higher education articles for students

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

How Technology Is Changing the Future of Higher Education

Labs test artificial intelligence, virtual reality and other innovations that could improve learning and lower costs for Generation Z and beyond.

By Jon Marcus

This article is part of our latest Learning special report . We’re focusing on Generation Z, which is facing challenges from changing curriculums and new technology to financial aid gaps and homelessness.

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Cruising to class in her driverless car, a student crams from notes projected on the inside of the windshield while she gestures with her hands to shape a 3-D holographic model of her architecture project.

It looks like science fiction, an impression reinforced by the fact that it is being demonstrated in virtual reality in an ultramodern space with overstuffed pillows for seats. But this scenario is based on technology already in development.

The setting is the Sandbox ColLABorative, the innovation arm of Southern New Hampshire University, on the fifth floor of a downtown building with panoramic views of the sprawling red brick mills that date from this city’s 19th-century industrial heyday.

It is one of a small but growing number of places where experts are testing new ideas that will shape the future of a college education, using everything from blockchain networks to computer simulations to artificial intelligence, or A.I.

Theirs is not a future of falling enrollment, financial challenges and closing campuses. It’s a brighter world in which students subscribe to rather than enroll in college, learn languages in virtual reality foreign streetscapes with avatars for conversation partners, have their questions answered day or night by A.I. teaching assistants and control their own digital transcripts that record every life achievement.

The possibilities for advances such as these are vast. The structure of higher education as it is still largely practiced in America is as old as those Manchester mills, based on a calendar that dates from a time when students had to go home to help with the harvest, and divided into academic disciplines on physical campuses for 18- to 24-year-olds.

Universities may be at the cutting edge of research into almost every other field, said Gordon Jones, founding dean of the Boise State University College of Innovation and Design. But when it comes to reconsidering the structure of their own, he said, “they’ve been very risk-averse.”

Now, however, squeezed by the demands of employers and students — especially the up and coming Generation Z — and the need to attract new customers, some schools, such as Boise State and Southern New Hampshire University, are starting labs to come up with improvements to help people learn more effectively, match their skills with jobs and lower their costs.

More than 200 have added senior executives whose titles include the words “digital” or “innovation,” the consulting firm Entangled Solutions found; many were recruited from the corporate and tech sectors. M.I.T. has set up a multimillion-dollar fund to pay for faculty to experiment with teaching innovations .

Some colleges and universities are collaborating on such ideas in groups including the University Innovation Alliance and the Marvel Universe-worthy HAIL Storm — it stands for Harvesting Academic Innovation for Learners — a coalition of academic innovation labs.

If history is a guide, the flashiest notions being developed in workshops in these places won’t get far. University campuses are like archaeological digs of innovations that didn’t fulfill their promises. Even though the biggest leap forward of the last few decades, for example — delivering courses online — appears to have lowered costs , the graduation rates of online higher education remain much lower than those of programs taught in person .

“One of the most important things we do here is disprove and dismantle ideas,” said William Zemp, chief strategy and innovation officer at Southern New Hampshire University.

“There’s so much white noise out there, you have to be sort of a myth buster.”

But some ambitious concepts are already being tested.

College by Subscription

One of these would transform the way students pay for higher education. Instead of enrolling, for example, they might subscribe to college; for a monthly fee, they could take whatever courses they want, when they want, with long-term access to advising and career help.

The Georgia Institute of Technology is one of the places mulling a subscription model, said Richard DeMillo, director of its Center for 21st Century Universities. It would include access to a worldwide network of mentors and advisers and “whatever someone needs to do to improve their professional situation or acquire a new skill or get feedback on how things are going.”

Boise State is already piloting this concept. Its Passport to Education costs $425 a month for six credit hours or $525 for nine in either of two online bachelor’s degree programs. That’s 30 percent cheaper than the in-state, in-person tuition.

Paying by the month encourages students to move faster through their educations, and most are projected to graduate in 18 months, Mr. Jones said. The subscription model has attracted 47 students so far, he said, with another 94 in the application process.

However they pay for it, future students could find other drastic changes in the way their educations are delivered.

Your Teacher Is a Robot

Georgia Tech has been experimenting with a virtual teaching assistant named Jill Watson, built on the Jeopardy-winning IBM Watson supercomputer platform. This A.I. answers questions in a discussion forum alongside human teaching assistants; students often can’t distinguish among them, their professor says. More Jill Watsons could help students get over hurdles they encounter in large or online courses. The university is working next on developing virtual tutors, which it says could be viable in two to five years .

S.N.H.U., in a collaboration with the education company Pearson, is testing A.I. grading. Barnes & Noble Education already has an A.I. writing tool called bartleby write , named for the clerk in the Herman Melville short story, that corrects grammar, punctuation and spelling, searches for plagiarism and helps create citations.

At Arizona State University, A.I. is being used to watch for signs that A.S.U. Online students might be struggling, and to alert their academic advisers.

“If we could catch early signals, we could go to them much earlier and say, ‘Hey you’re still in the window’ ” to pass, said Donna Kidwell, chief technology officer of the university’s digital teaching and learning lab, EdPlus.

Another harbinger of things to come sits on a hillside near the Hudson River in upstate New York, where an immersion lab with 15-foot walls and a 360-degree projection system transports Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute language students to China , virtually.

The students learn Mandarin Chinese by conversing with A.I. avatars that can recognize not only what they say but their gestures and expressions, all against a computer-generated backdrop of Chinese street markets, restaurants and other scenes.

Julian Wong, a mechanical engineering major in the first group of students to go through the program, “thought it would be cheesy.” In fact, he said, “It’s definitely more engaging, because you’re actively involved with what’s going on.”

Students in the immersion lab mastered Mandarin about twice as fast as their counterparts in conventional classrooms, said Shirley Ann Jackson, the president of Rensselaer.

Dr. Jackson, a physicist, was not surprised. The students enrolling in college now “grew up in a digital environment,” she said. “Why not use that to actually engage them?”

Slightly less sophisticated simulations are being used in schools of education, where trainee teachers practice coping with simulated schoolchildren. Engineering students at the University of Michigan use an augmented-reality track to test autonomous vehicles in simulated traffic.

A Transcript for Life

The way these kinds of learning get documented is also about to change. A race is underway to create a lifelong transcript.

Most academic transcripts omit work or military histories, internships, apprenticeships and other relevant experience. And course names such as Biology 301 or Business 102 reveal little about what students have actually learned.

“The learner, the learning provider and the employer all are speaking different languages that don’t interconnect,” said Michelle Weise, chief innovation officer at the Strada Institute for the Future of Work.

A proposed solution: the “interoperable learning record,” or I.L.R. (proof that, even in the future, higher education will be rife with acronyms and jargon).

The I.L.R. would list the specific skills that people have learned — customer service, say, or project management — as opposed to which courses they passed and majors they declared. And it would include other life experiences they accumulated.

This “digital trail” would remain in the learner’s control to share with prospective employers and make it easier for a student to transfer academic credits earned at one institution to another.

American universities, colleges and work force training programs are now awarding at least 738,428 unique credentials , according to a September analysis by a nonprofit organization called Credential Engine, which has taken on the task of translating these into a standardized registry of skills.

Unlike transcripts, I.L.R.s could work in two directions. Not only could prospective employees use them to look for jobs requiring the skills they have; employers could comb through them to find prospective hires with the skills they need.

“We’re trying to live inside this whole preindustrial design and figure out how we interface with technology to take it further,” said Dr. Kidwell of Arizona State. “Everybody is wrangling with trying to figure out which of these experiments are really going to work.”

This story was produced in collaboration with The Hechinger Report , a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education.

Articles on Higher education

Displaying 1 - 20 of 1291 articles.

How is China being taught at Australian universities? And why does this matter? Here’s what our research found

Minglu Chen , University of Sydney ; Bingqin Li , UNSW Sydney , and Edward Sing Yue Chan , Australian National University

Kenya’s public universities: financing model overhaul fails to address biggest challenge – funding

Ishmael Munene , Northern Arizona University

What does the new Commonwealth Prac Payment mean for students? Will it do enough to end ‘placement poverty’?

Deanna Grant-Smith , University of the Sunshine Coast and Paula McDonald , Queensland University of Technology

The good news is the government plans to cancel $3 billion in student debt. The bad news is indexation will still be high

Andrew Norton , Australian National University

Australians are more likely to have partners who don’t share their political views than 25 years ago. Why?

Intifar Chowdhury , Flinders University

College administrators are falling into a tried and true trap laid by the right

Lauren Lassabe Shepherd , University of New Orleans

Are race-conscious scholarships on their way out?

Jeffrey C. Sun , University of Louisville and Charles J. Russo , University of Dayton

The UK is poorer without Erasmus – it’s time to rejoin the European exchange programme

Sascha Stollhans , University of Leeds

Why universities shouldn’t mark down international students for using non-standard English

Alexander Baratta , University of Manchester ; Paul Vincent Smith , University of Manchester , and Rui He , University of Manchester

Graduation rates for low-income students lag while their student loan debt soars

Robert Samuels , University of California, Santa Barbara

UK’s creative industries bring in more revenue than cars, oil and gas – so why is arts education facing cuts?

Adam Behr , Newcastle University

4 reasons the practice of canceling weakens higher education

Mordechai Gordon , Quinnipiac University

College athletes still are not allowed to be paid by universities − here’s why

Cyntrice Thomas , University of Florida

Why do international students choose to study in Australia?

Ha Nguyen , Victoria University ; Peter Hurley , Victoria University , and Sam Hoang , Victoria University

March Madness brings unique gambling risks for college students

M. Dolores Cimini , University at Albany, State University of New York

How going back to the SAT could set back college student diversity

Joseph Soares , Wake Forest University

Generative AI is changing the legal profession – future lawyers need to know how to use it

Craig Smith , University of Salford

If uni marks are going up, does that mean there’s a problem?

Phillip Dawson , Deakin University and Thomas Corbin , Deakin University

How ‘social financing’ could help fund higher education for under-represented students

Shelley Legin , Royal Roads University and Heather M Hachigian , Royal Roads University

Amid growth in AI writing tools, this course teaches future lawyers and other professionals to become better editors

Patrick Barry , University of Michigan

Related Topics

• Higher ed attainment
• Higher education policy
• International students
• Universities
• US higher education

Top contributors

Professor in the Practice of Higher Education Policy, Australian National University

Associate Professor, Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne

Adjunct Professor, Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education, OISE, University of Toronto

Senior Research Fellow, Curtin University

Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Professor of International Higher Education, UCL

Director, Mitchell Institute, Victoria University

Honorary Senior Fellow, Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne

Professor of Higher Education, The Ohio State University

Professor, University of Cape Town

Professor of Geography, The University of Melbourne

Executive Producer, Social and Political Sciences Program, University of Technology Sydney

Assistant Professor of Sociology, The University of Texas at San Antonio

Director, Policy Impact, College of Business and Economics, Australian National University

Lecturer, Teachers and Teaching Research Centre, School of Education, University of Newcastle

• X (Twitter)
• Unfollow topic Follow topic

New Data Show How the Pandemic Affected Learning Across Whole Communities

• Posted May 11, 2023
• By News editor
• Disruption and Crises
• Education Policy
• Evidence-Based Intervention

Today, The Education Recovery Scorecard , a collaboration with researchers at the Center for Education Policy Research at Harvard University (CEPR) and Stanford University’s Educational Opportunity Project , released 12 new state reports and a research brief to provide the most comprehensive picture yet of how the pandemic affected student learning. Building on their previous work, their findings reveal how school closures and local conditions exacerbated inequality between communities — and the urgent need for school leaders to expand recovery efforts now.

The research team reviewed data from 8,000 communities in 40 states and Washington, D.C., including 2022 NAEP scores and Spring 2022 assessments, COVID death rates, voting rates, and trust in government, patterns of social activity, and survey data from Facebook/Meta on family activities and mental health during the pandemic.

>> Read an op-ed by researchers Tom Kane and Sean Reardon in the New York Times .

They found that where children lived during the pandemic mattered more to their academic progress than their family background, income, or internet speed.  Moreover, after studying instances where test scores rose or fell in the decade before the pandemic, the researchers found that the impacts lingered for years.  

“Children have resumed learning, but largely at the same pace as before the pandemic. There’s no hurrying up teaching fractions or the Pythagorean theorem,” said CEPR faculty director Thomas Kane . “The hardest hit communities — like Richmond, Virginia, St. Louis, Missouri, and New Haven, Connecticut, where students fell behind by more than 1.5 years in math — have to teach 150 percent of a typical year’s worth of material for three years in a row — just to catch up. That is simply not going to happen without a major increase in instructional time.  Any district that lost more than a year of learning should be required to revisit their recovery plans and add instructional time — summer school, extended school year, tutoring, etc. — so that students are made whole. ”

“It’s not readily visible to parents when their children have fallen behind earlier cohorts, but the data from 7,800 school districts show clearly that this is the case,” said Sean Reardon , professor of poverty and inequality, Stanford Graduate School of Education. “The educational impacts of the pandemic were not only historically large, but were disproportionately visited on communities with many low-income and minority students. Our research shows that schools were far from the only cause of decreased learning — the pandemic affected children through many ways — but they are the institution best suited to remedy the unequal impacts of the pandemic.”

The new research includes:

• A research brief that offers insights into why students in some communities fared worse than others. 
• An update to the Education Recovery Scorecard, including data from 12 additional states whose 2022 scores were not available in October. The project now includes a district-level view of the pandemic’s effects in 40 states (plus D.C.). 
• A new interactive map that highlights examples of inequity between neighboring school districts. 

Among the key findings:

• Within the typical school district, the declines in test scores were similar for all groups of students, rich and poor, white, Black, Hispanic. And the extent to which schools were closed appears to have had the same effect on all students in a community, regardless of income or race. 
• Test scores declined more in places where the COVID death rate was higher, in communities where adults reported feeling more depression and anxiety during the pandemic, and where daily routines of families were most significantly restricted. This is true even in places where schools closed only very briefly at the start of the pandemic. 
• Test score declines were smaller in communities with high voting rates and high Census response rates — indicators of what sociologists call “institutional trust.” Moreover, remote learning was less harmful in such places. Living in a community where more people trusted the government appears to have been an asset to children during the pandemic.
• The average U.S. public school student in grades 3-8 lost the equivalent of a half year of learning in math and a quarter of a year in reading.

The researchers also looked at data from the decade prior to the pandemic to see how students bounced back after significant learning loss due to disruption in their schooling. The evidence shows that schools do not naturally bounce back: Affected students recovered 20–30% of the lost ground in the first year, but then made no further recovery in the subsequent three to four years.   

“Schools were not the sole cause of achievement losses,” Kane said. “Nor will they be the sole solution. As enticing as it might be to get back to normal, doing so will just leave the devastating increase in inequality caused by the pandemic in place. We must create learning opportunities for students outside of the normal school calendar, by adding academic content to summer camps and after-school programs and adding an optional 13th year of schooling.”

The Education Recovery Scorecard is supported by funds from Citadel founder and CEO Kenneth C. Griffin, Carnegie Corporation of New York, and the Walton Family Foundation.

The latest research, perspectives, and highlights from the Harvard Graduate School of Education

Related Articles

Despite Progress, Achievement Gaps Persist During Recovery from Pandemic

New research finds achievement gaps in math and reading, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, remain and have grown in some states, calls for action before federal relief funds run out

New Research Provides the First Clear Picture of Learning Loss at Local Level

To Get Kids Back on Track After COVID: Shoot for the Moon

4 trends that will shape the future of higher education

Higher education needs to address the problems it faces by moving towards active learning, and teaching skills that will endure in a changing world. Image:  Vasily Koloda for Unsplash

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Diana El-Azar

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} Education is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:.

Listen to the article

• Measures adopted during the pandemic do not address the root causes of the problems facing higher education.
• Institutions need to undertake true reform, moving towards active learning, and teaching skills that will endure in a changing world.
• Formative assessment is more effective than high-stakes exams in equipping students with the skills they need to succeed.

Since the onset of the recent pandemic, schools and universities have been forced to put a lot of their teaching online. On the surface, this seems to have spurred a series of innovations in the education sector. Colleges around the world embraced more flexibility, offering both virtual and physical classrooms. Coding is making its way into more school curricula , and the SAT exam for college admission in the US has recently been shortened and digitized , making it easier to take and less stressful for students.

These changes might give the illusion that education is undergoing some much-needed reform. However, if we look closely, these measures do not address the real problems facing higher education. In most countries, higher education is inaccessible to the socio-economically underprivileged, certifies knowledge rather than nurtures learning, and focuses on easily-outdated knowledge. In brief, it is failing on both counts of quality and access.

Have you read?

Four ways universities can future-proof education, the global education crisis is even worse than we thought. here's what needs to happen, covid-19’s impact on jobs and education: using data to cushion the blow, higher education trends.

In the last year, we have started to see examples of true reform, addressing the root causes of the education challenge. Below are four higher education trends we see taking shape in 2022.

1. Learning from everywhere

There is recognition that as schools and universities all over the world had to abruptly pivot to online teaching, learning outcomes suffered across the education spectrum . However, the experiment with online teaching did force a reexamination of the concepts of time and space in the education world. There were some benefits to students learning at their own pace, and conducting science experiments in their kitchens . Hybrid learning does not just mean combining a virtual and physical classroom, but allowing for truly immersive and experiential learning, enabling students to apply concepts learned in the classroom out in the real world.

So rather than shifting to a “learn from anywhere ” approach (providing flexibility), education institutions should move to a “learn from everywhere ” approach (providing immersion). One of our partners, the European business school, Esade, launched a new bachelor’s degree in 2021, which combines classes conducted on campus in Barcelona, and remotely over a purpose-designed learning platform, with immersive practical experiences working in Berlin and Shanghai, while students create their own social enterprise. This kind of course is a truly hybrid learning experience.

2. Replacing lectures with active learning

Lectures are an efficient way of teaching and an ineffective way of learning. Universities and colleges have been using them for centuries as cost-effective methods for professors to impart their knowledge to students.

However, with digital information being ubiquitous and free, it seems ludicrous to pay thousands of dollars to listen to someone giving you information you can find elsewhere at a much cheaper price. School and college closures have shed light on this as bad lectures made their way into parents’ living rooms, demonstrating their ineffectiveness.

Education institutions need to demonstrate effective learning outcomes, and some are starting to embrace teaching methods that rely on the science of learning. This shows that our brains do not learn by listening, and the little information we learn that way is easily forgotten (as shown by the Ebbinghaus forgetting curve , below). Real learning relies on principles such as spaced learning, emotional learning, and the application of knowledge.

The educational establishment has gradually accepted this method, known as 'fully active learning'. There is evidence that it not only improves learning outcomes but also reduces the education gap with socio-economically disadvantaged students. For example, Paul Quinn College, an HBCU based in Texas, launched an Honors Program using fully active learning in 2020, combined with internships at regional employers. This has given students from traditionally marginalised backgrounds the opportunity to apply the knowledge gained at university in the real world.

3. Teaching skills that remain relevant in a changing world

According to a recent survey, 96% of Chief Academic Officers at universities think they are doing a good job preparing young people for the workforce . Less than half (41%) of college students and only 11% of business leaders shared that view. Universities continue to focus on teaching specific skills involving the latest technologies, even though these skills and the technologies that support them are bound to become obsolete. As a result, universities are forever playing catch up with the skills needed in the future workplace.

What we need to teach are skills that remain relevant in new, changing, and unknown contexts. For example, journalism students might once have been taught how to produce long-form stories that could be published in a newspaper; more recently, they would have been taught how to produce shorter pieces and post content for social media. More enduring skills would be: how to identify and relate to readers, how to compose a written piece; how to choose the right medium for your target readership. These are skills that cross the boundaries of disciplines, applying equally to scientific researchers or lawyers.

San Francisco-based Minerva University, which shares a founder with the Minerva Project, has broken down competencies such as critical thinking or creative thinking into foundational concepts and habits of mind . It teaches these over the four undergraduate years and across disciplines, regardless of the major a student chooses to pursue.

4. Using formative assessment instead of high-stake exams

If you were to sit the final exam of the subject you majored in today, how would you fare? Most of us would fail, as that exam did not measure our learning, but rather what information we retained at that point in time. Equally, many of us hold certifications in subject matters we know little about.

Many people gain admission to higher education based on standardized tests that skew to a certain socio-economic class , rather than measure any real competency level. Universities then try to rectify this bias by imposing admission quotas, rather than dissociating their evaluation of competence from income level. Many US universities are starting to abandon standardized tests, with Harvard leading the charge , and there have been some attempts to replace high-stake exams with other measures that not only assess learning outcomes but actually improve them.

Formative assessment, which entails both formal and informal evaluations through the learning journey, encourages students to actually improve their performance rather than just have it evaluated. The documentation and recording of this assessment includes a range of measures, replacing alphabetical or numerical grades that are uni-dimensional.

The COVID-19 pandemic and recent social and political unrest have created a profound sense of urgency for companies to actively work to tackle inequity.

The Forum's work on Diversity, Equality, Inclusion and Social Justice is driven by the New Economy and Society Platform, which is focused on building prosperous, inclusive and just economies and societies. In addition to its work on economic growth, revival and transformation, work, wages and job creation, and education, skills and learning, the Platform takes an integrated and holistic approach to diversity, equity, inclusion and social justice, and aims to tackle exclusion, bias and discrimination related to race, gender, ability, sexual orientation and all other forms of human diversity.

The Platform produces data, standards and insights, such as the Global Gender Gap Report and the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion 4.0 Toolkit , and drives or supports action initiatives, such as Partnering for Racial Justice in Business , The Valuable 500 – Closing the Disability Inclusion Gap , Hardwiring Gender Parity in the Future of Work , Closing the Gender Gap Country Accelerators , the Partnership for Global LGBTI Equality , the Community of Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officers and the Global Future Council on Equity and Social Justice .

The International School in Geneva just launched its Learner Passport that includes measures of creativity, responsibility and citizenship. In the US, a consortium of schools have launched the Mastery Transcript Consortium that has redesigned the high school transcript to show a more holistic picture of the competencies acquired by students.

Education reform requires looking at the root cause of some of its current problems. We need to look at what is being taught (curriculum), how (pedagogy), when and where (technology and the real world) and whom we are teaching (access and inclusion). Those institutions who are ready to address these fundamental issues will succeed in truly transforming higher education.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Related topics:

The agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} weekly.

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Education and Skills .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

These are the top ranking universities in Asia for 2024

May 8, 2024

Globally young people are investing more than ever, but do they have the best tools to do so?

Hallie Spear

May 7, 2024

Reskilling Revolution: The Role of AI in Education 4.0

Why investing in people is essential to revive growth: Key quotes from leaders at the #SpecialMeeting24

Gayle Markovitz and Kate Whiting

May 2, 2024

In Haiti, a bold project for education is delivering results

Jean-Claude Brizard

May 1, 2024

Innovating for learning: How two innovators made access to books and education more inclusive

April 30, 2024

How does virtual learning impact students in higher education?

Subscribe to the brown center on education policy newsletter, stephanie riegg cellini stephanie riegg cellini nonresident senior fellow - governance studies , brown center on education policy.

August 13, 2021

In 2020, the pandemic pushed millions of college students around the world into virtual learning. As the new academic year begins, many colleges in the U.S. are poised to bring students back to campus, but a large amount of uncertainty remains. Some institutions will undoubtedly continue to offer online or hybrid classes, even as in-person instruction resumes. At the same time, low vaccination rates, new coronavirus variants, and travel restrictions for international students may mean a return to fully online instruction for some U.S. students and many more around the world.

Public attention has largely focused on the learning losses of K-12 students who shifted online during the pandemic. Yet, we may have reason to be concerned about postsecondary students too. What can we expect from the move to virtual learning? How does virtual learning impact student outcomes? And how does it compare to in-person instruction at the postsecondary level?

Several new papers shed light on these issues, building on previous work in higher education and assessing the efficacy of online education in new contexts. The results are generally consistent with past research: Online coursework generally yields worse student performance than in-person coursework. The negative effects of online course-taking are particularly pronounced for less-academically prepared students and for students pursuing bachelor’s degrees. New evidence from 2020 also suggests that the switch to online course-taking in the pandemic led to declines in course completion. However, a few new studies point to some positive effects of online learning, too. This post discusses this new evidence and its implications for the upcoming academic year.

Evaluating online instruction in higher education

A number of studies have assessed online versus in-person learning at the college level in recent years. A key concern in this literature is that students typically self-select into online or in-person programs or courses, confounding estimates of student outcomes. That is, differences in the characteristics of students themselves may drive differences in the outcome measures we observe that are unrelated to the mode of instruction. In addition, the content, instructor, assignments, and other course features might differ across online and in-person modes as well, which makes apples-to-apples comparisons difficult.

The most compelling studies of online education draw on a random assignment design (i.e., randomized control trial or RCT) to isolate the causal effect of online versus in-person learning. Several pathbreaking studies were able to estimate causal impacts of performance on final exams or course grades in recent years. Virtually all of these studies found that online instruction resulted in lower student performance relative to in-person instruction; although in one case , students with hybrid instruction performed similarly to their in-person peers. Negative effects of online course-taking were particularly pronounced for males and less-academically prepared students.

A new paper by Kofoed and co-authors adds to this literature looking specifically at online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic in a novel context: the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. When many colleges moved classes completely online or let students choose their own mode of instruction at the start of the pandemic, West Point economics professors arranged to randomly assign students to in-person or online modes of learning. The same instructors taught one online and one in-person economics class each, and all materials, exams, and assignments were otherwise identical, minimizing biases that otherwise stand in the way of true comparisons. They find that online education lowered a student’s final grade by about 0.2 standard deviations. Their work also confirms the results of previous papers, finding that the negative effect of online learning was driven by students with lower academic ability. A follow-up survey of students’ experiences suggests that online students had trouble concentrating on their coursework and felt less connected to both their peers and instructors relative to their in-person peers.

Cacault et al. (2021) also use an RCT to assess the effects of online lectures in a Swiss university. The authors find that having access to a live-streamed lecture in addition to an in-person option improves the achievement of high-ability students, but lowers the achievement of low-ability students. The key to understanding this two-pronged effect is the counterfactual: When streamed lectures substitute for no attendance (e.g., if a student is ill), they can help students, but when streaming lectures substitute for in-person attendance, they can hurt students.

Broader impacts of online learning

One drawback of RCTs is that these studies are typically limited to a single college and often a single course within that college, so it is not clear if the results generalize to other contexts. Several papers in the literature draw on larger samples of students in non-randomized settings and mitigate selection problems with various econometric methods. These papers find common themes: Students in online courses generally get lower grades, are less likely to perform well in follow-on coursework, and are less likely to graduate than similar students taking in-person classes.

In a recent paper , my co-author Hernando Grueso and I add to this strand of the literature, expanding it to a very different context. We draw on data from the country of Colombia, where students take a mandatory exit exam when they graduate. Using these data, we can assess test scores as an outcome, rather than (more subjective) course grades used in other studies. We can also assess performance across a wide range of institutions, degree programs, and majors.

We find that bachelor’s degree students in online programs perform worse on nearly all test score measures—including math, reading, writing, and English—relative to their counterparts in similar on-campus programs. Results for shorter technical certificates, however, are more mixed. While online students perform significantly worse than on-campus students on exit exams in private institutions, they perform better in SENA, the main public vocational institution in the country, suggesting substantial heterogeneity across institutions in the quality of online programming. Interviews with SENA staff indicate that SENA’s approach of synchronous learning and real-world projects may be working for some online students, but we cannot definitively call this causal evidence, particularly because we can only observe the students who graduate.

A new working paper by Fischer et al. pushes beyond near-term outcomes, like grades and scores, to consider longer-term outcomes, like graduation and time-to-degree, for bachelor’s degree-seeking students in a large public university in California. They find reason to be optimistic about online coursework: When students take courses required for their major online, they are more likely to graduate in four years and see a small decrease in time-to-degree relative to students taking the requirements in-person.

On the other hand, new work considering course completion during the pandemic is less promising. Looking at student outcomes in spring 2020 in Virginia’s community college system, Bird et al. find that the switch to online instruction resulted in an 8.5% reduction in course completion. They find that both withdrawals and failures rose. They also confirm findings in the literature that negative impacts are more extreme among less-academically-prepared students.

Online learning in the fall and beyond

Much more research on virtual learning will undoubtedly be forthcoming post-pandemic. For now, college professors and administrators should consider that college students pushed online may be less prepared for future follow-on classes, their GPAs may be lower, course completion may suffer, and overall learning may have declined relative to in-person cohorts in previous years. These results seem particularly problematic for students with less academic preparation and those in bachelor’s degree programs.

The research is less clear on the impact of virtual instruction on college completion. Although course completion rates appear to be lower for online courses relative to in-person, the evidence is mixed on the impact of virtual instruction on graduation and time-to-degree. The negative learning impacts, reduced course completion, and lack of connection with other students and faculty in a virtual environment could ultimately reduce college completion rates. On the other hand, there is also evidence that the availability of online classes may allow students to move through their degree requirement more quickly.

As the fall semester approaches, colleges will need to make critical choices about online, hybrid, and in-person course offerings. Maintaining some of the most successful online courses will enhance flexibility at this uncertain time and allow some students to continue to make progress on their degrees if they get sick or cannot return to campus for other reasons. For those transitioning back to campus, administrators might consider additional in-person programming, review sessions, tutoring, and other enhanced supports as students make up for learning losses associated with the virtual instruction of the past year.

Related Content

Stephanie Riegg Cellini, Kathryn J. Blanchard

July 22, 2021

Daphna Bassok, Lauren Bauer, Stephanie Riegg Cellini, Helen Shwe Hadani, Michael Hansen, Douglas N. Harris, Brad Olsen, Richard V. Reeves, Jon Valant, Kenneth K. Wong

March 12, 2021

Education Policy Higher Education

Governance Studies

Brown Center on Education Policy

Katharine Meyer

May 7, 2024

Online only

9:00 am - 10:00 am EDT

Kelli Bird, Ben Castleman

April 23, 2024

The 10 most-read student articles of 2020

 we reveal the most read articles on the student in 2020, including top universities for graduate employability, new student work visa announcements for the uk and how to study from home efficiently .

As with everything in 2020, the world of higher education has been forced to adapt to the impact of Covid-19. 

Students the world over have had their studies and university applications interrupted and transformed, as classes and admissions interviews went online for the first time. 

While students have had to adapt to a new model of online learning and adjust the ways that they socialise, THE Student has shared as many tips as possible on how to make the switch, as well as publishing blogs from students around the world to ensure you know that you aren’t alone. 

Below are the top 10 most read articles and student guides this year but be sure to check out the rest of the THE Student site for further advice on everything to do with university. 

10.   What does the new post-study work visa mean for international students ? 

There was some good news this year: the announcement of the Graduate Immigration Route. This is a new visa category to allow international students studying at UK universities to stay and work in the country for up to two years post-graduation, as of autumn 2020. 

This piece explains everything you need to know about the changing visa process as an international student coming to the UK, and how it might benefit your future career options. 

9.  Tips for studying online and at home for university students  

Since Covid-19 made face-to-face teaching impossible for so much of 2020, students have unsurprisingly sought advice on how to work efficiently from home and avoid screen fatigue. 

From setting up group calls to study together to creating a productive workspace, this handy article outlines our top tips for managing remote working and all the new challenges that have come with it. 

8.  10 common college interview questions (and how to answer them)  

Many international students taking online university interviews will be trying to figure what they will be asked and the best ways to prepare.  

This piece breaks down 10 of the most common interview questions and how to go about answering them. Working your way through these questions and identifying a few strong talking points for each of them is a great way to prepare for the big day. 

7.  The cost of studying at a university in the UK  

From fees and accommodation to living and travel costs, getting a clear picture of how much it will realistically cost to study in another country can be a daunting task. Our essential guides break down the cost of every aspect of university life to help international students make sure everything is covered. 

Our most popular guide this year was on the  cost of studying in the UK , but we also have guides covering the costs of studying in  Canada , the  United States ,  Australia  and many more. 

6.  Most international universities in the world  

When looking into studying abroad, students want reassurance that their chosen university has an established, active and supportive international student body ready to welcome them. 

Using data from the Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2020, this piece highlights the top five most international universities in the world, measured by international student and staff numbers, international collaboration and global reputation. 

5. Best universities for graduate jobs: Global University Employability Ranking 2020  

Employment prospects shouldn’t be the only reason you choose a university, but it is a factor to consider. This ranking reveals which universities recruiters at leading companies think are best at preparing students to be a successful fit in their workplace. 

This year, our global ranking was the most popular, but you can also browse our rankings of top universities for employability for the  UK , the  United States , and many more countries. 

4.  Top 50 universities by reputation 2020  

Each year, Times Higher Education reveals the institutions with the best reputations, as measured by academics around the world. 

Although these rankings are based on academics’ views, they offer students a helpful picture of how different institutions measure up in terms of teaching and research. 

Notably, this year, the University of Tokyo moved up a spot to join the top 10, which is usually dominated by the Ivy League and Oxbridge. 

3. Which subject should you study at university?  

Decisions, decisions! Your journey into higher education will require a lot of big choices, and your choice of subject is one of the most important things to get right. After all, this is what you’ll be studying all day, so you need to make sure you pick something you will find rewarding. 

This article provides links to our comprehensive subject guides, and the career options that they could lead you to. If you’re thinking about careers, or you are at the beginning of your university search, this is a perfect place to start. 

2. S ubject rankings  

The Times Higher Education subject rankings offer a more detailed insight into the best universities in 11 different subject areas. 

2020’s most popular piece in this series was  the best universities for medicine , but you can browse through the best universities for a range of subjects, such as  life sciences ,  law,   psychology  and many more. 

1.  Best universities in…  

THE’s  “best universities in” guides remain the biggest hit for student readers. These articles use data from the  Times Higher Education World University Rankings  to give you an overview of the top five universities in each country, as well as a table of every university that we rank in that country. 

This year, our  best universities in the UK  piece was the most popular but be sure to check out our pages outlining the best universities in  Australia , the  United States ,  Canada  and many more. 

Join the THE Student community and unlock free benefits

You may also like.

.css-185owts{overflow:hidden;max-height:54px;text-indent:0px;} How are universities going to be social distancing in September?

Seeta Bhardwa

Interviews with international students in Canada about the Covid-19 situation

Atharv Agrawal, Anya Haldemann, Brandon Tan Chin Hian, Joseph Wong

How to stop procrastinating – from a procrastination psychologist

Nick Wignall

How to manage your mental health when the world feels uncertain

Register free and enjoy extra benefits

Advertisement

Students’ motivation and engagement in higher education: the importance of attitude to online learning

• Published: 19 November 2020
• Volume 83 , pages 317–338, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Justine Ferrer 1 ,
• Allison Ringer 2 ,
• Kerrie Saville 1 ,
• Melissa A Parris 1 &
• Kia Kashi 1  

14k Accesses

103 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The emergence of online environments has changed the landscape of educational learning. Some students thrive in this learning environment, but others become amotivated and disengaged. Drawing on self-determination theory, we report the findings of a study of 574 undergraduate business students at an Australian higher education institution on their attitude toward online learning, and its impact on their motivation and educational engagement. Data was collected via an e-mail survey and analysed using structural equation modelling and the Hayes’ bootstrapping method. The results of the study were mixed. Attitude to online learning mediated the relationships of both intrinsic motivation to know and extrinsic motivation with engagement, indicating that the design of online learning environments can play a role in enhancing learning experiences. However, attitude to online learning was not found to mediate the intrinsic motivation to accomplish and engagement relationship. A negative mediation effect was partially supported between amotivation and engagement, with study mode found as a moderated mediator to this effect, being stronger and significant for online students as opposed to on-campus students. These results have implications for how students can be engaged online, and the need for educators to design online learning environments that support the learning experience for all students.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Theories of Motivation in Education: an Integrative Framework

Exploring the determinants of students’ academic performance at university level: The mediating role of internet usage continuance intention

Theory of Human Motivation—Abraham Maslow

Only affective attitude →  att8 loading was less than .50 in magnitude. Given the significance of the loading ( t value = 12.569, p  < .001), this loading was deemed as tolerable.

Goodness-of-fit statistics for tests of multi-group analysis and invariance tests can be provided. Please contact authors.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3), 411–423.

Google Scholar  

Annansingh, F. (2019). Mind the gap: cognitive active learning in virtual learning environment perception of instructors and students. Education and Information Technologies, 24 (6), 3669–3688.

Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45 (5), 369–386.

Arbuckle, J. L. (2016). IBM SPSS Amos 24 user’s guide . Crawfordville, FL: Amos Development Corporation.

Axelson, R. D., & Flick, A. (2010). Defining student engagement. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 43 (1), 38–43.

Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory . New York City, NY: General Learning Press.

Bolliger, D. U., & Halupa, C. (2018). Online student perceptions of engagement, transactional distance, and outcomes. Distance Education, 39 (3), 299–316.

Booth-Butterfield, S., Mosher, N., & Mollish, D. (1992). Teacher immediacy and student involvement: a dual process analysis. Communication Research Reports, 9, 13–21.

Carini, R., Kuh, G., & Klein, S. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47 (1), 1–32.

Chen, K., & Jang, S. (2010). Motivation in online learning: testing a model of self-determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 741–752.

Chen, P.-S., Lambert, A., & Guidry, K. (2010). Engaging online learners: the impact of web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54 (11), 1222–1232.

Cole, M. (2009). Using Wiki technology to support student engagement: lessons from the trenches. Computers & Education, 52 (2), 141–146.

Dabbagh, N. (2007). The online learner: characteristics and pedagogical implications. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7 (3), 217–226.

Davis, A., Little, P., & Stewart, B. (2008). Developing an infrastructure for online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed., pp. 121–142). Edmonton, AB: AU Press.

Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: the self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26 (3–4), 325–346.

Demski, J. (2012). This time it’s personal. THE Journal: Technological Horizons in Education, 39 (1), 32–36.

Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: a general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12 (1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1

Article   Google Scholar  

Ellis, R., & Bliuc, A. (2019). Exploring new elements of the student approaches to learning framework: the role of online learning technologies in student learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 20 (1), 11–24.

Farrel, D., Ray, K., Rich, T., Suarez, Z., Christenson, B., & Jennigs, L. (2018). A meta-analysis of approaches to engage social work students online. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 38 (2), 183–197.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39–50.

Fredricks, J. A., Filsecker, M., & Lawson, M. A. (2016). Student engagement, context, and adjustment: addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues. Learning and Instruction, 43, 1–4.

Fried, L., & Konza, D. (2013). Using self-determination theory to investigate student engagement in the classroom. International Journal of Pedagogy and Curriculum, 19 (2), 27–40.

Gefen, D. (2003). Assessing unidimensionality through LISREL: an explanation and an example. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12 (1), 23–47.

Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Rigdon, E. E. (2011). An update and extension to SEM guidelines for administrative and social science research. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 35 (2), iii-A7.

Gordon, N., Grey, S., & Brayshaw, M. (2015). Motivating and engaging students through technology. In J. Hawkins (Ed.), Student Engagement (pp. 25–43). New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc.

Gourlay, L. (2015). ‘Student engagement’ and the tyranny of participation. Teaching in Higher Education, 20 (4), 402–411.

Gray, J., & DiLorento, M. (2016). The effects of student engagement, student satisfaction, and perceived learning in online learning environments. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 11 (1), 98–119.

Hair, J., Jr., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: aglobal perspective (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Hair, J., Jr., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7 th edition, Pearson New edition, Pearson New (International). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76 (4), 408–420.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach . New York: Guilford Press.

Henrie, C. R., Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: a review. Computers & Education, 90, 36–53.

Hsu, H. C. K., Wang, C. V., & Levesque-Bristol, C. (2019). Reexamining the impact of self-determination theory on learning outcomes in the online learning environment. Education and Information Technologies, 24 (3), 2159–2174.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6 (1), 1–55.

Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38 (5), 758–773.

Kahu, E. R., & Nelson, K. (2018). Student engagement in the educational interface: understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research & Development, 37 (1), 58–71.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.

Krause, K., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first-year university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33 (5), 493–505.

Krause, K., Hartley, R., James, R., & McInnis, C. (2005). The first year experience in Australian universities: findings from a decade of national studies . Canberra: AGPS.

Kuh, G. D., & Hu, S. (2001). The effects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s. The Review of Higher Education, 24 (3), 309–332.

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2007). Piecing together the student success puzzle: research, propositions and recommendations . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lawlor, J., Marshall, K., & Tangney, B. (2016). Bridge21—exploring the potential to foster intrinsic student motivation through a team-based, technology-mediated learning model. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25 (2), 187–206.

Leach, L. (2016). Enhancing student engagement in one institution. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40 (1), 23–47.

Leach, L., & Zepke, N. (2012). Student engagement in learning: facets of a complex interaction. In I. Solomonides, A. Reid, & P. Petocz (Eds.), Engaging with learning in higher education (pp. 231–255). Faringdon, UK: Libri Publishers.

Lee, W., & Reeve, J. (2012). Teachers’ estimates of their students’ motivation and engagement: being in synch with students. Educational Psychology, 32 (6), 727–747.

Liaw, S.-S., Chen, G.-D., & Huang, H.-M. (2008). Users’ attitudes towards web-based collaborative learning systems for knowledge management. Computers & Education, 50, 950–961.

Macfarlane, B., & Tomlinson, M. (2017). Critiques of student engagement. Higher Education Policy, 30 (1), 5–21.

MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Quarterly, 35 (2), 293–334.

Marcel, F. (2019). Mobile augmented reality learning objects in higher education. Research in Learning Technology, 27 ,  https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v27.2133

Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. H. (2018). Engagement matters: student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22 (1), 205–222.

Mehra, V., & Omidian, F. (2011). Examining students’ attitudes towards e-learning: a case from India. Malaysian Journal of Educational Technology, 11 (2), 13–18.

Meyer, K. A. (2014). Student engagement in online learning: what works and why. ASHE Higher Education Report, 40 (6), 1–114.

Mitchell, I. C., & A. . (2011). A typology of task characteristics and their effects on student engagement. International Journal of Educational Research, 50 (5–6), 257–270.

Newbery, G. (2012). The psychology of being engaged and its implications for promoting engagement. In I. Solomonides, A. Reid, & P. Petocz (Eds.), Engaging with learning in higher education (pp. 47–69). Faringdon, UK: Libri.

Ng, K.-Y., Ang, S., & Chan, K.-Y. (2008). Personality and leader effectiveness: A moderated mediation model of leadership self-efficacy, job demands, and job autonomy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (4), 733–743.

Ong, C.-S., & Lai, J.-Y. (2006). Gender differences in perceptions and relationships among dominants of e-learning acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 816–829.

Plante, T. G. (2020). Top 10 tips for good Zoom hygiene and etiquette in education. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/do-the-right-thing/202003/top-10-tips-good-zoom-hygiene-and-etiquette-in-education . Accessed 28 July 2020.

Plewa, C., Galán-Muros, V., & Davey, T. (2015). Engaging business in curriculum design and delivery: a higher education institution perspective. Higher Education, 70 (1), 35–53.

Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42 (1), 185–227.

Purnomo, A., Kurniawan, B., & Aristin, N. (2019). Motivation to learn independently through blended learning, Advances in Social Science . Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), 330, 261–264.

Quin, D. (2016). Longitudinal and contextual associations between teacher–student relationships and student engagement: a systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 87 (2), 345–387.

Radianti J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., & Wohlgenannt, I. (2020). A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers & Education, 147 , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103778

Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In S. Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149–172). New York, NY: Springer.

Reschly, A., & Christenson, S. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In S. Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 3–20). New York, NY: Springer.

Robinson, C. C., & Hullinger, H. (2008). New benchmarks in higher education: student engagement in online learning. Journal of Education for Business, 84 (2), 101–108.

Rovai, A., Ponton, M., Wighting, M., & Baker, J. (2007). A comparative analysis of student motivation in traditional classroom and e-learning courses. International Journal on ELearning, 6 (3), 413.

Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (1), 54–67.

Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2009). Promoting self-determined school engagement: motivation, learning, and well-being. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 171–196). New York, NY.: Routledge.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E.L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61 , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860

Sailer, M., & Sailer, M. (2020). Gamification of in-class activities in flipped classroom lectures. British Journal of Educational Technology . https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12948

Sanders, L. D., Daly, A. P., & Fitzgerald, K. (2016). Predicting retention, understanding attrition: a prospective study of foundation year students. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 18 (2), 50–83.

Sims, R. R., & Sims, S. J. (Eds.). (1995). The importance of learning styles: understanding the implications for learning, course design, and education . Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 (4), 765–781.

Stevens, T., & Switzer, C. (2006). Differences between online and traditional students: a study of motivational orientation, self efficacy, and attitudes. Turkish Journal of Distance Education, 7 (2), 90–100.

Sun, J., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43 (2), 191–204.

Tanner, K. D. (2013). Structure matters: twenty-one teaching strategies to promote student engagement and cultivate classroom equity. CBE – Life Sciences Education, 12, 322–331.

Trowler, V., & Trowler, P. (2010). Student engagement evidence summary . UK: University of Lancaster.

Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., Senecal, C., & Vallieres, E. F. (1992). The Academic Motivation Scale: a measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52 (4), 1003–1017.

Wengrowicz, N., Swart, W., Paul, R., Macleod, K., Dori, D., & Dori, Y. J. (2018). Students’ collaborative learning attitudes and their satisfaction with online collaborative case-based courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 32 (4), 283–300.

Wlodkowski, R. J., & Ginsberg, M. B. (1995). Diversity and motivation: culturally responsive teaching . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wong, L., & Fong, M. (2014). Student attitudes to traditional and online methods of delivery. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 13, 1–13.

Yatz, Y. J. (2002). Attitudes affecting college students’ preferences for distance learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 2–9.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Management, Faculty of Business and Law, Deakin University, Locked Bag 20000, Geelong, 3220, Australia

Justine Ferrer, Kerrie Saville, Melissa A Parris & Kia Kashi

Department of Marketing, Faculty of Business and Law, Deakin University, Locked Bag 20000, Geelong, 3220, Australia

Allison Ringer

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Justine Ferrer .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ferrer, J., Ringer, A., Saville, K. et al. Students’ motivation and engagement in higher education: the importance of attitude to online learning. High Educ 83 , 317–338 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00657-5

Download citation

Accepted : 09 November 2020

Published : 19 November 2020

Issue Date : February 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00657-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Student engagement
• Higher education
• Attitude to online learning
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 23 November 2023

Strategies for developing sustainable communities in higher education institutions

• Alberto Biancardi 1 ,
• Annarita Colasante 2 ,
• Idiano D’Adamo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1861-8813 3 ,
• Cinzia Daraio 3 ,
• Massimo Gastaldi 4 &
• Antonio Felice Uricchio 5  

Scientific Reports volume  13 , Article number:  20596 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

2698 Accesses

14 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Energy and society
• Environmental social sciences

Higher education institutions (HEIs), based on learning, innovation, and research, can support the progress of civil society. Many HEIs are implementing sustainability practices and projects to counteract climate change, often involving youth participation. The present study aimed at identifying how sustainable communities may be fostered in a university setting. To that end, a questionnaire was administered to engineering students at the start and end of a course on energy issues, assessing their perceptions of sustainability using multi-criteria decision analysis. The results showed that students placed greater value on sustainability at the end of the course. Additionally, the findings highlight that the implementation of projects aimed at tackling real problems may be useful for disseminating knowledge and sustainable practices. The main implications of this study indicate that sustainable communities in academia lay on six foundational pillars: sustainable education, energy (and resource) independence, subsidies in support of the green economy, initiatives aimed at reducing the carbon footprint, energy community development, and new green professional opportunities.

Similar content being viewed by others

Determinants of behaviour and their efficacy as targets of behavioural change interventions

The role of artificial intelligence in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals

A US perspective on closing the carbon cycle to defossilize difficult-to-electrify segments of our economy

Introduction.

The historical disregard for ecosystem balance has led to escalating temperatures and catastrophic climate events, with adverse impacts on both humanity and the environment. Consequently, sustainability has become an integral component of scientific discourse and government agendas 1 , 2 . Nonetheless, significant disparities exist on regional and global scales, concerning the adoption and advocacy of sustainable practices 3 . The 1987 Brundtland Report defined sustainability as that concept in which the needs of current generations can be met without compromising the needs of future generations 4 . The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), comprising part of the broader 2030 Agenda, outline pragmatic and impartial strategies for addressing global challenges while benefitting the majority of stakeholders 5 . Companies are called upon to adopt approaches based on corporate social responsibility(CSR) 6 , with a goal of reducing the level of pollutant emissions 7 . Similarly, the concepts of integration between city and industry need to be reviewed, and the need to create green spaces arises 8 . Importantly, the literature also emphasizes that sustainability aims at promoting the needs of future generations and discouraging selfish behaviour in the present 9 . Similarly, it is crucial to provide sustainability analyses that are able to bring different points of view together 10 , 11 .

The European Green Deal is seen as a growth strategy with which the Europe is to become a fair and prosperous society with a modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy. It includes proposals for measures to reduce emissions in various areas, such as agriculture, mobility, building renovation, sustainable financing, energy systems or research and development. Some authors underline that a “generative approach” to economy can represent the “social vaccine” in order to be resilient to current and future pandemics. It is crucial to focus on active and healthy ageing and on combating NEET phenomenon (young people who neither work nor study) 12 .

Higher education institutions (HEIs) can support the achievement of the SDGs 13 and, in particular, SDG 4 (i.e., quality education) 14 . As Pope Francesco stressed, we need “a new kind of education, one that allows us to overcome the current globalization of indifference and culture of waste.” In this direction, the phenomenon of “sustainability washing” should be avoided, and the management of sustainability courses and the sustainable adaptation of educational curricula should be entrusted to those with relevant experience. The knowledge triangle, encompassing education, innovation, and research, must collaboratively support the progress of civil society 15 .

HEIs often possess strong localized affiliations that can serve as catalysts for the socioeconomic advancement of local ecosystems 16 . Concurrently, models of competitiveness drive internationalization 17 and efficiency 18 , fostering tighter synergies between universities and urban environments capable of addressing the challenges of sustainable development 19 . To facilitate these endeavors, a framework of cooperative and virtuous human behavior is needed 20 , 21 .

The core mission of many HEIs is to ensure high employability for graduates. However, HEIs also acknowledge the profound significance of the SDGs 22 . Despite this, many sustainability topics remain inadequately covered within curricula 23 . Instead, HEIs predominantly address sustainability through campus operations and institutional initiatives 24 . HEIs recognize that students hold a decisive role in advancing sustainability initiatives 25 , within a tetrahedron structure. In this structure, students are positioned at the center, and the vertices are represented by alliances, professors, student competencies, and teaching methodology 26 . Some authors have highlighted the importance of understanding how specific pedagogical approaches may support the development of particular competencies 27 . Notably, research has shown that certain courses can heighten students’ interest in pursuing careers in the sustainability field 28 . Moreover, knowledge of sustainability issues may be useful for various professional activities that students may be called upon to address in their future careers 29 .

Student projects aimed at solving real problems have proven effective in kindling their engagement with sustainability concerns 30 . Such experiential projects may empower students to interface with the external world, honing their ability to assess multifaceted, complex issues 31 . This engagement may foster collaboration and encourage the pursuit of strategies that align with team requirements 32 . Thus, “living lab” models that put stakeholders at the center are strongly recommended 33 , as such models encourage students to form strategies that integrate interdisciplinary content 34 .

New curricula and government actions are required to address the challenges of the ecological transition 35 . Students from various disciplines—including engineering 28 —must be called upon to propose technical solutions, while concurrently acknowledging social dimensions. The skills required for engineers to deal with the changes that may result from pursuit of the SDGs are not only normative, strategic, and systemic, but also conceptual 36 , as the sustainability challenge requires engineers to address open, complex, and interdisciplinary issues 37 . Thus, new pedagogy is needed to support a holistic education 38 drawing on active learning methods, including problem solving and simulations 39 , 40 . The challenges posed by sustainability imperatives demand a new approach to classical engineering, in order to solve and manage situations characterized by uncertainty, emergence, and incomplete knowledge 41 .

Several of the SDGs refer to energy issues 42 . Notably, SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy), SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities), and SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production) highlight the prominence of energy issues in achieving sustainable development. Energy communities can aid in the pursuit of SDGs 43 , 44 . The concept of energy communities introduces a novel societal model for the ecological transition 45 , characterized by diverse business models 46 and technological approaches 47 . Such communities strive for net-zero energy consumption 48 , thereby contributing to the advancement of a green economy. The significance of social and structural arrangements in determining the stability of energy communities has been acknowledged 49 . In fact, the ability to participate in an energy community can be influenced most by the family and social networks 50 . Consequently, university courses focusing on energy must center their curriculum on sustainability, in order to bridge the gap between the energy sector and the SDGs. While the factors that promote success in sustainable education vary across countries, development of a green culture has been shown to be consistently important 51 . To this end, policy actions must be identified, new businesses related to green sources must be developed, and new models of organization should be proposed, with citizens actively involved 52 .

In a previous study, a questionnaire was administered to students at the start and end of a university course. The results showed that, over the period of the course, students’ knowledge about sustainability increased. Additionally, sustainable education and confidence in youth competency were identified as fundamental pillars of future civil society 53 . Building upon these findings, the present research aimed at assessing how engineering students’ perceptions of sustainability issues changed following their completion of a course focused on energy topics. Based on the findings, we present recommendations for future university courses concentrated on sustainability. The research aimed at filling a gap in the literature by identifying the most significant factors for fostering sustainability communities within HEIs.

Materials and methods

The methodological approach taken in the present study replicated that of Sovacool et al. 54 in the energy field, utilizing a behavioral methodology that drew insights from economics, engineering, and psychology. The use of questionnaires with university students is well-established in the literature 55 . The present study closely adhered to the design outlined in previous research 53 , seeking to assess time trends in the subject matter.

Questionnaire development

In the first phase, a pre-established questionnaire 53 was reviewed by five international academic experts (40% women and mainly European) with at least 10 years’ experience in sustainability issues. In the second phase, the feedback from these experts was merged with input from the research team (which included more than simply the course faculty, in order to control for bias). This resulted in some revisions. Specifically, two questions on energy independence (i.e., composed only of renewables or based on an energy mix) and several questions on the location of renewable plants were added. Additionally, the economic value ranges for energy were widened. The questionnaire had the limitation of being lengthy, due to the need for comparison with the prior research (conducted in the previous year). Finally, the second phase of the research culminated when the questionnaire was validated by both the experts and the research team. In the third phase, the questionnaire was administered to students on two occasions: once at the start of the course and again at the end of the course. Of note, during the intervening period, the initial data collected were neither analyzed nor discussed. Lastly, in the fourth phase, the working group analyzed the main results and shared them with the students, alongside the findings from the previous year. This facilitated a discussion that offered insight into the students’ responses. The research concluded during the first two examination sessions (which involved more than half of the enrolled students), providing a platform for further discussion and exploration of the results.

Educational characteristics

The student questionnaire was administered to students enrolled in a master's degree program (predominantly in the field of Management Engineering) at Sapienza University of Rome. All students were registered in a course titled “Economics and Management of Energy Sources and Services”, which was an optional (non-compulsory) course with a strong focus on sustainability, comprising 60 lecture hours. At the culmination of the course, 99 students completed the questionnaire, representing five more than the number who completed it at the beginning of the course. Compared to the previous year, an additional 33 students completed the questionnaire (marking a 50% increase), highlighting the growth in student interest in topics related to energy and sustainability. Likely, this upswing was also compounded by positive feedback from students who attended the course in the prior year.

Beyond theoretical lectures, the course actively engaged stakeholders, with a special focus on younger individuals. To this end, students from the previous year presented their projects to the classroom during the initial phase of the course, in order to convey the course expectations and demonstrate their support for the concept of sustainable communities. These presentations also served to acknowledge and celebrate the quality of the projects presented in the previous year, which were strongly oriented towards problem solving. Additionally, the course involved the participation of several experts in the field, underlining the significance of robust collaboration between the university and external stakeholders.

Methodologies

The present study sought to assess the impact of course participation on students’ attitudes and behaviors concerning sustainability. Specifically, the questionnaire aimed at gauging the “treatment effect” resulting from the information imparted during the course. In accordance with the transformative learning approach 56 , it was assumed that students’ prior knowledge would play only a marginal role.

The appendix presents all of the questionnaire items (a total of 46) and the corresponding student responses (mainly in the form of Likert scale responses) 57 , 58 . The questionnaire was sent to students electronically via the course’s online platform and completed using a Google form (start in February and end in May 2023, respectively). Students were provided a 5-day window to complete the questionnaire, and their anonymity was guaranteed. The results were discussed with students also during the examination sessions in June and July 2023.

To bolster the robustness of the results, a sustainability metric was constructed using multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), consistent with current practice in science education 59 , 60 . MCDA is perfectly suited for the assessment of sustainable development, as articulated by Munda 61 : “Multi-criteria evaluation supplies a powerful framework for the implementation of the incommensurability principle”. In essence, it fulfils the objectives of inter/multi-disciplinarity (with respect to the research team), participation (with respect to the local community), and transparency (as all criteria are presented in their original form). Thus, MCDA is an appropriate tool for assessing both micro and macro sustainability policies 61 .

Criteria were identified on the basis of the questionnaire responses, and equal weight was assigned to all criteria, since there was no reason to prioritize one criterion over another-consistent with the approach used for the SDGs 9 . In addition, statistical tests were conducted. Since we are able to reject the hypothesis of normal distribution for almost all variables (see Supplementary material for details), we deploy the Kruskal–Wallis test that is a non-parametric test that obviates the need for normality in the underlying distributions 62 . The Kruskal–Wallis test is one of the most powerful tests for testing the null hypothesis (H 0 )—that is, whether a number of independent groups come from the same population or form populations with the same median 63 . In the present study, we used the Kruskal–Wallis test to assess the equality of distribution across all levels of categorical values for certain groups (e.g., those used in the MCDA). Furthermore, the correlation matrix, which is both square and symmetrical, allowed us to explore the existence of linear relationships between the examined variables. The correlation coefficient measures the strength and direction of the relationship between two variables, within a range of −1 to 1. Both of these methodologies are extensively employed in the field of education science 64 , 65 .

The subsequent sections present the results from the questionnaire, categorized according to different subject areas. The MCDA results (i.e., sustainable index) between the beginning and end of the course, along with the related statistical analyses, are also provided.

Sociodemographic data

The sample was mainly composed of students enrolled in the academic year 2022–2023 (74%). Students’ average age was 23.5 years (compared to 23.7 in the previous year) and the majority were male (66% vs. 64% in the previous year). Most came from central Italy (84% vs. 85% in the previous year) and lived in a household (79% vs. 82% in the previous year). The percentage of students who were concurrently employed dropped from 69 to 61% over the course duration. Thus, as the summer period approached, more students were likely to be seeking part-time or long-term employment.

Perceptions and behaviors regarding sustainability

The concept of sustainability encompasses environmental, social, and economic dimensions. However, not all students recognized this multidimensionality. As in the previous year, students’ accuracy in responding to the questionnaire improved from the beginning to the end of the course. Interestingly, two students exclusively focused on the environmental and economic dimensions of sustainability, respectively. Unfortunately, due to the anonymous nature of the responses, the presentation and discussion of the results did not shed light on the identity or motivations of these students. Another critical aspect is that the questionnaire was also completed by students who did not regularly attend classroom lectures (as the attendance rate was only about 70%).

Students displayed a heightened inclination toward future considerations compared to the present (66% at the end of the course, up 4% from the beginning of the course and the previous year). They also tended to characterize themselves as more altruistic (scoring themselves as 3.9 on the 5-point scale) than selfish. A Mann–Whitney U test, which is akin to the Kruskal–Wallis test but used to compare only two groups, showed that students who were inclined toward the future (scoring 4.0) or undecided about the time horizon of their temporal perspective (scoring 3.9) tended to rate themselves as more altruistic than those leaning towards the present (scoring 3.3), who generally saw themselves as more neutral. Students emphasized a greater sense of responsibility as a factor influencing their focus on the future (Fig.  1 ).

Degree of altruism and future-oriented perspective.

With regard to sustainable behavior, no significant differences were observed from the beginning to the end of the course (+ 0.2 in nature and volunteerism), or in comparison to the previous year (+ 0.4 in sustainable mobility). Figure  2 illustrates the results for the relevant questions (see Supplementary material for the results of the Cronbach’s alpha). While separate waste collection was considered the most relevant, its implementation in Rome was perceived as inadequate. Consequently, there was a strong call for separate waste collection at home and at the university. Students also noted the inadequacy of university space for sports and nature activities. However, while they recognized the importance of sports and nature, they struggled to strike a balance between engaging in these activities and dedicating time to their studies. Sustainable mobility and sustainable purchasing also received notable emphasis. In support of the former, 48% of students reported walking 1 to 3 km daily and 38% reported walking 3 to 6 km daily. Regarding sustainable purchasing, students expressed an upper limit to the price they were willing to pay. During the discussion, it emerged that students associated sustainable products with the wealthiest consumers, and thereby the potential for social inequalities. Finally, the lower value assigned to volunteering was attributed to students’ time constraints, despite students expressing support for regular volunteer efforts.

Mean values for sustainable behaviors: volunteering (2.2), separate collection (4.5), sport (3.7), sustainable shopping (3.3), sustainable mobility (3.3), nature (3.7) (1: never, 2: a few times, 3: sometimes, 4: often, 5: always).

The role of energy policy

The advancement of renewable energy is closely linked with incentive policies. This is a well-justified policy approach, due to its positive externalities on both environmental and social fronts (Fig.  3 )—see Supplementary material for the results of the Cronbach’s alpha.

Items related to energy subsidies and taxes.

Based on the Kruskal–Wallis test ( χ 2  = 13.57, p  < 0.01), certain item mean rankings exhibited statistically significant differences. Consequently, the null hypothesis (indicating that the groups stemmed from the same population) was rejected. For the ensuing non-parametric pairwise multiple comparison procedure following the rejection of the Kruskal–Wallis test, Dunn’s test was adopted 66 . The post-hoc Dunn's test, utilizing a Bonferroni corrected alpha of 0.005, indicated a significant difference in the mean ranks between subsidies for green sources and subsidies for fossil fuels. At the beginning of the course, green subsidies held the highest rank (4.6), and at the end of the course, their rank was in line with the previous year (4.5). In general, the difference in values between the beginning and end of the course only concerned fossil fuel subsidies, which shifted from 2.7 to 2.3. We emphasized to students that this value did not denote sustainability, as it corresponded with the response “little agree”—a weaker stance than “not at all agree.” Students asserted that this still denoted a negative judgment on their part, perhaps influenced by certain government decrees that aimed at supporting citizens and businesses during the energy challenges arising from the conflict in Ukraine (e.g., by lowering costs for gasoline- or diesel-powered vehicles). The pronounced impact of government energy policies was reaffirmed by students’ neutral judgment about becoming a prosumer in the absence of incentives (3.3), which showed a decrease of 0.2 compared to the previous year. Likewise, students’ perception of potential taxes on behaviors aligning with sustainability principles persisted (remaining similar to the prior year). Students identified pollution as more attributable to businesses than citizens, substantiating their rationale for advocating for higher taxation for the former (4.2 for businesses and 3.8 for citizens).

Willingness to pay for renewable sources

A substantial portion of the questionnaire focused on economic dimensions, aimed at gauging students’ recognition of the value associated with different energy sources. The assessment encompassed a comparison between green energy and fossil fuels under two scenarios: one involving energy purchase and another involving energy sale. Furthermore, students were queried about their willingness to contribute to a subsidy for prosumer status (Fig.  4 ).

Average values for willingness to pay: 17.1 and 24.7 cent€/kWh for buying fossil fuels and green energy, respectively; and 19.5 and 23.8 cent€/kWh for selling fossil fuels and green energy, respectively. Average values for the bonus for energy produced and self-consumed: 7.3 and 2.6 cent€/kWh for green energy and fossil fuels, respectively.

The results indicated that, in the context of energy purchase, students’ willingness to pay (WTP) for renewable sources at the end of the course was 7.6 cent€/kWh higher than that of fossil fuels. This difference in WTP exhibited a statistically significant increase from the beginning of the course (6.2 cent€/kWh) and from the previous year (6.6 cent€/kWh). Similarly, on the energy sale side, a similar trend emerged. The observed difference in WTP of 4.2 cent€/kWh in favor of renewable energy compared to fossil fuels exhibited an increase of 1.4 cent€/kWh compared to the start of the course and 2.0 cent€/kWh compared to the previous year.

The increase in monetary value could potentially be attributed to energy price inflation. Nonetheless, the data reveal an interesting pattern, whereby students did not perceive a significant difference between the selling and buying prices, possibly suggesting a common valuation assigned to green energy. Another interesting finding is the higher selling price associated with fossil fuels, compared to the purchase price. Students may have believed that consumers would be more inclined towards renewable sources, particularly given the higher price fetched from fossil fuels. This speculation could indicate that students perceived that sustainability could also be advanced by selling fossil fuels at an elevated price.

Further analysis of the subsidy for prosumer status reinforced the previous findings, showing elevated values compared to those recorded in the previous year (+ 2.7 and + 0.8 cent€/kWh for green and fossil fuels, respectively). This indicates a prevailing sentiment that subsidies should be in place for self-produced and consumed energy, irrespective of its environmental contribution. Such an attitude is likely influenced by existing policies, not only in the Italian system, but also in other contexts that provide subsidies for self-generated and self-consumed energy. However, it is important to emphasize that student opinions regarding subsidies for renewable sources remained unchanged over the course duration. In contrast, their valuation of a subsidy for being a fossil fuel prosumer decreased, resulting in a final value of 4.1 cent€/kWh.

Greenwashing and the impact of the internet on sustainability

Sustainability includes not only finding solutions, but also avoiding insincere sustainability claims without genuine change. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the internet emerged as a crucial facilitator of sustained educational activities, reducing the demand for transportation. Furthermore, it underscored the potential for other activities to be carried out electronically (Fig.  5 ).

Greenwashing, the internet, and sustainability.

The results indicated a noteworthy enhancement in greenwashing, which showed the most significant reduction (-0.6) between the beginning and end of the course (on par with the previous year). However, the final rating of 2.2 suggests that students remained positioned within the realm of “little agree,” rather than “not at all agree,” with respect to the contribution of greenwashing to sustainable development. Some students who opted for this rating believed that greenwashing draws attention to the importance of sustainability. They argued that some businesses claim to follow CSR principles in order to maintain competitive advantage, even if they do not genuinely implement those principles. Other students connected greenwashing to the current culture of attention seeking (even if that attention is negative), driven by the dominance of social platforms. However, during the discussion of the results, several students argued that greenwashing contradicts the core principles of sustainability, as it propagates falsehoods.

Turning to the role of the internet, there was a clear convergence between the final rating (4.0) and the rating recorded at the beginning of the course and in the previous year (3.9). Evidently, the internet plays a vital role in fostering globalization. However, students emphasized that its extensive use should be moderated according to necessity. Acknowledging the internet’s profound impact on sustainability, students identified numerous job prospects aligned with digitization and sustainability. Consequently, they advocated for harmonious coexistence of these aspects.

Sustainable education, professional opportunities, and the role of future generations

Students underscored the promising professional opportunities tied to sustainability, although their rating for this aspect slightly dipped compared to the previous year (4.3 vs. 4.5). A prevailing belief was that embracing sustainability would result in novel approaches enriched by a robust social orientation, without forfeiting technical expertise. Achieving this synthesis would necessitate the fusion of physical, human, and digital resources. Notably, the experts who shared insights during the course emphasized the essential interdisciplinary knowledge expected of sustainable managers (Fig.  6 ).

New professionals, sustainable education, and the role of future generations.

Furthermore, a theme that prominently emerged in the previous year retained its significance. Specifically, sustainable education continued to be heralded as the cornerstone for future civil society. Such education was thought to encompass not only academic lecturing but also hands-on immersion in actions to protect ecosystems across business and government domains. Each individual was perceived to possess a personal metric for gauging the sustainability of their actions, with priority assigned to the judicious and respectful use of available resources, placing the well-being of future generations over personal needs. This particular attribute garnered the highest score at the end of the course (4.7 vs. 4.2 at the beginning of the course). As shown in Fig.  6 , 77% of students responded “very agree” at the end of the course, representing a notable increase from the 53% who responded likewise at the course outset.

The data presented in Fig.  6 raise important considerations regarding the extent to which students may contribute to driving change. When examining the results based on student type, it becomes evident that university students were thought to support change more significantly than high school students. This distinction is reflected in the delta of 0.9 (3.7 vs. 2.8), representing a discernible increase from the 0.7 delta (3.6 vs. 2.9) recorded in the previous year. Interestingly, the reason given by students was the same as that proposed by their counterparts in the previous year: not a lack of confidence in younger peers, but the recognition that it is difficult to identify concrete solutions to the sustainability challenge without possessing all the skills needed to address it effectively.

Energy independence, sustainable certifications, and energy communities

The issue of energy independence has become fundamental in countries that are highly reliant on imported energy sources. As previously described, this topic was explicitly introduced in the questionnaire. Notably, Italy has adopted policies that are progressively reducing its reliance on Russian gas (Fig.  7 ).

Energy independence achieved via a mix of domestic sources (Mix) or domestic renewable sources (Ren).

The outcome of this inquiry highlights the relevance of energy independence, which ranked second overall. An energy mix composed of renewable sources obtained an average value of 4.6 (+ 0.1 from the beginning to the end of the course). However, energy independence was still considered strategic even when the energy mix included fossil sources, as evidenced by the high rating of 4.4. Consequently, there existed a marginal gap of 0.2, stemming primarily from students’ economic perspectives.

The recent shock in energy costs has underscored the vulnerability of Italy’s economy to energy-related factors, with negative repercussions for both citizens and businesses. As a result, students were inclined towards managerial decisions that, while acknowledging the value of sustainability, also emphasized competitiveness and the avoidance of past errors.

The imperative of a sustainable shift is evident, as emphasized by the European Commission’s recognition of gas as a transitional resource towards a low-carbon society. For students, sourcing gas domestically was seen as more sustainable than importing gas, in alignment with the green transition. The favorable environmental impact and competitive advantage associated with green energy was further substantiated through students’ responses to other questionnaire items (Fig.  8 )—see Supplementary material for the results of the Cronbach’s alpha.

Impact of green sources, sustainable certifications, and energy communities.

In fact, students attributed a very high value to the notion that renewables contribute to an improved environmental impact (4.4). However, this value was somewhat tempered, largely owing to concerns about potential emission levels in biomass, which might exceed those of other renewable sources. Nevertheless, the environmental advantage over fossil fuels was evident to all. Competitive advantage also performed well, with a score of 4.1. This may be attributed to renewables’ potential to not only reduce business costs, but also enhance brand reputation by appealing to a growing segment of consumers increasingly focused on sustainability.

Surprisingly, the data related to geopolitical risks (3.7 vs. 3.6 at the beginning of the course, indicating a 0.2 decrease from the previous year) differed from the data on energy independence. Upon further investigation, it was discovered that students perceived these aspects in distinct ways. Energy sources may indeed be a potential cause of conflict, especially when these resources are crucial for the economy of the owning country. Moreover, geopolitical risks may be influenced by cultural aspects.

A declining trend was observed in the data concerning sustainable certifications. Although these certifications received a high value of 4.2, this represented a decrease of 0.1 from the previous year and 0.2 from the beginning of the course. This decline was attributed to a topic discussed in class, related to the Green Claims Directive. It seeks to ensure that consumers receive accurate and trustworthy information about the environmental attributes of the products they purchase.

Conversely, the topic of energy communities garnered positive feedback from students, earning a rating of 4.4 (up 0.2 from the beginning of the course). This highlights a strong curiosity about the concept and its potential long-term implications in reshaping social relations. Indeed, such communities are akin to timeshare investments. Additionally, attention was drawn to the need to implement energy communities even in large cities, and the idea that new professional roles are needed to facilitate these transformative shifts.

Energy efficiency, energy habits, and renewable plant locations

Sustainable change requires the active engagement of diverse stakeholder groups. The findings presented in Fig.  9 reveal that certain stakeholders were perceived to wield a more significant impact on final outcomes. Specifically, they show that business entities and participants in the general value chain (49%) and broader society (42%) were thought to hold the most impact. Interestingly, this result displays a reversal in the positions of these categories relative to the previous year (38% vs. 42%) and the course outset (41% vs. 45%). According to students, this shift could be attributed to businesses’ growing alignment with CSR principles, as well as their greater propensity to seek employment in environments where such principles are practiced.

Stakeholder categories and the role of energy efficiency in the sustainable transition.

Another crucial strategy for emissions reduction was thought to be energy efficiency interventions. While these are generally explored in much greater depth in non-management degree programs (due to their technical nature), students unequivocally emphasized that energy efficiency and renewable energy carry equal importance (68%). Notably, this value rose from the beginning of the course (60%) and was consistent with the previous year’s findings (65%).

Continuing along this trajectory, 42% of students deemed the competitiveness of emerging technologies as essential (representing a decrease of 10% from the beginning of the course). Conversely, the option of electrifying all uses was not considered strategically significant (7%). Nonetheless, students underlined the need for a shift in consumption behaviors (from 24% at the start of the course to 30% at the end of the course).

Delving deeper into energy consumption habits, students expressed their willingness to modify these habits in order to capitalize on potential economic benefits (4.0). However, a concerning trend of unsustainable consumption behavior emerged, attributable to the concept of the green economy rebound (Fig.  10 ). Students were asked to reply to the following prompt: “I may even consume more because the environmental impact is reduced.” It is important to note that, while the use of green energy might align with this sentiment, it does not justify inappropriate use.

Energy habits related to green fuels.

When comparing responses between the beginning and the end of the course, a shift was observed from 2.7 to 2.3, mirroring the situation in the previous year. Notably, a score of 2.3 indicated that students were more included to select a “little agree” response than a “not at all agree” response. Students recognized that this risk might be deemed acceptable, due to the perception that the use of renewable sources inherently contributes to environmental protection. However, students placed less emphasis on the specific consumption behaviors consumers should adopt, and this aspect was not consistently taken into account. Of note, for students, the rating “little agree” still carried a strongly negative implication.

The final section of the questionnaire aimed at exploring students' preferences, in the event that they came to be involved in a decision-making process to determine the location of a renewable energy plant. To capture a wider range of responses, this section employed a 10-point value scale (Fig.  11 ).

Location of renewable plants at the end and beginning of the course, respectively. RP1 = regardless of all factors (5.5, 4.7); RP2 = regardless of concerns from national politicians about losing electoral support (6.8, 5.5); RP3 = regardless of concerns from local politicians about losing electoral consensus (6.7, 5.5); RP4 = regardless of the specific installation site (e.g., near one’s residence, within one’s region of residence) (5.5, 4.5); RP5 = regardless of the type of substrate, considering its origin (e.g., local residue, extra-regional) (5.6, 4.5); RP6 = regardless of the energy source (e.g., solar, biomass) (6.4, 5.1).

Based on the Kruskal–Wallis test ( χ 2  = 34.39, p  < 0.000002), the differences between the mean ranks of certain groups were statistically significant. The post-hoc Dunn's test, employing a Bonferroni corrected alpha of 0.0033, indicated distinct mean rank differences among several pairs. The first three consisted of: RP2–RP4; RP2–RP3, and RP3–RP4. Conversely, the same was not verified in the data for the start of the course, for which the following values emerged ( χ 2  = 10.89, p  = 0.054). The results show that the course exerted a positive influence, resulting in a relative increase across all questions, ranging from + 0.8 to + 1.3. Of notable significance were responses associated with challenging the “not in my term of office” (NIMTO) mindset, which achieved scores of 6.8 (for national politicians) and 6.7 (for local politicians). These scores underscore students’ inclination towards practical solutions for current issues. This suggests that electoral consensus must not only be cultivated within the present generation, but also valued by those to come. The guiding principle seems straightforward: adopt practical measures that genuinely enhance ecosystem equilibrium.

Another well-performing response pertained to the choice of renewable energy types, which scored 6.4. This aligns with the imperative of increasing Italy’s domestic resources. Among the various renewable options, environmental performance may vary, but the contribution remains vital. Students emphasized the need for future choices to emanate from transparent and collective initiatives.

Hence, the notion of unconditional acceptance of a renewable energy plant garnered a consensus score of 5.5. The same rating was assigned to scenarios in which the specific location was not considered. Of note, these ratings did not merely imply the presence of “not in my back yard” (NIMBY) syndrome. Rather, as students elaborated, the example cited often pertains to whether the resources generated arise from their actions or their potential waste. In the latter case, it was deemed sustainable to adopt behaviors that would mitigate any adverse impact. Furthermore, students emphasized that, while action needs to be taken, choices must be equitable and balanced. In particular, students found it inappropriate to transport certain wastes, and they also highlighted the lack of self-sufficiency in some areas. In this context, the question that probed students’ preferred geographical location for substrate use received a rating of 5.6.

Multicriteria decision value

The final step of the questionnaire analysis involved aggregating all responses (Table 1 ). Table 1 summarizes the above findings, with two factors tending by approximation to the value of 5 (i.e., the maximum on the Likert scale): (i) sustainable education and (ii) energy independence (through renewable sources). Nevertheless, the subsequent items in the ranking highlight distinct political, strategic, and educational implications: (i) green subsidies; (ii) strategic independence, which remained significant even when reliant on fossil sources; (iii) the contribution of renewables to combating climate change; (iv) the pivotal role played by energy communities; and (v) the need for new professional roles (all with values that tend, by approximation, to 4.5).

At this point, it was possible to create a sustainable index, based on the questionnaire items, using MCDA. Sixteen factors were considered, as indicated by the “X” in the last column of Table 1 . Several considerations guided the choice of factors: (i) only questions featuring a Likert scale were selected; (ii) only questions present in both questionnaire versions, enabling a comparison across years, were evaluated (thus, questions on energy independence were excluded); and (iii) questions regarding new generations were omitted, as they were perceived as more commendable proposals than executable actions. A high value on the sustainable index indicated strong performance. Of note, three factors (i.e., fossil source subsidies, increased energy consumption, greenwashing) deviated from this principle. Consequently, their reciprocals were calculated to render them comparable with the other 13 criteria.

The results of the index objectively show that the course enhanced students’ sustainability performance across both years—Fig.  12 . There was a discernible increase in students’ familiarity with sustainability topics compared to the previous year (3.7 vs. 3.5), and this trend culminated in a final value of 3.9, consistent with the previous year’s value. Moreover, aligning these findings with students’ individual characteristics, students with an altruistic disposition tended to be more supportive of this transformative shift (4.10 vs 3.86).

Sustainable index.

Statistical measures

To lend greater significance to the results, a Kruskal Wallis test was once again conducted. At this stage, the analysis was specifically applied to two distinct contexts. The first pertained to the 16 criteria used for the sustainable index, wherein H 0 was rejected ( χ 2  = 229.05,  p  < 0.001). This implied that the mean ranks of certain groups were indeed not equal. Subsequently, a post-hoc Dunn's test was employed with a Bonferroni corrected alpha of 0.00042. This test highlighted several differences in the mean ranks among the following pairs:  x 1–  x 7;  x 1–  x 10;  x 1–  x 11;  x 1–  x 12;  x 1–  x 14;  x 1–  x 15;  x 2–  x 7;  x 2–  x 10;  x 2–  x 11;  x 2–  x 12;  x 2–  x 13;  x 2–  x 14;  x 2–  x 15;  x 2–  x 16;  x 3–  x 5;  x 3–  x 6;  x 3–  x 7;  x 3–  x 8;  x 3–  x 9;  x 3–×10;  x 3–  x 11;  x 3–  x 12;  x 3–  x 13;  x 3–  x 14;  x 3–  x 15;  x 3–  x 16;  x 4–  x 7;  x 4–  x 10;  x 4–  x 11;  x 4–  x 12;  x 4–  x 14;  x 4–  x 15;  x 5–  x 7;  x 5–  x 10;  x 5– x 12;  x 5–  x 14;  x 5–  x 15;  x 6–  x 7;  x 6–  x 12;  x 6–  x 15;  x 7–  x 9;  x 8–  x 12;  x 9– x 12;  x 11–  x 12;  x 12–  x 13, and  x 12–  x 16.

The second context concerned responses that converged around an approximate value of 4.5, of which there were seven. The Kruskal–Wallis test showed that the differences in mean ranks for some groups was statistically significant ( χ 2  = 33.05,  p  < 0.001). Specifically, the post-hoc Dunn's test using a Bonferroni corrected alpha of 0.0024 indicated significant differences in the mean ranks of the following pairs:   x 1 –x 3 ;   x 17–  x3 ;  x3–x4 , and  x3–x5 (Table 2 ).

In addition, a correlation matrix was employed to analyze the two distinct groups of criteria. In Table 3 , the analysis related to the criteria comprising the sustainable index reveals that there were no notable high correlations suggesting non-random relationships. The highest correlations were observed for the following associations: 0.662 between potential taxes targeting those who do not follow sustainability principles among the stakeholder groups of businesses and citizens; 0.403 between the insignificance assigned to fossil fuel subsidies and the lack of support for sustainability in cases of greenwashing; and 0.389 between energy communities and sustainable certifications, as well as between the influence of green energy on competitiveness and its contribution to climate change.

These results underscore the need for taxation strategies to encompass a comprehensive framework that involves all stakeholders. Additionally, they highlight the correlation between two attitudes contradictory to sustainable development: subsidies for environmentally impactful sources and deceptive claims of environmental initiatives by businesses that do not execute such projects. Furthermore, the concept of a community rests on a foundation of trust, which is as pivotal for nurturing energy communities as it is for developing credible sustainable labels. Finally, renewable energy effectively bridges economic and environmental dimensions.

In the context of the correlation matrix analysis for the first seven ranking criteria, differences emerged compared to the previous analysis, mainly due to the inclusion of the two criteria related to energy independence, although these criteria did exhibit significance. The highest correlation of 0.345 was recorded for sustainable education and the need for new job opportunities. This result underscores the imperative of establishing a positive feedback loop, connecting the realms of education and work.

Financial-legal initiatives

During the experts' seminars, another need emerged, namely for technical profiles to be placed within the public administration, and in this regard it would be useful to contaminate their ideas with those of lawyers. In fact, changes that are also required in Europe in order to be ready for the ecological transition 67 . The transformation towards a lower-emission economy will require significant private and public investment. The financial sector will play an important role in financing global investment needs in the context of international climate policy and in directing capital flows towards sustainable investments. The decisive incentive for private investment is based on the return prospects. These are influenced in different ways by the effects of climate change and climate policy decisions such as the introduction of CO 2 pricing. In addition, there may be information asymmetries that act as a hurdle for the sufficient mobilization of capital in sustainable projects, as they can stand in the way of the correct pricing of risks. The supply and demand for sustainable financial assets have increased significantly in recent years. Green bonds are bonds, whose proceeds are earmarked for the implementation of environmental and climate protection projects.

The literature highlights the potential for greater student engagement through the integration of the SDGs into teaching 68 , while also emphasizing the role of living labs in driving development 33 . In fact, the topic is very relevant 69 because universities are responsible for sustainable development in communities 70 and sustainable community engagement can foster the achievement of SDG 4 (Quality Education) 71 . The choice of the energy theme is considered fundamental to students' understanding of the role of this resource in global competitiveness 72 and represents a fertile ground in which to combine interdisciplinary elements 53 . In addition, a concrete initiative could be to favour university housing in flats within energy communities 50 .

The present study aimed at providing a foundation for future research, based on the identification of key components of sustainable communities. In particular, the results referred to the energy context (Fig.  13 ).

The role of sustainable communities in HEIs.

Climate change is an indisputable reality, and renewable energy may play a pivotal role in countering this issue 73 , 74 . In this context, it is justifiable for policymakers to support and subsidize its development. Indeed, this strategy may be beneficial for all projects fostering the growth of the green economy. Similarly, the expansion of decentralized models demands the emergence of an increasing number of energy communities. However, the realization of these communities may encounter challenges, due to potential ideological conflicts among citizens and businesses. In this regard, the introduction of new professional roles could facilitate this transition.

Moreover, a pragmatic perspective prevails, placing significant emphasis on the concept of independence. It is crucial to note that this concept extends beyond the energy dimension. In fact, during the expert seminars, the necessity for attaining independence even from a material standpoint became evident. This implies two actions: (i) the identification, monitoring, and use of unused local raw materials; and ii) the promotion of recycling, recovery, and reuse practices to secure unavailable raw materials. This framework cannot be forward looking in the absence of sustainable education, which also emerged in the present analysis as the strategic foundation for the civil society of the future 53 . From this perspective, other implications come into view.

From a methodological perspective, the present study highlighted the advantage of employing diverse quantitative tools to compare a wealth of acquired data. Simultaneously, it highlighted the need to extend such analyses to encompass varying educational approaches. Indeed, the risk of “sustainable washing” was recognized as a phenomenon on par with greenwashing 15 .

From a managerial standpoint, four distinct characteristics come to the forefront, each serving as a resource bolstering the attainment of sustainable community objectives within the university context. First, the concept of interdisciplinary collaboration arises, due to the intricate nature of the significant climate shifts that have defined this century. The value of infusing academic discourse with insights from industry and public administration is apparent, given the complexity of these environmental changes. In this way, interdisciplinarity is able to support real problem solving and foster students' motivation and involvement in implementing the change required by sustainable development 75 , 76 .

Second, a pragmatic approach to sustainability emerges, centered on resolving challenges without causing harm to the majority of stakeholders. Unfortunately, adopting an ideological approach may lead to accepting certain choices without the support of empirical data and thorough analysis. Similarly, a lack of knowledge may result in decision-making inertia. Indeed, the literature has shown that educational institutions have not deeply embraced sustainability aspects in their curricula and in providing an appropriate learning environment 22 . A gear shift is needed, as the SDGs can help universities relate better to external stakeholders and society 68 .

The third facet involves fostering trust in the capabilities of younger individuals. An enduring sense of a sustainable community was evident when the previous year's students presented their projects, and this year’s students engaged by listening and interacting with their peers. This interaction could confirm existing beliefs or spur exploration of new alternatives, helping the students both pass exams and devise real-world solutions. Of note, the examination process involved the creation of final projects, characterized by frequent interim meetings (arranged at the student's discretion) with professors. This approach, albeit time-consuming, yielded two significant outcomes: (i) it captivated students' attention, fostering problem-solving skills and nurturing critical thinking aimed at continuous improvement; and (ii) a remarkable number of student projects evolved into enduring connections, resulting in long-term thesis work. Thus, for students to maintain ties with their university beyond their studies, it is imperative for universities to invest in human capital and fortify relationships with students. Thus, the teaching–learning environment has evolved and targeted and continuous efforts are needed for the transfer of skills 77 . This change requires the implementation of human resource management practices with socio-economic and psychological support within universities 78 .

Lastly, the fourth characteristic pertains to altruism. Striking a balance between personal gratification and organizational fulfilment is vital, as is the ability to navigate an external landscape that is in constant flux. Sustainability projects within universities foster civic and political involvement of students 79 and the task of these institutions is to lead cultural change by listening students’ needs and passing their sense of responsibility to others 15 . Altruism encompasses not only human relationships, but also the ecosystem that sustains human existence.

Conclusions

Sustainability is more than just a mere research topic; it signifies a novel approach to redefining the relationship between humanity and nature. It underscores that safeguarding the environment, alone, is insufficient. Rather, the pursuit of sustainability requires social and economic dimensions to be addressed, while transcending self-interest. Envisioning the future entails ensuring that forthcoming generations are afforded at least the same opportunities as the present one.

This transformative shift inevitably encompasses the realm of professional and personal training. Thus, integration of some of the SDGs into undergraduate courses is imperative, in alignment with their specific focal points. The present study quantified the impact of this integration on perceptions of sustainability issues among engineering students at an Italian university. Of note, the structure and content of the examination was strongly oriented toward sustainability.

The results affirm what the literature has already indicated: university courses have the capacity not only to increase students’ sustainable knowledge, but also to ignite profound curiosity among the new generation to explore these issues further. The fundamental premise of this approach revolves around two key elements. First, students create a self-selected project, which may be an individual endeavor or a group effort. This project must be geared towards resolving real-world issues, employing a quantitative approach. Second, students receive consistent guidance throughout the diverse phases of the project, facilitated by seminars led by experts and the preceding year's students.

Methodologically, the questionnaire can be replicated across other courses by incorporating specific items pertaining to the subjects taught. However, it is important to acknowledge the primary limitation of this study: alternative pedagogical approaches could yield more effective outcomes and consequently should be proposed and compared in terms of student satisfaction and the results achieved by the projects presented. Similarly, the sustainability index could be refined by including a broader array of criteria. This limitation adds to the problem that students do not always follow the lectures consistently and this could alter the final result and this aspect cannot be resolved in order to guarantee privacy when filling in the questionnaire. In addition, for future works it could be helpful to perform factor analysis and principal components analysis to investigate and reinforce the consistency of the questionnaire.

From an operational perspective, the present study introduced strategies for cultivating sustainable communities within HEIs, shedding light on the aspects that transform a university course into a hub for pragmatic ideas and projects. Specifically, six pillars (i.e., sustainable education, energy independence, green subsidies, environmental improvement, energy communities, professional opportunities) and four resources (i.e., interdisciplinary collaboration, pragmatism, confidence in youth competency, altruism) were identified. However, a notable limitation of the present approach is apparent: an expansion beyond the realm of energy could offer broader insights into sustainability. However, given the pervasive influence of energy topics across all sectors, it stands as a compelling and replicable case study.

Sustainability-focused courses present a significant opportunity that should extend even to individuals who have opted to discontinue formal education. Allocating European national funds in this direction would facilitate broader access. Crucially, participants would not merely be passive listeners, but actively engaged in project execution. University students themselves could serve as mentors, fostering a cross-pollination of ideas. In this way, a policy proposal for spending European funds emerges that is geared towards the involvement of university students in the training model as transmitters of knowledge to people who have stopped studying or who are interested in these issues. Further policy suggestions from this work are the strengthening of national independence towards which countries should strive with regard to energy and raw material components with the development of renewable energies and circular models. Such choices also require the provision of public funds directed only at projects that support pragmatic sustainability, which thus also allow for the development of the territory and does not undermine its independence at the onset of speculative phenomena or geopolitical risks.

In an era marked by rapid digitization, it remains paramount to recognize that education provides the precious gift of time, safeguarding the interests of both current and future students. Their deepened understanding of pertinent issues, coupled with heightened sensitivity, may pave the way for achieving something difficult yet profoundly beautiful. Just as sowing seeds demands patience to witness of blooming flowers in nature, our actions and choices must be patient investments in rendering environment more habitable for all. This objective finds its realization through the cultivation of sustainable communities.

Ethics statement

Given that the research is a non-experimental voluntary survey, no ethical approval is necessary 53 . Indeed, the survey’s scope and objective were defined in such a way that the information collected via the questionnaire did not contain any sensitive data, minimized the processing of users’ personal data, and was gathered in a way that the data subjects are not identifiable under any circumstances 80 . Furthermore, the self-administered survey that is non-experimental in nature was conducted under complete anonymity for the participants, following the legal duty of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679. No personal or sensitive information that can be used to identify the respondents were collected. Besides, the consent of the respondents to partake in the online survey were seek before the survey was executed by including an electronic informed consent in the online survey form. All procedures were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines. The current Italian legislation does not require ethical approval for surveys involving humans related to this type of analysis.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during the present study are included in this article (and its supplementary information files).

De Neve, J.-E. & Sachs, J. D. The SDGs and human well-being: A global analysis of synergies, trade-offs, and regional differences. Sci. Rep. 10 , 15113 (2020).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Biermann, F. et al. Scientific evidence on the political impact of the sustainable development goals. Nat. Sustain. 5 , 795–800 (2022).

Article   Google Scholar  

Byrne, E. P. The evolving engineer; professional accreditation sustainability criteria and societal imperatives and norms. Educ. Chem. Eng. 43 , 23–30 (2023).

WCED. Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development . (1987).

D’Adamo, I. & Gastaldi, M. Monitoring performance of sustainable development goals in the Italian regions. Sustainability 15 , 14094 (2023).

Ikram, M., Zhou, P., Shah, S. A. A. A. A. & Liu, G. Q. Q. Do environmental management systems help improve corporate sustainable development? Evidence from manufacturing companies in Pakistan. J. Clean. Prod. 226 , 628–641 (2019).

Ikram, M., Zhang, Q., Sroufe, R. & Shah, S. Z. A. Towards a sustainable environment: The nexus between ISO 14001, renewable energy consumption, access to electricity, agriculture and CO 2 emissions in SAARC countries. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 22 , 218–230 (2020).

Pan, J., Bardhan, R. & Jin, Y. Spatial distributive effects of public green space and COVID-19 infection in London. Urban For. Urban Green. 62 , 127182 (2021).

D’Adamo, I., Gastaldi, M. & Morone, P. Economic sustainable development goals: Assessments and perspectives in Europe. J. Clean. Prod. 354 , 131730 (2022).

Debnath, R., Bardhan, R., Reiner, D. M. & Miller, J. R. Political, economic, social, technological, legal and environmental dimensions of electric vehicle adoption in the United States: A social-media interaction analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 152 , 111707 (2021).

Calabrese, A., Costa, R., Gastaldi, M., LevialdiGhiron, N. & Villazon Montalvan, R. A. Implications for sustainable development goals: A framework to assess company disclosure in sustainability reporting. J. Clean. Prod. 319 , 128624 (2021).

Becchetti, L., Piscitelli, P., Distante, A., Miani, A. & Uricchio, A. F. European Green Deal as social vaccine to overcome COVID-19 health & economic crisis. Lancet Reg. Heal. - Eur. 2 , 100032 (2021).

Serafini, P. G., de Moura, J. M., de Almeida, M. R. & de Rezende, J. F. D. Sustainable development goals in higher education institutions: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 370 , 133473 (2022).

Alcántara-Rubio, L., Valderrama-Hernández, R., Solís-Espallargas, C. & Ruiz-Morales, J. The implementation of the SDGs in universities: A systematic review. Environ. Educ. Res. 28 , 1585–1615 (2022).

D’Adamo, I. & Gastaldi, M. Perspectives and challenges on sustainability: Drivers, opportunities and policy implications in universities. Sustainability 15 , 3564 (2023).

Corazza, L., Truant, E., Cottafava, D. & Dhir, A. Higher education institutions and multistakeholders’ engagement: A longitudinal study of an Anchor Institution’s Legitimacy and Dynamism. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2023.3265263 (2023).

Ramaswamy, M., Marciniuk, D. D., Csonka, V., Colò, L. & Saso, L. Reimagining internationalization in higher education through the United Nations sustainable development goals for the betterment of society. J. Stud. Int. Educ. 25 , 388–406 (2021).

Daraio, C., Simar, L. & Wilson, P. W. Quality as a latent heterogeneity factor in the efficiency of universities. Econ. Model. 99 , 105485 (2021).

Leal Filho, W. et al. Towards symbiotic approaches between universities, sustainable development, and cities. Sci. Rep. 12 , 11433 (2022).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Piao, X. & Managi, S. The international role of education in sustainable lifestyles and economic development. Sci. Rep. 13 , 8733 (2023).

Daraio, C., Di Leo, S. & Leydesdorff, L. A heuristic approach based on Leiden rankings to identify outliers: Evidence from Italian universities in the European landscape. Scientometrics 128 , 483–510 (2023).

Ramakrishna, S. & Jose, R. Addressing sustainability gaps. Sci. Total Environ. 806 , 151208 (2022).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

WendlandtAmézaga, T. R., Camarena, J. L., CelayaFigueroa, R. & GarduñoRealivazquez, K. A. Measuring sustainable development knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors: Evidence from university students in Mexico. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 24 , 765–788 (2022).

Lambrechts, W., Van Liedekerke, L. & Van Petegem, P. Higher education for sustainable development in Flanders: Balancing between normative and transformative approaches. Environ. Educ. Res. 24 , 1284–1300 (2018).

Blasco, N., Brusca, I. & Labrador, M. Drivers for universities’ contribution to the sustainable development goals: An analysis of Spanish Public Universities. Sustainability 13 , 89 (2021).

Zamora-Polo, F. & Sánchez-Martín, J. Teaching for a better world. Sustainability and sustainable development goals in the construction of a change-maker university. Sustainability 11 , 4224 (2019).

Lozano, R. et al. Improving sustainability teaching by grouping and interrelating pedagogical approaches and sustainability competences: Evidence from 15 worldwide higher education institutions. Sustain. Dev. 31 , 349–359 (2023).

McAlexander, S. L., McCance, K., Blanchard, M. R. & Venditti, R. A. Investigating the experiences, beliefs, and career intentions of historically underrepresented science and engineering undergraduates engaged in an academic and internship program. Sustainability 14 , 1486 (2022).

Qian, H., Ye, M., Liu, J. & Gao, D. Evaluation of and policy measures for the sustainable development of national experimental teaching demonstration centers in Chinese Universities and Colleges. SAGE Open 12 , 21582440211068516 (2022).

Affolderbach, J. Translating green economy concepts into practice: Ideas pitches as learning tools for sustainability education. J. Geogr. High. Educ. 46 , 43–60 (2022).

Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A. & Thomas, G. Ideals, perceptions, and evaluations in early relationship development. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 79 , 933–940 (2000).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Paristiowati, M., Rahmawati, Y., Fitriani, E., Satrio, J. A. & Putri Hasibuan, N. A. Developing preservice chemistry teachers’ engagement with sustainability education through an online project-based learning summer course program. Sustainability 14 , 1783 (2022).

Purcell, W. M., Henriksen, H. & Spengler, J. D. Universities as the engine of transformational sustainability toward delivering the sustainable development goals. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 20 , 1343–1357 (2019).

Mokski, E., Leal Filho, W., Sehnem, S. & de Andrade Guerra, J. B. S. O. Education for sustainable development in higher education institutions: An approach for effective interdisciplinarity. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 24 , 96–117 (2023).

Albareda-Tiana, S., Vidal-Raméntol, S. & Fernández-Morilla, M. Implementing the sustainable development goals at University level. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 19 , 473–497 (2018).

Beagon, U. et al. Preparing engineering students for the challenges of the SDGs: What competences are required?. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 48 , 1–23 (2023).

Tejedor, G., Rosas-Casals, M. & Segalas, J. Patterns and trends in engineering education in sustainability. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 20 , 360–377 (2019).

Romero, S., Aláez, M., Amo, D. & Fonseca, D. Systematic review of how engineering schools around the world are deploying the 2030 agenda. Sustainability 12 , 5035 (2020).

Quelhas, O. L. G. et al. Engineering education and the development of competencies for sustainability. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 20 , 614–629 (2019).

Thürer, M., Tomašević, I., Stevenson, M., Qu, T. & Huisingh, D. A systematic review of the literature on integrating sustainability into engineering curricula. J. Clean. Prod. 181 , 608–617 (2018).

Sigahi, T. F. A. C., Rampasso, I. S., Anholon, R. & Sznelwar, L. I. Classical paradigms versus complexity thinking in engineering education: An essential discussion in the education for sustainable development. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 24 , 179–192 (2023).

Hachem-Vermette, C. & Singh, K. Role of neighbourhood spatial and energy design in reducing energy vulnerability during power disruption. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 183 , 113519 (2023).

Otamendi-Irizar, I., Grijalba, O., Arias, A., Pennese, C. & Hernández, R. How can local energy communities promote sustainable development in European cities?. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 84 , 102363 (2022).

Wuebben, D., Romero-Luis, J. & Gertrudix, M. Citizen science and citizen energy communities: A systematic review and potential alliances for SDGs. Sustainability 12 , 10096 (2020).

D’Adamo, I., Mammetti, M., Ottaviani, D. & Ozturk, I. Photovoltaic systems and sustainable communities: New social models for ecological transition. The impact of incentive policies in profitability analyses. Renew. Energy 202 , 1291–1304 (2023).

Kubli, M. & Puranik, S. A typology of business models for energy communities: Current and emerging design options. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 176 , 113165 (2023).

Sima, C. A. et al. Techno-economic assessment of university energy communities with on/off microgrid. Renew. Energy 193 , 538–553 (2022).

Hachem-Vermette, C., Guarino, F., La Rocca, V. & Cellura, M. Towards achieving net-zero energy communities: Investigation of design strategies and seasonal solar collection and storage net-zero. Sol. Energy 192 , 169–185 (2019).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Gjorgievski, V. Z., Cundeva, S. & Georghiou, G. E. Social arrangements, technical designs and impacts of energy communities: A review. Renew. Energy 169 , 1138–1156 (2021).

Caferra, R., Colasante, A., D’Adamo, I., Morone, A. & Morone, P. Interacting locally, acting globally: trust and proximity in social networks for the development of energy communities. Sci. Rep. 13 , 16636 (2023).

Dong, X., Zhang, X., Zhang, C. & Bi, C. Building sustainability education for green recovery in the energy resource sector: A cross country analysis. Resour. Policy 81 , 103385 (2023).

Gibellato, S., Ballestra, L. V., Fiano, F., Graziano, D. & Luca Gregori, G. The impact of education on the energy trilemma index: A sustainable innovativeness perspective for resilient energy systems. Appl. Energy 330 , 120352 (2023).

Biancardi, A., Colasante, A. & D’Adamo, I. Sustainable education and youth confidence as pillars of future civil society. Sci. Rep. 13 , 955 (2023).

Sovacool, B. K., Axsen, J. & Sorrell, S. Promoting novelty, rigor, and style in energy social science: Towards codes of practice for appropriate methods and research design. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 45 , 12–42 (2018).

Menon, S. & Suresh, M. Development of assessment framework for environmental sustainability in higher education institutions. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 23 , 1445–1468 (2022).

Moore, J. Is higher education ready for transformative learning?: A question explored in the study of sustainability. J. Transform. Educ. 3 , 76–91 (2005).

Chuvieco, E., Burgui-Burgui, M., Da Silva, E. V., Hussein, K. & Alkaabi, K. Factors affecting environmental sustainability habits of university students: Intercomparison analysis in three countries (Spain, Brazil and UAE). J. Clean. Prod. 198 , 1372–1380 (2018).

Boca, G. D. & Saraçlı, S. Environmental education and student’s perception, for sustainability. Sustainability 11 , 1553 (2019).

Jeong, J. S., González-Gómez, D. & Cañada-Cañada, F. Prioritizing elements of science education for sustainable development with the MCDA-FDEMATEL method using the flipped e-learning scheme. Sustainability 11 , 3079 (2019).

Promentilla, M. A. B., Aviso, K. B., Lucas, R. I. G., Razon, L. F. & Tan, R. R. Teaching analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in undergraduate chemical engineering courses. Educ. Chem. Eng. 23 , 34–41 (2018).

Munda, G. Multiple criteria decision analysis and sustainable development BT. In Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys (eds. Greco, S., Ehrgott, M. & Figueira, J. R.). 1235–1267 (Springer, 2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3094-4_27 .

Hollander, M., Wolfe, D. A. & Chicken, E. Nonparametric Statistical Methods (Wiley, 2013).

MATH   Google Scholar  

Vargha, A. & Delaney, H. D. The Kruskal–Wallis test and stochastic homogeneity. J. Educ. Behav. Stat. 23 , 170–192 (1998).

Aginako, Z. & Guraya, T. Students’ perception about sustainability in the Engineering School of Bilbao (University of the Basque Country): Insertion level and importance. Sustainability 13 , 8673 (2021).

Ionescu, C. A. et al. Sustainability analysis of the e-learning education system during pandemic period—COVID-19 in Romania. Sustainability 12 , 9030 (2020).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Dinno, A. Nonparametric pairwise multiple comparisons in independent groups using Dunn’s test. Stata J. 15 , 292–300 (2015).

Giambrone, F. L. & Uricchio, A. F. Plants Developed by New Genetic Modification Techniques—Comparison of Existing Regulatory Frameworks in the EU and Non-EU Countries . (2020).

Leal Filho, W. et al. Sustainable development goals and sustainability teaching at universities: Falling behind or getting ahead of the pack?. J. Clean. Prod. 232 , 285–294 (2019).

Crawford, J. & Cifuentes-Faura, J. Sustainability in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. Sustainability 14 , 1879 (2022).

de Amorim, W. S. et al. Higher education institutions as drivers of sustainable communities: A case study of the University of Southern Santa Catarina empowering the community. In Universities and Sustainable Communities: Meeting the Goals of the Agenda 2030 (eds. Leal Filho, W., Tortato, U. & Frankenberger, F.). 805–823 (Springer, 2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30306-8_50 .

Shabalala, L. P. & Ngcwangu, S. Accelerating the implementation of SDG 4: Stakeholder perceptions towards initiation of sustainable community engagement projects by higher education institutions. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 22 , 1573–1591 (2021).

Guzović, Z. et al. Recent advances in methods, policies and technologies at sustainable energy systems development. Energy 245 , 123276 (2022).

Ahmed, I., Rehan, M., Basit, A. & Hong, K.-S. Greenhouse gases emission reduction for electric power generation sector by efficient dispatching of thermal plants integrated with renewable systems. Sci. Rep. 12 , 12380 (2022).

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Østergaard, P. A., Duic, N., Noorollahi, Y. & Kalogirou, S. Renewable energy for sustainable development. Renew. Energy 199 , 1145–1152 (2022).

Bertel, L. B., Winther, M., Routhe, H. W. & Kolmos, A. Framing and facilitating complex problem-solving competences in interdisciplinary megaprojects: An institutional strategy to educate for sustainable development. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 23 , 1173–1191 (2022).

Liu, J., Kitamura, Y. & Savelyeva, T. Building an ‘ecosystem’ for transforming higher education teaching and learning for sustainability. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 23 , 539–542 (2022).

Brundiers, K. et al. Key competencies in sustainability in higher education—Toward an agreed-upon reference framework. Sustain. Sci. 16 , 13–29 (2021).

Mohiuddin, M., Hosseini, E., Faradonbeh, S. B. & Sabokro, M. Achieving human resource management sustainability in universities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19 , 928 (2022).

Alfirević, N., Arslanagić-Kalajdžić, M. & Lep, Ž. The role of higher education and civic involvement in converting young adults’ social responsibility to prosocial behavior. Sci. Rep. 13 , 2559 (2023).

Buzzin, A. et al. Assessing the consequences of prolonged usage of disposable face masks. Sci. Rep. 12 , 16796 (2022).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The funding support of Sapienza University of Rome, Award no. RM12117A8A5DBD18, is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department Studies, Monitoring and International Relations, Gestore dei Servizi Energetici GSE S.P.A., Rome, Italy

Alberto Biancardi

Department of Law and Economics, UnitelmaSapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

Annarita Colasante

Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

Idiano D’Adamo & Cinzia Daraio

Department of Industrial and Information Engineering and Economics, University of L’Aquila, L’Aquila, Italy

Massimo Gastaldi

President of the Governmental Agency for the Evaluation of Universities and Research System (ANVUR), Rome, Italy

Antonio Felice Uricchio

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed equally to the writing of the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Idiano D’Adamo .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary information., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Biancardi, A., Colasante, A., D’Adamo, I. et al. Strategies for developing sustainable communities in higher education institutions. Sci Rep 13 , 20596 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-48021-8

Download citation

Received : 01 September 2023

Accepted : 20 November 2023

Published : 23 November 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-48021-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Sustaining energetic communities: energy citizenship and participation in an age of upheaval and transition.

• Breffní Lennon
• Niall Dunphy

Scientific Reports (2024)

Identifying American climate change free riders and motivating sustainable behavior

• Beatrice Magistro
• Cecilia Abramson
• R. Michael Alvarez

Entrepreneurial education and its role in fostering sustainable communities

• Aswathy Sreenivasan
• Ali Wagdy Mohamed

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

• Publications

Toggle navigation

HEADLINES: Top Higher Education News for the Week

While testifying before Congress, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona apologized for the new FAFSA’s chaotic rollout but said problems with the form have now largely been resolved, according to USA Today ... Inside Higher Ed looks at the latest steps the Department of Education is taking to counter antisemitism, while The New York Times reports that President Biden decried rising antisemitism in a speech yesterday... The Chronicle of Higher Education examines new data that shows state funding for higher education is up, but tuition revenue is down as enrollment falls... A new report finds that community colleges are increasingly conferring some bachelor’s degrees.

Biden’s Education Secretary Apologizes for FAFSA Rollout Amid New Concerns About Next Year USA Today | May 7, 2024

Education Department Steps Up Efforts to Combat Antisemitism Inside Higher Ed | May 8, 2024

Biden Condemns a ‘Ferocious Surge’ of Antisemitism in the United States The New York Times (sub. req.) | May 7, 2024

State Support for Colleges Continues to Rise as Federal Aid and Tuition Revenue Fall, Report Shows The Chronicle of Higher Education (sub. req.) | May 8, 2024

Report: Increasing Numbers of Community Colleges Are Offering Bachelor’s Degrees Diverse: Issues In Higher Education | May 7, 2024

NPR examines how some college commencement ceremonies have been affected by students protesting the Israel–Hamas war, while ABC News considers how past college student protests may have influenced today’s protesters.... Inside Higher Ed explores new legislation from Colorado that would ensure more of students’ credits transfer and count toward their majors... The Boston Globe interviewed outgoing University of New Hampshire President James W. Dean about the value of college and campus free speech.

How Student Protests Are Changing College Graduations NPR | May 7, 2024

How Campus Protests of the Past May Inform Pro-Palestinian Student Demonstrations ABC News | May 6, 2024

Colorado Bill Seen as Model for Improving Credit Transfer Inside Higher Ed | May 7, 2024

College Is Still Worth It, Outgoing UNH President Says. Here’s Why. The Boston Globe (sub. req.) | May 7, 2024

As misinformation about campus protests spreads, universities weigh whether and how to respond, Inside Higher Ed writes... The Washington Post looks at what will need to change for DC high school students to meet the city’s goal of an 80 percent college graduation rate by 2050... A Hechinger Report opinion piece argues that institutions should redouble their diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in the face of growing backlash... After legislation removed funding for cultural graduation ceremonies at the University of Texas, students organized their own ceremonies, the Austin American-Statesman reports... Higher Ed Dive examines new data showing the percent of women and faculty of color in tenure-track positions is increasing, but they still face obstacles in advancing their careers.

Universities Face Misinformation Amid Pro-Palestinian Protests Inside Higher Ed | May 6, 2024

D.C. Wants More Kids to Finish College. Here’s What It Would Take. The Washington Post (sub. req.) | May 5, 2024

OPINION: This Is No Time to Ban DEI Initiatives in Education; We Need DEI More Than Ever The Hechinger Report | May 6, 2024

SB 17’s DEI Cuts Defunded UT-Austin’s Cultural Graduations. Students Have Preserved Them. Austin American-Statesman | May 2, 2024

Women and Faculty of Color in Tenure-Track Jobs Still Face Promotion Hurdles, CUPA-HR Finds Higher Ed Dive | May 6, 2024

The New York Times reports that immigrants in the DACA program will become eligible for federal health coverage in November under a new regulation… The Associated Press looks at steps some universities are taking to prevent protesters from disrupting commencement ceremonies this weekend… The Hechinger Report explores efforts to attract male students to attend college.

Immigrants With DACA Protections Will Be Eligible for Obamacare The New York Times (sub. req.) | May 3, 2024

Universities Take Steps to Prevent Pro-Palestinian Protest Disruptions of Graduation Ceremonies The Associated Press | May 3, 2024

Universities and Colleges Search for Ways to Reverse the Decline in the Ranks of Male Students The Hechinger Report | May 3, 2024

The Wall Street Journal examines what college presidents are considering as they decide how to respond to protests on their campuses… The House of Representatives on Wednesday passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act, a bill intended to counter campus antisemitism… The Hechinger Report explores how some faculty, staff, and students are resisting legislation restricting diversity, equity, and inclusion on their campuses… A New York Times opinion piece considers how closures of small colleges could negatively affect the higher education ecosystem.

Negotiate? Call in the Police? University Presidents Try Range of Tactics as Protests Roil Campuses The Wall Street Journal (sub. req.) | May 1, 2024

House Passes Bill Aimed to Combat Antisemitism Amid College Unrest NPR | May 2, 2024

Amid Clampdown on DEI, Some on Campuses Push Back The Hechinger Report | May 2, 2024

OPINION: When Closing a Very Small Campus Is a Very Big Deal The New York Times (sub. req.) | May 2, 2024

Explore More

  ace op-eds,   letters to the editor,   higher education news links.

Reimagining higher education in the United States

Higher education in the United States is at an inflection point. The core mission of the university—instruction, research, and service—has not changed. Nor has the need for advanced education to prepare individuals for a fulfilling life and to drive the knowledge economy. For individuals, the economic benefit of earning a college degree remains clear. College graduates are on average wealthier, healthier, and happier over a lifetime. 1 William R. Emmons, Ana H. Kent, and Lowell R. Ricketts, “Is college still worth it? The new calculus of falling returns,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 2019, Volume 101, Number 4, pp. 297–329, stlouisfed.org.

Even before the COVID-19 crisis, however, the higher-education sector faced significant challenges. Consider student completion: only 60 percent of all those who started college actually earned a degree within six years in 2017 (the latest year for which data is available). The figures are even worse for Black (39.9 percent) and Hispanic (54.4 percent) students. Other troubling disparities persist. In student enrollment, for example, 69 percent of white high-school graduates enroll in college, compared with 59 percent of Black high-schoolers and 61 percent of Hispanics. Furthermore, the level of student debt is rising, while repayment rates plummet, creating a potentially unsustainable burden for many students.

The pandemic is intensifying these challenges and creating new ones. Students and their families are struggling with the impact of campus shutdowns and questioning whether it is worth it to pay for an on-campus experience when much of the instruction is being done remotely. Under these circumstances, the risk of outcome inequities—from completion to employment to lifetime earnings—could worsen. For example, evidence suggests that lower-income students are 55 percent more likely than their higher-income peers to delay graduation 2 Esteban Aucejo et al.,“The impact of COVID-19 on student experiences and expectations: Evidence from a survey,” Journal of Public Economics , August 2020, sciencedirect.com. due to the COVID-19 crisis. Underpinning all of these challenges is a business model at its breaking point, as institutions face falling revenues and rising health-and-safety costs.

In short, the coronavirus has confirmed the case for fast and fundamental change. It has also demonstrated that change is possible. When the pandemic hit, many US colleges and universities moved quickly to remote learning and other delivery models, launched affordability initiatives, and found creative ways to support their students. Now is the time to build on these lessons to reimagine the next five to ten years and beyond.

With that in mind, we pose five questions for US higher-education leaders to address as they look to the future. For each question, we describe the current conventional wisdom and then make the case for challenging it—to the benefit of students, faculty, staff, institutions, and society.

What makes our university distinctive?

The conventional wisdom: To successfully attract students and maintain competitive national rankings, colleges and universities must be well rounded.

National-ranking systems emphasize admissions selectivity, small class sizes, per-student spending, and standardized test scores. Focusing on this narrow set of variables can incentivize institutions to make strategic and operational choices that may boost their rankings without necessarily improving their core educational missions. It may also lead to greater homogenization in the higher-education landscape.

Instead, there may be more benefit to creating thoughtful differentiation, building on the institution’s existing strengths, resources, and local context. The question to ask is: “What should my institution be known for?” There are many ways to differentiate, including student mix and outcomes, faculty development, research capabilities, facilities, and community impact. Doing so may serve institutions and their students better than the conventional wisdom for three reasons.

First, identifying and prioritizing what makes an institution distinctive can be a competitive advantage that attracts committed students and faculty. Second, specializing—doing fewer things better—could improve outcomes. And third, creating a distinctive profile can be a source of resilience, enabling institutions to survive after a crisis.

Such differentiation will be critical given the trends that are challenging the higher-education sector. One trend is the coming “demographic cliff”—the number of high-school graduates in the United States will peak at around 3.6 million students in 2026 and then decline to 3.3 million students by 2030. Another is the drop, since 2016, in international-student enrollment, an important source of revenues for many colleges. The COVID-19 crisis could well accelerate this decline. A third trend is the competition for research funding. In terms of the percentage of GDP and of budget allocation, federal investment in R&D has fallen steadily since the 1960s (although it has risen in absolute terms, and in the past two decades, nonfederal investment has grown, too). Moreover, about 35 percent of federal funding went to just 22 schools in 2018. Given these constraints, leaders need to ask how research can serve their institutions and identify where they stand the best chance of attracting faculty and funding.

By defining their areas of distinction and then directing resources to support them, higher-education institutions can set themselves apart—making them stronger and enabling them to deliver high-quality programs and outcomes.

How can we build a diverse and inclusive institution?

The conventional wisdom: Current efforts are likely to fulfill diversity and inclusion (D&I) goals in a reasonable time frame.

Higher-education institutions have been at the forefront of recognizing, and taking steps to foster, D&I. Many feature chief diversity officers, D&I curriculum requirements, and training sessions on implicit bias, as part of the growing diversity infrastructure. Even so, there are sizeable gaps. College enrollment and completion rates for Black and Hispanic students are much lower than for their white or Asian counterparts. Another area to address is the student experience itself. According to a 2019 study, Black, Hispanic, and first-generation students report a lower sense of belonging at four-year schools (but not at two-year schools). 3 Shannon T. Brady et al., “College students’ sense of belonging: A national perspective,” Educational Researcher , 2020, Volume 49, Number 2, pp. 134–37, sagepub.com.

Faculty composition is even less representative. In 2017, only 6 percent of full-time faculty in degree-granting postsecondary institutions were Black and 6 percent were Hispanic, compared with 14 percent and 18 percent of the US population, respectively. Women make up only 33 percent of full-time professors.

Doing more of the same, then, is not enough, and time is of the essence because of changing student demographics. Between the 2012–13 and the 2031–32 academic years, the proportion of high-school graduates who identify as Asian and Hispanic will grow to 31 percent, from 24 percent, of all students.

There is evidence from the business sector that prioritizing D&I as a core value is sound management. McKinsey research has consistently found that  businesses with top-quartile diversity on executive teams were likelier to have superior results; in the latest results from the 2019 study, companies with top-quartile ethnic and gender diversity were 36 percent and 25 percent, respectively, more likely to have above-average profitability. While the analogy between executive teams and higher education administrations is not precise, it is likely that campuses, like the C-suite, would benefit from a more diverse leadership composition.

Current higher-education D&I efforts are necessary yet insufficient, particularly given how the COVID-19 crisis is disproportionately impacting the lives, livelihoods, and education of Black and Hispanic Americans. Leaders must, therefore, act with a sense of urgency, seeking opportunities to strengthen D&I across their institutions—from redesigning student recruitment to updating faculty-performance measurement to account for the significant roles that under-represented faculty often play in mentoring to the social and academic experiences to postgraduate success. To do so may require new strategic initiatives and accountability measures, such as sharing the breakdown of tenure appointments by ethnicity and creating programs to encourage opportunities for intergroup dialogue and promote cross-race understanding. 4 This constitutes McKinsey’s view on best practices and optimized environments. Legal restrictions, however, could affect universities’ ability to adopt them; they should consult their legal counsel to understand any implications created by the recent “Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping,” September 22, 2020, whitehouse.gov.

What services are necessary to create a high-quality student experience? And what aren’t?

The conventional wisdom: In addition to learning, higher-education institutions must be responsive to a wide range of student wants and needs.

The core mission of colleges and universities is instruction, research, and service. In recent decades, though, many have engaged in the so-called student-amenities arms race, with expansive offerings in areas such as entertainment, gourmet dining, and wellness. Higher-education institutions want to deliver an enjoyable experience, and of course some student services are essential, especially those related to physical and mental health. But it is notable that since at least 2010, the costs for student services have risen much faster than costs for instruction and research (Exhibit 1). While this spending does include some core services, this trend may no longer be sustainable for many institutions.

Spending on student services has been growing four times as fast as spending on instruction.

Chart summary.

Although more than half of total spending at four-year universities was invested in research and instruction, growth over ten years since 2007 showed 0.3% less was spent on research and only 0.5% more on instruction. Meanwhile, 8.5% of the total was invested in student services 4 , the largest area of growth in spending per student (2.1%) over ten years.

1 Adjusted for inflation.

2 Includes expenses for the day-to-day operational support of the institution. Includes expenses for general administrative services, central executive-level activities concerned with management and long-range planning, legal and fiscal operations, space management, employee personnel and records, logistical services such as purchasing and printing, and public relations and development.

3 Includes expenses for activities and services that support the institution's primary missions of instruction, research, and public service.

4 Includes expenses for admissions, registrar activities, and activities whose primary purpose is to contribute to students' emotional and physical well-being and to their intellectual, cultural, and social development outside the context of the formal instructional program. Examples include student activities, cultural events, student newspapers, intramural athletics, student organizations, supplemental instruction outside the normal administration, and student records.

Source: College Scorecard; Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (CPI); National Center for Education Statistics Trend Generator

McKinsey & Company

One of the most difficult things to do on a college campus is to stop doing something. That said, some institutions have shown how to make such tradeoffs. Spelman College, for example, announced in 2012 that it would drop competitive intercollegiate sports in favor of expanding campus-wide health and fitness programs. This exact tradeoff is being faced again, and some institutions are making the difficult choice to trim athletics; most notably, in July 2020, Stanford announced it will permanently cut 11 athletics programs.

While students surely appreciate things like luxury gyms and other services, there is a need to distinguish between what students like and what is necessary to serve the core education mission. Given the budget stresses of the COVID-19 crisis, higher-education institutions may want to consider providing fewer, better ancillary services, while keeping the broader well being of their students in mind.

What delivery channels and models should we use to fulfill our core educational mission?

The conventional wisdom: The best college experiences and educational outcomes are delivered in person, on a residential campus.

The quad, the ivy, the lecture hall, the dorm, the tailgate parties: these are some of the well-known totems of the quintessential college experience. These images are ingrained; they are also part of the reason why many (and maybe most) traditional four-year, higher-education institutions were slow to adopt new methods and technologies, such as remote instruction and competency-based learning that have the potential to advance student success while also lowering costs.

Global private investment in learning-technology companies has been growing fast, from $2 billion in 2012 to $19 billion in 2019. Areas such as online-learning management systems and innovations such as virtual-lab applications and immersive story learning are beginning to spread. And the COVID-19 crisis hustled even reluctant students and institutions into action. In 2018, only about 35 percent of undergraduates took a distance-education course. This year, that figure is close to 100 percent, as the pandemic forced the adoption of remote learning.

In 2018, only about 35 percent of undergraduates took a distance-education course. This year, that figure is close to 100 percent.

Institutional acceptance of the online delivery model also may be increasing. According to a poll of 2,000 US faculty members by Inside Higher Ed and Gallup in October 2019 5 Doug Lederman, “Professors’ slow, steady acceptance of online learning: A survey,” Inside Higher Education, October 30, 2019, insidehighered.com. —that is, well before the COVID-19 crisis—39 percent fully supported the increased use of education technologies, up from 29 percent in 2017. And a national survey of more than 4,000 faculty members earlier this year 6 “Time for class: COVID-19 edition,” Tyton Partners, July 2020, everylearnereverywhere.org. found that 45 percent had a better opinion of remote learning since the pandemic began; fewer than one in five (17 percent) had a more negative perception.

Remote and online learning are here to stay. The need is to determine what combination of remote and in-person learning delivers the highest educational quality and equity. As institutions refine this hybrid model, they have a once-in-a-generation chance to reconfigure their use of physical and virtual space. They may be able to reduce the number of large lecture halls, for example, and convert them into flexible working pods or performance spaces. Or they could reimagine the academic calendar, offering instruction into the summer months.

What is our business model?

The conventional wisdom: The current higher-education business model, which relies heavily on ongoing tuition increases, can be sustained.

For decades, the financial model of US colleges and universities rested on two revenue streams. Student tuition and fees were the most important; the rest came from a mix of different sources, such as athletics, research grants, endowments, and government appropriations, that varied greatly. Both revenue streams are now under stress. These unprecedented times require a reimagined business model that protects the core educational mission and financial viability of the institution, while limiting economic burdens on students.

As mentioned, athletics, research grants, and other revenue sources are sputtering in the pandemic. But the bigger stress is on tuition and fees, which comprise at least half of revenues for about 55 percent of four-year private nonprofit institutions in the United States; meanwhile they account for more than a third of revenues for about 30 percent of public institutions. Even before the COVID-19 crisis, administrators realized that they had limited scope to increase tuition; now it has become even more difficult to do so.

Two issues threaten the traditional tuition-reliant financial model. First, there is affordability. To offer financial aid, institutions manage a complicated pricing system in which higher-income and international students effectively subsidize needier ones. This lack of price transparency feeds into the perception of the increasing costs—and unaffordability—of college. In fact, from 2007–17, net costs rose only 4 percent , reversing the trend of previous decades. Yet the perception of unaffordability means that some young people might be discouraged from trying to attend: they see the high sticker prices and assume that they are priced out.

Second, there are also questions around the value of higher education when debt levels and repayment rates are considered. Median student debt levels have climbed by 45 percent since 2006, while repayment rates have dropped by 24 percent since 2009 (Exhibit 2). The situation appears to be worsening; in 2016, only 6 percent of students  were at colleges where students left with moderate debt and managed high repayment rates, compared with 54 percent in 2009. The situation is even worse for students who incur debt but don’t graduate and, therefore, don’t benefit from the income-raising advantage of a degree.

The COVID-19 crisis could accelerate these trends. In our April 2020 student survey , 45 percent of prospective students cited cost as extremely important in selecting a college, 44 percent of students who switched schools between January and April did so to save money, and 30 percent reported that the COVID-19 crisis was likely to have a strong or extremely strong impact on their ability to afford college.

Another important factor is to ensure students realize an economic return on their investment in higher education; without that assurance, young people will not be willing to enroll in the first place, or finish. Colleges are under pressure to ensure that students don’t just graduate with a degree, but with a pathway to sustainable employment that secures a reasonable standard of living.

Given these financial constraints, it is not surprising to see consolidation. Since 2000, there have been about 100 higher-education mergers in the United States, 7 John Hanc, “For some colleges, the best move is to merge,” October 10, 2019, New York Times , nytimes.com. and more are likely. The Pennsylvania State University system, 8 Jan Murphy, “Pa. state system of higher education exploring costs of combining some universities,” July 16, 2020, Patriot-News , pennlive.com. for example, is considering restructuring the different institutions in the system. Properties, buildings, and talent from less-affluent campuses may well become available. An interesting example comes from Connecticut, where three schools are buying the assets of the University of Bridgeport 9 Goldie Blumenstyk, “The edge: As colleges’ finances get shakier, what lessons does this ‘sorta’ merger offer?”, July 8, 2020, Chronicle of Higher Education , chronicle.com. ; the latter’s academic programs will continue for the time being, while other operations, such as the library and security, are shared.

The opportunity—indeed, the necessity—is to reimagine higher education financials so that students do not find themselves mired in debt. There is little room to increase tuition, and there are also challenges to other revenue sources, such as athletics and research funding; education leaders must therefore ask how they can reevaluate their spending and/or reallocate existing resources.

Colleges and universities must reimagine their business models and consider new ways to operate—either on a standalone basis or through partnerships that accomplish the same goals, at lower cost.

How do we challenge the conventional wisdom?

Higher-education leaders face a complex situation, negotiating how to manage the COVID-19 crisis in a context of economic, demographic, and technological challenges. At the same time, universities have a reputation for making decisions slowly. “It’s easier to change the course of history,” the saying goes, “than it is to change the history course.” The deliberate, and deliberative, nature of university governance has many benefits, but it can also be a hindrance to decisive action. That said, many university leaders have reacted creatively and swiftly to meet the challenge of protecting their communities’ health while delivering on their educational mission.

Three mechanisms can help universities to sustain this momentum: planning, stakeholder engagement, and board governance:

• Plan ahead. Responding to a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic requires leaders to take decisive short-term actions. But they also need to dedicate time to develop longer-term strategic thinking. One way to do so is to create plan-ahead teams  that include people identified as future leaders. The team should be tasked with developing scenarios, recommending actions, and identifying trigger points for escalation to the university’s board and administrative leadership.
• Stakeholder engagement. Universities should engage early and often with important stakeholder groups—including faculty, staff, students, and parents—when making critical strategic decisions. Leaders must be transparent about decision-making processes, establish clear timelines, and meet them. By embedding engagement into decision making, rather than as an afterthought, the shared governance culture of higher education can be respected, while still allowing universities to act quickly.
• Board governance. In moments of crisis, boards can play a critical role. But that role must not slip into micro-management. Board members should evaluate their operating model—the board’s size, structure, and decision rights—to ensure they provide the necessary governance without interfering with administrators.

This is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that universities will need to adapt. “The inertia of a massive university is formidable,” noted Harvard President Charles W. Eliot in his inaugural address. “A good past is positively dangerous, if it makes us content with the present, and so unprepared for the future.”

President Eliot made those remarks in 1869. The time to prepare for a new future is now.

André Dua is a senior partner in McKinsey’s Miami office; Jonathan Law  is a senior partner in the New York office; Ted Rounsaville is a senior expert in the Washington, DC, office; and Nadia Viswanath is a consultant in the San Francisco office.

The authors wish to thank Arthur Bianchi and Kathleen Zhu for their contributions to this article, as well as the hundreds of university leaders who shared their experiences and perspectives with us.

Explore a career with us

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 24 April 2023

Artificial intelligence in higher education: the state of the field

• Helen Crompton   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1775-8219 1 , 3 &
• Diane Burke 2  

International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education volume  20 , Article number:  22 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

82k Accesses

73 Citations

59 Altmetric

Metrics details

This systematic review provides unique findings with an up-to-date examination of artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education (HE) from 2016 to 2022. Using PRISMA principles and protocol, 138 articles were identified for a full examination. Using a priori, and grounded coding, the data from the 138 articles were extracted, analyzed, and coded. The findings of this study show that in 2021 and 2022, publications rose nearly two to three times the number of previous years. With this rapid rise in the number of AIEd HE publications, new trends have emerged. The findings show that research was conducted in six of the seven continents of the world. The trend has shifted from the US to China leading in the number of publications. Another new trend is in the researcher affiliation as prior studies showed a lack of researchers from departments of education. This has now changed to be the most dominant department. Undergraduate students were the most studied students at 72%. Similar to the findings of other studies, language learning was the most common subject domain. This included writing, reading, and vocabulary acquisition. In examination of who the AIEd was intended for 72% of the studies focused on students, 17% instructors, and 11% managers. In answering the overarching question of how AIEd was used in HE, grounded coding was used. Five usage codes emerged from the data: (1) Assessment/Evaluation, (2) Predicting, (3) AI Assistant, (4) Intelligent Tutoring System (ITS), and (5) Managing Student Learning. This systematic review revealed gaps in the literature to be used as a springboard for future researchers, including new tools, such as Chat GPT.

A systematic review examining AIEd in higher education (HE) up to the end of 2022.

Unique findings in the switch from US to China in the most studies published.

A two to threefold increase in studies published in 2021 and 2022 to prior years.

AIEd was used for: Assessment/Evaluation, Predicting, AI Assistant, Intelligent Tutoring System, and Managing Student Learning.

Introduction

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education (HE) has risen quickly in the last 5 years (Chu et al., 2022 ), with a concomitant proliferation of new AI tools available. Scholars (viz., Chen et al., 2020 ; Crompton et al., 2020 , 2021 ) report on the affordances of AI to both instructors and students in HE. These benefits include the use of AI in HE to adapt instruction to the needs of different types of learners (Verdú et al., 2017 ), in providing customized prompt feedback (Dever et al., 2020 ), in developing assessments (Baykasoğlu et al., 2018 ), and predict academic success (Çağataylı & Çelebi, 2022 ). These studies help to inform educators about how artificial intelligence in education (AIEd) can be used in higher education.

Nonetheless, a gap has been highlighted by scholars (viz., Hrastinski et al., 2019 ; Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019 ) regarding an understanding of the collective affordances provided through the use of AI in HE. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine extant research from 2016 to 2022 to provide an up-to-date systematic review of how AI is being used in the HE context.

Artificial intelligence has become pervasive in the lives of twenty-first century citizens and is being proclaimed as a tool that can be used to enhance and advance all sectors of our lives (Górriz et al., 2020 ). The application of AI has attracted great interest in HE which is highly influenced by the development of information and communication technologies (Alajmi et al., 2020 ). AI is a tool used across subject disciplines, including language education (Liang et al., 2021 ), engineering education (Shukla et al., 2019 ), mathematics education (Hwang & Tu, 2021 ) and medical education (Winkler-Schwartz et al., 2019 ),

Artificial intelligence

The term artificial intelligence is not new. It was coined in 1956 by McCarthy (Cristianini, 2016 ) who followed up on the work of Turing (e.g., Turing, 1937 , 1950 ). Turing described the existence of intelligent reasoning and thinking that could go into intelligent machines. The definition of AI has grown and changed since 1956, as there has been significant advancements in AI capabilities. A current definition of AI is “computing systems that are able to engage in human-like processes such as learning, adapting, synthesizing, self-correction and the use of data for complex processing tasks” (Popenici et al., 2017 , p. 2). The interdisciplinary interest from scholars from linguistics, psychology, education, and neuroscience who connect AI to nomenclature, perceptions and knowledge in their own disciplines could create a challenge when defining AI. This has created the need to create categories of AI within specific disciplinary areas. This paper focuses on the category of AI in Education (AIEd) and how AI is specifically used in higher educational contexts.

As the field of AIEd is growing and changing rapidly, there is a need to increase the academic understanding of AIEd. Scholars (viz., Hrastinski et al., 2019 ; Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019 ) have drawn attention to the need to increase the understanding of the power of AIEd in educational contexts. The following section provides a summary of the previous research regarding AIEd.

Extant systematic reviews

This growing interest in AIEd has led scholars to investigate the research on the use of artificial intelligence in education. Some scholars have conducted systematic reviews to focus on a specific subject domain. For example, Liang et. al. ( 2021 ) conducted a systematic review and bibliographic analysis the roles and research foci of AI in language education. Shukla et. al. ( 2019 ) focused their longitudinal bibliometric analysis on 30 years of using AI in Engineering. Hwang and Tu ( 2021 ) conducted a bibliometric mapping analysis on the roles and trends in the use of AI in mathematics education, and Winkler-Schwartz et. al. ( 2019 ) specifically examined the use of AI in medical education in looking for best practices in the use of machine learning to assess surgical expertise. These studies provide a specific focus on the use of AIEd in HE but do not provide an understanding of AI across HE.

On a broader view of AIEd in HE, Ouyang et. al. ( 2022 ) conducted a systematic review of AIEd in online higher education and investigated the literature regarding the use of AI from 2011 to 2020. The findings show that performance prediction, resource recommendation, automatic assessment, and improvement of learning experiences are the four main functions of AI applications in online higher education. Salas-Pilco and Yang ( 2022 ) focused on AI applications in Latin American higher education. The results revealed that the main AI applications in higher education in Latin America are: (1) predictive modeling, (2) intelligent analytics, (3) assistive technology, (4) automatic content analysis, and (5) image analytics. These studies provide valuable information for the online and Latin American context but not an overarching examination of AIEd in HE.

Studies have been conducted to examine HE. Hinojo-Lucena et. al. ( 2019 ) conducted a bibliometric study on the impact of AIEd in HE. They analyzed the scientific production of AIEd HE publications indexed in Web of Science and Scopus databases from 2007 to 2017. This study revealed that most of the published document types were proceedings papers. The United States had the highest number of publications, and the most cited articles were about implementing virtual tutoring to improve learning. Chu et. al. ( 2022 ) reviewed the top 50 most cited articles on AI in HE from 1996 to 2020, revealing that predictions of students’ learning status were most frequently discussed. AI technology was most frequently applied in engineering courses, and AI technologies most often had a role in profiling and prediction. Finally, Zawacki-Richter et. al. ( 2019 ) analyzed AIEd in HE from 2007 to 2018 to reveal four primary uses of AIEd: (1) profiling and prediction, (2) assessment and evaluation, (3) adaptive systems and personalization, and (4) intelligent tutoring systems. There do not appear to be any studies examining the last 2 years of AIEd in HE, and these authors describe the rapid speed of both AI development and the use of AIEd in HE and call for further research in this area.

Purpose of the study

The purpose of this study is in response to the appeal from scholars (viz., Chu et al., 2022 ; Hinojo-Lucena et al., 2019 ; Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019 ) to research to investigate the benefits and challenges of AIEd within HE settings. As the academic knowledge of AIEd HE finished with studies examining up to 2020, this study provides the most up-to-date analysis examining research through to the end of 2022.

The overarching question for this study is: what are the trends in HE research regarding the use of AIEd? The first two questions provide contextual information, such as where the studies occurred and the disciplines AI was used in. These contextual details are important for presenting the main findings of the third question of how AI is being used in HE.

In what geographical location was the AIEd research conducted, and how has the trend in the number of publications evolved across the years?

What departments were the first authors affiliated with, and what were the academic levels and subject domains in which AIEd research was being conducted?

Who are the intended users of the AI technologies and what are the applications of AI in higher education?

A PRISMA systematic review methodology was used to answer three questions guiding this study. PRISMA principles (Page et al., 2021 ) were used throughout the study. The PRISMA extension Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for Protocols (PRISMA-P; Moher et al., 2015 ) were utilized in this study to provide an a priori roadmap to conduct a rigorous systematic review. Furthermore, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA principles; Page et al., 2021 ) were used to search, identify, and select articles to be included in the research were used for searching, identifying, and selecting articles, then in how to read, extract, and manage the secondary data gathered from those studies (Moher et al., 2015 , PRISMA Statement, 2021 ). This systematic review approach supports an unbiased synthesis of the data in an impartial way (Hemingway & Brereton, 2009 ). Within the systematic review methodology, extracted data were aggregated and presented as whole numbers and percentages. A qualitative deductive and inductive coding methodology was also used to analyze extant data and generate new theories on the use of AI in HE (Gough et al., 2017 ).

The research begins with the search for the research articles to be included in the study. Based on the research question, the study parameters are defined including the search years, quality and types of publications to be included. Next, databases and journals are selected. A Boolean search is created and used for the search of those databases and journals. Once a set of publications are located from those searches, they are then examined against an inclusion and exclusion criteria to determine which studies will be included in the final study. The relevant data to match the research questions is then extracted from the final set of studies and coded. This method section is organized to describe each of these methods with full details to ensure transparency.

Search strategy

Only peer-reviewed journal articles were selected for examination in this systematic review. This ensured a level of confidence in the quality of the studies selected (Gough et al., 2017 ). The search parameters narrowed the search focus to include studies published in 2016 to 2022. This timeframe was selected to ensure the research was up to date, which is especially important with the rapid change in technology and AIEd.

The data retrieval protocol employed an electronic and a hand search. The electronic search included educational databases within EBSCOhost. Then an additional electronic search was conducted of Wiley Online Library, JSTOR, Science Direct, and Web of Science. Within each of these databases a full text search was conducted. Aligned to the research topic and questions, the Boolean search included terms related to AI, higher education, and learning. The Boolean search is listed in Table 1 . In the initial test search, the terms “machine learning” OR “intelligent support” OR “intelligent virtual reality” OR “chatbot” OR “automated tutor” OR “intelligent agent” OR “expert system” OR “neural network” OR “natural language processing” were used. These were removed as they were subcategories of terms found in Part 1 of the search. Furthermore, inclusion of these specific AI terms resulted in a large number of computer science courses that were focused on learning about AI and not the use of AI in learning.

Part 2 of the search ensured that articles involved formal university education. The terms higher education and tertiary were both used to recognize the different terms used in different countries. The final Boolean search was “Artificial intelligence” OR AI OR “smart technologies” OR “intelligent technologies” AND “higher education” OR tertiary OR graduate OR undergraduate. Scholars (viz., Ouyang et al., 2022 ) who conducted a systematic review on AIEd in HE up to 2020 noted that they missed relevant articles from their study, and other relevant journals should intentionally be examined. Therefore, a hand search was also conducted to include an examination of other journals relevant to AIEd that may not be included in the databases. This is important as the field of AIEd is still relatively new, and journals focused on this field may not yet be indexed in databases. The hand search included: The International Journal of Learning Analytics and Artificial Intelligence in Education, the International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, and Computers & Education: Artificial Intelligence.

Electronic and hand searches resulted in 371 articles for possible inclusion. The search parameters within the electronic database search narrowed the search to articles published from 2016 to 2022, per-reviewed journal articles, and duplicates. Further screening was conducted manually, as each of the 138 articles were reviewed in full by two researchers to examine a match against the inclusion and exclusion criteria found in Table 2 .

The inter-rater reliability was calculated by percentage agreement (Belur et al., 2018 ). The researchers reached a 95% agreement for the coding. Further discussion of misaligned articles resulted in a 100% agreement. This screening process against inclusion and exclusion criteria resulted in the exclusion of 237 articles. This included the duplicates and those removed as part of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, see Fig.  1 . Leaving 138 articles for inclusion in this systematic review.

(From: Page et al., 2021 )

PRISMA flow chart of article identification and screening

The 138 articles were then coded to answer each of the research questions using deductive and inductive coding methods. Deductive coding involves examining data using a priori codes. A priori are pre-determined criteria and this process was used to code the countries, years, author affiliations, academic levels, and domains in the respective groups. Author affiliations were coded using the academic department of the first author of the study. First authors were chosen as that person is the primary researcher of the study and this follows past research practice (e.g., Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019 ). Who the AI was intended for was also coded using the a priori codes of Student, Instructor, Manager or Others. The Manager code was used for those who are involved in organizational tasks, e.g., tracking enrollment. Others was used for those not fitting the other three categories.

Inductive coding was used for the overarching question of this study in examining how the AI was being used in HE. Researchers of extant systematic reviews on AIEd in HE (viz., Chu et al., 2022 ; Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019 ) often used an a priori framework as researchers matched the use of AI to pre-existing frameworks. A grounded coding methodology (Strauss & Corbin, 1995 ) was selected for this study to allow findings of the trends on AIEd in HE to emerge from the data. This is important as it allows a direct understanding of how AI is being used rather than how researchers may think it is being used and fitting the data to pre-existing ideas.

Grounded coding process involved extracting how the AI was being used in HE from the articles. “In vivo” (Saldana, 2015 ) coding was also used alongside grounded coding. In vivo codes are when codes use language directly from the article to capture the primary authors’ language and ensure consistency with their findings. The grounded coding design used a constant comparative method. Researchers identified important text from articles related to the use of AI, and through an iterative process, initial codes led to axial codes with a constant comparison of uses of AI with uses of AI, then of uses of AI with codes, and codes with codes. Codes were deemed theoretically saturated when the majority of the data fit with one of the codes. For both the a priori and the grounded coding, two researchers coded and reached an inter-rater percentage agreement of 96%. After discussing misaligned articles, a 100% agreement was achieved.

Findings and discussion

The findings and discussion section are organized by the three questions guiding this study. The first two questions provide contextual information on the AIEd research, and the final question provides a rigorous investigation into how AI is being used in HE.

RQ1. In what geographical location was the AIEd research conducted, and how has the trend in the number of publications evolved across the years?

The 138 studies took place across 31 countries in six of seven continents of the world. Nonetheless, that distribution was not equal across continents. Asia had the largest number of AIEd studies in HE at 41%. Of the seven countries represented in Asia, 42 of the 58 studies were conducted in Taiwan and China. Europe, at 30%, was the second largest continent and had 15 countries ranging from one to eight studies a piece. North America, at 21% of the studies was the continent with the third largest number of studies, with the USA producing 21 of the 29 studies in that continent. The 21 studies from the USA places it second behind China. Only 1% of studies were conducted in South America and 2% in Africa. See Fig.  2 for a visual representation of study distribution across countries. Those continents with high numbers of studies are from high income countries and those with low numbers have a paucity of publications in low-income countries.

Geographical distribution of the AIEd HE studies

Data from Zawacki-Richter et. al.’s ( 2019 ) 2007–2018 systematic review examining countries found that the USA conducted the most studies across the globe at 43 out of 146, and China had the second largest at eleven of the 146 papers. Researchers have noted a rapid trend in Chinese researchers publishing more papers on AI and securing more patents than their US counterparts in a field that was originally led by the US (viz., Li et al., 2021 ). The data from this study corroborate this trend in China leading in the number of AIEd publications.

With the accelerated use of AI in society, gathering data to examine the use of AIEd in HE is useful in providing the scholarly community with specific information on that growth and if it is as prolific as anticipated by scholars (e.g., Chu et al., 2022 ). The analysis of data of the 138 studies shows that the trend towards the use of AIEd in HE has greatly increased. There is a drop in 2019, but then a great rise in 2021 and 2022; see Fig.  3 .

Chronological trend in AIEd in HE

Data on the rise in AIEd in HE is similar to the findings of Chu et. al. ( 2022 ) who noted an increase from 1996 to 2010 and 2011–2020. Nonetheless Chu’s parameters are across decades, and the rise is to be anticipated with a relatively new technology across a longitudinal review. Data from this study show a dramatic rise since 2020 with a 150% increase from the prior 2 years 2020–2019. The rise in 2021 and 2022 in HE could have been caused by the vast increase in HE faculty having to teach with technology during the pandemic lockdown. Faculty worldwide were using technologies, including AI, to explore how they could continue teaching and learning that was often face-to-face prior to lockdown. The disadvantage of this rapid adoption of technology is that there was little time to explore the possibilities of AI to transform learning, and AI may have been used to replicate past teaching practices, without considering new strategies previously inconceivable with the affordances of AI.

However, in a further examination of the research from 2021 to 2022, it appears that there are new strategies being considered. For example, Liu et. al.’s, 2022 study used AIEd to provide information on students’ interactions in an online environment and examine their cognitive effort. In Yao’s study in 2022, he examined the use of AI to determine student emotions while learning.

RQ2. What departments were the first authors affiliated with, and what were the academic levels and subject domains in which AIEd research was being conducted?

Department affiliations

Data from the AIEd HE studies show that of the first authors were most frequently from colleges of education (28%), followed by computer science (20%). Figure  4 presents the 15 academic affiliations of the authors found in the studies. The wide variety of affiliations demonstrate the variety of ways AI can be used in various educational disciplines, and how faculty in diverse areas, including tourism, music, and public affairs were interested in how AI can be used for educational purposes.

Research affiliations

In an extant AIED HE systematic review, Zawacki-Richter et. al.’s ( 2019 ) named their study Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education—where are the educators? In this study, the authors were keen to highlight that of the AIEd studies in HE, only six percent were written by researchers directly connected to the field of education, (i.e., from a college of education). The researchers found a great lack in pedagogical and ethical implications of implementing AI in HE and that there was a need for more educational perspectives on AI developments from educators conducting this work. It appears from our data that educators are now showing greater interest in leading these research endeavors, with the highest affiliated group belonging to education. This may again be due to the pandemic and those in the field of education needing to support faculty in other disciplines, and/or that they themselves needed to explore technologies for their own teaching during the lockdown. This may also be due to uptake in professors in education becoming familiar with AI tools also driven by a societal increased attention. As the focus of much research by education faculty is on teaching and learning, they are in an important position to be able to share their research with faculty in other disciplines regarding the potential affordances of AIEd.

Academic levels

The a priori coding of academic levels show that the majority of studies involved undergraduate students with 99 of the 138 (72%) focused on these students. This was in comparison to the 12 of 138 (9%) for graduate students. Some of the studies used AI for both academic levels: see Fig.  5

Academic level distribution by number of articles

This high percentage of studies focused on the undergraduate population was congruent with an earlier AIED HE systematic review (viz., Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019 ) who also reported student academic levels. This focus on undergraduate students may be due to the variety of affordances offered by AIEd, such as predictive analytics on dropouts and academic performance. These uses of AI may be less required for graduate students who already have a record of performance from their undergraduate years. Another reason for this demographic focus can also be convenience sampling, as researchers in HE typically has a much larger and accessible undergraduate population than graduates. This disparity between undergraduates and graduate populations is a concern, as AIEd has the potential to be valuable in both settings.

Subject domains

The studies were coded into 14 areas in HE; with 13 in a subject domain and one category of AIEd used in HE management of students; See Fig.  6 . There is not a wide difference in the percentages of top subject domains, with language learning at 17%, computer science at 16%, and engineering at 12%. The management of students category appeared third on the list at 14%. Prior studies have also found AIEd often used for language learning (viz., Crompton et al., 2021 ; Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019 ). These results are different, however, from Chu et. al.’s ( 2022 ) findings that show engineering dramatically leading with 20 of the 50 studies, with other subjects, such as language learning, appearing once or twice. This study appears to be an outlier that while the searches were conducted in similar databases, the studies only included 50 studies from 1996 to 2020.

Subject domains of AIEd in HE

Previous scholars primarily focusing on language learning using AI for writing, reading, and vocabulary acquisition used the affordances of natural language processing and intelligent tutoring systems (e.g., Liang et al., 2021 ). This is similar to the findings in studies with AI used for automated feedback of writing in a foreign language (Ayse et al., 2022 ), and AI translation support (Al-Tuwayrish, 2016 ). The large use of AI for managerial activities in this systematic review focused on making predictions (12 studies) and then admissions (three studies). This is positive to see this use of AI to look across multiple databases to see trends emerging from data that may not have been anticipated and cross referenced before (Crompton et al., 2022 ). For example, to examine dropouts, researchers may consider examining class attendance, and may not examine other factors that appear unrelated. AI analysis can examine all factors and may find that dropping out is due to factors beyond class attendance.

RQ3. Who are the intended users of the AI technologies and what are the applications of AI in higher education?

Intended user of AI

Of the 138 articles, the a priori coding shows that 72% of the studies focused on Students, followed by a focus on Instructors at 17%, and Managers at 11%, see Fig.  7 . The studies provided examples of AI being used to provide support to students, such as access to learning materials for inclusive learning (Gupta & Chen, 2022 ), provide immediate answers to student questions, self-testing opportunities (Yao, 2022 ), and instant personalized feedback (Mousavi et al., 2020 ).

Intended user

The data revealed a large emphasis on students in the use of AIEd in HE. This user focus is different from a recent systematic review on AIEd in K-12 that found that AIEd studies in K-12 settings prioritized teachers (Crompton et al., 2022 ). This may appear that HE uses AI to focus more on students than in K-12. However, this large number of student studies in HE may be due to the student population being more easily accessibility to HE researchers who may study their own students. The ethical review process is also typically much shorter in HE than in K-12. Therefore, the data on the intended focus should be reviewed while keeping in mind these other explanations. It was interesting that Managers were the lowest focus in K-12 and also in this study in HE. AI has great potential to collect, cross reference and examine data across large datasets that can allow data to be used for actionable insight. More focus on the use of AI by managers would tap into this potential.

How is AI used in HE

Using grounded coding, the use of AIEd from each of the 138 articles was examined and six major codes emerged from the data. These codes provide insight into how AI was used in HE. The five codes are: (1) Assessment/Evaluation, (2) Predicting, (3) AI Assistant, (4) Intelligent Tutoring System (ITS), and (5) Managing Student Learning. For each of these codes there are also axial codes, which are secondary codes as subcategories from the main category. Each code is delineated below with a figure of the codes with further descriptive information and examples.

Assessment/evaluation

Assessment and Evaluation was the most common use of AIEd in HE. Within this code there were six axial codes broken down into further codes; see Fig.  8 . Automatic assessment was most common, seen in 26 of the studies. It was interesting to see that this involved assessment of academic achievement, but also other factors, such as affect.

Codes and axial codes for assessment and evaluation

Automatic assessment was used to support a variety of learners in HE. As well as reducing the time it takes for instructors to grade (Rutner & Scott, 2022 ), automatic grading showed positive use for a variety of students with diverse needs. For example, Zhang and Xu ( 2022 ) used automatic assessment to improve academic writing skills of Uyghur ethnic minority students living in China. Writing has a variety of cultural nuances and in this study the students were shown to engage with the automatic assessment system behaviorally, cognitively, and affectively. This allowed the students to engage in self-regulated learning while improving their writing.

Feedback was a description often used in the studies, as students were given text and/or images as feedback as a formative evaluation. Mousavi et. al. ( 2020 ) developed a system to provide first year biology students with an automated personalized feedback system tailored to the students’ specific demographics, attributes, and academic status. With the unique feature of AIEd being able to analyze multiple data sets involving a variety of different students, AI was used to assess and provide feedback on students’ group work (viz., Ouatik et al., 2021 ).

AI also supports instructors in generating questions and creating multiple question tests (Yang et al., 2021 ). For example, (Lu et al., 2021 ) used natural language processing to create a system that automatically created tests. Following a Turing type test, researchers found that AI technologies can generate highly realistic short-answer questions. The ability for AI to develop multiple questions is a highly valuable affordance as tests can take a great deal of time to make. However, it would be important for instructors to always confirm questions provided by the AI to ensure they are correct and that they match the learning objectives for the class, especially in high value summative assessments.

The axial code within assessment and evaluation revealed that AI was used to review activities in the online space. This included evaluating student’s reflections, achievement goals, community identity, and higher order thinking (viz., Huang et al., 2021 ). Three studies used AIEd to evaluate educational materials. This included general resources and textbooks (viz., Koć‑Januchta et al., 2022 ). It is interesting to see the use of AI for the assessment of educational products, rather than educational artifacts developed by students. While this process may be very similar in nature, this shows researchers thinking beyond the traditional use of AI for assessment to provide other affordances.

Predicting was a common use of AIEd in HE with 21 studies focused specifically on the use of AI for forecasting trends in data. Ten axial codes emerged on the way AI was used to predict different topics, with nine focused on predictions regarding students and the other on predicting the future of higher education. See Fig.  9 .

Predicting axial codes

Extant systematic reviews on HE highlighted the use of AIEd for prediction (viz., Chu et al., 2022 ; Hinojo-Lucena et al., 2019 ; Ouyang et al., 2022 ; Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019 ). Ten of the articles in this study used AI for predicting academic performance. Many of the axial codes were often overlapping, such as predicting at risk students, and predicting dropouts; however, each provided distinct affordances. An example of this is the study by Qian et. al. ( 2021 ). These researchers examined students taking a MOOC course. MOOCs can be challenging environments to determine information on individual students with the vast number of students taking the course (Krause & Lowe, 2014 ). However, Qian et al., used AIEd to predict students’ future grades by inputting 17 different learning features, including past grades, into an artificial neural network. The findings were able to predict students’ grades and highlight students at risk of dropping out of the course.

In a systematic review on AIEd within the K-12 context (viz., Crompton et al., 2022 ), prediction was less pronounced in the findings. In the K-12 setting, there was a brief mention of the use of AI in predicting student academic performance. One of the studies mentioned students at risk of dropping out, but this was immediately followed by questions about privacy concerns and describing this as “sensitive”. The use of prediction from the data in this HE systematic review cover a wide range of AI predictive affordances. students Sensitivity is still important in a HE setting, but it is positive to see the valuable insight it provides that can be used to avoid students failing in their goals.

AI assistant

The studies evaluated in this review indicated that the AI Assistant used to support learners had a variety of different names. This code included nomenclature such as, virtual assistant, virtual agent, intelligent agent, intelligent tutor, and intelligent helper. Crompton et. al. ( 2022 ), described the difference in the terms to delineate the way that the AI appeared to the user. For example, if there was an anthropomorphic presence to the AI, such as an avatar, or if the AI appeared to support via other means, such as text prompt. The findings of this systematic review align to Crompton et. al.’s ( 2022 ) descriptive differences of the AI Assistant. Furthermore, this code included studies that provide assistance to students, but may not have specifically used the word assistance. These include the use of chatbots for student outreach, answering questions, and providing other assistance. See Fig.  10 for the axial codes for AI Assistant.

AI assistant axial codes

Many of these assistants offered multiple supports to students, such as Alex , the AI described as a virtual change agent in Kim and Bennekin’s ( 2016 ) study. Alex interacted with students in a college mathematics course by asking diagnostic questions and gave support depending on student needs. Alex’s support was organized into four stages: (1) goal initiation (“Want it”), (2) goal formation (“Plan for it”), (3) action control (“Do it”), and (4) emotion control (“Finish it”). Alex provided responses depending on which of these four areas students needed help. These messages supported students with the aim of encouraging persistence in pursuing their studies and degree programs and improving performance.

The role of AI in providing assistance connects back to the seminal work of Vygotsky ( 1978 ) and the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). ZPD highlights the degree to which students can rapidly develop when assisted. Vygotsky described this assistance often in the form of a person. However, with technological advancements, the use of AI assistants in these studies are providing that support for students. The affordances of AI can also ensure that the support is timely without waiting for a person to be available. Also, assistance can consider aspects on students’ academic ability, preferences, and best strategies for supporting. These features were evident in Kim and Bennekin’s ( 2016 ) study using Alex.

Intelligent tutoring system

The use of Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) was revealed in the grounded coding. ITS systems are adaptive instructional systems that involve the use of AI techniques and educational methods. An ITS system customizes educational activities and strategies based on student’s characteristics and needs (Mousavinasab et al., 2021 ). While ITS may be an anticipated finding in AIED HE systematic reviews, it was interesting that extant reviews similar to this study did not always describe their use in HE. For example, Ouyang et. al. ( 2022 ), included “intelligent tutoring system” in search terms describing it as a common technique, yet ITS was not mentioned again in the paper. Zawacki-Richter et. al. ( 2019 ) on the other hand noted that ITS was in the four overarching findings of the use of AIEd in HE. Chu et. al. ( 2022 ) then used Zawacki-Richter’s four uses of AIEd for their recent systematic review.

In this systematic review, 18 studies specifically mentioned that they were using an ITS. The ITS code did not necessitate axial codes as they were performing the same type of function in HE, namely, in providing adaptive instruction to the students. For example, de Chiusole et. al. ( 2020 ) developed Stat-Knowlab, an ITS that provides the level of competence and best learning path for each student. Thus Stat-Knowlab personalizes students’ learning and provides only educational activities that the student is ready to learn. This ITS is able to monitor the evolution of the learning process as the student interacts with the system. In another study, Khalfallah and Slama ( 2018 ) built an ITS called LabTutor for engineering students. LabTutor served as an experienced instructor in enabling students to access and perform experiments on laboratory equipment while adapting to the profile of each student.

The student population in university classes can go into the hundreds and with the advent of MOOCS, class sizes can even go into the thousands. Even in small classes of 20 students, the instructor cannot physically provide immediate unique personalize questions to each student. Instructors need time to read and check answers and then take further time to provide feedback before determining what the next question should be. Working with the instructor, AIEd can provide that immediate instruction, guidance, feedback, and following questioning without delay or becoming tired. This appears to be an effective use of AIEd, especially within the HE context.

Managing student learning

Another code that emerged in the grounded coding was focused on the use of AI for managing student learning. AI is accessed to manage student learning by the administrator or instructor to provide information, organization, and data analysis. The axial codes reveal the trends in the use of AI in managing student learning; see Fig.  11 .

Learning analytics was an a priori term often found in studies which describes “the measurement, collection, analysis and reporting of data about learners and their contexts, for purposes of understanding and optimizing learning and the environments in which it occurs” (Long & Siemens, 2011 , p. 34). The studies investigated in this systematic review were across grades and subject areas and provided administrators and instructors different types of information to guide their work. One of those studies was conducted by Mavrikis et. al. ( 2019 ) who described learning analytics as teacher assistance tools. In their study, learning analytics were used in an exploratory learning environment with targeted visualizations supporting classroom orchestration. These visualizations, displayed as screenshots in the study, provided information such as the interactions between the students, goals achievements etc. These appear similar to infographics that are brightly colored and draw the eye quickly to pertinent information. AI is also used for other tasks, such as organizing the sequence of curriculum in pacing guides for future groups of students and also designing instruction. Zhang ( 2022 ) described how designing an AI teaching system of talent cultivation and using the digital affordances to establish a quality assurance system for practical teaching, provides new mechanisms for the design of university education systems. In developing such a system, Zhang found that the stability of the instructional design, overcame the drawbacks of traditional manual subjectivity in the instructional design.

Another trend that emerged from the studies was the use of AI to manage student big data to support learning. Ullah and Hafiz ( 2022 ) lament that using traditional methods, including non-AI digital techniques, asking the instructor to pay attention to every student’s learning progress is very difficult and that big data analysis techniques are needed. The ability to look across and within large data sets to inform instruction is a valuable affordance of AIEd in HE. While the use of AIEd to manage student learning emerged from the data, this study uncovered only 19 studies in 7 years (2016–2022) that focused on the use of AIEd to manage student data. This lack of the use was also noted in a recent study in the K-12 space (Crompton et al., 2022 ). In Chu et. al.’s ( 2022 ) study examining the top 50 most cited AIEd articles, they did not report the use of AIEd for managing student data in the top uses of AIEd HE. It would appear that more research should be conducted in this area to fully explore the possibilities of AI.

Gaps and future research

From this systematic review, six gaps emerged in the data providing opportunities for future studies to investigate and provide a fuller understanding of how AIEd can used in HE. (1) The majority of the research was conducted in high income countries revealing a paucity of research in developing countries. More research should be conducted in these developing countries to expand the level of understanding about how AI can enhance learning in under-resourced communities. (2) Almost 50% of the studies were conducted in the areas of language learning, computer science and engineering. Research conducted by members from multiple, different academic departments would help to advance the knowledge of the use of AI in more disciplines. (3) This study revealed that faculty affiliated with schools of education are taking an increasing role in researching the use of AIEd in HE. As this body of knowledge grows, faculty in Schools of Education should share their research regarding the pedagogical affordances of AI so that this knowledge can be applied by faculty across disciplines. (4) The vast majority of the research was conducted at the undergraduate level. More research needs to be done at the graduate student level, as AI provides many opportunities in this environment. (5) Little study was done regarding how AIEd can assist both instructors and managers in their roles in HE. The power of AI to assist both groups further research. (6) Finally, much of the research investigated in this systematic review revealed the use of AIEd in traditional ways that enhance or make more efficient current practices. More research needs to focus on the unexplored affordances of AIEd. As AI becomes more advanced and sophisticated, new opportunities will arise for AIEd. Researchers need to be on the forefront of these possible innovations.

In addition, empirical exploration is needed for new tools, such as ChatGPT that was available for public use at the end of 2022. With the time it takes for a peer review journal article to be published, ChatGPT did not appear in the articles for this study. What is interesting is that it could fit with a variety of the use codes found in this study, with students getting support in writing papers and instructors using Chat GPT to assess students work and with help writing emails or descriptions for students. It would be pertinent for researchers to explore Chat GPT.

Limitations

The findings of this study show a rapid increase in the number of AIEd studies published in HE. However, to ensure a level of credibility, this study only included peer review journal articles. These articles take months to publish. Therefore, conference proceedings and gray literature such as blogs and summaries may reveal further findings not explored in this study. In addition, the articles in this study were all published in English which excluded findings from research published in other languages.

In response to the call by Hinojo-Lucena et. al. ( 2019 ), Chu et. al. ( 2022 ), and Zawacki-Richter et. al. ( 2019 ), this study provides unique findings with an up-to-date examination of the use of AIEd in HE from 2016 to 2022. Past systematic reviews examined the research up to 2020. The findings of this study show that in 2021 and 2022, publications rose nearly two to three times the number of previous years. With this rapid rise in the number of AIEd HE publications, new trends have emerged.

The findings show that of the 138 studies examined, research was conducted in six of the seven continents of the world. In extant systematic reviews showed that the US led by a large margin in the number of studies published. This trend has now shifted to China. Another shift in AIEd HE is that while extant studies lamented the lack of focus on professors of education leading these studies, this systematic review found education to be the most common department affiliation with 28% and computer science coming in second at 20%. Undergraduate students were the most studied students at 72%. Similar to the findings of other studies, language learning was the most common subject domain. This included writing, reading, and vocabulary acquisition. In examination of who the AIEd was intended for, 72% of the studies focused on students, 17% instructors, and 11% managers.

Grounded coding was used to answer the overarching question of how AIEd was used in HE. Five usage codes emerged from the data: (1) Assessment/Evaluation, (2) Predicting, (3) AI Assistant, (4) Intelligent Tutoring System (ITS), and (5) Managing Student Learning. Assessment and evaluation had a wide variety of purposes, including assessing academic progress and student emotions towards learning, individual and group evaluations, and class based online community assessments. Predicting emerged as a code with ten axial codes, as AIEd predicted dropouts and at-risk students, innovative ability, and career decisions. AI Assistants were specific to supporting students in HE. These assistants included those with an anthropomorphic presence, such as virtual agents and persuasive intervention through digital programs. ITS systems were not always noted in extant systematic reviews but were specifically mentioned in 18 of the studies in this review. ITS systems in this study provided customized strategies and approaches to student’s characteristics and needs. The final code in this study highlighted the use of AI in managing student learning, including learning analytics, curriculum sequencing, instructional design, and clustering of students.

The findings of this study provide a springboard for future academics, practitioners, computer scientists, policymakers, and funders in understanding the state of the field in AIEd HE, how AI is used. It also provides actionable items to ameliorate gaps in the current understanding. As the use AIEd will only continue to grow this study can serve as a baseline for further research studies in the use of AIEd in HE.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Alajmi, Q., Al-Sharafi, M. A., & Abuali, A. (2020). Smart learning gateways for Omani HEIs towards educational technology: Benefits, challenges and solutions. International Journal of Information Technology and Language Studies, 4 (1), 12–17.

Google Scholar  

Al-Tuwayrish, R. K. (2016). An evaluative study of machine translation in the EFL scenario of Saudi Arabia. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 7 (1), 5–10.

Ayse, T., & Nil, G. (2022). Automated feedback and teacher feedback: Writing achievement in learning English as a foreign language at a distance. The Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 23 (2), 120–139. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.7n.1p.5

Article   Google Scholar  

Baykasoğlu, A., Özbel, B. K., Dudaklı, N., Subulan, K., & Şenol, M. E. (2018). Process mining based approach to performance evaluation in computer-aided examinations. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 26 (5), 1841–1861. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.21971

Belur, J., Tompson, L., Thornton, A., & Simon, M. (2018). Interrater reliability in systematic review methodology: Exploring variation in coder decision-making. Sociological Methods & Research, 13 (3), 004912411887999. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799372

Çağataylı, M., & Çelebi, E. (2022). Estimating academic success in higher education using big five personality traits, a machine learning approach. Arab Journal Scientific Engineering, 47 , 1289–1298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-021-05873-4

Chen, L., Chen, P., & Lin, Z. (2020). Artificial intelligence in education: A review. IEEE Access, 8 , 75264–75278. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2988510

Chu, H., Tu, Y., & Yang, K. (2022). Roles and research trends of artificial intelligence in higher education: A systematic review of the top 50 most-cited articles. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 38 (3), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7526

Cristianini, N. (2016). Intelligence reinvented. New Scientist, 232 (3097), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0262-4079(16)31992-3

Crompton, H., Bernacki, M. L., & Greene, J. (2020). Psychological foundations of emerging technologies for teaching and learning in higher education. Current Opinion in Psychology, 36 , 101–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.04.011

Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2022). Artificial intelligence in K-12 education. SN Social Sciences, 2 , 113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-022-00425-5

Crompton, H., Jones, M., & Burke, D. (2022). Affordances and challenges of artificial intelligence in K-12 education: A systematic review. Journal of Research on Technology in Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2022.2121344

Crompton, H., & Song, D. (2021). The potential of artificial intelligence in higher education. Revista Virtual Universidad Católica Del Norte, 62 , 1–4. https://doi.org/10.35575/rvuen.n62a1

de Chiusole, D., Stefanutti, L., Anselmi, P., & Robusto, E. (2020). Stat-Knowlab. Assessment and learning of statistics with competence-based knowledge space theory. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 30 , 668–700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-020-00223-1

Dever, D. A., Azevedo, R., Cloude, E. B., & Wiedbusch, M. (2020). The impact of autonomy and types of informational text presentations in game-based environments on learning: Converging multi-channel processes data and learning outcomes. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 30 (4), 581–615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-020-00215-1

Górriz, J. M., Ramírez, J., Ortíz, A., Martínez-Murcia, F. J., Segovia, F., Suckling, J., Leming, M., Zhang, Y. D., Álvarez-Sánchez, J. R., Bologna, G., Bonomini, P., Casado, F. E., Charte, D., Charte, F., Contreras, R., Cuesta-Infante, A., Duro, R. J., Fernández-Caballero, A., Fernández-Jover, E., … Ferrández, J. M. (2020). Artificial intelligence within the interplay between natural and artificial computation: Advances in data science, trends and applications. Neurocomputing, 410 , 237–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2020.05.078

Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews (2nd ed.). Sage.

Gupta, S., & Chen, Y. (2022). Supporting inclusive learning using chatbots? A chatbot-led interview study. Journal of Information Systems Education, 33 (1), 98–108.

Hemingway, P. & Brereton, N. (2009). In Hayward Medical Group (Ed.). What is a systematic review? Retrieved from http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/painres/download/whatis/syst-review.pdf

Hinojo-Lucena, F., Arnaz-Diaz, I., Caceres-Reche, M., & Romero-Rodriguez, J. (2019). A bibliometric study on its impact the scientific literature. Education Science . https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9010051

Hrastinski, S., Olofsson, A. D., Arkenback, C., Ekström, S., Ericsson, E., Fransson, G., Jaldemark, J., Ryberg, T., Öberg, L.-M., Fuentes, A., Gustafsson, U., Humble, N., Mozelius, P., Sundgren, M., & Utterberg, M. (2019). Critical imaginaries and reflections on artificial intelligence and robots in postdigital K-12 education. Postdigital Science and Education, 1 (2), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-019-00046-x

Huang, C., Wu, X., Wang, X., He, T., Jiang, F., & Yu, J. (2021). Exploring the relationships between achievement goals, community identification and online collaborative reflection. Educational Technology & Society, 24 (3), 210–223.

Hwang, G. J., & Tu, Y. F. (2021). Roles and research trends of artificial intelligence in mathematics education: A bibliometric mapping analysis and systematic review. Mathematics, 9 (6), 584. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9060584

Khalfallah, J., & Slama, J. B. H. (2018). The effect of emotional analysis on the improvement of experimental e-learning systems. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 27 (2), 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22075

Kim, C., & Bennekin, K. N. (2016). The effectiveness of volition support (VoS) in promoting students’ effort regulation and performance in an online mathematics course. Instructional Science, 44 , 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9366-5

Koć-Januchta, M. M., Schönborn, K. J., Roehrig, C., Chaudhri, V. K., Tibell, L. A. E., & Heller, C. (2022). “Connecting concepts helps put main ideas together”: Cognitive load and usability in learning biology with an AI-enriched textbook. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19 (11), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00317-3

Krause, S. D., & Lowe, C. (2014). Invasion of the MOOCs: The promise and perils of massive open online courses . Parlor Press.

Li, D., Tong, T. W., & Xiao, Y. (2021). Is China emerging as the global leader in AI? Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/02/is-china-emerging-as-the-global-leader-in-ai

Liang, J. C., Hwang, G. J., Chen, M. R. A., & Darmawansah, D. (2021). Roles and research foci of artificial intelligence in language education: An integrated bibliographic analysis and systematic review approach. Interactive Learning Environments . https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1958348

Liu, S., Hu, T., Chai, H., Su, Z., & Peng, X. (2022). Learners’ interaction patterns in asynchronous online discussions: An integration of the social and cognitive interactions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53 (1), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13147

Long, P., & Siemens, G. (2011). Penetrating the fog: Analytics in learning and education. Educause Review, 46 (5), 31–40.

Lu, O. H. T., Huang, A. Y. Q., Tsai, D. C. L., & Yang, S. J. H. (2021). Expert-authored and machine-generated short-answer questions for assessing students learning performance. Educational Technology & Society, 24 (3), 159–173.

Mavrikis, M., Geraniou, E., Santos, S. G., & Poulovassilis, A. (2019). Intelligent analysis and data visualization for teacher assistance tools: The case of exploratory learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50 (6), 2920–2942. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12876

Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4 (1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1

Mousavi, A., Schmidt, M., Squires, V., & Wilson, K. (2020). Assessing the effectiveness of student advice recommender agent (SARA): The case of automated personalized feedback. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 31 (2), 603–621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-020-00210-6

Mousavinasab, E., Zarifsanaiey, N., Kalhori, S. R. N., Rakhshan, M., Keikha, L., & Saeedi, M. G. (2021). Intelligent tutoring systems: A systematic review of characteristics, applications, and evaluation methods. Interactive Learning Environments, 29 (1), 142–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1558257

Ouatik, F., Ouatikb, F., Fadlic, H., Elgoraria, A., Mohadabb, M. E. L., Raoufia, M., et al. (2021). E-Learning & decision making system for automate students assessment using remote laboratory and machine learning. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 17 (1), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1135285

Ouyang, F., Zheng, L., & Jiao, P. (2022). Artificial intelligence in online higher education: A systematic review of empirical research from 2011–2020. Education and Information Technologies, 27 , 7893–7925. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10925-9

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T., Mulrow, C., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. British Medical Journal . https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Popenici, S. A. D., & Kerr, S. (2017). Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence on teaching and learning in higher education. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 12 (22), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-017-0062-8

PRISMA Statement. (2021). PRISMA endorsers. PRISMA statement website. http://www.prisma-statement.org/Endorsement/PRISMAEndorsers

Qian, Y., Li, C.-X., Zou, X.-G., Feng, X.-B., Xiao, M.-H., & Ding, Y.-Q. (2022). Research on predicting learning achievement in a flipped classroom based on MOOCs by big data analysis. Computer Applied Applications in Engineering Education, 30 , 222–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22452

Rutner, S. M., & Scott, R. A. (2022). Use of artificial intelligence to grade student discussion boards: An exploratory study. Information Systems Education Journal, 20 (4), 4–18.

Salas-Pilco, S., & Yang, Y. (2022). Artificial Intelligence application in Latin America higher education: A systematic review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19 (21), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/S41239-022-00326-w

Saldana, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.

Shukla, A. K., Janmaijaya, M., Abraham, A., & Muhuri, P. K. (2019). Engineering applications of artificial intelligence: A bibliometric analysis of 30 years (1988–2018). Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 85 , 517–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2019.06.010

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1995). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273–285). Sage.

Turing, A. M. (1937). On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungs problem. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 2 (1), 230–265.

Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59 , 443–460.

MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Ullah, H., & Hafiz, M. A. (2022). Exploring effective classroom management strategies in secondary schools of Punjab. Journal of the Research Society of Pakistan, 59 (1), 76.

Verdú, E., Regueras, L. M., Gal, E., et al. (2017). Integration of an intelligent tutoring system in a course of computer network design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65 , 653–677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9503-0

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes . Harvard University Press.

Winkler-Schwartz, A., Bissonnette, V., Mirchi, N., Ponnudurai, N., Yilmaz, R., Ledwos, N., Siyar, S., Azarnoush, H., Karlik, B., & Del Maestro, R. F. (2019). Artificial intelligence in medical education: Best practices using machine learning to assess surgical expertise in virtual reality simulation. Journal of Surgical Education, 76 (6), 1681–1690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2019.05.015

Yang, A. C. M., Chen, I. Y. L., Flanagan, B., & Ogata, H. (2021). Automatic generation of cloze items for repeated testing to improve reading comprehension. Educational Technology & Society, 24 (3), 147–158.

Yao, X. (2022). Design and research of artificial intelligence in multimedia intelligent question answering system and self-test system. Advances in Multimedia . https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2156111

Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education—Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16 (1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0

Zhang, F. (2022). Design and application of artificial intelligence technology-driven education and teaching system in universities. Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine . https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/8503239

Zhang, Z., & Xu, L. (2022). Student engagement with automated feedback on academic writing: A study on Uyghur ethnic minority students in China. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development . https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2022.2102175

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Mildred Jones, Katherina Nako, Yaser Sendi, and Ricardo Randall for data gathering and organization.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Teaching and Learning, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, USA

Helen Crompton

ODUGlobal, Norfolk, USA

Diane Burke

RIDIL, ODUGlobal, Norfolk, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

HC: Conceptualization; Data curation; Project administration; Formal analysis; Methodology; Project administration; original draft; and review & editing. DB: Conceptualization; Data curation; Project administration; Formal analysis; Methodology; Project administration; original draft; and review & editing. Both authors read and approved this manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helen Crompton .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Crompton, H., Burke, D. Artificial intelligence in higher education: the state of the field. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 20 , 22 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8

Download citation

Received : 30 January 2023

Accepted : 23 March 2023

Published : 24 April 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Artificial Intelligence
• Systematic review
• Higher education

Study Shows How Higher Education Supports Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Students Through Culturally Relevant Courses, Programs, and Research

Analysis of minority-serving institutions on the East and West Coasts demonstrates layered processes to build students’ capacities

The model minority myth paints a picture of Asian Americans as a monolithic group with unparalleled success in academics. A new NYU study unpacks this myth, exploring the needs of Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander students and how higher education institutions support these populations.

In 2007, Congress established a federal designation for higher education institutions that enroll at least 10 percent of undergraduate Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AA&NHPI) students, and who enroll a significant proportion of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. This designation as an Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institution (AANAPISI) was among one of the newest categories of minority-serving institutions that receive federal funding to advance educational equity and support for ethnic and racial minorities.

In a two-site case study, Mike Hoa Nguyen , assistant professor of education at NYU Steinhardt, collected data from interviews, internal and public university documents, and observations of activities, courses, and meetings to determine the process in which AANAPISI programs expand students’ capacities through culturally relevant coursework, mentorship, research, and civic engagement. His findings are published in The Review of Higher Education .

“AANAPISIs demonstrate a federal commitment to supporting the unique educational needs of AA&NHPI students, which are too often obscured by the model minority myth,” said Nguyen. “This myth dangerously asserts that Asian American students, and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander students by association, are universally successful and unparalleled in their academic achievements. AANAPISIs play a major role in addressing this problem, and in doing so, provide critical resources to uplift the students they serve. This study documents the process in which these colleges and universities engage in this important work.”

Nguyen's study centered on a large, public community college on the West Coast and a large, urban, regional public university on the East Coast. Nguyen’s findings related to the experiences of students in these programs.

He uncovered a five-tiered process that the two institutions use to build opportunities for learning, practice, and engagement:

AA&NHPI Focused Coursework At both institutions, courses focused on these populations are offered through the institutions’ Asian American Studies programs, where students are exposed to concepts connected to their racial and ethnic identities. One student shared her experience with a course, Asian Women in the United States, “Through my experience with that class I learned…for the first time, issues that affected my community. Specifically, me as an Asian American woman, specifically Vietnamese American…”

Teaching and Mentoring Students who had previously taken AA&NHPI coursework provided tutoring and mentoring to support new students with classwork, programs, books, and scholarship applications.  According to one mentor, “Cambodian Americans fall through the cracks, we’re just not in higher ed…It’s not a supportive space for us…[the AANAPISI faculty] understand…from their own community work, from being on campus, and [from] teaching for so long that…when they find students who fit these demographics it makes sense for them to mentor them.”

Advanced AA&NHPI Focused Coursework After serving as mentors, students often take more advanced courses focused on theoretical, historical, and contemporary issues regarding the AA&NHPI experience to continue their academics while gaining tools to make larger contributions toward their communities. 

Academic and Research Development Students who complete advanced coursework are provided opportunities to engage in academic projects and research with faculty and staff, presenting research at conferences or publishing in peer-reviewed journals. 

Professional and Community Experience The final step in the process offers opportunities for students to engage in community-based projects, internships, and employment with partner organizations, government offices, or other schools. A student shared that his research experience led to the creation of a Vietnamese American organizing and training program. “[Researchers] found out that Vietnamese Americans in [the neighborhood] don't participate in civics or politics…they basically feel disenfranchised, like their vote doesn’t matter…So, the research showed that there needs to be an organization to help push and provide opportunities to talk about politics in a Vietnamese American progressive context…”

“AANAPISIs are the backbone for AA&NHPI students in higher education. These institutions account for six percent of all colleges and universities, yet enroll over 40 percent of all AA&NHPI undergraduates,” said Nguyen. “This study offers new understandings of the critical role that AANAPISIs play to expand educational opportunity and enrich learning experiences—which can be adopted beyond AANAPISIs and for other students—as well as inform the work of policymakers as they seek new solutions to refine and regulate the administration of minority-serving institutions.”

Funding for this study was provided by the UCLA Institute of American Cultures and the UCLA Asian American Studies Center. 

Press Contact

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

The US universities that allow protest encampments – and even negotiate

While semesters at other schools speed toward a violent close, several universities have sought a more amicable solution

F or about a week, the cluster of tents raised by students at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, stood in solidarity with Palestinian civilians in Gaza and with students protesting at other campuses across the US.

Then, on Tuesday, the tents quietly vanished from the grassy quad at the heart of campus. There were no riot-gear-clad crackdowns from police and no assaults from masked groups to spur disbandment. Instead, Brown chose a different path: it negotiated.

While semesters at other schools speed toward a violent close – complete with canceled classes and commencement celebrations, scenes of brutal yet unsuccessful attempts at quelling the protests, and aggression from opposing groups that has heightened already inflamed tensions – Brown is one of several universities that have sought a more amicable solution.

Northwestern University in Illinois, the Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, Rutgers University at New Brunswick in New Jersey and the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis have also brokered agreements with students, while others, including Wesleyan in Connecticut and the University of California at Berkeley, have allowed the protest encampments to continue.

The outcomes from these divergent approaches remain uncertain; while some of the more extreme examples of suppression have been met with public shock and condemnation, protests have persisted. At Brown, students who agreed to dismantle their demonstration in exchange for a seat at the table in an upcoming meeting with the Corporation of Brown University did so knowing that a satisfying answer to protesters’ demands for divestment is far from a guarantee.

But the movement, which erupted in response to a conflict thousands of miles away, has brought one closer to home into sharper focus. The protests in support of Gaza are testing the bounds of students’ rights to free speech and shining a spotlight on the deepening political divides over the culture on college campuses.

“Students are pointing out contradictions between being asked to be free thinkers and then finding themselves challenged when they think they are thinking freely,” said Dr Manual Pastor, a professor and the director of the Equity Research Institute at the University of Southern California, whose research focuses on the power of social movements.

Schools have long grappled with this balancing act, both encouraging diverse perspectives and limiting its expression in the name of safety. But these simmering tensions have come to a boil as political divides widen.

Since the start of the protests on campus last fall, conservatives have argued they are a symbol of how an “out-of-control left” has come to dominate US campuses. It’s an issue the GOP-led House has pursued with vigor, launching an investigation into federal funding for schools where protests have lingered, and scrutinizing presidents of some of America’s most prestigious universities whom they allege have allowed an escalation in antisemitism.

That intense scrutiny, and the response of prominent university donors, has incentivized some schools to take a heavier hand, Pastor said. In December, the presidents of the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard were forced to resign after a heated hearing on their actions to limit pro-Palestinian protests. The president of Columbia University, Minouche Shafik, who was called to testify in April, vowed to take a strong approach. The next day, she unleashed swarms of New York police department (NYPD) officers on student protesters .

Meanwhile, tensions on campuses have only intensified.

That’s why some universities have tried to use this moment as an opportunity, choosing to foster dialogues around the emotionally fraught issue rather than trying to remove it with force.

At Wesleyan, where the student encampment has quadrupled in size since Sunday , faculty have taught classes among the tents. President Michael S Roth said that, though it violates university rules, the protest will not be cleared as long as it remains peaceful.

“As long as we all reject violence, we have opportunities to listen and to learn from one another,” he said in a statement posted on X.

In an interview with the Guardian late last year, Roth – who is Jewish and a critic of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement largely driving these protests – championed debate and disagreement.

His mission, he said , was to ensure students feel safe and won’t get harassed or intimidated, “but you’re not so safe that you don’t encounter offensive comments or invigorating debate”.

“I’m trying to model this openness that has limits,” he added.

It’s an ethos echoed in Brown’s approach.

“Universities were built to hold disagreement and grapple with competing views. This is an essential part of our mission of advancing knowledge and understanding,” Brown’s president, Christina H Paxson, wrote in a letter announcing the agreement.

With a nod toward a shared sense of concern about the confrontations seen at other universities and an acknowledgment of stark differences in beliefs about the events unfolding in the Middle East, she added that she is “confident that the Brown community can live up to the values of support for free expression within an open and respectful learning community”.

Student protesters at UC Berkeley say they have, for their part, also tried to engage their community in discussion when confrontations arise, which has helped limit flare-ups of tension and ensured that they can keep the protest going. They plan to stay for the long haul.

“Things are OK on the Berkeley campus,” said Yazen Kashlan, an organizer and graduate student at UC Berkeley on Wednesday. “Students are protesting and exercising their right to free speech, so it hasn’t been confrontational.”

after newsletter promotion

There have been skirmishes. On Wednesday evening, videos of a small fight began circling on social media as Israel-supporting counter-protesters tussled with someone near the encampment. Campus officials condemned violence on both sides and are investigating the incident, which they said resulted in minor injuries .

Still, the growing encampment has not been met with security or police, and university administrators have kept lines of communication open. Protesters at Berkeley have four main demands: they want the university to vocally condemn the violence in Gaza and call for an end to it, and to divest all UC financial holdings connected to the conflict . They also want UC Berkeley to academically boycott Israeli universities and create a permanent Palestinian studies program.

There are other goals, too, Kashlan said: “The way I see it, one of the wins this movement can already claim is awareness – aligning the struggles of the global south and generally oppressed people in this one cause.”

To Kashlan, a successful outcome is how people connect with the protest and the cause they hope to elevate. “It is a moral imperative,” he added, noting that that’s how students hope to enact change in a conflict that’s so far away.

Even with a more open approach, discussions of a divisive issue firmly rooted in identity, religion and ethnicity have at times devolved into rhetoric that has left some students and members of the broader campus communities feeling targeted or unsafe at some schools. It’s why UC Berkeley administrators say they are investing in more dialogue.

“We are built for a world that’s painted in shades of grey, not black and white,” said Dan Mogulof, a spokesperson for UC Berkeley. “We need to support diversity of perspective and civil discourse, and dialogue across all variety of divides – that’s imperiled right now.”

The school has doled out $700,000 to fund new plans and programs that encourage a culture shift on campus and promote civil discourse. Among them will be mandatory training for students, faculty and staff on Islamophobia and antisemitism and a new course on conversation across the divides.

“We are not turning a blind eye to any of this and we are not throwing our hands in the air,” Mogulof said. “We are marshaling all the educational resources we can to support our principles of community.” Still, he said, changing the school’s investment strategy isn’t on the table.

As the semester draws to a close, it’s also not a sure thing the encampment will be allowed to continue. Security at the school is keeping a close watch, Mogulof said, and is ready to step in if they deem campus life is being disrupted.

Other schools that first prioritized dialogue have shifted course. Dartmouth, an Ivy League university in New Hampshire, scheduled several events and discussions in recent months discussing the situation in the Middle East. But on Wednesday, soon after the first tents of a protest encampment were raised, officers from the Hanover police department cleared the site, arresting 90 people including history professor Annelise Orleck, a former chair of the school’s Jewish studies department who has taught at the school for 34 years.

And, some protesters have succeeded in getting their calls answered. The Evergreen State College agreed on Tuesday to set up a taskforce that will map out its “divestment from companies that profit from gross human rights violations and/or the occupation of Palestinian territories”.

Meanwhile, the cause aligning these protesters across the country has largely been lost in the rhetoric over whether their tactics are wrong or right. While crackdowns against student protesters feed the news cycle, updates about the carnage that continues in Gaza has been pushed to the background.

For Pastor, dialogue will be needed to help produce the potential for peace, both at American universities and in the Middle East.

“In the context of all this back and forth, the real pain being experienced in the Middle East is on the part of Gazan parents seeing their children crushed under bombardment or Israeli parents who lost a young person they thought was safely going to a rave,” he said. “Even as we challenge the asymmetry of power and the complex history, that is all being lost right now.

“If we are to return to any kind of lasting peace,” he added, “it will only be lasting if there’s empathy.”

• US campus protests
• US universities
• Israel-Gaza war
• Higher education

Most viewed

The unexpected explanation for why school segregation spiked

On eve of the 70th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, a study finds policy choices explain the rise in segregated schools.

It’s well documented that after falling for years, school segregation has risen again in the United States. But why? New research by academics at the University of Southern California and Stanford University concludes that some popular theories are not to blame.

Ahead of the 70th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, a study being released Monday shows a pronounced increase in school segregation since 1988, particularly in large school districts with significant numbers of Black students.

Overall, school segregation between Black and White students has increased by 25 percent since 1991 in the 533 large districts serving at least 2,500 Black students — a significant increase but nowhere near the decline that occurred in the aftermath of Brown , according to the study. (Of note: the paper makes clear that most of the school segregation in the United States is driven by demographic differences between districts , not within them.)

A school district that was entirely segregated would score 1.0 on the researchers’ segregation scale, whereas a perfectly integrated district, where every school perfectly matched the overall district’s demographics, would score 0.0.

Looking at the nation’s 100 largest districts, segregation was 0.45 in 1968. That fell to 0.17 by 1986 and then rose to 0.28 by 2019, researchers found. So while schools are nowhere near as segregated as they were before courts began enforcing the Brown decision, segregation has risen in recent decades.

Researchers offered the example of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools system in North Carolina, where segregation was absolute — a score of 1.0 — in 1950, before Brown . By 1968, it remained a still-high 0.66 — at that time, the average White student’s school was 10 percent Black, while the average Black student’s school was 76 percent Black (the difference between 10 and 76 produces the score of 0.66).

Then, in 1971, after the courts ordered a desegregation plan in another landmark court case, this one involving the Charlotte-Mecklenburg district , the segregation score there shrank to just 0.03. (The average White student’s school was 31 percent Black; the average Black student’s school was 34 percent Black.) By 1991, it was still low at 0.10 before rising again. In 2022, segregation had reached 0.44.

The study finds that the rise nationally was not driven by increasing housing segregation. Housing segregation certainly helps explain school segregation. But since 1991, housing has become less segregated.

The study also finds that rising school segregation is not driven by racial economic inequality because racial economic inequality also declined over this period.

Both of these trends “would have led to lower school segregation, had nothing else changed,” said the paper by Ann E. Owens, a sociologist at USC, and Sean F. Reardon, a professor of poverty and inequality in education at Stanford.

So what does explain the rise?

Rather than systemic forces that are difficult to change, these trends are driven by policy choices, they conclude. The researchers point to two specific policies: federal courts releasing school districts, including Charlotte-Mecklenburg, from obligations to desegregate schools beginning in significant numbers in the late 1990s; and school-choice policies that let parents pick what school their children attend.

“It’s not these big structural factors that are outside the school districts’ control that are driving this,” Reardon said in an interview. “It’s things that are under the control of the educational system.”

Court-ordered desegregation plans implemented based on the Brown decision had reduced segregation. But then judges began lifting those orders. “If you switch from an active desegregation effort and go back to neighborhood schools, school segregation is going to go up a lot,” Reardon said.

Had those court orders not been lifted, the study estimates that school segregation would have grown 20 percent less than it did.

At the same time, choice systems such as the introduction of charter schools allowed parents more control — and many used that to choose schools with students like their own. The new study specifically looked at the growth of charter schools and found that if charter schools had not expanded, school segregation would have grown 14 percent less.

These two factors account for all of the rise in school segregation from 2000 to 2019, the paper found.

The rising segregation numbers “appear to be the direct result of educational policy and legal decisions,” the paper concludes. “They are not the inevitable result of demographic changes — and can be changed by alternative policy choices.”

Local news highlights UC's artificial intelligence programs

Uc offers three degree programs in ai, which touches a dozen other programs across five colleges.

Local news media turned to an expert in artificial intelligence at the University of Cincinnati to explain why this technology is becoming integral to so many disciplines in higher education.

UC’s College of Engineering and Applied Science offers two master’s programs in artificial intelligence, or AI, while UC Blue Ash offers a new associate degree in AI for Workforce , developed by Intel Corp.

UC Professor Ali Minai is a champion of AI. He has studied this technology for 35 years in his lab in UC’s Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. He holds a joint appointment in UC’s Department of Computer Science.

More than a dozen UC programs touch on AI across five colleges.

“AI is disruptive, but I don’t think people appreciate just how disruptive,” Minai said.

Minai told WLWT-5 that the technology is becoming ubiquitous.

“AI is becoming more integrated into almost everything we do. In some places it’s obvious like self-driving vehicles, drones or ChatGPT. But we use it for all kinds of applications,” he said.

Minai told WLWT-5 that UC students aren’t just learning how to use AI but how to build and troubleshoot it. Students with backgrounds in AI are in high demand across a variety of industries from computer games to finance.

WVXU also spoke to Minai about the growth in AI programs. UC launched its first master’s degree in artificial intelligence six years ago with just a few students.

“This year we had more than 100 applicants and 35 or 40 of them will be here in the fall,” he told WVXU.

Minai said society needs more AI literacy to educate people about the ways both good and bad that AI is being used today. Any technology can be misused, he warned.

But UC graduates will play a big role in shaping the technology, he said.

“Students are very excited about AI,” he said.

Watch the WLWT story.

Featured image at top: UC's programs in artificial intelligence are becoming increasingly popular. Photo/Imaginima/Unsplash

UC Professor Ali Minai tells WLWT-5 that artificial intelligence is an increasingly popular subject for incoming students in the College of Engineering and Applied Science. Photo/WLWT

• Electrical and Computer Engineering
• Blue Ash College
• In The News
• College of Engineering and Applied Science
• Computer Science

Related Stories

May 6, 2024

UC College of Engineering and Applied Science Professor Ali Minai tells WLWT and WVXU that AI is becoming a popular subject among new students.

Phys.Org: How can computer chips predict the future of gene synthesis?

March 4, 2022

News outlets highlight a study by the University of Cincinnati that used the evolution of the microchip to predict advances in synthetic biology.

Dayton Inno: UC alumni develop wearable safety device for runners

October 28, 2021

University of Cincinnati biomedical engineering graduate Jack Randall is developing a wearable safety device for runners and cyclists. Zoza, a small, wearable SOS device, can be attached to a shoe or zipper and is intended for endurance athletes who often don’t carry a phone or who travel through remote areas. A user can press a button to send an emergency alert and the device even works in locations where cell service is unavailable.