Some professors resist using teamwork in their classes because they mistakenly believe that team projects are too difficult to grade. One issue is that, as educators, we often only evaluate the team presentation, project or paper with a grade based on how well the team has met our learning objectives.
However, a single project evaluation at the end allows some members to potentially free ride on harder-working teammates, or enables one aggressive or dominating member to take over the entire project to ensure the team gets an A. If we simply grade team projects at the end, it is too late for our student teams to adapt or adjust and learn how to be better at working in teams, a key skill that employers look for in our graduates.
The key to effectively grading teamwork is to set up the grading process systematically at the start of the project. In this article, we offer four ways that you can grade team projects effectively to meet your learning objectives and help students become better team members.
Share your grading rubric at the start of the assignment. Students need to know at the outset of the team project how they will be graded. Many good students tell us they hate team projects because they know they will have to deal with “social loafers” who rely on one or two others to do the work. However, by sharing a rubric that highlights the expectations for each team member and how you will be combining individual and team grading, you can help students make more intentional decisions regarding how they distribute the assignment’s requirements. We not only distribute the rubric at the start of the project, but we post it on our course management system and frequently review it with the class so our expectations are clear.
Include peer evaluation as a part of the evaluation process. Students are sometimes asked to rate their fellow team members, but they are seldom taught how to do it well. As a result, they tend to only give positive feedback to avoid conflict or hurting another student’s feelings. Teaching peer feedback takes only a little class time, as few as 15 minutes. It starts with clarifying your expectations about how you will use peer feedback. You can use or create a form that allows students to provide quantitative and qualitative feedback, and then you should use this same form multiple times during the project. The first time you collect peer feedback should be a low-stakes or practice situation early during the project so that students have a psychologically safe opportunity to learn how to use it. Your students should begin with self-evaluation and then evaluate their peers. Next, you need to summarize the peer feedback and give results to individual students so they know how they are doing. Finally, have groups reflect on how well the group is doing without naming or shaming others. There are times when students will have to give feedback to a person who is free riding or loafing. When they do, make sure they know to first ask that person for permission before they give feedback, then praise in public, and finally provide any negative feedback in private. Finally, we have a YouTube video that instructors can show during class to help students learn about how to give and receive feedback.
Incorporate ongoing feedback from the instructor. We know of faculty who give out a team assignment and never mention it again until the week before the project is due. This is setting up the student teams for failure. Faculty need to check in frequently with their teams to be sure they are making progress on their work and any questions or concerns are answered. Taking just five minutes at the end of class for teams to meet can pay great dividends in a better project product. This instructor feedback can include a way to hold individual team members accountable for the work they are doing. For example, we have set up a separate Google folder for each team with instructor access. Each team member needed to post their contributions to the team project weekly. In this way, we could keep an eye on any social loafers, and provide feedback to those who were working independently instead of with the team. Instructors can also schedule a brief time to sit in on team meetings so that they get a more comprehensive update about the project and who is working toward each of the outcomes.
Carefully consider the weight you give to each phase of the project. It is essential to incorporate peer assessments and the instructor evaluation about how well the project met the learning objectives into any final grade; both are important. However, the weight of these different evaluations tells students the importance of each. More weight on the individual peer assessments stresses the individual work, while more weight on the instructor grade of the project shows the team efforts are more important. At a minimum, use the 80/20 rule: At least 20 percent of the student’s grade should be based on each. Also, be sure to check the peer evaluations to verify that they result from real behaviors rather than personal biases. We accomplish this by looking for consistency across the times of evaluation, across team members and between peer and self-evaluations. In most cases, we find that the evaluations show consistency in all three areas (though self-evaluations are often inflated). In the rare cases when they don’t align, we always refer to supporting documentation, such as agendas, meeting minutes and information that resulted from our ongoing check-ins to help make sense of the reasons underlying any inconsistencies.
Grading a team project may seem like a daunting challenge, but grading is by no means a reason to avoid giving students the experience of working with a team. By following these four principles for evaluating teamwork, instructors can account for the team’s achievement of the learning objectives as well as provide students with valuable teamwork experiences that they can take to future classes, internships, co-ops and employment.
Lauren Vicker is a communications professor emeritus, and Tim Franz is a professor of psychology, both at St. John Fisher University. They are the authors of Making Team Projects Work: A College Instructor’s Guide to Successful Student Groupwork (Taylor & Francis, 2024).
This morning we woke to the news that the ABC television network in the United States had suspended late night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel indefinitely over a statement he made about the accused assassin of right-wing political activist Charlie Kirk. In July, the CBS network announced that it would end The Late Show with Stephen Colbert in May. Colbert has for years mocked and criticized Donald Trump. These two announcements got us thinking about all the different ways governments and those in power try to silence speech.
The very first amendment to the U.S. Constitution begins with this phrase:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …
Because of that amendment, the world has long considered the United States the model for free speech — few countries live up to the standard that the United States has historically set. But across the world now, free speech seems to be endangered. So to put into perspective the many ways censorship can occur and in the many places we see this happening, we decided to offer up an assortment of News Decoder stories on this topic by both our professional correspondents and student authors.
Every new technology brings with it a moment of reckoning and a lot of noise. Higher education has always had its share of both. We’re good at asking questions, kicking the tires, holding things at arm’s length until we’re sure it’s worth leaning in. But AI hasn’t given us that luxury. It arrived fast, and it arrived everywhere. And so here we are: adapting syllabi, revisiting assessments, trying to imagine what teaching looks like when the work of thinking and writing and making can now be shared with a machine.
It’s easy to feel like we’re supposed to become AI experts overnight, or like our value is being called into question. But I don’t think either is true. The real challenge, the real opportunity, is to understand how this new partner might show up in the work we already do. The intellectual work. The teaching work. The deeply human work.
That starts by asking better questions – not just “What can AI do?” but “What kind of thinking does good teaching really require?” If we can name that, we can start to see where AI fits and where it doesn’t.
Jared Spataro, Microsoft’s Corporate Vice President for AI at Work, offered a helpful frame for understanding AI’s potential. He identifies five key cognitive tasks that define knowledge work:perceiving, understanding, reasoning, executing, and creating. I think this framework can be translated to the world of higher ed, and the work that faculty do. Because whether we’re designing curriculum, guiding discussion, mentoring students, or shaping institutional strategy, we’re doing some blend of those five things. And by looking closely at how they show up in our work, we can start to imagine how AI might support, not replace, the best of what we do.
1. Perceiving
Perceiving is about seeing what’s really there – what’s in front of us, and what might be hidden underneath. It’s the first move of any good teacher or designer: noticing. Noticing what students understand and what they don’t. Noticing patterns in discussion boards, in assignment uploads, in the quiet absence of a student who was once engaged. Perception is where reflection begins.
AI can help here by extending human observation. Imagine tools that model thousands of student submissions and flag potential misunderstandings. Or dashboards that surface patterns in feedback across multiple course sections. Or sentiment analysis that gives faculty a pulse on how students are responding to a unit in real time. These aren’t just speculative. Georgia State University’s implementation of predictive analytics has significantly improved student outcomes, especially for underrepresented groups (Dimeo, 2017).
And in my own work, I’ve seen how AI-powered tagging and clustering can help make sense of the digital exhaust students leave behind. During a review of some end of course survey responses, I used a language model to surface common themes in open-ended student responses. What might have taken hours of coding was compressed to minutes, giving me more time to focus on what really matters: how to respond, how to improve, how to connect.
When we talk about perceiving, we’re really talking about attention. AI can expand the reach of our attention—but it’s still up to us to decide where to look, and what to do with what we find.
2. Understanding
Understanding sits at the core of what faculty do. Whether we’re preparing to teach a new course or guiding a student through their first research project or writing up our own research, we’re spending time interpreting. This kind of work takes time and attention, a willingness to sit with uncertainty. And it’s where AI, when used carefully and with intention, can help.
In my own experience, I’ve used generative tools to scan large sets of institutional policy documents to better understand how decisions are communicated, and where inconsistencies emerge. What would have taken a full afternoon of toggling between tabs and highlighting paragraphs became a manageable, interpretable task, one that still needed my judgment, but got me there faster.
When AI can support us in making sense of large volumes of information, summarizing texts, comparing perspectives, identifying patterns, we free ourselves up for the more valuable intellectual work: asking better questions, and spending more time with the answers that matter. It’s about capacity.
Recent studies point to this as a growing area of impact. In a 2023 EDUCAUSE report, researchers note that AI’s ability to “curate and synthesize complex information” has emerged as a top priority for institutions looking to support both faculty productivity and student success (Pelletier et al., 2023). That doesn’t mean outsourcing the work of understanding, but it might mean sharing the load.
As Spataro puts it, these systems can “interpret, analyze, and generate vast amounts of text data,” but it’s up to us to bring interpretation, context, and care (2025). Used well, they don’t replace the act of understanding but they expand the space we have to do it well.
3. Reasoning
Tools that can break a complex task into parts, hold multiple threads in play, and adjust course as they go? That’s thinking and reasoning, and it can be put to work for us. Imagine planning a new course. You’re juggling student needs, institutional requirements, disciplinary content, pedagogical practices, assessment design, and accessibility considerations. AI can now meaningfully assist in that process by helping you reason your way through the options. I’ve used it to test weekly structures, re-sequence modules, generate alternate assessments keyed to different learning outcomes. It’s not always right. But it’s responsive.
This is what Spataro points to when he describes reasoning models’ capacity to navigate multistep challenges. And it’s what others are beginning to explore too. The 2024 Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI report notes that models like GPT-4 are now outperforming the average human on tasks like LSAT logical reasoning questions, tasks that require inference, not recall (Stanford HAI, 2024). It’s not just that AI can make suggestions. It can anticipate consequences. It can debug your logic. It can help you think.
But it doesn’t replace the thinking. That means we need to stay in the loop. Because just like a teaching assistant who works fast but occasionally misses the nuance, these tools need supervision. The real value is in the collaboration. You bring the goals, the context, the judgment. The system brings the speed, the range, and the willingness to try again.
4. Executing
One of the most immediate shifts many faculty feel with these tools is in execution. Not in some futuristic, sci-fi sense, but in the simplest, most grounded way: things just get done faster. And not just routine things. Writing the first draft of an announcement. Reformatting a rubric. Creating a visual from a block of text. Summarizing student feedback across discussion boards. These are tasks that used to chip away at your time, that required a certain kind of attention and structure you didn’t always have at the end of the day. Now they can happen in seconds. Not perfect, but done. Or at least started, ready for you to refine, revise, and finalize.
In my own work, this means I don’t get stalled as easily. If a meeting runs long and I lose the hour I had planned to draft a guidance doc for a new course design initiative, I don’t start from zero later. I sketch the intent in a few lines, and the system scaffolds a first version. I get to come in as editor, refining and recentering. And yes, sometimes rejecting and starting over.
What’s changed isn’t just speed. It’s how close we can get from idea to action without needing to switch tools, start a new doc, find the right template. Execution becomes lighter. It gets folded into the flow. And for faculty navigating a day that might include grading, advising, committee work, and prepping for class, that lightness matters. But we should be careful here. The goal isn’t to turn every task into a race to the bottom. The speed is a gift only if we use the time it gives us well. Execution, in this new context, isn’t about doing more. It’s about clearing space to do what matters.
5. Creating
Creativity sits at the heart of so much work that faculty do. It’s how we see ourselves, not just as transmitters of knowledge, but as makers. We write, design, shape experiences. We revise courses to better fit the needs of a new cohort, craft discussion prompts that pull students deeper, build assignments that didn’t exist five years ago. Creativity is where our identities as scholars, teachers, and thinkers converge. So it’s no surprise that when people hear about AI “creating,” it sparks something between skepticism and alarm. And I get that.
But here’s where I land: this kind of creativity isn’t competition. These tools don’t originate like we do. They don’t generate ideas out of passion or lived experience. But they can be astonishingly good at offering sparks, those half-formed ideas, raw drafts, unexpected juxtapositions. In my own work, I’ve used them to draft module overviews that I later rewrite completely, but which help me see where I’m being too vague or too dense. I’ve used them to riff on potential assignment prompts, not to choose one blindly, but to scan for a new angle or a better tone. Sometimes, I reject it all. But I always walk away with more clarity about what I think.
That’s the shift: using the tools not to replace our voice, but to sharpen it. Not to outsource our thinking, but to reflect it back in new forms. Of course, this only works if we stay present in the process. If we hold fast to our criticality, our nuance, our sense of context. That’s the work. That’s the art. And as Spataro reminds us, the best ideas don’t care where they came from—they care what we do with them next (2024).
Why This Matters
I was working with a group of faculty from different disciplines demoing a few uses of generative tools in course development. We’d just finished a quick example, generating some low-stakes writing prompts for a discussion board. One person leaned back, arms crossed. “This is fine,” they said. “But the question is: what kind of teacher does this make me?”
It’s a great question. And I think the answer is: it makes you a teacher who’s choosing. Choosing how to spend your time and choosing where your expertise matters most. Choosing when to hand something off to the machine and, most importantly, choosing when to hold on tight because the human parts are the whole point.
That’s why I’ve stayed close to these five cognitive tasks. Because none of this matters unless we connect it to the real work we do. The knowledge work. The pedagogical labor. The thinking, the care, the creative decisions.
These five domains – perceiving, understanding, reasoning, executing, creating – aren’t abstract categories or corporate taxonomies. They’re a mirror of our everyday academic labor. They map how faculty prep a new course, evaluate student performance, write feedback, collaborate with colleagues, design new programs, interpret policy, serve on committees, apply for grants, rethink curriculum. This is what it means to work in higher ed. And these are the places where AI is entering.
So when we talk about adoption or training or integration, we’re not just talking about tools or workflows. We’re talking about how we think. How we value time. How we make meaning. And whether we can build systems, technological and human, that let us spend more of our energy on the parts of this job that matter most.
Dr. Nathan Pritts is Professor and Program Chair for First Year Writing at the University of Arizona Global Campus where he also serves as University Faculty Fellow for AI Strategy. He leads initiatives at the intersection of pedagogy, design, and emerging technologies and has spearheaded efforts in the strategic implementation of online learning tools, faculty training, and scalable interventions that support both educators and students. His work brings a humanistic lens to the integration of AI—balancing innovation with thoughtful pedagogy and student-centered design. As author and researcher, Dr. Pritts has published widely on topics including digital pedagogy, AI-enhanced curriculum design, assessment strategies, and the future of higher education.
Pelletier, K., Robert, J., Muscanell, N., McCormack, M., Reeves, J., Arbino, N., & Grajek, S., with Birdwell, T., Liu, D., Mandernach, J., Moore, A., Porcaro, A., Rutledge, R., & Zimmern, J. (2023). 2023 EDUCAUSE Horizon Report: Teaching and Learning Edition. EDUCAUSE.
From generative AI to shifting student expectations, higher ed marketing in 2025 is a whole new game. And institutions that fail to adapt risk falling behind.
The past few years have brought seismic shifts to the way colleges and universities connect with prospective students. From AI-driven search to heightened public scrutiny of higher education’s value, the marketing landscape looks very different than it did even three years ago.
Institutions now operate in an environment where:
Search behavior is changing as generative AI delivers instant answers that bypass traditional search results.
Trust is under pressure as students and families weigh the true return on a college investment.
Student journeys are more complex with expectations for personalized, multi-channel engagement from first inquiry through alumni relations.
Data integrity is paramount as analytics get clouded by bots and misleading signals.
The good news? These changes also open new opportunities for colleges and universities to stand out with authentic storytelling, data-driven strategies, and student-centered engagement.
Keep reading to discover five of the most important higher education marketing trends in today’s landscape — and how institutions can adapt to thrive in this new era.
5 Higher education marketing strategies to keep your institution ahead
Before diving into the specifics, it’s important to recognize that these strategies build on one another to reflect today’s most pressing challenges and opportunities in higher ed marketing.
Here’s a closer look at the strategies every institution should be considering today:
1. Optimizing for the AI searcher
Generative AI is redefining how prospective students find information. Zero-click searches — where answers appear directly in AI Overviews like Google’s AI-generated summaries or conversational search tools — now account for the majority of queries. That’s a paradigm shift for higher ed marketing.
Organic traffic has dropped dramatically, in some cases by more than 30%. But while volume is down, conversion rates are rising, as the students who do land on institutional websites are more informed and further along in their decision-making.
Strategic response To adapt, institutions must embrace Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) and Generative Engine Optimization (GEO). This means:
Creating structured, conversational content designed for AI retrieval.
Prioritizing FAQs, clear definitions, and outcome-driven data.
Diversifying traffic sources with a mix of SEO, paid campaigns, and strong digital experiences.
This is no longer just an SEO shift. It’s a cornerstone of higher education marketing strategy for 2025 and beyond.
2. AI-supported, human-centered creative
AI is now embedded in higher ed marketing workflows, helping generate campaign ideas, personalize messaging, and predict outcomes. But the real competitive edge comes when AI enhances, not replaces, human creativity.
Approach for higher education marketing teams
Use AI to accelerate production: ideation, headlines, personalization cues.
Keep teams focused on authentic, human-driven storytelling.
Build a culture that values both technological fluency and creative intuition.
This approach delivers efficiency while preserving empathy — critical when communicating complex outcomes like institutional ROI or program value. This balance is what separates innovative higher education marketing trends from short-lived tactics.
3. Building institutional trust
Public skepticism about the value of higher education is rising. Families are asking: Is the investment worth it? What outcomes can we expect? With the demographic cliff looming, institutions must double down on proving their value.
Strategic levers for higher ed marketing
Spotlight outcomes: Share data on job placement, graduate earnings, and alumni success stories.
Showcase testimonials: Humanize ROI with student voices and career impact narratives.
Reinforce program value: Use research and rankings to strengthen credibility.
Trust is now a competitive differentiator. Institutions that clearly communicate value, ROI, and outcomes position themselves for long-term success in a skeptical environment.
4. Cross-lifecycle marketing
Higher education marketing strategy can no longer stop at the inquiry. The student journey is long, nonlinear, and filled with digital touchpoints that extend well past enrollment.
How to approach it
Use remarketing to reinforce brand and program value throughout the funnel.
Engage students across the lifecycle — from inquiry to enrollment to retention and even alumni relations.
Tailor content to each stage, aligning messages to nurture confidence, reduce uncertainty, and strengthen connection.
Success isn’t always about clicks or form fills. Sometimes the goal is reassurance, engagement, or retention. Adopting lifecycle-based KPIs ensures institutions are measuring what truly matters.
5. Bot mitigation
Bot traffic is a growing challenge for institutions. Automated hits can inflate website visits, distort engagement metrics, and ultimately mislead decision-makers about which campaigns are working. When analytics are clouded by non-human activity, institutions risk allocating resources to the wrong strategies and missing opportunities to connect with real prospective students.
Best practices for higher ed marketing teams
Set up filters in Google Analytics to remove known bot traffic.
Partner with bot mitigation providers to extend protections to include inquiry and application forms, safeguarding against fraudulent submissions.
Regularly audit campaign data to ensure accuracy.
Clean data leads to better decisions and in higher education marketing, clarity is non-negotiable.
Embracing the future of higher ed marketing
The most effective higher education marketing strategies today are those that combine technology with authenticity. AI search and personalization will continue to evolve, but the fundamentals remain constant: institutions must build trust, deliver value, and guide students throughout their entire lifecycle.
Collegis Education partners with institutions to design and deliver data-enabled marketing strategies that drive enrollment, build trust, and support student success. Let’s talk about what that could look like for your campus.
Innovation Starts Here
Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.
Ashley Nicklay is the Senior Director of Student Lifecycle at Collegis Education, where she focuses on strengthening the connection between marketing and enrollment to create a seamless, student-centered journey. With more than 15 years of higher education experience, Ashley has seen firsthand the powerful outcomes that emerge when these functions work together. In her current role, she is committed to advancing that collaboration—not as separate silos, but as one team supporting every step of the student experience.
As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to reshape the educational landscape, teachers have a unique opportunity to model how to use it responsibly, creatively, and strategically.
Rather than viewing AI as a threat or distraction, we can reframe it as a tool for empowerment and efficiency–one that allows us to meet student needs in more personalized, inclusive, and imaginative ways. Whether you’re an AI beginner or already experimenting with generative tools, here are five ways to infuse AI into your classroom this school year:
1. Co-plan lessons with an AI assistant
AI platforms like ChatGPT, Eduaide.ai, and MagicSchool.ai can generate lesson frameworks aligned to standards, differentiate tasks for diverse learners, and offer fresh ideas for student engagement. Teachers can even co-create activities with students by prompting AI together in real time.
Try this: Ask your AI assistant to create a standards-aligned lesson that includes a formative check and a scaffold for ELLs–then adjust to your style and class needs.
2. Personalize feedback without the time drain
AI can streamline your feedback process by suggesting draft comments on student work based on rubrics you provide. This is particularly helpful for writing-intensive courses or project-based learning.
Ethical reminder: Always review and personalize AI-generated feedback to maintain professional judgment and student trust.
3. Support multilingual learners in real time
AI tools like Google Translate, Microsoft Immersive Reader, and Read&Write can help bridge language gaps by offering simplified texts, translated materials, and visual vocabulary support.
Even better: Teach students to use these tools independently to foster agency and access.
4. Teach AI literacy as a 21st-century skill
Students are already using AI–let’s teach them to use it well. Dedicate time to discuss how AI works, how to prompt effectively, and how to critically evaluate its outputs for bias, credibility, and accuracy.
Try this mini-lesson: “3 Prompts, 3 Results.” Have students input the same research question into three AI tools and compare the results for depth, accuracy, and tone.
5. Automate the tedious–refocus on relationships
From generating rubrics and newsletters to drafting permission slips and analyzing formative assessment data, AI can reduce the clerical load. This frees up your most valuable resource: time.
Pro tip: Use AI to pre-write behavior plans, follow-up emails, or even lesson exit ticket summaries.
The future of AI
AI won’t replace teachers–but teachers who learn how to use AI thoughtfully may find themselves with more energy, better tools, and deeper student engagement than ever before. As the school year begins, let’s lead by example and embrace AI not as a shortcut, but as a catalyst for growth.
Timothy Montalvo, Iona University
Timothy Montalvo is an educator passionate about leveraging technology to enhance student learning outcomes. With over a decade of experience in social studies education, he is dedicated to preparing students for active citizenship in the digital age. He currently serves as a Middle School Assistant Principal in Westchester, NY and an adjunct professor of education at Iona University in New York. He can be reached on Twitter/X @MrMontalvoEDU.
Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)
The Trump administration, since returning to power in 2025, has escalated attacks on the foundations of democracy, the environment, world peace, human rights, and intellectual inquiry. While the administration has marketed itself as “America First,” its policies have more often meant profits for the ultra-wealthy, repression for the working majority, and escalating dangers for the planet.
Below is a running list of 100 of the most dangerous actions and policies—a record of how quickly a government can dismantle hard-won protections for people, peace, and the planet.
I. Attacks on the Environment
Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement—again.
Dismantling the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
Opening federal lands and national parks to oil, gas, and mining leases.
Gutting protections for endangered species.
Allowing coal companies to dump mining waste in rivers and streams.
Rolling back vehicle fuel efficiency standards.
Subsidizing fossil fuel companies while defunding renewable energy programs.
Suppressing climate science at federal agencies.
Greenlighting pipelines that threaten Indigenous lands and water supplies.
Promoting offshore drilling in fragile ecosystems.
Weakening Clean Water Act enforcement.
Dismantling environmental justice programs that protect poor communities.
Politicizing NOAA and censoring weather/climate warnings.
Undermining international climate cooperation at the UN.
Allowing pesticides banned in Europe to return to U.S. farms.
II. Undermining World Peace and Global Stability
Threatening military action against Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea.
Expanding the nuclear arsenal instead of pursuing arms control.
Cutting funding for diplomacy and the State Department.
Withdrawing from the World Health Organization (WHO).
Weakening NATO alliances with inflammatory rhetoric.
Escalating drone strikes and loosening rules of engagement.
Providing cover for authoritarian leaders worldwide.
Walking away from peace negotiations in the Middle East.
Blocking humanitarian aid to Gaza, Yemen, and other war-torn areas.
Expanding weapons sales to Saudi Arabia despite human rights abuses.
Using tariffs and sanctions as blunt instruments against allies.
Politicizing intelligence briefings to justify military adventurism.
Abandoning refugee protections and asylum agreements.
Treating climate refugees as security threats.
Reducing U.S. participation in the United Nations.
III. Attacks on Human Rights and the Rule of Law
Expanding family separation policies at the border.
Targeting asylum seekers for indefinite detention.
Militarizing immigration enforcement with National Guard troops.
Attacking reproductive rights and defunding women’s health programs.
Rolling back LGBTQ+ protections in schools and workplaces.
Reinstating bans on transgender service members in the military.
Undermining voting rights through purges and voter ID laws.
Packing the courts with extremist judges hostile to civil rights.
Weaponizing the Justice Department against political opponents.
Expanding surveillance powers with little oversight.
Encouraging police crackdowns on protests.
Expanding use of federal troops in U.S. cities.
Weakening consent decrees against abusive police departments.
Refusing to investigate hate crimes tied to far-right violence.
Deporting long-term immigrants with no criminal record.
IV. Attacks on Domestic Peace and Tranquility
Encouraging militias and extremist groups with dog whistles.
Using inflammatory rhetoric that stokes racial and religious hatred.
Equating journalists with “enemies of the people.”
Cutting funds for community-based violence prevention.
Politicizing natural disaster relief.
Treating peaceful protests as national security threats.
Expanding federal use of facial recognition surveillance.
Undermining local control with federal overreach.
Stigmatizing entire religious and ethnic groups.
Promoting conspiracy theories from the presidential podium.
Encouraging violent crackdowns on labor strikes.
Undermining pandemic preparedness and response.
Allowing corporations to sidestep workplace safety rules.
Shutting down diversity and inclusion training across agencies.
Promoting vigilante violence through online platforms.
V. Attacks on Labor Rights and the Working Class
Weakening the Department of Labor’s enforcement of wage theft.
Blocking attempts to raise the federal minimum wage.
Undermining collective bargaining rights for federal workers.
Supporting right-to-work laws across states.
Allowing employers to misclassify gig workers as “independent contractors.”
Blocking new OSHA safety standards.
Expanding exemptions for overtime pay.
Weakening rules on child labor in agriculture.
Cutting unemployment benefits during economic downturns.
Favoring union-busting corporations in federal contracts.
Rolling back protections for striking workers.
Encouraging outsourcing of jobs overseas.
Weakening enforcement of anti-discrimination laws in workplaces.
Cutting funding for worker retraining programs.
Promoting unpaid internships as a “pathway” to jobs.
VI. Attacks on Intellectualism and Knowledge
Defunding the Department of Education in favor of privatization.
Attacking public universities as “woke indoctrination centers.”
Promoting for-profit colleges with predatory practices.
Restricting student loan forgiveness programs.
Undermining Title IX protections for sexual harassment.
Defunding libraries and public broadcasting.
Politicizing scientific research grants.
Firing federal scientists who contradict administration narratives.
Suppressing research on gun violence.
Censoring federal climate and environmental data.
Promoting creationism and Christian nationalism in schools.
Expanding surveillance of student activists.
Encouraging book bans in schools and libraries.
Undermining accreditation standards for higher education.
Attacking historians who challenge nationalist myths.
Cutting humanities funding in favor of military research.
Encouraging political litmus tests for professors.
Treating journalists as combatants in a “culture war.”
Promoting AI-driven “robocolleges” with no faculty oversight.
Gutting federal student aid programs.
Allowing corporate donors to dictate university policy.
Discouraging international students from studying in the U.S.
Criminalizing whistleblowers who reveal government misconduct.
Promoting conspiracy theories over peer-reviewed science.
Every educator hopes to instill a lifelong love of learning within their students. We strive to make each lesson engaging, while igniting a sense of curiosity, wonder, and discovery in every child.
Unfortunately, we don’t always succeed, and recent reports suggest that today’s students are struggling to connect with the material they’re taught in school–particularly when it comes to STEM. While there are many potential culprits behind these numbers (shortened attention spans, the presence of phones, dependency on AI, etc.), educators should still take a moment to reflect and strategize when preparing a new lesson for their class. If we truly want to foster a growth mindset within our students, we need to provide lessons that invite them to embrace the learning process itself.
One way to accomplish this is through gamification. Gamification brings the motivational elements of games into your everyday lessons. It increases student engagement, builds perseverance, and promotes a growth mindset. When used strategically, it helps learners take ownership of their progress and encourages creativity and collaboration without sacrificing academic rigor.
Here are just 4 ways that educators can transform their classroom through playful gamification:
Introduce points and badges: Modern video games like Pokémon and Minecraft frequently use achievements to guide new players through the gaming process. Teachers can do the same by assigning points to different activities that students can acquire throughout the week. These experience points can also double as currency that students can exchange for small rewards, such as extra free time or an end-of-year pizza party.
Create choice boards: Choice boards provide students with a range of task options, each with a point value or challenge level. You can assign themes or badges for completing tasks in a certain sequence (e.g., “complete a column” or “complete one of each difficulty level”). This allows students to take ownership of their learning path and pace, while still hitting key learning targets.
Host a digital breakout: Virtual escape rooms and digital breakouts are great for fostering engagement and getting students to think outside the box. By challenging students to solve content-based puzzles to unlock “locks” or progress through scenarios, they’re encouraged to think creatively while also collaborating with their peers. They’re the ideal activity for reviewing classwork and reinforcing key concepts across subjects.
Boss battle assessments: This gamified review activity has students “battle” a fictional character by answering questions or completing tasks. Each correct response helps them defeat the boss, which can be tracked with points, health bars, or progress meters. This engaging format turns practice into a collaborative challenge, building excitement and reinforcing content mastery.
When implemented correctly, gamification can be incredibly fun and rewarding for our students. With the fall semester drawing closer, there has never been a better time to prepare lessons that will spark student curiosity, creativity, and critical thinking.
We can show our students that STEM learning is not a chore, but a gateway to discovery and excitement. So, get your pencils ready, and let the games begin.
Cory Kavanagh, Van Andel Institute for Education
Cory Kavanagh is a Learning Specialist at Van Andel Institute for Education, a Michigan-based education nonprofit dedicated to creating classrooms where curiosity, creativity, and critical thinking thrive.
Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)
In education, we often talk about “meeting the moment.” Our current moment presents us with both a challenge and an opportunity: How can we best prepare and support our teachers as they navigate increasingly complex classrooms while also dealing with unprecedented burnout and shortages within the profession?
One answer could lie in the thoughtful integration of artificial intelligence to help share feedback with educators during training. Timely, actionable feedback can support teacher development and self-efficacy, which is an educator’s belief that they will make a positive impact on student learning. Research shows that self-efficacy, in turn, reduces burnout, increases job satisfaction, and supports student achievement.
As someone who has spent nearly two decades supporting new teachers, I’ve witnessed firsthand how practical feedback delivered quickly and efficiently can transform teaching practice, improve self-efficacy, and support teacher retention and student learning.
AI gives us the chance to deliver this feedback faster and at scale.
A crisis demanding new solutions
Teacher shortages continue to reach critical levels across the country, with burnout cited as a primary factor. A recent University of Missouri study found that 78 percent of public school teachers have considered quitting their profession since the pandemic.
Many educators feel overwhelmed and under-supported, particularly in their formative years. This crisis demands innovative solutions that address both the quality and sustainability of teaching careers.
What’s often missing in teacher development and training programs is the same element that drives improvement in other high-performance fields: immediate, data-driven feedback. While surgeons review recordings of procedures and athletes get to analyze game footage, teachers often receive subjective observations weeks after teaching a lesson, if they receive feedback at all. Giving teachers the ability to efficiently reflect on AI-generated feedback–instead of examining hours of footage–will save time and potentially help reduce burnout.
The transformative potential of AI-enhanced feedback
Recently, Relay Graduate School of Education completed a pilot program with TeachFX using AI-powered feedback tools that showed remarkable promise for our teacher prep work. Our cohort of first- and second-year teachers more than doubled student response opportunities, improved their use of wait time, and asked more open-ended questions. Relay also gained access to objective data on student and teacher talk time, which enhanced our faculty’s coaching sessions.
Program participants described the experience as “transformative,” and most importantly, they found the tools both accessible and effective.
Here are four ways AI can support teacher preparation through effective feedback:
1. Improving student engagement through real-time feedback
Research reveals that teachers typically dominate classroom discourse, speaking for 70-80 percent of class time. This imbalance leaves little room for student voices and engagement. AI tools can track metrics such as student-versus-teacher talk time in real time, helping educators identify patterns and adjust their instruction to create more interactive, student-centered classrooms.
One participant in the TeachFX pilot said, “I was surprised to learn that I engage my students more than I thought. The data helped me build on what was working and identify opportunities for deeper student discourse.”
2. Freeing up faculty to focus on high-impact coaching
AI can generate detailed transcripts and visualize classroom interactions, allowing teachers to reflect independently on their practice. This continuous feedback loop accelerates growth without adding to workloads.
For faculty, the impact is equally powerful. In our recent pilot with TeachFX, grading time on formative observation assignments dropped by 60 percent, saving up to 30 hours per term. This reclaimed time was redirected to what matters most: meaningful mentoring and modeling of best practices with aspiring teachers.
With AI handling routine analysis, faculty could consider full class sessions rather than brief segments, identifying strategic moments throughout lessons for targeted coaching.
The human touch remains essential, but AI amplifies its reach and impact.
3. Scaling high-quality feedback across programs
What began as a small experiment has grown to include nearly 800 aspiring teachers. This scalability can more quickly reduce equity issues in teacher preparation.
Whether a teaching candidate is placed in a rural school or urban district, AI can ensure consistent access to meaningful, personalized feedback. This scalable approach helps reduce the geographic disparities that often plague teacher development programs.
Although AI output must be checked so that any potential biases that come through from the underlying datasets can be removed, AI tools also show promise for reducing bias when used thoughtfully. For example, AI can provide concrete analysis of classroom dynamics based on observable actions such as talk time, wait time, and types of questions asked. While human review and interpretation remains essential–to spot check for AI hallucinations or other inaccuracies and interpret patterns in context–purpose-built tools with appropriate guardrails can help deliver more equitable support.
4. Helping teachers recognize and build on their strengths
Harvard researchers found that while AI tools excel at using supportive language to appreciate classroom projects–and recognize the work that goes into each project–students who self-reported high levels of stress or low levels of enjoyment said the feedback was often unhelpful or insensitive. We must be thoughtful and intentional about the AI-powered feedback we share with students.
AI can also help teachers see what they themselves are doing well, which is something many educators struggle with. This strength-based approach builds confidence and resilience. As one TeachFX pilot participant noted, “I was surprised at the focus on my strengths as well and how to improve on them. I think it did a good job of getting good details on my conversation and the intent behind it. ”
I often tell new teachers: “You’ll never see me teach a perfect lesson because perfect lessons don’t exist. I strive to improve each time I teach, and those incremental gains add up for students.” AI helps teachers embrace this growth mindset by making improvement tangible and achievable.
The moment is now
The current teacher shortage is a crisis, but it’s also an opportunity to reimagine how we support teachers.
Every student deserves a teacher who knows how to meaningfully engage them. And every teacher deserves timely, actionable feedback. The moment to shape AI’s role in teacher preparation is now. Let’s leverage these tools to help develop confident, effective teachers who will inspire the next generation of learners.
Dr. Alice Waldron, Relay Graduate School of Education
Dr. Alice Waldron leads Relay’s collective efforts to accelerate progress toward our mission and vision through meaningful innovation. With a focus on impact, values, and financial sustainability, she creates and leads processes to test and scale innovation initiatives to meet the evolving needs of schools and educators. Prior to this role, Dr. Waldron was the founding Dean of Relay’s Online Campus as well as Relay’s national Dean of Clinical Experience.
Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)
The Global Majority Mentoring Programme, delivered by London Higher, aims to support career progression for Black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME) staff by providing tailored mentoring relationships and learning opportunities for academics and professional services staff.
I joined the programme as a mentee in 2023–24 while seeking support during my time as head of two merged divisions in the School of Law and Social Sciences. For me, mentoring is an exchange of knowledge and experience, and I was looking for a woman of colour in a leadership role outside my own institution with whom I could turn to for advice on navigating the unique challenges I was facing in confidence.
The programme was recommended to me by a colleague who recognised that, as the only non-white member of the school leadership team, I faced specific challenges which, although acknowledged by the rest of the team, could only be supported to a limited extent given that the remainder of the team were white. They understood that someone with lived experience of both race and gender might be better placed to offer the kind of support I needed. I was matched with someone in an Associate Dean role who I met with regularly for three months. She validated my experiences especially when I was second guessing myself, she also offered me guidance and advice on navigating career progression and insights on HE headhunters.
In addition to the mentoring, I also took part in the two-day Learning Leaders Workshop, delivered in partnership with the mentoring programme and the University of Westminster. I approached the workshop ambivalently while hoping it would offer more than the surface-level training I had experienced in the past. Previous programmes had often been underwhelming, failing to meet expectations and lacking depth. One in particular was overcrowded, with more than twenty participants, which made it difficult to engage in the kind of deep thinking that individual and collective inquiry needs.
Surface pressure
Reflecting on these past experiences, I began to question the broader purpose and structure of leadership development in higher education. Despite good intentions, many leadership development initiatives in higher education appear to remain disconnected from the structural changes reshaping the sector. And it is not always clear why line managers support staff participation in these programmes when, in practice, there appears to be limited opportunities to apply or build on the learning.
This concern feels especially pressing now, as the sector undergoes significant transformation, with widespread voluntary redundancies affecting many institutions across the UK. I fear that higher education is losing emerging talent at an alarming rate. While the current focus is largely on financial viability, we may be overlooking a more profound long-term issue, the need to reimagine what leadership in higher education looks like. The urgency of building a future-focused leadership pipeline is growing, particularly as ongoing threats to equity, diversity and inclusion continue to challenge the sector’s values and resilience.
Amid this context of uncertainty, where many of us are increasingly time-poor and juggling demanding workloads, I hoped the Learning Leaders workshop would offer a more meaningful and impactful experience. Taking time out of our busy schedules for training must feel worthwhile, rather than merely another tick-box exercise to meet 360 performance management targets. To my surprise, several aspects of the workshop turned out to be both unusual and thought-provoking.
Leadership through lived experience
Notably, there were just six of us in the room, all women, all from the global majority. Throughout the two days, I found myself reflecting on this. Why is it that I so often see more women than men who feel the need to be “trained up” for leadership? This prompted broader questions about gender, expectations and who is seen as ‘ready’ for leadership roles in our institutions. Women lead in many areas of life, particularly those of us who are parents or and carers. We are skilled problem-solvers, strong networkers, and we manage complex responsibilities every day.
In my role as Head of Division, I noticed a recurring frustration among female academics who felt that the emotional labour involved in providing pastoral care to students often went unrecognised. There was a shared sense that this responsibility frequently fell to them, with both students and male colleagues appearing to expect them to take it on. Yet we rarely describe care and pastoral work as leadership.
The programme was not a traditional form of training in any sense. Instead, it offered a series of facilitated sessions that created space for us to reflect, share, and learn from one another’s experiences. Together, we explored how we each learn which was presented in four quadrants – body, heart, mind, and spirit – and how to make the most of this intel within a team setting. This deeper understanding uncovered the strengths within our own leadership styles and helped us consider how best to apply them in our professional contexts. We took time to reflect on how leadership is defined and, more importantly, where it is learned and practised.
Leadership, we came to understand, is not something taught in a conventional way but rather something that evolves through lived experience. It happens in both personal and professional settings, though we might not always recognise it as leadership in a formal or professionalised sense. The workshop took a holistic approach and illustrated how knowledge can emerge through embodied learning, incorporating philosophical inquiry to uncover deeper insights into our individual and collective strengths. This is when it occurred to me, for the first time, that developing leadership practice is best done in communities of practice.
By the end of the two days, we weren’t “trained” by the facilitator in any traditional sense. Instead, the leadership wisdom we uncovered emerged from within our own group, the Super Six, which is what we have come to be known as and was brought to light through Keith’s expert and highly unconventional facilitation, which gently led us to that shared discovery.
Many paths to leadership
In hindsight, the Learning Leaders workshop gave me the space to actively explore the “what next” and “how next” of leadership. A series of thoughtful one-to-one conversations with one of the Super Six proved particularly impactful. Their questions led me to reflect deeply on new possibilities for academic leadership, including working as a freelance scholar, moving to a different institution, or stepping outside the sector altogether. I have always held a personal principle not to remain in one institution for more than ten years, out of concern for becoming institutionalised and limiting my professional growth. After several thoughtful conversations with my Dean, I came to the difficult but right decision to leave at the end of 2024.
Since then, I have had the privilege of working with several universities and organisations from teaching, advising, researching and collaborating on projects – all of which have been intellectually energising and impactful. There is no one way to lead, and the Learning Leaders workshop reminded me that there are many paths to leadership, each shaped by context, values and personal experience.
If there is any advice that I could offer to emerging leaders from global majority backgrounds, it would be to identify a sponsor with decision making power within the institution, a mentor outside of the university for confidential developmental advice and identify role models across different sectors and who do leadership well so you can begin building your own community of practice.
This article is one of four exploring London Higher’s Global Majority Mentoring Programme – you can find the others here.
Student retention remains one of the most pressing challenges in higher education. While institutions devote considerable resources to attracting new students, ensuring those students persist through to graduation is just as vital for institutional health and student success.
When students leave before completing their programs, colleges and universities lose tuition revenue and see diminished returns on their investments in recruitment and instruction. For students, the stakes are even higher: they often walk away without the credentials or skills they set out to earn, leaving personal and professional goals unfulfilled.
Retention, typically measured by the percentage of students who return to the same institution each year, is now a key performance indicator in higher education. It reflects how well a school supports and engages its students and can influence institutional rankings, funding, and public perception.
Recent data offers a mixed picture. In the United States, the national first-year retention rate for first-time students reached 69.5% in 2022, the highest level in nearly a decade and a slight increase over previous years. Still, that means nearly one in three students don’t return for a second year. In Canada, the pattern is comparable: 15–20% of university freshmen leave after their first year, with even higher attrition rates in colleges.
There is both urgency and opportunity here. This blog explores eight strategic, research-backed approaches that institutions can take to significantly improve student retention, strengthening institutional outcomes and ensuring more students reach the finish line.
Struggling with enrollment and retention?
Our Digital Marketing team can help you generate more leads!
What Causes Students to Leave?
Why is student retention important in higher education? Student retention reflects institutional effectiveness and student success. High retention means students are achieving their goals and institutions are providing strong support. Low retention signals issues like academic or financial struggle. It’s both an ethical responsibility and a financial imperative, reducing dropout rates and maximizing investment in recruitment and instruction.
Student retention is a complex challenge influenced by a range of academic, social, and personal factors. While no two students leave college for exactly the same reason, research has consistently identified several common barriers to persistence. Understanding these roadblocks is essential for developing interventions that work.
Financial Barriers
For many students, the cost of education is a deciding factor. Difficulty paying tuition, fees, and living expenses remains one of the most significant drivers of attrition—particularly for those from lower-income backgrounds. Even small outstanding balances can prevent students from registering for the next semester, pushing them to stop out or drop out entirely.
Lack of Engagement and Belonging
Students who feel disconnected from campus life are far less likely to persist. A strong sense of community, whether through clubs, student organizations, residence life, or peer support networks, has been shown to significantly improve retention. When students feel isolated or out of place, their motivation to stay enrolled often wanes.
Insufficient Academic Support
Academic struggles can quickly lead to frustration and withdrawal if students don’t receive timely help. Without access to tutoring, mentoring, academic advising, or remedial coursework, those who fall behind may begin to doubt their ability to succeed.
Campus Culture and Climate
The broader institutional culture also plays a pivotal role. A welcoming, inclusive environment supported by compassionate faculty and staff can boost student morale and engagement. In contrast, campuses that feel unwelcoming or where students sense a lack of support often see higher rates of attrition.
Life Outside the Classroom
External pressures, including mental health concerns, family responsibilities, work conflicts, or physical health issues, can interfere with students’ ability to continue their studies. When schools lack the flexibility or resources to help students manage these challenges, even the most motivated learners may be forced to leave.
The First-Year Experience
The transition into higher education is a make-or-break period. Students who struggle during their first year, due to academic shock, poor orientation programs, or difficulty making friends, are at greater risk of not returning for a second year. Supporting students during this critical period can make a long-term difference.
What Is the Difference Between Persistence and Retention?
Retention refers to students returning to the same institution, while persistence tracks students continuing in higher education, even if they transfer. A student may not be retained by one college but still persist by enrolling elsewhere. Persistence offers a broader view of student progress beyond a single campus.
What Are the Factors Affecting Student Retention?
Student retention is influenced by academics, finances, social belonging, mental health, and institutional climate. Academic unpreparedness, isolation, financial strain, and life challenges are leading causes of dropout. The first-year experience is especially critical. Successful retention strategies address multiple areas, supporting students academically, socially, and personally to help them stay enrolled.
With these contributing factors in mind, it’s clear that improving student retention requires a holistic, proactive approach. Fortunately, institutions have a range of strategies at their disposal. In the next section, we’ll explore eight of the most effective ways colleges and universities are addressing these issues, complete with real-world examples from Canada, the U.S., and beyond.
1. Personalize Communication and Support for Students
Today’s students are used to receiving customized experiences in almost every aspect of their lives, from social media feeds to online shopping recommendations. They now expect the same level of personalized communication from their college or university. When schools meet students with timely, tailored support, they show that they care, and that can make all the difference in whether a student stays or leaves.
This kind of proactive outreach can take several forms. Some institutions segment their automated email campaigns by group, such as first-years, international students, or those on academic probation, to deliver more relevant content and reminders. Others implement 24/7 text messaging systems or AI-powered chatbots that answer routine questions, offer words of encouragement, and send reminders about key deadlines. More advanced platforms go a step further, using predictive analytics to monitor signs of disengagement or academic trouble, alerting advisors to intervene before it’s too late.
These tools offer a concierge-style model of support: always on, always responsive. Students can get help after hours or over the weekend, when live staff may not be available, which helps reduce frustration and drop-off.
Example: Forsyth Technical Community College in the U.S. revamped its approach to student communication by adopting a “customer service” mindset, ensuring that both staff and automated systems responded quickly, kindly, and proactively to student needs. This overhaul included faster response times, friendly messaging, and a systematic effort to check in on students rather than waiting for problems to surface. The result? A 9% increase in student retention after implementing this new communication model.
To replicate this approach, consider implementing a CRM (Customer Relationship Management) or student engagement platform that allows advisors to monitor student status and send targeted messages. This could be as simple as congratulating a student on a strong midterm, or as critical as reaching out after several missed classes.
Even small gestures like a personalized check-in from a faculty member can make students feel they belong. When institutions shift from one-size-fits-all messaging to individualized outreach, they build a sense of care and connection that reinforces students’ decisions to stay enrolled.
2. Foster a Strong Sense of Community and Belonging
A strong sense of belonging is one of the most powerful predictors of student retention. When students feel connected, through friendships, mentors, and shared campus culture, they’re more likely to persist despite academic or personal challenges. Conversely, loneliness and disconnection are key drivers of attrition.
To support student connection, institutions should create structured opportunities for involvement: orientation, residence life, clubs, intramurals, volunteer work, and student leadership. Participation in these activities increases engagement and reinforces a sense of purpose. Social media can amplify this by highlighting student life and celebrating individual voices.
Example: The University of Toronto supports student retention by building community and belonging for underrepresented students through mentorship. In particular, U of T offers programming for first-generation students that connects them with mentors and resources across campus. This First Generation Student Engagement program focuses on helping students navigate barriers to access and inclusion by linking them to academic support, career guidance, wellness services, and peer networks. The goal is to ensure first-gen and other marginalized students feel a strong sense of belonging and are supported throughout their journey.
Ultimately, when students feel they matter to peers, faculty, and the institution, they’re more likely to stay. Belonging isn’t a bonus; it’s foundational to retention.
3. Offer Robust Academic Support and Advising
Academic challenges are a leading cause of student attrition. When students feel lost, overwhelmed, or unsupported, they’re more likely to withdraw. That’s why proactive academic support is one of the most effective student retention strategies.
Effective strategies include offering accessible tutoring (in-person and 24/7 online), writing assistance, and supplemental instruction for high-failure courses. Just as crucial is structured academic advising. When advisors monitor progress and flag early signs of struggle, like low grades or unbalanced course loads, they can intervene with timely solutions.
Institutions must also normalize help-seeking by actively promoting support services. Social media, email campaigns, and website content can encourage students to use academic resources without stigma.
Example – UC Berkeley has built an ecosystem of academic support services combined with faculty mentorship to improve student success and retention. On the academic side, Berkeley provides extensive tutoring, peer advising, and dedicated study spaces in residence halls, free for students and readily accessible where they live.
Early alert systems are another retention tool. By analyzing attendance and coursework in the first weeks, schools can identify at-risk students and reach out before they disengage.
The message is simple: when students know help is available and feel encouraged to use it, they’re more likely to succeed.
4. Provide Career Development Opportunities From Day One
Career uncertainty is a major driver of student attrition. To counter this, institutions must integrate career development early, ideally from the first year.
Career workshops, alumni networking, LinkedIn training, and highlighting the career potential of different majors help students connect academics to future employment. Research confirms that uncertainty about career direction strongly correlates with dropout risk.
Example: DePaul University launched the Future Forward program, a year-long career incubator for first-year students, to bolster their sense of purpose and keep them enrolled. The idea is to help freshmen find their “why” for attending college by engaging them in self-discovery, skill-building, and career exploration starting in their first quarter. Future Forward combines online learning modules (on topics like growth mindset, design thinking, networking) with mentorship from older student peers and staff. By integrating career development into the first-year experience, DePaul addresses a major attrition risk: lack of direction. Many freshmen enter undecided about their field, which can sap motivation. Future Forward helps students clarify goals and see how their studies link to future careers, thereby increasing their commitment to persist.
Mentorship is another effective strategy. Toronto Metropolitan University’s Tri-Mentoring Program connects upper-year students with professionals to support the transition to work.
Example: Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU) – formerly Ryerson University – pioneered the Tri-Mentoring Program (TMP) to support student retention through layered mentorship and inclusion. The educational priority of TMP is “to mentor each student using their individual experience to find their sense of belonging on campus.”
In practice, the “Tri” refers to three tiers of mentoring: Peer Mentoring (matching first-year students with trained upper-year mentors in the same program or with similar backgrounds), Group Mentoring (regular group sessions and community events for students from equity-deserving groups, facilitating peer networking and mutual support), and Career Mentoring (matching third-year or higher students with industry professionals, often alumni, for guidance as they prepare for careers).
Similarly, internships, job shadowing, and embedded career-planning courses give students confidence in their trajectory. Institutions can also integrate career goals into academic advising and marketing, using alumni stories to reinforce long-term value. When students see a clear path from degree to career, their motivation and likelihood of staying enrolled dramatically improve.
5. Leverage Data and Early Alerts to Identify At-Risk Students
Predictive analytics enables institutions to proactively support students showing signs of disengagement or academic risk. By monitoring GPA, class attendance, LMS activity, or even ID card swipes, colleges can detect early warning signs and act before a student drops out.
Many platforms offer dashboards and AI-driven messaging to flag risks and send targeted resources. When paired with advisor outreach, this approach becomes highly effective.
Example: Georgia State University’s Predictive Analytics: Georgia State tracks over 800 risk indicators, triggering alerts when students show signs of academic or financial distress. This system led to the Panther Retention Grant, which helps students with small outstanding balances, one of the biggest dropout triggers. Combined with advisor follow-ups, this strategy has significantly improved retention, especially for underrepresented students.
Even basic early alert systems can help. Faculty-initiated midterm warnings and proactive outreach have been shown to improve persistence by making students feel supported. Benchmarking tools like the IPEDS database can also guide institutions on where to improve.
In short, using data transforms retention from reactive to proactive. With the right tools and team, schools can identify challenges early, intervene meaningfully, and prevent students from slipping through the cracks.
6. Enhance Financial Aid Awareness and Support
Financial strain is a top reason students consider stopping out. To improve retention, institutions must ensure students are aware of, and able to access, funding options before small financial issues force them out.
Colleges should proactively promote scholarships, bursaries, emergency grants, and flexible payment plans. Hiring financial aid coaches or sending alerts to students with incomplete forms or unpaid balances can help prevent unnecessary dropouts. Georgia State University’s Panther Retention Grants exemplify this approach, offering micro-grants to students at risk of losing enrollment over modest fees. Over 10,000 students have benefited, with research showing faster graduations and lower debt loads as a result.
COVID-era aid also proved powerful: community colleges and HBCUs that used relief funds to clear student debts saw thousands stay enrolled. Additionally, financial literacy programs, like budgeting workshops or one-on-one counselling, equip students to manage limited resources wisely and reduce financial stress.
Example: Queen’s University has focused on reducing financial barriers and the misinformation around them by proactively promoting financial aid opportunities to students, using channels like social media, email, and digital signage. The goal is to ensure students know about and utilize available aid (scholarships, bursaries, grants), thereby decreasing the number who drop out due to financial strain. In practice, Queen’s Student Affairs runs ongoing Instagram awareness campaigns about bursary deadlines, loan applications, and financial wellness tips. Below we see Queen’s official Student Affairs Instagram has posts reminding students “it’s not too late to apply for the 2023–24 General Bursary for winter and summer terms” and to apply for government aid like OSAP (Ontario Student Assistance Program).
Bottom line: funding support and strong communication are critical tools in retaining financially vulnerable students.
7. Offer Flexible and Inclusive Learning Options
Modern college students are diverse; many are part-time, working, parenting, or have accessibility needs. Rigid policies and teaching methods can alienate these learners, making flexibility and inclusivity essential to retention.
Flexible scheduling options, like evening, weekend, online, or hybrid classes, help students balance education with life responsibilities. Allowing part-time enrollment, asynchronous learning, or summer online courses can reduce dropout risk, especially among non-traditional learners.
Credit for prior learning (e.g., PLAR in Canadian colleges) also supports older students by recognizing experience and accelerating time to completion. Inclusive learning environments ensure students of all abilities and styles thrive.
Example: Academy of Learning Career College (AOLCC) uses its proprietary Integrated Learning System (ILS) to maximize student retention by offering flexibility, personalization, and one-on-one support in the learning process. The ILS is a self-directed, multi-sensory training system that lets each student learn at their own pace on a schedule that suits them. A crucial feature since many AOLCC students are adult learners, working, or have family obligations.
Support for online students is also critical. Strong virtual infrastructure; 24/7 tech help, online tutoring, and proactive instructor check-ins help remote learners feel connected. Some schools have engagement teams dedicated to online students.
Additionally, flexible academic policies such as compassionate leaves or grading options (used during the pandemic) can prevent student loss under strain. By adapting to student realities rather than enforcing a traditional mold, colleges show they care and turn potential stop-outs into future graduates.
8. Strengthen Faculty-Student Engagement and Mentorship
Faculty play a pivotal role in student retention through their daily interactions with students. Strong faculty-student engagement, including mentorship, accessibility, and supportive instruction, helps students feel seen, guided, and motivated to persist, especially when challenges arise.
Research shows that meaningful faculty contact improves students’ sense of integration and commitment to college. Gen Z students, in particular, value professors who demonstrate authenticity and personal interest. Without that, disengagement and dropout risk increase.
Colleges can enhance engagement through mentorship programs, pairing students with faculty advisors who offer academic, career, and personal guidance. Faculty training in inclusive teaching and student outreach empowers instructors to recognize and assist struggling students early. Simple actions, like checking in on absences, can make a big difference.
Example: Faculty as Mentors at Berkeley:As noted earlier, UC Berkeley emphasizes that its faculty are among the most accessible, citing programs like the Resident Faculty Program where professors live in residence halls to interact with students outside of class. They highlight that faculty often serve as mentors and even friends to students, and note statistics such as a 19:1 student-faculty ratio and many small classes. This environment of approachability contributes to student success and retention at Berkeley; students feel supported academically and personally by instructors of that caliber, which deepens their commitment to staying.
Interactive teaching methods, such as discussions or group work, foster stronger connections. Faculty who use student names, encourage participation, and integrate feedback build rapport and community. Schools like UC Berkeley go further, housing faculty in residence halls and maintaining small class sizes to promote mentorship.
Faculty should be viewed as frontline retention agents. By celebrating teaching and providing tools for meaningful student relationships, institutions can greatly boost persistence through a caring, connected academic culture. In retention, relationships matter, and faculty are key.
Retention Starts With Intention and the Right Support
Improving student retention isn’t about a single silver bullet. As we’ve explored, it takes a coordinated, research-driven strategy, one that centers students at every point of their journey. Whether it’s delivering personalized outreach, fostering belonging, offering early career guidance, or using data to proactively intervene, the most successful institutions treat student retention as both a mission and a metric.
But knowing what works is only half the equation. Implementing these strategies at scale, consistently and effectively, requires the right tools, technology, and expertise. That’s where Higher Education Marketing can help.
At HEM, we equip colleges and universities with the CRM systems, marketing automation, and digital engagement strategies needed to nurture students from application to graduation. From crafting segmentation-based communications to building data-informed retention workflows, our solutions are built for institutions ready to prioritize persistence.
If you’re looking to boost your retention rates, build stronger student connections, and create a more responsive campus experience, explore how HEM’s services can support your goals. Together, we can help more students reach the finish line and help your institution thrive in the process.
Do you want to explore strategic and effective university student retention strategies?
Contact HEM for more information.
Struggling with enrollment and retention?
Our Digital Marketing team can help you generate more leads!
Frequently Asked Questions
Question: Why is student retention important in higher education?
Answer: Student retention reflects institutional effectiveness and student success. High retention means students are achieving their goals and institutions are providing strong support. Low retention signals issues like academic or financial struggle.
Question: What is the difference between persistence and retention?
Answer: Retention refers to students returning to the same institution, while persistence tracks students continuing in higher education, even if they transfer.
Question: What are the factors affecting student retention?
Answer: Student retention is influenced by academics, finances, social belonging, mental health, and institutional climate. Academic unpreparedness, isolation, financial strain, and life challenges are leading causes of dropout.
