Earlier this year, I wrote about an experiment I planned to run in one of my courses: using AI to support my grading process. The premise was straightforward. I would remain fully responsible for evaluating student work, but I would use AI as a tool to help organize, refine, and expand my written feedback.

The goal was not efficiency alone. It was to improve the quality, clarity, and usefulness of the feedback students receive.

Now that the semester has concluded, I can evaluate how that experiment actually performed.

What I set out to do

In the original article, I outlined a few specific goals:

• Maintain full human control over grading decisions

• Use AI to structure and refine feedback, not generate judgments

• Increase the depth and clarity of feedback to students

• Reduce redundancy and improve organization

• Ideally, save time without sacrificing quality

At its core, this was not about replacing any part of the teaching process. It was about improving one of the most time-intensive and often inconsistent parts of teaching: written feedback.

What actually happened

The results were stronger than I anticipated.

First, the time savings were substantial. Over the course of the semester, I estimate that I reduced grading time by approximately 50 percent. That alone would be meaningful, but the more important outcome was what happened to the feedback itself.

The quality of feedback improved significantly.

Using AI as a structuring tool allowed me to take rough, sometimes fragmented thoughts and turn them into organized, coherent, and professional responses. Instead of brief comments or repetitive notes, students received detailed explanations of both strengths and areas for improvement.

In many cases, feedback expanded to one to two pages per assignment. Despite taking less time to produce, it was far more comprehensive.

Equally important, the feedback became more precise. I was less repetitive and more intentional in how I communicated key points. The result was feedback that was both tighter in structure and more expansive in substance.

Impact on student learning

The most important question was whether this actually helped students learn.

From what I observed, the answer is yes.

Students were given more actionable and specific guidance. Rather than general comments, they received clear explanations of what was working, what was not, and what they could do next. This appeared to translate into stronger revisions and improved overall performance across the semester.

One shift that stood out showed up during office hours.

Students came in better prepared.

Instead of broad or vague concerns, conversations became more focused. Students referenced specific feedback points, asked targeted questions, and engaged in more productive discussions about their work. The feedback did not replace those conversations, but it made them more effective.

Share Kropp on Campus Higher Education Newsletter

Student response (initial observations)

Throughout the semester, I received informal feedback from students through Canvas comments and office hour conversations.

The consistent theme was appreciation for the level of detail.

Students noted that the feedback was thorough, specific, and helpful in guiding their revisions. Several expressed that it gave them a clearer understanding of expectations and how to improve their work.

In short, the feedback was not just longer. It was more useful.

I will provide a more detailed breakdown of formal student feedback, including themes and direct quotes from course evaluations, in Part 3.

What I learned

This experiment reinforced a few important points.

First, AI is most effective when used to enhance human judgment, not replace it. The evaluation, decision-making, and accountability remained mine.

Second, better feedback does not necessarily require more time. It requires better structure. AI helped bridge that gap by turning unstructured thoughts into clear, organized communication.

Third, when students receive more specific and actionable feedback, they engage more deeply with their work. That alone justifies continued use.

What comes next

Based on these results, I plan to continue using and refining this approach.

There is still room for improvement. I want to further streamline the workflow, ensure consistency across assignments, and continue evaluating how students respond to different types of feedback.

In Part 3, I will share a more complete analysis of student feedback from course evaluations, including specific examples of how students experienced this approach.

For now, the conclusion is straightforward.

Using AI to support grading did not reduce the quality of my teaching. It improved it.

Higher education is under fire. Students, employers, and policymakers are all asking the same uncomfortable question: are we actually preparing people for the world? The answer, more often than not, is: not as well as we think.

The criticism isn’t really about course content or academic rigor. It’s about something harder to measure and, for that reason, easier to overlook — soft skills.

So what are soft skills, exactly?

Soft skills are the interpersonal, cognitive, and professional competencies that shape how people work — not just what they can do, but how they do it. They include things like:

• Communication — written, verbal, and the ability to listen actively and adapt your message to your audience

• Critical thinking — analyzing information, questioning assumptions, and making reasoned decisions

• Collaboration — working effectively across differences, managing conflict, and contributing to a shared goal

• Adaptability — responding to change, tolerating ambiguity, and learning on the fly

• Civic engagement — the capacity to participate thoughtfully in community and democratic life

The term “soft” is unfortunately misleading. These skills are anything but soft in practice. They are the skills that get people hired, get them promoted, and — critically — make them effective contributors to both their workplaces and their communities.

A brief history

Soft skills are not a new idea. The ancient trivium — grammar, rhetoric, and logic — was essentially an early framework for communication and reasoning. Liberal arts education, at its best, has always aimed to produce graduates who can think, speak, and engage as citizens. But somewhere along the way, that vision got crowded out.

The twentieth century brought enormous pressure on universities to produce credentialed specialists. Funding followed job-placement metrics. Curricula narrowed. General education requirements — often the only place soft skills were even nominally addressed — became boxes to check rather than genuine developmental experiences.

By the time employers began sounding the alarm in the 2000s and 2010s, the structural patterns were already entrenched. Survey after survey showed hiring managers struggling to find graduates who could communicate clearly, work in teams, or handle the ambiguity of real workplace problems. Yet the response within higher education was often to acknowledge the gap rhetorically while leaving the curriculum essentially unchanged.

The debate heating up now

Today, the pressure is sharper. Workforce development concerns have been joined by a broader anxiety about the purpose of education itself. Can graduates navigate an information environment saturated with misinformation? Can they engage productively with people who hold different values? Are they equipped not just to hold jobs, but to be neighbors, voters, and community members?

These are not fringe questions. They are driving serious policy conversations, accreditation reviews, and institutional strategic planning across the country. And they are landing squarely in the lap of faculty — often without much guidance about what to do next.

What faculty can do

Here’s the good news: you don’t have to rebuild your course from scratch. Soft skill development doesn’t require a separate class or a wholesale redesign. It requires intention.

Start with a simple question: what soft skills are genuinely necessary in the field or context your course addresses? A nursing course, an engineering capstone, and a sociology seminar will have different answers. Once you’ve identified two or three, ask yourself: where in this course do students already encounter situations that demand these skills — and are they being asked to practice and reflect on them explicitly?

A few practical approaches that work across disciplines:

• Add a learning outcome that names the soft skill alongside the content objective. “Students will synthesize competing theoretical frameworks and communicate their reasoning clearly to a non-expert audience.”

• Design at least one assignment that requires collaboration, peer feedback, or real-world stakeholder communication.

• Build in structured reflection — brief written responses that ask students to name what they practiced, what was hard, and what they’d do differently.

• Assess the soft skill directly, not just the content output. If communication matters, grade the communication.

A call to faculty

Higher education’s critics are not entirely wrong. We have, for too long, assumed that soft skills develop by osmosis — that the act of going to college somehow produces capable communicators and engaged citizens without anyone having to teach those things explicitly. The evidence suggests otherwise.

The good news is that we don’t need to wait for sweeping institutional change to start doing better. Every faculty member, in every discipline, has the power to look at their course and ask: what are the human skills my students need, and am I actually teaching them?

That question — taken seriously — is where the change begins.

Additional Question: Do you think the term “soft” is the most appropriate word to describe these skills? How do you feel about “durable skills?” What term other might you suggest?

There is a growing belief in higher education that students have shorter attention spans, so the solution is to make everything shorter.

Shorter lectures. Shorter videos. Shorter assignments.

There is some truth in that. But it is also incomplete.

Shorter content that lacks structure or purpose does not improve learning. In many cases, it just fragments it.

The real shift is not about making things shorter. It is about making them more intentional.

That is where microlearning and modular course design come in.

Breaking lectures into purposeful segments

A common mistake is to take a 60-minute lecture and cut it into six 10-minute videos. That may make the content more manageable, but it does not make it better.

Better design starts with clarity.

Each segment should be built around a single idea, concept, or skill. It should have a clear beginning and end. And it should connect directly to something the student is asked to do.

A useful guideline:

• One concept per segment

• A clear objective the student can articulate

• Immediate connection to an activity or application

• A clear explanation of why it matters

When done well, students are not just consuming shorter content. They are moving through a series of focused learning moments.

Modules that stand alone but build

At the course level, this same principle applies.

Many courses are still structured like textbooks. Chapters move in sequence, but individual pieces often do not feel complete on their own.

Modular design changes that.

Each module should function as a self-contained unit with a clear outcome. Students should be able to complete a module and understand what they learned and why it matters.

At the same time, modules should build on each other in a deliberate way.

This looks like:

• A defined outcome for each module

• Alignment between content, activities, and assessment within the module

• Clear connections from one module to the next

• A sense of progression, not just coverage

Think of modules as building blocks, not just sections of a course.

Subscribe now

What actually improves retention

The conversation around microlearning often focuses too much on length.

Length matters, but it is not the primary driver of learning.

What matters more is what happens around the content.

Students retain more when they are asked to do something with what they just encountered.

That includes:

• Applying concepts to a new situation

• Retrieving information from memory without prompts

• Comparing ideas or making decisions

• Receiving feedback quickly

A five-minute passive video is often less effective than a 20-minute experience that requires active engagement.

Shorter content is only valuable if it creates more opportunities for interaction and application.

Flexibility without losing rigor

One of the benefits of modular design is flexibility.

Students can move through material in smaller chunks. They can better fit learning into busy schedules. And they are less likely to feel overwhelmed.

But flexibility can quickly turn into fragmentation if expectations are not clear.

Rigor still comes from:

• Clear standards for what students must demonstrate

• Assessments that require synthesis across modules

• Intentional sequencing of concepts and skills

Modular design should make learning more accessible, not less demanding.

Where this leaves us

This is not about reducing expectations or entertaining students with shorter content.

It is about aligning course design with how people actually process information.

When content is structured into purposeful segments and modules are designed as coherent learning units, students are more likely to stay engaged and retain what they learn.

The goal is not to do less.

It is to design better.

And in many cases, that requires more thought, not less, from the instructor.

We are at a point where many of the assignments we have used for years can no longer tell us what students actually know. Not because students suddenly changed, but because the environment did.

For a long time, homework worked as a proxy for effort and understanding. If a student produced a paper, a discussion post, or a set of responses, we could reasonably assume they had engaged with the material to get there. That assumption is no longer safe.

Tools can now generate passable, even polished, work in seconds. If an assignment can be completed well without much thinking, then it was never really measuring learning to begin with. AI did not break our assignments. It exposed their weaknesses.

The implication is straightforward. If we want to know what students actually understand, we have to rethink how we design and assess their work.

Why discussion boards are failing

Discussion boards are one of the clearest examples. In theory, they are meant to foster interaction, reflection, and the exchange of ideas. In practice, they often reward compliance.

Students learn quickly what is expected. Write a few paragraphs, respond to two peers, be polite, and move on. The goal becomes completing the requirement, not contributing to a meaningful conversation. Add AI into the mix, and students can generate acceptable posts almost instantly.

The problem is not the tool. It is the structure.

If every student is answering the same prompt in isolation, there is no real discussion. If faculty are not actively guiding or challenging the conversation, it rarely evolves beyond surface-level agreement.

There are better ways to use this space:

• Require students to build on or challenge specific peers rather than posting independently

• Assign roles such as synthesizer, challenger, or connector so each student has a purpose

• Grade based on contribution to the conversation, not just completion of posts

• Reduce frequency and increase depth so discussions feel consequential

The goal is not more posts. It is better thinking.

Share

From product to process

A deeper issue sits underneath most assignments. We tend to grade the final product, not the thinking that produced it.

In an environment where the final product can be generated quickly, that approach breaks down.

The shift is toward evaluating process. How did the student arrive at their answer? What decisions did they make along the way? What did they try, revise, or abandon?

This does not require a complete redesign of your course. It requires adding visibility into the work.

Practical adjustments:

• Ask for drafts, outlines, or checkpoints before the final submission

• Require short reflections explaining key decisions

• Have students document how they used, modified, or rejected AI-generated content

• Grade the evolution of the work, not just the finished version

When you can see the process, you can actually assess learning.

Oral, applied, and in-class assessments

Another response is to use formats where thinking is harder to outsource.

Short presentations, recorded explanations, live discussions, and applied case work all make it easier to see what a student understands in real time. These do not need to be long or complex to be effective.

For example:

• A five-minute recorded explanation of a concept

• A live or synchronous defense of a recommendation

• A case scenario that requires students to apply course concepts to a current situation

These approaches shift the focus from producing an answer to demonstrating understanding.

Designing assignments AI struggles with

Not all assignments are equally vulnerable. The ones that hold up best tend to require elements that are difficult to generate without real engagement.

Stronger assignments often include:

• Context tied to the student’s own environment or experience

• Judgment calls where there is no single correct answer

• Integration across multiple topics or concepts

• Use of local, current, or personal data that is not easily accessible

A simple test is useful here. If a student can complete the assignment well without engaging with your course, it needs to be redesigned.

This is not about eliminating AI. It is about designing work where using AI well is part of the process, not a shortcut around it.

Where this leaves us

Traditional homework is not disappearing overnight, but its role is changing. The old model assumed that producing work required thinking. That assumption no longer holds.

The path forward is not stricter policies or better detection. It is better design.

We need assignments that make thinking visible, that reward process over output, and that require students to engage in ways that cannot be easily outsourced.

We are not lowering standards. We are updating how we measure and support learning.

And in many cases, that leads to stronger teaching than what we were doing before.

Online higher education has proven its value in access, scale, and flexibility. Yet many institutions continue to approach it with assumptions rooted in a different era of higher education. The disconnect is not about performance. It is about perspective. Online learning is often evaluated, designed, and managed as if it were simply a digital extension of the classroom, rather than a distinct environment that requires its own logic.

We have known for years that putting a course on a screen does not make it an online program. That realization is not new. What is harder to explain is why so many institutions still operate as if it were. Part of the answer is structural inertia. Universities are built on legacy systems, faculty norms, and academic calendars that resist change. Part of it is risk aversion. Redesigning programs, retraining faculty, and rethinking delivery models requires investment and a willingness to move away from familiar practices. And part of it is cultural. The traditional model still defines what “real” education is supposed to look like, even when the audience, the tools, and the expectations have shifted.

If online higher education is going to reach its full potential, institutions need to move beyond adaptation and toward rethinking. That begins with recognizing five ways the model continues to be misunderstood.

Design for the student’s life, not the institution’s calendar
Traditional higher education is organized around semesters, seat time, and fixed pacing. Online learners are often working adults, caregivers, or individuals managing competing priorities. They are not structuring their lives around a course schedule. They are fitting education into the limited space available to them. That requires more than asynchronous access. It requires modular design, flexible pacing, and multiple entry points that reflect how people actually live. The central question shifts from when a course meets to how a course fits.

Replace content delivery with active learning architecture
Content remains overemphasized in many online courses. Recorded lectures, readings, and discussion prompts dominate the experience. This mirrors a traditional model that already struggled to fully engage students. Online environments require a different approach. Learning has to be built around application, interaction, and creation. Students should be doing more than watching and responding. They should be testing ideas, solving problems, and producing work that reflects understanding. The strength of online education is not in how well it distributes content, but in how intentionally it structures learning.

Share Kropp on Campus Higher Education Newsletter

Treat faculty presence as a design decision, not a byproduct
In a physical classroom, presence is assumed. Online, it must be constructed. Students do not measure presence by how much content exists in a course. They measure it by whether the instructor is visible, responsive, and engaged in their learning. That requires deliberate choices about feedback cycles, communication patterns, and facilitation strategies. Faculty presence is not about volume. It is about clarity, timing, and consistency. When it is missing, students feel it immediately.

Build systems for the student journey, not just the course
Online learners experience education as a sequence of interactions, not a single classroom. Admissions, onboarding, registration, advising, financial aid, and technology all shape the experience. Any breakdown in that sequence creates friction that can derail progress. Strong online programs are designed as integrated systems with coordinated communication and clear pathways forward. The goal is not just to deliver a course effectively. It is to support the student from first inquiry through completion without unnecessary obstacles.

Lead with outcomes, not format
Flexibility and convenience have long defined how online education is marketed. Those features still matter, but they are no longer sufficient. Students are increasingly focused on outcomes. They want to understand what they will gain, how it connects to their goals, and whether the investment makes sense. Institutions need to shift from describing how education is delivered to demonstrating what it produces. Skills, career mobility, and measurable impact should be central to the message.

Online higher education does not need incremental improvement. It needs alignment between what it is and how it is designed. The institutions that recognize this will not be the ones that simply move faster online. They will be the ones that think differently about what higher education is supposed to do and then build accordingly.

The screen is not the limitation. The mindset is.

In advising conversations, a familiar pathway often emerges: complete a bachelor’s degree, pursue a master’s degree, and then enter the job market.

Some data suggests this pathway is gaining traction. The National Student Clearinghouse has reported recent growth in graduate enrollment, and surveys from Strada Education Network indicate that many students see graduate education as a way to strengthen career readiness.

What is less clear is how this pathway aligns with the structure of today’s early-career job market.

Specifically, how should we advise students who complete both undergraduate and graduate education with limited full-time work experience, and then seek roles in a job market where “entry-level” itself is evolving?

This is not a question of whether graduate education has value.

It is a question of positioning and alignment.

The Shifting Nature of Entry-Level Work

Entry-level work is changing.

Organizations are becoming more efficient in how tasks are distributed. Some responsibilities that once defined entry-level roles are now automated or streamlined. In other cases, employers are seeking candidates who can contribute more quickly and take on broader responsibilities from the start.

The result is not the disappearance of entry-level jobs, but a reshaping of them.

For new graduates, including those with both bachelor’s and master’s degrees, this creates a more complex entry point. The label “entry-level” no longer consistently reflects the expectations attached to it.

Where Graduate Degrees Fit

A common concern is whether pursuing a master’s degree without significant work experience creates a disadvantage.

That framing is incomplete.

A master’s degree often strengthens analytical thinking, deepens subject-matter expertise, and includes applied, project-based work that can be highly relevant.

The challenge is not the degree. It is how the degree is interpreted.

Employers are not always consistent in how they evaluate candidates with advanced education but limited experience. A master’s degree may signal higher capability, but it can also create uncertainty.

Is this candidate entry-level?
Should they be considered for roles beyond entry-level?
How quickly can they contribute?

These are questions of alignment, not education.

The Positioning Gap

This is where many new graduates encounter friction.

Students who move directly from undergraduate to graduate study often approach the job market as entry-level candidates. At the same time, employers may interpret a master’s degree as a signal of readiness for more responsibility.

This creates a gray area.

Candidates may apply broadly to entry-level roles, while employers are uncertain how to categorize them. Others may consider more advanced roles without fully understanding how experience factors into hiring decisions.

The issue is not poor decision-making. It is a mismatch in signals.

A Role for Faculty Advisors

Faculty advisors play a critical role in closing this gap.

The question is not whether students should pursue graduate education. In many cases, it is the right choice.

But it does require a more intentional conversation about outcomes.

Graduate education should be framed not as an extension of undergraduate study, but as a step toward professional identity.

That shift changes how students think about positioning.

Share Kropp on Campus Higher Education Newsletter

Translating Academic Experience

Graduate work often includes substantial project work, research, collaboration, and problem-solving. These experiences mirror many of the competencies employers value.

But students do not always recognize or articulate this.

Without guidance, they describe their experience in academic terms rather than as evidence of capability.

Helping students translate academic experience into professional value is one of the most important contributions faculty can make.

Recognizing a Structural Shift

The early-career landscape is evolving. Technology, organizational design, and changing expectations are reshaping how work is structured, including at the entry level.

Opportunities are not disappearing, but they are changing form.

For new graduates, this requires greater awareness of how roles are defined and how readiness is evaluated.

For faculty, it suggests advising conversations may need to evolve as well.

Toward Better Alignment

The core issue is not overeducation.

It is alignment between academic pathways and how the labor market evaluates early-career candidates.

Graduate education can be highly valuable, but its value is not always self-evident to employers. It must be contextualized.

That is where faculty guidance matters.

This may be an opportunity to place greater emphasis on helping students think about how their education connects to professional expectations, not after graduation, but throughout their academic experience.

An Ongoing Conversation

There is no single answer.

But there is a clear opportunity for more intentional dialogue.

As more students consider graduate education as part of their early-career strategy, and as entry-level work continues to evolve, the connection between education and employment deserves closer attention.

Faculty advisors are central to that conversation.

In higher education, we spend a great deal of time thinking about teaching.

We design courses, refine lectures, and experiment with modalities, technologies, and assessments. All of that work matters.

But there is another dimension of our role that is less formal, less structured, and often more influential over time: mentorship.

Not advising. Not grading. Not office hours tied to an assignment.

Mentorship.

Why Mentorship Matters, for Both Sides

At its core, mentorship is relational rather than transactional. It is not bound by a syllabus or a semester timeline. It is a sustained investment in a person’s growth.

For students, the value is clear. Research from Gallup and others has shown that students who have a mentor during college are significantly more likely to be engaged in their work after graduation and report higher levels of well-being. The presence of even one meaningful faculty relationship can influence persistence, confidence, and long-term direction.

But the benefit is not one-sided.

For faculty, mentorship often becomes one of the most rewarding aspects of the profession. It provides a longer view of impact than teaching alone. A lecture may influence a week. A course may shape a semester. A mentorship relationship can influence years.

I have experienced this from both sides.

As a student, I was fortunate to have several strong mentors at different stages of my academic career. These relationships were rarely formal. They developed through conversations, encouragement, and small moments of attention that extended beyond the classroom. Looking back, many of my decisions and much of my confidence can be traced to those interactions.

As a faculty member and administrator, I have had the opportunity to mentor both students and staff. There is a particular satisfaction in watching someone grow into a role, gain confidence, and achieve outcomes they did not initially believe were possible. The mentor’s role may be small, but it is meaningful.

Why Faculty Are Uniquely Positioned to Mentor

Faculty are uniquely positioned to serve as mentors.

We have proximity. We see students regularly and observe their development over time.
We have credibility. Students look to us not just for content knowledge, but for insight into academic and professional pathways.
We have perspective. We can connect present effort to long-term goals.
And we have access to networks, opportunities, and experiences that students often cannot yet see.

Why Students Need Mentors More Than We Might Assume

Students today are navigating increasing complexity. Career pathways are less defined. Financial and personal pressures are more common. Many are balancing multiple responsibilities at once.

At the same time, higher education has scaled. Larger class sizes, expanded online offerings, and growing administrative demands can make the student experience feel more transactional if we are not careful.

In that environment, mentorship matters even more.

A mentor can provide clarity, encouragement, and perspective. Even brief, consistent interactions can make a difference. A student who feels seen is more likely to engage, persist, and take intellectual risks.

Are Mentorship Relationships Declining?

There is reason to believe that mentorship is becoming less common, or at least less visible. Not because faculty are unwilling, but because the structure of our work has changed. Increased workloads, larger classes, and digital learning environments reduce the likelihood that these relationships form naturally.

Mentorship is not disappearing, but it is no longer something we can assume will happen on its own.

Getting Started: It Does Not Require a Program

The good news is that mentorship does not require a formal program.

It often begins with attention.

Noticing a student who is engaged or curious.
Following up after a meaningful comment or question.
Inviting a conversation that goes beyond the course.
Offering guidance on next steps, internships, or career paths.

It can be as simple as saying, “If you ever want to talk more about this, feel free to reach out.”

From there, the relationship may develop. Or it may not. That is part of the process.

There is no need to mentor dozens of students. In most cases, the most meaningful impact comes from a small number of relationships.

Start with one.

A Role Worth Elevating

In many ways, mentorship has always been part of the faculty role. It has simply not been named or prioritized in the same way as teaching and research.

That may be worth reconsidering.

If we think about the long-term impact we hope to have, mentorship is not secondary. It is one of the primary ways we influence not just what students know, but who they become.

This is not a call for sweeping change.

It is a suggestion to pay closer attention, to recognize moments where mentorship can begin, and to see it as part of the work we are already doing.

Some of the most important things we do as faculty do not happen in a lecture.

They happen in conversations that continue long after the course ends.

In Part I, we examined the measurable decline in public confidence in higher education and explored three primary drivers: cost and perceived value, political polarization, and transparency concerns.

Diagnosis alone is insufficient. If trust has eroded over time, rebuilding it will require institutional behaviors that are consistent, visible, and sustained. Trust does not return through messaging campaigns. It returns through structural clarity, disciplined leadership, and demonstrated accountability.

What would that require?

1. Radical Transparency in Cost and Outcomes

Complexity may be unavoidable. Opacity is not.

Families should not need advanced financial literacy to understand the real cost of attendance. Institutions can simplify net price communication, clarify typical borrowing patterns, and publish program-level cost ranges in ways that are accessible and comparable.

Equally important is outcome transparency. Employment rates, graduate school placement, licensure pass rates, and median earnings data should be presented clearly and consistently. When institutions hesitate to share outcome data, skepticism grows. When they publish it openly, even imperfect results can build credibility.

Transparency signals confidence. It demonstrates that the institution is willing to be evaluated.

Some institutions have taken visible steps in this direction. The University of Texas System, for example, has expanded public access to detailed student outcome dashboards, linking degree pathways to employment and earnings data. By making performance data accessible, institutions reinforce the idea that they are accountable to the public.

2. Reasserting Academic Neutrality and Intellectual Pluralism

In a polarized environment, perception matters as much as intent.

Universities cannot eliminate political disagreement, nor should they attempt to suppress intellectual debate. However, they can clarify institutional commitments to viewpoint diversity, civil discourse, and academic freedom.

Formal statements alone are insufficient. Policies governing invited speakers, classroom discussion norms, and faculty governance processes should be applied consistently and transparently. When institutions appear selective in defending speech or inconsistent in applying standards, trust declines.

Rebuilding credibility requires demonstrating that universities are committed to inquiry rather than ideology.

This does not mean abandoning values. It means ensuring that institutional processes are principled, predictable, and publicly understandable.

3. Financial Discipline and Visible Accountability

Public skepticism often centers on administrative growth and perceived inefficiency.

Institutions can respond not through defensiveness, but through disciplined reporting. Clear explanations of budget allocations, instructional investment ratios, and long-term financial planning can reduce misunderstanding.

Visible cost containment efforts also matter. When institutions make strategic decisions to reduce non-essential expenditures, streamline operations, or redirect funds toward instruction and student support, those actions should be communicated clearly.

Trust strengthens when stakeholders see that institutional leaders are stewarding resources responsibly.

4. Aligning Academic Pathways with Workforce and Civic Outcomes

The value question will not disappear.

Rebuilding trust requires demonstrating that degrees lead to meaningful economic and civic participation. That includes stronger integration between academic programs and workforce opportunities, expanded experiential learning, and clearer articulation of transferable skills.

Several institutions have publicly committed to this alignment. Arizona State University, for example, has emphasized measurable student success outcomes, industry partnerships, and transparent reporting of student progression metrics as part of its institutional strategy. By linking academic innovation to publicly stated performance indicators, institutions can reinforce credibility.

Importantly, workforce alignment does not reduce higher education to job training. It clarifies how intellectual development, skill acquisition, and economic mobility intersect.

5. Institutional Humility

Trust erodes when institutions appear dismissive of criticism.

Not all critiques of higher education are well-informed. Some are politically motivated or ideologically driven. But some reflect legitimate concerns about cost, complexity, and communication gaps.

Rebuilding trust requires acknowledging that the public’s questions are reasonable. It requires resisting the instinct to frame every critique as hostility.

Institutional humility signals strength. It communicates that higher education understands its public mandate and is willing to adapt where necessary.

Is Restoration Achievable?

Trust was built over generations. It declined over decades. Restoration will not occur quickly.

However, it is achievable.

Higher education still produces world-class research, prepares professionals across every major industry, supports local economies, and contributes to democratic society. These strengths remain intact.

The challenge is not the absence of value. It is the clarity with which that value is communicated, measured, and demonstrated.

Rebuilding trust will require sustained transparency, consistent governance, financial discipline, and intellectual integrity. It will require leadership willing to prioritize credibility over short-term reputation management.

The decline in trust is not irreversible. But it will not correct itself.

For those working in higher education, credibility must be treated as a strategic asset, cultivated deliberately and protected through institutional behavior.

Trust follows structure. It follows consistency. And it follows evidence.

Over the past decade, confidence in higher education has declined in measurable and sustained ways. This is not anecdotal frustration amplified by social media. It is reflected in national polling data and long-term institutional trust tracking.

Major survey organizations have documented a steady erosion of public confidence in colleges and universities. Gallup’s longitudinal tracking of institutional confidence shows a significant drop in trust in higher education compared to prior decades. Pew Research Center data reveals widening partisan gaps in perceptions of colleges and universities. The Edelman Trust Barometer has similarly shown volatility and decline in trust across major institutions, including higher education.

Higher education no longer occupies an unquestioned position of authority in the public imagination. It is increasingly viewed through the same skeptical lens applied to government, media, and other large institutions.

This shift has consequences. But before we can discuss solutions, we need to understand the drivers behind the decline.

1. Cost and Perceived Value

The first and most visible factor is cost.

For decades, tuition growth outpaced inflation. While discount rates, financial aid packaging, and state funding dynamics complicate the real price students pay, public perception often centers on sticker price. Families see escalating tuition numbers and assume escalating institutional inefficiency.

At the same time, student debt remains a prominent public concern. Media coverage frequently highlights individual stories of debt distress, reinforcing anxiety about long-term financial burden. Whether those cases are typical or exceptional, they shape perception.

But cost alone does not explain the erosion of trust.

The deeper issue is perceived value. Increasingly, families and policymakers ask whether a degree reliably delivers economic mobility. When employment outcomes are unclear or inconsistently communicated, skepticism grows. When academic pathways appear disconnected from workforce realities, confidence weakens.

Trust declines when stakeholders cannot clearly see the return on investment.

2. Political Polarization and Ideological Perception

A second driver is political polarization.

Public opinion research shows a widening partisan divide in perceptions of higher education. Colleges and universities are often portrayed as ideologically aligned with one side of the political spectrum. High-profile controversies involving curriculum, campus speech, diversity initiatives, and research agendas intensify these perceptions.

Importantly, perception operates independently of institutional intent. Even when scholarship is rigorous and evidence-based, it may be interpreted through a political lens. In a polarized environment, neutrality is often assumed to be alignment with the opposing side.

The result is not necessarily broad rejection of higher education’s mission, but selective distrust. Certain segments of the public may question institutional motives, governance, or intellectual diversity.

When institutions are viewed as partisan actors rather than neutral knowledge producers, trust erodes.

Share Kropp on Campus Higher Education Newsletter

3. Transparency and Accountability Concerns

A third factor is transparency.

Higher education is structurally complex. Pricing models involve tuition, fees, grants, loans, discounts, and state subsidies. Organizational charts include academic departments, research centers, student services, athletics, advancement, and administration. Budget categories are technical and often misunderstood.

From inside the institution, this complexity feels normal. From outside, it can appear opaque.

When families cannot easily determine the true cost of attendance, they assume the system is confusing by design. When learning outcomes are described in abstract language rather than measurable competencies, they question what students are actually gaining. When administrative growth outpaces instructional hiring in public narratives, skepticism about resource allocation increases.

The pandemic intensified scrutiny. Institutional decisions about closures, instructional delivery, and campus policies were examined in real time by students, parents, legislators, and media. Even when decisions were made responsibly and under extraordinary uncertainty, the visibility of those choices increased public evaluation.

Trust declines when stakeholders feel excluded from understanding how decisions are made and how resources are used.

What This Means for Higher Education

Declining trust does not operate in isolation.

When confidence weakens, public funding debates become more contentious. Legislative oversight increases. Policy proposals that would once have been dismissed gain traction. Reputational damage at one institution can influence perception of the entire sector.

Trust functions as a public good for higher education. It is not contained within individual campuses. The sector benefits collectively from broad confidence, and it absorbs collective consequences when that confidence deteriorates.

This moment requires awareness. The decline in trust is not solely the result of misinformation or political hostility. It reflects cost concerns, value uncertainty, ideological perception, and transparency gaps.

Understanding these dynamics is the first step. In Part II, we will examine what rebuilding trust realistically requires, what institutional behaviors strengthen credibility, and whether restoration is achievable over the long term.

For those working within higher education, the question is not whether trust matters. It is whether we are paying sufficient attention to the factors shaping it.

Next week, in Part II, we will move from diagnosis to direction. What does rebuilding trust actually require in practice? What institutional behaviors strengthen credibility rather than simply protect reputation? And are there examples of universities taking deliberate, visible steps to restore public confidence?

If trust has declined over time, it will not return through messaging alone. It will require structural clarity, disciplined leadership, and institutional self-examination. We will examine what that could look like.

Over the past decade, I have hired and managed hundreds of adjunct faculty members. One of the most persistent challenges I see, especially in online courses, is timely and thorough grading feedback.

Most instructors care deeply about their students. The issue is rarely commitment. The issue is capacity.

In online learning, I like to say that student learning happens in two primary ways.

First, students engage with instructional materials. They read articles, watch lectures, review slides, listen to podcasts. These resources are intentionally curated and aligned with the learning objectives of a given module.

Second, students complete assessments. They write papers, build projects, conduct analyses, or apply concepts in practical formats.

The first step exposes students to information. The second step reveals whether learning actually occurred.

Reading does not guarantee understanding. Watching a lecture does not guarantee mastery. That is why assessment exists. And that is why feedback is essential.

Where Grading Often Falls Short

Too often, I see grading reduced to numbers.

A few clicks in a rubric. A numerical score. A brief comment such as “Good job” or “Well done.”

That approach may complete the grading task. It does not complete the teaching task.

Students invest time, money, and energy into their education. When they submit work, they are not just asking for a score. They are asking for evaluation, reinforcement, and correction.

Effective feedback should do two things:

First, reinforce what was done well. Students are not always confident in their answers. When they demonstrate strong understanding, we should name it clearly. This builds confidence and strengthens correct thinking.

Second, correct misunderstandings with clarity. Simply deducting points is not instruction. If a concept is misunderstood, we must explain what was wrong and why. Ideally, we also point students toward specific resources or strategies to help them improve.

That is teaching.

My Traditional Grading Process

When I teach, most assignments are papers. My typical process has been:

• Annotate the document with comments throughout
• Complete a grading rubric
• Write a comprehensive summary in the overall feedback section

Students regularly comment in evaluations that my feedback is thorough and helpful. I value that feedback because I put substantial time and energy into it.

But there is a cost.

This process is slow. It is cognitively demanding. It is exhausting.

And I always worry about consistency. Does the first paper receive the same level of attention as the last paper when I am several hours into grading?

Experimenting With AI as a Tool

This semester, I decided to experiment.

When people hear “grading with AI,” the immediate reaction is often negative. In many cases, that reaction is justified. There are practices that should not be happening.

For example, faculty should not upload a student paper and a rubric into an AI tool and ask it to grade the assignment. If that is the model, we do not need instructors.

Instead, I am using AI in a different way.

I am using it as a transcriptionist.

Here is my process:

I open the student’s assignment in one browser window.
In a second window, I open ChatGPT and activate the transcription feature.

As I review the paper, I speak my feedback aloud.

I respond to the student conversationally:

“You described X accurately. That demonstrates a strong understanding of the theory.”

“You did not fully develop this concept. Let me explain where the gap is.”

I explain strengths. I explain weaknesses. I offer examples. I connect ideas across the paper. I talk through patterns I notice from the beginning to the end.

When I finish, I end the transcription and ask ChatGPT to organize my spoken feedback into a clear, professional written response for the student.

The result has typically been 500 to 700 words of structured, comprehensive feedback.

What Has Changed

Three things have improved immediately.

First, efficiency. I type slowly. Speaking is significantly faster for me. I no longer spend excessive time revising sentences for clarity and grammar. The tool handles the mechanical refinement.

Second, cognitive flow. When speaking, I think more holistically. I naturally connect themes across sections of the paper. If I notice repetition of an error in two places, I can ask the system to consolidate those ideas into a unified comment.

Third, consistency. Because the process is less physically and mentally draining, I feel more confident that the tenth paper receives the same level of attention as the first.

Student Response So Far

I teach in a graduate program, so expectations are high. After four weeks of using this method, I asked students directly whether the feedback felt useful, relevant, and thorough.

The responses have been positive.

Students report that the feedback is detailed and actionable. They see specific reinforcement of what they did well and clear explanations of what needs improvement.

From their perspective, nothing has been automated. They are still receiving my analysis, my interpretation, and my academic judgment. The difference is simply the medium through which that feedback is produced.

Boundaries Matter

This approach does not remove faculty from the grading process. It amplifies faculty voice.

The instructor still reads every paper.
The instructor still makes every evaluative judgment.
The instructor still determines the score.

The AI does not decide. It organizes.

That distinction is critical.

In my view, the ethical line is crossed when AI replaces human judgment. It is not crossed when AI enhances human efficiency.

Where This Goes Next

I plan to continue the experiment for the remainder of the semester.

There are additional questions worth exploring:

• How does this method scale across different assignment types?
• Does it work as effectively for shorter assignments?
• Can it be integrated into feedback cycles with revisions?

I remain cautious. I remain reflective. But I also remain open.

If we expect faculty to provide meaningful, individualized feedback in online environments, we must acknowledge the workload involved. Ignoring the strain does not solve it.

Used thoughtfully, AI can help us protect what matters most: instructional quality.

The goal is not to grade faster.

The goal is to teach better.

Many faculty now describe a shift in their day-to-day work that is difficult to name but impossible to ignore. Students are not just asking for academic guidance. Increasingly, they are sharing deeply personal stories of trauma, anxiety, grief, family instability, financial stress, and mental health struggles. These disclosures often arrive by email, during office hours, or embedded in requests for deadline flexibility or grading consideration.

The informal term many people use for this is trauma dumping. While the phrase is not a clinical diagnosis, it captures a real pattern. Students are unloading emotional distress onto faculty members in ways that go beyond routine advising or academic support. The intent is rarely manipulative. More often, it reflects students seeking empathy, validation, and relief in the only professional relationship they know how to access.

This is not happening in a vacuum. Data consistently show rising mental health concerns among college students and across the broader population. The American College Health Association has reported sustained increases in anxiety, depression, and feelings of being overwhelmed among undergraduate and graduate students. National surveys summarized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show similar trends among young adults, including elevated stress, loneliness, and symptoms of depression since the COVID era. Importantly, these challenges are not limited to traditional college-age students. Adults of all ages report increased mental health strain, which means faculty and staff are experiencing many of these pressures themselves.

For faculty, this creates a complicated professional moment. The traditional model of teaching assumed relatively clear boundaries. Instructors taught, assessed learning, held office hours, and referred students elsewhere for personal issues. Today, those boundaries are blurrier. Students may not know how to navigate campus systems, may distrust institutional processes, or may simply reach out to the person they see most often. That person is frequently a faculty member.

Share Kropp on Campus Higher Education Newsletter

As a result, faculty are being asked to do more emotional labor at the same time that expectations for research productivity, teaching quality, service, and institutional compliance continue to rise. Many report feeling unprepared, emotionally drained, or unsure where their responsibility begins and ends. There is also the ethical tension of wanting to be compassionate while not becoming a substitute counselor or making academic decisions driven by guilt rather than learning outcomes.

There are also recognizable signals that often precede or accompany these disclosures. Faculty commonly mention sudden disengagement from class, missed assignments without explanation, drastic changes in communication tone, excessive apologizing, or messages that escalate quickly from academic questions to personal crises. None of these signals on their own confirm a mental health issue, but patterns matter. Learning to notice them is becoming an unspoken part of the job.

Institutions have responded unevenly. Many campuses have expanded counseling services, crisis response teams, and student support offices. Others struggle with long wait times, understaffed services, or unclear referral pathways. Even when resources exist, faculty are not always trained or regularly updated on how to connect students to them. The result is that instructors often feel they are improvising in high stakes emotional situations.

This moment raises important questions for higher education. How do we support students experiencing real distress without shifting the burden of care onto individual faculty members? What does appropriate empathy look like in an academic context, and where should professional boundaries be reinforced rather than softened? How do institutions acknowledge the emotional labor faculty are performing and provide structures that make that labor sustainable?

Subscribe now

This is not a call for less compassion. It is a call for clearer conversations. Faculty and administrators need shared language, realistic expectations, and institutional backing to navigate this terrain. Trauma dumping may be an informal term, but the phenomenon it describes is real, growing, and reshaping academic work.

The next step is not a checklist or a one size fits all policy. It is dialogue. Departments, colleges, and campuses need space to talk honestly about what faculty are experiencing, what students need, and how responsibility should be distributed across systems rather than absorbed by individuals. Naming the issue is the starting point.

AI is officially “everywhere” in higher ed work, and that’s not a future-tense statement.

A new EDUCAUSE report (Jan. 12, 2026) found that 94% of respondents have used AI tools for work in the past six months, and 81% feel enthusiastic or a mix of caution and enthusiasm about AI. But here’s the gap that should make every administrator, faculty member, and staff professional pause: only 54% say they’re aware of institutional policies or guidelines meant to guide that use.

That’s the “Wild West” moment we’re living in. High adoption, uneven guardrails, and constant new tools. In that environment, protecting privacy and institutional data can’t wait for the perfect policy. Until clear guidance is in place (and widely communicated), the day-to-day protection of data is often happening at the individual level.

So what do we do while policies catch up?

Here are five practical, role-agnostic guardrails you can share with your campus (and actually implement tomorrow):

1) Use a simple rule: “If it’s not public, don’t paste it.”

Treat most public AI chat tools like a public-facing space unless your institution has explicitly approved the tool and account configuration.

Do not input:

• Student identifiers or case details (even “just context”)

• HR/personnel info (performance, salaries, disputes)

• Donor information, budgets not meant for release, contract language

• Research data you wouldn’t email broadly

• Anything covered by confidentiality norms or policy

This aligns with EDUCAUSE’s emphasis on privacy/data protection and risk minimization.

2) Default to institution-approved tools (or enterprise versions) whenever possible

If your institution provides an approved AI tool, use it. If not, push for one. The goal is a version that supports:

• clearer data-handling terms

• admin controls

• reduced training-on-your-data risk (varies by vendor/account)

• auditability

3) Practice “prompt hygiene”: redact, generalize, and summarize

When you do use AI:

• Remove names and identifiers (“Student A,” “Staff Member B,” “Course X”)

• Abstract the scenario (focus on the pattern, not the person)

• Summarize instead of uploading (paste a de-identified excerpt or your own paraphrase)

• Avoid attachments unless you’re certain the environment is approved and protected

This is the difference between “help me draft a rubric” and “here’s a student’s full submission and accommodations letter.”

4) Keep a human in the loop for anything that impacts people

AI can help draft, brainstorm, summarize, and generate options. It should not be the final decision-maker for:

• advising or student-support interventions

• performance evaluations

• disciplinary actions

• official policy language

• anything that materially affects a person’s standing

EDUCAUSE’s ethical guidelines explicitly call for accountability and a designated human responsible for AI outputs.

5) Make “risk review” a habit, not a one-time training

Until your institution’s policies are mature, create a lightweight routine:

• Ask: “What data am I about to share?”

• Check: “Is this tool approved or configured for privacy?”

• Decide: “Can I achieve the same outcome with less data?”

• Document (for sensitive workflows): what tool was used, what data class was involved, and what human verified the result

If you want a framework for this mindset, NIST’s AI Risk Management Framework is built around making risk management repeatable and operational.

A closing push (because this is the moment)

The EDUCAUSE findings aren’t an indictment of AI use, they’re a signal flare: adoption has outpaced governance.

If you’re a leader, the takeaway is clear: speed up guidance, training, and vetted tool access. If you’re a faculty or staff member, the immediate move is just as clear: treat privacy as part of AI literacy.

Until the rules are written and shared, the safest assumption is simple: you are the guardrail.

Many instructors have an “AI policy” in their syllabus right now. Often, it is a short statement written quickly, revised reluctantly, and enforced inconsistently.

That approach made some sense in the early days of generative AI, when the dominant question was, “Do we ban it or allow it?”

Now the questions are more practical and more important:

• What do we want students to learn, even in a world where AI is always available?

• What types of AI use support that learning, and what types undermine it?

• How do we communicate expectations clearly, and assess students fairly?

In other words, your AI policy is not a disclaimer. It is part of course design.

Why “Ban vs. Allow” Is No Longer Enough

Generative AI is now embedded in student workflows, the way spellcheck, Google, and calculators are. Trying to manage it purely through detection and enforcement is not a plan.

Students can use AI to support learning, and they can also use it to bypass learning. The tools will keep changing, and they will keep getting easier to access. That means the path forward is not a better rule. It is better teaching structure.

A Practical Framework: Decide What AI Is For in Your Course

Before you write policy language, make three decisions. These decisions make the policy teachable and enforceable.

1) For each assignment, define the purpose

Ask: “What skill is this assignment trying to develop?”

Examples:

• Argumentation and evidence

• Technical problem-solving

• Professional writing and tone

• Concept mastery and recall

• Reflection and self-assessment

• Research and synthesis

If the purpose is skill practice (writing, critical thinking, method), unrestricted AI use can quietly erase the learning.

2) Define allowed AI use by task type, not by tool name

Policies that list tools will be outdated quickly. Policies that describe tasks stay relevant.

Examples of task-based permission:

• Allowed: brainstorming topics, generating outlines, practicing with example questions

• Allowed with disclosure: grammar edits, style improvements, clarity suggestions

• Not allowed: generating full responses, writing final drafts, producing analysis as the student’s own work

3) Decide what disclosure you require

If students can use AI in some ways, you need an attribution expectation that is simple enough that students will follow it.

A good disclosure standard answers:

• What did you use AI for?

• What prompt did you use (or a summary of it)?

• What did you change after AI output?

• What sources did you verify?

What a Strong AI Policy Actually Includes

Think of this as a mini “policy kit,” not a paragraph.

A clear category for your course

You can pick one of these and still be nuanced inside it:

• AI prohibited (rare, but sometimes necessary for foundational skill-building)

• AI limited (allowed for specific steps, prohibited for others)

• AI integrated (required or encouraged, with explicit guardrails and attribution)

Plain-language student guidance

Students need clarity, not legalese.

Include:

• What students may do

• What students may not do

• How to disclose

• What happens if they violate the policy

A rubric that matches your policy

If “process” matters, grade the process:

• outline versions

• drafts and revisions

• reflection on choices made

• brief “why I wrote it this way” explanation

• annotated bibliography or evidence trail

If students can get full credit with a polished final product and zero visibility into thinking, your policy will not matter.

The Assessment Reality Check

If your course relies heavily on take-home, asynchronous work, and the success metric is “final product looks good,” you are inviting AI misuse.

The response is not to panic. It is to build at least one moment where students must demonstrate authentic understanding.

Examples:

• short oral explanation (live or recorded)

• timed in-class or proctored component

• annotated decision log (“here’s what I did and why”)

• “defend your work” discussion based on their submission

• iterative checkpoints that reward development over perfection

What Administrators Need to Do (Because Faculty Can’t Carry This Alone)

If we want better AI policies, institutions have to support them.

Administrators can help by:

• providing a small set of approved policy templates (prohibited, limited, integrated)

• offering faculty development on assessment redesign and attribution expectations

• clarifying institutional guidance on privacy, data, and tool use

• recognizing workload reality: meaningful feedback and redesigned assessments take time

Faculty can teach well inside constraints, but they cannot fix institutional ambiguity alone.

A Simple Starting Point for Faculty

If you want a fast, workable upgrade this semester:

1. Pick one course category: prohibited, limited, or integrated

2. Write assignment-level rules in plain language

3. Require a one-paragraph AI disclosure on any assignment where AI is allowed

4. Update your rubric so process and reasoning matter

5. Add one authenticity check somewhere in the course

6. Revisit the policy after the first major assignment, not at the end of the term

AI will keep evolving, but the core job will not: design learning that makes thinking visible, sets clear expectations, and rewards students for doing the work that leads to real growth.

Discussion boards were built to do something simple and powerful in online classes: create interaction, shared meaning-making, and a sense that learning is happening with other people, not just alongside them.

But most of us know what they often become instead.

“Post once, reply twice.”

Robotic. Performative. Minimum-effort. Students write to satisfy a requirement, not to actually communicate. Replies read like polite filler (“Great point!”) with no follow-up. And once misinformation or shallow takes appear, they can sit there unchallenged, quietly shaping the conversation.

This isn’t a new problem. Faculty have been naming it for years. And for a while, many of us hoped the next wave of ed-tech would solve it: smarter LMS features, AI-driven prompts, new discussion tools, video boards, social-style platforms.

Some of those tools help. None of them fix the core issue.

Discussion boards don’t improve because of technology. They improve because of instructional leadership.

And that leadership has to come from faculty.

Why This Challenge Sticks Around

This is a three-way frustration:

• Students are often bored, unclear on expectations, or conditioned to “do the minimum to get the points.”

• Faculty may not have strategies, may not realize instructor presence is essential, or may not want to spend time in a space that feels unproductive.

• Administrators want more engagement, but tend to look for scalable solutions (tools, policies, templates) for something that is fundamentally human and relational.

So yes, tools can support. But faculty management is what makes discussion boards worth doing.

What We Need From Faculty to Make Discussions Work

1) Recognize that your presence is not optional

If students sense that nobody is listening, they will perform. If they sense that you are present, they will participate.

Instructor engagement signals:

• “This matters.”

• “I am reading you.”

• “Your thinking affects the direction of the course.”

2) Review entries as they are made

The “I’ll check the board after it closes” approach creates a dead conversation. Engagement needs momentum.

Practical approach:

• Block two short check-in windows during the week (even 10–15 minutes).

• Skim for themes, misconceptions, and strong contributions worth elevating.

3) Reinforce correct information, and correct wrong information quickly

Misinformation spreads when it sits unchallenged, especially when peers assume “someone else will correct it.”

You don’t have to write a long response. A short clarification is often enough:

• “Important nuance here…”

• “This is close, but here’s the key distinction…”

• “Let’s ground this in this week’s reading on X…”

4) Reply to students in a way that invites conversation

If your replies end the thread, students stop. If your replies open a door, students walk through it.

Try:

• Ask a follow-up question.

• Ask them to apply the idea to a new scenario.

• Ask what evidence would strengthen the claim.

• Ask them to compare their view to a peer’s.

5) Connect student comments to each other

This is one of the most powerful moves you can make.

Examples:

• “Jane raised a concern about cost. Marcus, you emphasized access. Where do you see the tradeoff?”

• “Jane said X, what do you think?”

• “Three of you mentioned motivation. What’s the common thread across your examples?”

When students see you weaving the conversation, they learn what “discussion” actually looks like.

6) Don’t award full points for minimal engagement

If “minimum compliance” earns full credit, you will get minimum compliance.

This isn’t about being punitive. It’s about aligning incentives with outcomes.

If you want students to engage meaningfully:

• Your grading has to differentiate between “posted” and “contributed.”

7) Make sure your rubric supports your engagement strategy

A rubric should reward the behavior you actually want.

If your goal is conversation and critical thinking, your rubric should include items like:

• Builds on peers with substance (not compliments)

• Introduces evidence (course material, experience, outside sources when appropriate)

• Asks thoughtful questions that move the conversation forward

• Responds to feedback and revises thinking over time

8) Be transparent about expectations and the “why”

Students engage more when they understand the purpose.

Tell them directly:

• What a strong post looks like

• What a weak post looks like

• How discussions help them learn (and how they connect to assessments, real-world communication, or professional skill-building)

Even better: show examples (with permission, or anonymized).

Additional Strategies That Make a Big Difference

Here are a few high-impact tweaks that often outperform any new tool.

Shift from “prompts” to “problems”

Instead of “What did you think of the reading?” try:

• “Here’s a scenario. What would you do, and why?”

• “What would change your mind about this issue?”

• “Which concept from the reading is most useful here, and what is its limitation?”

Use smaller discussion groups

Large boards produce shallow repetition. Smaller groups produce accountability.

You can still bring the course together with a weekly “highlight thread” where students post one insight from their group’s discussion.

Assign roles occasionally

Rotate simple roles like:

• Summarizer (what did the group agree on?)

• Challenger (what’s the counterargument?)

• Connector (how does this relate to course material?)

• Applicator (what’s the real-world implication?)

Add a weekly instructor wrap-up

A short wrap-up post (or 2–3 minute video/audio) that does three things:

1. Names key themes

2. Corrects misconceptions

3. Highlights a few excellent contributions

This reinforces that discussions are not a hoop, but part of the course narrative.

Reduce volume to increase quality

If students are posting too often, quality drops.

Many courses do better with:

• Fewer prompts

• More meaningful engagement

• Clearer standards for what “good” looks like

A Call to Faculty and Administrators

If discussion boards in your courses feel robotic, you’re not alone. This has been a stubborn challenge across online learning for a long time.

But the fix isn’t a shiny new tool. The fix is a shared commitment to instructor presence, better structure, and grading that supports real engagement.

So here’s the ask:

• Faculty: What’s the biggest obstacle that keeps you from engaging more actively in discussions, and what strategies have worked when you’ve tried?

• Administrators: How are you supporting faculty with workload, training, templates, and realistic expectations so discussion boards can become learning spaces instead of compliance tasks?

Let’s talk about what’s getting in the way, what’s working, and what we can change this semester to make online discussions feel human again.

Rigor is one of the most frequently used and least clearly defined words in higher education.

For many instructors, rigor is associated with challenge, depth, and intellectual stretch. For many students, rigor is often experienced as confusion, overload, or unclear expectations. When those two definitions collide, learning suffers.

Clear course design does not reduce rigor. It makes rigor possible.

Rethinking What Rigor Looks Like

Rigor is not about how complicated a course feels. It is about the quality of thinking students are asked to do.

A rigorous course asks students to analyze, synthesize, apply, and reflect. It challenges them to make connections, justify decisions, and engage with ideas at a deeper level. None of this requires unclear instructions or disorganized course structures.

When students spend excessive time figuring out what to do rather than doing the thinking itself, rigor is replaced by frustration.

Clarity as a Teaching Strategy

Clarity is often misunderstood as hand-holding. In reality, clarity is a strategic choice that respects students’ time and cognitive energy.

Clear assignment instructions, transparent grading criteria, and predictable course structures reduce unnecessary cognitive load. This allows students to direct their effort toward learning rather than logistics.

Clarity does not eliminate challenge. It removes obstacles that do not contribute to learning.

Designing With the Student Perspective in Mind

Faculty design courses based on expertise. Students experience them with limited context.

This gap matters. What feels intuitive to an instructor may feel opaque to a student encountering the material for the first time. Taking a few minutes to view the course through a student lens can reveal points of friction that unintentionally undermine learning.

This includes reviewing assignment instructions, navigation paths, and weekly expectations. Small adjustments often produce significant improvements in student engagement and performance.

Transparency Builds Trust

Students are more willing to engage in challenging work when they understand why they are doing it.

Explaining the purpose behind assignments and activities helps students connect effort with value. Transparency does not require lengthy explanations. A few sentences can clarify how an assignment supports course goals or builds transferable skills.

When expectations and purposes are clear, students are less likely to interpret difficulty as unfairness.

Complexity Is Not the Same as Depth

There is a persistent belief that difficulty must feel complex to be meaningful.

In reality, the most demanding intellectual work often occurs in environments that are highly structured and clearly articulated. Depth comes from thinking, not from confusion.

Courses that are intentionally designed create space for deeper engagement. Students spend less time guessing and more time learning.

Designing for Learning, Not Survival

Students should be challenged by ideas, not by navigation.

When courses are designed with clarity and purpose, rigor becomes visible and achievable. Students rise to expectations when they know what those expectations are.

Designing for clarity is not about lowering the bar. It is about making sure the bar is clearly visible.

January classrooms often look very different from September ones.

Students return from break tired, distracted, and unsure of their momentum. Some are motivated by a clean slate. Others are carrying academic fatigue from the fall, personal stress, or a growing sense that they are simply trying to get through rather than truly engage.

This is not a lack of ability or interest. It is burnout.

Recognizing that reality does not mean lowering expectations. It means teaching with awareness of where students are starting and helping them rebuild the habits and confidence needed for learning.

Re-engagement is not about grand gestures. It is about small, intentional choices that help students regain their footing.

Understand What Burnout Looks Like in January

Burnout does not always show up as disengagement or missed work. It can appear as perfectionism, silence, irritability, or anxiety about relatively small assignments.

Many students are returning from a break that was not particularly restful. Some worked long hours. Others dealt with family stress or financial pressure. Many are already thinking about how this semester fits into graduation timelines, career plans, or debt.

When instructors interpret this behavior as laziness or indifference, the disconnect widens. When it is recognized as fatigue, the response becomes more productive.

Subscribe now

Re-Establish Structure and Predictability

One of the most effective ways to re-engage burned-out students is to create a sense of stability.

Clear weekly rhythms help students conserve mental energy. When students know what is due, when feedback arrives, and how the course is organized, they can focus more on learning and less on logistics.

This includes consistent due dates, clear assignment instructions, and predictable communication. Structure is not restrictive. It is supportive.

Create Early Opportunities for Success

Confidence fuels engagement.

Design early activities that allow students to succeed without being overwhelmed. These might be low-stakes assignments, guided discussions, or short reflections that reinforce course expectations without high pressure.

Early success helps students rebuild trust in their ability to do the work. It also signals that the course is demanding but manageable.

Make the Purpose of the Course Explicit

Burnout thrives in courses that feel disconnected from students’ goals.

Early in the semester, take time to explain why the course matters. Not just in terms of content, but in terms of skills, thinking, and habits students are developing.

Students are more willing to invest effort when they understand the value of what they are being asked to do. This does not require overselling. It requires clarity.

Model the Engagement You Want to See

Students take cues from their instructors.

If enthusiasm feels forced, students notice. If communication feels rushed or impersonal, they respond in kind. If curiosity, care, and consistency are present, engagement follows more naturally.

This does not mean performing energy you do not have. It means being present, responsive, and intentional in how you show up.

Re-Engagement Is a Process, Not a Switch

Burnout does not disappear in the first week of the semester.

Re-engagement happens gradually as students experience structure, clarity, feedback, and small successes. It requires patience and consistency, not constant innovation.

Faculty do not need to fix burnout. They need to create conditions where recovery is possible.

Teaching With Awareness

January is an opportunity to reset expectations without starting from scratch. Students are capable of deep learning, even when they are tired. Instructors can maintain rigor while leading with clarity and purpose.

When courses are designed with awareness of burnout, engagement becomes more likely. Learning becomes more sustainable. The semester feels less like a test of endurance and more like a shared effort.

The start of a new semester brings a familiar mix of optimism and pressure. There are syllabi to finalize, courses to open in the LMS, emails to answer, and the quiet hope that this semester will feel more manageable than the last one.

When we talk about preparing for a new semester, we often default to logistics. Is the syllabus uploaded? Are the assignments dated correctly? Is the gradebook set up?

Those details matter, but they are not what determine whether a semester starts strong.

A strong start is less about perfection and more about intentionality. It is about being clear on what you want students to learn, how you want them to engage, and what kind of learning environment you are trying to create.

Below are practical, high-impact ways to prepare for a new semester that go beyond checklists and help set the tone for everything that follows.

Get Clear on What Really Matters

Before students ever log in or walk into your classroom, pause and ask yourself a simple question.

If students remember only three things from this course a year from now, what should they be?

This is not the same as listing all course topics. It is about identifying the core learning outcomes that anchor everything else. When instructors are clear on what truly matters, students feel it. Assignments make more sense. Feedback becomes more focused. Expectations feel less arbitrary.

If something in your course does not clearly connect to those core outcomes, it may be worth rethinking, or at least explaining more clearly why it is there.

Design for the Student Experience in the First Two Weeks

The first two weeks of a course carry outsized importance. This is when students decide how demanding the course feels, whether expectations are clear, how approachable the instructor seems, and how much effort they believe the course will require.

Take time to experience your course the way a student will. Click through the LMS. Read the instructions as if you are encountering them for the first time. Ask yourself whether students know exactly what to do first, whether the workload is paced reasonably, and whether there are early opportunities for success.

Early clarity reduces anxiety. Early wins build confidence. Both make the rest of the semester easier for everyone.

Communicate Expectations Explicitly and Early

Many student frustrations stem not from the work itself, but from uncertainty about what instructors expect.

Be explicit about how much time students should expect to spend each week, what high-quality work looks like, how and when you communicate, and what students should do when they are confused or falling behind.

This is not about lowering standards. It is about making standards visible.

Students perform better when expectations are clear. Faculty spend less time managing confusion and complaints. Everyone benefits.

Set the Tone You Want to Sustain

The way you communicate at the start of the semester becomes the baseline students expect moving forward.

If you want thoughtful discussion, model it early. If you value professionalism, demonstrate it consistently. If you care about flexibility and accountability, explain how those coexist.

This applies to announcements, emails, feedback, and even syllabus language. Tone matters more than we often realize, especially in online and hybrid courses where students have fewer informal cues to rely on.

Build in Reflection for Yourself

Before the semester begins, take a short block of time to reflect on the last time you taught the course, or a similar one. Consider what worked better than expected, where students struggled most, what questions came up repeatedly, and what drained your time and energy.

Write these observations down. Even small notes can inform meaningful adjustments.

Then keep a running list during the semester of ideas, frustrations, and improvements you want to make next time. January preparation is important, but continuous reflection is how courses actually improve.

Finish Strong by Starting Intentionally

A strong semester start does not require a complete course overhaul. It requires focus, clarity, and a willingness to be intentional about the learning experience you are creating.

Students notice when a course feels purposeful. They respond when expectations are clear and communication feels human. Instructors benefit when the semester begins with structure rather than stress.

You do not need a perfect course to start strong. You need a thoughtful one.

As we approach the end of 2025, it feels like the right time to step back and reflect on the conversations we have had throughout the year. From end-of-semester strategies to innovations in teaching and learning, from the evolving role of AI to the future of online education, this space has become a hub for exploring the ideas shaping higher education today.

Across the articles I shared this year, a few major themes consistently emerged:

• The growing influence of AI on teaching, learning, and student support.
We examined how AI is reshaping instructional design, academic coaching, mental health support, research workflows, and even institutional operations.

• The ongoing evolution of instructional practices.
Many posts focused on course design, inclusive teaching, global virtual exchange, and new assessment models that support deeper learning and student success.

• The shifting landscape of online and hybrid education.
From program innovation to enrollment strategy to the evolving expectations of learners, we examined how institutions are adapting to a digital future.

• The importance of faculty support and professional development.
A recurring theme across the year was the need to provide instructors with the tools, resources, and confidence to navigate rapid change.

• The push toward agility, transparency, and workforce alignment.
We explored how curriculum, credentials, and institutional strategy are being reimagined to better serve learners and employers.

This is the type of content I love creating, and I am grateful to everyone who has read, shared, or reached out in response to these posts. Your engagement is what makes this community meaningful.

As we look ahead to 2026, I hope you will continue following along. Please consider inviting your colleagues, friends, and higher education partners to join us. There will be more articles, insights, predictions, and discussions on the future of higher education, and I would love to expand the conversation.

I also want to hear from you. If there are specific topics, trends, or questions you would like me to cover in 2026, please reach out and let me know. Your ideas help shape the direction of this space.

Thank you for reading, for engaging, and for supporting this ongoing dialogue about the future of teaching and learning.

Happy New Year, and see you in 2026.

Top 10 Higher Ed Predictions for 2026

Higher education enters 2026 with more clarity and direction than it has had in several years. After a period of rapid experimentation and reactive change, campuses are now focused on sustainable, strategic innovation. The trends emerging suggest that 2026 will be a year defined not by disruption, but by the thoughtful integration of new technologies, enhanced student support, and more agile academic structures.

Below are my Top 10 Predictions for Higher Education in 2026, curated from the developments I believe are most likely to shape the coming year.

1. AI Teaching Assistants Become Standard in LMS Platforms

By 2026, major LMS vendors will offer built-in AI assistants that help students navigate courses, answer questions, and complete routine tasks. These tools will provide real-time instructional support and reduce faculty workload in large enrollment courses.

2. Widespread Adoption of Portfolio-Based Assessment

More programs will shift toward digital portfolios that demonstrate mastery through real artifacts and reflective work. Portfolios allow students to showcase applied learning and provide a more authentic measure of their progress than traditional exams.

3. Accreditation Standards Updated for AI-Integrated Courses

Regional and programmatic accreditors will provide formal guidance on how AI can be effectively utilized in course design, content creation, and assessment. Institutions will be expected to clearly document their use of AI, evaluate instructional quality, and ensure transparency for students.

4. Skills Transparency Dashboards for Every Program

Universities will publish user-friendly skills maps showing the competencies each degree develops. These dashboards will help employers interpret academic programs and allow students to better understand the professional value of their coursework.

5. Personalized Degree Pathway Apps Expand

Student-facing planning tools will become more intelligent and more personalized. These apps will recommend courses, minors, extracurriculars, and optimized graduation timelines using predictive analytics based on student performance and goals.

6. Mental Health AI Support Becomes a Campus Norm

AI-driven behavioral analytics will become widely used to identify early indicators of student distress. These platforms will help advisors and counselors intervene sooner, making mental health support proactive rather than reactive.

7. Administrative Automation Expands

Institutions will automate routine tasks such as scheduling, communications, and data processing. This shift will free campus staff to focus on higher-impact work that directly supports students and improves operational efficiency.

8. Institutional Use of Digital Twin Modeling Surges

Digital twins will be utilized to simulate campus operations, infrastructure requirements, emergency response planning, and sustainability initiatives. Facilities and planning teams will rely on these models to make data-informed strategic decisions.

9. Rapid Program Development Becomes a Competitive Necessity

AI-assisted curriculum tools will enable institutions to launch new programs in months rather than years. As employers’ needs change more quickly, universities that can develop and revise programs rapidly will have a significant advantage.

10. Surge in Non-Degree AI Certificates for Professionals

The demand for short-cycle, job-aligned AI upskilling is expected to continue growing. Working professionals will increasingly enroll in non-degree certificates that provide immediate, career-relevant expertise in AI, analytics, and digital communication.

What 2026 Might Mean for Higher Education

2026 is poised to be a year of intentional progress. Institutions will continue integrating AI into teaching, learning, research, and operations, but with clearer guardrails and a more thoughtful strategy. The focus will shift from simply adopting new tools to building sustainable systems that support students and faculty in meaningful ways. If these predictions hold true, 2026 will help define a more agile, data-informed, and student-centered future for higher education.

#HigherEd #EdTech #FutureOfEducation #AIinEducation #HigherEdInnovation #TeachingAndLearning #StudentSuccess #OnlineLearning #AcademicLeadership #HigherEdTrends #2026 #Predictions

Every year brings new ideas, new technologies, and new approaches to teaching and learning. While not as disruptive as the early pandemic years, 2025 was a year of steady, meaningful innovation that quietly reshaped the student experience, supported faculty, and strengthened institutional strategy for the long term. The following list reflects my personal top 10 innovations that I feel defined the past year. These capture developments across instruction, learning technologies, research, and student success.

1. AI Teaching Assistants 2.0

AI-powered course assistants have matured significantly this year. These models now maintain course context across entire semesters, provide personalized explanations, and support faculty with routine instructional tasks.

2. AI-Supported Course Design Pipelines

Course development entered a new era in 2025. Universities have implemented integrated AI workflows that are capable of mapping learning outcomes, generating assessments, checking accessibility, and aligning with Quality Matters standards.

3. AI-Generated Multimedia for Courses

Generative tools for producing graphics, animations, audio, and short-form video became mainstream. Faculty who previously relied on media teams or time-consuming DIY production can now create professional-level assets in hours.

4. Competency-Based Education Expansion

CBE experienced one of its biggest growth years in more than a decade. Programs in communication, health, cybersecurity, and digital industries have expanded rapidly, enabling students to progress at their own pace and demonstrating mastery to employers.

5. Global Virtual Exchange at Scale

Virtual exchange fully arrived in 2025. Increasing numbers of institutions are adopting international online collaborations, providing students with access to cross-cultural learning experiences that overcome the financial and logistical barriers of traditional study abroad programs.

6. “By-Design” Inclusive Teaching Frameworks

Accessibility and inclusion are moving from reactive accommodations to proactive design principles. Universities now use AI audits to identify barriers before a course launches, ensuring UDL alignment, readability, captioning, and language clarity.

7. Mental Health Platforms with Predictive Alerts

With student well-being still a central concern, campuses adopted AI-enhanced systems that identify early indicators of distress. These platforms give advisors and counselors a head start, often leading to earlier and more effective support.

8. Workforce-Aligned Curriculum Rapid Development

Program development cycles shortened dramatically in 2025. AI-assisted curriculum engines enable faculty and industry partners to co-design relevant curricula in weeks, helping institutions keep pace with rapidly changing workforce needs.

9. AI-Accelerated Research Pipelines

Research workflows continued to evolve. Autonomous research agents can now handle literature scans, coding, data preparation, and synthesis, freeing researchers to focus on interpretation, theory, and storytelling.

10. Campus Digital Twin Systems

Digital replicas of campus infrastructure gained traction this year. These systems help institutions model energy use, sustainability planning, emergency response, and long-term facilities management with far greater precision.

Was 2025 Truly an Innovative Year?

In short, yes, but in a quieter way.

Unlike 2020 to 2022, when emergency pivots drove rapid, reactive innovation, 2025 delivered steady, durable progress. Institutions focused on sustainable systems, improved instructional design, expanded global and inclusive learning models, and adopted AI in practical, measured ways.

The year was not defined by a single disruptive breakthrough. Instead, it was shaped by real, scalable improvements that elevate teaching, support students, and strengthen institutional resilience.

And in higher education, such progress may be the most significant innovation of all.

#HigherEd #EdTech #TeachingAndLearning #AIinEducation #HigherEducationInnovation #DigitalLearning #StudentSuccess #InstructionalDesign #OnlineLearning #AcademicInnovation #FutureOfEducation #HigherEdLeadership