Tag: students

  • Weekend reading: The Launch of the APPG on Students: Commission on Students in Higher Education

    Weekend reading: The Launch of the APPG on Students: Commission on Students in Higher Education

    This blog was kindly authored by Alex Stanley, NUS Vice President of Higher Education, Saranya Thambirajah, NUS Vice President Equality & Liberation and Alex Sobel Member of Parliament for Leeds Central and Headingly.

    Today, we’re proud to launch the Commission on Students in Higher Education, a project between the APPG on Students, supported by NUS UK and a group of expert Commissioners, and based on evidence, event attendance and input from over 50 students’ unions and sector organisations.

    The Commission speaks to the themes of the Department for Education’s HE Review and Post-16 Strategy and places the voices of students right at the heart of key questions on inspiring high-quality teaching and learning, access and widening participation.

    In the current financial climate for universities and for the Treasury, we would have loved to be able to produce a Commission which speaks to interventions in quality, that highlights the groundbreaking pedagogical practice that students’ unions and educational organisations were excited to share with us, and the amazing widening participation work that we have seen across the country.

    However, across all of our work we had to return to the question of funding, for students and for the sector. Right now, we risk a situation where the state of funding for students and for universities creates a double crisis, where neither the student themselves have the money to thrive while studying, nor the university has the money to adequately support them.

    We know that students are working longer and longer hours outside of their degrees, in jobs not directly relevant to their future careers. The HEPI and AdvanceHE Student Academic Experience Survey for 2025 shows that this is eating into their independent study time, with the average weekly study time dropping by two hours over the last year.

    Our evidence shows a further impact of working hours: what is suffering is not necessarily academic outcomes, but students’ overall experience in higher education. Students’ unions reported to us that the uptake of student activities, clubs, societies, and extracurricular activities is decreasing, and when asked, students stated that they were spending the time they would have liked to spend on activities undertaking paid work instead.

    This should raise significant concerns for anyone involved in higher education and student life. When a student enters university, they of course gain experience and qualifications from their academic study, but the skills and experiences gained from their additional activities are just as valuable for many students. In providing these activities, students’ unions are engines of social capital.   

    Those students who work the longest hours and come from middle and lower income families are seeing the sharpest end of the cost-of-living crisis are also those who stand to benefit from extracurricular activity. There are some widening participation initiatives actively working to rectify this, by providing mentoring and support to participate in additional activities. Evaluation of these programs, further explored in the Commission report, found that those who were enrolled in the programs were also more likely to take up leadership positions in their Students’ Unions, clubs and societies. This shows the need for financial support which supports not only academic, but social participation.

    As part of the Commission, we received proposals on how a fairer settlement for student maintenance could be reached within the current financial envelope. The Commission considered proposals on funding maintenance through a system of stepped repayments to redress regressive distributional effects in the current student loan repayment system, to instituting a graduate levy on employers who benefit from recruiting graduates, both of which have been covered in the HEPi report How should undergraduate degrees be funded?

    The cross-party consensus is clear: right now, it’s imperative that the government establish a new system of student maintenance that rises with the cost of living and ensures grant funding is available for the poorest students. We also believe that the government should have ambition toward meeting a Student Minimum Income, also fully explored here.

    In the Post-16 Review, the Department for Education has the opportunity to publish with a suite of bold, brave reforms to make like better for students. We will not be able to have the conversation about teaching, access and high-quality student experience without a foundational conversation about funding and student maintenance: we urge the Department to include a new settlement for student maintenance in the scope of the Post-16 Strategy.

    You can read the full report from the Commission here.

    Source link

  • Humanities Students Participate in Faculty-Led Research

    Humanities Students Participate in Faculty-Led Research

    On-campus engagement is one metric that can predict student success, but external factors including needing to work, caretaking responsibilities or living off campus can hinder students’ participation in activities.

    At Stony Brook University, part of the State University of New York system, institutional data showed retention rates lagged for students in the humanities and social science disciplines. In response, leaders created several programs to incentivize students in those majors to build relationships with others in their field and engage in hands-on work.

    Three Stony Brook leaders—Tiana De Jesus, lead academic success advisor and retention specialist; Richard Tomczak, director of faculty engagement; and Jennifer Rodriguez, associate director of the student success and retention center—shared details of the program and initial results at NASPA’s Student Success in Higher Education conference in Denver last month.

    The background: The Undergraduate Retention Initiatives and Success Engagement (U-RISE) office houses a variety of innovative retention supports, including a research lab, called SSTAR, and re-engagement advising.

    One of the more recent projects the staff at SSTAR—short for Student Success Through Applied Research—have taken on is addressing gaps in retention for non-STEM students.

    University data pointed to six majors in the humanities and social sciences with the lowest retention rates as well as relatively high admission rates of students with lower grade point averages from high school.

    Research shows that students who are engaged on campus are more likely to feel a deep sense of belonging and establish meaningful relationships with peers and faculty, as well as develop career skills. Students who have a strong sense of belonging in their major program are also more likely to have higher retention rates and levels of faculty connection.

    SSTAR team members sought to foster relationships between students and their instructors, improve students’ academic readiness and provide financial support to ensure equitable retention for students across socioeconomic groups.

    A National Picture

    Research from the Student Experience in the Research University Consortium at the University of California, Berkeley, found fewer students participating in faculty-led research post-pandemic compared to their peers enrolled in 2019, showing a gap in experiential learning opportunities.

    One of the more common reasons why students are unable to take on research roles is a lack of pay or needing to work for pay. A significant number of colleges have established financial aid for students to receive a stipend for participating in unpaid or underpaid experiential learning opportunities, ensuring the inability to pay does not prevent participation.

    To accomplish these goals, campus leaders created three interventions: research assistantship positions in faculty-led research, a first-year seminar for academic preparation and paid on-campus jobs for humanities students.

    In focus: This past spring, Stony Brook hired 12 first-year students out of an application pool of over 100 to serve as research assistants. Each student was matched with a faculty member from one of a variety of departments, including English, art, history, linguistics and Asian and Asian American studies. Research assistants committed to eight to 10 hours of work per week and were paid a stipend. Funding came from the provost’s office.

    The projects varied; one English and sociology student analyzed TikTok videos of social activists to challenge stereotypes, while an English and psychology student trained artificial intelligence on European literature from the 1700s, according to a university press release.

    The impact: Across interventions, students who participated in the programs were more likely to say they feel connected to their peers, see the value of their degree and intend to persist, according to pre- and post-survey data.

    Many students said the experiences helped open their eyes to the career and research opportunities available to them in their field and made them feel faculty were more accessible to them. Of the students who participated in the three interventions, 92.8 percent enrolled as a sophomore the following year, compared to 91.8 percent of their peers who didn’t participate, surpassing the university’s 92 percent retention goal. Students also had higher cumulative GPAs, showing a correlation between engagement and academic achievement.

    An unexpected finding was that before participating in the program, many students said they felt stigmatized for their major choice (Stony Brook is a majority of STEM learners), but afterward they felt more connected to those in similar fields, even if not in their exact major.

    In the future, researchers hope to recruit a larger number of students and expand their work to other humanities and social sciences majors.

    Source link

  • Closed Limestone University Owes Students Money

    Closed Limestone University Owes Students Money

    Limestone University, which shuttered abruptly in May after years of financial woes and a failed fundraising effort, owes nearly $400,000 to students affected by the closure, The State reported.

    Tuition refunds reportedly promised by university officials have not yet been disbursed.

    Altogether, Limestone owes $381,405 to 281 students, according to a report submitted to the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education by a consulting firm managing the university’s assets. A representative from that firm, Aurora Management Partners, declined to tell the newspaper when students may be reimbursed, noting that their agreement was confidential. 

    While students are due an average of more than $1,350 each, some are owed more.

    Michael Thielen, a former graduate student affected by the closure, told the newspaper that Limestone owes him more than $4,000, but he hasn’t heard from officials in almost two months. He bemoaned the university’s lack of accountability and transparency.

    “Everyone has washed their hands of this,” Thielen said.

    The private Christian university was one of the more jarring closures of the year, given how quickly it folded amid clear warning signs of financial distress, as noted in its latest audit.

    In April, Limestone officials punted on the closure decision, indicating they were in talks for a $6 million lifeline that would keep the university open. But that funding source never materialized, prompting a reversal from leadership and the abrupt closure of the 180-year-old institution.

    Former employees also sued Limestone recently over how it handled mass layoffs.

    Source link

  • Using MindTap for English to Help Monitor Students’ Use of AI

    Using MindTap for English to Help Monitor Students’ Use of AI

    Reading Time: 4 minutes

    Depending on the era in which we began learning, formally or informally, we all have a diverse range of valuable definitions and perspectives about artificial intelligence pertaining to teaching and learning.

    Teaching and learning with AI

    When I was a student in elementary school during the 1980s, AI was using a calculator rather than longhand or a traditional adding machine for arithmetic. Additionally, the entire school only had six computers for student use, which were housed in the library. Only students acting responsibly earned access to time on these devices to play The Oregon Trail, “an educational game that simulates the hardships of [1848] …”

    With all of this in mind, AI has been teaching us, and we’ve been learning from it, for quite some time, in and out of school.

    However, with the advancement of generative AI, the implications for teaching and learning now have to do more with academic integrity. And academic dishonesty policies about original work vs. AI in education have come into the conversation. This is where MindTap features like Turnitin can be applied to help monitor students’ acceptable and ethical use of AI in English composition courses.

    My conversation with students

    My students may engage in conversations about acceptable, ethical uses of GenAI and academic integrity before they even enroll in my courses. This is because I post the policies in my syllabus. Students learn that there is a monitoring system in place in MindTap for English by Turnitin. Once enrolled in MindTap, there are discussions, in both online and face-to-face modalities, about these policies at length. Policies are also copied into each of the writing assignments in MindTap. Our focus is on ethics, or academic integrity, to ensure students’ coursework is original. Valuable feedback, information and resources can be provided for students to learn and progress rather than to get a grade.

    Since students cannot prove learning and mastery of learning outcomes without work being original, I discuss with them and copy in their assignments that they should not use any words that are not original. MindTap provides me with access to Turnitin to monitor academic integrity.

      Turnitin AI detector screenshot

    Suggestions for monitoring

    To help monitor students’ use of AI, parameters in MindTap for English with Turnitin should be set. For example, students need to submit more than 300 words for the detector to perform. Once students submit work, the detector generates an originality report. This can be downloaded to provide the instructor and learner with feedback about the percentage amount of acceptable and ethical usage of AI or plagiarism.

    Turnitin inbox where the similarity percentage can be viewed and clicked on for expanded, detailed information.
    Inbox where the similarity percentage can be viewed and clicked on for expanded, detailed information.

    The report highlights where originality is in question directly on the student’s document. Some instructors will set percentage parameters as well, instructing students that there cannot be more than 15% flagged by the detector in MindTap. Clicking on what the detector has highlighted shows the possible source where information may have been taken or just generally that AI has been used. Note: this is just a monitoring system. So, please be mindful that the report is a tool instructors can use to have conversations with their students. We cannot accuse academic dishonesty based on a report alone.

    Turnitin shows the match overview with all of the plagiarism flagged, which can also be AI. Each part can be clicked on and expanded to show the original source.
    Shows the match overview with all of the plagiarism flagged, which can also be AI. Each part can be clicked on and expanded to show the original source.

    MindTap’s monitoring system has always been correct for me, but conversations are still beneficial for assurance. I use this monitoring document for every submission in MindTap.

    The big picture to consider

    AI can be used ethically as a tool for teaching and learning, bridging student learning gaps and strengthening their mastery of skills. However, when it comes to academic integrity, the concern is that GenAI is being used not as an aid, but as a tool devoid of the values of teaching and learning. According to Cengage’s recent research, 82% of instructors expressed concern specifically about AI and academic integrity. Setting policies and parameters with clear definitions and having conversations with students is essential to my ability to monitor my students’ acceptable use of AI.

    Do you use AI in your English composition classroom? Reach out to discuss the ways you’re utilizing AI as an ethical tool to advance teaching and learning.

    Written by Faye Pelosi, Professor in the Communications Department at Palm Beach State College and Cengage Faculty Partner. 

    Stay tuned for Professor Pelosi’s upcoming video demo of how she uses the MindTap Turnitin feature in her English course.

    Source link

  • Pa. Clinic Run by Students Supports Community Health

    Pa. Clinic Run by Students Supports Community Health

    Experiential learning opportunities provide students with a space to connect in-classroom learning to real-world situations. A student-run clinic at Widener University provides graduate health science professional students with hands-on learning and career experiences while supporting community health and well-being for Chester, Pa., residents.

    The Chester Community Clinic was founded in 2009 for physical therapy services but has since expanded to cover other health and wellness services, including occupational therapy and speech-language pathology. The clinic gives students studying those fields leadership opportunities, experience working with diverse clients and the confidence to tackle their professional careers.

    What’s the need: Before the clinic was established, physical therapy students at Widener would volunteer at a pro bono clinic in nearby Philadelphia. But students pushed for a clinic within Chester, which is considered a primary care health professional shortage area, meaning it lacks enough providers to serve the local population.

    For some patients, a lack of health insurance can impede their ability to receive care. In Pennsylvania, 5.4 percent of residents are without private or public health insurance, roughly two percentage points lower than the national average. The clinic addresses gaps in health care by providing services for free while educating future health science professionals.

    How it works: The clinic is led by a board of 12 to 14 students from each class and supervised by faculty and community members who are licensed physical therapists. Students begin service in their second semester of the program and participate in the clinic until their final clinical placement.

    Most clients are referred by a physician but have been turned away from local PT clinics due to a lack of health insurance or because they exceeded the allotted insurance benefits for PT.

    During appointments, students provide direct physical therapy services to patients, including making care plans, walking them through exercises and creating medical records.

    Over the years, the clinic has expanded to include occupational therapy, speech-language pathology, clinical psychology and social work services. In 2024, Widener included a Community Nursing Clinic to provide pro bono services as well.

    All students studying physical therapy, occupational therapy and speech-language pathology at Widener volunteer at the clinic as part of the program requirements. PT students are required to serve a minimum of three evenings per semester; board members typically serve more hours.

    The clinic’s multifaceted offerings increase opportunities for students to work across departments, engaging with their peers in other health professions to establish interdisciplinary plans for care.

    Free Talent

    Other colleges and universities offer pro bono student services to support community members and organizations:

    • Gonzaga University has a student-led sports consulting agency that offers strategy ideas and tools to sports brands and teams.
    • Utah Valley University students can intern with a semester-long program that provides digital marketing to businesses in the region.
    • American University’s Kogod School of Business has a business consulting group that provides students with project-based consulting experience.
    • Carroll University faculty and students in the behavioral health psychology master’s program run a free mental health clinic for those in the area.

    The impact: Since the clinic began in 2009, students have provided over 12,000 physical therapy appointments to community members, worth about $1.3 million in costs, according to a 2024 press release from the university.

    A 2017 program evaluation, published in the Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice, found that PT students who served in the pro bono clinic felt more equipped to launch into clinical work. They were prepared to manage documentation, use clinical reasoning and engage in interprofessional communication.

    A 2020 study of the clinic also found that students performed better than expected in cultural competence, perhaps due to their experience engaging with clients from a variety of ethnicities, socioeconomic backgrounds, health literacy levels, religions and languages.

    Both Widener and students in the health science professions continue to support the development of other pro bono clinics. The class of 2015 created The Pro Bono Network, facilitating advancement of student-run pro bono services among 109 member institutions across the country. This past spring, Widener’s annual Pro Bono Network Conference welcomed 250 individuals working at or affiliated with pro bono clinics, and featured 32 student leaders presenting their work.

    How do your students gain hands-on experience and give back? Tell us more.

    This article has been updated to reflect the addition of a pro bono nursing clinic in 2024, not the creation of it, and to identify students as health science professional students, not health professional students.

    Source link

  • NZ debuts growth plan as it eyes 35k more international students

    NZ debuts growth plan as it eyes 35k more international students

    • New Zealand relaxes some immigration rules – including upping the number of hours overseas students can work outside of their studies – in its bid to attract more international students
    • Immigration New Zealand unveils ambitious plan to tempt 35,000 more international students to the country by 2034
    • Government shines light on economic benefits of international education, but says it will keep an eye on education quality and the impact on local communities as the sector grows

    The New Zealand government has launched the International Education Going for Growth plan, as part of its broader strategy to increase international student enrolments from 83,700 in 2024 to 119,000 by 2034, and double the sector’s value from NZ$3.6 billion ( £1.60 billion) to NZ$7.2 billion (£3.20 billion). 

    On Monday, Immigration New Zealand announced changes to immigration rules to help the country “attract more international students, maintain high education standards, and manage immigration risks”.

    On November 3 this year, INZ will implement changes to increase the permitted work hours for eligible study visa holders from 20 to 25 hours per week, and extend in-study work rights to all tertiary students enrolled in approved exchange or study abroad programs, including those on one-semester courses.

    As per data published by INZ, currently 40,987 study visa holders have in-study work rights with 29,790 set to expire on or before March 31 2026, with the remaining 11,197 visas expected to lapse after that date.

    The new rules on work hours will apply only to students who have been granted a visa from November 3 onward, meaning those with existing visas limited to 20 hours per week will need to reapply to avail the increased allowance.

    On average in 2024, an international student spent NZ$45,000 across the year. That means… ultimately more jobs being created
    Erica Stanford, New Zealand education minister

    “This (increase in work hours) will apply to all new student visas granted from that date, even if the application was submitted earlier,” read a statement by INZ. 

    “If you already have a student visa with a 20-hour work limit and want to work up to 25 hours, you will need to apply for a variation of conditions or a new student visa. The relevant immigration fees will apply.”

    While international students in years 12 and 13 are eligible under the new rules, they will still be required to obtain both parental and school permission to work during the academic year, even with the increased limit of 25 hours per week. 

    Moreover, international graduates who do not qualify for post-study work rights may soon have access to a short-duration work visa of up to six months, giving them time to seek employment in their field under the Accredited Employer Work Visa pathway.

    The government is also investigating how to make it easier for students to apply for multi-year visas.

    “International education is one of our largest exports, injecting NZ$3.6 billion into our economy in 2024. It also provides opportunities for research, strengthening trade and people-to-people connections, which are important to drive investment, productivity and innovation in New Zealand,” read a statement by education minister, Erica Stanford. 

    “On average in 2024, an international student spent NZ$45,000 across the year. That means more visits to our cafes and restaurants, more people visiting our iconic attractions and ultimately more jobs being created.”

    As per data released by Education New Zealand, international enrolments are inching toward pre-Covid levels, with 2024 figures (83,425) now reaching 72% of the 2019 total of 115,705.

    According to ENZ chief executive Amanda Malu, while China and India remain New Zealand’s two largest international student markets, accounting for 34% and 14% of enrolments respectively, they are followed by Japan (9%), South Korea (4%), Thailand (3%), the United States (3%), Germany (3%), the Philippines (3%), and Sri Lanka (3%)

    It’s important to strike the right balance between increasing student numbers, maintaining the quality of education, and managing broader impacts on New Zealanders
    Erica Stanford, New Zealand education minister

    New Zealand wants to “supercharge” this rising momentum and position New Zealand as the destination of choice for international students, according to Stanford. 

    This includes increasing awareness of New Zealand as a study destination from 38% in 2024 to 44% by 2034, and raising the proportion of prospective students who rank the country among their top three study choices from 18% to 22% over the same period.

    “To achieve our ambitious target, we’re taking a considered and strategic approach. It’s important to strike the right balance between increasing student numbers, maintaining the quality of education, and managing broader impacts on New Zealanders. Our plan will deliver that,” stated Stanford. 

    Source link

  • One Big Beautiful Bill Is Big Betrayal of Students (opinion)

    One Big Beautiful Bill Is Big Betrayal of Students (opinion)

    In late June, House Republicans aired a promotional video about their budget reconciliation bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, claiming it will “make the American dream accessible to all Americans again.” That dream—that anyone in this country can achieve prosperity and success through hard work and determination—is what leads people to come to America and stay. It’s no wonder that politicians invoke this promise as part of the reason for needed change.

    Higher education has long been seen as one of the surest paths to economic security in America—it is one foundation that dream rests on. It feels consequential, therefore, that President Trump and congressional Republicans are looking to undercut this vision of the American dream. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act will reshape federal student aid in ways that transform access to higher education and shut everyday Americans out.

    Forthcoming nationally representative survey data from New America, a nonpartisan think tank, shows Americans are clear-eyed about what it really takes to keep the dream alive: an affordable higher education. But they see college falling further out of reach. Nearly nine out of 10 believe college cost is the biggest factor that prevents families from attending college. And three-quarters of Americans agree that the federal government should spend more tax dollars on educational opportunities after high school to make them more affordable, including majorities of both Republicans and Democrats.

    Americans also believe in accountability for this investment. They want a system that rewards effort, responsibility and outcomes—basic values that align with the American dream. Majorities from both parties say colleges and universities should lose access to taxpayer support if their students don’t earn more than a typical high school graduate or if they struggle to pay down their student loan debt.

    Once enacted, the new law will trim the Pell Grant program, making some middle-income families ineligible who used to qualify for small amounts of the Pell Grant. Federal student loans will look vastly different, with big cuts to graduate, parent and lifetime borrowing limits and less generous repayment options for borrowers who fall on hard times. These changes will close one door for many low- and moderate-income Americans, the one that leads to an affordable associate or bachelor’s degree. At the same time, by expanding Pell Grants to short-term job training programs, the law opens another door to very short credentials as few as eight weeks long with little oversight and consumer protection. Our research has shown time and again that these very short credentials will not deliver economic stability nor improve employment prospects.

    And while the law will take meaningful steps toward accountability and will cut off from federal loans associate, bachelor’s and graduate programs that fail to give students an earning boost, those measures exclude all undergraduate short-term certificate programs, which tend to have the worst outcomes. It will also allow programs to continue to operate, even if most of their students struggle to repay their loans.

    Over all, these changes amount to a massive cut of close to $300 billion in critical funds that ensure students have access to a quality education after high school. It will increase dropout risk (which we know is a major predictor of student loan default), and will push families toward private financing products with fewer consumer protections.

    While the president and congressional Republicans say these cuts are necessary under the auspices of extending tax cuts, improving fiscal responsibility and reforming higher education, the truth is this law will achieve none of this. It will add at least $3 trillion to our deficit by expanding tax cuts to wealthy Americans, all while stripping funding from critical programs everyday Americans rely on like Medicaid, SNAP and student aid. It does nothing to fix the underlying problems that drive college costs. It ignores targeted solutions that would promote affordability and expand accountability. That type of thoughtful reform would require bipartisan reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, which is more than a decade overdue.

    Despite what Republicans in Washington say about making the American dream accessible again, this law will only put it further out of reach. The changes will fall hard on all students trying to obtain education after high school—from welders to electricians, nurses, teachers and medical doctors. These are not “elites,” but core constituents. They are working adults, veterans and parents looking to make a better life for their children, hoping that the American dream is still achievable. Instead, they will find that their own government has abandoned them.

    In his inaugural address in January, President Trump said, “The American dream will soon be back and thriving like never before.” But, in truth, it is being suffocated. It’s too late to change this new law, but moving forward Congress and the Trump administration must center everyday Americans and act cautiously before making such seismic cuts. This is not a partisan issue, but a matter of national interest and prosperity. Failing to think about future legislation that makes meaningful student-centered reform to higher education will have political and generational consequences for years to come. It sends a message to future students that only familial wealth will bring college opportunities, and it won’t matter how much hard work they put in or determination they have.

    Rachel Fishman is the director of the higher education program at New America.

    Source link

  • Let’s remove the roadblocks to four-year STEM degrees for community college transfer students

    Let’s remove the roadblocks to four-year STEM degrees for community college transfer students

    In the nearly two years since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down race-conscious admissions, there have been repeated calls for universities to address the resulting decline in diversity by recruiting from community colleges.  

    On the surface, encouraging students to transfer from two-year colleges sounds like a terrific idea. Community colleges enroll large numbers of students who are low-income or whose parents did not attend college. Black and Latino students disproportionately start college at these institutions, whose mission for more than 50 years has been to expand access to higher education. 

    But while community colleges should be an avenue into high-value STEM degrees for students from low-income backgrounds and minoritized students, the reality is sobering: Just 2 percent of students who begin at a community college earn a STEM bachelor’s degree within six years, our recent study of transfer experiences in California found.  

    There are too many roadblocks in their way, leaving the path to STEM degrees for community college students incredibly narrow. A key barrier is the complexity of the process of transferring from a community college to a four-year institution. 

    Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter. 

    Many community college students who want to transfer and major in a STEM field must contend with three major obstacles in the transfer process: 

    1. A maze of inconsistent and often opaque math requirements. We found that a student considering three or four prospective university campuses might have to take three or four different math classes just to meet a single math requirement in a given major. One campus might expect a transfer student majoring in business to take calculus, while another might ask for business calculus. Still another might strongly recommend a “calculus for life sciences” course. And sometimes an institution’s website might list different requirements than a statewide transfer site. Such inconsistencies can lengthen students’ times to degrees — especially in STEM majors, which may require five- or six-course math sequences before transfer.  

    2. Underlying math anxiety. Many students interviewed for the study told us that they had internalized negative comments from teachers, advisers and peers about their academic ability, particularly in math. This uncertainty contributed to feelings of anxiety about completing their math courses. Their predicament is especially troubling given concerns that required courses may not contribute to success in specific fields. 

    3. Course scheduling conflicts that slow students’ progress. Two required courses may meet on the same day and time, for example, or a required course could be scheduled at a time that conflicts with a student’s work schedule. In interviews, we also heard that course enrollment caps and sequential pathways in which certain courses are offered only once a year too often lengthen the time to degree for students. 

    Related: ‘Waste of time’: Community college transfers derail students 

    To help, rather than hinder, STEM students’ progress toward their college and professional goals, the transfer process needs to change significantly. First and foremost, universities need to send clear and consistent signals about what hoops community college students should be jumping through in order to transfer.  

    A student applying to three prospective campuses, for example, should not have to meet separate sets of requirements for each. 

    Community colleges and universities should also prioritize active learning strategies and proven supports to combat math anxiety. These may include providing professional learning for instructors to help them make math courses more engaging and to foster a sense of belonging. Training for counselors to advise students on requirements for STEM pathways is also important.  

    Community colleges must make their course schedules more student-centered, by offering evening and weekend courses and ensuring that courses required for specific degrees are not scheduled at overlapping times. They should also help students with unavoidable scheduling conflicts take comparable required courses at other colleges. 

    At the state level, it’s critical to adopt goals for transfer participation and completion (including STEM-specific goals) as well as comprehensive and transparent statewide agreements for math requirements by major. 

    States should also provide transfer planning tools that provide accurate and up-to-date information. For example, the AI Transfer and Articulation Infrastructure Network, led by University of California, Berkeley researchers, is using artificial intelligence technology to help institutions more efficiently identify which community college courses meet university requirements. More effective tools will increase transparency without requiring students and counselors to navigate complex and varied transfer requirements on their own. As it stands, complex, confusing and opaque math requirements limit transfer opportunities for community college students seeking STEM degrees, instead of expanding them. 

    We must untangle the transfer process, smooth pathways to high-value degrees and ensure that every student has a clear, unobstructed opportunity to pursue an education that will set them up for success. 

    Pamela Burdman is executive director of Just Equations, a California-based policy institute focused on reconceptualizing the role of math in education equity. Alexis Robin Hale is a research fellow at Just Equations and a graduate student at UCLA in Social Sciences and Comparative Education.  

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected]. 

    This story about community college transfers was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter. 

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Artificial Intelligence and Critical Thinking in Higher Education: Fostering a Transformative Learning Experience for Students – Faculty Focus

    Artificial Intelligence and Critical Thinking in Higher Education: Fostering a Transformative Learning Experience for Students – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Artificial Intelligence and Critical Thinking in Higher Education: Fostering a Transformative Learning Experience for Students – Faculty Focus

    Artificial Intelligence and Critical Thinking in Higher Education: Fostering a Transformative Learning Experience for Students – Faculty Focus

    Source link