in the Student Exchange and Visitor Information System, the database the houses international students’ records, leading to a slew of legal actions from students who feared they wouldn’t be able to continue studying in the U.S.

    Most recently, the Trump administration announced last week that it would prohibit Harvard University from enrolling international students as punishment for allegedly failing to prevent antisemitism and harassment on campus during last year’s pro-Palestinian encampments. Though that action was quickly blocked by a judge, the move could be devastating for the Ivy League institution, where international students make up more than a quarter of the student body.

    The proposed policy would increase the amount of time, manpower and resources required to process visa applications, according to experts.

    Faye Kolly, an immigration attorney based in Texas, noted that it’s not unusual for immigration officials to review visa applicants’ social media profiles, which they are required to list on certain immigration forms. But the administration has begun specifically screening the social media accounts of some returning students with visas who had participated in pro-Palestinian campus protests, though Politico reported that State Department officials had found the guidance on how to complete those screenings vague.

    It is not clear how this expanded vetting process will unfold; Rubio included no details in the memo, which said further guidance would be disseminated in the coming days. Though the memo didn’t say as much, Kolly predicted that the extra screening will involve looking “at [applicants’] social media handles more closely for what I’m assuming is going to be speech that could be considered either anti-Israel or pro-Gaza.”

    International education advocates have sounded the alarm on the proposed policy, arguing that it limits prospective students’ right to free expression and illustrates the Trump administration’s devaluation and distrust of international students.

    Fanta Aw, the CEO of NAFSA, an association for international educators, told Politico, “The idea that the embassies have the time, the capacity and taxpayer dollars are being spent this way is very problematic. International students are not a threat to this country. If anything, they’re an incredible asset to this country.”

    Kolly told Inside Higher Ed that the move harks back to the SEVIS terminations in March and April. Both actions, she said, indicate the administration’s lack “of nuance … regarding international students. It’s [taking] a simplistic approach to a very complex issue. When you target international students en masse, it’s irresponsible.”

    Daryl Bish, the president of EnglishUSA, which represents all English language programs in the country, said the change will reverse recent progress on the visa approval process and have an “immediate impact” on enrollment in English language programs.

    “The extraordinary decision to pause visa interviews, under the guise of security and enhanced vetting, is a dangerous precedent that will have immediate short-term consequences,” Bish said. “Visa appointment wait times have, generally, improved since the pandemic. This means that many students apply for the visa close to their program start date. The pause in interviews, if protracted, will force these students to change their plans.”

    Elora Mukherjee, a law professor at Columbia University and the director of the law school’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, also criticized the government for pausing new student visa interviews in the interim—especially as the memo gave no indication of how long the pause might last.

    “The pause is destructive to our national interests and America’s reputation in the world, and its effects may be felt for years. It has thrown the lives of tens of thousands of prospective international students into turmoil and will cause chaos and disruption at colleges and universities across the country. International students have been preparing for months to join U.S. colleges and universities in the fall, and schools have been preparing to welcome them,” she wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed.

    “It is unclear how long the ‘pause’ will be in place, what heightened scrutiny visa applicants will face once the pause is lifted, and the extent to which decisions about granting visas may be tainted by prejudices based on race, religion, and national origin.”

    Source link