Tag: time

  • 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

  • ‘The best time to be alive’ explains edtech entrepreneur

    ‘The best time to be alive’ explains edtech entrepreneur

    The post ‘The best time to be alive’ explains edtech entrepreneur appeared first on The PIE News.

    Source link

  • 6 steps to transforming parent engagement, one message at a time

    6 steps to transforming parent engagement, one message at a time

    Key points:

    When you open the doors to a brand-new school, you’re not just filling classrooms, you’re building a community from the ground up. In August 2023, I opened our Pre-K through 4th grade school in Charlotte, North Carolina, to alleviate overcrowding at several East Charlotte campuses. As the founding principal, I knew that fostering trust and engagement with families was as essential as hiring great teachers or setting academic goals.

    Many of our students were transitioning from nearby schools, and their families were navigating uncertainty and change. My top priority was to create a strong home-school connection from the very beginning–one rooted in transparency, inclusivity, and consistent communication, where every parent feels like a valued partner in our new school’s success. Since then, we’ve added 5th grade and continue to grow our enrollment as we shape the identity of our school community.

    Up until two years ago, our district was primarily using a legacy platform for our school-to-home communication. It was incredibly limiting, and I didn’t like using it. The district then switched to a new solution, which helped us easily reach out to families (whose children were enrolling at the new elementary school) with real-time alerts and two-way messaging.

    The difference between the two systems was immediately obvious and proved to be a natural transition for me. This allowed us to take a direct, systematic, and friendlier approach to our school-home communications as we implemented the new system.

    Building strong home-school bonds

    Here are the steps we took to ensure a smooth adoption process, and some of the primary ways we use the platform:

    1. Get everyone on board from the start. We used comprehensive outreach with families through flyers, posters, and dedicated communication at open-house events. At the same time, our teachers were easily rostered–a process simplified by a seamless integration with our student information system–and received the necessary training on the platform.
    1. Introduce the new technology as a “familiar tool.” We framed our ParentSquare tool as a “closed social media network” for school-home communication. This eased user adoption and demystified the technology by connecting it to existing social habits. Our staff emphasized that if users could communicate socially online, they could also easily use the platform for school-related interactions.
    1. Promote equity with automatic translation. With a student population that’s about 50 percent Hispanic and with roughly 22 different languages represented across the board, we were very interested in our new platform’s automatic translation capabilities (which currently span more than 190 languages). Having this process automated has vastly reduced the amount of time and number of headaches involved with creating and sharing newsletters and other materials with parents.
    1. Streamline tasks and reduce waste. I encourage staff to create their newsletters in the communications platform versus reverting to PDFs, paper, or other formats for information-sharing. That way, the platform can manage the automatic translation and promote effective engagement with families. This is an equity issue that we have to continue working on both in our school and our district as a whole. It’s about making sure that all parents have access to the same information regardless of their native language.
    1. Centralize proof of delivery. We really like having the communication delivery statistics, which staff can use to confirm message receipt–a crucial feature when parents claim they didn’t receive information. The platform shows when a message was received, providing clear confirmation that traditional paper handouts can’t match. Having one place where all of those communications can be sent, seen, and delivered is extremely helpful.
    1. Manage events and boost engagement. The platform keeps us organized, and we especially like the calendar and post functions (and use both a lot). Being able to sort specific groups is great. We use that feature to plan events like staggered kindergarten entry and separate open houses; it helps us target communications precisely. For a recent fifth-grade promotion ceremony, for example, we managed RSVPs and volunteer sign-ups directly through the communications platform, rather than using an external tool like Sign-Up Genius. 

    Modernizing school-family outreach

    We always want to make it easy for families to receive, consume, and respond to our messages, and our new communications platform helps us achieve that goal. Parents appreciate receiving notifications via email, app, voice, or text–a method we use a lot for sending out reminders. 

    This direct communication is particularly impactful given our diverse student population, with families speaking many different languages. Teachers no longer need third-party translation sites or manual cut-and-paste methods because the platform handles automatic translation seamlessly. It’s helped us foster deeper family engagement and bridge communication gaps we otherwise couldn’t–it’s really amazing to see.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Teaching Critiques in an Unsettled Political Time (opinion)

    Teaching Critiques in an Unsettled Political Time (opinion)

    As a university professor, I recently found myself in an awkward spot. I teach a large survey course called Introduction to Cultural Anthropology that enrolls some 350 students. As part of the course, I usually spend one class period every semester lecturing on the anthropology of development. This is a field in which the dominant strains have involved critiquing development projects, most frequently for two sorts of reasons: either for ignoring local cultural practices and priorities, or for exacerbating the very things that development projects are meant to ameliorate.

    In the spring semester of 2025, after I had already finalized and posted the course syllabus, something unprecedented happened in the United States: the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was dismantled by the Trump administration and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). From the standpoint of the standard critiques of development, some of the rationales the Trump administration provided for this unprecedented move were eerily familiar. “Musk and the Right Co-Opt the Left’s Critique of U.S. Power,” The New York Times proclaimed.

    Development isn’t the only topic on which such a critique of power has suddenly shifted politically. Science, another topic on which I spend some class sessions, is similarly fraught. For a long time, many researchers in the anthropology of science argued that the values and beliefs of scientists shape the sciences. The attacks on scientific authority that began during President Trump’s first term and have intensified since amplify these very same sorts of arguments. So how do we broach these topics today, as university professors?

    In pondering this question in the context of my own class, I came to view the common refrain that the right is “coopting” or “appropriating” the critiques made by the left with some curiosity and a bit of suspicion. Both of these terms carry some connotations of misuse and bad faith. Don’t get me wrong: There certainly is truth to the view that some Republican politicians in the United States have recently lifted and re-deployed arguments simply because they justify a desired end (and achieve a little trolling as an added benefit). But, educationally, “appropriation” in this context is not always a useful refrain. It sidesteps the arguments themselves by drawing pre-determined boundaries around their fair use.

    Further, the view that these migrating arguments are cases of “cooptation” does not always stand up to historical scrutiny. Take, for example, questions concerning the power vested in experts. Today, the right is waging more of a battle against experts and the institutions that house them than the left. This battle is undergirded by several arguments, including claims of insufficient “viewpoint diversity” and elite capture, themselves logics that have migrated.

    This battle against experts is most vociferously waged in the name of a populist view: that the people know what’s best for them. A couple of decades ago, the left was more invested in critiquing the ways that expertise was used to exert control over people who understood their own circumstances and their own needs better than many experts.

    But before that, a similar argument sat at the core of the neoliberal right. The famed neoliberal theorist Friedrich von Hayek made this sort of argument against expertise as part of his case for unfettered markets, which, he argued, aggregated and responded to the locally informed decisions of large numbers of individuals better than any expert ever could. It’s also a mistake to think about the migration of these ideas in terms of a stable divide between left and right: MAGA has instilled in the “right” in the guise of the current Republican party a new hostility toward the free market while the “left” of today’s Democratic party has embraced elements of neoliberalism.

    Instead of simple “appropriation,” the migration of arguments across an array of worldviews should be interpreted as zones of agreement where the depth of that agreement—superficial or comprehensive?—has to be scrutinized. Why and how are different implications drawn from these zones? This entails continuing to think about and teach these critical perspectives rather than shying away from them for fear of exacerbating the attacks they now authorize.

    Ultimately, recognizing that similar critiques cross-pollinate with disparate ideological positions is an invitation to engage even more deeply with the substance of these arguments, both in the classroom and beyond.

    Talia Dan-Cohen is an associate professor of sociocultural anthropology and associate director of the Center for the Humanities at Washington University in St. Louis.

    Source link

  • The disagreements on REF cannot go on forever – it may be time for a compromise

    The disagreements on REF cannot go on forever – it may be time for a compromise

    The submission deadline for REF is autumn 2028. It is not very far away and there are still live debates on significant parts of the exercise without an obvious way forward in sight.

    As the Contributions to Knowledge and Understanding guidance makes clear there are still significant areas where guidance is being awaited. The People, Culture and Environment (PCE) criteria and definitions will be published in autumn this year. Undoubtedly, this will kick off rounds of further debate on REF and its purposes. It feels like there is a lot left to do with not much time left to do it in.

    Compromise

    The four UK higher education funding bodies could take a view that the levels of disquiet in the sector about REF, and what I am hearing at the events I go to and from the people I speak to it does seem significant, will eventually dissipate as the business of REF gets underway.

    This now seems unlikely. It is clear that there are increasingly entrenched views on the workability or not of the new portability measures, and there is still the ongoing debate on the extent to which research culture can be measured. Research England has sought to take the sector toward ends which have broad support, improving the diversity and conditions of research, but there is much less consensus on how to get there.

    The consequences for continuing as is are unpredictable but they are potentially significant. At the most practical level the people working on REF only have so much resource and bandwidth. The debate about the future of REF will not go away as more guidance is released, in fact the debate is likely to intensify, and getting to submission where there is still significant disagreement will drain resources and time.

    The debate also crowds out the other work that is going on in research. All the while that the future of REF is being debated it is time taken away from all of the funding which is not allocated through REF, all of the problems with research that do not stem from this quinquennial exercise, and the myriad of other research issues that sit beyond the sector’s big research audit. The REF looms large in the imagination of the sector but the current impasse is eclipsing much else.

    If the government believes that REF does not have broad support from the sector it could intervene. It is faulty to assume that the REF is an inevitable part of the research landscape. As Chancellor, Gordon Brown attempted to axe its predecessor on the basis that it had become too burdensome. Former advisor to the Prime Minister Dominic Cummings also wished to bin the REF. UCU opposed REF 2014. Think Tank UK Day One also published a well shared paper on the argument for scrapping the current REF.

    The REF has survived because of lack of better alternatives, its skilful management, and its broad if not sometimes qualified support. The moment the political pain of REF outweighs its perceived research benefits it will be ripe for scrapping by a government committed to reducing costs and reducing the research burden.

    The future

    The premise of the new REF is that research is a team sport and the efforts of the team that create the research should be measured and therefore rewarded. The corollary of identifying research as a product of a unit rather than an individual is that the players, in this case researchers and university staff, have had their skills unduly diminished, hidden, or otherwise not accounted for because of pervasive biases in the research landscape.

    It is impossible to argue that by any reasonable measure there aren’t significant issues with equality in research. This impacts the lives and career prospects of researchers and the UK economy as whole. It would be an issue for any serious research funder to back away from work that seeks to improve the diversity of research.

    It is in this light where perhaps the biggest risk of all lies for Research England. If it pushes on with the metrics and measures it currently has and the result of REF is seen as unfair or structurally unsound it will do irreversible harm to the wider culture agenda. The idea of measuring people, culture, and environment will be put into the “too hard to do” box.

    This work is too important to be done quickly but the urgency of the challenge cannot be dropped. It is an unenviable position to be in.

    REF 2030?

    If a conclusion is reached that it is not feasible to carry the sector toward a new REF in time for 2029 there only seems to be one route forward which is to return to a system more like 2021. This is not because the system was perfect (albeit it was generally seen as a good exercise) but because it would be unfeasible to carry out further system changes at this stage. Pushing the exercise back to 2030 would mean allocating funding from an exercise completed almost a decade prior. It seems untenable to do so because of how much institutions will have changed in this period.

    The work going on to measure PCE is not only helpful in the context of REF but alongside work coming out of the Metascience Unit and UKRI centrally, among others, part of the way in which the sector can be supported to measure and build a better research culture and environment. This work within the pilots is of such importance that it would make sense to stand these groups up over a long time period with a view to building to the next exercise, while improving practice within universities more generally on an ongoing basis.

    As I wrote back in 2023 complexity in REF is worthwhile where it enhances university research. The complexity has now become the crux of the debate. If Research England reaches the conclusion that the cost and complexity of the desired future outstrips the capacity and knowledge of the present, the opportunity is to pause, pilot, learn, improve, and go again.

    Tactical compromise for now – with the explicit intention of taking time to agree a strategic direction on research as more of a shared and less of an individual endeavour – is possible. To do so it will require making the political and practical case for a different future (as well as the moral one) ever more explicit, explaining the trade-offs it will involve, and crucially building a consensus on how that future will be funded and measured. Next year is a decade on from the Stern Review; perhaps it is time for another independent review of REF.

    A better future for research is possible but only where the government, funders, institutions, and researchers are aligned.

    Source link

  • Confidence in higher education increases for the first time in a decade

    Confidence in higher education increases for the first time in a decade

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Americans’ confidence in higher education has increased for the first time in a decade, according to research released Wednesday by Gallup and the Lumina Foundation.
    • Among those surveyed, 42% of adults expressed “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the sector, compared with 36% in 2023 and 2024. The percentage of respondents with little to no confidence declined from 32% last year to 23% in 2025.
    • However, the share of adults with high confidence in higher education is still well below 57%, the share who held those views when Gallup first posed the question in 2015.

    Dive Insight:

    Along with breaking a decadelong trend, Wednesday’s findings are noteworthy because they come amid increasing conservative attacks on the sector and continued questioning of the value of college.

    Researchers polled just over 1,400 adults via phone from June 2 to 26.

    When asked to explain their responses, 30% of participants confident in higher education pointed to the value of being educated. And 24% said colleges provide good training, with some respondents citing learning to think for oneself and others citing the ability to appreciate different viewpoints.

    Other reasons were named more frequently than they were in previous years. Last year, 5% of surveyed adults cited the innovations higher education fosters as inspiring confidence. This year, that share jumped to 15%. And 14% said U.S. colleges are some of the best in the world, up from 7% last year.

    In contrast, the share of respondents who pointed to the strength of college instructors and administrators declined from 7% last year to 4% in 2025. And just 1% of adults said college is available to anyone who wants to further their education, down from 2% the previous year.

    More than a third of respondents who said they lacked confidence in higher ed, 38%, cited concerns about political agendas, up from 28% in 2024. Those who had little confidence in the sector also expressed concerns about the cost of college and institutions not focusing on and teaching the “right things,” though mentions of both reasons declined from 2024 to 2025.

    When researchers asked all participants what would increase their confidence in higher education, they said colleges could focus more on practical job skills, lower their costs, and remove politics from the classroom.

    Confidence increased among respondents across the political spectrum, researchers found. But Republicans — who drove much of the decline in confidence in the sector over the past decade — continue to hold more negative views of higher education.

    Among Democrats, 61% expressed confidence in higher ed, up from 56% last year. By comparison, 26% of Republicans said the same, an increase from 20% in 2024. 

    About 2 in 5 respondents who identified as politically independent, 41%, expressed confidence in higher ed. That’s up from 35% last year. 

    Republicans are more likely to express confidence in two-year colleges than four-year colleges, the research found. Almost half of surveyed adults in the party, 48%, expressed confidence in two-year institutions, while just over a quarter, 26%, said the same of four-year colleges.

    A majority of surveyed Democrats had high confidence in both institutional types.

    Source link

  • It’s time we moved the generative AI conversation on

    It’s time we moved the generative AI conversation on

    • By Michael Grove, Professor of Mathematics and Mathematics Education and Deputy Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Education Policy and Academic Standards) at the University of Birmingham.

    We are well beyond the tipping point. Students are using generative AI – at scale. According to HEPI’s Student Generative AI Survey 2025, 92% of undergraduates report using AI tools, and 88% say they’ve used them in assessments. Yet only a third say their institution has supported them to use these tools well. For many, the message appears to be: “you’re on your own”.

    The sector’s focus has largely been on mitigating risk: rewriting assessment guidance, updating misconduct policies, and publishing tool-specific statements. These are necessary steps, but alone they’re not enough.

    Students use generative AI not to cheat, but to learn. But this use is uneven. Some know how to prompt effectively, evaluate outputs, and integrate AI into their learning with confidence and control. Others don’t. Confidence, access, and prior exposure all vary, by discipline, gender, and background. If left unaddressed, these disparities risk becoming embedded. The answer is not restriction, but thoughtful design that helps all students develop the skills to use AI critically, ethically, and with growing independence.

    If generative AI is already reshaping how students learn, we must design for that reality and start treating it as a literacy to be developed. This means moving beyond module-level inconsistency and toward programme-level curriculum thinking. Not everywhere, not all at once – but with intent, clarity, and care.

    We need programme-level thinking, not piecemeal policy

    Most universities now have institutional policies on AI use, and many have updated assessment regulations. But module-by-module variation remains the norm. Students report receiving mixed messages – encouraged to use AI in one context, forbidden in another, ignored in a third, and unsure in a fourth. This inconsistency leads to uncertainty and undermines both engagement and academic integrity.

    A more sustainable approach requires programme-level design. This means mapping where and how generative AI is used across a degree, setting consistent expectations and providing scaffolded opportunities for students to understand how these tools work, including how to use them ethically and responsibly. One practical method is to adopt a ‘traffic light’ or five-level framework to indicate what kinds of AI use are acceptable for each assessment – for example, preparing, editing, or co-creating content. These frameworks need not be rigid, but they must be clear and transparent for all.

    Such frameworks can provide consistency, but they are no silver bullet. In practice, students may interpret guidance differently or misjudge the boundaries between levels. A traffic-light system risks oversimplifying a complex space, particularly when ‘amber’ spans such a broad and subjective spectrum. Though helpful for transparency, they cannot reliably show whether guidance has been followed. Their value lies in prompting discussion and supporting reflective use.

    Design matters more than detection

    Rather than relying on unreliable detection tools or vague prohibitions, we must design assessments and learning experiences that either incorporate AI intentionally or make its misuse educationally irrelevant.

    This doesn’t mean lowering standards. It means doubling down on what matters in a higher education learning experience: critical thinking, explanation, problem-solving, and the ability to apply knowledge in unfamiliar contexts. In my own discipline of mathematics, students might critique AI-generated proofs, identify errors, or reflect on how AI tools influenced their thinking. In other disciplines, students might compare AI outputs with academic sources, or use AI to explore ideas before developing their own arguments.

    We must also protect space for unaided work. One model is to designate a proportion of each programme as ‘Assured’ – learning and assessment designed to demonstrate independent capability, through in-person, oral, or carefully structured formats. While some may raise concerns that this conflicts with the sector’s move toward more authentic, applied assessment, these approaches are not mutually exclusive. The challenge is to balance assured tasks with more flexible, creative, or AI-enabled formats. The rest of the curriculum can then be ‘Exploratory’, allowing students to explore AI more openly, and in doing so, broaden their skills and graduate attributes.

    Curriculum design should reflect disciplinary values

    Not all uses of AI are appropriate for all subjects. In mathematics, symbolic reasoning and proof can’t simply be outsourced. But that should not mean AI has no role. It can help students build glossaries, explore variants of standard problems, or compare different solution strategies. It can provoke discussion, encourage more interactive forms of learning, and surface misconceptions.

    These are not abstract concerns; they are design-led questions. Every discipline must ask:

    • What kind of skills, thinking and communication do we value?
    • How might AI support, or undermine, those aims?
    • How can we help students understand the difference?

    These reflections play out differently across subject areas. As recent contributions by Nick Hillman  and Josh Freeman underline, generative AI is prompting us to reconsider not just how students learn, but what now actually counts as knowledge, memory, or understanding.

    Without a design-led approach, AI use will default to convenience, putting the depth, rigour, and authenticity of the higher education learning experience at risk for all.

    Students need to be partners in shaping this future. Many already have deep, practical experience with generative AI and can offer valuable insight into how these tools support, or disrupt, real learning. Involving students in curriculum design, guidance, and assessment policy will help ensure our responses are relevant, authentic, and grounded in the realities of how they now learn.

    A call to action

    The presence of generative AI in higher education is not a future scenario, it is the present reality. Students are already using these tools, for better and for worse. If we leave them to navigate this alone, we risk widening divides, losing trust, and missing the opportunity to improve how we teach, assess, and support student learning.

    What’s needed now is a shift in narrative:

    • From panic to pedagogy
    • From detection to design
    • From institutional policy to consistent programme-level practice.

    Generative AI won’t replace teaching. But it will reshape how students learn. It’s now time we help them do so with confidence and purpose, through thoughtful programme-level design.

    Source link