Tag: time

  • Green skills, graduate competencies, and championing subject diversity – it’s time to join up some agendas 

    Green skills, graduate competencies, and championing subject diversity – it’s time to join up some agendas 

    Author:
    Rebecca Collins and Santiago Poeira Ribeiro

    Published:

    This HEPI blog was kindly authored by Rebecca Collins, Director, Sustainability and Environment Research and Knowledge Exchange Institute, University of Chester and Santiago Poeira Ribeiro, student in Natural Sciences (Physics), University of Chester. 

    UK universities are currently grappling with a perfect storm of disruptors: financial challenges, ambivalence from national policymakers, and, increasingly, from prospective students as they question what a university education really offers them. At the same time, the employment landscape is weathering its own storms, including those driven by accelerating technological change (particularly AI), concerns about skills deficits, geopolitical turbulence, and equivocation about whether or not this net zero business is here to stay.  UK Government response to these challenges has most recently taken the form of Skills England’s analysis of the skills requirement across ten priority sectors and the promise of a new industrial strategy from 2026-27 that connects these requirements to reforms of the higher education system.  

    It is in this context that a strangely paradoxical scenario is playing out.  On the one hand are claims that the UK does not have the necessary skills for a ‘green transition’ to net zero – what are increasingly being described as ‘green skills’.  (Notwithstanding the current national political ambivalence about net zero, most sectors of the UK economy have long since recognised the necessary direction of travel and know they need an appropriately knowledgeable and skilled workforce to accelerate action.) On the other is a higher education sector beset by the contraction or closure of subject areas perceived by some political and industrial leaders as insufficiently relevant to our collective economic future, ‘green’ or otherwise. However, for many years now, UK higher education has cultivated students’ green skills through its commitment to education for sustainable development (EfSD), widely recognised as essential knowledge for graduates entering the workforce. Indeed, climate literacy training is now often embedded in university curricula, as well as becoming increasingly normalised as a core, if not mandatory, training requirement across a range of industry sectors. Whilst what EfSD looks like at different universities varies, the majority of institutions demonstrate some degree of engagement with this agenda across all subject areas, with some making it a flagship institutional policy.   

    UK higher education thus seems to be quite good already at cultivating green skills for graduates, and across a wide range of subject areas. How, then, does this map onto the very varied definitions of green skills that have emerged from different sectors? The proliferation of reports concerned with this topic has not (yet) resulted in a clear, unified definition. Rather, this tends to be determined by who is doing the defining. Considering the different definitions and concepts prioritised by different institutions, we propose that these intersecting concerns can ultimately be distilled into three main types of green skill: 

    1. Technical skills: particularly those needed to accelerate decarbonisation; concentration of this need in industries such as manufacturing, transportation, utilities and infrastructure.  
    1. Green-enabling skills: otherwise known as soft or transferable skills, including systems thinking, communication, collaboration, critical thinking, adaptability. 
    1. Values-based skills: such as environmental awareness, climate justice, democratic engagement, cultural sensitivity. 

    Whilst definition 1 skews towards STEM subjects (as well as forms of technical expertise developed through other forms of learning, such as apprenticeships or vocational training), definitions 2 and 3 are within the purview of many other subjects commonly studied at undergraduate level, particularly within the arts, humanities and social sciences.   

    It is a timely moment to be reflecting on the relationship between how skills deficit narratives are framed by some corners of industry and government, and how universities position their offer in response. It feels like every academic in UK higher education has a story about recent, current or imminent institution-wide curriculum transformation. Whilst the rationales presented for these varies, one of the stronger narratives concerns ensuring students develop competencies that are fit for the future, respond directly to regional, national or global skills needs, and give students the vocabulary to articulate how the former meets the latter. As such, curriculum transformation presents an opportunity to think about how universities frame their offer, not just to prospective students but equally to the sectors those students might move into as skilled graduates.   

    Further, whilst driven by a range of factors, curriculum transformation presents the opportunity to articulate the role of all subjects studied in higher education, and all types of higher education providers, to contribute to the skills needed for an economy resilient to the socio-political shocks that will inevitably be invoked by environmental crises. There is a role for university leaders to be much bolder in articulating the value of all subjects – STEM and the arts, humanities, social sciences, and everything in between – and the green skills they cultivate. Now is the moment to consider how the promise of higher education might speak to or work with other agendas concerned with ensuring environmentally and socially sustainable and inclusive economies, regionally, nationally and globally. University leaders have a central role to play in advocating for a national higher education system where diversity – of student, skill and subject area – is not just celebrated as a buzzword but is demonstrated to be an essential part of a thriving, resilient and sustainable society.  

    Source link

  • Pause for REFlection: Time to review the role of generative AI in REF2029

    Pause for REFlection: Time to review the role of generative AI in REF2029

    Author:
    Nick Hillman

    Published:

    • This blog has been kindly written for HEPI by Richard Watermeyer (Professor of Higher Education and Co-Director of the Centre for Higher Education at the University of Bristol), Tom Crick (Professor of Digital Policy at Swansea University) and Lawrie Phipps (Professor of Digital Leadership at the University of Chester and Senior Research Lead at Jisc).
    • On Tuesday, HEPI and Cambridge University Press & Assessment will be hosting the UK launch of the OECD’s Education at a Glance. On Wednesday, we will be hosting a webinar on students’ cost of living with TechnologyOne – for more information on booking a free place, see here.

    For as long as there has been national research assessment exercises (REF, RAE or otherwise), there have been efforts to improve the way with which research is evaluated and Quality Related (QR) research funding consequently distributed. Where REF2014 stands out for its introduction of impact as a measure of what counts as research excellence, for REF2029, it has been all about research culture. Though where impact has become an integral dimension of the REF, the installation of research culture (into a far weightier environment or as has been proposed People, Culture and Environment (PCE) statement) as a criterion of excellence appears far less assured, especially when set against a three-month extension to REF2029 plans. 

    A temporary pause on proceedings has been announced by Sir Patrick Vallance, the UK Government’s Minister for Science, as a means to ensure that the REF provides ‘a credible assessment of quality’. The corollary of such is that the hitherto proposed formula (many parts of which remain formally undeclared – much to the frustration of universities’ REF personnel and indeed researchers) is not quite fit for purpose, and certainly not so if the REF is to ‘support the government’s economic and social missions’. Thus, it may transpire that research culture is ultimately downplayed or omitted from the REF. For some, this volte face, if it materialises, may be greeted with relief; a pragmatic step-back from the jaws of an accountability regime that has become excessively complex, costly and inefficient (if not even estranged from the core business of evaluating and then funding so-called ‘excellent’ research) and despite proclamations at the conclusion of its every instalment, that next time it will be less burdensome.   

    While the potential backtrack on research culture and potential abandonment of PCE statements will be focused on to explain the REF’s most recent hiatus, these may be only cameos to discussion of its wider credibility and utility; a discussion which appears to be reaching apotheosis, not least given the financial difficulties endemic to the UK sector, which the REF, with its substantial cost, is counted as further exacerbating. Moreover, as we are finding in our current research, the REF may have entered a period not limited to incremental reform and tinkering at the edges but wholesale revision; and this as a consequence of higher education’s seemingly unstoppable colonisation by artificial intelligence. 

    With recent funding from Research England, we have undertaken to consult with research leaders and specialist REF personnel embedded across 17 UK HEIs – including large, research-intensive institutions and those historically with a more modest REF footprint, to gain an understanding of existing views of and practices in the adoption of generative AI tools for REF purposes. While our study has thrown up multiple views as to the utility and efficacy of using generative AI tools for REF purposes, it has nonetheless revealed broad consensus that the REF will inevitably become more AI-infused and enabled, if not ultimately, if it is to survive, entirely automated. The use of generative AI for purposes of narrative generation, evidence reconnaissance, and scoring of core REF components (research outputs and impact case studies) have all been mooted as potential applications with significant cost and labour-saving affordances and applications which might also get closer to ongoing, real-time assessments of research quality, unrestricted to seven-year assessment cycles. Yet the use of generative AI has also been (often strongly) cautioned against for the myriad ways with which it is implicated and engendered with bias and inaccuracy (as a ‘black box’ tool) and can itself be gamed in multiple ways, for instance in ‘adversarial white text’. This is coupled with wider ongoing scientific and technical considerations regarding transparency, provenance and reproducibility. Some even interpret its use as antithetical to the terms of responsible research evaluation set out by collectives like CoARA and COPE.

    Notwithstanding, such various objections, we are witnessing these tools being used extensively (if in many settings tacitly and tentatively) by academics and professional services staff involved in REF preparations. We are also being presented with a view that the use of GenAI tools by REF panels in four years’ time is a fait accompli, especially given the speed by which the tools are being innovated. It may even be that GenAI tools could be purposed in ways that circumvent the challenges of human judgement, the current pause intimates, in the evaluation of research culture. Moreover, if the credibility and integrity of the REF ultimately rests in its capacity to demonstrate excellence via alignment with Government missions (particularly ‘R&D for growth’), then we are already seeing evidence of how AI technologies can achieve this.

    While arguments have been previously made that the REF offers good value for (public) money, the immediate joint contexts of severe financial hardship for the sector; ambivalence as to the organisational credibility of the REF as currently proposed; and the attractiveness of AI solutions may produce a new calculation. This is a calculation, however, which the sector must own, and transparently and honestly. It should not be wholly outsourced, and especially not to one of a small number of dominant technology vendors. A period of review must attend not only to the constituent parts of the REF but how these are actioned and responded to. A guidebook for GenAI use in the REF is exigent and this must place consistent practice at its heart. The current and likely escalating impact of Generative AI on the REF cannot be overlooked if it is to be claimed as a credible assessment of quality. The question then remains: is three months enough? 

    Notes

    • The REF-AI study is due to report in January 2026. It is a research collaboration between the universities of Bristol and Swansea and Jisc.
    • With generous thanks to Professor Huw Morris (UCL IoE) for his input into earlier drafts of this article.

    Source link

  • Now Is the Time to Overhaul Federal Regulations

    Now Is the Time to Overhaul Federal Regulations

    Researchers spend more than 40 percent of their research time complying with regulations.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | kyoshino/iStock/Getty Images

    The rise of generative artificial intelligence and the Trump administration’s deregulation push make now the right time to streamline and reduce federal scientific research regulations, argues a report the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine published Wednesday.

    “At a time when the scientific enterprise is under a lot of pressure—we don’t want to pretend that’s not true—this is also a wonderful opportunity to streamline the workload not only of researchers, but of institutions and other individuals,” Alan Leshner, chair of the NASEM committee that produced the report, said at a public briefing. “We would be foolish not to take advantage of the policy climate that favors deregulation and unburdening our scientific enterprise from unnecessary, duplicative and uncoordinated rules and regulations.”

    The 125-page report, entitled “Simplifying Research Regulations and Policies: Optimizing American Science,” lays out a three-pronged framework to guide a cohesive national strategy toward implementing more economical regulations. Those prongs include harmonizing regulations and requirements across federal and state agencies and research institutions, ensuring that regulatory requirements match the risk related to the project, and using technology to make regulation-compliance processes more efficient.

    From there, the report offers a menu of 53 potential options across all aspects of research compliance, including research security, misconduct and grant management, designed for interagency adoption.

    It’s all part of an effort by the National Academies to seize this political moment and accomplish their long-standing goal of freeing scientists from the weight of often redundant, expensive and excessive regulations.

    Currently, researchers whose work is supported by grants from agencies such as the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense spend more than 40 percent of their research time complying with each agency’s varying administrative and regulatory requirements, “wasting intellectual capacity and taxpayer dollars,” according to Federal Demonstration Partnership data cited in the report.

    “There’s no question that regulation is necessary to ensure that the science we produce is of the best quality, the highest integrity and is conducted with full accountability and transparency to the American public,” said Leshner, who has previously held leadership positions at the NIH and the NSF. “Having said that, the current regulatory environment has grown to a point that it’s actually hampering innovation.”

    Despite previous calls by the NASEM and other groups to reduce regulatory burdens on researchers, few of those plans have come to fruition. Instead, data from the Council on Government Relations (COGR) shows that 62 percent of the regulations and policies federal agencies adopted or changed since 1991 were issued from 2014 to 2024.

    For example, both the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare regulate animal research, but in some cases, their requirements conflict.

    When a research project is subject to both agencies’ requirements, it can create “confusion, redundancy, and extra work,” the report says. “The natural result is for academic institutions to create additional requirements of their own to manage the complexity and risk of noncompliance stemming from regulatory complexity.”

    ‘An Urgency to This’

    Complying with inconsistent or redundant regulations also costs a lot for universities, which are now facing significant cuts to federal research funding. In 2022, COGR estimated that institutions receiving more than $100 million in federal research funds spent an estimated $1.4 million a year to comply with the NIH’s Data Sharing and Management Policy while smaller institutions spend just over $1 million a year.

    The burden of regulatory compliance can also further exacerbate research inequities.

    “Typically, the more underresourced institutions—regional state institutions, minority-serving institutions, HBCUs and tribal colleges—may not have as large of a research infrastructure or staff to handle some of the regulations that filter down from the federal level,” said Emanuel Waddell, committee member and chair of the nanoengineering department at North Carolina A&T State University. “When the infrastructure isn’t there to answer questions, that burden falls on the researchers themselves to seek out answers, and it takes away time from pursuing intellectual curiosity.”

    And with looming cuts to federal research budgets, including mass layoffs at the federal agencies that oversee research, members of the committee believe now is the time to reduce the cost of regulatory compliance if the United States wants to remain a competitive producer of scientific innovation.

    “There’s an urgency to this. We really have to get this done. Think about how constrained budgets are—we have $37 trillion debt in this country and it continues to grow,” said Kelvin Droegemeier, a member of the committee and a professor and special adviser to the chancellor for science and policy at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. “With relatively little cost, we can unlock a lot of money that is now being directed toward things which are not helpful and put that money toward doing research.”

    But making it happen will be up to the federal government.

    Matt Owens, president of COGR, urged federal policymakers in a statement Wednesday afternoon “to act this fall on the most actionable and timely of the options.”

    “If the administration and Congress are rightly interested in reducing regulatory burden and to promote scientific advancements, then they now have a clear roadmap for doing so efficiently and effectively,” he wrote. “What remains to be seen is whether federal policymakers will get behind the wheel, step on the gas, and accelerate through the finish line to fully deliver.”

    Source link

  • US proposes visa time limit rule to end “abuse” of system

    US proposes visa time limit rule to end “abuse” of system

    The proposed rule, announced by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on August 27, would upend the longstanding “duration of status” policy and enforce additional restrictions on students changing programs and institutions.  

    If finalised, the new rule would limit the length of time international students, professors and other visa holders can stay in the US, which DHS claims would curb “visa abuse” and increase the department’s “ability to vet and oversee these individuals”.  

    Trump initially put forward the proposal during his first administration, only for it to be withdrawn under Biden. In recent weeks, a rehashed version of the plans has been moving closer towards final approval.  

    Yesterday’s publication of the finalised proposal in the Federal Register was met with immediate denunciation by stakeholders who say it would place an undue administrative burden on students as well as representing a “dangerous government overreach”. Now the proposal is under a 30-day public comment period.  

    “These changes will only serve to force aspiring students and scholars into a sea of administrative delays at best, and at worst, into unlawful presence status – leaving them vulnerable to punitive actions through no fault of their own,” said NAFSA CEO Fanta Aw.  

    Under the rule, students could only remain in the US on a student visa for a maximum of four years and would have to apply for a DHS extension to stay longer.  

    The policy document reasons that 79% of students in the US are studying undergraduate or master’s degrees which are generally two or four-year programs, thus: “a four-year period of admission would not pose an undue burden to most nonimmigrant students”.  

    And yet, stakeholders have previously pointed out that the average time taken to complete an undergraduate degree – for both domestic and international students – exceeds four years, meaning that the majority of students would have to file for an extension to complete their studies.  

    Meanwhile, this reasoning does not consider postgraduate students on longer programs or the many students that go onto Optional Practical Training (OPT), who would have to apply for a visa extension as well as the work permit itself. 

    If finalised, master’s students would no longer be able to change their program of study, and first year students would be unable to transfer from the institution that issued their visa documents.   

    Alarmingly, the rule would hand power to the government to determine academic progress, with “a student’s repeated inability or unwillingness” to complete their degree, deemed an “unacceptable” reason for program extensions.  

    It would also limit English-language students to a visa period of less than 24 months, and the grace period for F-1 students, post-completion, would be reduced from 60 to 30 days.  

    Such far reaching provisions amount to “a dangerous overreach by government into academia,” said Aw, pointing out that international students and exchange visitors are already “the most closely monitored non-immigrants in the country.”  

    Government interference into the academic realm in this way introduces a wholly unnecessary and new level of uncertainty to international student experience

    Fanta Aw, NAFSA

    “For too long, past administrations have allowed foreign students and other visa holders to remain in the US virtually indefinitely, posing safety risks, costing untold amount of taxpayer dollars, and disadvantaging US citizens,” DHS said in a statement.  

    Framing the issue as one of national security, the department said it had identified 2,100 F-1 visa holders who arrived between 2000 and 2010 and have remained in status, becoming what DHS called “forever” students “taking advantage of US generosity”.  

    Putting this in perspective, commentators have highlighted that in 2023 alone there were 1.6 million F-1 visa holders in the US.  

    As well as imposing significant burdens on students and intruding on academic decision-making, the proposal would also place strain on federal agencies and increase the existing immigration backlog, warned Miriam Feldblum, CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration.

    “International students deserve assurance that their admission period to the US will conform to the requirements of their academic programs,” said Feldblum, issuing a grave warning that the rule would further deter international students and “diminish” US competitiveness.  

    “At a time when the US is already facing declines in international student enrolment, we must do everything we can to keep the door open to these individuals, who are essential to our future prosperity,” she continued, alluding to recent falls in US visa issuance.  

    Since coming to office, a barrage of hostile policies from the Trump administration have erected unprecedented barriers for students hoping to study in the US, with a near-month long visa interview suspension earlier this summer still wreaking havoc on visa appointment availability around the world. 

    The latest government data revealed a 30% drop in student arrivals this July, with colleges bracing for a drastic drop in international student numbers for the upcoming year. If the decline continues, experts have warned of USD $7bn in damages to the US economy.  

    According to Aw, the proposed rule would “certainly” deter international students further, “without any evidence that the changes would solve any of the real problems that exist in our outdated immigration system”. 

    Appealing to Trump’s recent remarks pushing for a more-than doubling of the Chinese student population in the US, Aw urged the government to engage with the sector to ensure the US remained the “premier destination” for global talent while keeping the country “safe and prosperous”. 

    Source link

  • In training educators to use AI, we must not outsource the foundational work of teaching

    In training educators to use AI, we must not outsource the foundational work of teaching

    This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.

    I was conferencing with a group of students when I heard the excitement building across my third grade classroom. A boy at the back table had been working on his catapult project for over an hour through our science lesson, into recess, and now during personalized learning time. I watched him adjust the wooden arm for what felt like the 20th time, measure another launch distance, and scribble numbers on his increasingly messy data sheet.

    “The longer arm launches farther!” he announced to no one in particular, his voice carrying the matter-of-fact tone of someone who had just uncovered a truth about the universe. I felt that familiar teacher thrill, not because I had successfully delivered a physics lesson, but because I hadn’t taught him anything at all.

    Last year, all of my students chose a topic they wanted to explore and pursued a personal learning project about it. This particular student had discovered the relationship between lever arm length and projectile distance entirely through his own experiments, which involved mathematics, physics, history, and data visualization.

    Other students drifted over to try his longer-armed design, and soon, a cluster of 8-year-olds were debating trajectory angles and comparing medieval siege engines to ancient Chinese catapults.

    They were doing exactly what I dream of as an educator: learning because they wanted to know, not because they had to perform.

    Then, just recently, I read about the American Federation of Teachers’ new $23 million partnership with Microsoft, OpenAI, and Anthropic to train educators how to use AI “wisely, safely and ethically.” The training sessions would teach them how to generate lesson plans and “microwave” routine communications with artificial intelligence.

    My heart sank.

    As an elementary teacher who also conducts independent research on the intersection of AI and education, and writes the ‘Algorithmic Mind’ column about it for Psychology Today, I live in the uncomfortable space between what technology promises and what children actually need. Yes, I use AI, but only for administrative work like drafting parent newsletters, organizing student data, and filling out required curriculum planning documents. It saves me hours on repetitive tasks that have nothing to do with teaching.

    I’m all for showing educators how to use AI to cut down on rote work. But I fear the AFT’s $23 million initiative isn’t about administrative efficiency. According to their press release, they’re training teachers to use AI for “instructional planning” and as a “thought partner” for teaching decisions. One featured teacher describes using AI tools to help her communicate “in the right voice” when she’s burned out. Another says AI can assist with “late-night lesson planning.”

    That sounds more like outsourcing the foundational work of teaching.

    Watching my student discover physics principles through intrinsic curiosity reminded me why this matters so much. When we start relying on AI to plan our lessons and find our teaching voice, we’re replacing human judgment with algorithmic thinking at the very moment students need us most. We’re prioritizing the product of teaching over the process of learning.

    Most teachers I talk to share similar concerns about AI. They focus on cheating and plagiarism. They worry about students outsourcing their thinking and how to assess learning when they can’t tell if students actually understand anything. The uncomfortable truth is that students have always found ways to avoid genuine thinking when we value products over process. I used SparkNotes. Others used Google. Now, students use ChatGPT.

    The problem is not technology; it’s that we continue prioritizing finished products over messy learning processes. And as long as education rewards predetermined answers over curiosity, students will find shortcuts.

    That’s why teachers need professional development that moves in the opposite direction. They need PD that helps them facilitate genuine inquiry and human connection; foster classrooms where confusion is valued as a precursor to understanding; and develop in students an intrinsic motivation.

    When I think about that boy measuring launch distances with handmade tools, I realize he was demonstrating the distinctly human capacity to ask questions that only he wanted to address. He didn’t need me to structure his investigation or discovery. He needed the freedom to explore, materials to experiment with, and time to pursue his curiosity wherever it led.

    The learning happened not because I efficiently delivered content, but because I stepped back and trusted his natural drive to understand.

    Children don’t need teachers who can generate lesson plans faster or give AI-generated feedback, but educators who can inspire questions, model intellectual courage, and create communities where wonder thrives and real-world problems are solved.

    The future belongs to those who can combine computational tools with human wisdom, ethics, and creativity. But this requires us to maintain the cognitive independence to guide AI systems rather than becoming dependent on them.

    Every time I watch my students make unexpected connections, I’m reminded that the most important learning happens in the spaces between subjects, in the questions that emerge from genuine curiosity, in the collaborative thinking that builds knowledge through relationships. We can’t microwave that. And we shouldn’t try.

    Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

    For more news on AI in education, visit eSN’s Digital Learning hub.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Building a Course from Scratch: When Time is Not on Your Side – Faculty Focus

    Building a Course from Scratch: When Time is Not on Your Side – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Building a Course from Scratch: When Time is Not on Your Side – Faculty Focus

    Building a Course from Scratch: When Time is Not on Your Side – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Being Chair at a Time of Existential Challenge (opinion)

    Being Chair at a Time of Existential Challenge (opinion)

    The past few years have brought a seemingly endless series of existential challenges for colleges and their leaders. Although many of the most recent challenges have been initiated by decision-makers in the nation’s capital, a sense of crisis on college campuses is nothing new. For any number of social, political and economic reasons, leadership in the world of higher education has been hard for some time, and it will probably keep getting harder.

    Navigating external crises is especially challenging for midlevel campus leaders, such as department chairs and center directors. Too few of these individuals receive effective leadership training or support. And in moments of crisis, higher education’s collective failure to invest in developing strong leaders is on full display. Beyond the lack of role preparation, the very ambiguity at the heart of midlevel leadership—sandwiched between senior leaders and front-line faculty and students—makes it an inherently tough place to be.

    On so many college campuses, department chair service carries limited power, authority, time and resources. As we prepare to begin a new academic year, chairs and directors may already feel exhausted or overwhelmed. In the paragraphs that follow, we offer a few general principles that may help department chairs figure out how to use their often overlooked and undercelebrated positions to support the collective well-being of their faculty, staff and students in what will most certainly be a challenging year ahead.

    Accept what you cannot do (legally, morally, procedurally). Serving as a director or chair makes you a campus leader, whether or not you tend to describe yourself in those terms. And as a leader, you bear responsibility for acting in accordance with institutional policies and also for exercising good judgment in your actions and speech.

    Chairs should not offer blanket assurances of safety to individuals or guarantees of legal counsel, for example. Instead, the better move might be to connect faculty and staff with identified resources and to let the experts employ their expertise. In moments of budget austerity, midlevel leaders should exercise caution in pledging financial support or informal guarantees of continued employment.

    Chairs are empowered to use their full rights as private citizens—to protest, author op-eds and contact their elected representatives—but they should take care not to blur the lines between their personal activism and their official duties and position. You chair a department that includes diverse individuals who likely think and vote differently from one another. And right now, all of them need your full support for both routine and more substantive university matters. Anticipate that faculty, staff and students may look to you to set the ground rules so that all feel welcome, valued and safe in a polarized and scary world.

    Exercise creative problem-solving within your domain. In a highly charged moment, chairs should use all the tools in their arsenal, strategically employing action and inaction.

    Act by supporting small moments of connection, such as bringing in some baked goods or inviting a colleague who seems particularly overwhelmed to join you on a walk and talk across campus. If a faculty member in your department has lost the support of a federal grant, keep in mind that their entire research program may be in crisis. And if such a colleague is approaching a review for tenure or promotion, you may want to initiate a timely conversation about recalibrating expectations around scholarly productivity.

    As for inaction, a crisis is an opportune moment to do no more than is absolutely necessary. Off-campus turmoil demands energy and attention. Do your best to help the department separate things that must be done now from the things that can wait. This may not be the time to request funds for an external speaker. Delay scheduling a faculty retreat to overhaul the long-overdue revision of the capstone class. Use the opening faculty meeting of the year to set some scaled-back, modest goals and enlist your colleagues in a pledge to keep the shared to-do list lean. (We suspect that’ll be an easy sell.)

    Prioritize stability management. Ashley Goodall has argued that change, even necessary change, tends to disrupt our ability to find belonging, autonomy and meaning in our professional lives. Goodall offers the term “stability management” to describe what leaders can do for their colleagues on a daily basis, especially when everything is in flux.

    Stability management begins by recognizing what works and needs to remain constant, focusing above all on preserving those things. Many faculty members may find comfort in the ordinary work of constructing class schedules, ordering textbooks, applying for travel funds, conducting faculty searches and the like. For some of your colleagues, business as usual may convey the implicit assurance that university life marches ever forward. This doesn’t mean that you should ignore or downplay the severity of a crisis; it just means that you can try to keep it in perspective.

    Rituals and relationships also provide stability. If your department has a tradition of festive gatherings to mark the beginning of the academic year, now is the time to approach such gatherings with all the joy you can muster. And if your department is lacking in joyful traditions, well, that might be an opportunity for meaningful and much-needed change.

    Defer to campus experts. During the pandemic, campuses mobilized their public health resources in highly visible ways, such as appointing campus physicians and researchers to policymaking task forces. Recent executive orders and policy mandates from the federal government have forced colleges to draw on a new set of experts, including international support personnel, grant managers, lawyers and financial aid counselors.

    Rather than chairing high-profile committees, many of these trained professionals may work with impacted individuals in their specific, and often highly technical, unique situations. Many of these sensitive conversations are best conducted away from the limelight.

    In other words, if you don’t see these efforts happening in public, extend the charitable assumption that campus resources are being mobilized to support those in need in the ways that make the most sense.

    Embrace—don’t fight—the messy in-betweenness of being a department chair. The true art of midlevel leadership hinges on accepting its inherent dualities, limitations and freedoms. Department chairs may not be able to issue broad decrees, but they wield considerable influence over climate and tone. Not all problems are theirs to solve, but they can always offer sympathy and empathy. Instead of issuing top-down edicts, they can provide time and space for others to respectfully think together about hard topics.

    In fraught moments, higher ed needs midlevel leaders to lean into their in-betweenness—to serve as translators, mediators and conduits between what on some campuses are warring factions. Send messages up the chain by highlighting the concerns of the most vulnerable members of the department, in case these individuals aren’t already receiving help. Make a point to show up at campus town halls and carefully read emails from central administration so you can keep your faculty informed. When you can, de-escalate hostile exchanges, quash baseless rumors and ensure no one feels overlooked or left out.

    Commit to the beauty of your discipline. One of the hardest parts of leading in a crisis is not just navigating external pressures, but withstanding the slow erosion of your own spirit, which can quietly wear down even the most resilient leader. You can’t show up as the best version of your chair self to serve others if you have fallen into despair.

    The recent attacks on colleges and universities have cut many of us to the core. There is no point in pretending that most of the work that happens in the academy will solve climate change, save American democracy or right centuries of injustice. Whatever benefits accrue to the world out there as a result of your teaching and scholarship will probably be indirect and difficult to measure.

    Nonetheless, an academic leader can gain strength by reflecting on the ways in which their chosen discipline contributes, however indirectly, to the common good. The grunt work you do as department chair also makes it possible for students and faculty to deepen, enrich and expand their understanding of the world. Your work makes it possible for them to come ever closer to fulfilling their dreams.

    Their work has meaning and value because, among other things, it embodies curiosity and an openness to new ideas. Your work may sometimes feel like an exercise in keeping the trains running on time, but you might remind yourself that, as long as the academy stays true to its core principles, the trains are heading in a worthwhile direction.

    As a new academic year approaches, midlevel leaders are uniquely positioned to be a source of information, prudence, levity, focus and reassurance for the faculty, staff and students in their immediate spheres of influence. There’s plenty that we cannot begin to predict about the year to come, but we are confident that this is a year when students, faculty and staff will look to their most proximate leaders for guidance on how to keep moving forward.

    Duane Coltharp is an associate professor of English at Trinity University in San Antonio. He served Trinity for 18 years as an associate vice president for academic affairs.

    Lisa Jasinski is president of the Associated Colleges of the Midwest. She is the author of Stepping Away: Returning to the Faculty After Senior Academic Leadership (Rutgers University Press, 2023).

    Source link

  • Integrating AI into education is not as daunting as it seems

    Integrating AI into education is not as daunting as it seems

    Key points:

    Forty-some years ago, students sat in straight rows with books, papers, and pencils neatly lined up on their desks. But beginning in the 1990s, educators faced very different classrooms as computers found their way into schools.

    For most teachers, it felt daunting to figure out how to integrate new tools into curriculum requirements–and how to find the time to make it happen. To help this digital transformation then, I joined the South Dakota Department of Education to lead summer immersion teacher training on technology integration, traveling the state to help schools understand how to use new tools like video systems. I was one of many who helped educators overcome that initial learning curve–and now tools like computers are an integral part of the education system.

    Let’s face it: The advent of new technologies can be overwhelming. Adjusting to them takes time. Now, with the coming of age of AI, teachers, administrators, students, and parents have endless questions and ideas on how it might positively or negatively influence education. I’ve seen it in my current role, in which I continue to empower educators and states to use modern technology to support student learning. And while concerns about AI are valid, there are many positive potential outcomes. For educators in particular, AI can be a huge value-add, automating certain administrative tasks, helping understand and predict student success and struggles, and even helping tailor instruction for individual students.

    The upside is huge. As schools embark on their AI journeys, it’s important to remember that we’ve been here before–from the introduction of the internet in classrooms to the abrupt shift to e-learning at the outset of COVID-19. Superintendents, boards of education, and other education leaders can draw on important lessons from prior technological transformations to fully take advantage of this one.

    Here are some rules of the road for navigating the integration of disruptive technologies:

    1. Choose the right tools. The AI tool(s) you choose can have varying results. School districts should prioritize proven technologies with a track record in education. For students, this includes adaptive learning platforms or virtual tutors. Some of the best tools are those that are specifically designed by and for educators to expedite administrative tasks such as grading and lesson planning. Even more valuable is the ability to support education-specific issues such as identifying struggling students with early warning systems and using AI to provide projections for student futures.

      2. Training is everything. With proper training, AI can be less intimidating. We don’t expect students to understand a new concept by reading a few paragraphs in a textbook, and we shouldn’t expect teachers to figure out how to best use AI on their own. President Trump’s recent executive order prioritizes the use of AI in discretionary grant programs for teacher training, which is an important step in the right direction.

      3. Engage parents. Moms and dads may be concerned if they hear–without a deeper explanation–that a school board is rolling out an AI tool to help with teaching or administrative tasks in their children’s education. Keep an open line of communication with the guardians of students about how and why AI is being used. Point parents to resources to help them improve their own AI literacy. To a reasonable degree, invite feedback. This two-way communication helps build trust, allay fears and clarify any misconceptions, to the benefit of everyone involved, including, most importantly, the students.

      4. Humans must be involved. The stakes are high. AI is not perfect. Administrators must ensure they and the educators using AI tools are double checking the work. In the parlance of responsible AI, this is known as having a “human in the loop,” and it’s especially important when the outcomes involve children’s futures. This important backstop instills confidence in the parents, students and educators.

      5. Regularly evaluate if the tools are living up to expectations. The point of integrating AI into teachers’ and administrators’ workstreams is to lighten their load so they can spend more time and energy on students. Over time, AI models can decay and bias can be introduced, reducing the effectiveness of AI outputs. So, regular monitoring and evaluating is important. Educators and administrators should regularly check in to determine if the integration of AI is supporting their goals.

      6. The learning curve may create more work at first–but the payoff is exponential. Early adoption is important. I worked with school districts that pushed off integrating digital technologies–ultimately, it put the educators behind their peers. AI can make a difference in educators’ lives by freeing them up from administrative burdens to focus on what really matters–the students.

      This is the start of a journey–one that I believe is truly exciting! It’s not the first nor the last time educators adopt new technologies. Don’t let AI overwhelm or distract you from tried-and-true integration techniques. Yes, the technology is different–but educators are always adapting, and it will be the same with AI, to the benefit of educators and students.

      Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Reducing Transfer Admissions Time to Decision

    Reducing Transfer Admissions Time to Decision

    In an era when learners move fluidly across institutions, credentials, work-based learning and military education, the path to a degree is rarely linear. One area of the transfer process where improvement is both possible and measurable is the time it takes to render an admissions decision.

    Timely decisions support learners’ ability to register, engage in advising and complete financial aid processes. Faster admissions decisions can help institutions better align with the needs and expectations of today’s mobile learners.

    This is the opportunity the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, in collaboration with the National Association of Higher Education Systems, is advancing with its new National Learning Mobility Challenge: Improving Transfer Time to Decision.

    A Call to Action

    While institutions have made significant progress in modernizing admissions operations and technology over the past decade, continued refinement is needed to align those improvements with learner-centered goals.

    AACRAO’s recent report, “A Blueprint Toward a Learner-Centered Credit Mobility Ecosystem,” notes that “the core challenges for credit mobility are not primarily a lack of technology but rather structural and operational issues.” Manual processes persist even when electronic systems are available. Institutional fragmentation, policy complexity and data gaps create barriers that disproportionately affect mobile learners.

    One improvement institutions can pursue today is tracking and improving the time it takes to render an admissions decision for transfer applicants. The assumption that they’ll wait belies the urgent, real-world demands faced by transfer students, many of whom are older, working, supporting families or juggling multiple institutions and life transitions. Delays in admission cut off timely access to advising, registration and financial aid packaging.

    These are not administrative delays; they are missed opportunities for learner-centered service delivery.

    The Challenge is not a competition. Instead, it is a national call for action, experimentation and transparency. Participants commit to measuring their own time to decision, identifying internal or systemic friction points and piloting solutions to reduce them. AACRAO will provide visibility, collaborate with NASH for technical support and showcase progress at the Assembly, its newly reimagined national convening on learning mobility.

    Why Admissions Decision Speed Matters

    In many cases, transfer students apply with urgency. They may be returning after a stop-out, seeking a more affordable or supportive environment, or adapting to major life changes. These students are often older, working, supporting families or managing housing and food insecurity. For them, extended decision timelines may limit access to advising, course registration and timely financial planning. Without an offer of admission, students cannot register, access advising, complete financial aid steps or make informed decisions about their futures.

    Measuring and improving time-to-decision is one way institutions can demonstrate responsiveness. Institutions that prioritize transparency and timeliness in their transfer admissions process send a clear signal to the transfer community: you are welcome and we are ready.

    Building on the Work of Learning Mobility

    This Challenge builds on years of work by AACRAO to advance learning mobility—a learner-centered framework that recognizes the full range of educational experiences.

    In a previous “Beyond Transfer” article, we emphasized that many failures of reform are failures of implementation. Too often, institutions adopt promising ideas—articulation agreements, credit frameworks, technology platforms—without addressing the operational bottlenecks that slow them down or dilute their impact. The admissions decision for transfer learners is one area where aligning process improvement with institutional values can yield measurable progress.

    As the stewards of institutional systems, AACRAO members sit at the intersection of policy, technology, compliance and student support. They know how long decisions take. They know where the bottlenecks are. And they are well positioned to lead the change.

    A Challenge Worth Taking Up

    Addressing transfer admissions timelines is not a silver bullet. But it is a concrete, measurable starting point—one that institutions can act on today. And it may be one of the fastest ways to demonstrate that higher education is not only listening to learners but responding with urgency and care.

    Learn more and express interest in joining the Challenge here.

    Source link