Tag: work

  • Redistribution doesn’t work when there’s nothing left to redistribute

    Redistribution doesn’t work when there’s nothing left to redistribute

    Too many people across our country do not get the chance to succeed.

    So the government is committed to supporting the aspiration of every person who meets the requirements and wants to go to university or pursue an apprenticeship, regardless of their background, where they live and their personal circumstances.

    Those aren’t my words – they’re the words of the House of Commons’ HE supply teacher Janet Daby, who answers for actual (Lords) minister Jacqui Smith whenever a question comes up about universities or students.

    This answer is a typical one – in which she notes that in the summer, the department (for education) will set out its plan for HE reform and that it will expect providers to play an “even stronger” role in improving access and outcomes for all disadvantaged students.

    Specifically on financial support:

    Whilst many HE providers have demonstrated positive examples of widening access, including targeted outreach and bursaries, we want to see the sector go further.

    Back in 2014, partly to get “top-up fees” through Parliament, then secretary of state Charles Clarke announced that a new Office for Fair Access (OFFA) would be created – and that it would require universities to offer up some of their additional fee income in bursaries.

    Assuming that a proportion of student financial support should come partly via universities’ own budgets has always created a tension – between those who say that local decision making (aka institutional autonomy) is better at designing schemes that get the money to where it’s really needed, and those that argue that redistributing fee income within a provider rather than across the country means that financial support ends up being based not on need, but on the number of other students at your university that need it.

    We used to be able to see that clearly. OfFA used to track how many “OfFA countable” students each provider had and their spending on financial support, and it would generally show that providers doing the most for access tended to have the least to spend per student.

    Over time, direct student financial support declined in popularity. Research questioned bursaries’ impact on applications (unsurprising given how hard it was to find information on them), and it tended to struggle to find retention benefits from 2006-2011 – findings that then got extrapolated far beyond their timeframe.

    Pressure to demonstrate impact led providers to focus on entry and completion metrics rather than the experience students were having as a result. That seemed less critical in the mid-2010s when inflation was low and maintenance loans were cranked up to hide the fact that grants were eliminated. Students living at home (more likely from widening participation backgrounds) also got relatively generous maintenance support compared to their costs.

    Eventually, provider-level reporting on student financial support pretty much disappeared as the Office for Students started to emphasise outcomes over experience or spending transparency.

    But with maintenance support over the past few years some distance from inflation, and the income thresholds over which parents are expected to top up stuck at the level they were set at in the year that Madeleine McCann went missing (18 whole years ago), we really do need some sense of how the mix is panning out.

    So to help us to understand what’s been going on, for the fourth year running we’ve managed to extract some data out of OfS via an FOI request.

    The data

    Ever since the days of the Office for Fair Access (OFFA), HESA has collected data on the amounts of student financial support, and the number of students that helps, for each university in England – and here we have that data over the past few years.

    It covers four different types of spend on student financial support:

    • Cash: This covers any bursary/scholarship/award that is paid to students, where there is no restriction on the use of the award
    • Near cash: This includes any voucher schemes or prepaid cards awarded to students where there are defined outlets or services for which the voucher/card can be used
    • Accommodation discounts: This includes discounted accommodation in university halls / residences
    • Other: This includes all in-kind or cash support that is not included in the above categories and includes, but is not limited to, travel costs, laboratory costs, printer credits, equipment paid for, subsidised field trips and subsidised meal costs

    Some caveats: We remain less than 100 per cent convinced about the data quality, this doesn’t tell us how much money is going to disadvantaged students specifically, it doesn’t tell us about need (and the extent to which need is being met), I’ve yanked out most of what we used to call alternative providers for comparison purposes, and it only covers home domiciled undergraduates (and below, in terms of level of study).

    But it is, nevertheless, fascinating. Here’s the numbers for each provider in England:

    [Full Screen]

    If we nationally just look at cash help, in 2023/24 just over £496m went to just under 311k students – a spend per head of £1,598 – very slightly above last year’s £1,464 per head.

    But dive a little deeper and you find astonishing disparities. In the Russell Group the £ per head was £2,362 – about £40 up on the previous year. Across Million+ providers that figure was £726 – just £4 more than 2 years ago.

    Interestingly, per student helped, the Russell Group spent the same in cash help per student as it did in 2019. Maybe inflation doesn’t apply in elite universities, or maybe they’re getting worse at recruiting those on low incomes. Meanwhile the cash spend per student helped across Million+ universities has almost halved from £1,309 in 2019/20.

    Clearly all universities are under financial pressure – but what we see is almost certainly an artefact of redistributing fee income around a provider rather than around a country, and it appears to result in manifest unfairness.

    Even if we don’t adjust for inflation, spend per student helped has fallen for 45 universities between 2022/23 and 2023/24, and since 2019, it’s fallen for 56 universities. If we do apply inflation (CPI), only five are beating their 2019 SPH. No wonder students are struggling to come to campus.

    Some may say that it might be better just to look at what’s been going on under the auspices of formal, declarable access and participation work. HESA finance data now includes a look at expenditure – but not the number of students that expenditure covers, nor the total amounts invested pre-pandemic, and nor the amounts allocated in premium funding, all of which would aid meaningful comparison.

    Moving money around

    I tend, in general, to be a fan of redistribution and cross-subsidy. It can help reduce economic inequality, promote social stability, and ensure that everyone has access to basic necessities. It reflects a commitment to fairness and the idea that a society should care for all its members.

    As such, the logical bit of my brian never had much of a problem with the Charles Clarke/OFFA expectation – it was at least aimed at ensuring that everyone got to have a decent experience at university.

    But the redistributive effects of moving money around a provider when some providers (which already tend to be the richest) have fewer poor kids to spend it on never really added up.

    If you really wanted the system to be fairer, and for the most money to reach those who need it most, you might start by acting regionally. I doubt that John Blake’s regional partnership structures – which will involve cohort-level renewal for Access and Participation Plans will actually go as far as expecting providers in a region to pool their bursary or hardship spend – but there’s a very good logical case for that kind of approach.

    When students at Salford are getting £358 each in cash help while their neighbours at the University of Manchester are getting £1,829, there’s a very strong case for pooling the money.

    But even if that was to happen, beware the regional agglomeration effects. The region with the lowest higher education participation rate in the UK is the North East of England, at 33.4 per cent. London, with its 63 per cent rate, ought to be giving some of its spend on student financial support away to support participation up North.

    And once you’re there, you (re)realise what many said at the time of the Clarke announcement – that moving money around a university when participation in universities is so unequal to start with is no way to run a fair system.

    And even more importantly, it’s not fair on fee-paying students. When the assumption was that fees were a small part of the overall funding mix, we could say to students that the state’s contribution would be focussed more on those in need.

    Even with fees at £9,000, the redistributive effects of some paying much more than that through interest of RPI+3% and some much less via the repayment threshold and the cut-off – all while funding a moderately comfortable financial support system for all – was some sort of egalitarianism in action.

    But once the subsidy slips away, and students are expected to pay back almost all of the debt they incur, we end up expecting their personal debt to do what the state ought to do. And while it’s one thing for your fees to be spent subsidising other students at your own university, it would be quite another for them to be spent subsidising those at others in your region, or even around the UK.

    Then add in the fact that in UUK’s cuts survey, just under half of universities (49 per cent) say they may still need to cut hardship funding and 59 per cent say they may need to cut bursaries. Even if some sort of tougher APP regime was to find a way to stop that, that just means that wider cuts will fall on everyone – and so for some students, less and less of their actual contribution will end up being spent on their actual education.

    It turns out that the progressive taxation – ensuring that those with higher incomes contribute a larger share of their earnings to public services – is the much better way to promote economic fairness and reduce income inequality. Who knew?

    Source link

  • If it’s top down it won’t work

    If it’s top down it won’t work

    Higher education institutions are complex ecosystems where policies shape the experiences of students, academics, and administrative staff.

    However, the process of policy creation and implementation often lacks inclusivity, flexibility, and responsiveness to the rapidly evolving educational landscape.

    If institutions are to thrive in an era of digital transformation, shifting student expectations, and increasing socio-economic challenges, they must rethink how policies are designed and enacted.

    A more participatory, adaptive, and evidence-based approach is essential to creating institutional policies that truly serve the needs of all stakeholders.

    Top down without engagement

    Institutional policies often emerge from a centralised, top-down approach, where senior leadership teams develop policies without adequate engagement with those directly affected (students, faculty, and professional service staff).

    This results in policies that may be well-intended but are disconnected from on-the-ground realities. For instance, policies surrounding Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL) frequently fail because they do not account for academic workload constraints, staff and students’ digital literacy levels, or disparities in institutional infrastructure.

    The gap between policy intentions and practical implementation then leads to confusion, resistance, and limited adoption.

    Policies should not be dictated from the top – but rather co-created with those who will implement and be impacted by them. This requires institutions to foster genuine dialogue with diverse stakeholders, ensuring that different perspectives and experiences shape decision-making.

    Adopting participatory approaches such as Change Laboratories, a method that engages stakeholders in problem-solving workshops, can provide a structured way for institutions to address contradictions and inefficiencies in their current policy frameworks.

    A recent Change Laboratory intervention at a UK research-intensive university demonstrated the benefits of participatory policy development. The initiative brought together academics, administrators, and digital learning specialists to collaboratively identify barriers to effective blended learning adoption.

    Through iterative discussions and problem-solving exercises, the group developed a Culturally Advanced Activity System (CAAS), aligning institutional policies with pedagogical realities. The process not only resulted in a more practical and effective policy framework but also increased staff engagement and willingness to adopt blended learning practices.

    The success of participatory policy-making in blended learning highlights its potential application across other areas of policy. Institutions could apply similar methodologies to enhance policies related to assessment frameworks, student support services, diversity and inclusion, and faculty development. By institutionalising collaborative problem-solving approaches, HE governance structures can become more responsive to evolving educational needs.

    Rigid policies that fail to account for evolving challenges and opportunities quickly become obsolete. HE institutions must adopt a more dynamic approach, treating policies as living documents that are regularly reviewed and updated based on data-driven insights.

    For example, instead of prescribing a one-size-fits-all approaches, institutions should allow for staff-led experimentation, followed by structured evaluations to refine policies based on what works best in different disciplines.

    An evidence-based policy culture?

    Stakeholder-led policy development is crucial to ensuring that policies are not only relevant but also widely accepted and effectively implemented. By actively involving students, faculty, and administrative staff in the policy-making process, HE institutions can create frameworks that reflect the lived experiences of their communities.

    This participatory approach fosters greater trust, encourages meaningful engagement, and enhances the practicality of policies. When stakeholders have ownership over policy development, they are more likely to support its implementation, leading to smoother transitions and sustainable institutional improvements.

    Additionally, fostering a culture of continuous professional development ensures that policy decisions align with the latest pedagogical and technological advancements.

    For HE institutions to remain relevant and responsive in the 21st century, they must overhaul how they create and implement policies. Moving away from rigid, top-down structures and embracing participatory, flexible, and evidence-driven approaches will ensure that policies are both effective and widely supported.

    Institutional leaders must prioritise stakeholder engagement, foster a culture of continuous learning, and create policies that genuinely enhance teaching, learning, and student success.

    Without these changes, HE risks stagnation in an era that demands adaptability and innovation. By embedding participatory mechanisms and evidence-based strategies in governance, HE institutions can pave the way for a more inclusive and forward-thinking educational environment.

    Source link

  • Creating learning environments that work for BTEC entrants to higher education

    Creating learning environments that work for BTEC entrants to higher education

    We know that past learning experiences directly correlate to progress and preparedness for higher education study. But are we to accept that the adverse relationship with outcomes for different students’ entry routes is driven by academic performance at university?

    There is evidence that students who enter with vocational qualifications are more likely to drop out or get a lower degree classification because of poorer academic performance. This lack of progression is alarming, and initiatives steered to increase progression opportunities that support better overall performance remain both a challenge and a strategic priority for the university sector. HESA statistics for the 2021–22 academic year show the “dropout rate” for first year students with vocational qualifications continues to increase by one percentage point across the sector year on year.

    Furthermore, there remains a consistent four percentage point awarding gap between those with vocational and those with traditional qualifications. Despite their higher dropout and non-progression rates, students progressing from vocational qualifications represent a significant growing pathway into HE and many who progress, go on to graduate with at least a 2.1.

    A 2022 Nuffield report on the relationship between 16-19 subject, higher education choices and graduate outcomes found “…a weakening of the relationship between entry qualifications and outcomes once comparing individuals with similar module scores.” This implies that educators have a significant part to play in ensuring approaches to setting, measuring and enhancing performance are fair and equitable. Specifically, inclusive assessment design should be central to the educational experience, ensuring all students can fulfil their potential irrespective of their route to HE.

    A very particular set of skills

    Ongoing work on student engagement such as this 2023 framework for inclusive and effective student engagement from QAA, has demonstrated clear benefits from creating communities that build identity and belonging though adopting inclusive approaches, enhancing student engagement, motivation and progression. Applying these principles means recognising that students entering HE from vocational routes like BTECs possess unique skills.

    Through their studies they have developed hands-on learning and real-world application, giving them practical skills directly relevant to their chosen field. Additionally, they engage in self-directed projects and coursework, fostering independence and time management skills essential for managing university workloads. Many vocational courses offer work placements, providing valuable career insights that foster a professional mind-set from day one. Unlike traditional A levels, BTECs are assessed through coursework and practical assessments, helping students develop strong research, critical writing, and project management skills.

    All of the above combines with a wealth of lived experience – BTEC students often come from diverse educational backgrounds – which enhances these students’ adaptability and resilience. Furthermore, the emphasis on practical achievements and continuous assessment fosters a positive mindset and a sense of belonging and community. These skills provide vocational students with a solid foundation for success in HE. So what are we not getting right?

    Like many other universities, we recognise each cohort is unique and a one size fits all approach may not have sustained impact. Learning, teaching, and assessment design should provide an equitable experience for all students regardless of prior learning experiences and route into HE. We have streamlined our approaches, drawing on evidence of what is “working” to enable us to embed efficient and effective approaches to being intentionally inclusive within assessment design.

    Five ways to inclusion

    It’s early days, but we are already seeing improvements in the number of students that are passing all modules first time from a variety of entry routes and through approaches that celebrate and embrace the unique skillsets of all students. Through five interconnected themes we are making steady and sustained progress through exploring inclusive assessment practices and reviewing the narrative of learning.

    Supporting student confidence is foundational to academic success. We have found that developing shared assessment literacies can help students recognise their capabilities and potential. This can directly speak to the unique skillset that students bring from a range of diverse routes: for example, creating Hidden Curriculum Guides that unpack unfamiliar language and concepts, drawing from past experiences to socialises the unknown so that students can feel confident in their understanding and learning journey.

    Embedding effective pedagogical approaches employs a blend of student-centred and humanistic methods to create dynamic and responsive learning environments. These approaches are tailored to meet the specific needs of students. Evidence-based approaches include empowering students to bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application for life-wide learning and preparedness for the journey ahead. These examples not only integrate effective pedagogical approaches but support a range of skillsets, positioning the educational experience through empathy and compassion in developing supportive transition and orientation interventions and deepening the shared understanding of lived experiences.

    Assessment diversity and timely feedback are crucial. Our commitment to inclusive assessment practices creates space where all students can demonstrate their knowledge and skills effectively. Through co-created integrated approach to inclusive assessment, we have produced a set of inclusive assessment and feedback principles: clear, understood, authentic, robust and personalised.

    Creating a sense of belonging is vital for student engagement and retention. Inclusive classroom environments that celebrate diversity and foster community connections help students feel valued and supported. Harnessing the practice elements will bring a newfound confidence to the forefront of the learning experience. Flipping the classroom, so students have a more meaningful experience creates a sticky campus, and a strong sense of togetherness which particularly suit students that have entered HE via a vocational route. Initiatives such as peer mentoring and collaborative projects have been successful in creating a welcoming and inclusive atmosphere.

    Recognising and valuing the diverse entry backgrounds of students not only enhances learning but also promotes equity and inclusion by drawing on the value of their individual learning experiences to enhance their learning journey. We identified the need for targeted support mechanisms that bolster student confidence during the transition to and through HE. Our emphasis on the importance of diverse pedagogical approaches, inclusive assessment practices, and feedback mechanisms provided solid foundations.

    Learning from programme teams about what works to maximise real-world learning from current practice is essential to building trust. Our five-phase approach provides a scaffolding based on our unique learning journey. The challenge remains for us as a sector to address and share knowledge holistically, which draws from evidence-based practice with the aim of enhancing student outcomes. Working collegiately with the student body, this is both an urgent and important issue to address with the growing number of students joining universities from vocational routes. There is a government push to increase capacity for vocational routes in HE and so if universities are to stay relevant in this space, there is an urgency to find solutions, learning from programme leaders who are passionate and best placed to know students. Together and collaboratively, we can drive forward real intervention with sustained impact, it matters for student success.

    For more about the authors’ work to create inclusive learning environments see the special editions of Innovative practice in higher education and Pedagogy collating evidence shared at our learning and teaching festivals in 2023 and 2024.

    Source link

  • Five Ways to Use Group Work to Engage College Students (opinion)

    Five Ways to Use Group Work to Engage College Students (opinion)

    A few years ago, we hired an adjunct professor to teach a three-hour night class. After a few weeks, he came to us in frustration because he couldn’t get the students to discuss the material, and when he asked if there were any questions, they never responded.

    We probed more. Upon further discussion, we found that his course plan for each night was a three-hour lecture using PowerPoint slides; he didn’t take class planning beyond that. He felt overwhelmed by the responsibility for teaching the content of the course, but he didn’t know where to begin to get the students to contribute, ask questions and actively participate. We immediately put on our coaching hats, working to help him actively engage his class so that students had a deeper learning experience.

    We have heard about this frustration with getting students to participate actively in conversations with many other faculty members, in one-on-one coaching or during faculty development sessions. This often happens because faculty members are relying on lecture because that was the way their own professors taught and often the way they were trained to teach in their graduate programs.

    When moving into team projects, here are four key actions to take:

    1. Assign students to their teams in a way that is transparent and purposeful. Definitely don’t let students pick their own groups.
    2. Show students your grading rubric when you assign the project. We guarantee your students will be more successful when you do this.
    3. Train students on how to conduct peer evaluation, and include peer evaluations as part of the grade.
    4. Check in frequently with teams to see how they are progressing, and to answer any questions. Your students will appreciate this.

    In addition, the distractions that students face when preparing for class and during class time are increasing exponentially. Many are not doing the reading, some are on their phones, more than a few are shopping online during class and some just don’t have the bandwidth left to participate because of their very busy lives outside of school.

    How do we help these faculty members start to turn things around? In our experience as professors, group work is a great way to help instructors, new and experienced, to actively engage classes in discussions.

    The two of us have had extensive experience using in-class group work and executing in-depth team projects across many different disciplines. On most surveys, employers report that one of the top skills they want from college graduates is the ability to work in teams. Given what employers want, we’d of course like everyone to move away from lectures to engaging students with project-based teamwork. But not everyone is comfortable moving to a system that is so different from their current teaching methods.

    So how can we help our struggling adjunct faculty member, and other professors who want to more actively engage their students? Here are five quick and easy ideas to try.

    1. A think-pair-share exercise. This occurs when you pose a question, give students a brief time to reflect and think, and then ask them to turn to their neighbor and share their ideas. If you want them to develop their thoughts even more, you can ask them to turn to another pair and join them to discuss the issue (how many times you do this depends on the size of the class); you can even join up more dyads. Then ask the groups to report back with a few key points.
    2. Prepared discussion questions. Prepare a series of discussion questions based on the reading for that day or about a problem on which the class is working. Next, organize the class into four- or five-person groups. Give students a reasonable amount of time to work through the questions. While they are working, make sure to circulate through the groups, answer questions, make comments to illustrate some of the ideas and provide prompts to help them. At the conclusion of the discussion, have each group report on the highlights of their discussion and use the opportunity to give a series of mini-lectures on points they described and things they might have missed.
    3. Learning through discussion. Developed by William Fawcett Hill, this method is an even more structured approach to group work. We used this method in an upper-level theory course with excellent results. Learning through discussion puts considerable responsibility on a group leader, but if the groups rotate this leadership position across the group each week, it should even out the work (and as a bonus, it can help students develop team leadership skills). The leader synthesizes the material and initiates the discussion. The leader doesn’t teach the group but leads them through an eight-step process to identify major themes in the material and how it integrates with previous knowledge and application. Keeping students in the same groups helps them get used to working together and develop a sense of camaraderie. If you find you need to hold students accountable to help some less motivated ones prepare, you can collect their notes and have the group do quick peer evaluations.
    1. Each one, teach one. These sessions are a great way to have students cover a considerable amount of literature in what might be a psychologically safe environment for them. Divide your class into groups of four to five people. Then assign as many readings as you have members of the groups. Each person in the group completes one reading and then leads a group discussion about the article, partially teaching it to the other members of the group. You can have them accomplish all the outside readings during one week, or across multiple weeks, depending on your needs. Students learn from each other, and the one leading the discussion has to spend time learning to dissect one paper. 
    2. Team projects. Ad hoc group work as we’ve described in the first four ideas is a great way to help students to learn course material for the long haul and spark discussion. Team projects can do this even better. They do, however, take a little more work. Once you are comfortable with breaking the class into groups for ad hoc discussion, you can think about planning a team project. If you’ve never run one before, you may want to start with a small project, something short term (think three to five weeks). As you gain more experience and learn what works for you, your style, and your material, you can then move to bigger, longer projects.

    These are just a few of the ways that you can use groups, or even teams, to actively engage students in the material.

    Source link

  • Trusting students and reducing barriers by abolishing penalties for late work

    Trusting students and reducing barriers by abolishing penalties for late work

    Universities, wonderful as they are, can be very complicated.

    The way that we operate can often be confusing for students, not least because some of our expectations and traditions are hidden and unspoken – even more so for students who enter higher education from historically underrepresented backgrounds.

    Indeed, revealing the so-called hidden curriculum in higher education is a common means by which we try to eliminate gaps in access and outcome.

    But there are also times when, as a sector, we should be more critical of the way we do things, whether those practices are hidden or unhidden.

    Here we want to share an example of what happens when you challenge orthodoxy, and why we think we should do this more often.

    Assessment penalties

    If you spend some time reviewing UK university policies on assessment and examination, you will find that it is almost universally the case that there are penalties associated with late or non-submission.

    Typically, this involves a deduction of marks. Sometimes late submissions will be capped at a pass, other times the deduction is linked to the degree of lateness. Similarly, students who fail to submit an assessment or sit an exam will often find that their next attempt at resit will be capped.

    Of course, institutions do recognise that there may be lots of good reasons why students cannot meet deadlines, and so alongside these penalties, we also have Extenuating or Mitigating Circumstances processes. In short, if a student tells us the reason they were late or could not submit, then they may be exempted from those penalties if the reasons meet our established criteria.

    What is far harder to find is any robust explanation, in written form, of why these penalties exist in the first place. There is much received wisdom (as you would expect, for a sector so steeped in tradition) for why we have these penalties, which – in our experience – typically falls into two categories.

    The first justification is about using penalties to disincentivise lateness or non-submission. If students know they will lose marks, that will ensure that most submit on time. The second justification is about fairness. If you submit late, you are getting more time than other students, so you should not receive a higher mark as a result of this presumed advantage. Each of these justifications could be debated endlessly, but we don’t intend to do that here.

    Questioning the received wisdom

    The reason we began to question the wisdom of capping students who submitted their work late, or who needed to use their resit attempt, was prompted by insights which emerged from work led by our SU. Over the past few years, our SU has been supporting students who needed to complete resits by calling them to ensure that they understood what they needed to get done, and had access to the support they needed. In itself, this initiative has been very impactful, and we are seeing year-on-year improvements in student pass rates.

    However, this initiative also gave our students a chance to share their own insights into why they found themselves having to resit assessments. In plain terms, our students were telling us – we are overwhelmed.

    Students who did not submit assignments were not being tactical or lazy, or trying to gain an advantage over others. They were simply not able to get all of the work done that we required in the time given – despite substantial efforts we have already made over the last few years to ensure we are not over-assessing.

    At the same time, we had been aware for some time that our students were using our Extenuating Circumstances (ECs) process extensively. Thousands of valid claims were made by students each year, which we processed and – for the substantial majority – supported.

    This meant that our students who were submitting late or completing resits were not, for the most part, actually being subjected to marking caps. Perhaps we could have stopped there, reflecting that this reflects a system working as it was designed to work: students with valid reasons for late submission should not be capped; we had a system which allowed students to make such claims to avoid penalties; and it seemed the system was well-used.

    What we could not shake, however, was a sense that this all seemed quite unnecessary – layers of bureaucracy needing to exist to ensure that students who did not deserve to have an academic penalty applied to their mark, while the very existence of the possibility of this penalty was entirely our own decision. We asked ourselves what would happen if we simply removed marking penalties for late and non-submissions? If students were awarded a mark based solely on the content of their submission? If we created a late submission window for every deadline, and allowed students to manage their own time?

    We took this idea to a panel of our students, and were intrigued to hear their views. Overwhelmingly, they felt this would be a good idea. The stress of having to apply for extra time, often close to a deadline if some unexpected problem had arisen which threatened their ability to submit on time, was something students felt would be alleviated by this change. They also reflected that, for the most part, students are inherently motivated to try and meet their deadlines, and aren’t simply trying to game the system and find loopholes.

    Yes but

    Concerns about this change came from internal and external consultation with colleagues. While in principle wanting to support the idea, it was difficult to shake the concerns that 1) without a penalty for late submission, students would simply treat the last day of the late submission window as their new deadline, and 2) if resits were not penalised with a cap, many students would choose to not submit at the first attempt and defer their submission to a later date.

    We also had to consider, if these outcomes came to pass, the impact on staff workloads and marking turnaround times. With these concerns in mind, taking a careful approach to how we communicated changes to students and putting in place contingencies for managing impacts on workloads, we ultimately decided to take the plunge, and at the start of the 24/25 academic year we removed marking caps for late and non-submission. Then we kept a close eye on what happened next.

    What happened next is that our students did what we believed and hoped they would.

    Across the first semester this year, we have actually seen a small decline in the percentage of late submissions – with only 12.22% of work submitted being submitted within the 5 working day late submission window.

    All other work was submitted on or before the main deadline. By comparison, in 23/24 12.32% was submitted late, and 12.41% in 22/23, so it is perhaps more accurate to say that there has been no change in late submissions.

    But this was, of course, accompanied by a dramatic reduction in the number of times that students have had to request the option to submit late through our ECs process (and then worry about whether this request would be supported).

    These claims have reduced by 154 per cent, thereby also alleviating a huge administrative burden on our colleagues who have to process these claims. In short, students who in previous years needed extra time have been able to access it without having to ask, and removing the threat of a marking penalty has not increased the proportion of students submitting their work late.

    The concern that if students were not capped for non-submission then they might defer sitting exams has also proven unfounded. In fact, we have seen a 5 per cent increase in the number of students attempting their exam first time. In numerical terms, we had 370 fewer students failing to attend an exam during our January exam period.

    Student success

    While it is reassuring to have found that this change in policy has not led to any significant change in students’ engagement with deadlines and assessments, more importantly we also wanted to know whether our students were more likely to succeed.

    The data quoted above could have masked another issue, whereby students who did submit work were no more likely to submit past the deadline, but perhaps more students were not submitting at the first attempt and instead were deferring to their resit period.

    To explore this issue, we compared first time pass rates for first semester assessments to the previous academic year. This has revealed a 4.3 per cent improvement in pass rates at first attempt, with the biggest improvement of 6 per cent for our first-year undergraduates.

    When looked at by student characteristic, we have also seen the greatest degree of improvement for our ABMO students and our male students, who have historically been more likely to not pass assessments at their first attempt.

    Statistics aside, in human terms, this change in policy (which sits within a wider context of strategic initiatives we have in place to improve student outcomes for all of our students) is associated with us having 604 more students who have passed at their first attempt this year, than we would have had if pass rates had stayed the same as last year.

    With regard to concerns about the impact of this change on staff workloads, having more students passing first time also means a reduction in resit marking later in the academic year.

    Complex challenges

    For those interested in the practicalities of our new approach, we still have an Extenuating Circumstances procedure, but this is now intended as a mechanism for students to let us know about more complex challenges where a few days extra time would be inadequate to help them successfully engage with their assessments.

    We have also made clear to students that late submitted work is still recorded as being late (but with no marking penalty applied), and if students continually submit work late we will – in a supportive manner – reach out to find out if they need more or different support from us.

    We will continue to monitor the impact of these changes, in particular to understand whether there is any overall impact on student outcomes over the full year and beyond – particularly outcome gaps for different groups of students. But so far, our experience has been that making a change which initially seemed quite radical has simply served to make life easier for our students when they are already working so hard to access and participate in education.

    It is also important to recognise that extra time in itself is not a panacea for improving student outcomes, despite it being the most common form of adjustment offered to disabled students.

    By making this change in our approach, we were simply trying to make this very simple accommodation immediately available to any student who needs it, for whatever reason.

    This massively reduces a large administrative burden on the university, and frees us up to focus on more personalised forms of support, for students who need more than a few extra days to complete an assignment.

    The reason we are keen to share this with the sector is that we think it is a good example of how we can better support our students by challenging our own self-imposed orthodoxy. It is great to think that we have been able to reduce the anxiety associated with missing deadlines, without having to worry that our students will cynically use this change to game the system.

    We strongly believe that our students are inherently motivated to engage with their studies and do the best they can, and we think it is our job to make sure we are not getting in the way of them doing that.

    If, in the process, we can cut out unnecessary administration and bureaucracy for ourselves, then so much the better.

    Source link

  • Growing Orchids Amid Dandelions at Work (opinion)

    Growing Orchids Amid Dandelions at Work (opinion)

    Many of us working in higher education, including those of us in teaching and learning centers, might find that our work is dramatically accelerated by rapid technological change and increasing pressures to be more efficient and productive. Technology adoptions such as smartphones and Slack, video communication, and now generative AI all contribute to the acceleration of the organizational culture.

    In her recent essay “Teaching Centers Aren’t Dumping Grounds,” Kerry O’Grady argues that many academic leaders “focus on more instead of on effectiveness and efficiency.” O’Grady recounts continued calls to “create more workshops, more one-pagers or more training when attendance was dismal for initial sessions, or when the original documents went untouched.” She argues that educational developers are in a constant state of emergency response, in which they are tasked with “retroactive cleanup” as opposed to “the work of proactive planning for teaching and learning success.” O’Grady calls for a much-needed reset—something that feels wonderfully exciting—and institutionally unrealistic.

    Our collective teaching and working in higher education at more than 20 institutions over 50 years tells us that we are always working with limited agency to significantly change how our centers align with our strategic vision and the changing needs of the institution. Amid the dizzying pace of constant disruption, we feel a need to find a more sustainable and pragmatic approach. O’Grady’s essay inspired us to reflect on our strategic plans and how we support our respective communities. While the “dumping ground” metaphor importantly calls attention to current challenges, we consider a different metaphor that has guided our decisions as we direct centers and support educators.

    The Dandelion and the Orchid

    Dandelions are versatile flowers—resilient, fast-growing and abundant. In the context of educational development, dandelions represent the many ways developers adapt to institutional demands, producing quick outputs that propagate widely. Dandelion work is essential: It includes the programs and resources we create rapidly to meet pressing needs. However, as with real dandelions, the results of this work are often scattered, growing without the intentional design of a cultivated garden. When we run from meeting to meeting or throw together a one-off workshop to respond to emerging pedagogical issues, we rely on dandelions.

    In contrast, orchids require significant care and controlled environments to flourish. Orchid work symbolizes slow, intentional cultivation—projects that are thoughtfully nurtured over time. These efforts demand patience, consistency and a commitment to depth over breadth. While the process is slower, the results are uniquely meaningful, reflecting a product of deliberate focus. Orchid work requires long-term planning, collaboration across units and thoughtful engagement. While orchids can result in beautiful landscapes, the time taken to cultivate them can mean that we miss many emergent day-to-day needs.

    Together, this framework highlights a central question: Which systemic issues require sustained effort, and which challenges can be addressed through quick, one-off engagements? Balancing dandelion and orchid approaches helps educational developers respond to immediate needs while creating space for intentional growth.

    Growing Relationships

    Resilience does not sprout in isolation but through networks of care, mutual support and shared experiences. To push the floral metaphor further, if our goal in centers for teaching and learning is to help educators help students bloom, then we need to model and promote the space and time needed to learn, even if social pressures point in the opposite direction.

    Although meaningful relationships take time to develop, their benefits are powerful. Research supports the idea that individuals with a high relational self-construal—those who define themselves through their relationships with others—may be better able to embrace inconsistency and instability (two things that very much describe life in education today). Educational developers therefore can foster resilience and adaptability not only by caring for relational networks at their institution but also by defining their work based on such networks.

    In our own ways, we make space for orchids in our work and programming by emphasizing the ways in which relationships and time are necessary conditions for educational development. Some of the ways we do this as we go about our regular, day-to-day “dandelion” programming include:

    Balancing the orchid and the dandelion depends on priorities and time constraints. The dandelion approach can produce quick solutions when the pressure is high, and the orchid approach encourages us to carve out the time and tend to our relationships even in our constant push to maintain that field of flowers.

    While it may disrupt our metaphor, dandelions can give way to orchids and orchids can give way to dandelions. After all, the more often that deeper relationships develop, the more often we’re going to be in contact with faculty and colleagues, which will seed new ideas and possibilities, be they orchids or dandelions.

    The metaphor encourages us to ask how and where we can make space and time for deeper engagement. We cannot just grow a field of dandelions if we want to foster a culture of innovation, nor can we respond effectively and in a timely manner to an institution’s needs if we just focus on orchids. We have found that giving ourselves the permission to grow orchids amid the dandelions allows us to feel more agency and more relationally connected to the work we’re doing and the people we’re doing it with. The metaphor has helped us foster and model a more inclusive, supportive academic culture—one that balances collaboration with efficiency, collective resilience with institutional responsiveness and meaning with productivity.

    JT Torres directs the Houston H. Harte Center for Teaching and Learning at Washington & Lee University.

    Lance Eaton is an educator, writer and public speaker. He has worked in educational development for 15 years and recently became the senior associate director of AI in teaching and learning at Northeastern University.

    Deborah Kronenberg is an educator, consultant and public speaker who approaches communities of learning with creative, interdisciplinary, relationship-centric leadership in faculty and administrative roles in the greater Boston area.

    Source link

  • Higher Ed Under Attack Makes the Work More Important

    Higher Ed Under Attack Makes the Work More Important

    Earlier this week, University of North Carolina professor and New York Times columnist Tressie McMillan Cottom remarked on BlueSky, “It’s so weird that we’re all working like this is just a normal country.”

    Indeed, I have recently been struck repeatedly by the immediate juxtaposition of the banal, logistical work of being a freelance writer and speaker and the fact that the stuff I write and speak about—teaching, academia, et al.—are under concerted attack as part of a larger assault on democratic institutions, to the point where one wonders if they’re going to collapse entirely.

    I’ve accepted speaking invites for six months from now wondering if we will still have operating higher education institutions six months from now. I mean, I think we will, but at this moment I wouldn’t 100 percent guarantee it, which is a strange thing to even consider given that some of these places are literally hundreds of years old.

    I even just accepted an invitation to speak at a teachers’ conference in Alberta, Canada, in April 2026, and even as I signed the contract I wondered if we will still be able to travel freely between the U.S. and Canada by then.

    It strikes me that part of the strategy of those currently committing these assaults on democracy is to create this kind of cognitive dissonance. Every day brings a new example of something we didn’t think could happen: disappearing people to foreign countries without even a semblance of due process, dismantling the federal infrastructure around cancer research, a president speculating about a third term and it being taken seriously as a question of legality.

    That’s just this week, by the way.

    The discordancy is probably greater for those working in or adjacent to higher ed, as the sector finds itself so directly in the Trump administration crosshairs. There is more not-normal in education than elsewhere right now, though the recently announced tariffs suggest that not normal is now going to be extended worldwide.

    It strikes me that we are on one of two possible trajectories. One is essentially a slide into what scholars call competitive authoritarianism, where there are some external trappings of democratic society like courts and elections still existing, but where the fix is largely in as to who and what maintains power. Hungary and Turkey are the two most obvious examples that experts cite, but we’re seeing plenty of evidence for joining them right here at home.

    The so-called Big Law firms that have capitulated to Trump and pledged to do hundreds of millions of dollars of legal work in exchange for being removed from the target list seem like examples of organizations that are making their bet that they can survive in a nondemocracy provided they’re willing to curry favor with power. Republican office holders seeking to carve out exceptions from Trump tariffs for their state’s industries are another example.

    So too are the higher ed institutions, such as Columbia, bending the knee to Trump. They apparently view their continued existence—be that in a democratic society or something else—as more important than protecting values like academic freedom or the First Amendment. Noah Feldman, a Harvard Law professor who apparently is an expert on First Amendment law, sees these responses (as characterized by The New York Times) as “rational,” saying, “Sometimes people who are eager for the university to get up and make big statements have a slightly unrealistic conception of what the real-world effect of those statements would be.”

    One of the upsides of the present turmoil—and it is a very small upside, I admit—is that folks are showing their true stances when it comes to the occasional fraught intersection of their purported values and material reality. Here is an esteemed First Amendment lawyer who is willing to countenance an unprecedented assault on academic freedom because the “real-world” consequences are apparently too great.

    I have often lamented in this space how there has appeared to be a significant disconnect between the lofty ideals attached to higher education and how many higher education institutions act when they have a choice between living their mission or funding their operations. Feldman makes it clear which side of the divide he sits on, and he is not alone.

    The other possible trajectory is that the sheer incompetence and erratic nature of Trump and those who surround him will lead to an unraveling of the assault as it implodes under the weight of public disapproval. The recent election results in Wisconsin and Florida, which showed a significant swing toward Democrats, suggest that if the public is activated and motivated, there is sufficient sentiment to defeat Trump and Republicans at the ballot box—provided we still have elections, that is.

    Personally, I keep returning to the question I asked back in February: “What’s next for higher ed?” My argument that one era was over and another is to come has only been made stronger over the last month and a half. There is no going back for Columbia University. They have chosen to be something other than what they previously claimed to be. I’m certain Columbia will survive in some form, but we should not be asked to pretend that they are an example of the values we’d like to claim for higher education institutions.

    Most days, I am both freaked out and hopeful, which is maybe my answer to Cottom’s musing about how we’re able to act like we’re living in a normal country. Part of the time I’m freaked out, certain that we are decidedly not a normal country and we are hurtling toward disaster.

    But other times I am doing work that I think advances the values of free inquiry and personal freedom and development. I imagine going to some college or university six months from now, where we will talk about the importance of human expression through the act of writing, and then after that maybe I sit down to write a blog post, forcing myself to grapple with the world in front of me and make sense of it, even when, or especially when, it appears senseless.

    Next thing you know, some thoughts have been gathered and you share them with the world.

    When I first read the BlueSky post, I imagined that Cottom was thinking that we’re experiencing a disconnect or disassociation that allows us to deny the weirdness and even terror happening around us, but I think it’s the opposite.

    I think it’s a sign that the work matters and that we must throw our continued support behind the leaders and institutions who are pledging to make the work that remains consistent with educational values possible. I don’t know how Feldman’s soft capitulation gets us there.

    Bring me the fighters.

    Source link

  • Your Work Counts More Than Ever: Lessons From a Lifetime in HR

    Your Work Counts More Than Ever: Lessons From a Lifetime in HR

    by Christy Williams | April 2, 2025

    With the constant flow of breaking news impacting higher ed recently, maintaining focus on your mission-driven work and its importance is increasingly difficult. That’s why taking a breather every once in a while — and reminding yourself (and your team!) that your work matters more than ever — is essential.

    As Cheryl Guerin, associate vice president of human resources at Dartmouth College, reminds us in Our Work Matters: Gems From a Lifetime in Higher Ed HR, “The work we do matters, and people matter more.” She emphasizes the relationship aspect of HR, insisting that the sometimes-intangible work matters most.

    In stressing the power of relationships, Guerin also asserts that our willingness to learn from those relationships is vital. Here are some of the lessons she has learned over her 30-year career in higher ed HR.

    Connection Is Key

    Higher ed HR professionals often handle sensitive and complex issues, but that doesn’t mean the workplace has to be devoid of camaraderie. In fact, fostering a positive and connected work environment can strengthen our teams, build trust and even improve problem-solving.

    • Keep It Simple — Offer time for connection — and food if you can. These two seemingly small things can make a huge impact. A workplace survey found that “three types of social opportunities were almost universally ranked highest on the list, no matter how we cut the data: free communal lunches, meetings that devote time to personal chitchat and happy hours.”
    • Recognize Employees — Recognition doesn’t have to be expensive or difficult. Your enterprise software might offer ways of sending customized thank-you notes, for example. If the budget allows, consider purchasing thank-you cards with your institution’s branding — a tangible way for colleagues and supervisors to show appreciation that also provides a lasting reminder of someone’s impact.

    The Power of Self-Reflection

    Not every workplace relationship is easy, and for higher ed HR professionals, navigating challenging dynamics can be emotionally draining. When tensions arise, you might feel frustrated or stuck. That’s why self-reflection is key to maintaining professionalism, resilience and personal well-being.

    Rather than reacting emotionally or feeling powerless, taking a step back — what Guerin calls “getting up in the balcony” — allows for a shift in perspective. This approach encourages curiosity over frustration, helping you assess situations more objectively and question assumptions rather than jumping to conclusions.

    • Develop a Reflective Practice — When workplace tensions arise, take a moment to assess your reactions. Ask yourself, “What else might be true?” to challenge assumptions and consider different perspectives.
    • Embrace Acceptance Without Complacency — Not every difficult relationship can or needs to be changed. Sometimes, the best approach is to acknowledge the situation as it is while focusing on what is within your control — your response and your mindset.

    Your Teammates Are Your Safety Net

    The most enduring and meaningful work relationships go beyond just collaboration — they become a foundation of trust, support and shared experiences. Whether you’re covering lunch breaks for one another, offering help in times of need, or simply being a consistent presence through years of change, connections with colleagues reinforce that, while the work is important, the people behind it matter even more.

    • Invest in Your Work Relationships — Make time to build connections with colleagues beyond daily tasks. Small acts of support and camaraderie can create a lasting foundation of trust.
    • Recognize the Human Side of HR — HR professionals spend so much time supporting others, but you also need a strong network. Cultivating relationships within your team and with your CUPA-HR colleagues ensures that when challenges arise, you have a reliable safety net.

    In higher ed HR, the work you do is critical, but the relationships you build along the way are just as important. By fostering connection, practicing self-reflection and supporting your teammates, you create a stronger, more resilient workplace. Investing in these relationships not only makes the challenges more manageable but also makes our shared journey more meaningful.

    Related CUPA-HR Resources

    Our Work Matters: Gems From a Lifetime in Higher Ed HR (CUPA-HR’s Higher Ed HR Magazine)

    Leading With Kindness: Characteristics of Caring Work Cultures (CUPA-HR’s Higher Ed HR Magazine)

    Organizational Culture & Climate Toolkit

    Recalibrating Employee Recognition in Higher Education (CUPA-HR’s Higher Ed HR Magazine)



    Source link

  • Calif. judge rules adjuncts should be paid for nonclassroom work

    Calif. judge rules adjuncts should be paid for nonclassroom work

    A superior court judge in California ruled last week that adjunct faculty in the Long Beach Community College District should be paid for work they do outside the classroom, including lesson prep, grading and holding office hours, EdSource reported.

    The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed in April 2022 by two part-time professors who argued that they are only paid for time spent teaching in the classroom, and that “failing to compensate adjuncts for out-of-classroom work is a minimum wage violation,” according to the decision by Judge Stuart Rice.

    Rice concurred, noting “a myriad of problems” with the district’s argument that minimum wage rules don’t apply, EdSource reported.

    Still, Rice stayed the decision pending further proceedings, so it doesn’t go into effect immediately. A similar lawsuit is under way in Sacramento County, brought by adjuncts against 22 community college districts, as well as the state community college system and its Board of Governors.

    Adjunct professor John Martin, who chairs the California Part-time Faculty Association and is a plaintiff in the Sacramento case, celebrated the Long Beach ruling.

    “It’s spot-on with what we have been saying,” he told EdSource. “We’re not getting paid for outside [the classroom] work. This has been a long time coming.”

    Source link

  • Three things to know about AI and the future of work (opinion)

    Three things to know about AI and the future of work (opinion)

    Since the public release of ChatGPT in late 2022, artificial intelligence has rocketed from relative obscurity to near ubiquity. The rate of adoption for generative AI tools has outpaced that of personal computers and the internet. There is widespread optimism that, on one hand, AI will generate economic growth, spur innovation and elevate the role of quintessential “human work.” On the other hand, there’s palpable anxiety that AI will disrupt the economy through workforce automation and exacerbate pre-existing inequities.

    History shows that education and training are key factors for weathering economic volatility. Yet, it is not entirely clear how postsecondary education providers can equip learners with the resources they need to thrive in an increasingly AI-driven workforce.

    Here at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville’s Education Research and Opportunity Center, we are leading a three-year study in partnership with the Tennessee Board of Regents, Advance CTE and the Association for Career and Technical Education to explore this very subject. So far, we have interviewed more than 20 experts in AI, labor economics, career and technical education (CTE), and workforce development. Here are three things you should know.

    1. Generative AI is the present, not the future.

    First, AI is not new. ChatGPT continues to captivate attention because of its striking ability to reason, write and speak like a human. Yet, the science of developing machines and systems to mimic human functions has existed for decades. Many people are hearing about machine learning for the first time, but it has powered their Netflix recommendations for years. That said, generative AI does represent a leap forward—a big one. Simple machine learning cannot compose a concerto, write and debug computer code, or generate a grocery list for your family. Generative AI can do all of these things and infinitely more. It certainly feels futuristic, but it is not; AI is the present. And the generative AI of the present is not the AI of tomorrow.

    Our interviews with experts have made clear that no one knows where AI will be in 15, 10 or even five years, but the consensus predicts the pace of change will be dramatic. How can students, education providers and employers keep up?

    First, we cannot get hung up on specific tools, applications or use cases. The solution is not simply to incorporate ChatGPT in the classroom, though this is a fine starting point. We are in a speeding vehicle; our focus out the window needs to be on the surrounding landscape, not the passing objects. We need education policies that promote organizational efficiency, incentivize innovation and strengthen public-private partnerships. We need educational leadership focused on the processes, infrastructure and resources required to rapidly deploy technologies, break down disciplinary silos and guarantee learner safeguards. We need systemic and sustained professional development and training for incumbent faculty, and we need to reimagine how we prepare and hire new faculty. In short, we need to focus on building more agile, more adaptable, less siloed and less reactive institutions and classrooms because generative AI as we know it is not the future; AI is a harbinger of what is to come.

    1. Focus on skills, not jobs.

    It is exceedingly difficult to predict which individual occupations will be impacted—positively or negatively—by AI. We simply cannot know for certain whether surgeons or meat slaughterers are at greatest risk of AI-driven automation. Not only is it guesswork, but it is also flawed thinking, rooted in a misunderstanding of how technology impacts work. Tasks constitute jobs, jobs constitute occupations and occupations constitute industries. Lessons from prior technological innovations tell us that technologies act on tasks directly, and occupations only indirectly. If, for example, the human skill required to complete a number of job-related tasks can be substituted by smart machines, the skill composition of the occupation will change. An entire occupation can be eliminated if a sufficiently high share of the skills can be automated by machines. That said, it is equally true (and likely) that new technologies can shift the skill composition of an occupation in a way that actually enhances the demand for human workers. Shifts in demands for skills within the labor market can even generate entirely new jobs. The point is that the traditional approach to thinking of education in terms of majors, courses and degrees does learners a disservice.

    By contrast, our focus needs to be on the skills learners acquire, regardless of discipline or degree pathway. A predictable response to the rise of AI is to funnel more learners into STEM and other supposed AI-ready majors. But our conversations, along with existing research, suggest learners can benefit equally from majoring in liberal studies or art history so long as they are equipped with in-demand skills that cannot (yet) be substituted by smart machines.

    We can no longer allow disciplines to “own” certain skills. Every student, across every area of study, must be equipped with both technical and transferable skills. Technical skills allow learners to perform occupation-specific tasks. Transferable skills—such as critical thinking, adaptability and creativity—transcend occupations and technologies and position learners for the “work of the future.” To nurture this transition, we need innovative approaches to packaging and delivering education and training. Institutional leaders can help by equipping faculty with professional development resources and incentives to break out of disciplinary silos. We also need to reconsider current approaches to institutional- and course-level assessment. Accreditors can help by pushing institutions to think beyond traditional metrics of institutional effectiveness.

    1. AI itself is a skill, and one you need to have.

    From our conversations with experts, one realization is apparent: There are few corners of the workforce that will be left untouched by AI. Sure, AI is not (yet) able to unclog a drain, take wedding photos, install or repair jet engines, trim trees, or create a nurturing kindergarten classroom environment. But AI will, if it has not already, change the ways in which these jobs are performed. For example, AI-powered software can analyze plumbing system data to predict problems, such as water leaks, before they happen. AI tools can similarly analyze aircraft systems, sensors and maintenance records to predict aircraft maintenance needs before they become hazardous, minimizing aircraft downtime. There is a viable AI use case for every industry now. The key factor for thriving in the AI economy is, therefore, the ability to use AI effectively and critically regardless of one’s occupation or industry.

    AI is good, but it is not yet perfect. Jobs still require human oversight. Discerning the quality of sources or synthesizing contradictory viewpoints to make meaningful judgments remain uniquely human skills that cut across all occupations and industries. To thrive in the present and future of work, we must embrace and nurture this skill set while effectively collaborating with AI technology. This effective collaboration itself is a skill.

    To usher in this paradigm shift, we need federal- and state-level policymakers to prioritize AI user privacy and safety so tools can be trusted and deployed rapidly to classrooms across the country. It is also imperative that we make a generational investment in applied research in human-AI interaction so we can identify and scale best practices. In the classroom, students need comprehensive exposure to and experience with AI at the beginnings and ends of their programs. It is a valuable skill to work well with others, and in a modern era, it is equally necessary to work well with machines. Paraphrasing Jensen Huang, the CEO of Nvidia: Students are not going to lose their jobs to AI; they will lose their jobs to someone who uses AI.

    Cameron Sublett is associate professor and director of the Education Research and Opportunity Center at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Lauren Mason is a senior research associate within the Education Research and Opportunity Center.

    Source link