Tag: Success

  • Virtual Learning Supports Adult College Student Success

    Virtual Learning Supports Adult College Student Success

    Research shows that adults often enter college with a goal in mind, such as a career pivot, additional education in their current industry or completion of a degree they previously started. But returning to the classroom can be challenging, particularly for first-generation students or those who haven’t been in school for a while.

    In 2024, Wichita State University launched a college bridge program, the Adult Learner Community and Connections Program, to ease the transition for adult and online learners. The program, part of the university’s Shocker Preseason series, offers eight modules of self-paced online content designed to assist them in their first term at the university.

    In the most recent episode of Voices of Student Success, host Ashley Mowreader speaks with Brett Bruner, assistant vice president for student success and persistence at Wichita State, about adult learner pedagogy and lessons learned in the first year.

    An edited version of the podcast appears below.

    Q: Can you introduce us to your adult learner population? Whom do you serve and how does their makeup change how you serve them?

    Brett Bruner, assistant vice president for student success and persistence

    A: At Wichita State University, our adult learners come from various backgrounds. We know that two-thirds of our adult learners are first-generation college students. And when we think about being the first age friendly [University Global Network]–designated university in the state of Kansas, I think we’re really focused on how do we support learners of all ages, including adult learners of all ages?

    When we think about the more than 2,200 adult learners and more than 1,600 online learners at Wichita State, our adult learners are enrolled in on-campus programs and fully online programs. We always approach our adult learners with that mindset of, how do we center this through our first-generation lens, recognizing that two-thirds of them will be first in their families to graduate from college?

    Q: I’m also thinking about your orientation program focused on adult learners. I wonder if you can give us some background on, what does a Shocker Preseason look like across the board? And how does this look different for your adult learner populations, given all the backgrounds that you mentioned—first generation, online learners, et cetera.

    A: Our Shocker Preseason programs were created from a university standpoint to really focus on building academic resource awareness, providing all our students with the academic skills they need to be successful and helping students make connections with each other. Our Shocker Preseason programs were also created as part of our strategic enrollment management plan, as well as one of our student success priorities.

    We’ve grown [the program]; this fall, we’ll now have 20 different Shocker Preseason programs.

    Q: Wow.

    A: I know, it’s amazing to see growth from even just when I started here two years ago, from six programs now to 20. I think the beauty of our Shocker Preseason programs is this differentiated care. We talk about differentiated care at WSU from a student success standpoint, but it means the program modality—on campus versus online—program length, content, is really driven by each of the individual units that are designing their programs.

    In spring of 2024, as the Office of Online and Adult Learning that I get the privilege of working with sat down to really look at career congruence of our adult learners’ transitions, health and well-being emerged as a topic, but really that overall support of, how do we form connections? Because so many times adult learners in the research cite that they aren’t finding peers, they aren’t finding friends, because they feel that they are the one and only older student, returning student or student who didn’t come fresh out of high school to college.

    I’m so proud of our team, who said, “Let’s design a Shocker Preseason program, but let’s make it look different to meet the needs of our students.” And so as they rolled out this online format for our Adult Learner Community and Connections program, they really rooted it in health and well-being, because they were able to do that in meaningful ways that may look different from how we talk about health and well-being for an 18- to 22-year-old, but then also building in community and connection opportunities in different ways. Maybe they’re more likely to lean into conversations about how the Ulrich Museum of Art on campus can provide a means for social connection, and maybe that will resonate with our adult learners.

    Q: I love that you’re focusing on community and that sense of belonging and engagement on campus. Because I think when we consider online learners’ needs, or adult learners’ needs, oftentimes we think it’s providing services expeditiously. We want them to get through their degree program, we want to get them into a job, which are great priorities to have. But students also want a college experience, and they do want to engage with their peers. And so I wonder if you can speak to that dimension of this, that it’s not just getting them to timely degree completion, but everything else as well.

    A: It’s all about finding their people, helping them realize that with 2,200 adult learners across campus, you’re not the only one. So how can we connect you with others who are experiencing similar transitional pieces?

    We think about the 83 students who engaged in our optional program last year, but then also the eight peer ambassadors that we hired who had lived these experiences and can bring some insight when we talk about social wellness and why it’s an important part of thriving in college as an adult learner, or financial wellness, or whatever dimension of wellness.

    I think that’s the important part, because we’re seeing then these connections continue beyond just this orientation and transition experience. We’re seeing friendships bloom. We’re seeing opportunities to make connections in the classroom. After year one of the program, specifically related to the social wellness connection, students were saying, “I appreciated what you shared about how to make connections, but I want more. I want more about how to build my network. How do I invite people to my network and grow my network?”

    And I don’t think that was something that we were intentionally designing. So as we think about the 2.0 version of this program, we’re really deepening the content about networking. Because I think we’re all always striving to build and grow our networks as we move throughout life. That desire for connections, that community, that sense of belonging, was clearly, clearly articulated in our postprogram surveys from the first year of the program.

    Q: Can we talk about how the program works logistically for people who might not be familiar and how it’s scaffolded?

    A: Our program is designed around the eight dimensions of wellness, and it is an online program. We built it in our learning management system so that it mirrors a lot of the other classes that an adult student is taking, whether they’re taking an online class or an in-person class that has the learning management system component to it. So they’re also getting access to the technology upskilling that we so often see in research about what adult learners want as they transition into college.

    They move through the eight modules, which are all rooted in the eight dimensions of wellness. The beauty of the program is it’s self-directed and self-paced, so it doesn’t necessarily build upon one another. We’ve had some adult learners who are like, “I really want to jump in and dive into module five and start talking about physical wellness, or module eight and talking about occupational wellness.” So they can do that, or they can sequentially go module by module.

    As a student completes each module, there is an incentive that was provided through the Urban Adult Learner Institute, [Wichita State] being the inaugural winners of an Accelerate Pitch Competition that funded a lot of these incentives. But one of the things that we learned in year one is that incentives are not a motivating factor for our adult learners. We know that adult learners are intrinsically motivated, and so a lot of times we had the extra incentives that they didn’t strive to pick up, but they were completing the modules.

    We’ve got campus partners who provide content for the modules. Our Shocker Career Accelerator office is providing content for the module about occupational wellness. And Shocker Financial Wellness staff are providing content for the module about financial wellness. So each module connects individuals to campus resources. It’s providing some actual content and then some reflective experience. The modules open Aug. 1 and they close in December.

    So students can move throughout that time however quickly they want, or maybe they just want to complete one module, whatever it may be. And then if they complete all eight modules, we’re able to provide an overall incentive with some merchandise from our Shocker store.

    Q: You mentioned it’s self-motivated, and students can really opt in to which sections speak to them. I think it’s interesting that you’ve all chosen to make this optional. It’s an orientation program, but it’s something that they can do throughout their first term. Can you talk a little bit about that decision? Because I think some people might say, “No, you have to make it mandatory and make this something that they must complete before they start classes, because we know that this will be good for them.” What’s that balance of ensuring students are getting this information but letting them do it at their own pace and timing?

    A: This program doesn’t replace our in-person or online adult learner orientation, but I think, as someone who spent 10 years as a new student orientation director before moving up, sometimes people say, “We can solve all the world’s problems just by adding five minutes in orientation.” And I like to say, “Sometimes orientation is like drinking from a fire hose,” there’s so much information. And it also doesn’t relate to three words: time, place and manner.

    When we think about orientation, we have to know, what do we share with individuals? When do we share it, and especially with our adult learners, as we dive into andragogy [adult learner pedagogy]? And what we know from Malcolm Knowles in 1985, when he developed the six tenets of andragogy, is adult learners need to know what they need to know when they need to know it.

    If we’re sharing resources about knowing your values and what’s your why, and we’re sharing that on June 13, when they’re on campus for adult learning orientation, is it really going to sink in and resonate with them versus in August or September, when they’re knee-deep in the semester? Or when we’re talking about intellectual wellness and we’re sharing all of the resources from our 13 different tutoring centers across campus—that may go in one ear and out the other ear in July when they’re here, but maybe they’re going to need it in week five or six, when they’re struggling with a certain class and trying to figure out “where do I go to get connected?”

    Our team wanted to keep it optional, much like that kind of aligns with all of our Shocker Preseason programs, because the Shocker Preseason programs never take the place of orientation. They’re an additional element in a student’s transition. But as we lean into some of those core elements of andragogy, we lean into the need to know, and we lean into the readiness to learn that students—adult learners, specifically—when they see a need, that’s when they’re going to be ready to learn. We wanted to provide that in an asynchronous format, but they can still come back to and access those resources throughout the duration of that critical first semester at WSU.

    Q: You’ve obviously rooted this program in pedagogy and the best understanding we have of adult learners, but I wonder how you’ve incorporated the student voice from this first season of the Shocker Preseason program and how you’re incorporating it into version two?

    A: As we dug into assessment feedback from version one, not only looking at completion rates by each module, we definitely know 86 percent of all students who registered [for the program] and did something completed social wellness. That’s great. Is that because of the concept, is that because it was the first module? We don’t necessarily know.

    As we look at the qualitative feedback, I think that’s been the most interesting thing. From the social wellness piece and students saying they appreciate it, but they want to know more about how to network. We think about the intellectual wellness model, and some of the feedback that we receive from that is … “Give us more information, we want all the additional apps, all the additional resources beyond basic technology. What are those apps or things that I need to do to succeed academically?” So we’re diving deep into that.

    One of the most interesting things that caught us off guard, in a good way, was that the most popular session by students [who provided qualitative feedback] was the spiritual wellness module, because it was really rooted in helping students articulate, “What is your why?” Whether you’re coming back to school because you’re a career changer, you’re switching career paths in life or you want to finish a degree because you want to climb higher into the occupation that you’re in, but then also, then connecting that why to their values and continuing to drive that forward as a motivation factor.

    Then I think we’re also taking some of the other elements of the areas and growth of opportunity. For example, when we think about occupational wellness and adult learners, we learned that we’re serving two very different groups within the adult learner piece: the career changers and the career climbers. And so we need to know, how do we go about approaching occupational wellness from both an individual who’s saying, “I’m going from industry to being a teacher at the age of 50” or “I need a degree to move up in this career path that I’ve been doing for quite some time”? So we have to almost take the differentiated care approach, if that makes sense, especially in that.

    Or financial wellness, that was probably one of the most, I wouldn’t say, polarizing, but one we need to think a little bit more about. We got great opportunity for growth feedback that said, “I’ve been doing finances for quite some time” and recognizing the experiences, but the piece of finances that many adult learners said is, “Can you help me figure out where can I find additional scholarships? Where can I find additional ways to pay for all of my educational expenses?” So we need to focus a little bit more on scholarship resources rather than just maybe the general how to budget, how to manage finances that we may think about … our 18- to 22-year-old population.

    Q: I think it’s interesting that the feedback you received, it seems to fall into a few categories, like, one, help me navigate the institution better, but two, help me navigate myself as a student better.

    It seems like they know how to be an adult, and they know how to manage their own budgets or engage with one another on a social level. But when it comes to that professional networking, or when it comes to understanding what tools they might need to be a learner, again, that’s the piece where they’re really asking for feedback. And I think that’s so unique to our adult learner population at large. It might be our 18-year-olds who need more help figuring themselves out as people, but our adult learners need help figuring themselves out as students.

    A: In version 2.0 we’re also trying to be much more intentional about providing some extended podcasts with campus partners. So someone who really wants to embrace the concept of social wellness and wants to engage in a podcast with our Student Engagement and Belonging Team or our Ulrich Museum of Art and really dive deep into those, we’re connecting this to various podcast episodes from our Shockers Learning Out Loud podcast series. It’s been around for quite some time. So how are we just connecting the pieces of the puzzle for students who want to deep dive a little bit more, recognizing that, once again, what we know about adult learners is they’re very problem-focused. And how can we provide those additional asynchronous resources for them to dive much deeper into the concept?

    Q: I mean, I think podcasts are the best format ever.

    When you talk to your peers in this space, because I know you’ve presented on this topic at conferences and really shared this with others who are working in similar roles, what are you hearing from them? What other ideas are you getting? Or what are some opportunities that you see for others to engage in this work as well?

    A: I think the biggest piece that I’ve heard from others is this whole notion of differentiated care, and how can campuses lean in and not just replicate a transition experience that they may have for an 18- to 22-year-old, but they’re recognizing the needs of our adult learners, and we’re centering some of those elements. Adult learners bring a lot of experiences, so how do we harness that? How do we name that? How do we give them the opportunity to own that space and bring that into whatever content we design, whether it’s from a well-being [or] from a career standpoint, bring that into that space and recognize that that looks different? You can’t just copy and paste. You can’t just lift what we’re doing from a first-year, first-time-in-college student and apply that, because that’s doing a major disservice.

    I think the other piece that I’m hearing from colleagues as we’re doing this is leveraging and leaning into making this a virtual space, because the lives of an adult learner look very different. You may be an adult learner that’s also a caregiver, and you may only have evenings to hop on and learn, or dive deep because you’re working full-time, trying to go to school full-time, maybe giving care to parents, to children, to partners, to spouses, etc. Or we’ve had some students who are adult learners who are working third shift. You may be available during the workday, but you may have just got off work at 8 a.m., so how are we leveraging technology in new ways? Because going back to that research, one of the biggest pieces that adult learners want in their transition and want from colleges universities is to help them upskill with the technology that they’re going to need to be successful.

    I think those two pieces of really leaning into the adult learner needs, leveraging technology and leaning into this notion of differentiated care is needed and is the easy way to start thinking about, how do I take something like this and apply it to the adult learners on my own campus?

    Q: As we think about the new age of college students or today’s learners, and how we’re seeing a larger population of adult learners, or more high school students are considering taking a break before going to college, I think this is going to be even more applicable, maybe for a 20-year-old who took a break and was working for a few years, and not just our traditional 25-, 35-year-old who’s coming back to school.

    A: Absolutely. I think there are elements of this that can be applied to many facets of today’s learner.

    Q: So what’s next for you all as you’re considering launching for the fall?

    A: We have been taking all the feedback in from version 1.0 [and] we’re redesigning some of our modules. We’re bringing in new campus partners, which I think has been super exciting.

    We’re leaning into this well-being concept, and we know health and well-being is important for all of today’s college learners. You can’t read any article, have a conversation at a conference or go to a meeting on your own campus where the concept of health and well-being of today’s college students is not at the forefront. I think as I’ve continued to share this data, we’ve gained lots of support from various entities across campus, especially those who really are approaching it from a health and well-being lens.

    But we’re just really excited as we launch version 2.0 and engage some of those completers of version 1.0 in various peer ambassador roles to support the next generation of ALCC participants.

    Q: Can you talk about how this program transitions into larger support on campus and making sure that students aren’t just getting these modules online, but that they’re translating it to in-person experiences or online experiences as it’s relevant?

    A: Our peer ambassadors, I think, are great representatives of the Office of Online and Adult Learning, and so they have been a great resource to connect individuals in their small groups to our associate director of student engagement in the Office of Online and Adult Learning or online and adult learning retention specialist who’s providing some additional follow-up pieces. So I think the peer ambassadors have been great representatives to connect the students who are going through this experience with the amazing support staff and the network of individuals through our Office of Online and Adult Learning and across campus who are here to help them be successful, because we want all of our adult learners to successfully complete their first year, that first milestone, and then ultimately graduate with their degree from WSU.

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

    Source link

  • How can students’ module feedback help prepare for success in NSS?

    How can students’ module feedback help prepare for success in NSS?

    Since the dawn of student feedback there’s been a debate about the link between module feedback and the National Student Survey (NSS).

    Some institutions have historically doubled down on the idea that there is a read-across from the module learning experience to the student experience as captured by NSS and treated one as a kind of “dress rehearsal” for the other by asking the NSS questions in module feedback surveys.

    This approach arguably has some merits in that it sears the NSS questions into students’ minds to the point that when they show up in the actual NSS it doesn’t make their brains explode. It also has the benefit of simplicity – there’s no institutional debate about what module feedback should include or who should have control of it. If there isn’t a deep bench of skills in survey design in an institution there could be a case for adopting NSS questions on the grounds they have been carefully developed and exhaustively tested with students. Some NSS questions have sufficient relevance in the module context to do the job, even if there isn’t much nuance there – a generic question about teaching quality or assessment might resonate at both levels, but it can’t tell you much about specific pedagogic innovations or challenges in a particular module.

    However, there are good reasons not to take this “dress rehearsal” approach. NSS endeavours to capture the breadth of the student experience at a very high level, not the specific module experience. It’s debatable whether module feedback should even be trying to measure “experience” – there are other possible approaches, such as focusing on learning gains, or skills development, especially if the goal is to generate actionable feedback data about specific module elements. For both students and academics seeing the same set of questions repeated ad nauseam is really rather boring, and is as likely to create disengagement and alienation from the “experience” construct NSS proposes than a comforting sense of familiarity and predictability.

    But separating out the two feedback mechanisms entirely doesn’t make total sense either. Though the totemic status of NSS has been tempered in recent years it remains strategically important as an annual temperature check, as a nationally comparable dataset, as an indicator of quality for the Teaching Excellence Framework and, unfortunately, as a driver of league table position. Securing consistently good NSS scores, alongside student continuation and employability, will feature in most institutions’ key performance indicators and, while vice chancellors and boards will frequently exercise their critical judgement about what the data is actually telling them, when it comes to the crunch no head of institution or board wants to see their institution slip.

    Module feedback, therefore, offers an important “lead indicator” that can help institutions maximise the likelihood that students have the kind of experience that will prompt them to give positive NSS feedback – indeed, the ability to continually respond and adapt in light of feedback can often be a condition of simply sustaining existing performance. But if simply replicating the NSS questions at module level is not the answer, how can these links best be drawn? Wonkhe and evasys recently convened an exploratory Chatham House discussion with senior managers and leaders from across the sector to gather a range of perspectives on this complex issue. While success in NSS remains part of the picture for assigning value and meaning to module feedback in particular institutional contexts there is a lot else going on as well.

    A question of purpose

    Module feedback can serve multiple purposes, and it’s an open question whether some of those purposes are considered to be legitimate for different institutions. To give some examples, module feedback can:

    • Offer institutional leaders an institution-wide “snapshot” of comparable data that can indicate where there is a need for external intervention to tackle emerging problems in a course, module or department.
    • Test and evaluate the impact of education enhancement initiatives at module, subject or even institution level, or capture progress with implementing systems, policies or strategies
    • Give professional service teams feedback on patterns of student engagement with and opinions on specific provision such as estates, IT, careers or library services
    • Give insight to module leaders about specific pedagogic and curriculum choices and how these were received by students to inform future module design
    • Give students the opportunity to reflect on their own learning journey and engagement
    • Generate evidence of teaching quality that academic staff can use to support promotion or inform fellowship applications
    • Depending on the timing, capture student sentiment and engagement and indicate where students may need additional support or whether something needs to be changed mid-module

    Needless to say, all of these purposes can be legitimate and worthwhile but not all of them can comfortably coexist. Leaders may prioritise comparability of data ie asking the same question across all modules to generate comparable data and generate priorities. Similarly, those operating across an institution may be keen to map patterns and capture differences across subjects – one example offered at the round table was whether students had met with their personal tutor. Such questions may be experienced at department or module level as intrusive and irrelevant to more immediately purposeful questions around students’ learning experience on the module. Module leaders may want to design their own student evaluation questions tailored to inform their pedagogic practice and future iterations of the module.

    There are also a lot of pragmatic and cultural considerations to navigate. Everyone is mindful that students get asked to feed back on their experiences A LOT – sometimes even before they have had much of a chance to actually have an experience. As students’ lives become more complicated, institutions are increasingly wary of the potential for cognitive overload that comes with being constantly asked for feedback. Additionally, institutions need to make their processes of gathering and acting on feedback visible to students so that students can see there is an impact to sharing their views – and will confirm this when asked in the NSS. Some institutions are even building questions that test whether students can see the feedback loop being closed into their student surveys.

    Similarly, there is also a strong appreciation of the need to adopt survey approaches that support and enable staff to take action and adapt their practice in response to feedback, affecting the design of the questions, the timing of the survey, how quickly staff can see the results and the degree to which data is presented in a way that is accessible and digestible. For some, trusting staff to evaluate their modules in the way they see fit is a key tenet of recognising their professionalism and competence – but there is a trade-off in terms of visibility of data institution-wide or even at department or subject level.

    Frameworks and ecosystems

    There are some examples in the sector of mature approaches to linking module evaluation data to NSS – it is possible to take a data-led approach that tests the correlation between particular module evaluation question responses and corresponding NSS question outcomes within particular thematic areas or categories, and builds a data model that proposes informed hypotheses about areas of priority for development or approaches that are most likely to drive NSS improvement. This approach does require strong data analysis capability, which not every institution has access to, but it certainly warrants further exploration where the skills are there. The use of a survey platform like evasys allows for the creation of large module evaluation datasets that could be mapped on to NSS results through business intelligence tools to look for trends and correlations that could indicate areas for further investigation.

    Others take the view that maximising NSS performance is something of a red herring as a goal in and of itself – if the wider student feedback system is working well, then the result should be solid NSS performance, assuming that NSS is basically measuring the right things at a high level. Some go even further and express concern that over-focus on NSS as an indicator of quality can be to the detriment of designing more authentic student voice ecosystems.

    But while thinking in terms of the whole system is clearly going to be more effective than a fragmented approach, given the various considerations and trade-offs discussed it is genuinely challenging for institutions to design such effective ecosystems. There is no “right way” to do it but there is an appetite to move module feedback beyond the simple assessment of what students like or don’t like, or the checking of straightforward hygiene factors, to become a meaningful tool for quality enhancement and pedagogic innovation. There is a sense that rather than drawing direct links between module feedback and NSS outcomes, institutions would value a framework-style approach that is able to accommodate the multiple actors and forms of value that are realised through student voice and feedback systems.

    In the coming academic year Wonkhe and evasys are planning to work with institutional partners on co-developing a framework or toolkit to integrate module feedback systems into wider student success and academic quality strategies – contact us to express interest in being involved.

    This article is published in association with evasys.

    Source link

  • Setting learners up for success in the global workforce

    Setting learners up for success in the global workforce

    • By Sidharth Oberoi, VP of Global Strategy at Instructure.

    Imagine a world where anyone who wants to work in a different city or country can simply share all their skills and learning achievements – including those obtained through formal and informal settings – in a unified, digital format with a prospective employer. Imagine employers having an easy way to verify a candidate’s diverse skills and clearly being able to identify the applicable competencies across international boundaries.

    For anyone who has ever tried to work abroad and navigated all the paperwork and certification processes, this could sound like a very futuristic idea. However, this is precisely what digital learning portfolios are making possible – fostering student mobility and facilitating cross-institutional collaboration among universities worldwide to dynamise the global workforce.

    A digital learning portfolio is an online collection of a student’s verified skills, qualifications and learning experiences, often captured across various formal and informal settings. By functioning as a form of digital credentialling, this portfolio allows students to document and present their learning achievements in a unified, digital format. Students can seamlessly showcase a combination of academic degrees, microcredentials, short courses and experiential learning, giving domestic or international prospective employers a more comprehensive view of their capabilities.

    As more educational institutions look to expand their international reach, digital credentials present a transformational opportunity to track learning experiences and position students more competitively in the global job markets. With a structured, verifiable digital portfolio, students can demonstrate their formal and informal learning experiences in real time and highlight an array of microcredentials, skills and qualifications.

    Enabling cross-institution collaboration

    Global collaboration in higher education is growing steadily, marking a crucial step for universities – even as countries like the UK, Canada, and Australia impose tighter restrictions on international students. This trend highlights the increasing importance of cross-border partnerships in advancing research, innovation, and academic excellence.

    Students continue to seek study-abroad opportunities and universities are increasingly partnering across borders to offer joint programmes and exchange initiatives. This has been highlighted in Europe with programmes like the European Universities Initiative. However, differing approaches to credentialling can often pose challenges. These challenges are further compounded by the fact that some institutions still rely on traditional methods—such as print and paper—to manage and distribute official transcripts and certificates. This not only slows down the process but also hinders the seamless exchange of academic records across borders.

    Digital credentials and badges can help address these issues by offering a consistent and verifiable way for students to record their achievements. This consistency simplifies joint programmes, exchange students and curriculum alignment across countries. With a universal standard, students can more easily navigate international educational pathways and access opportunities that may have been limited by varying credentialing systems.

    For institutions, investing in technology to leverage digital credentials and badges will streamline the process of building and strengthening global partnerships. They can provide a reliable way to attract international students, create robust pathways to global learning opportunities and ensure smooth credit transfers between institutions in different countries. This can significantly prevent credential fraud and enhance an institution’s global appeal, as students can trust that their academic achievements and skills will be recognised no matter where they go.

    Transforming the global workforce

    Today’s employers are gradually favouring skills over traditional degrees and looking for agility and flexibility in their hiring processes. Digital credentialling supports a skills-driven hiring process that’s more responsive to the needs of a global, fast-evolving workforce.

    Digital credentials and badges will become essential for documenting and validating shorter, targeted learning experiences such as microcredentials, apprenticeships and other skill-focused learning experiences that may not necessarily fit within traditional degree frameworks. This transparency helps employers better assess candidates based on relevant, demonstrated competencies.

    Supporting global workforce readiness

    One of the key benefits of digital credentials is their ability to support lifelong career mobility. As people change roles, industries, and even countries throughout their careers, having the opportunity to access 24/7 digital credentials will provide them with an adaptable, portable record of qualifications. This flexibility empowers students to carry their skills and experiences with them, regardless of where their careers take them.

    For these students, a digital portfolio that evolves with them throughout their lives opens doors to greater global mobility and ensures that achievements from one part of the world are recognised and respected in another, strengthening graduates’ ability to apply to job opportunities abroad, or pursue additional international degrees, short courses or microcredentials and thrive in diverse job markets.

    While AI is reshaping industries by automating routine tasks, leading to the evolution of existing roles and the creation of new ones, higher education institutions must focus on the importance of lifelong learning, as continuous skill development becomes essential in an AI-driven economy.

    More than ever, universities need to invest in modern cloud-based virtual learning environments that can support and scale a lifelong learning strategy, including microcredentials and digital credentials. By offering students the tools to maintain dynamic portfolios throughout their careers, institutions can better prepare graduates to succeed in an interconnected and global workforce and stay relevant.

    Lifelong recognition

    Education is no longer confined to traditional phases of life; it’s a continual journey of growth and adaptation. By enabling seamless transitions between learning opportunities and career stages, universities can empower individuals to thrive in a world where constant upskilling is essential, and skill recognition should go beyond the boundaries of traditional learning.

    In today’s interconnected world, digital credentials and learning portfolios provide a structured way to document and share skills, supporting both students’ career ambitions and employers’ workforce needs across the globe. Institutions and employers must collaborate to integrate digital credentials into the skills journey, ensuring a seamless link between education and workforce readiness to dynamically prepare students for a global economy, paving the way for a more adaptable, skilled and mobile workforce.

    Source link

  • Beyond Rankings: Redefining University Success in the AI-Era

    Beyond Rankings: Redefining University Success in the AI-Era

    • By Somayeh Aghnia, Co-Founder and Chair of the Board of Governors at the London School of Innovation.

    University rankings have long been a trusted, if controversial, proxy for quality. Students use them to decide where to study. Policymakers use them to shape funding. Universities use them to benchmark themselves against competitors. But in an AI-powered world, are these rankings still measuring what matters?

    If we’ve learned anything from the world of business over the last decade, it’s this: measuring the wrong things can lead even the most successful organisations astray. The tech industry, in particular, has seen numerous examples of companies optimising for vanity metrics (likes, downloads, growth at all costs) only to realise too late that these metrics didn’t align with real value creation.

    The metrics we choose to measure today will shape the universities we get tomorrow.

    The Problem with Today’s Rankings

    Current university ranking systems, whether national or global, tend to rely on a familiar set of indicators:

    • Research volume and citations
    • Academic and employer reputation surveys
    • Faculty-student ratios
    • International staff and student presence
    • Graduate salary data
    • Student satisfaction and completion rates

    While these factors offer a snapshot of institutional performance, they often fail to reflect the complex reality of the world. A university may rise in the rankings even as it fails to respond to student needs, workforce realities, or societal challenges.

    For example, graduate salary data may tell us something about economic outcomes, but very little about the long-term adaptability or purpose-driven success of those graduates or their impact on improving society. Research citations measure academic influence, but not whether the research is solving real-world problems. Reputation surveys tend to reward legacy and visibility, not innovation or inclusivity.

    In short, they anchor universities to a model optimised for the industrial era, not the intelligence era.

    Ready for the AI paradigm?

    Artificial Intelligence is a paradigm shift that is changing what we value in all aspects of life including education, especially higher education, how we define learning, what we want as an outcome, and how we measure success.

    In a world where knowledge is increasingly accessible, and where intelligent systems can generate information, summarise research, and tutor students, the role of a university shifts from delivering knowledge or developing skills to curating learning experiences focusing on developing humans’ adaptability, and preparing students, and society, for uncertainty.

    This means the university of the future must focus less on scale, tradition, and prestige, and more on relevance, adaptability, and ethical leadership. These are harder to measure, but far more important.
    This demands a new value system. And with that, a new approach to how we assess institutional success.

    What Should We Be Measuring?

    As we rethink what universities are for, we must also rethink how we assess their impact. Inspired by the “measure what matters” philosophy from business strategy, we need new metrics that reflect AI-era priorities. These could include:

    1. Adaptability: How quickly and responsibly does an institution respond to societal, technological, and labour market shifts? This could be measured by:

    • Curriculum renewal cycle: Time between major curriculum updates in response to new tech or societal trends.
    • New programme launches: Number and relevance of AI-, climate-, or digital economy-related courses introduced in the last 3 years.
    • Agility audits: Internal audits of response times to regulatory or industry change (e.g., how quickly AI ethics is integrated into professional courses).
    • Employer co-designed modules: % of programmes co-developed with industry or public sector partners.

    2. Student agency: Are students empowered to shape their own learning paths, engage with interdisciplinary challenges, and co-create knowledge?  This could be measured by:

    • Interdisciplinary enrolment: % of students engaged in flexible, cross-departmental study pathways.
    • Student-designed modules/projects: Number of modules that allow student-led curriculum or research projects.
    • Participation in governance: % of students involved in academic boards, curriculum design panels, or innovation hubs.
    • Satisfaction with personalisation: Student survey responses (e.g., NSS, internal pulse surveys) on flexibility and autonomy in learning.

    3. AI and digital literacy: To what extent are institutions preparing their staff and their graduates for a world where AI is embedded in every profession? This could be measured by:

    • Curriculum integration: % of degree programmes with AI/digital fluency embedded as a learning outcome.
    • Staff development: Hours or participation rates in AI-focused CPD for academic and support staff.
    • AI usage in teaching and assessment: Extent of AI-enabled platforms, feedback systems, or tutors in active use.
    • Graduate outcomes: Employer feedback or destination data reflecting readiness for digital-first/AI-ready roles.

    4. Contribution to local and global challenges: Are research efforts aligned with pressing societal needs amplified with advancements of AI such as social justice, or the AI divide? This could be measured by:

    • UN SDG alignment: % of research/publications mapped to UN Sustainable Development Goals.
    • AI-for-good projects: Number of AI projects tackling societal or environmental issues.
    • Community partnerships: Active partnerships with local authorities, civic groups, or NGOs on social challenges.
    • Policy influence: Instances where university research or expertise shapes public policy (e.g. citations in white papers or select committees).

    5. Wellbeing and belonging: How well are staff and students supported to thrive, not just perform, within the institution? This could be measured by:

    • Staff/student wellbeing index: Use of validated tools like the WEMWBS (Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale) in internal surveys.
    • Use of support services: Uptake and satisfaction rates for mental health, EDI, and financial support services.
    • Sense of belonging scores: Survey data on inclusion, psychological safety, and campus climate.
    • Staff retention and engagement: Turnover data, satisfaction from staff pulse surveys, or exit interviews.

    These are not soft metrics. They are foundational indicators of whether a university is truly fit for purpose in a volatile and AI-transformed world. You could call this a “University Fitness for Future Index”, a system that doesn’t rank but reveals how well an institution is evolving, and as a result its academics, staff and students are adapting to a rapidly changing world.

    From Status to Substance

    Universities must now face the uncomfortable but necessary task of redefining their identity and purpose. Those who focus solely on preserving status will struggle. Those who embrace the opportunity to lead with substance – authenticity, impact, innovation – have a chance to thrive.

    AI will not wait for the sector to catch up. Students, staff, employers, and communities are already asking deeper questions: Does this university prepare me for an unpredictable future? Does it care about the society I will enter after graduation? Is it equipping us to lead with courage and ethics in an AI-powered world?

    These are the questions that matter. And increasingly, they should be the ones that will shape how institutions are evaluated, regardless of their position in the league tables.

    It’s time we evolve our frameworks to reflect what really counts, that increasingly will be defined by usefulness, purpose, and trust.

    A Call for Courage

    We are not simply in an era of change. We are in a change of era.

    If we are serious about preparing our learners, and our society, for a world defined by intelligent systems, we must also be serious about redesigning the system that educates them.

    That means shifting from prestige to purpose. From competition to contribution. From reputation to relevance.

    Because the institutions that will lead the future are not necessarily those that top today’s rankings.

    They are the ones willing to ask: what truly matters now and are we brave enough to measure it?

    Source link

  • It’s up to universities to make the industrial strategy a success

    It’s up to universities to make the industrial strategy a success

    The industrial strategy is not only an economic document it is also a roadmap for how the country will be governed.

    At its heart is a simple premise. Places know what is best for people locally and power should be devolved to them. Not all powers, because some things like defence have to be coordinated at a national level, and certainly not lots of fiscal policy like taxation, but powers over things like spatial planning (where the government allows it), investment, and some parts of the R&D ecosystem.

    The ideal body for distributing these powers is the Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA). These are the collection of councils in one area, usually a city, that work together to achieve more than they could alone. The Liverpool City Region Combined Authority and the West Midlands Combined Authority are just two examples

    Process not an event

    In 1997 then Secretary of State for Wales Rob Davies called devolution “a process not an event”, and he was right. Powers are not spread evenly through the UK, London has quite a lot and a local town council has very few. And the propensity for government to operate through pots of money that local government bid for to do stuff is unusual by international comparisons. This level of financial control limits many places to being the delivery arm of government more so than independent decision makers in their own right.

    This patchwork approach also means higher education providers have a mixed relationship with the devolution story.

    Solely through an academic lens research intensive universities have done well out of (even if they do not like it) how centralised the UK is. The REF just isn’t interested in geography. It follows quality, impact, and environments wherever they may be. Previous research pots like the Regional Innovation Fund which apply a funding multiplier to places underserved by research funding are the exception not the norm.

    The industrial strategy is different in that it at least attempts some kinds of rebalancing in acknowledging that if the government funds the same things in the same places the same kinds of research outputs will be produced. The fact there is some money behind it is even better. As DK noted in his review of research in the industrial strategy:

    The £500m Local Innovation Partnerships Fund is intended to generate a further £1bn of additional investment and £700m of value to local economies, and there are wider plans to get academia and industry working together: a massive expansion in supercomputer resources (the AI research resource, inevitably) and a new Missions Accelerator programme supported by £500m of funding. And there’s the Sovereign AI Unit within government (that’s another £500m of industry investments) in “frontier AI”. On direct university allocation we get the welcome news that the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) is here to stay.

    The places that are located outside of major cities without large research portfolios have more reason to be sceptical about devolution. Deputy prime minister Angela Rayner has called for local leaders to “fill in the map” of devolution but this is easier said than done. Places have distinct histories, geographies, and can’t as easily be accommodated into MCAs as places like Greater Manchester.

    While there has been interest in towns from time to time, the Towns Fund provided some funding to some places on some research projects, they risk being left behind within a devolution system that prioritises larger conurbations.

    The universities problem

    Let’s take the government’s proposals at face value and assume it is going to implement the full version of the devolution agenda it is proposing. This would mean local government has more funding to buy land, freeports and investment zones will be streamlined to provide even more business incentives, the British Business Bank (among other funders) will release and coordinate capital aligned to regions and the eight industrial strategy priorities, a further £200m will be spent on further education in England, and a series of growth funds will run directly through mayors.There are more announcements to come on skills, local economic regulation and infrastructure.

    Universities are not losers in any of these measures but nor are they inevitably complementary to everything the governments wants to do. Former universities minister David Willetts, who had some reservations about the draft strategy, has softened his tone writing:

    Most of the key industries set out in that visual [the one explaining the industrial strategy priorities] are heavy users of higher education. Universities will play a crucial role in the strategy. One of the biggest risks to delivering it is the financial fragility of these core institutions. It is good to see them getting a vivid illustration as well – on page 73. But the Government has not yet taken the decisions needed to ensure they can thrive and continue to be such a national asset.

    This is the core problem. It is possible to imagine how industries may rely on universities but it is more difficult work out how universities, specifically, can deploy their capacity in the most effective ways. Universities cannot expect government money for everything they do but it is also true that if they fall over the industrial strategy will fall with them.

    Philosophically, the industrial strategy neither supports enormous state intervention nor is it a hands off document of supply-side reform. It sees the state as an enabling force which can reduce risks to business, catalyse investment, and reconfigure the public sector. The industrial strategy does not tell universities what to do, or even what they might do in great detail, because that is not what it is designed to do. It gives an approach and it is for universities to choose whether and how they follow it.

    Adapt or perish

    This suggests a significant period of adaptation for universities. If more investment and political attention is flowing through their places then being involved in their places becomes significantly more important. Fundamentally, the industrial strategy is not an instruction manual but it is a guide to the things that the government will and will not fund.

    There are lots of devolved things that universities would generally find unpalatable like top-slicing QR funds to MCAs. There are lots of things that universities could do and are doing to set an example which might one day be backed up by legislation. Organising regional bodies to coordinate the provision of education to meet local labour market needs. Forming joint research programmes and investment vehicles to form one front door for research in their area. Using their own research capacity to interrogate the best forms of devolution and devolved structures. And, perhaps most importantly, being embedded in the important but unglamorous business of transport and spatial planning.

    The bigger mental shift is that the industrial strategy has two core centres of control. Its eight priority industries and regions and clusters within them. The challenge for universities, if they want to see sustained government support for their work, is to answer how what they do supports those two agendas. This is not a PR exercise but a careful interrogation of the limits and approaches of universities in their places and within those core industries.

    In some places this might mean tweaking existing work, in others it might mean new partners or new projects, and in some it might mean a more fundamental reimagining of the shape of the education sector in a region. Given the perilous state of university finances it is the institutions that look like they have solutions that will do well in the era of uncertainty.

    The industrial strategy does not leave universities behind, but it might. The opportunity is for universities to shape the settlement they want through being proactive in shaping their regions. This is not about another civic strategy but about creating the governance apparatus to support economic growth. Anything short of this risks an economic agenda which is done to universities rather than with them.

    Source link

  • First-Year Registration Barriers Impact Student Success

    First-Year Registration Barriers Impact Student Success

    An estimated 57 percent of college students cannot complete their degree on time because their institution does not offer required courses during days and times—or in a format, such as online—that meet their needs, according to data from Ad Astra.

    A recently published study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that female students are more likely than their male peers to be shut out of a college course, which can have long-term implications for their success and outcomes.

    The findings point to the role course shutouts can play in students’ major and career choices, with those unable to enroll in science, engineering, math or technology courses in their first term less likely to attempt a STEM course at any point during college.

    The background: A common way for colleges to navigate budget cuts is to reduce course offerings or academic majors. But that can increase the number of students who are unable to enroll in, or find themselves shut out of, courses they want to take. Students at community colleges in particular are less likely to remain enrolled if they face a shutout, choosing instead to take zero credits that term or to transfer.

    Federal funding cuts by the Trump administration have ramped up some institutions’ existing budget woes, requiring them to reduce program offerings. Some groups have advocated for minimizing costs via course sharing, which allows students to meet requirements and earn credits for their home institution while enrolling in a shared online course.

    Methodology: The research, authored by faculty from Purdue and Brigham Young Universities, analyzed registration processes at Purdue in fall 2018, when first-year students were enrolled using a batch algorithm. Researchers considered a student shut out of a course in their first year if their primary request was not met or the student enrolled in a different, secondary course instead.

    The data: Among the 7,646 first-year students studied, only 49 percent received their preferred schedule, meaning 51 percent were shut out from at least one of their top six requested courses. Eight percent of shutouts made it into their course eventually, according to the report.

    Of the 241 courses that were oversubscribed, required English and communications courses were most likely to shut students out; the other overbooked courses represented a variety of subject areas.

    The effects of a student not taking a preferred course in the first term were seen throughout their academic career. First-year students who were initially shut out from a course were 35 percentage points less likely to complete the course while enrolled and 25 percentage points less likely to ever enroll in a course in the same subject.

    While a student’s first-term GPA was not impacted by the shutout, by senior year, students had a GPA two hundredths of a point lower compared to their peers who enrolled in their preferred classes. The study also found that each course shutout led to a 3 percent decrease in the probability of a student graduating within four years, which is economically meaningful but statistically insignificant.

    Registration barriers also made it less likely that students would choose STEM majors, which researchers theorize could be due to a lack of substitution options to meet major prerequisites. Each shutout a student faced in a STEM course decreased the probability that a student majored in STEM by 20 percent.

    The impact was especially striking for female students. For each course a female student was unable to enroll in during her first year, her first-semester credits dropped by 0.4, cumulative GPA by 0.05 and the probability of her majoring in a STEM field by 2.9 percentage points. The long-term effects extended into life after college: A shutout female student’s probability of graduating within four years dropped 7.5 percent and had an expected cost of approximately $1,500 in forgone wages and $800 in tuition and housing costs.

    “In contrast, for male students, shutouts do not have a significant effect on credits earned, cumulative GPA, choosing a STEM major or on-time graduation,” researchers wrote.

    Male students who didn’t get into their top-choice courses first semester were more likely to switch to a major in the business school and have a higher starting salary as well. “At this university, men are 19 percent more likely than women to major in business and this entire gender gap can be explained by course shutouts,” researchers wrote.

    Researchers therefore believe finding ways to reduce course shutouts, particularly in STEM courses, can improve outcomes for women and others to widen the path to high-return majors.

    Do you have an academic intervention that might help others improve student success? Tell us about it.

    Source link

  • Embracing Credit Mobility for Student Success

    Embracing Credit Mobility for Student Success

    Let me tell you about Andrew, a motivated student who graduated high school early with impressive dual-enrollment credits. After attending a private college for a year and taking some time to work, he rekindled his educational ambitions at a community college. With approximately 30 credits remaining for his bachelor’s degree, he applied to an R-1 university, ready to complete his journey.

    What should have been a seamless transition became an unexpected challenge. Despite submitting his transfer work in October and regularly checking in with his adviser, Andrew discovered in January—after classes had already begun—that he faced “at least three years of coursework” rather than the anticipated single year to graduation.

    This isn’t a rare occurrence or some administrative anomaly. Rather, it is the norm for individuals who aren’t pursuing a four-year degree on the traditional timeline. Higher education talks endlessly about completion and student success while maintaining systems and policies that actively undermine these goals.

    Andrew’s story represents a critical opportunity for higher education. While his family successfully advocated for a refund and found another institution that better recognized his prior learning, his experience highlights a fundamental challenge we must address collectively.

    The Scale of the Challenge

    We have 42 million Americans with some college credit but no degree. We have 200,000 military personnel transitioning to civilian life annually. We have an economy desperately needing upskilled workers. Yet higher education’s response to credit mobility remains anchored in outdated policies and processes that fail to serve today’s students, institutions or workforce needs.

    Many institutions have made meaningful progress in supporting diverse student needs through childcare services, flexible scheduling and online options. These are important steps. Now we must extend this same commitment to the academic evaluation processes that directly impact students’ time to degree and financial investment.

    The Disconnect

    Transfer articulation agreements—where they have been struck—have created valuable pathways, but their implementation often lacks the consistency and transparency students deserve. When agreements include qualifying language without firm commitments, students can’t effectively plan their educational journeys or make informed financial decisions.

    The contradiction is striking: We express concern about student debt and extended time to degree, questioning why students take 150 credits when they only need 120 to graduate. Meanwhile, our credit evaluation processes remain opaque, slow and often costly.

    The current reality—where students frequently must apply, pay deposits or even enroll before understanding how their previous academic work will be valued—creates unnecessary barriers. We can do better—and, frankly, must. It’s like buying a car and finding out the price after you’ve signed the paperwork. In what other industry would this be acceptable?

    The Opportunity

    Consider the possibilities if we fully embraced credit mobility as a cornerstone of student success:

    • Students could make informed decisions about their educational pathways before committing financially.
    • Institutions could demonstrate their commitment to affordability by recognizing prior learning.
    • Graduation rates would improve as students avoid unnecessary course repetition.
    • The workforce would benefit from skilled professionals entering more quickly.

    Addressing the Objections

    The objections to credit mobility typically fall into three categories:

    1. Faculty workload: Faculty are being asked to do more, and evaluating credits for prospective students can feel like an unnecessary burden. But what if more students could see that their learning had value, that their degree was within reach, that they didn’t have to retake classes they’ve already mastered? This shift in perspective could transform the evaluation process from a burden to an opportunity.
    2. Lost revenue: The focus on enrollments often overshadows the reality that only 50 percent of students who start college actually finish within six years. What if our goal was to expand opportunities so more students could complete their degrees? What if students were taking classes that genuinely added to their experience and built their confidence rather than repeating content they’ve already learned?
    3. Quality concerns: Quality is often cited as justification for delayed evaluation. In reality, transparent evaluation supports faculty’s desire to maintain academic standards. Clear processes allow for informed decisions and data collection that ensures the focus remains on student outcomes.

    The AI Opportunity

    The emergence of artificial intelligence presents a tremendous opportunity to enhance our credit-evaluation processes—addressing issues of time and cost while creating transparency for data analysis. A new study just released by AACRAO on the role of AI in credit mobility makes a compelling case as to why the technology could help unlock new ways of working. We can harness technology as a powerful tool to support faculty decision-making and administrative resource allocations. AI could:

    • Identify potential course equivalencies based on learning outcomes.
    • Highlight relevant information in transfer documentation.
    • Streamline evaluation processes, allowing human experts to focus on complex cases.
    • Provide leadership with insights into where credit mobility is operating effectively.
    • Identify areas needing additional resources or training.

    With proper implementation and training, AI can become a tool to achieve our goals of access and completion at scale—reducing both the cost and timeline to graduation.

    The Path Forward

    If we truly believe in access and completion, then credit mobility must become a shared priority across higher education. This means:

    • Making course information, learning outcomes and sample syllabi readily accessible.
    • Expanding recognition of diverse learning experiences, including microcredentials, corporate training, internships and apprenticeships.
    • Establishing and honoring clear timelines for credit evaluation.
    • Eliminating financial barriers to credit assessment.
    • Providing updated articulation and equivalency tables in easy-to-find locations on admissions websites.

    Andrew’s experience should be the exception, not the rule. Colleges and universities that embrace this challenge will not only better serve their students but will also position themselves for long-term sustainability in an increasingly competitive landscape. Those that resist change risk becoming irrelevant to the very students they aim to serve and perpetuating the cost and time-to-completion conundrum.

    The Call to Action

    The question before us isn’t whether credit mobility matters—it’s whether we have the collective will to make it a reality at scale, not just at a handful of institutions, but across systems and all institutions. We must recognize that our students are learning in new ways, on new timelines, and bringing knowledge that evolves faster than our curriculum. Our students deserve nothing less than our full commitment to recognizing their learning, regardless of where it occurred.

    So I’ll ask: How committed are you to credit mobility at scale? Your answer says everything about how seriously you take college completion.

    Jesse Boeding is the co-founder of Education Assessment System, an AI-powered platform mapping transfer, microcredentials and prior learning to an institution’s curriculum to enable decision-making and resourcing.

    Source link

  • NYU’s student success team talks AI – Campus Review

    NYU’s student success team talks AI – Campus Review

    John Burdick, Marni Passer Vassallo and Holly Halmo lead the New York University student success team.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Data Shows Attendance Improves Student Success

    Data Shows Attendance Improves Student Success

    Prior research shows attendance is one of the best predictors of class grades and student outcomes, creating a strong argument for faculty to incentivize or require attendance.

    Attaching grades to attendance, however, can create its own challenges, because many students generally want more flexibility in their schedules and think they should be assessed on what they learn—not how often they show up. A student columnist at the University of Washington expressed frustration at receiving a 20 percent weighted participation grade, which the professor graded based on exit tickets students submitted at the end of class.

    “Our grades should be based on our understanding of the material, not whether or not we were in the room,” Sophie Sanjani wrote in The Daily, UW’s student paper.

    Keenan Hartert, a biology professor at Minnesota State University, Mankato, set out to understand the factors affecting students’ performance in his own course and found that attendance was one of the strongest predictors of their success.

    His finding wasn’t an aha moment, but reaffirmed his position that attendance is an early indicator of GPA and class community building. The challenge, he said, is how to apply such principles to an increasingly diverse student body, many of whom juggle work, caregiving responsibilities and their own personal struggles.

    “We definitely have different students than the ones I went to school with,” Hartert said. “We do try to be the most flexible, because we have a lot of students that have a lot of other things going on that they can’t tell us. We want to be there for them.”

    Who’s missing class? It’s not uncommon for a student to miss class for illness or an outside conflict, but higher rates of absence among college students in recent years are giving professors pause.

    An analysis of 1.1 million students across 22 major research institutions found that the number of hours students have spent attending class, discussion sections and labs declined dramatically from the 2018–19 academic year to 2022–23, according to the Student Experience in the Research University (SERU) Consortium.

    More than 30 percent of students who attended community college in person skipped class sometimes in the past year, a 2023 study found; 4 percent said they skipped class often or very often.

    Students say they opt out of class for a variety of reasons, including lack of motivation, competing priorities and external challenges. A professor at Colorado State University surveyed 175 of his students in 2023 and found that 37 percent said they regularly did not attend class because of physical illness, mental health concerns, a lack of interest or engagement, or simply because it wasn’t a requirement.

    A 2024 survey from Trellis Strategies found that 15 percent of students missed class sometimes due to a lack of reliable transportation. Among working students, one in four said they regularly missed class due to conflicts with their work schedule.

    High rates of anxiety and depression among college students may also impact their attendance. More than half of 817 students surveyed by Harmony Healthcare IT in 2024 said they’d skipped class due to mental health struggles; one-third of respondents indicated they’d failed a test because of negative mental health.

    A case study: MSU Mankato’s Hartert collected data on about 250 students who enrolled in his 200-level genetics course over several semesters.

    Using an end-of-term survey, class activities and his own grade book information, Hartert collected data measuring student stress, hours slept, hours worked, number of office hours attended, class attendance and quiz grades, among other metrics.

    Mapping out the various factors, Hartert’s case study modeled other findings in student success literature: a high number of hours worked correlated negatively with the student’s course grade, while attendance in class and at review sessions correlated positively with academic outcomes.

    Data analysis by Keenan Hartert, a biology professor at Minnesota State University, Mankato, found student employment negatively correlated with their overall class grade.

    Keenan Hartert

    The data also revealed to Hartert some of the challenges students face while enrolled. “It was brutal to see how many students [were working full-time]. Just seeing how many were [working] over 20 [hours] and how many were over 30 or 40, it was different.”

    Nationally, two-thirds of college students work for pay while enrolled, and 43 percent of employed students work full-time, according to fall 2024 data from Trellis Strategies.

    Hartert also asked students if they had any financial resources to support them in case of emergency; 28 percent said they had no fallback. Of those students, 90 percent were working more than 20 hours per week.

    Four pie charts show how working students often lack financial support and how working more hours is connected to passing or failing a course.

    Data analysis of student surveys show students who are working are less likely to have financial resources to support them in an emergency.

    The findings illustrated to him the challenges many students face in managing their job shifts while trying to meet attendance requirements.

    A Faculty Aside

    While some faculty may be less interested in using predictive analytics for their own classes, Hartert found tracking factors like how often a student attends office hours was beneficial to helping him achieve his own career goals, because he could include those measurements in his tenure review.

    An interpersonal dynamic: A less measured factor in the attendance debate is not a student’s own learning, but the classroom environment they contribute to. Hartert framed it as students motivating their peers unknowingly. “The people that you may not know that sit around you and see you, if you’re gone, they may think, ‘Well, they gave up, why should I keep trying?’ Even if they’ve never spoken to you.”

    One professor at the University of Oregon found that peer engagement positively correlated with academic outcomes. Raghuveer Parthasarathy restructured his general education physics course to promote engagement by creating an “active zone,” or a designated seating area in the classroom where students sat if they wanted to participate in class discussions and other active learning conversations.

    Compared to other sections of the course, the class was more engaged across the board, even among those who didn’t opt to sit in the participation zone. Additionally, students who sat in the active zone were more likely to earn higher grades on exams and in the course over all.

    Attending class can also create connections between students and professors, something students say they want and expect.

    A May 2024 student survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that 35 percent of respondents think their academic success would be most improved by professors getting to know them better. In a separate question, 55 percent of respondents said they think professors are at least partly responsible for becoming a mentor.

    The SERU Consortium found student respondents in 2023 were less likely to say a professor knew or had learned their name compared to their peers in 2013. Students were also less confident that they knew a professor well enough to ask for a letter of recommendation for a job or graduate school.

    “You have to show up to class then, so I know who you are,” Hartert said.

    Meeting in the middle: To encourage attendance, Hartert employs active learning methods such as creative writing or case studies, which help demonstrate the value of class participation. His favorite is a jury scenario, in which students put their medical expertise into practice with criminal cases. “I really try and get them in some gray-area stuff and remind them, just because it’s a big textbook doesn’t mean that you can’t have some creative, fun ideas,” Hartert said.

    For those who can’t make it, all of Hartert’s lectures are recorded and available online to watch later. Recording lectures, he said, “was a really hard bridge to cross, post-COVID. I was like, ‘Nobody’s going to show up.’ But every time I looked at the data [for] who was looking at the recording, it’s all my top students.” That was reason enough for him to leave the recordings available as additional practice and resources.

    Students who can’t make an in-person class session can receive attendance credit by sending Hartert their notes and answers to any questions asked live during the class, proving they watched the recording.

    Hartert has also made adjustments to how he uses class time to create more avenues for working students to engage. His genetics course includes a three-hour lab section, which rarely lasts the full time, Hartert said. Now, the final hour of the lab is a dedicated review session facilitated by peer leaders, who use practice questions Hartert designed. Initial data shows working students who stayed for the review section of labs were more likely to perform better on their exams.

    “The good news is when it works out, like when we can make some adjustments, then we can figure our way through,” Hartert said. “But the reality of life is that time marches on and things happen, and you gotta choose a couple priorities.”

    Do you have an academic intervention that might help others improve student success? Tell us about it.

    Source link

  • Redefining Academic Success: Why Career Progression Must Look Beyond Research

    Redefining Academic Success: Why Career Progression Must Look Beyond Research

    • By Professor Isabel Lucas, Pro-Vice Chancellor for Education at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and outgoing Chair of the national Heads of Educational Development Group (HEDG).

    In higher education, prestige and promotion have long hinged on research output. But with growing numbers of academics focused on teaching, educational leadership and knowledge exchange, the old metrics no longer fit. A report by the European Association for Universities places academic career reform at the heart of its 2030 vision, highlighting the need to recognise impact beyond traditional research publications. This shift is not only about fairness – it’s about organisational effectiveness and employee wellbeing.

    Research has long dominated academic prestige, promotions, and funding. Sterling et al. (2023) argue that current academic career frameworks are weighted heavily toward research, often sidelining innovative teaching and educational leadership. Yet, as the higher education sector evolves, so too must our understanding of what counts as impactful academic work.

    The reality is already shifting. Data from HESA (2022) shows a 10% rise in teaching-only contracts between 2015 and 2022, balanced by a 9% decrease in research-related roles. This suggests a growing academic population for whom the current research-heavy promotion pathways simply don’t apply. However, ‘teaching-only’ staff (a problematic term as it is inevitably not only teaching) often find themselves ineligible – or unrecognised – within traditional academic progression systems. The lack of progression routes for these high-quality staff capable of transforming the education and student experience at a strategic level risks undermining job satisfaction and retention.

    What’s more, staff on Professional Service contracts, including roles like educational developers and academic skills support tutors, are engaged in academic work without the benefits or recognition of an academic title. HESA’s own definitions blur the lines: academic function is tied to the contract, not necessarily the work performed. This disconnect creates a situation where talented, impactful educators are ‘othered’ – excluded from meaningful recognition and progression.

    Key findings from sector analysis undertaken in 2024 via the Heads of Educational Development Group (HEDG) showed some alarming disparities among middle managers with institutional responsibility for learning and teaching:

    • Career Blockages:
      • 100% of academic contract holders in the study had access to promotion to Reader/Professor.
      • Only 39% of Professional Service contract holders had similar access—even when doing the same academic work as peers on academic contracts.
    • Misalignment of Identity and Contract:
      • Staff whose professional identity did not match their contract type (e.g. self-identifying as academic but on a Professional Service contract) reported significantly lower satisfaction and empowerment scores.
    • Promotion Criteria Gaps:
      • Respondents noted they could meet academic promotion criteria, but were ineligible due to contract type.
      • Job satisfaction scores were lowest where staff reported that promotion routes existed but were inaccessible due to the nature of their role.

    So, how can HE evolve its career structures beyond research? Establishing clear, visible academic promotion routes to Reader/Professor that recognise leadership in education, curriculum innovation, and pedagogic research would be a good starting point. Making sure promotion frameworks include non-research excellence – impact on student learning, institutional strategy, and sector-wide education initiatives – would be even more inclusive. Neither of these things should pose a significant operational or cost challenge to universities and would reap significant rewards in staff retention and satisfaction.

    Institutions that fail to adapt risk not just losing talent, but falling behind in impact, innovation, and reputation. It’s time to value all forms of academic excellence. The future of higher education, now more than ever, depends on it.

    Source link