Tag: Uncertain

  • Supporting Student Wellbeing in Uncertain Times

    Supporting Student Wellbeing in Uncertain Times

    Higher education is operating in a time of rapid change and uncertainty. Changes in federal and state policy, funding, and increasing polarization are reshaping campus environments and profoundly affecting many students’ experiences. As leaders, it is critical to understand how these forces are impacting student wellbeing—and what actions institutions can take to adapt and strengthen their supports for students.

    The Action Network for Equitable Wellbeing (ANEW) is a networked community of higher education changemakers working together to advance systems-level transformation to improve student wellbeing. Drawing on the involvement of more than 200 colleges and universities, our experience shows that while there is no single solution, institutions can act quickly and intentionally to strengthen student support using a practical, data-driven, human-centered approach.

    Through this collaborative work, we’ve identified three strategies that are helping campuses respond more effectively to the rapidly evolving needs of their students: using real-time disaggregated data, conducting empathy interviews, and building a rhythm of frequent data collection and sense-making.

    Collect real-time quantitative data and analyze it thoughtfully

    How students are doing can change rapidly as policies and rhetoric shift, availability of external resources change, significant events on campus or in the world occur, and new barriers or supports emerge. Relying on older data (e.g. survey data collected nine months ago) can miss important changes. Without timely insight, decisions may be based on outdated information or an incomplete understanding. Systematically collecting real-time data helps institutions stay aligned with students’ current realities.

    To support this kind of real-time data collection, ANEW institutions have used the Wellbeing Improvement Survey for Higher Education Settings (WISHES)—a short survey, available at no cost, that provides institutions with timely and actionable data on a range of outcomes and experiences influencing student wellbeing. WISHES helps institutions monitor student wellbeing and stay responsive to the present moment.

    But aggregate data tell only part of the story. To understand how different groups of students are faring, disaggregating data by relevant student characteristics can reveal patterns that may be hidden in campus-wide averages and allow institutions to focus support where it is most needed, such as groups of students who might be disproportionately struggling.

    In fall 2023, the University of California, Irvine administered WISHES, disaggregated its data, and found that Middle Eastern students seemed to be experiencing more challenges than their peers in some measures. “Aggregate data really doesn’t tell you anything [about what to do]—you have to disaggregate,” said Doug Everhart, director of student wellness and health promotion at UC Irvine. “In order to find meaning behind the data, you have to follow up and ask questions to dig into the lived experience and the ‘why’. That focus is what makes [the ANEW] approach so useful.” The real-time disaggregated data allowed the team to better understand the Middle Eastern student experience and develop strategies responsive to their needs.

    Conduct empathy interviews to develop actionable, human-centered insights

    Real-time disaggregated survey data can reveal where differences exist—but it likely won’t explain them. Empathy interview is a method used in diverse sectors and settings to understand what’s behind the patterns in quantitative data. These insights are important for informing what specific changes are needed to better support students.

    An empathy interview is a one-on-one session that uses deep listening and responsive prompts to explore the lived experience of an individual on a specific topic such as wellbeing. Empathy interviews uncover holistic and nuanced perspectives about a student’s life—including what they’re facing, what matters to them, and how they navigate challenges and opportunities. Empathy interviews are not formal research, but they offer a structured way for leaders to move beyond assumptions and gain insights that are authentic, revealing, and actionable from those who are most affected.

    Katy Redd, executive director of the Longhorn Wellness Center at the University of Texas at Austin, reflected on the value of this strategy, “Going through this process pushed us to confront the gap between how we assume students experience college and what their day-to-day reality actually looks like for low-income students. Listening closely helped us notice invisible norms and structures that many students are expected to navigate without support. It shifted our mindset—away from surface-level solutions and toward deeper questions about how our systems function and for whom.”

    Michelle Kelly, assistant vice president for health and wellbeing at the University of Texas at Arlington, described a similar shift in perspective: “There was a moment after our empathy interviews where it just clicked: we’d been asking students to navigate systems we ourselves hadn’t fully mapped. It was humbling—but also motivating. Hearing their stories reminded us that the data isn’t just about trends—it’s about real people trying to make it through college while juggling a hundred other things.”

    These interviews, coupled with WISHES data, revealed insights that were difficult to uncover through other methods and have helped institutions think and act more systematically about what’s shaping students’ experiences and outcomes.

    Develop a rhythm of frequent data collection and sense-making

    Being responsive to student needs isn’t about changing course in response to every complaint—it’s about noticing patterns early and adjusting when needed, which requires more than one-time or yearly data collection. Institutions that build a regular rhythm of frequent data collection and sense-making are better equipped to detect shifts, learn from them, and adapt in ways that support student wellbeing.

    WISHES is most effective when administered multiple times per semester over many years. Data collected frequently over time provide helpful context when trying to understand how students are impacted by significant events on campus or in the world. Institutions can better answer questions like: Are students struggling more or less than they were at similar points of the semester in previous years? In times of extraordinary change, it is easy to imagine that students are doing worse than they were previously. Frequent data collection and sense-making allow us to objectively determine if this assumption is true.

    ANEW institutions that frequently collect data over time using WISHES have been able to understand in close to real time how large external events—such as the pandemic, October 7, and the shifting political environment—have impacted student wellbeing. Schools have reported that WISHES data enabled them to check their assumptions about the impact these events had on student wellbeing. In some cases, assumptions have been disproven using data, allowing schools to avoid trying to solve nonexistent problems or the wrong problem.

    As the University of Maryland reflects, “We’ve administered WISHES 10 times over the past two years and have seen firsthand the benefits of frequent data collection and are excited for the future. We most recently have begun to build a dashboard to display our WISHES metrics over time and democratize these critical insights to a myriad of roles within our campus community, which we hope will lead to more effective support for students across our university.”

    In the face of today’s challenges, higher education has a powerful opportunity—and responsibility—to lead with empathy, insight, and action. By embracing a data-driven, student-centered approach, institutions can move beyond assumptions and truly understand what their students need to flourish. The experiences shared by ANEW institutions demonstrate that meaningful change is not only possible but already underway. Now is the time for campuses to lean in, listen deeply, and build the systems that will support every student’s wellbeing.


    This post was written by Joanna Adams (Rochester Institute of Technology), Jennifer Maltby (Rochester Institute of Technology), and Allison Smith (New York University), with the co-leadership and insights of hundreds of changemakers contributing to the Action Network for Equitable Wellbeing.


    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link

  • The Future of AI Is Uncertain, And It’s Up to Us

    The Future of AI Is Uncertain, And It’s Up to Us

    • Jack Goodman, Founder of Studiosity, reviews AI Snake Oil: What Artificial Intelligence Can Do, What It Can’t, and How to Tell the Difference by Arvind Narayan and Sayash Kapoor.

    Is artificial intelligence (AI) going to transform our universities? Or will it destroy the need for a tertiary education? Right now, it’s impossible to tell.

    If you read the media, you’re likely to think things will end up at one extreme or the other. That’s because we are living in an age of AI hype, where exaggerated claims about the technology – both on the plus side from the biggest AI engineering firms, and on the downside from those concerned about a dystopian future – are dominating the conversation.

    For those of us who aren’t computer scientists or software engineers with domain expertise, wouldn’t it be helpful to have a guide to help us unpack what’s going on and figure out how to engage with this technology that may prove to be world-altering?

    If you’re a head of state or a billionaire, then you probably already have an AI advisor. For the rest of us, Arvind Narayanan and Sayash Kapoor, two computer scientists at Princeton University, have kindly written AI Snake Oil as a layman’s roadmap to the current and likely future trajectory of the technology. (Alongside the book the pair have launched a website that’s full of the most current commentary and analysis.)

    Narayanan and Kapoor are concerned with the full gamut of AI, not just the ‘generative’ variety that has garnered so much attention since its ‘debut’ with the arrival of ChatGPT. They helpfully separate AI into three main streams: Predictive AI, Generative AI and Content Moderation AI. All three suffer from claims of exaggerated effectiveness, a lack of scientific evidence and fantastic claims about their future capabilities.

    For the purposes of a higher education audience, it’s generative AI that’s of most interest, because that’s the technology that can simulate the intellectual output of an educated brain – whether in the form of text or visual imagery. They put genAI into its historical context: most of us don’t know that the neural network theory that underpins genAI goes back to the 1950s, and that it’s been through a series of cycles of hype and disappointment.

    Sadly, the authors aren’t particularly interested in the impact of genAI on higher education, apart from noting off-handedly that the technology appears to be largely undetectable, and that financially-strapped universities that think the technology will deliver endless efficiency dividends may be sadly disappointed. At various points they mention how they encourage active engagement with AI to understand what it can and cannot do, all from the perspective of their lives at Princeton. That’s not particularly helpful given how outlandishly wealthy, privileged, and tiny that university is.

    Also, the authors miss an opportunity to explore different types of genAI technologies, particularly those that may be designed to encourage learning versus others that improve human productivity by offloading cognitive effort. No doubt the latter are already transforming human work, but whether they have a place in higher education is a different question.

    There is a concept in AI known as ‘alignment’, which refers to the risk that uncontrolled AI may, as it approaches more powerful levels of general intelligence, act against the interests of humans and harm (or even kill) us. It’s controversial, and the authors devote an entire chapter to how we should think about, and respond to, technology companies’ pursuit of artificial general intelligence (AGI).

    From the perspective of higher education, our sector may be better served in the immediate term by thinking about alignment in terms of the interests of educational institutions and the (mostly American) technology companies that are at the vanguard of developing genAI. The culture of incrementalism that has traditionally served universities well may not be so effective when dealing with such a rapidly approaching paradigm shift in humans’ relationship with technology.

    The conclusion of AI Snake Oil is a little surprising. The authors make clear that humanity’s relationship with AI will be determined by all of us –individuals and institutions, as well as regulators and politicians. No doubt there is an opportunity for universities and their leaders to take a leading role in shaping this conversation, using their institutional resources and cultural authority to help inform the public and guide us all toward a better relationship with ever more powerful computers.

    We all need to be educated, informed, and willing to speak up – so that we don’t end up living in a world where AI is dominated by the largest and most powerful corporations the planet has ever seen. That will be the worst of all possible outcomes.

    Studiosity is a learning technology company that works with 100+ universities globally and serving 2.2 million university students across the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the Middle East. Jack founded Studiosity in Sydney in 2003 with a vision to make the highest quality academic study support accessible to every student, regardless of their geographic or socio-economic circumstances.

    Source link

  • Julie Su’s Confirmation for DOL Secretary Uncertain as Senator Manchin Seeks Alternative Nominees

    Julie Su’s Confirmation for DOL Secretary Uncertain as Senator Manchin Seeks Alternative Nominees

    In the latest development on Julie Su’s contentious nomination for secretary of the Department of Labor (DOL), Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) appears unlikely to vote in favor of Su when her nomination reaches a floor vote in the Senate. Recent news reported that Manchin may be seeking alternative candidates for the position, though no names have been publicly revealed at this time. Given the current 51-49 Democratic majority in the Senate, however, Manchin’s potential opposition means Democrats cannot afford to lose any additional support for the nomination.

    The odds may be further stacked against Su as Sens. Krysten Sinema (I-AZ) and Jon Tester (D-MT) have yet to reveal whether they will support Su’s nomination. Although Manchin, Sinema and Tester all caucus with Democrats, they face reelection in 2024 in Republican-leaning states, leaving them in a precarious position as Republicans are seemingly united in opposing Su.

    Nomination Hearing and Committee Vote 

    On April 19, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee held a hearing on Su’s nomination to serve as secretary of labor. During the hearing, Republicans and Democrats discussed Su’s performance as the secretary of California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), including her involvement in the agency’s handling of COVID-19-related unemployment insurance payments. Republicans on the committee pointed to the widespread COVID-19 unemployment insurance (UI) fraud paid out by the state. On the other side of the aisle, Democrats defended Su’s record. With regard to the UI fraud, Democrats held that California’s statistics were low in comparison to other states.

    The hearing also focused on several key labor and employment issues that Su will work on as secretary of labor. On the topic of independent contractor classification, Republicans again focused on Su’s work at the LWDA, calling attention to her role in California’s Assembly Bill 5 law. The law establishes an ABC test, which is a three-pronged test used to classify workers as either employees or independent contractors. Republicans expressed concerns over whether Su would try to implement an ABC test through DOL regulations. In response, Democrats clarified that the ABC test is not included in the DOL’s new proposed rulemaking and that the DOL has previously stated that it lacks the legal authority to implement this test for classifying independent contractors.

    Another issue area raised by Republicans was that of joint employment. Although her support for the joint employment standard was questioned, Ranking Member Bill Cassidy (R-LA) testified that Su has committed to not pursue changes to the joint employer standard if she is confirmed. Su said she understands the importance of the franchising model, stating that there is no plan currently on DOL’s fall or upcoming spring regulatory agenda to change the standard. Notably, she did not say whether there would be a rulemaking on the joint employer issue after the upcoming spring regulatory agenda.

    A week after the hearing, the Senate HELP Committee voted to move Julie Su’s nomination to serve as secretary of labor out of committee and to a full Senate floor vote. The committee vote was divided along party lines, with 11 Democrats voting in favor and 10 Republicans voting against her nomination, foreshadowing the trouble she may face to be confirmed by the full Senate.

    Next Steps 

    Given Manchin’s likely opposition and the narrowly divided Senate, Su’s confirmation as secretary of labor by the full Senate is still uncertain. If Sinema or Tester also commits to opposing Su, Su will likely not have the votes to be confirmed. As a result, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has yet to announce when the vote on Su’s nomination will hit the Senate floor.

    In the meantime, Su will continue to serve as the acting secretary of labor in the absence of a person confirmed into that position. As a reminder, there are no limitations on the functions of an acting secretary, leaving Su with full authority over the DOL while her nomination is pending. That being said, anticipated rulemakings from DOL, such as the FLSA overtime rule and the independent contractor classification rule, may be held back from publication as a result of Su’s drawn-out nomination process.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any major personnel or regulatory updates from DOL.

    The post Julie Su’s Confirmation for DOL Secretary Uncertain as Senator Manchin Seeks Alternative Nominees appeared first on CUPA-HR.

    Source link