case studies higher education institutions

Case studies

.css-7qmtvr{overflow:hidden;max-height:108px;text-indent:0px;} How to train world-champion cardiologists

Gellér László, Zoltán Salló, Nándor Szegedi

Semmelweis University

A framework to teach library research skills

Anna Hvass, Karen Rolfe, Siân Furmage , Michael Latham

University of Southampton

Going for gold: how to craft a winning TEF submission

Emily Pollinger , Julian Chaudhuri

University of Bath

Creating an impactful social group for neurodivergent students

Brooke Szücs, Ben Roden-Cohen

The University of Queensland

Sharing qualitative research through open access

Nathaniel D. Porter

Virginia Tech

Using storybooks to share research with a wider audience

Dominic Petronzi , Dean Fido, Rebecca Petronzi

University of Derby

Making higher education accessible for students with unmet financial need

A food pantry can help support your campus through the cost-of-living crisis

Lauren Dinour, Fatima deCarvalho, Karina Escobar

Montclair State University

Nourishing bodies and minds: the vital role of a student food pantry

Isabelle Largen

Support for faculty on long-term leave is a career lifeline

Theresa Mercer , Jim Harris, Ron Corstanje, Chhaya Kerai-Jones

Cranfield University

Use design thinking principles to create a human-centred digital strategy

Joe Holland

University of Exeter

Film storytelling can enhance learning in STEM subjects

Arijit Mukhopadhyay

University of Salford

Creating safe spaces for students to talk about financial difficulties

Caroline Deylaud Koukabi, Joanna West

University of Luxembourg

How our Study Together programme promotes belonging and improves well-being

Gemma Standen

University of East Anglia

Use Etherpad to improve engagement in large transnational classes

Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University 

How to harness community knowledge to tackle complex policy challenges

Saffron Woodcraft, Joseph Cook

University College London

What we learned from a pilot study aimed at getting first-generation students into pharmacy

Carl Harrington, Rosemary Norton

Fostering student co-creation to give back to the community

Martha Sullivan

How to keep first-generation students engaged throughout the academic year

Araceli Martinez , Athina Cuevas

Chapman University

We used a hybrid escape room to dramatically boost student attendance

Erick Purwanto, Na Li, Ting Ting Tay

A road map for advancing digital inclusion for your students, staff and community

Raheel Nawaz

Staffordshire University

Building trust in research: how effective patient and public involvement can help

Gary Hickey

Community organising: a case study in parent engagement

Michael Bennett

King’s College London

Designing 24/7 hubs for students

Kieron Broadhead

Using partnerships to establish and build on project success

Dominic Wood

Royal Northern College of Music (RNCM)

Case study: how to do an independent evaluation on homelessness on six continents

Suzanne Fitzpatrick

Heriot-Watt University

Embrace the chaos of real-world learning experiences

Jim Entwistle

Teesside University

Teaching business students how to prepare sustainability reports for SMEs

Ven Tauringana

How storytelling boosts environmental impact and engagement

Denise Baden

Bring the SDGs into the classroom through role play and gamification

Shelini Surendran, Kat Mack, Anand Mistry

University of Surrey

How to support international students’ smooth transition to a new country

Mengping Cheng

Te Whare Wānanga o Waitaha | University of Canterbury

Dealing with abuse after public commentary

Michael Head, Larisa Yarovaya , Ashton Kingdon , Millie Downer

Messy decisions and creative science in the classroom

Charlotte Dodson, Steve Flower

Transforming the classroom through experiential learning

Kate Williams

Georgia Tech’s Center for 21st Century Universities

How to combat the mental health crisis on campus

Jonathan Koppell

Using the power of debate to enhance critical thinking

M. C. Zhang

Macau University of Science and Technology

A case study in developing the next STEM generation

Michael Head, Jessica Boxall, Winfred Dotse-Gborgbortsi, Kathryn Woods-Townsend

Why we need a new model for professional development credentials

Mick Grimley

Lessons learned from a fellowship year as a dentist and early career researcher

Dániel Végh

Learning to learn: developing students into effective lifelong learners

Kevinia Cheung

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Using co-creation to make young people equal research partners

Kathryn Woods-Townsend

Six lessons from facilitating a formalised mentoring programme

Karen Mather

Perfect doesn’t exist and other lessons from developing a whole-university well-being strategy

Ben Goose, Cassie Wilson

Using film to prompt discussion in legal studies

Michael Randall

University of Strathclyde

How supported social groups create safe spaces

Hannah Moore

A practical approach to tackling eco-anxiety

Helen Hicks, Dawn Lees

Nudge technology can help students re-engage

A whole-campus approach to boost belonging for student success

Lorett Swank, Catherine Thomas

Using VR to change medical students’ attitudes towards older patients

János Kollár

Recognising First Nations through place: creating an inclusive university environment

Angela Leitch

Queensland University of Technology

Undergraduate research to enrich teacher education

Molly Riddle, Jacquelyn J. Singleton, Cathy Johnson

Indiana University Southeast

How to make dual-enrolment programmes work

Laura Brown Simmons

A case for bringing ethics of friendship and care to academic research

Noam Schimmel

University of California, Berkeley

Co-creation as a liberating activity

Terry Greene

Trent University

Steps to address the operational challenges of widening participation

Angus Howat

From cohort to community: how to support student-led initiatives

Ranita Thompson, Joanne Walmsley, Ben Graham

How to sustain a journal and beat the academic publishing racket

James Williams, Asma Mohseni

Grow your own accessibility allies

Luke Searle

A colour matrix to make visual content more accessible

Matthew Deeprose

What is authentic enquiry learning?

Kate Black, Jonny Hall

Northumbria University

You wake up in a locked room… Using digital escape rooms to promote student engagement

Steven Montagu-Cairns

University of Leeds

Charting a shared path to net zero universities

Shreejan Pandey, Rebecca Powell

Monash University

Creating a reusable takeout dish programme on campus

Rojine McVea

University of Alberta

Power to the people through automation of peer support programmes

Amanda Pocklington

How can universities get more school pupils enthusiastic about science?

Carl Harrington

Unifying theoretical and clinical education in a medical curriculum

László Köles

A campaign to communicate the impact of university research

Paul M. Rand

The University of Chicago

‘I just wish all lecturers would use the VLE in the same way’

Alison Torn

Leeds Trinity University

A ‘grocery store’ model can help your campus food bank reduce waste

Erin O’Neil

Advice for lecturers on how to keep students’ attention

Kinga Györffy, András Matolcsy

Individual consultations can help PhD students to complete their studies

Szabolcs Várbíró , Judit Réka Hetthéssy, Marianna Török

How to support students considering self-employment

Victoria Prince

Nottingham Trent University

Silence is golden when you ‘shut up and write’ together

Kelly Louise Preece, Jo Sutherst

Why we start undergraduate transdisciplinary research from day one

Gray Kochhar-Lindgren, Julian Tanner

The University of Hong Kong

Raising aspirations: lessons in running a young scholars programme

Valsa Koshy

Brunel University London

Restructuring a university, part one

Bill Flanagan

Restructuring a university, part two

How to write better awards entries

Sam Russell

Arden University

Using gamification as an incentive for revision

Teegan Green, Iliria Stenning, Rasheda Keane

Phenomenon-based learning: what, why and how

Sue Lee, Kate Cuthbert

Student support takes a village – but you need to create one first

Melissa Leaupepe

University of Auckland

AI or VR? Matching emerging tech to real-world learning

Martin Brown , Philip Poronnik, Claudio Corvalan-Diaz, William Havellas

University of Sydney

Virtually writing together: creating community while supporting individual endeavour

Karen Kenny

Supporting LGBTQ+ aspiring leaders in universities

Catherine Lee, Daniel Burman

Anglia Ruskin University

Making space for innovation: a higher education challenge

Michelle Prawer

Victoria University

Can online oral exams prevent cheating?

Temesgen Kifle, Anthony Jacobs

A help desk to protect intellectual property

Frank Soodeen

The University of the West Indies

Autonomy, fun and other benefits of student-centred learning design

A tool to navigate information overload

Shonagh Douglas

Robert Gordon University

How university leaders can use an ‘innovation for’ mindset to drive enrolment

Nivine Megahed

National Louis University

To improve the admission process, get faculty involved

The power of events to build belonging among students

Xiaotong Lu

Full circle: using the cycle of teaching, module design and research

Glenn Fosbraey

University of Winchester

Matching technology training to industry needs: a case study

Daniel Garrote

Nuclio Digital School

My experience of speaking in front of a select committee

Nicola Searle

Goldsmiths, University of London, Universities Policy Engagement Network (UPEN)

A holistic approach to student support

Fran Hornsby, Rebecca Clark

University of York

Peer mentoring to support staff well-being: lessons from a pilot

Fiona Cust, Jessica Runacres

Decolonising learning through access to primary sources

June Barrow-Green , Brigitte Stenhouse

The Open University

Mini virtual writing retreats to support and connect tutees

Aspasia Eleni Paltoglou

Manchester Metropolitan University

A model for deploying AI across a university and region

Cheryl Martin

A collective action framework to help Ukraine’s universities survive and rebuild

Charles Cormack, Blanca Torres-Olave

Cormack Consultancy Group

How to train university staff to become anti-racist agents of change

Adam Danquah

University of Manchester

A guide to promoting equity in HE for refugees and asylum seekers

Yeşim Deveci, Claire Mock-Muñoz de Luna , Jess Oddy

University of East London

Mix technology and personal contact to support students

Jonathan Powles

University of the West of Scotland

Virtual mobility: a first step to creating global graduates

Coventry University

Home labs and simulations to spark curiosity and exploration

Francesco Fornetti

University of Bristol

Food for thought: advice for building a university-community collaboration

]oshua Gruver

Ball State University

Flip the script: why listening is the best form of outreach

Lynne Bianchi

How a sustainable internship programme can support social mobility

Fiona Hudson, Inís Fitzpatrick , Cathy Mcloughlin

Dublin City University

Collective voices, zero tolerance

Louise Crowley

University College Cork

So, you want to reach out? Lessons from a ‘science for all’ programme

Mary Gagen , Will Bryan, Rachel Bryan

Swansea University

Counter-mapping as a pedagogical tool

Daniel Gutiérrez-Ujaque , Dharman Jeyasingham

Brunel University London , University of Manchester

The practicalities of delivering a multi-institutional online workshop

Kelly Edmunds , Richard Bowater

Experiential education through a simulated summit to combat human trafficking

Clara Chapdelaine-Feliciati

How professional practitioners help connect crime theory with real-world investigations

Paul McFarlane

Lessons from completing an award-winning knowledge transfer project

Rachel McCrindle, Richard Mitchell, Yota Dimitriadi

University of Reading

In the loop: how formative feedback supports remote teaching

Jonna Lee , Meryem Yilmaz Soylu

Tutor training for architect-educators: twinning, observation, reflection and testing

Martin W. Andrews, Mary Caddick

The University of Portsmouth

Planning forward: whole system support for marginalised learners in higher education

Carrie Bauer, Cindy Bonfini-Hotlosz, Charley Wright

Arizona State University, Centreity

How to develop a code of conduct for ethical research fieldwork

Catherine Fallon Grasham, Laura Picot

University of Oxford

Pedagogical wellness specialist: the role that connects teaching and well-being

Andrea Aebersold

University of California, Irvine

Bridges to study: how to create a successful online foundation course

Jane Habner , Pablo Munguia

Flinders University

What’s the story? Creative ways to communicate your research

Steven Beschloss

Arizona State University

A STEAM adventure: running a hybrid English immersion camp

Rossana Mántaras , Eugenia Balseiro, Lorena Calzoni

Technological University of Uruguay (UTEC)

Creative projects as a way of bringing students together

Karen Amanda Harris

University of the Arts London

Block to the future: why block scheduling has taken so long to catch on

Carl Flattery, Simon Thomson

Leeds Beckett University, University of Manchester

Outside in: use your students’ curiosity to invigorate your teaching

M. C. Zhang, Aliana Leong

The role of complementary higher education pathways for refugees

Manal Stulgaitis , Gül İnanç

UNHCR, University of Auckland

Lessons in helping remote students obtain practical work experience

Ewout van der Schaft, Alex Mackrell

Education for humanity: designing learner-centric solutions for refugee students

Nicholas Sabato, Joanna Zimmerman

How to turn a PhD project into a commercial venture

Manjinder Kainth, Nicola Wilkin

Graide, University of Birmingham

Increasing access to higher education for refugees through digital learning

Rabih Shibli

American University of Beirut

Helping refugees get their qualifications recognised

Sjur Bergan

Council of Europe

Embedding equality, diversity and inclusion within public policy training for academics

Making undergraduate access to research experience transparent and inclusive

Saloni Krishnan, Nura Sidarus

Royal Holloway, University of London

How a rich extracurricular campus life nurtures well-rounded individuals

How we used a business management theory to help students cope with uncertainty

Zheng Feei Ma, Jian Li Hao, Yu Song, Peng Liu

Eight ways UK academics can help students and researchers from Ukrainian universities

Anna K. Bobak, Valentina Mosienko, Igor Potapov

University of Stirling, University of Bristol, University of Liverpool

How can universities support Ukrainian students? Advice from a Polish institution

Paweł Śpiechowicz

University of Lodz

Blended professionals: how to make the most of ‘third space’ experts

Emily McIntosh, Diane Nutt

Middlesex University

How universities can support refugee students and academics

Naimatullah Zafary

University of Sussex

Recruiting university tutors using an interactive group activity

Carl Sherwood

Tackling climate change requires university, government and industry collaboration – here’s how

Anna Skarbek

Monash University, Climateworks Centre

The challenges of creating a multidisciplinary research centre and how to overcome them

Andrew Tobin, Laura Tyler

University of Glasgow

Revolving roles: creating inclusive, engaging, participant-led learning activities

Pablo Dalby

Asynchronous communication strategies for successful learning design partnerships

Rae Mancilla , Nadine Hamman

University of Pittsburgh, University of Cape Town

Developing a faculty-IT partnership for seamless teaching support

Decolonising medicine, part two: empowering students

Musarrat Maisha Reza

The evolution of activeflex learning: why and how

Athens State University

Lessons for universities from using ‘bots’ in the NHS

Carol Glover

KFM, a subsidiary of King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

A guide to using open educational resources: an experiential case study

Innocent Chirisa

University of Zimbabwe

Catering to Gen Z’s needs: creating a flexible and adaptable education programme

Eric Chee, Roy Ying, Winnie Chan

The Hang Seng University of Hong Kong

Mind the gap: creating a pathway for post-doctoral researchers to gain teaching experience

Students supporting educators: are you harnessing the talent of your own graduates?

Lisa Harris, Caitlin Kight

How to change the default settings that exclude women in sub-Saharan Africa from higher education

Angeline Murimirwa

CAMFED (Campaign for Female Education)

Embedding gender equality: building momentum for change

Eileen Drew

Trinity College Dublin

Widening access to postgraduate studies: from research to strategy to action

The University of Edinburgh

How to use storytelling-based assessment to increase student confidence

Accelerating towards net zero emissions: how to mobilise your university on climate action

John Madden

University of British Columbia

‘Embrace messiness’: how to broker global partnerships to tackle the Sustainable Development Goals

Annelise Riles, Meghan Ozaroski

Northwestern University

How to design early college programmes that foster success for under-represented students

David Dugger

Eastern Michigan University

How using digital workbooks can increase student engagement and help institutions go green

Yan Wei, Paul Tuck

Working with student activists to speed up progress towards a sustainable future

Jaime Toney

Unmasking the scientist: breaking down anonymity to build relationships when teaching online

Kelly Edmunds , Bethan Gulliver

Online exams are growing in popularity: how can they be fair and robust?

Nicholas Harmer, Alison Hill

Co-creating an interdisciplinary well-being module for all students

Elena Riva, Wiki Jeglinska

The University of Warwick

Study trips and experiential learning: from preparation to post-trip reflection

Rebecca Wang

University of Westminster

Building an inclusive learning community to deliver a race equality curriculum

Ricardo Barker , Syra Shakir

Lessons from organising a virtual international student camp to develop the next generation of leaders in sustainability

Yhing Sawheny, Ashutosh Mishra

Siam University

Using community-based research projects to motivate learning among engineering students

Trithos Kamsuwan

Creating equitable research partnerships across continents

Shabbar Jaffar

Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine

Changing lives through community engagement and outreach

Josephine Bleach

National College of Ireland

Talking about taboos: how to create an open atmosphere for discussing difficult subjects

Lindsay Morgan

Edinburgh Napier University

How to revitalise student knowledge exchange with local communities

Patrick McGurk, Joanne Zhang, Fezzan Ahmed, Olivia Reid

Queen Mary University of London

Collaborative learning cases: a fresh approach to applied learning

Dujeepa Samarasekera

National University of Singapore

Engaging students in applied research to tackle Sustainable Development Goals

Jen O'Brien

A model for developing global expertise in blended learning

Daniella Bo Ya Hu

The Association of Commonwealth Universities

How a community of practice can foster virtual collaboration

Eugene Schulz, Dagmar Willems

German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD)

Generating immersive, large-scale teaching experiences in video games

Richard Fitzpatrick, Thomas Little

Students as educators: the value of assessed blogs to showcase learning

Matt Davies

University of Chester

Make yourself presentable

Richard Gratwick

Three lessons from exhibiting final-year projects online

Dechanuchit Katanyutaveetip

Three steps to successful rapid-response civic engagement with students

Kathleen Riach

Developing an educational app to engage students in the world around them

Kate Bowell, Niki Vermeulen

Co-creation of curricula with students: a case study

High tech and high touch: designing a bridging system to help students prepare for STEM studies

Karin Avnit , Victor Wang, Prasad Iyer

Singapore Institute of Technology

It’s a game changer: using design thinking to find solutions to the Sustainable Development Goals

Rachel Bickerdike

Durham University

Global virtual exchange: promoting international learning

Christopher Brighton

Making the most of online educational resources: a case study

Pascal Grange

Using online coaching to support student well-being

Lessons from gamification to enhance students’ capacity for learning

Oran Devilly, May Lim

Using tech to connect refugees with pathways to higher education: an emerging case study

Kate Symons, Georgia Cole, Foundations for All team

The University of Edinburgh, Foundations for All

Greener assessment: transitioning to online marking

Ling Angela Xia , Yao Wu

Lessons in developing digital capability courses for students

Gunter Saunders

Sparking entrepreneurship online

Laura-Jane Silverman

The London School of Economics and Political Science

Building peer support networks to help staff navigate digital teaching

Kay Yeoman, Alicia McConnell

Developing academic writing skills to boost student confidence and resilience

Andrew Struan

How I fostered multilingual student discussion in asynchronous online classes

Ioannis Gaitanidis

Chiba University

How to tackle fieldwork and real-world training online

Francine Ryan

Creating online teaching principles that actually help faculty

Amanda Sykes

Creating a centralised advice resource to help faculty adapt to new teaching modalities

Ingrid Novodvorsky , Lisa Elfring

University of Arizona

How to support staff across all departments to design quality online courses

Helen Carmichael, Bobbi Moore

Innovative approaches to moving practical learning online

Lesley Saunders , Lucy Kirkham

Sheffield Hallam University

Socio-emotional learning online: boosting student resilience and well-being

Benjamin Tak Yuen Chan, Kathleen Chim

Hong Kong Metropolitan University

How Duke Kunshan University transitioned to online learning in two weeks

Kevin Guthrie, Catharine Bond Hill, Martin Kurzweil, Cindy Le

Ithaka S+R , Duke Kunshan University

Accelerating Education for the SDGs in Universities: 2021 case studies out now!

Global Schools Launches Fifth Cohort of the Advocates Program to Build Capacity of Educators to Teach Sustainable Development

Finance Consultant, Science Panel for the Amazon

April 2024 Employee Spotlight - Celebrating Gaëlle Descloîtres!

Junior full stack web developer, strategic advisor.

SDSN Newsletter - March 2024

April 2024 Employee Spotlight - Celebrating Daniel Bernstein!

SDSN Kenya Co-hosts Carbon Markets Clinic and Debate

Science Panel for the Amazon (SPA) Launches First-of-its-kind Massive Open Online Course (MOOC): "The Living Amazon: Science, Cultures and Sustainability in Practice"

Sign up for sdsn updates.

Get our latest insights, opportunities to engage with our networks, and more.

SDSN mobilizes global scientific and technological expertise to promote practical solutions for sustainable development, including the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Climate Agreement. 

The SDG Academy

Join the SDSN

News & Even ts

Privacy Policy

19 rue Bergère

75009 Paris

+33 (0) 1 84 86 06 60

New York 475 Riverside Drive

New York NY 10115 USA

+1 (212) 870-3920

Kuala Lumpur Sunway University

Sunway City Kuala Lumpur

5 Jalan Universiti

Selangor 47500

+60 (3) 7491-8622

How research universities are evolving to strengthen regional economies

Subscribe to the brookings metro update, case studies from the build back better regional challenge, joseph parilla and joseph parilla senior fellow & director of applied research - brookings metro @joeparilla glencora haskins glencora haskins senior research analyst and applied research manager - brookings metro @glencorah.

February 9, 2023

When asked how to build a great city, the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, “Create a great university and wait 200 years.” Indeed, America’s network of research universities is one of its greatest sources of talent, entrepreneurship, and research and development—three inputs that in combination can fuel prosperity in the regions that surround those universities.   

Yet, while most strong regional economies have a leading research university, the reverse is not always true. That is because the link between university research, commercialization, and broader regional development is neither automatic nor immediate. Some universities are better at engaging with their surrounding industries and communities, and some regions have industries and communities that are more ready to translate the knowledge universities produce into economic development.  

The reality is that regional economies are complex, and their outcomes are influenced by countless interactions between markets and institutions—including but not limited to large research universities. Many inputs matter to regional economic development (e.g., business growth, job creation, skilled workers, well-planned built environments), but each is determined by separate regional systems that too often remain unintegrated. In other words, economic development is a “multi-system” process, but regions struggle with effective multi-system governance.   

A new wave of federal place-based economic policies led by the Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration (EDA) and the National Science Foundation is seeking to change this dynamic through larger-scale, longer-term competitive challenge grants that bring together networks of institutions, including research universities, around a targeted economic opportunity. And in addition to their sizable resources, these challenge grants are designed to catalyze multi-system strategies by requiring a lead regional entity to coordinate organizations across those systems.   

While many types of regional institutions could serve this function, research universities are increasingly embracing this role because they understand that regional economic impact requires blending university-based research and talent, industry partnerships, and coordinated governance. Drawing on one of those programs—the EDA’s $1 billion Build Back Better Regional Challenge —this post explores some of the most promising multi-system economic strategies that research universities are leading.   

Research universities’ regional economic impact depends on their relevance to surrounding industries and communities  

There is a wide body of literature documenting the positive economic impact of research universities. Regions that became home to a land grant university over a century ago have stronger economies today as a result. Increasing state funding to research universities leads to higher levels of local patenting and entrepreneurship. And for each new university patent, researchers estimate 15 additional jobs are created outside the university in the local economy. Indeed, as Daniel P. Gross and Bhaven N. Sampat write , major national research and development efforts (such as those during World War II) tend to shape the geography of American innovation via research universities.   

In a nation plagued by regional economic divides, research universities are a uniquely distributed innovation asset. Unlike innovation sector employment , high-growth startups , and venture capital , research universities are spread across the entire nation. Over 200 research universities located in all 50 states expend more than $50 million annually on research and development.   

Yet, there are limits to universities’ impact. In a comprehensive review of the literature, economists E. Jason Baron, Shawn Kantor, and Alexander Whalley offer three takeaways: “First, universities’ ability to affect their local economies solely through the supply of college graduates is limited. Second, the main channel by which universities can affect their local economies is through highly localized knowledge spillovers. Third, the literature provides little evidence that establishing a new university in the 21st century is sufficient to revitalize a lagging community and transform its economy. To help revive struggling regions, using existing nearby universities could be a far more cost-effective policy tool.”   

In other words, knowledge spillovers to surrounding firms and industries are strongest when university-generated knowledge is highly complementary to industry needs.  

Federal place-based industrial policies are linking research universities with local industry clusters and surrounding communities  

Against this backdrop, new federal programs are pushing research universities to deploy their talent and knowledge in ways that strengthen the industry clusters that surround them. Finding that knowledge-industry nexus was a central strategic exercise for the 60 finalists in the EDA’s $1 billion Build Back Better Regional Challenge (BBBRC) , which asked applicants to craft five-year strategies that invest in advanced industry clusters in ways that benefit historically excluded communities.   

Research universities played a fundamental role in the competition. [1]  Among the 60 finalist coalitions, research universities served as the quarterback organization in 12, and participated in a supporting role in another 29. Over one-third of the EDA’s investments were awarded to research universities (although many universities are passing those resources on to partners).   

How did research universities propose to use that money? In our recent report analyzing the BBBRC, we categorized cluster projects into five categories: talent development; research and commercialization; infrastructure and placemaking; entrepreneurship and capital access; and governance. While research universities are, unsurprisingly, most heavily concentrated in research (41% of overall funding) and talent development (26%), they also proposed a significant number of projects related to tailored infrastructure and innovation facilities, entrepreneurship accelerators and incubators, and regional governance.   

The BBBRC exemplifies how research universities can anchor multi-system economic strategies  

Catalyzing and growing clusters requires investing in talent, research and development, entrepreneurship, and infrastructure. But regions often struggle to marshal the fiscal, political, and institutional capacity needed to overcome fragmentation in innovation, entrepreneurship, research, workforce, and industry leadership systems and act at a multi-system scale.   

Operating at a multi-system scale requires a quarterback organization to coordinate goals, strategies, and investments across those systems. Many types of entities can play this role, but research universities are natural candidates due to their relatively large scale and critical role in fueling innovation ecosystems.  

University utilization of BBBRC dollars signifies the potential for research universities to be a fulcrum for multi-system strategies. Indeed, one-third of the research universities in the BBBRC finalist coalitions proposed multi-system strategies, meaning they proposed to lead investments in at least three of the five project categories listed above.  

For example, through the New Energy New York (NENY) coalition , Binghamton University is seeking to reorganize the Southern Tier area of upstate New York into a hub for battery manufacturing and energy storage. The university’s multi-system approach will advance the cluster’s talent pool, supply chain, and supportive physical infrastructure. And through the NENY Workforce Development Initiative, the university will partner with other coalition members in higher education to expand existing workforce development programs and develop new training curricula. This partnership will implicate many of the region’s community colleges (including State University of New York [SUNY] Corning and SUNY Broome) and other research universities (including the Rochester Institute of Technology) in reducing the cluster’s barriers to entry and cultivating a diverse pool of well-trained employees to move into its high-wage jobs.  

Binghamton University will supplement these workforce development efforts through their NENY Supply Chain Program, where they will partner with the Alliance for Manufacturing and Technology (AMT), NY-BEST, Empire State Development, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), and other coalition members and industry partners to expand and improve the cluster’s supply chain. The expansion of this supply chain will enhance the region’s demand for skilled talent in the battery sector and create high-wage jobs for participants in the Workforce Development Initiative. These initiatives will support Battery-NY, the NENY coalition’s hub of infrastructure and industry experts working to advance energy storage technology, support cluster manufacturers, and attract businesses to the region.  

Georgia Tech has also proposed operating across multiple systems to bolster advanced manufacturing across the state through the Georgia AI Manufacturing (GA-AIM) coalition. To prepare the state’s future workforce, Georgia Tech will partner with Spelman College and the Technical College System of Georgia on degree and non-degree training options in artificial intelligence. As a complement, the Georgia Tech Enterprise Innovation Institute’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership (GaMEP) will promote the adoption of AI technology among small and medium-sized enterprises in rural communities across the state, creating demand for those newly trained workers. On governance, the Enterprise Innovation Institute’s Connect to Hire program will seek to connect historically excluded communities to these talent development and innovation initiatives. Finally, Georgia Tech is investing in new physical centers to enable commercialization and startup growth.  

Further west, the University of Nebraska is a major implementation partner to Invest Nebraska in the  Heartland Robotics Cluster ’s efforts to accelerate the state’s agricultural technology sector. The Nebraska Manufacturing Extension Partnership (NM-EP) at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources will identify small, medium-sized, and startup manufacturers in rural and urban communities across the state and create a supply chain database connecting them to high-quality suppliers. In addition, the NM-EP will help these manufacturers integrate new robotics technologies into their existing production systems. And as part of the Heartland Robotics Cluster’s commitment to workforce development, the NM-EP’s technology adoption program will provide credentialing and certification to participating manufacturers for cooperative robotic technologies.  

In future work, we will profile the implementation of comprehensive university approaches to learn more about how these strategies play out. But these three examples suggest that several elements are necessary to work at a multi-system scale. First, universities must have existing innovation assets that industries value; in each example above, universities are working from existing strengths, not trying to build from scratch. Second, those universities need to have the staff, systems, and staying power to work with other organizations in the region, from government agencies to economic development organizations to community colleges, workforce boards, and community-based organizations. Often, this requires an entrepreneurial leader that can create and sustain strong working and personal relationships with other community leaders. And third, there typically needs to be an external funding source, such as a federal or state program, to rally regional actors around a more ambitious strategy. In this case, the BBBRC provided exactly that type of “jump-ball” funding effect.  

While multi-system approaches will not be feasible in every region, the BBBRC illustrates that when the conditions are ripe, universities, industry, and communities can pursue a more systemic approach to regional economic development.   

This report was prepared by Brookings Metro using federal funds under award ED22HDQ3070081 from the Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Economic Development Administration or the U.S. Department of Commerce.  

1.“Research universities” include universities that award a minimum of 20 research-based doctoral degrees and spend at least $5 million on research per academic year. Universities are categorized according to the 2021 Carnegie Classifications of Higher Education Institutions based on data collected in the National Science Foundation’s Higher Education Research and Development Survey.

Economic Development

Brookings Metro

Promoting equitable and effective climate action in every community

Kirsten Kaschock, Ayana Allen-Handy, Barbara Dale, Lauren Lowe, Carol Richardson McCullough, Rachel Wenrick

April 25, 2023

Mark Muro, Robert Maxim, Yang You

October 20, 2022

Andre M. Perry, Anthony Barr, Carl Romer

December 3, 2021

This New Year, our focus is clearer. Wiley Education Services is now Wiley University Services. Explore our flexible, career-connected services.

Higher Education Case Studies

Want to know how we’ve collaborated with universities to support their learners? Look no further.

From enhancing course quality to building operational efficiency in areas such as enrollment and retention, our higher education case studies detail a few ways we’ve tailored services for our university partners and improved outcomes for their learners.

Case Studies

The Power of Flexible Partnership: Case Studies of a Diverse Group of Institutions

Putting community first: growing nursing program enrollments at Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University

University of Birmingham: Increasing enrollments through simplified processes and teamwork

Gaining a Global Presence Through Technological Innovation and Expert Strategy

Enabling Students to Succeed through One-on-One Care and Field Placement Support

Elevating Course Quality After a Fast Pivot to Online Learning

Fee-For-Service Projects Give You the Right Support — Right Now

Just What You Need: Accelerated Project Delivers for Faculty Development Program

At Northern Illinois University, Shaping A Partnership To Fit

Growing Online Enrollments Through a Data-Driven Approach

Improving the Online Learning Experience: The Benefits of Enhanced Student Evaluations

Creating a Meaningful Online Learning Experience for Students Amid Campus Closures

Overcoming Declining Enrollments: How a Unified Partnership Facilitated University Growth

Let's Talk.

Complete the form below, and we’ll be in contact soon to discuss how we can help.

If you have a question about textbooks, please email [email protected].

• First Name *
• Last Name *
• Organization *
• Country * Afghanistan Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Colombia Comoros Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Costa Rica Côte d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Polynesia Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Greenland Grenada Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati North Korea South Korea Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Micronesia Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestine, State of Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Romania Russia Rwanda Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Saint Martin Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Sudan, South Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Vatican City Venezuela Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe
• I'm interested in * Wiley University Services Wiley Beyond Advancement Courses Wiley Edge Other
• What would you like to learn more about—partnership models, technology services, media request assistance, etc.? *

By submitting your information, you agree to the processing of your personal data as per Wiley's privacy policy and consent to be contacted by email.

• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Higher Education Case Studies: ACUE Partnerships Impact Institutions Nationwide

A robust and growing body of impact studies speaks to the transformative effects of acue certification on faculty, students, and institutions. .

Higher Student Retention and Stronger, More Equitable Outcomes Through Quality Teaching

Elevate Your Mission

From the rural community college to the urban liberal arts university, every institution has a unique story. ACUE partnership is a shared guarantee that—no matter what attributes define your mission—it will be elevated by excellent teaching.

Privacy Policy

Terms and Conditions

Statement of Accessibility

Building operational excellence in higher education

When colleges and universities think about building academic enterprises for the 21st century, they often overlook one of the most critical aspects: the back-office structures needed to run complex organizations. By failing to modernize and streamline administrative functions (including HR, finance, and facilities), universities put themselves at a serious disadvantage, making it harder to fulfill their academic missions.

Take faculty recruitment and retention. The perceived level of the administrative burden is often a major factor in the attractiveness of an academic job offer. In 2018, the administrative burden on productive research faculty was measured at 44 percent of their workload (up from 42 percent in 2012). 1 Sandra Schneider, “Results of the 2018 FDP faculty workload survey: Input for optimizing time on active research,” Federal Demonstration Partnership, January 2019, thefdp.org. For faculty members, the prospect of moving to an institution where they would have a lighter administrative load is a huge selling point, since “institutional procedures and red tape” ranks as one of the top five sources of stress. 2 Ellen Bara Stolzenberg et al., “Undergraduate teaching faculty: The HERI faculty survey 2016-2017,” Higher Education Research Institute, February 2019, heri.ucla.edu. Something similar happens with students: studies show that the need to jump through administrative hoops is an important driver of “summer melt,” when students admitted to a school fail to matriculate for the upcoming year. 3 Emily Arnim, “Why summer melt happens—and how to freeze it,” EAB, April 30, 2019, eab.com.

Outdated and ineffective administrative operations can have more direct effects on an institution’s reputation. Financial fraud, ineffective or unfair personnel practices, and grants lost as a result of poor research administration can all lead to negative press reports—or worse. The 115-year-old College of New Rochelle, in New Rochelle, NY, recently closed its doors after fraud decimated its finances and reputation, making any chance of recovery impossible. 4 Dave Zucker, “As College of New Rochelle closes, Mercy steps in to take on displaced students,” Westchester Magazine , March 5, 2019, westchestermagazine.com.

A vast challenge

In our experience, most colleges and universities that set out to improve their administrative operations fail to meet their stated goals and in some cases take a step backward. There are several reasons, many relating to the unique constraints of academic institutions:

• Starting from the top down. Universities are essentially confederations of departments and functions, each with its own internal organization and power structure. Rather than gathering input and alignment from these constituencies, many new administrative plans are run centrally and fail to gain traction.
• Putting the answer before the problem. Another common pitfall is starting with a solution and looking for ways to solve a problem for that answer rather than doing the work needed to gain a deep understanding of the problem on the ground and building a solution collaboratively with stakeholders.
• Focusing on dollars rather than sense. Other change programs flounder because they focus primarily on cost savings rather than on improving service levels or the experience of the administrative staff.

A failed program is more than just a loss of time and money. By raising the expectations of faculty and staff and then failing to follow through on them, such failures stoke resentment and make it harder for future programs to gain traction.

While improving administrative operations remains a vast challenge for many universities, a few are taking a new approach—and posting meaningful results. In some cases, institutions that transformed their back offices have managed to halve the time needed to hire new staff or have reduced wasteful procurement transactions by more than 50 percent.

A new approach for a university in gridlock: A case study

A major public research university knew it had reached the breaking point. Its outdated administrative operations were holding it back on several fronts. Slow response times, red tape, and time-consuming administrative tasks had generated resentment and frustration among faculty. Some had already left for other universities, citing a lack of support for research administration, an inability to hire critical lab staff in less than six months, and difficulty keeping labs stocked with supplies.

Part of the problem was that no one seemed to be accountable. The schools and other units blamed the central administration. Central staff, meanwhile, thought the schools and units weren’t doing their part. In this stalemate, nothing got fixed.

Things only got worse when university leaders decided to create a shared-services effort intended to deliver multimillion-dollar savings. When frustrated deans and faculty heard about the effort, they made it clear that any plan conceived without their input would not have their support. With no resolution in sight, and core functions such as hiring and procurement in jeopardy, university leaders realized they needed to find a new approach.

Would you like to learn more about our Social Sector Practice ?

Rethinking administrative operations from the ground up.

The leadership realized that instead of once again creating a solution they would then impose on a diverse system, they had to understand the problems from the point of view of the various stakeholders and then design targeted fixes. With that fundamentally different perspective, the change team created a carefully thought out road map and began the hard work of redesigning systems and processes:

• The first step was a listening tour to hear directly from faculty and staff on the problems they encountered. What were their pain points? Where exactly were the bottlenecks? The team got unvarnished feedback. From the director of a research center: “We had to hire temporary employees just to complete our normal tasks because the hiring time is so slow.” From a dean: “The university felt like it was in gridlock.”
• Next, the change team convened a group of design teams, made up of members from both the schools and the central staff, to break down the problems, reimagine the processes from a blank sheet of paper, and implement changes.
• The team started the redesign process with two specific initial goals: reducing the time needed to hire administrative staff from an average of more than 80 days to 45 days and reducing the number of procurement vouchers—tens of thousands of them—that wasted thousands of hours of staff time and failed to capture the right data.
• As the team worked through each service, it followed a fast, structured process, designing new solutions in about two months, piloting them for two to three months, and then rolling them out to the campus in waves of schools and units over the following six months.

The results were unequivocal: time to hire fell by 46 percent for nonfaculty positions, and improper procurement (measured by the volume of unnecessary vouchers) fell by 57 percent (Exhibit 1).

So far, the improvement in hiring time has had significant downstream effects. For example, 96 percent of hiring managers report acceptances by their first-choice candidates. In the past, many first choices had dropped out of the process to pursue other opportunities as their names sat in the queue during the months-long hiring process. Just as important, the change team created a community of faculty, staff, and academic leaders who fully embraced the new ways of working. Over the course of the redesign effort, the process involved more than 400 staff and faculty, held more than 50 listening sessions, convened more than 30 design workshops, and generated a list of dozens of initiatives to pursue in the future (Exhibit 2).

The team is currently pursuing transformational initiatives in research administration, travel, student-worker support, and academic personnel. Its ambitions are equally transformative. For example, its goal in research administration is to cut the time to set up awards in half. This collaborative, bottom-up process led many staff members to tell the leadership that “this feels different” from previous change efforts.

Understanding the elements of success

A few key elements helped make a big difference.

Involve faculty and staff as true collaborators. Don’t drive the change from the central administration down to schools and units. Instead, raise the quality and adoption rate of operational solutions by converting faculty and staff from sideline observers into true collaborators. Start with listening to end users, understanding the obstacles they face, and jointly identifying where and how the current system fails them. In that way, a university can bypass the tendency to consider overarching organizational solutions and focus on solving the actual problems at hand.

Have central administrators work side by side with employees of schools or units. For creating solutions, a partnership between the central administration and the faculty and staff of schools or units is even more critical. It is essential to develop solutions by having representatives from schools and units work together with central staff. Besides gaining a deeper understanding of the problems by including these stakeholders, leaders can begin to convert possible naysayers among faculty and staff into allies.

Focus on the university’s mission. While efficiencies and cost savings are important, they are notoriously hard to capture and reinvest. In addition, any sense that the real goal is to cut costs is unlikely to build internal allies among faculty and staff who already feel undersupported. Instead, leaders should communicate a message of improved service levels that can help further the university’s academic and community-impact missions.

Transformation 101: How universities can overcome financial headwinds to focus on their mission

Show an impact early. There’s a saying that nothing succeeds like success. By starting with one or two services that can be improved quickly and showing an impact within six months, leaders can build belief in the effort. Winning over skeptical constituents will make the rest of it move forward more easily.

Invest in a continuous-improvement team. Staff volunteers committing many hours a week on top of their day jobs can’t sustain changes and expand into other areas of the university entirely by themselves. Creating a small team dedicated to executing transformation initiatives across administrative functions can help accelerate and sustain the momentum for change across the university. A high-functioning team will have a catalog of services (such as training, facilitation, and full-on process redesign) that helps it tailor its support to the specific details of a given problem.

Focus on a transformational rather than incremental impact. Redesigning administrative operations across a university is a big effort. Leaders should take full advantage of the opportunity by thinking about a total transformation, not incremental change. Typical efforts aim for a 20 percent improvement. When leaders set their sights on improvements of more than 50 percent, they can free themselves from the status quo. That magnitude of change will force the change team to start with a truly blank slate and to reimagine a dramatically improved future one.

Taking an important step in transforming a university

A final insight: the work this university did enabled leaders of the administrative functions to shift their sights beyond fighting fires to the truly strategic parts of their work. The progress on hiring, for example, helped surface the challenges the university faces in attracting and retaining talent—particularly underrepresented minority faculty. Furthermore, conversations about improving the performance of the administrative functions highlighted the aspirations of leaders and staff to use machine learning, automation, and other advanced techniques in their work.

Although administrative operations are often overlooked, efficient and effective ones can lead to much broader changes. When universities can hire the high-potential candidates they seek, eliminate wasted time of faculty and staff, and unlock the power of data, they can catapult ahead in their ability to meet their educational and research missions.

Stay current on your favorite topics

Suhrid Gajendragadkar is a senior partner in McKinsey’s Washington, DC, office, where Ted Rounsaville is an associate partner and Jason Wright is a partner; Duwain Pinder is a consultant in the New Jersey office.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Universities and the conglomerate challenge

How higher-education institutions can transform themselves using advanced analytics

New IHEP Case Studies of Minority-Serving Institutions Offer Actionable Strategies for Increasing Value in Postsecondary Education

Washington, DC (March 28, 2024) –   Institutional policies and practices shape which students have access to college, who persists and completes, who borrows, and who experiences economic and social mobility. In two new case studies, IHEP spotlights how two Minority-Serving Institutions – University of North Texas and LaGuardia Community College – employ innovative strategies that help more students receive measurable returns on their investment in higher education.  

Using the Equitable Value Explorer , an interactive data dashboard that allows users to analyze and compare student outcomes, IHEP found that the typical student at both UNT and LaGuardia meet s the minimum economic return – meaning they earn at least as much as a high school graduate in their state plus enough to recoup their investment within ten years. Students who leave these campuses also tend to have post-college earnings that exceed the median earnings for their degree level in their state. UNT’s median earnings also exceed an economic mobility threshold. The typical UNT student earnings exceed the 60th percentile of earnings for prime-age workers in Texas. Institutions of all types can look to the Equitable Value Explorer to assess the economic value they provide to students.

The new case studies are informed by interviews with administrators, faculty, staff, and students at both institutions, and share lessons other institutions can apply to strengthen student-centered and data-informed approaches to promoting student success. The research offers recommendations including fostering a student-centered approach, utilizing data to drive informed decision-making, and proactively identifying and removing barriers that hinder student success.   

Believing in the Potential of Every Student: A Case Study on LaGuardia Community College  

LaGuardia Community College, a public two-year institution located in Long Island City, New York, exemplifies a commitment to student-centered learning.   “If we really believe in the potential of each individual student, no matter where they come from and where they want to go, what they want to get out of their LaGuardia experience—we have to be committed to helping them realize their full potential,” said President Kenneth Adams.   

LaGuardia’s success hinges on several key strategies:  

• Prioritize a student-centered culture: Building and maintaining a student-centered culture requires leaders who explicitly commit to and embody this mindset in every facet of their work. Where an institution invests its money, time, and energy shapes students’ experiences. Leaders at LaGuardia encourage collaboration between administrators, faculty, and staff to explore the impact of policies and practices through a student lens.  
• Leverage data to drive change and innovation: LaGuardia utilizes data analytics to identify areas for improvement and implement targeted interventions. As one example, data on enrollment trends helped pinpoint students in nondegree programs who were potential candidates for degree programs and provided the students with additional support.  
• Proactively identify barriers and take opportunities to smooth student pathways: At LaGuardia, this includes establishing connections between nondegree and academic programs, developing articulation agreements with four-year institutions, and ensuring that students have targeted support before, during, and after transition points.  

Creating a Culture of Data Use: A Case Study on the University of North Texas  

The University of North Texas (UNT), a public four-year Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI), exemplifies how data-driven decision-making can improve outcomes for all students. Revamping its data infrastructure , led to several improvements and key lessons:  

• Use disaggregated data to inform outcome-driven decision-making: UNT created a centralized data system integrating information from various departments to allow for a more holistic view of student progress. Disaggregated data can reveal opportunities to make policy and practice changes that ensure all students succeed.  
• Consider everyone on campus a data user and design systems to meet their needs: UNT deliberately engages stakeholders across campus – faculty, staff, and administrators – to use data in their day-to-day work serving students. The university provides training and support to equip staff with data analysis skills.  
• Invest in culture as well as data tools and systems: Data tools are just that—tools individuals must use effectively to produce strong student outcomes. UNT’s Insights 2.0 project ensured stakeholders across campus had the training, capacity, and support to use data to make informed and student-centered decisions.  

“The data is just data; that’s not going to change your institution, just by having data. It’s having literacy around the data. It’s having people know how to understand what data means,” said Jason Simon, Associate Vice President for Data, Analytics, and Institutional Research. Taking inspiration from these campuses, leaders, faculty, and staff at institutions of all types and sizes can intentionally construct valuable learning experiences, increase graduation rates, and strengthen career pathways to ensure all students develop the knowledge, skills, and networks needed to be successful in work and life.   

To read more IHEP research featuring institutions moving the needle on postsecondary value, check out our case study of Northern Arizona University .   

Investing in Student Success: IHEP’s Federal Funding Priorities for FY25

Celebrating Success: 2024 federal funding bill keeps National Postsecondary Student Aid Study data collection intact

Global Case Studies. Digital Transformation in Higher Education.

HolonIQ’s Global Case Studies share the process of digital transformation with snapshots of how institutions are building digital capabilities along the student lifecycle.

Education Intelligence Unit

Global Case Studies provide brief snapshots of the different ways that institutions are tackling digital transformation challenges and building digital capabilities all along the student lifecycle. Each case study aligns with one or more digital capabilities identified in the four Dimensions of the Higher Education Digital Capability (HEDC) framework.

🇲🇽 tecnológico de monterrey.

Tecnológico de Monterrey is one of only 45 universities in the world ranked with 5 QS Stars, and is widely recognized as one of the most prestigious universities in Latin America.

During their undergraduate registration period, they would receive over 14,000 enquiries from students, requiring a team of 10 people to respond to and support these questions.

In this global case study, we showcase how a virtual chatbot with AI functionality was established to create a better experience for students during enrollment, and the outcomes enabling Tecnológico de Monterrey staff to focus on more complex enquiries.

Download the full Global Case Studies series .

🇺🇸 University of Rochester

The University of Rochester gives undergraduates exceptional opportunities for interdisciplinary study and close collaboration with faculty through its unique cluster-based curriculum.

In this global case study, we explore how the university addressed the challenge of expanding and scaling student access to jobs and internships across diverse industries and geographies. Through the development of a student-centric approach to democratize employment and internship opportunities across the university, a Platform partnership was established to ensure student access to employment and internship opportunities.

🇦🇺 University of Queensland

The University of Queensland consistently ranks among the world’s top universities, reflecting UQ’s global standing and the high quality of its researchers, teaching staff and alumni.

This global case study from The University of Queensland and UniQuest demonstrates how partnering with students as content creators and evaluators can personalize the learning experience in large undergraduate courses.

Explore more about how this project used adaptive learning as a supplementary tool to teaching, whilst also putting students front and centre in their learning journey.

🌍 Honoris United Universities

Honoris United Universities is the largest Pan-African network of private higher education institutions with operations across 10 countries and 32 cities in Africa.

The institutions which form part of the Honoris United Universities network encompass 40+ nationalities with diverse cultures and backgrounds. With employability a core focus in the region, learners have high aspirations for global career development.

Read about how the Honoris United Universities network challenge traditional approaches to internships, envisaging a ‘digital career center’ for Honoris institutions to better suit the needs and ambitions of today’s learners in a rapidly changing world of work.

🇲🇾 Wawasan Open University

Wawasan Open University (WOU) is a private university in Penang, Malaysia. In addition to its main campus in Penang, WOU operates 4 regional centres in Ipoh, Kuala Lumpur, Johor Bahru and Kuching for distance learners located in and around those cities.

In this global case study, read about how the combined strengths of faculty knowledge and partnerships enabled effective re-thinking in design and curation of digital learning content to support transformation of distance learning delivery in Computer Science.

🇮🇪 University College Dublin Professional Academy

University College Dublin ranks in the top 1% of higher education institutions worldwide. The UCD Professional Academy is an extension of the university, focused on professional development.

In order to build closer links with workforce and industry and grow new sources of revenue, new product strategies and business models had to be explored outside traditional boundaries. In this Case Study we share how the University responded to the needs of working professionals and employers, building a successful, profitable business in the alternative credential space and delivering high quality learning to the workforce.

HEDC Framework

Each case study aligns with one or more digital capabilities identified in the four Dimensions of the Higher Education Digital Capability framework ; Demand and Discovery (DD), Learning Design (LD), Learner Experience (LX), Work & Lifelong Learning (WL).

The Framework is a learner-focused, practical and flexible approach to mapping and measuring digital capability in higher education institutions. Get in touch to share a case study from your institution .

Latest Insights

Global Insights from HolonIQ’s Intelligence Unit. Powered by our Global Impact Intelligence Platform.

April 12, 2024

2024 North America EdTech 200

April 2, 2024

Applications open for the Indo-Pacific Climate Tech 100, connecting leading startups with 100 global investors

April 1, 2024

EdTech VC collapse at $580M for Q1. Not even an AI tailwind could hold up this 10 year low.

March 15, 2024

Webinar. Innovation & Growth in Higher Education in the Era of AI

March 7, 2024

The 2024 Global State of Women's Leadership

February 8, 2024

Australia & New Zealand Climate Tech 100

Sign Up for our Newsletters

We provide you with relevant and up-to-date insights on the global impact economy. Choose out of our newsletters and you will find trending topics in your inbox.

Weekly Newsletter

Climate Technology

Education Technology

Health technology.

Higher Education

Daily Newsletter

Chart of the Day

Impact Capital Markets

Advertisement

Implementing educational technology in Higher Education Institutions: A review of technologies, stakeholder perceptions, frameworks and metrics

• Open access
• Published: 13 May 2023
• Volume 28 , pages 16403–16429, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Ritesh Chugh   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0061-7206 1 ,
• Darren Turnbull   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0509-8564 1 ,
• Michael A. Cowling   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1444-1563 1 ,
• Robert Vanderburg   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0439-1806 2 &
• Michelle A. Vanderburg   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3769-0394 2  

5774 Accesses

7 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

In a world driven by constant change and innovation, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are undergoing a rapid transformation, often driven by external factors such as emerging technologies. One of the key drivers affecting the design and development of educational delivery mechanisms in HEIs is the fast pace of educational technology development which not only impacts an institution’s technical capacity to infuse hardware and software solutions into existing learning infrastructure but also has implications for pedagogical practice, stakeholder acceptance of new technology, and HEI administrative structures. However, little is known about the implementation of contemporary educational technology in HEI environments, particularly as they relate to competing stakeholder perceptions of technology effectiveness in course delivery and knowledge acquisition. This review fills that gap by exploring the evidence and analyses of 46 empirical research studies focussing on technology implementation issues in a diverse range of institutional contexts, subject areas, technologies, and stakeholder profiles. This study found that the dynamic interplay of educational technology characteristics, stakeholder perceptions on the effectiveness of technology integration decisions, theoretical frameworks and models relevant to technology integration in pedagogical practices, and metrics to gauge post-implementation success are critical dimensions to creating viable pathways to effective educational technology implementation. To that end, this study proposes a framework to guide the development of sound implementation strategies that incorporates five dimensions: technology, stakeholder perceptions, academic discipline, success metrics, and theoretical frameworks. This study will benefit HEI decision-makers responsible for re-engineering complex course delivery systems to accommodate the infusion of new technologies and pedagogies in ways that will maximise their utility to students and faculty.

Similar content being viewed by others

Impacts of digital technologies on education and factors influencing schools' digital capacity and transformation: A literature review

Adoption of online mathematics learning in Ugandan government universities during the COVID-19 pandemic: pre-service teachers’ behavioural intention and challenges

A Systematic Review of Research on Personalized Learning: Personalized by Whom, to What, How, and for What Purpose(s)?

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Educational technology implementations in higher education institutions are becoming increasingly popular as a way to improve learning and teaching. The Association for Educational Communications and Technology defines educational technology as “the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using and managing appropriate technological processes and resources” (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008 , p. 1). Simply put, educational technology (EdTech) is the use of technology in different educational settings to enhance learning and improve educational outcomes.

Globally, higher education institutions (HEIs) are using technology-based learning tools such as learning management systems or virtual learning environments (Turnbull et al., 2022 ), virtual and augmented reality (Jantjies et al., 2018 ), chatbots (Neumann et al., 2021 ), videoconferencing (Al-Samarraie, 2019 ), social media (Chugh & Ruhi, 2019 ) and mobile learning (Kaliisa & Picard, 2017 ). EdTech tools like these help instructors create engaging learning experiences for their students, leading to several short and long-term academic and social outcomes (Bond & Bedenlier, 2019 ). Additionally, EdTech can be used to facilitate communication between students and instructors, as well as to provide individualised feedback to students (Bower, 2019 ).

However, it is important to note that the implementation of EdTech in HEIs is not without its challenges (Cabaleiro-Cerviño & Vera, 2020 ; Laufer et al., 2021 ). Hence, it is crucial for HEIs to carefully evaluate the effectiveness and impact of these technologies before adopting them. Implementation research involves understanding the factors that influence implementation and a ‘scientific inquiry into questions concerning implementation’ (p. 1), such as those related to diverse stakeholders, the environment, and the strategies that can facilitate implementation (Peters et al., 2014 ). Furthermore, implementation research explores whether educational efforts are achieving the expected goals and objectives by asking questions that focus on ‘What are we doing? Is it working? For whom? Where? When? How? And, Why?’ (Century & Cassata, 2016 , p. 169). Often implementation outcomes focus on ‘acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, coverage, and sustainability’ (p. 2), which serve as indicators of the success or failure of the implementation efforts (Peters et al., 2013 ). Accordingly, our research questions were formulated with an emphasis on implementation outcomes.

Literature reviews over the past decade have explored the role of educational technology on stress and anxiety (Fernandez-Batanero et al., 2021 ), e-leadership (Arnold & Sangrà, 2018 ), acceptance (Granić & Marangunić, 2019 ), effectiveness (Delgado et al., 2015 ), and creativity (Henriksen et al., 2021 ), but none have specifically focused on ‘implementation of EdTech’ in ‘HEIs’ settings. To fill the gap, this study provides both a quantitative measure of attributes such as region, discipline, data collection method, technology, and methodology, as well as a further qualitative review of the body of literature about EdTech implementations in HEIs. Literature was collated using the PRISMA process, and qualitative data were thematically grouped using NVIVO. For the purposes of this study, we will not focus on any one specific technology but use EdTech as an overarching term that refers to the use of any EdTech.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. The following section outlines the research methodology adopted in this study. The results are presented in tabular and graphic format in the next section. This is followed by the qualitative analysis, which outlines the coding scheme developed from an iterative inductive analysis of the shortlisted articles. Then a brief discussion is presented, along with a framework to guide the future implementation of EdTech in HEIs. Finally, a summary is provided in the conclusion section, and the limitations are outlined.

2 Research methodology

Exploratory implementation research that focuses on exploring an idea, such as EdTech implementation in HEIs, can utilise historical literature reviews as its research method (Peters et al., 2013 ). Hence, we adopt a systematic-narrative hybrid literature review strategy that combines elements of both systematic and narrative literature reviews. Like systematic reviews, this hybrid approach employs a methodical and transparent search method, including identifying the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the selection of the literature, and then uses a qualitative narrative approach for the analysis focusing on the main findings and themes (Turnbull et al., 2023 ).

In line with implementation research and the identified gap, we structure our study around the following research questions to conduct an in-depth analysis of the literature:

RQ1. What are the common EdTechs implemented in HEIs?

RQ2. How do HEI stakeholders perceive the implementation of EdTech?

RQ3. What theoretical frameworks and models are relevant to EdTech implementations in HEIs and the metrics to gauge post-implementation success?

Based on the research questions and the scope of the review, the following inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table  1 ) were developed.

The identification, screening, and inclusion steps of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram (see results in Fig.  1 ) were followed, particularly to assist in recording the flow of information through the phases of the systematic review (Page et al., 2021 ). Four trusted scholarly research platforms (Education Source/Education Research Complete/Academic Search Ultimate (EBSCO), ProQuest, Social Sciences Citation Index (Web of Science), and Gale Academic) , which were freely accessible from the researchers’ institutional library, were selected for the relevant literature search. Furthermore, the databases incorporated in these research platforms include a wide range of journals relevant to educational technology. Keywords and phrases used to search the academic databases for the most relevant articles included: educational technology, ICT, higher education, implementation, learning, higher education institutions, university, college, success, failure, and education technology innovation. Boolean operators (And, Or, Not) were used to combine keywords in various combinations. Appropriate truncation and wildcarding were also utilised where possible, in addition to the lemmatisation and stemming capabilities available on some platforms.

The search of the scholarly databases was conducted in January 2023 by one author. The initial search of the selected research platforms revealed 234 articles. Of these, 81 were removed because they were duplicates, had no locatable PDF, contained no author information, or were in languages other than English. The remainder were then manually checked to ensure fitness to the topic and population. In doing so, the article’s title, keywords, abstract, and full text were considered. Then, to reduce the chances of bias and ensure quality, another author repeated the search to ensure the results were consistent. Both these researchers also assessed the relevance of the publications in light of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 46 papers were included in the final tally. Figure  1 displays further details of the selection and exclusion process.

PRISMA flow diagram depicting inclusion/exclusion processes for article selection.  Note : This figure is adapted from the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram template for systematic reviews (Page et al., 2021 , p. 5)

Papers shortlisted from the PRISMA process were analysed in two ways. First, quantitative data was tabulated and analysed based on a set of identified attributes from Pickering and Byrne ( 2013 ). Then further qualitative analysis was undertaken using NVIVO, identifying key themes across the sample paper set. The sections below provide more details on each set of results.

3.1 Quantitative overview

Table  2 displays the identified attributes of the shortlisted studies. The Discipline column identifies each paper's main discipline area of study, and the Technology column lists the type of technology highlighted in the study. “N” denotes studies that do not focus on a particular discipline or technology type. The Data Collection column lists the main type(s) of data collection strategies employed, while the Methodology column identifies the general research approach of each study.

The main methodology employed in the 46 papers was perception analysis, followed by experiments and case studies. Perception analysis, in the context of this research, involves the analysis of responses to survey data, experiments refer to research designs that attempt to measure and compare the impacts of changes to learning conditions as a result of technology introduction, and the case study label applies to papers that examine particular self-contained phenomena within a case study framework. Figure  2 displays the distribution of methodologies by region of research.

Distribution of methodologies by region

In terms of papers that had a particular technology focus, LMS studies ( N  = 5) were the most prevalent, followed by AL, AR_AI and Web ( N  = 3 each). Figure  3 shows the distribution of papers with a particular technology focus with respect to the main discipline areas examined by researchers.

Distribution of technologies by discipline focus.  Note on other abbreviations : AL = Adaptive learning, AR_AI = Augmented Reality/Artificial Intelligence, LMS = Learning Management System, QR = Quick Response, SM = Social Media. The educational discipline classification ‘N’ indicates that the study did not have a particular discipline focus

3.2 Qualitative analysis

The PDFs of each study were imported into NVIVO, a qualitative analysis software, for further examination and analysis. Significant issues and phenomena were progressively coded using an iterative, inductive process to identify recurring themes in the data. Figure  4 depicts the final coding scheme developed from an analysis of the contents of the 46 papers in this study. There are four main coding categories: educational technologies implemented, implementation perceptions, implementation models and frameworks, and metrics used to gauge implementation success. Each category comprises one or more codes that identify more specific phenomena or issues which may overlap with other codes identified in this study. The rest of this section is devoted to analysing and discussing the significance of findings inherent in each code.

Final coding scheme

3.2.1 Educational technologies

This section outlines five technology types identified in our research: LMS and related technologies, interactive technologies, visualisation and mobile technologies, web-based tools, and social media (SM). The studies were classified under each category on the basis of the main technology explored in each paper. The visualisation and mobile technologies categories were combined in the discussion because several studies focused on visualisation techniques that utilised portable mobile devices.

LMS and related technologies

One of the most prevalent technologies included in the examined papers was LMS, with nine papers featuring substantial comments on the implementation and use of this technology. In one paper, the study focused on the use of the LMS, Sakai, with student engagement in online resources and found a positive correlation between online access to resources and academic achievement (Crampton et al., 2012 ). Another dimension of LMS use identified in our review was stress and anxiety experienced by students in LMS environments. Test anxiety in LMS-moderated instances was explored in the study of language learning and the impact of the effectiveness of the Edmodo LMS as an assessment tool (EkmekÇİ, 2016 ). The findings revealed that students reported reduced test anxiety when delivered by this platform. This has implications for academic achievement, which generally improves by alleviating the adverse effects of stress and anxiety in learning situations (Jamieson et al., 2022 ).

We also identified studies that explored user perceptions of LMS efficacy which is important to the development of an understanding of the issues and challenges users face which must be resolved to successfully integrate this technology in HEI course delivery environments (Adnan et al., 2022 ) (more general stakeholder perceptions of EdTech implementation issues are discussed in the section , Stakeholder Perceptions). One such study (Garone et al. ( 2019 ) utilised a person-centric approach to investigating faculty acceptance of a new LMS, revealing three user categories: early adopters, early majority, and late majority. Each user category exhibited distinct characteristics, which helped to identify strategies to overcome LMS integration hurdles. A related study with an LMS user-perception focus looked exclusively at the effectiveness of the proprietary LMS, Blackboard, from a faculty and student perspective as a vehicle to enhance student learning (Jaiswal, 2020 2020 ) and found a high degree of satisfaction with the technology.

Teaching methods and approaches in LMS environments were also critiqued by Tsai ( 2015 ), who warned that traditional teaching methods might lead to unsatisfactory results when applied to online delivery modalities. Somewhat related to LMS in terms of their online presence are massive open online courses (MOOCs). MOOCs are online distance courses designed to be accessible to anyone with an internet connection, regardless of their geographic location and are typically open to unlimited participants (Rugube et al., 2022 ). Larionova et al. ( 2018 ) looked more generally at student perceptions of MOOCs as effective learning environments. They found that blended delivery and wholly online approaches that use real-time tutors did not detract from learning effectiveness compared to traditional class-based approaches. However, a study by Mellati and Khademi ( 2018 ) on the use of MOOC in language learning revealed that ubiquitous internet access and learners' emotional disposition impact overall MOOC effectiveness.

The final LMS-related technology identified in our study was educational management information systems (EMIS) which focus on providing HEI managers and executives with data and information to support decision-making (UNESCO, 2008 ). These were explored by Bravo et al. ( 2022 ) as a means to regulate quality in HEIs via stakeholder perceptions of the efficacy of these systems. We further discuss the findings of this study in the context of EdTech evaluation metrics in Section 3.4 .

Interactive technologies

Interactive educational technologies in our coding scheme refer to systems that promote user engagement with automated educational tools. Three papers deal with issues surrounding the use of interactive tools that facilitated the sharing of information: a study that employed an audience response system called T1-Nspire that permits students to share their understanding of mathematical concepts via a shareable graphing tool (Pape & Prosser, 2018 ), an online feedback tool to enhance student capability to receive and reflect on peer and instructor feedback to assigned learning tasks (Roman et al., 2020 ), and an exploration into the use of synchronous technology using Adobe connect to enhance student learning outcomes (Wang et al., 2013 ). The unifying theme in all three studies is that technologies promoting information exchange between learners benefit individual learning outcomes.

Some studies also focused on more sophisticated interactive tools beyond simple automation processes. Two studies explored adaptive learning (AL) technologies that respond to individual stimuli and alter responses based on unique user input (Xie et al., 2019 ). Gregg et al. ( 2021 ) provided an overview of a six-year project examining the impact of AL on student performance, while Toktarova ( 2022 ) developed a model for an adaptive system for mathematics skills development within an eLearning environment. Augmented reality (AR) technology which supplements user views of the world by superimposing computer-generated visuals on observed reality (Carmigniani & Furht, 2011 ), was explored in a study of the application of AR-enriched notes to the delivery of educational content (Cabero-Almenara & Roig-Vila, 2019 ). The study found that enhancing learning materials with realistic AR content had a positive impact on student motivation. Finally, courseware generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) using Acrobatiq SmartStart courseware was the focus of a study exploring the effectiveness of AI-generated courseware on student learning and instructor preparation which found positive impacts on student engagement and learning outcomes from the use of such courseware along with the capacity to develop course materials tailored to niche curriculum (Schroeder et al., 2022 ).

Visualisation and mobile technologies

Visualisation, especially dynamic content such as animations and simulations, are valuable ways to enhance the delivery of science-based material (McElhaney et al., 2014 ). Murthy et al. ( 2015 ) explored the incorporation of such content into established curricula in the context of their study on professional development programs on effective integration of educational technology. The study found that participants strongly preferred incorporating visual content in future course delivery operations. A study on using Quick Response (QR) codes in conjunction with video learning materials to enhance student performance in engineering courses (Ahmed & Zaneldin, 2019 ) highlighted the importance of linking QR codes to professional educational videos available via easily accessible pathways. Mobile technologies were also mentioned as significant agents of change. A 2014 study provided some insight into mobile learning using technologies such as iPads in the context of teacher education (Burke & Foulger, 2014 ). The authors applied a case study approach to their analysis of four institutions that were early adopters of mobile technologies to identify the factors such as pedagogical practices that are appropriate for educational delivery using this modality. A later study in 2020 explored foreign language teachers' perceptions of the use of mobile devices for language learning. The researchers concluded that while interest in mobile learning was high, actual deployment in course delivery was relatively low (Cavus et al., 2020 ).

Web-based tools

Web-based tools in this study are programs deployed by browsers and deliver self-contained functionality without the need to download and install specialised software. Thambirajah et al. ( 2022 ) explored the use of web-based dictionaries such as Alphadictionary.com and Skybrary.aero to improve mastery of English technical terms by aircraft maintenance students. The study found that blended learning and group learning environments were preferred by students when using this technology to expand their technical vocabulary. Web-based tools can also be used to facilitate access to publications and policy documents. For example, the use of a specialised educational web tool to disseminate journal publications and policy documents for an academic anesthesiology department provided evidence of increased utilisation of important publications by departmental trainees (Gopwani et al., 2021 ). A study by (Webb et al., 2015 ) looked at the use of web-deployed thin clients to deliver summative assessments from a technical and logistical perspective. They concluded that available web-thin clients' security and management features were adequate to carry out summative assessments.

Social media

Social media (SM) applications are technologies intended to connect users in a community-oriented space but are increasingly adapted for educational use. As indicated by two papers in our study, whether SM is perceived as a value-adding technology to educational pursuits is not universal. A Palestinian study on the use of Facebook by students in an undergraduate educational technology course revealed strong acceptance of this delivery modality as an effective way to learn (Shraim, 2014 ). This is in contrast to a study of US-based agricultural students on the comparative effectiveness of Twitter in the context of established Content Management Systems (CMS) and other proprietary tools (Murphrey et al., 2012 ). The conclusion drawn by the authors indicated that SM is not regarded as an effective pedagogical tool by students. Integration of SM technology into course delivery systems may well depend on unique discipline requirements and environmental factors inherent in the HEI that is implementing it.

3.2.2 Stakeholder perceptions

There are many stakeholder interests to consider when evaluating the impact of new technology on educational delivery systems. The main stakeholder groups determining e-learning success include students, educators, institutions, content providers, accreditation bodies, and employers (Adnan et al., 2022 ). In the studies included in our review, educators and students featured most prominently as information sources on EdTech effectiveness, closely followed by management and executive personnel. In the following discussion, we have segmented and consolidated the viewpoints of studies analysing stakeholder perceptions of EdTech effectiveness in terms of general enablers, barriers, and challenges to effective implementation.

We found several evidence-based conclusions on HEI environmental conditions and activities that promote the effective implementation of educational technologies in discipline delivery in the examined literature. Much of this evidence was derived from analysing stakeholder views on EdTech efficacy. Indeed, prior to the implementation of new technologies and associated teaching practices, Jaiswal ( 2020 ) recommends soliciting the views of students and course educators on their potential usefulness and value. A study by Zhu and Engels ( 2013 ) on teacher and student perceptions of instructional innovation using EdTech in HEIs highlighted organisational factors such as goal orientation innovation, leadership, and collegial relationships as important predictors of stakeholder acceptance of instructional innovations involving new technologies. Institutional governance also features as an issue in the study of the cost-benefit of educational technology for pharmaceutical science faculty. The study found that greater institutional clarity of the goals and objectives of investing in EdTech helps maximise the value of these investments to course delivery systems (Harrison et al., 2019 ).

The availability of appropriate technical support and mobile device accessibility to LMS platforms are also significant facilitators of student acceptance of technology in flipped-classroom environments (Youhasan et al., 2021 ). The availability of mobile technologies is instrumental in promoting self-directed learning, one of the main objectives of flipped learning approaches (Hwang et al., 2015 ). Another factor promoting the acceptance of EdTech is appropriate teaching practices. Pedagogies aligned with using EdTech in course delivery were highlighted as the main driver of implementation success in a study of influencing factors to adopt technology-enhanced learning in Pakistani medical schools (Iqbal et al., 2018 ).

Appreciating millennials' learning preferences can also help identify opportunities to promote EdTech integration and use in course delivery practices. For example, implementing an online web tool to access a repository of Anesthesiology literature and policies was made possible by recognising millennial learners' predisposition towards tailored, online access to information (Gopwani et al., 2021 ). Finally, students themselves can serve as a useful vehicle to promote engagement with EdTech. For example, Hilburn and Maguth ( 2012 ) found that when social studies trainee teachers observed their classmates successfully utilising technology in learning situations, it promoted sharing technology adoption strategies.

A significant barrier to EdTech implementation is faculty and institution assessment of students' capacity to cope with the introduction of new technologies. The study on the relationship between academic performance and online access to learning resources for distance students (Crampton et al., 2012 ) found that faculty overestimation of the ability of students to adapt to new technologies was a significant impediment to developing students’ online search and retrieval skills. Student abilities to cope with new technology were also highlighted as a possible impediment in a study on technology implementation in community college math discipline (Pape & Prosser, 2018 ). Educators, too, play a role in determining the success or otherwise of technology implementation. Kuleshova et al. ( 2022 ) highlight the lack of experience in applying EdTech to teaching situations as a significant barrier to implementation success. Significant institutional barriers to successful EdTech implementation were highlighted in some studies. These included a lack of technology-oriented culture, support for faculty, and appropriate training (Iqbal et al., 2018 ); a lack of awareness among faculty of educational policies on the use of technology (Habib & Johannesen, 2014 ); institutional cultures lacking ethics, transparency and accountability that demotivate academics to embrace significant change (Sart, 2014 ); and institutional aversion to perceived risks of implementing new technologies (Kvon et al., 2018 ).

Other challenges

EdTech implementation from a forward-looking perspective requires HEI stakeholder input to develop plans and strategies to address important implementation challenges. These include technological, pedagogical, organisational, and global challenges, as Mirata et al. ( 2022 ) argued in their study of technology-based learning at Tanzania’s Open University. One of the recommendations of the Gregg et al. ( 2021 ) AL study is that institutional thinking needs to move away from a tight focus on individual technologies to broader approaches that focus on resolving complex issues. HEIs are complex learning environments with unique challenges that require holistic solutions underpinned by robust pedagogical practices fused into the delivery mechanisms of technology-empowered course delivery structures.

Technical challenges also have to be overcome before EdTech implementation can become viable. The study on enhancing EFL student readiness to teach with Edtech Apps in Indonesia (Lisa et al., 2021 ) highlighted student access to the internet and affordable software tools for students as significant challenges to overcome before implementing technology-rich learning environments. The acquisition of adequate EdTech resources to service demand is also a concern, as educators cannot effectively plan course delivery incorporating new technology if insufficient classrooms are equipped with the new technology (Marcelo & Yot-Domínguez, 2018 ). Logistical issues related to the physical transport of EdTech assets from a central location to distributed sites to conduct assessments were also mentioned as a challenge in adopting technology to complete assessments (Webb et al., 2015 ).

3.3 Theoretical frameworks and models

Theoretical frameworks and models play a crucial role in EdTech implementation as they assist in implementation efforts and provide a structured approach to understanding how technology can enhance teaching and learning. Furthermore, educators, instructional designers or other decision-makers can use a theoretical framework or model to ensure that their technology integration efforts are aligned with established principles and best practices, leading to more effective and sustainable implementation outcomes (Alqudah, 2014 ; Young, 2008 ).

Our review revealed several theoretical frameworks and models: some well established in the literature, and others customised to specific situations. Technology acceptance theories were embedded in the theoretical frameworks of several studies. The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) relates the behavioural intention to use and actual use of technology to four constructs: performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions (Venkatesh et al., 2016 ), and was built on the work of Davis ( 1989 ) who developed the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). UTAUT was explicitly embedded as a theoretical construct to determine university teaching staff’s technology acceptance profiles with respect to the acceptance or otherwise of a new institutional LMS (Garone et al., 2019 ), while Murphrey et al. ( 2012 ) developed a framework and survey instrument for their SM study based on the UTAUT model. In contrast, a study exploring social media use in the context of technology acceptance (Lemay et al., 2019 ) was founded on a research design underpinned by TAM rather than UTAUT.

Another theoretical framework embedded in some studies was the Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK), which is used to explore connections and interactions between content knowledge, technical knowledge, and pedagogical knowledge (Archambault & Barnett, 2010 ). Marcelo and Yot-Domínguez ( 2018 ) explicitly explored the question of technological and pedagogical knowledge integration from a teaching perspective based on the TPACK framework. Another Indonesian study developed and tested a TPACK-in Practice Model built on TPACK constructs for enhancing the preparedness of pre-service English teachers enrolled in university to apply technology to their teaching practices.

Three other studies presented unique and novel frameworks for the exploration of technology implementation issues for specific knowledge domains: the creation of a student-led committee as a framework to explore and make recommendations on effective EdTech implementation in medical education (Shenson et al., 2015 ); Toktarova ( 2022 )’s adaptive mathematics training model (previously mentioned in the “Interactive technologies” section) that holistically combines competencies, subject areas adaptive content, and training trajectories; and a realist evaluation framework based on a detailed process map to investigate the effectiveness of e-learning lecture capture technology to deliver course content to technology students (King et al., 2017 ). However, in contrast to more established frameworks such as UTAUT, TAM, and TPACK, the extent to which these three models can be generalised to technology implementation approaches in other knowledge domains is not evident.

3.4 Metrics

The success or otherwise of EdTech integration into course delivery systems is contingent on the availability of suitable metrics to quantify the results. Grade improvement was a significant vindicating metric in two papers. Jaiswal ( 2020 )’s exploration of the impact of integrating Blackboard LMS into student learning environments involved a measure of student pass/fail rates pre- and post-implementation. Another study on technology inclusion in an anatomy course also provided details of pass/fail rates as evidence of successful technology implementation (Toral Murillo et al., 2022 ). However, these measures should be treated with caution, as other influences besides the technology may have contributed to the improved results.

The dollar bottom line is often an ignored metric when academics attribute value to EdTech implementation. However, it is a core consideration of HEI administrators who have limited financial resources to fund academic programs (Luschei, 2014 ). A Canadian study that explored the value-for-money of EdTech implementation in a science department through a cost-benefit analysis with value-based approaches academics use to gauge success found a small positive net benefit expressed in dollar value (Harrison et al., 2019 ).

Risk was another metric featured in the study by Kvon et al. ( 2018 ) on LMS implementation (discussed in the “Barriers” section). The authors measured implementation risk via a survey instrument that contained an inventory of statements that students had to evaluate as High, Medium, Low, or No Risk. Quality is also a metric that is important to include as a measure of EdTech implementation success. While Bravo et al. ( 2022 ) focussed specifically on education managers’ perspectives on quality management (QM) and institutional EMISs, the authors conclude that a better understanding of manager and employee profiles will enhance EMIS effectiveness and strengthen institutional QM through customised training courses that address the characteristics of each group. As quality in educational delivery can be a difficult construct to measure objectively, the acceptance of EMIS as a tool to collect and synthesise data can only improve efforts to promulgate a culture of continuous improvement across HEIs.

4 Discussion

Looking at these results in aggregate, it is clear that the work of Cabaleiro-Cerviño and Vera ( 2020 ) and Laufer et al. ( 2021 ) is confirmed, and that this field can be quite wide-reaching and diverse, resulting in challenges in implementation. Further, the need to understand the factors that influence implementation and a ‘scientific inquiry into questions concerning implementation’ (p. 1), such as those related to diverse stakeholders, the environment, and the strategies that can facilitate implementation as identified by (Peters et al., 2014 ) is reflected across the methodologies used in the studies. However, it is also clear that the wide set of methodologies means clearer guidance is needed.

Similarly, as asserted by Peters et al. ( 2013 ), the low measure of studies with clear research questions and methodologies suggests that, indeed, outcomes do often focus on ‘acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, coverage, and sustainability’ (p. 2), serving as indicators of the success or failure of the implementation efforts (Peters et al., 2013 ), with a focus primarily on whether educational efforts are achieving the expected goals and objectives by asking questions that focus on ‘What are we doing? Is it working? For whom? Where? When? How? And, Why?’, as outlined by (Century & Cassata, 2016 , p. 169).

This means that answers to our research questions, whilst existing, are quite broad. For RQ1, “What are the common EdTechs implemented in HEIs?”, the answer would appear to be that there is a breadth of technology used, and that this changes over time, with a current focus on Augmented Reality, Artificial Intelligence and Adaptive Learning. However, a further dive into qualitative data indicates that this is a quickly changing measure, and it is perhaps difficult to understand what is common in EdTech.

Similarly, the answer for RQ2, “How do HEI stakeholders perceive the implementation of EdTech?”, is also fairly broad. Stakeholder feeling appears to be closely tied to the use of the technology rather than the underlying pedagogy, indicating that a holistic answer to this question is complicated.

It is perhaps only with RQ3, “What theoretical frameworks and models are relevant to EdTech implementations in HEIs and the metrics to gauge post-implementation success?” is the answer narrow enough to be truly useful. It is clear from the review that a few frameworks, such as UTAUT, TAM, and TPACK are quite widely regarded as suitable approaches to understanding EdTech. However, as identified, even in the use of these framings, it is often only measures that are taken, and not a holistic framing of the space that is useful for future practical implementation. This suggests that there is room for a more rigorous framework for EdTech implementation.

5 Implications for HEIs – A framework for EdTech implementation

As suggested in the previous section, our study's results revealed multiple considerations relevant to the complex process of deciding on an EdTech implementation strategy that will maximise utility to diverse institutional stakeholders. Therefore, we propose a model (Fig.  5 ) incorporating five dimensions that could be included in EdTech implementation decision-making: technology, stakeholder perceptions, academic discipline, success metrics, and theoretical foundations.

Framework for EdTech implementation in HEIs

The technology dimension encompasses the characteristics and functions of EdTech platforms that are under consideration for implementation. These include LMSs, interactive technologies, SM, visualisation technologies, mobile platforms and web-based tools, as outlined in this paper. Stakeholder perceptions of EdTech implementation are also critical inputs into decision-making, impacting implementation success from an HEI community acceptance standpoint. For example, students and faculty may be able to pinpoint enablers (e.g., the availability of appropriate technical support for new technology), barriers (e.g., the inability of students and faculty to adapt to new technologies without appropriate training), and challenges (e.g., acquiring affordable software options that enable students to maximise their use of new infrastructure). In many cases, the academic discipline may play a role in EdTech implementation decisions. Figure  3 displays papers in this study that align educational technologies with specific educational disciplines. For example, Jaiswal ( 2020 ) explored gaming technologies in the context of language learning. Success metrics in this model are quantitative indicators of implementation success. In this study, we have identified improved student results (e.g., assessment scores and pass rates), value-for-money, EdTech risk assessment, and quality outcomes as metrics worthy of incorporation into EdTech evaluation processes. Last, theoretical frameworks such as TPACK, TAM, and UTAUT can provide guidance in determining appropriate strategies to incorporate new technologies into existing course delivery structures. All five dimensions in this model need to be holistically considered when developing protocols to determine the choice of new technologies and how they will be implemented. In doing this, a more practical, repeatable and measurable focus on EdTech implementation can be taken by researchers in the space.

6 Conclusion

Implementing educational technology is a complex, multi-faceted decision-making process that requires input from many perspectives. In addition to the technical and pedagogical value of a technology of interest, HEIs must consider stakeholder acceptance, implementation challenges, theoretical foundations underpinning technology use, and evaluation metrics when choosing a pathway to infuse new technologies into existing course delivery frameworks.

In this study, we examined empirical research over a ten-year period that investigated EdTech implementation phenomena in a diverse range of disciplines, technologies, stakeholders, and contexts. Through the synthesis of stakeholder views on Edtech implementation, researcher observations, and educational outcome performance measures, this paper identifies common educational technologies, challenges to EdTech implementation, implementation frameworks, and evaluation metrics that underpin the effective deployment of EdTech assets in complex HEI environments. To that end, we propose a model for EdTech implementation decision-making that incorporates five key components (technology, stakeholder perceptions, academic discipline, success metrics, and theoretical frameworks) for developing EdTech selection protocols.

In dissecting the complexity inherent in making good choices when attempting to improve HEI course delivery systems, the proposed model and the findings underpinning it contribute to a better understanding of the key dimensions governing the successful implementation of educational technology in contemporary contexts. From a practical viewpoint, this comprehensive literature review can provide a roadmap to HEI decision-makers in making informed, evidence-based decisions in choosing and implementing EdTech tools that support their institution’s pedagogical approach and enhance the overall teaching and learning experience, ultimately improving student outcomes.

However, this study is not without its limitations. The empirical literature selection was constrained to English manuscripts from four carefully selected research platforms. Manuscripts from other sources were not captured, and studies in languages other than English were omitted. We also excluded studies not based on primary sources, such as surveys, interviews and observations. Including carefully selected research based on secondary data could yield other insights. Future research into EdTech implementation issues could address these limitations and expand the scope to include other educational contexts, such as schools and corporate training departments.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

Adnan, F., Agustiningsih, M. D., & Ariefianto, L. (2022). The analysis of readiness and acceptance of Learning Management System (LMS) Usage in Universities of East Java. 2022 9th International Conference on Electrical Engineering, Computer Science and Informatics (EECSI) , 198–203. https://doi.org/10.23919/EECSI56542.2022.9946579

Ahmed, W., & Zaneldin, E. (2019). Blending QR code with video learning in the pedagogical process for the college foundation level. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 17 (1), 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1108/itse-08-2019-0043

Article   Google Scholar  

Al-araibi, A. A. M., Mahrin, Yusoff, M. N., & Chuprat, S. B. (2019). A model for technological aspect of e-learning readiness in higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 24 (2), 1395–1431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9837-9

Al-Samarraie, H. (2019). A scoping review of videoconferencing systems in Higher Education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning , 20 (3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i4.4037

Alqudah, A. A. (2014). Models and frameworks for a successful Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) Implementation. American Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, 3 (4), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajsea.20140304.11

Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers & Education, 55 (4), 1656–1662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.009

Arnold, D., & Sangrà, A. (2018). Dawn or dusk of the 5th age of research in educational technology? A literature review on (e-)leadership for technology-enhanced learning in higher education (2013–2017). International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education , 15 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0104-3

Bond, M., & Bedenlier, S. (2019). Facilitating student engagement through educational technology: Towards a conceptual framework. Journal of Interactive Media in Education , 2019 (1). https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.528

Bower, M. (2019). Technology-mediated learning theory. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50 (3), 1035–1048. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12771

Bravo, L. G., Nistor, N., Ramirez, B. C., Soto, I. G., Contreras, M. V., Vives, M. N., & Robles, P. M. (2022). Higher education managers' perspectives on quality management and technology acceptance: A tale of elders, mediators, and working bees in times of Covid-19. Computers in Human Behavior , 131 , Article 107236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107236

Burke, D. M., & Foulger, T. S. (2014). Mobile learning in teacher education: Insight from four programs that embraced change. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 30 (4), 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2014.927208

Cabaleiro-Cerviño, G., & Vera, C. (2020). The impact of educational technologies in higher education [Article]. El Impacto de las Tecnologías Educativas en la Educación Superior , (20), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.26817/16925777.711

Cabero-Almenara, J., & Roig-Vila, R. (2019). The motivation of technological scenarios in Augmented Reality (AR): Results of different experiments. Applied Sciences, 9 (14), 2907. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9142907

Carmigniani, J., & Furht, B. (2011). Augmented reality: An overview. In B. Furht (Ed.), Handbook of Augmented Reality (pp. 3–46). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0064-6

Cavus, N., Shukshina, L. V., Chernova, O. E., Telezhko, I. V., Ishmuradova, A. M., & Zakharova, V. L. (2020). Perceptions of foreign language teachers for M-Learning [Article]. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 15 (23), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i23.18799

Century, J., & Cassata, A. (2016). Implementation research. Review of Research in Education, 40 (1), 169–215. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x16665332

Chowdhury, R. K. (2015). Learning and teaching style assessment for improving project-based learning of engineering students: a case of United Arab Emirates University [Case study]. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 20 (1), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.7158/D13-014.2015.20.1

Chugh, R., & Ruhi, U. (2019). Social media for tertiary education. In Encyclopedia of education and information technologies (pp. 1–6). Cham, Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60013-0_202-1

Crampton, A., Ragusa, A. T., & Cavanagh, H. (2012). Cross-discipline investigation of the relationship between academic performance and online resource access by distance education students [Article]. Research in Learning Technology, 20 (1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v20i0.14430

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly , 13 (3). https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Delgado, A. J., Wardlow, L., McKnight, K., & O’Malley, K. (2015). Educational technology: A review of the integration, resources, and effectiveness of technology in k-12 classrooms. Journal of Information Technology Education, 14 , 397–416. https://doi.org/10.28945/2298

EkmekÇİ, E. (2016). Integrating edmodo into foreign language classes as an assessment tool. Participatory Educational Research , 1–11. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.16.spi.1.1

Fernandez-Batanero, J. M., Roman-Gravan, P., Reyes-Rebollo, M. M., & Montenegro-Rueda, M. (2021). Impact of educational technology on teacher stress and anxiety: A literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 18 (2). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020548

Garone, A., Pynoo, B., Tondeur, J., Cocquyt, C., Vanslambrouck, S., Bruggeman, B., & Struyven, K. (2019). Clustering university teaching staff through UTAUT: Implications for the acceptance of a new learning management system. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50 (5), 2466–2483. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12867

Gopwani, S. R., Adams, E., Rooney, A., Tousimis, E., Ramsey, K., & Warusha, S. (2021). Impact of a workflow-integrated web tool on resource utilization and information-seeking behavior in an academic anesthesiology department: Longitudinal cohort survey study. JMIR Medical Education, 7 (3), e26325. https://doi.org/10.2196/26325

Granić, A., & Marangunić, N. (2019). Technology acceptance model in educational context: A systematic literature review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50 (5), 2572–2593. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12864

Gregg, A., Yu, J., Resig, J., Johnson, L., Park, E., & Stuczynski, P. (2021). Promising educational technology meets complex system: A 6-year case study of an adaptive learning project from initial exploration through the end of a pilot. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 5 (1), 62–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41686-021-00057-7

Habib, L., & Johannesen, M. (2014). Perspectives on academic staff involvement in the acquisition and implementation of educational technologies [Article]. Teaching in Higher Education, 19 (5), 484–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.880679

Harrison, M., Quisias, J., Frew, E. J., & Albon, S. P. (2019). A cost-benefit analysis of teaching and learning technology in a faculty of pharmaceutical sciences. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 83 (6), 1310–1319. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe6834

Henriksen, D., Creely, E., Henderson, M., & Mishra, P. (2021). Creativity and technology in teaching and learning: A literature review of the uneasy space of implementation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69 (4), 2091–2108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09912-z

Hilburn, J., & Maguth, B. (2012). Intercollegiate collaboration: Connecting social studies preservice teachers at two universities. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 12 (3), 308–327.

Google Scholar  

Hwang, G. J., Lai, C. L., & Wang, S. Y. (2015). Seamless flipped learning: A mobile technology-enhanced flipped classroom with effective learning strategies. Journal of Computers in Education, 2 (4), 449–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-015-0043-0

Iqbal, S., Ahmad, S., & Willis, I. (2018). Influencing factors for adopting technology enhanced learning in the medical schools of Punjab, Pakistan. In Online Course Management (pp. 1275–1288). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-5472-1.ch066

Jaiswal, P. (2020). Integrating educational technologies to augment learners' academic achievements [Article]. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 15 (2), 145–159. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i02.11809

Jamieson, J. P., Black, A. E., Pelaia, L. E., Gravelding, H., Gordils, J., & Reis, H. T. (2022). Reappraising stress arousal improves affective, neuroendocrine, and academic performance outcomes in community college classrooms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151 (1), 197–212. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000893

Jantjies, M., Moodley, T., & Maart, R. (2018). Experiential learning through Virtual and Augmented Reality in Higher Education. Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Education Technology Management, Barcelona, Spain. https://doi.org/10.1145/3300942.3300956

Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (2008). In A. Januszewski, & M. Molenda (Eds.), Educational technology: A definition with commentary . Routledge.

Kaliisa, R., & Picard, M. (2017). A systematic review on mobile learning in higher education: The African perspective. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 16 (1), 1–18.

King, M. R. N., Dawson, R. J., Rothberg, S. J., & Batmaz, F. (2017). Utilizing a realist evaluative research approach to investigate complex technology implementations. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 19 (1/2), 22–41. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsit-04-2017-0027

Kuleshova, V., Aksakova, N., Malazoniia, S., & Kovalenko, S. (2022). Professional training of future engineers-teachers: The societal needs of modern educational technologies introduction. Review of Education , 10 (1). https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3323

Kvon, G. M., Vaks, V. B., Masalimova, A. R., Kryukova, N. I., Rod, Y. S., Shagieva, R. V., & Khudzhatov, M. B. (2018). Risk in implementing new electronic management systems at universities. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 14 (3), 891–902. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/81060

Larionova, V., Brown, K., Bystrova, T., & Sinitsyn, E. (2018). Russian perspectives of online learning technologies in higher education: An empirical study of a MOOC. Research in Comparative and International Education, 13 (1), 70–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499918763420

Laufer, M., Leiser, A., Deacon, B., De Brichambaut, P., Fecher, P., Kobsda, B., C., & Hesse, F. (2021). Digital higher education: a divider or bridge builder? Leadership perspectives on edtech in a COVID-19 reality. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education , 18 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00287-6

Lemay, D. J., Doleck, T., & Bazelais, P. (2019). Context and technology use: Opportunities and challenges of the situated perspective in technology acceptance research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50 (5), 2450–2465. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12859

Lisa, A., Faridi, A., Bharati, D. A. L., & Saleh, M. (2021). A TPACK-in practice model for enhancing EFL students' readiness to teach with Ed-Tech Apps [Article]. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 15 (17), 156–176. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v15i17.23465

Luschei, T. F. (2014). Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Educational Technology. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 239–248). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_19

Marcelo, C., & Yot-Domínguez, C. (2018). From chalk to keyboard in higher education classrooms: changes and coherence when integrating technological knowledge into pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43 (7), 975–988. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877x.2018.1429584

Marynchenko, H., Nosovets, N., Bezruchenkov, Y., Oliinyk, Y., & Bykova, S. (2022). Distance education in the conditions of martial law in institutions of higher education: development and practice. Eduweb-Revista De Tecnologia De Informacion Y Comunicacion En Educacion, 16 (3), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.46502/issn.1856-7576/2022.16.03.6

McElhaney, K. W., Chang, H. Y., Chiu, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (2014). Evidence for effective uses of dynamic visualisations in science curriculum materials. Studies in Science Education, 51 (1), 49–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2014.984506

Mellati, M., & Khademi, M. (2018). MOOC-based educational program and interaction in distance education: Long life mode of teaching. Interactive Learning Environments, 28 (8), 1022–1035. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1553188

Mirata, V., Awinia, C., Godson, E., & Bergamin, P. (2022). The future of technology-based learning at the open University of Tanzania [Article]. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 17 (15), 28–42. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v17i15.33273

Murphrey, T. P., Rutherford, T. A., Doerfert, D. L., Edgar, L. D., & Edgar, D. W. (2012). Technology acceptance related to Second Life™, Social Networking, Twitter™, and Content Management Systems: Are agricultural students ready, willing, and able? [Article]. Journal of Agricultural Education, 53 (3), 56–70. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2012.03056

Murthy, S., Iyer, S., & Warriem, J. (2015). ET4ET: A large-scale faculty professional development program on effective integration of educational technology [Article]. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18 (3), 16–28.

Neumann, A. T., Arndt, T., Kobis, L., Meissner, R., Martin, A., de Lange, P., Pengel, N., Klamma, R., & Wollersheim, H. W. (2021). Chatbots as a tool to scale mentoring processes: Individually supporting self-study in Higher Education. Front Artif Intell, 4 , 668220. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2021.668220

Olesov, N. P., Gogolev, N. E., Barakhsanov, V. P., Tarasov, A. E., & Torgovkin, V. G. (2020). Training of physical education teachers in the context of digital education implementation [Article]. Formación de profesores de educación física en el contexto de la aplicación de la educación digital , 8 (3), 183–193. https://doi.org/10.20511/pyr2020.v8n3.482

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., 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. International Journal of Surgery, 88 , 105906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906

Pape, S. J., & Prosser, S. K. (2018). Barriers to technology implementation in community college mathematics classrooms. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30 (3), 620–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9195-z

Peters, D. H., Adam, T., Alonge, O., Agyepong, I. A., & Tran, N. (2013). Implementation research: what it is and how to do it. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 347 , f6753. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f6753

Peters, D. H., Adam, T., Alonge, O., Agyepong, I. A., & Tran, N. (2014). Republished research: Implementation research: what it is and how to do it. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 48 (8), 731–736. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f6753

Pickering, C., & Byrne, J. (2013). The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature reviews for PhD candidates and other early-career researchers. Higher Education Research & Development, 33 (3), 534–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.841651

Rembach, O., Liubych, O., Antonenko, M., Kovalenko, V., & Valieiev, R. (2019). University students' satisfaction: The impact of computer-mediated blended learning [Article]. Romanian Journal for Multidimensional Education / Revista Romaneasca pentru Educatie Multidimensionala, 11 , 221–241. https://doi.org/10.18662/rrem/186

Roman, T. A., Callison, M., Myers, R. D., & Berry, A. H. (2020). Facilitating authentic learning experiences in distance education: Embedding research-based practices into an online peer feedback tool. TechTrends, 64 (4), 591–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00496-2

Rugube, T. T., Chibaya, C., & Govender, D. W. (2022). A software design model for integrating LMS and MOOCs. Journal of Information Technology Research, 15 (1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.4018/jitr.299375

Sart, G. (2014). Role of the organisational culture on the development of innovation and technology-based projects at the higher education. Perceptions of the researchers. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology, 15 (3A), 1422–1433.

MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Schroeder, K. T., Hubertz, M., Van Campenhout, R., & Johnson, B. G. (2022). Teaching and learning with AI-generated courseware: Lessons from the classroom. Online Learning, 26 (3), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v26i3.3370

Shenson, J. A., Adams, R. C., Ahmed, S. T., & Spickard, A. (2015). Formation of a new entity to support effective use of technology in medical education: The student technology committee. JMIR Medical Education, 1 (2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.2196/mededu.4676

Shraim, K. (2014). Pedagogical innovation within Facebook: A case study in tertiary education in Palestine [Article]. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 9 (4), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v9i8.3805

Thambirajah, J. I., Krish, P., & Shaari, A. H. (2022). The acquisition of technical terms using the online learning approach among aircraft maintenance learners [Article]. 3L: Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies , 28 (2), 211–223. https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2022-2802-14

Toktarova, V. (2022). Model of adaptive system for mathematical training of students within eLearning environment. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 17 (20), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v17i20.32923

Toral Murillo, M. V., Lopez, M., Mudarra Vergara, M., d, C., & Montañez Ramos, J. (2022). Technology inclusion as an alternative strategy for the teaching of anatomy. Journal of Higher Education Theory & Practice, 22 (8), 176–181. https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v22i8.5337

Tsai, C. W. (2015). The effect of online co-regulated learning in the implementation of team-based learning on improving students' involvement. Higher Education Research & Development, 34 (6), 1270–1280. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1024631

Turnbull, D., Chugh, R., & Luck, J. (2022). An overview of the common elements of learning management system policies in higher education institutions. TechTrends, 66 , 855–867. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00752-7

Turnbull, D., Chugh, R., & Luck, J. (2023). Systematic-narrative hybrid literature review: A strategy for integrating a concise methodology into a manuscript. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 7 (1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2022.100381

UNESCO (2008). Education for all by 2015–Will we make it? EFA Global Monitoring Report . https://en.unesco.org/gem-report/report/2008/education-all-2015-will-we-make-it . Accessed 12 Feb 2023

Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2016). Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: A synthesis and the road ahead. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17 (5), 328–376. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00428

Wang, C., Jaeger, D., Liu, J., Guo, X., & Xie, N. (2013). Using synchronous technology to enrich student learning [Article]. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning , 57 (1), 20–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-012-0626-9

Webb, S., Malik, M., & Wilson, M. (2015). Can web thin clients be used to create flexible assessment spaces in a higher education setting? International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 9 (4), 69–73. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v9i4.4681

Xie, H., Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., & Wang, C. C. (2019). Trends and development in technology-enhanced adaptive/personalized learning: A systematic review of journal publications from 2007 to 2017. Computers & Education , 140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103599

Yılmaz, Y. Y., & Balbay, S. (2021). An evaluation of local mentor support in AE E-teacher educational technology integration online teacher training course. Journal of Educational Research & Practice, 11 (1), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.5590/jerap.2020.11.1.19

Youhasan, P., Chen, Y., Lyndon, M., & Henning, M. A. (2021). Assess the feasibility of flipped classroom pedagogy in undergraduate nursing education in Sri Lanka: A mixed-methods study. PLoS One, 16 (11), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259003

Young, S. F. (2008). Theoretical frameworks and models of learning: tools for developing conceptions of teaching and learning. International Journal for Academic Development, 13 (1), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/13601440701860243

Zhu, C., & Engels, N. (2013). Organizational culture and instructional innovations in higher education. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42 (1), 136–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213499253

Download references

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by Central Queensland University’s Centre for Research in Equity and Advancement of Teaching and Education’s 2022 Stimulus Funds Scheme.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Engineering and Technology, Central Queensland University, 16 Bruce Highway, North Rockhampton, QLD, 4702, Australia

Ritesh Chugh, Darren Turnbull & Michael A. Cowling

School of Education and the Arts, Central Queensland University, 16 Bruce Highway, North Rockhampton, QLD, 4702, Australia

Robert Vanderburg & Michelle A. Vanderburg

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Darren Turnbull .

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

Chugh, R., Turnbull, D., Cowling, M.A. et al. Implementing educational technology in Higher Education Institutions: A review of technologies, stakeholder perceptions, frameworks and metrics. Educ Inf Technol 28 , 16403–16429 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11846-x

Download citation

Received : 20 March 2023

Accepted : 20 April 2023

Published : 13 May 2023

Issue Date : December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11846-x

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

• Educational technology
• Implementation
• Higher Education Institution
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Arts & Culture
• Civic Engagement
• Economic Development
• Environment
• Human Rights
• Social Services
• Water & Sanitation
• Foundations
• Nonprofits & NGOs
• Social Enterprise
• Collaboration
• Design Thinking
• Impact Investing
• Measurement & Evaluation
• Organizational Development
• Philanthropy & Funding
• Current Issue
• Sponsored Supplements
• Global Editions
• In-Depth Series
• Stanford PACS
• Submission Guidelines

Design Thinking for Higher Education

To meet the challenges of a new era, universities should redesign their core functions while also creating capacities to reach emerging and underserved markets. Open access to this article is made possible by BYU-Pathway Worldwide & ASU's Center for Organization Research and Design.

• order reprints
• related stories

By Clark G. Gilbert, Michael M. Crow & Derrick Anderson Winter 2018

Higher education has entered into an era of transition. Changing student demographics, rapidly evolving stakeholder demands, and new technologies are requiring universities to reconsider abiding assumptions about geography, time, and quality. We expect that in the coming years, long-standing models of higher education that prefer tradition and stability will be supplemented, if not displaced, by new models that embrace organizational innovation, responsivity, and adaptation.

Design thinking offers important pathways for shaping these important new models. Organizational change can embody deliberate choice that purposefully shapes the object and direction of the change itself. A design perspective suggests that there are architectural choices to be made about what the organization seeks to accomplish and how it is organized to achieve those ends. Many industries, especially higher education, confront challenges from both legacy and emerging markets. Few universities, if any, should be willing to ignore one market in favor of the other, since legacy and emerging markets are both vital and can play important roles in fulfilling higher education’s social mission.

We have found that a dual transformation design strategy has proved especially effective for addressing both legacy and emerging markets. According to this approach, operations acting in parallel—one to develop strategies that optimize the core organization to become more responsive to the new profile of demands it faces, and a second to design and implement disruptive innovations that provide a basis for future growth, agility, and responsivity. 1 We provide here a set of recommendations for how dual transformation can be implemented in higher education.

While we reference many colleges and universities, we focus on how our own institutions, Brigham Young University-Idaho and Arizona State University , have embraced these principles of transformation. These two institutions are important as case studies for their similarities as much as their differences. Brigham Young University-Idaho (BYU-Idaho) is a private religious four-year college established less than two decades ago from the dramatic reorganization of a distinguished residential junior college. Alternatively, Arizona State University (ASU) is a comprehensive public research university born from a regional teachers’ college that now stands out among national universities for its commitment to both access and excellence.

Despite these important historical and structural differences, both universities have adopted design models that facilitate innovation along multiple, seemingly competing trajectories. Both are committed to the success of all students. And both have undergone transformation in their efforts to be continuously responsive to the new spectrum of challenges facing higher education.

Tech Meets the Medieval University

Knowledge is the core of higher education. The roots of modern higher education date back to 11th-century Europe, where the first universities were formed from guilds of student practitioners and expert instructors. In this system, knowledge was accumulated by experts and passed to apprentices, a tradition that to this day informs the self-governing, faculty-centric nature of university design.

Tradition casts a long shadow over higher education. For generations, universities have been able to fulfill their scientific and socioeconomic missions by replicating past success. As a consequence, many of today’s colleges and universities are internally driven by the same structures of power and decision making over resources, the means of production, and sources of authority and legitimacy. Thus, the design logic that has prevailed in higher education can sometimes encourage uniformity and discourages innovation. From the number of books in libraries to the number of hours that students spend in seated lectures to what constitutes a degree, there are widespread pressures to conform.

This rigorous standardization has served higher education well until this point. It helped ensure quality through centuries of upheaval marked by the rapid proliferation of new institutions. However, the modern era demands greater flexibility and innovation. Factors that aim to ensure quality, such as accreditation, must avoid becoming too focused on examining a narrow set of academic processes. An overemphasis on process conformity arguably limits exploration, differentiation, and, in some cases, even system-wide quality.

What’s more, the challenges facing higher education are historically unique. Rapid, ubiquitous, and accelerating technological progress is now part of the human condition. While intergenerational technological progress has been observed since the industrial revolution, the benefits of progress have primarily owed to the wealthy. But we are swiftly approaching the point where the benefits of technological advancement will (or through design choices easily could) reach everyone, even the poor.

We also know that society’s capacity to absorb new technologies is growing. While telephones took 25 years to be adopted by 10 percent of the American population a century ago, tablet computers achieved that level of market penetration within five years. 2 And while the personal computer reached one quarter of the American population in 16 years, the Internet took only seven. 3

As a consequence of rapid technological progress and the increased capacity to integrate new technologies into already complex social systems, we now have greater access to information and tools to collect, transmit, and process information. In years past, trade skills could be expected to transfer from generation to generation. Today it is estimated that 65 percent of schoolchildren will work in a job or career that doesn’t presently exist. 4 For the first time in human history, how people live and work is fundamentally changing within the duration of a single lifespan or less.

Coupled with widespread technological change are steadily increasing expectations for social mobility. According to a recent report by the Brookings Institution, the global middle class is growing by about 140 million people per year and accounted for approximately 3.2 billion people at the end of 2016. Yet, in the United States, real access to college, measured in terms of student success and completion, remains the province of wealthy families. While college attendance for students in the bottom quartile of family income has increased from 28 to 45 percent since 1970, this figure is dwarfed by the 82 percent of students from families in the top quartile who attend college.

In terms of college graduation, the gap is even more dramatic: 77 percent of US students from the top family income quartile will go on to earn a bachelor’s degree by the age of 24, compared with just 9 percent of students from the bottom quartile. 5 In other words, students from the highest-income families in America are eight times more likely to graduate from college than students from the poorest families. Thus, the capacity of American higher education to contribute to American democracy is inherently limited, arguably by design.

Moving Toward Design Solutions

Taken together, these technological and sociological trends suggest that in maintaining their value to society, many colleges and universities will need to teach new material to new types of students at new, large scales. Doing so will require entirely new design models. However, in the face of rapid social change, the trend among many in higher education has been to reinforce traditional models. Some of this active entrenchment comes from pouring resources into technology that perpetuates the traditional classroom model and fails to harness the unique benefits of online and distance learning. University leaders also choose to invest in amenities and efforts to bolster rankings in order to increase enrollment—at the expense of innovations with long-term, real student impact.

We believe that the problems that beset colleges and universities are the result of failures to lead design-driven adaptation. As a first step in formulating design solutions, we recommend viewing the challenges posed by both legacy and emerging markets as independent ones, and assigning specific responsibility for innovation for each challenge to differentiated functions of the university. While this is only one approach, it offers important opportunities to reinvigorate the core of the academic institution while allowing new organizations to explore and innovate areas that are either ignored or needlessly bound by tradition.

In general terms, the dual transformation framework we advocate encourages organizations to embark on two separate but carefully connected efforts. Transformation A is a redesign of the core organization to improve capacities in teaching and research. Transformation B entails carefully designing a capacity to respond to emerging opportunities or social demands. In the context of higher education, through Transformation A, academic organizations must lower the costs of (or even exit) those offerings that do not sufficiently differentiate them and invest in areas that will reposition core teaching and research in ways that will drive competitive advantage in an ever-changing landscape. 6 Thus, Transformation A is about deliberate choice that every university confronts, where failure to choose is a de facto choice for expensive mediocrity.

Transformation B, by contrast, should be treated as a distinct opportunity focused on entirely new models and separate student markets. Examples of Transformation B innovations include online learning, distance education, and other forms of increased access for students. The higher education sector offers numerous case studies of institutions that have undertaken successful transformations along one or another of these dimensions. A smaller number of cases—including BYU-Idaho and ASU—provide examples of successful transformation along both dimensions.

Transformation A in Differentiated Research

While not all universities are research intensive, those that are can achieve dramatic gains in research productivity by focusing on their core strengths and building up programs in which they have natural advantages. Since 2002, when this paper’s coauthor Michael Crow became its president, Arizona State University has increased research expenditures by a factor of four, constituting the highest growth rate of any university research enterprise in the United States. But even as it has expanded its research investment, it has done so by consistently considering “place.” For 15 years, ASU has strategically increased capacity in fields that are accessible in and relevant to Arizona and the Phoenix metropolitan area, such as water scarcity and resource management, solar and thermal energy technologies, and sustainable urban development; merged programs and departments to create new synergies—for example, fusing geology and astronomy into a School of Earth and Space Exploration; and employed the participation of key industries in sponsored projects such as ASU LightWorks, a multidisciplinary effort pursuing breakthroughs in solar energy and sustainable fuels. 7

As a consequence of executing a carefully designed strategy, the research enterprise at ASU has expanded from approximately $123 million in FY2002 to nearly $520 million in FY2016 with remarkable efficiency. For example, the size of the faculty has remained nearly constant since 2002. According to recent data from the National Science Foundation, ASU now ranks tenth of 724 universities without medical schools in total research expenditures—ahead of California Institute of Technology, Princeton University, and Carnegie Mellon University.

But more than simply expanding research investment, ASU has chosen to differentiate itself from its peers by bringing to its research clarity of purpose through a focus on use-inspired research. Accordingly, for ASU, the notion of “place” is not just geographic; it relates also to seeking a unique thematic position within the broader national innovation system. Other universities have also bene ted from committing themselves to a thematic interpretation of place. For example, Rockefeller University has achieved and maintained its status as a global leader in biomedical research and training while operating pursuant to its motto, “Science for the benefit of humanity.” And Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, has incorporated the cultural and religious priorities of its Latter-Day Saints community to pursue a leadership role in research pertaining to religious freedom, family social science, and poverty alleviation.

In pursuing design strategies for research differentiation, universities assess the promise of a research enterprise relative to their unique institutional assets rather than muddling through a medley of scientific fields where their capacity to maintain the path of academic inquiry becomes fragmented. As a consequence, new lines of inquiry can be discovered, and universities with otherwise limited resources can assume leadership roles in new disciplinary fields.

Transformation A in Teaching and Learning

On the teaching side, many universities have unfortunately responded to rising costs and decreasing state support by increasing selectivity or passing an excessive share of instructional costs to students and their families. Whether through high costs or highly selective admission standards, exclusivity narrows the pool of admitted students to those who are almost certain to succeed. Instead, we think universities should be de ned by who they include and how those institutions improve their students’ chances of success.

Accordingly, Transformation A calls for carefully planned innovations that allow for gains in student outcomes without succumbing to the magnetism of exclusivity. For example, rather than increasing selectivity and turning away students who are less likely (or unlikely) to graduate, the University of California, Riverside (UCR), has made inclusivity a core part of its identity: 57 percent of UCR students are low income (federal Pell Grant eligible) or first-generation students. Notwithstanding the abundance of evidence proving that these students are less likely to succeed, federal data show that 90 percent of UCR students persist after their freshman year and 68 percent of students graduate in six years—26 points higher than the national average.

The reasons for UCR’s success graduating students includes a combination of targeted financial aid for needier students (students with a family income under $80,000 per year pay no tuition); 8 a robust suite of student services, which emphasize peer ties between students through learning communities; and opportunities for undergraduate students to partner in faculty-led research. (More than 50 percent of undergraduates undertake a research experience.) 9 By taking a different tack from competing institutions, UCR has shown that it is possible to maintain robust growth, hold down costs, and drive success for students of all demographics.

BYU-Idaho has also undertaken a major transformation of its teaching enterprise. Created in 2000, BYU-Idaho grew out of Ricks College, a two-year junior college, to become a four-year, bachelor’s-degree-granting institution that primarily focuses on access, student success, and teaching excellence. Designed to “have a unique role and be distinctive from” its sister institutions within the BYU system, BYU-Idaho has managed to grow its enrollment and keep costs low by upending the traditional academic calendar in favor of a three-track, year-round calendar. Applicants to BYU- Idaho are assigned to a cohort that begins in either a fall, winter, or spring term and remain with their cohort through graduation, with each cohort assigned to attend only two of the three terms.

Since the new system was announced in 2000, total annual enrollment on campus has increased from fewer than 15,000 to more than 30,000 students, while the relative cost per student has declined. In other words, because each cohort attends only two of three available semesters each year, one-third of the students are away from campus at any point in time—effectively growing the capacity of the school by 50 percent without adding infrastructure. Rather than taking the downtime that many schools have in the summer, BYU-Idaho operates year-round, always at full capacity. The university keeps the system flexible by allowing students to take online courses at any time, regardless of their cohort calendar, and offering qualified students the option to enroll year-round to accelerate graduation. 10

Not only has its focus on a teaching-oriented faculty and a three-track calendar addressed the affordability and access challenges of higher education, but also it has enabled BYU-Idaho to zero in on student outcomes. Even though the university has a policy of virtual open enrollment and more than 50 percent of its students receive federal financial aid, BYU-Idaho consistently has nearly a 20 percent higher graduation rate than the national average, well above that of its regional peers. 11 Moreover, BYU-Idaho students graduate in the 82nd percentile in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) for critical thinking and writing, while their incoming credentials suggest that they should only achieve the 65th percentile. For BYU-Idaho, the focus on teaching has not only expanded access and reduced cost but also increased quality by concentrating on meaningful student outcomes.

At ASU, teaching is organized according to four Teaching and Learning Realms. Realm 1 pertains to campus-based immersion learning where 3,400 faculty members interact closely with more than 71,000 students. Realm 2 includes fully online delivery of degree programs offered by campus colleges and departments. Realm 3 provides open scale digital immersion learning (sometimes termed massive open online courses or MOOCs), and Realm 4 focuses on “education through exploration,” including virtual field trips, game-based learning, and personalized learning.

Technology-driven enhancements cut across all four Realms, but the focus of Transformation A is Realm 1, where carefully implemented strategies have allowed for dramatic growth in enrollment, especially of disadvantaged populations, along with improvement in retention and graduation rates. For example, ASU’s eAdvisor platform, implemented in 2007, uses assorted data points to help keep students on track for degree completion and automatically implements interventions when a student fails to progress. Other innovations are structural, such as partnerships with community colleges that accommodate the careful preparation of students and seamless transfer pathways. Such innovations have helped ASU increase the number of degrees awarded at its metropolitan campuses from 14,444 in 2007-08 to 18,254 in 2015-16, while also raising its public profile. ASU has received a top-five ranking in best-qualified graduates from The Wall Street Journal in 2010; a top-10 ranking in graduate employability from the Global University Employability Survey in 2016; and a number-one ranking in the United States for innovation in 2016, 2017, and 2018 by U.S. News & World Report .

Transformation B for New Opportunities

While Transformation A innovations focus on the established core functions of universities, Transformation B generates entirely new educational models that could not emerge meaningfully from the traditional academic organization. In higher education, this is often manifested through online programs targeting nontraditional student populations or new technology-driven modes of learning.

Prior to the 1980s, higher education was focused almost exclusively on young learners. But now students who attend four-year institutions and live on campus make up only a portion of all US undergraduates. Of the more than 20 million undergraduates attending college in the United States, more than 40 percent are over the age of 25, and this figure is predicted to increase, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.

Technological and social changes are also driving the emergence of new student demographics from diverse locations as well as a broader spectrum of socioeconomic backgrounds. Many of these students face barriers such as the need to balance studies with work and family obligations, high educational costs, transportation and logistical difficulties, a lack of access to information about educational opportunities, and a lack of guidance tailored to their unique needs. Many of these barriers also correspond to the ways in which these students learn that are fundamentally different from the experience of traditional campus-bound college students. For example, midcareer students bring to the classroom work experiences that not only are foreign to traditional students but may be the exact experiences that the classroom is preparing them to confront.

Southern New Hampshire University stands out as an example of a forward-thinking institution that reorganized itself around online education to reach the nontraditional student market. Founded in 1932 as the New Hampshire Accounting and Secretarial School, SNHU since 1995 has expanded its reach to nontraditional students worldwide with the founding of an online distance learning program, SNHU Online. Within six years of launch, the program included students from 23 time zones. Today, as a consequence of the success of SNHU Online, the university enrolls about 85,000 students. Most recently, SNHU launched College for America , a subsidiary nonprofit institution that offers nontraditional learners degrees in competency-based tracks, wherein students advance by demonstrating proficiency through applied projects rather than traditional coursework.

SNHU Online was created as a differentiated organization dedicated to serving the unique demands of emerging online markets but carefully connected to the core university for the assurance of quality. This strategy of establishing a separate organization with careful integration with the core university is not unique. Even in major public universities where significant success with online education has occurred, it has often come when leaders have been willing to create distinctive organizations that could focus not only on the new models tied to online learning but also on the distinctive needs of online students.

Pennsylvania State University is one of the largest universities in the United States, and serving nontraditional students from Pennsylvania’s rural population has long been a part of its identity. In 1998, Penn State launched its World Campus , one of the nation’s first online programs, which has since grown to o er 125 degrees, certificates, and minors and now has more than 12,000 students enrolled in all 50 states and more than 50 countries. 12 In 2013, Penn State announced that it would invest $20 million to facilitate the expansion of World Campus, which it plans to grow to 45,000 students by 2023. 13

Like SNHU Online, World Campus exists as a separate unit of the university with carefully designed integrations with other core university units. A key feature of the World Campus that contributes to its business success and 95 percent student-satisfaction rate is the program’s integration with central academic units through revenue sharing. 14 When students enroll in World Campus courses in a given subject, the college that offers the course keeps a portion of the discretionary revenue, providing incentives for academic units to promote and accommodate World Campus growth and ensure that students receive the same level of support as on-campus students. In recent years, the World Campus has played a critical role in growing Penn State’s system-wide enrollment even as population decreases in rural areas and drastic decreases in state funding threaten the viability of its branch campuses. 15

Other universities have taken a more targeted approach to growing specific nontraditional markets. For BYU-Idaho, this began with a focus on reaching students who were not being served by the existing BYU system because they did not feel that they could afford college or because, in some cases, they did not feel that they could succeed. In 2009, the university launched a new program called Pathway to target these students. It provides a one-year preparatory experience to ready students for college.

Rather than teaching traditional general education courses, the program focuses on study skills and self-organization. Instead of the traditional freshman English and math, the program teaches (to similar outcomes) résumé and cover letter writing, and family financial literacy. The students work through the material in interactive, cohort-based online courses and then gather weekly in small groups at local religious centers. While the program started with just 50 students in three pilot locations, today it has grown to reach tens of thousands of students in more than 500 locations around the world.

Similarly, BYU-Idaho’s online degree programs start with certificates and associate degrees, rather than maintaining the almost exclusive focus on bachelor’s degrees at more traditional universities. This has allowed many students to advance more quickly in the workforce and access a more applied curriculum than a traditional campus-centric model of higher education would do. It is important to note that both the Pathway and online degree programs were structured as separate operating entities within BYU-Idaho so they could focus on the distinctive needs of these online students. By helping students build confidence in their early academic efforts, pricing the program at less than $75 a credit hour, and allowing students to access education locally, the Pathway program and the BYU-Idaho online degree programs have grown to more than 35,000 students annually. This combined annual enrollment now exceeds the total annual student enrollment of the residential campus in Rexburg, Idaho. This past February, BYU-Idaho’s governing board elected to create a new institution, BYU-Pathway Worldwide, to focus on serving the needs of these nontraditional students.

Transformation B at ASU cuts across multiple realms of teaching and learning, each pushing further into the frontiers of innovation in higher education. Like BYU-Idaho, ASU’s Transformation B is coordinated primarily through an independent unit dedicated to the cultivation of technology-intensive disruptive ventures. ASU founded this unit as EdPlus . In what is termed Teaching and Learning Realm 2, traditional undergraduate and graduate degrees are offered in online formats. Since its inception in 2009, ASU Online (now operated under the umbrella of EdPlus) has gone from just under 1,000 students in five programs to nearly 26,000 students in more than 100 fully online programs. Through Realm 2, instructional designers connect faculty expertise to the unique learning needs of online degree seekers. This enables ASU to be responsive to nontraditional learners. It can also facilitate rapid, scalable response to very specific opportunities. For example, through an innovative partnership with Starbucks, ASU is on track to provide degrees to 25,000 Starbucks employees (or partners) by 2025. 16

ASU’s Teaching and Learning Realms 3 and 4 venture further into the frontiers of university innovation. ASU’s Global Freshman Academy (GFA) is the chief effort in Realm 3. In partnership with the MIT/Harvard University nonprofit venture edX, GFA is a massive open online course (MOOC) platform. Existing MOOC platforms offer certifications or badges for completed courses, but GFA is the first to offer course credit from an accredited university. GFA is also priced affordably for learners around the world—less than $200 per credit hour—and students pay for course credit only after passing the course and only if they want the optional university credit. Initial enrollment in the first 10 GFA courses exceeded 350,000 students.

ASU’s Realm 4 is dedicated to education through exploration. Similar to the research and development arm of a large company, Realm 4 at ASU aims to understand, integrate, and shape the newest technology-driven approaches to learning. Efforts here involve the development of platforms for game-based learning, adaptive learn- ing, and personalized learning. For example, one Realm 4 project, driven in part by ASU’s Center for Education Through eXploration (ETX), is the “immersive virtual field trip” or iVFT. This project uses digital photo, video, satellite, and map technologies to capture the experiences of eld scientists and share them with learners through interactive tools. It is but one of many potential ways that the uni- versity can expand the number and kinds of students it reaches, and the means by which they can learn.

Higher education in the United States has entered a new era shaped by profound social and economic challenges and historically unique technological acceleration. To confront these challenges, tradition, replication, and standardization are not enough. Design thinking offers an important pathway for transforming universities into adaptive institutions that can carry out the important work of effectively responding to legacy and emerging markets. Although design thinking and strategic thinking are often tightly coupled, no amount of strategy can remedy an organization whose design is incapable of responding to the full spectrum of problems it faces.

University leaders who would risk dual transformation are required to exercise full commitment to multiple, potentially conflicting visions of the future. They undoubtedly confront skepticism, resistance, and inertia, which may sway them from pursuing overdue reforms. We recognize that this marks a tumultuous time in the history of American higher education, but we see it as an opportunity. America’s leaders in higher education must rise to the challenge of creating new, innovative design models for their universities—for the betterment of their institutions, higher education, and society as a whole.

Support  SSIR ’s coverage of cross-sector solutions to global challenges.  Help us further the reach of innovative ideas.  Donate today .

Read more stories by Clark G. Gilbert , Michael M. Crow & Derrick Anderson .

SSIR.org and/or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and to our better understanding of user needs. By closing this banner, scrolling this page, clicking a link or continuing to otherwise browse this site, you agree to the use of cookies.

• Teaching, learning and quality

Case studies: how universities are managing risk in internationalisation

Last updated on Tuesday 20 Dec 2022 at 10:24pm

On this page

Funding from international sources, external funders from uk sources, student exchange and student recruitment, transnational education projects, peer-to-peer academic collaboration.

• Back to top

The following case studies have been gathered from our members, UK higher education institutions, as part of our ongoing work to strengthen the vigilance of the sector when working with international partners. They give real life examples of decision-making processes and show how our Managing Risks in Internationalisation guidance is being implemented and applied. Examples are drawn from a diverse range of institutions, representing different degrees of research intensity and international engagements. 

Example 1: Non-award bearing joint programme in law with a foreign university

A university was approached by a foreign institution to establish a joint law programme. The questions asked about the ultimate source of funds during the due diligence process revealed that the programme would be funded by the foreign country’s Ministry of Justice, and that the Ministry would also be selecting the course participants. The country’s judicial system was implicated in repressive acts by its authoritarian government, including the silencing of democratic protest and targeting of minorities. The committee decided that the university should not proceed. 

Learning points: 

• conduct due diligence on all prospective partners and any organisations or companies that might be behind them; 

consider how partner institutions which might themselves pass due diligence checks may be linked to other stakeholders; 

• interrogate or conduct due diligence on funding sources; 

consider the ethical, human rights, and reputational implications of these third-party stakeholders. 

Example 2: Philanthropic gift to a research centre from an international investment business

Following the offer of a philanthropic donation to a university, an internal due diligence report was prepared and submitted to the committee. This report highlighted concerns about the founder of the business, an international businessman who retained close links to the government and president of the country in which he had made his fortune, and which is widely deemed to be hostile to UK national interests. There were also allegations of corrupt practices surrounding the source of the funds being offered. 

The committee decided to commission an additional external report from a specialist due diligence firm. The report concluded that the donation represented a high risk due to the political connections of the company’s founder and other board members. The committee decided that no further donations should be accepted; and at a subsequent meeting extended that decision to include research funding. 

if you do not have internal expertise on a topic, consider using external due diligence services; 

consider the ethical, human rights, and reputational implications of your partnerships. 

Example 3: Custom course for foreign country’s state-owned Data and AI Authority 

A wholly-owned subsidiary of the university received an enquiry about a leadership course for a foreign country’s Data and AI Authority. The country is a UK ally in a high-conflict region and both human rights and freedom of expression remain significant concerns in the country; and, in 2021, its government was implicated in extensive phone surveillance using spyware. The contact at the subsidiary discussed the enquiry with due diligence staff and decided not to proceed given the risk that the organisation could be involved in these surveillance-related activities. It therefore declined the invitation to tender. 

Example 1: UK-based research consortium

An academic was approached by a colleague at another UK higher education institution inviting them to join a new consortium.  The consortium was based around a UK-registered company wishing to work with UK universities, with a significant amount of research funding available.  

The scope of the projects would have included fundamental research in telecommunications, computer vision, robots, and materials science.  Those wishing to apply for funding were asked to send in a detailed Expression of Interest.  

Following due diligence checks it became apparent that the overseas owner of the UK company was a state-owned manufacturing company, with links to military shipbuilding. The collaboration therefore did not proceed. Details of the due diligence checks were shared with the academics involved, and the university turned this process into a case study that was shared with Heads of Department. This case study package also included constructive advice on how to act in such instances, including: 

being wary of being asked to send in detailed information at an early stage; 

looking at the ownership of company partners, even if they are registered in the UK; 

carrying out independent due diligence, even if an approach is made by a trusted colleague; 

contacting support services about such approaches early on to prevent wasted effort with any unsuitable partners and ensure early intervention. 

ensure that your procedures capture partnership proposals at all levels of your institution; 

consider whether outputs of a prospective partnership might fall under any government regulation or programmes, such as Export Control licensing, the National Security and Investment Act, or the Academic Technology Approval Scheme. 

Example 1: Student exchange and transit to third-party countries

An academic at a university was approached by an overseas institution to set up a series of student exchange programmes. The partner universities, as well as all the academics involved, all passed initial due diligence and risk register checks. However, the sub-committee looking into the proposal identified the potential danger of some students using these exchange programs to travel outside the intended partner country. Once in these ‘third-party’ countries, there was a risk that students may become involved in armed conflict. 

The sub-committee reported their findings to the university executive in a neutral manner, highlighting both pros and cons. Seeing all the facts, the university executive decided not to go ahead with the exchange programmes. 

• ensure that all partnership proposals are reviewed by relevant internal groups or stakeholders; 

consider the reputational implications of your partnerships. 

Example 2: Overseas student recruitment

A university was approached by a student recruitment agent. The recruitment agent passed all initial due diligence checks. However, the internal university committee expressed some outstanding concerns relating to the recruiter’s mode of operation and political connections and flagged the partnership as medium-risk. To address these, the university sought to enhance their understanding of the recruiter’s operating model and reputation by engaging with other organisations that the recruiter was known to have worked with as well as contacts in their home country that were known and trusted by the university. 

After this enhanced due diligence check, the board were satisfied that any risk could be mitigated and allowed the project to proceed on condition that a probationary period and enhanced, ongoing monitoring were undertaken. 

Example 1: Branch campuses and joint degree programmes

A university gets around 140 approaches a year for TNE partnerships. These approaches are mapped against the university’s priority markets and strategic needs. Officials from an overseas government reached out to the university with proposals to establish a branch campus or multiple joint programmes in local universities. The university’s strategy includes ambitions to develop large-scale multi-faculty projects in growth markets, and as such they proceeded cautiously with initial negotiations.  

Having met with local officials, academics, and university leaders, the university concluded that the project had credible and serious backing and therefore signed a Memorandum of Understanding with local stakeholders. The university established academic and business development leads to manage the project. However, over the course of two years, the university was unable to confirm to their satisfaction that the academic team being recruited in-country met the university’s high and non-negotiable academic standards. There was high turnover among officials and counterparts in the host country, making ongoing monitoring and engagement difficult. Given these concerns and in light of changing demands from the partner, the university decided to pull out of the project in spite of the potential economic opportunities that it would have delivered. 

• set out clear objectives and standards for what you want to get out of a partnership; 

ensure that due diligence and project evaluation are ongoing processes, and not one-off checks; 

• be wary of shifting goalposts; 

prepare an exit strategy in case a partnership fails to meet objectives or if ongoing due diligence changes your risk assessment. 

Example 2: Joint research partnership programme

A university had a lengthy set of conversations with partners in a foreign country who were looking to develop an ambitious healthcare project. Because of the scale of potential investment and reputational risk, the university decided to hire external due diligence and intelligence services from a private company in line with their recently updated guidelines. Subsequent background checks identified h links to the partner country’s military, and so the project did not proceed.  

if you do not have internal expertise on a topic, consider using external due diligence services. 

Example 3: Teaching partnership

A university was in negotiation with a foreign organisation about a teaching partnership in a third location. The project’s primary aim was to work with a like-minded partner with a similar long-term vision to boost its reputation and respond to the international higher education climate. While the operation would be required to make a modest return, this was not primary intended as a money-making initiative.  

Due diligence checks did not raise any explicit security issues, but red flags were spotted around the source of finances.  

Due diligence issues considered included:  

how the money was generated in the partner’s home country; 

if there was any abuse of regulations or market power; 

how it was proposed to move revenue out of the partner’s home country;  

if the proposal met the legal requirements of relevant countries. 

The university spent a lot of time conducting due diligence checks to satisfy the board of governors, and negotiations took place over two years. Ultimately the university pulled out of the project as it was not convinced that both parties had a common long-term vision and because it recognised that there were prohibitive limitations to the evidence that the potential partner could provide to the due diligence issues, particularly regarding the financial arrangements. 

• do not hesitate to wind down a partnership if it fails to meet objectives or if ongoing due diligence changes your risk assessment. 

Example 1: Peer-to-peer academic collaboration

In a training session used by the university to probe hard-to-uncover blind spots, the following scenario is posed: a graduate student completes a PhD in Computer Science and returns to a country that is not regarded as an ally of the UK.  The PhD graduate secures a tenured appointment at a defence university of the country with which the UK does not enjoy consistently good relations. The student obtains an appointment in the defence university’s college of intelligence to lecture on advanced navigation technology.  The newly appointed lecturer continues to collaborate with their former supervisor and others from the Computer Science department in which they completed a PhD. They publish together in a prestigious journal. 

Staff and academics were invited to probe how to mitigate against situations like this. Implemented solutions include a periodic analysis of publication lists with certain key words to give an indication of any potential problem areas in order to target support. The university has also appointed local ‘security contacts’ in its science departments. These are members of research support staff who researchers are familiar with, and with who they can approach to discuss risks or suspicious activity. 

ensure that all relevant internal groups or stakeholders have oversight of activity that might pose a security or reputational risk. 

Promoted content

Managing risks in Internationalisation: Security related issues

Universities UK (UUK) has published detailed guidance for institutions on the considerations and measures they should take to guard against hostile interference and promote academic freedom.

Managing risks in international research and innovation

Our publication outlines higher education sector guidance on how universities can manage security risks in their international research and innovation.

Security and risk

Universities face wide-ranging security risks to staff, students, campuses and information. We help universities understand these risks, assess their existing measures and advise on suitable safeguards.

Stay up to date with our work

Our monthly updates are a great way for you to stay up to date with our work, events, and higher education news.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Handling climate change education at universities: an overview

Walter leal filho.

1 School of Science and the Environment, Manchester Metropolitan University, Chester Street, Manchester, M1 5GD UK

2 Research and Transfer Centre “Sustainable Development and Climate Change Management”, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, Hamburg, Germany

Mihaela Sima

3 Romanian Academy, Institute of Geography, 12 Dimitrie Racovita St, Sector 2, 023993 Bucharest, Romania

Ayyoob Sharifi

4 Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, and Network for Education and Research on Peace and Sustainability, Hiroshima University, Higashi-Hiroshima, 739-8530 Japan

Johannes M. Luetz

5 School of Social Sciences, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia

6 Christian Heritage College (CHC), Brisbane, Australia

7 School of Law and Society, University of the Sunshine Coast (USC), Maroochydore, Australia

Amanda Lange Salvia

8 Graduate Program in Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Passo Fundo, Passo Fundo, Brazil

Mark Mifsud

9 University of Malta, Msida, Malta

Felicia Motunrayo Olooto

10 Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension Services, Faculty of Agriculture, Kwara State University, Malete, PMB 1530, Ilorin, Kwara State Nigeria

Ilija Djekic

11 Faculty of Agriculture, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Republic of Serbia

Rosley Anholon

12 University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil

Izabela Rampasso

13 Universidad Católica del Norte, Departamento de Ingeniería Industrial, Angamos, 0610, Antofagasta, Chile

14 PNPD/CAPES Program, Doctoral Program in Sustainable Management Systems, Federal Fluminense University, Brazil, Passo da Pátria Street, 156, Niterói, Brazil

Felix Kwabena Donkor

15 Department of Geography Education, University of Education Winneba, Winneba, Ghana

Maria Alzira Pimenta Dinis

16 UFP Energy, Environment and Health Research Unit (FP-ENAS), University Fernando Pessoa (UFP), Praça 9 de Abril 349, 4249-004 Porto, Portugal

Maris Klavins

17 Department of Environmental Science, University of Latvia, Raina blvd 19, Riga, LV 1586 Latvia

Göran Finnveden

18 Department of Sustainable Development, Environmental Sciences and Engineering, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

19 Environmental Sustainability Assessment and Circularity, Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, Belvaux, Luxembourg

Martin Munashe Chari

20 Risk and Vulnerability Science Centre (RVSC), Faculty of Science and Agriculture, University of Fort Hare, 1 King William’s Town Road, Private Bag X1314, Alice, 5700 Eastern Cape South Africa

Petra Molthan-Hill

21 Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Alexandra Mifsud

22 Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Salil K. Sen

23 Management Development Institute of Singapore, 501 Stirling Rd, Singapore, 148951 Singapore

24 Indian Institute of Management, Jingkieng, Nongthymmai, Shillong, Meghalaya 793014 India

Erandathie Lokupitiya

25 Department of Zoology and Environment Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Colombo, Colombo 03, Sri Lanka

Associated Data

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

Climate change is a problem which is global in nature, and whose effects go across a wide range of disciplines. It is therefore important that this theme is taken into account as part of universities´ teaching and research programs.

A three-tiered approach was used, consisting of a bibliometric analysis, an online survey and a set of case studies, which allow a profile to be built, as to how a sample of universities from 45 countries handle climate change as part of their teaching programs.

This paper reports on a study which aimed at identifying the extent to which matters related to climate change are addressed within the teaching and research practices at universities, with a focus on the training needs of teaching staff. It consists of a bibliometric analysis, combined with an online worldwide survey aimed at ascertaining the degree of involvement from universities in reducing their own carbon footprint, and the ways they offer training provisions on the topic. This is complemented by a set of 12 case studies from universities round the world, illustrating current trends on how universities handle climate change. Apart from reporting on the outcomes of the study, the paper highlights what some universities are doing to handle climate issues, and discusses the implications of the research.

Conclusions

The paper lists some items via which universities may better educate and train their students on how to handle the many challenges posed by climate change.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12302-021-00552-5.

Introduction

Climate change and education.

Universities globally are increasingly recognizing their responsibility to prepare students and society to actively contribute to the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. This role sees universities adopting and promoting carbon neutral goals and practices [ 13 , 24 , 57 ]. Situated within this broader context, contemporary higher education (HE) providers progressively pursue a dual strategy [ 4 ]. First, universities are aiming to become “carbon neutral” institutions by adopting low-carbon operational practices. Second, universities are developing curricula and pedagogical approaches to educate students (and by extension society) about the imperatives of carbon neutrality and climate change mitigation and adaptation. In the literature this dual education has been conceptualized as a critical twin strategy that sees universities concurrently reduce their own “carbon footprint” (by aiming for net-zero emissions of institution-linked greenhouse gasses) and expanding the societal “carbon brainprint” (by teaching knowledge and skills in the area of carbon neutral practices) [ 4 , 11 , 24 ] (Fig.  1 ). As such, HE providers have a vital role to play in educating future environmental auditors, community organizers, corporate managers, engineers, practitioners, technical professionals, policymakers and, most significantly, the community about actions that can be taken to mitigate and adapt to climate change, while concurrently propagating social and governance measures. Over time the cumulative build-up of societal awareness progressively permeates and influences the practices of the corporate sector, community stakeholders and local and national governments on how to better manage climate change mitigation and adaptation in their diverse spheres of influence, including through advocacy, daily behaviors and professional careers [ 13 , 21 , 57 ].

Schematic concept of holistic climate change education at universities comprising research, low-carbon operational practices, forms of educative collaboration with society, and curricula and pedagogy. Figure by authors, based on Chatterton et al. [ 11 ] and Baumber et al. [ 4 ]

While universities are thus recognizing their responsibility to progressively prioritize carbon neutrality and develop climate change modules in educational content, efforts can sometimes be stymied by organizational inertia, operational complexity and a plethora of regulatory requirements that impinge on governance in the higher education sector [ 39 , 57 ].

Climate change education (CCE) at universities may take the form of both formal, informal, and non-formal learning and teaching approaches, including nature-immersive field projects, international case studies and higher degree research (HDR), among others [ 39 , 40 , 69 ]. Literary analysis of university education on climate change and sustainability has reflected a gradual shift globally over the past decade away from a narrow preoccupation in curricula on environmental protection toward broader objectives and creative educational approaches. These initiatives include corporate social responsibility (CSR), multiculturality and ethics. They also manifest as renewable energy, recyclable resources, campus greening, embodied pedagogies, and nature-immersive outdoor education, among others [ 8 , 35 , 47 , 70 ]. Molthan-Hill et al. [ 40 ] offer extensive guidance on how to integrate CCE across a wide range of subjects in university curricula, particularly ones with a less direct link to climate science; this guidance is offered from the point of view of content, pedagogy and contextual institutional and sector-wide constraints.

The way forward for universities is to dynamically reposition. This would measurably bridge the gap between generating direct action in the area of carbon neutral education and the creation and dissemination of critical knowledge about climate change that has the potential to proliferate across multiple other sectors [ 11 , 13 ]. Corollary benefits for universities would be evident with significant influence on community leadership. Financial investments would apportion and support economic, environmental and societal value creation. Over recent years engagement in this space has marked an area of growing attention for higher education providers. Instances of universities taking the onus of investing in environmentally sustainable projects to attain sustainability objectives have escalated. Recent trends have additionally seen a growing number of universities globally take decisions to actively divest their endowments from fossil fuel holdings [ 4 , 6 ]. Further, the pathway for climate driven education is integrative, strategic, and progressively embeds the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [ 18 , 60 ].

The Times Higher Education Impact Rankings is a tool used to describe the metrics used by universities in implementing individual UN SDGs [ 51 ]. Among them, SDG 13—climate action—is used. This measures whether universities perform research on climate change, how they use low-carbon energy, and if they have education programs aimed at the achievement of carbon neutrality. The latest list (for 2020) covers 376 universities from 70 countries. The top five universities are in New Zealand, Australia and the United States. These universities are the ones targeted in the current study.

Climate change and universities

The nexus of climate change education.

Climate change and climate variability are principal issues confronting the global community [ 16 ]. The intricate nature of the global climate as an interconnected system, comprising earth and socio-ecological systems, necessitates critical enquiries coupled with reflexive and transformative educational methods [ 68 ]. This may help to address the need for more radical social learning-centered transformation in relation to sustainability concerns and the challenges posed to learning and pedagogy [ 18 ]. There is hence a need to shift from simple content-based, silo approaches of pedagogy to a more systemic and ‘deeper’ enquiry that draws together biophysical, socio-economic and socio-psychological understandings [ 23 , 34 ]. In this light, concepts such as Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), as an integral component of quality education and critical tool for sustainable development has gained global currency [ 62 ]. ESD empowers people to change their thinking and approaches towards a sustainable future. This can be facilitated by enhancing opportunities for quality education on sustainable development [ 15 ]. This will promote social transformation through the redesigning of educational pedagogies and empowering people to build knowledge, skills, values and behaviors critical for sustainable development. This also underscores the need to integrate sustainable development themes, such as climate change within teaching and learning (UNESCO 2020). Efforts are needed from universities around the world to develop advanced curriculum, programs, capacity building and interdisciplinary collaboration in order to support a deeper learning on climate change [ 12 , 48 ].

The SDG final Decade of Action in delivering the global goals

United Nations (UN) studies show that although some progress has been made in a number of the SDGs, there is still substantial work to be done in achieving the SDGs, particularly in the area of redressing social inequity [ 14 , 36 ]. The year 2020 marked the inception point of the Decade of Action to achieve the SDGS by 2030 [ 60 ]. The Decade is a rallying cry for the entire global community to catalyze actions in addressing urgent global challenges—from poverty and gender to climate change, and inequalities. The UN has encouraged all sectors of the society to rally their resources towards the Decade of Action in three core dimensions: global action to achieve effective leadership, improved resources and smarter solutions for realizing the SDGs [ 60 ]. In this regard, education and training will play a critical role. This is more so as climate-induced extreme events have been on the ascendancy across the globe, and argued to be reversing critical developmental gains [ 54 ]. It is important that all the advances and successes concerning the HE for sustainable development are safeguarded as much as possible [ 33 ]. The success of related measures is partly dependent on an informed and proactive citizenry cooperating with other core stakeholders. Higher education institutions (HEIs) are vital stakeholders who function along critical levers in the dynamics of sustainable development [ 53 ]. Furthermore, HEIs represent entrepreneurial spaces where social stakeholders collaborate in knowledge co-production to tackle pressing social issues. This article explores some of the ways higher education institutions can show leadership in climate education and research practices, as well as the inherent opportunities that can be upscaled in a post-COVID era for sustainability.

Methodology

The paper aims to identify how matters related to climate change are tackled at universities both in teaching and research, with a focus on the training needs of teaching staff. It is developed in three directions: a bibliometric analysis, an online worldwide survey aimed at ascertaining the degree of involvement from universities to offer training provisions on the topic and a set of 12 case studies from universities round the world, illustrating current trends on how they handle climate change in teaching and research. These methods are mutually complementary for 3 main reasons: they provide an overview of the recent and current literature and their focus (bibliometric analysis); they enable the identification of trends among academic staff (the survey), and they cater for the provisions of real life examples illustrating how climate change is being implemented in university activities (case studies). Table ​ Table1 1 summarizes the purposes of each method and their contribution to this study.

Methods used in the analysis

Bibliometric methods are increasingly used to understand structure and trends of scientific publications. The term co-occurrence analysis is a specific bibliometric analysis method that allows understanding overall structure and thematic focus of scientific fields. Several software tools have been developed over the past few years that can be used for detailed co-occurrence analysis of terms mentioned in publications that are indexed in scientific databases. In this study the VOSviewer has been used, a frequently utilized software tool for bibliometric analyses [ 67 ]. The input data for analysis were bibliometric information of peer-reviewed publications that are indexed in the Web of Science (WoS). WoS was selected for its broad coverage of high-quality scientific publications. It also provides detailed bibliographic information necessary for analysis using the VOSviewer. To collect relevant information from the WoS, a broad-based search string was developed that includes terms related to climate change, universities, and education/training: TS  =  ((“climat* change”) and (“education” or “training” or “curricula” or “curriculum”) AND (“universit*” OR “higher education institut*”)).

The initial search was done on February 26, 2020 and returned 454 articles. After screening these articles to determine their relevance to the aims and objectives of the study, 414 articles remained in the database. In line with the study objectives, the criterion for inclusion in the analysis was addressing issues related to the integration of climate change in the teaching and research practices at universities. The bibliographic data of these articles were downloaded and used for term co-occurrence analysis using VOSviewer. Since multiple variants of a specific term may exist in the articles, a thesaurus file was created to merge synonyms. The output of the term co-occurrence analysis is a network of nodes and links (see Fig.  2 ), where the size of nodes and links indicates the frequency of occurrence and the strength of connections between nodes, respectively. Terms closely linked to each other form clusters that are shown in unique colors in Fig.  2 . These clusters are specific thematic areas that will be discussed in the results section.

Output of the term co-occurrence analysis

The methodology of the survey

In order to establish the degree of involvement from universities in reducing their own carbon footprint and to fill in the research gap on how universities around the world handle climate change as part of their teaching programs, a questionnaire survey was undertaken. The questionnaire was part of an international study undertaken by the European School of Sustainability Science and Research (ESSSR) https://esssr.eu/ and the Inter University Sustainable Development Research Programme (IUSDRP) https://www.hawhamburg.de/ftz-nk/programme/iusdrp.html , aimed at identifying knowledge gaps on CCE at universities.

The first list of items was reviewed by the authors to minimize redundancies and similar items and to ensure that all important questions were added. The questionnaire survey was pre-tested by a panel of academics within sustainability areas at different universities.

The main target group of the questionnaire was the university staff involved in teaching and/or research at the university, who already integrated climate change-related aspects in a course at the university. The target individuals were identified through a number of mailing lists, including the European School of Sustainability Science and Research mailing list ( https://esssr.eu/ ), JiscMail ( https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/ ) and the Inter-University Program for Sustainable Development Research (IUSDRP) list. The estimated response time was 10 min and no incentives were offered for questionnaire completion. At the end, 129 participants from 45 countries participated in the survey. The questionnaire was composed of 22 items, mainly closed-ended questions, divided into 3 major sections (Additional file 1 : Appendix S1). The questions were formulated based on the authors’ knowledge and experience in terms of CCE, but also considering the results and training needs identified in other studies, targeting a single university or global studies (e.g., [ 26 , 30 , 43 , 48 , 61 ]). The first section aimed to gather information regarding the background of the participants: gender, age, university and the role at the university, the scientific domain and if the respondent is teaching or not climate change issues at the university. The second section of the survey, being devoted to the staff members in a university who integrated climate change-related aspects in a course, aimed to gather information on the perceived level of training of the teacher: climate change topics of the course, for which the teacher needs more training, the level of expertise to teach the course, how this was obtained and which sources of information are used to develop the content of the course. The item 14 of the questionnaire was composed of 13 statements assessing the perceived level of efficiency of the most important means to promote CCE. The assessment was made using a Likert-type scale (1—strongly disagree, 2—disagree, 3—no opinion, 4—agree, 5—strongly agree). Statistical processing was performed employing a two-stage cluster analysis to classify attitudes of respondents towards these statements. In this respect, a solution with two clusters was chosen using country/continent from where the respondents/university come from, their gender, age, staff role at the university and frequency of sciences as categorical variables. The difference between the two clusters was determined using the Mann–Whitney U test ( p  < 0.05).

The third section investigated the challenges and drivers of implementing climate change-related initiatives at the university level, aiming to assess the drivers and their potential. Two open-ended questions gave the possibility to the respondent to further emphasize through deeper understanding how the university could address the training needs on CCE. The validity of the data is further assured as it derived from bona fide academic institutions and supplied by well-informed sources. The reliability of data is also assured, since those who replied are very familiar with the concept of sustainability and have an understanding of the emphasis to this topic in their own institutions.

Case-studies selection

In order to reveal how climate change is implemented by universities, mainly through teaching and research, a literature review has been performed. In parallel with covering climate change in bachelors/masters/PhD curriculum, they cover this topic through the following approaches: (i) by delivering different training events; (ii) by means of various public initiatives including workshops and conferences; (iii) by conducting specific research activities.

The selection of 12 universities as case studies was based on two criteria—ranking and geographic location. Criteria #1 was based on Academic Ranking of World Universities 2020 ( http://www.shanghairanking.com/index.html ), three universities from top 100, four universities from ranked between 101 and 1000; five universities out of list. Criteria #2 was based on the geographic location of universities: five from Europe; three from North America; four from other parts of the world.

Results and discussion

A. the results of bibliometric analysis.

Results of the term co-occurrence analysis using VOSviewer allow us to identify what issues related to CCE have received more attention in the literature. These results (Fig.  2 ) show that, in addition to the search terms (i.e., climate change, education, universities, HE, and curriculum), terms such as adaptation, perceptions, science, management, policy, and several terms related to mitigation have received more attention. In other words, these terms have occurred more frequently in the reviewed literature, indicating that issues related to them have been more studied. Better understanding can be achieved by looking into the five major thematic clusters identified by the analysis that are shown in different colors in Fig.  2 . These clusters show the major thematic focus of the existing literature and are, in descending order of importance, focused on climate change adaptation, sustainability and climate change mitigation, institutional aspects, challenges and barriers, and curriculum reform.

In the largest cluster (in red) terms related to climate change adaptation are dominant. This indicates the recognition of the significance of integrating knowledge about climate change adaptation in university education. In fact, communicating the potential risks posed by climate change is critical and has been well recognized in the literature [ 42 ]. It is believed that risk communication, overcoming misconceptions, and enhancing knowledge regarding adaptation strategies can contribute to better response to climatic threats in the long run [ 3 , 42 ].

The second largest cluster (in green) is dominated by terms related to sustainability and climate change mitigation. It is increasingly recognized that CCE should be an integral part of efforts aimed at ESD [ 2 , 38 , 45 ]. Considering the central position of mitigation in climate change efforts and policies, and since the energy and water sectors are major contributors to climate change, there has been increasing attention to issues related to their efficient management [ 28 ]. The emphasis on the climate–energy nexus has highlighted the need for responsible consumption, and extension of efficient energy systems based on renewable energy technologies [ 28 ]. It is demonstrated that enhancing mitigation knowledge through CCE programs can make significant contributions to reducing lifetime emissions of individuals [ 13 ]. This cluster also includes the term “water resources” that, considering the water–energy nexus, may indicate the importance of appropriate and efficient water resource management for achieving climate change mitigation targets [ 49 ]. Water resource management is also essential for climate change adaptation.

Results also highlight the significance of CCE for better community engagement and for facilitating institutional transformations (blue cluster). Also, in some cases, institutional reform could be necessary for mainstreaming CCE in university programs. CCE is likely to increase community engagement in mitigation and adaptation efforts and promote pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors [ 7 , 42 ]. Mainstreaming CCE may, however, be challenging as some institutions may resist change [ 7 ]. This highlights the need for institutional transition to facilitate integration of CCE into university programs [ 32 ]. Such institutional reforms and transitions can also facilitate CCE by developing strategic education programs and providing training programs to enhance competency of teaching staff [ 1 , 29 ]. Institutional support in terms of, among other things, reforming regulations and fulfilling meeting requirements is also critical for addressing other challenges that may make it difficult to mainstream CCE into universities ‘education agenda.

The purple cluster in Fig.  2 highlights some of these barriers. One major challenge is that, traditionally, there has been a tendency towards disciplinary and silo-based education in universities. This is not conducive to CCE that requires inter- and trans-disciplinary approaches and collaboration between different fields and with various stakeholders [ 20 , 29 ]. In this regard, institutional support through development of platforms for engagement and collaboration of stakeholders from different fields and/or offering incentives for participating in collaborative and interdisciplinary programs can be effective [ 1 , 5 , 29 , 46 ]. In addition, as in the case of education for sustainable development (ESD), lack of experiences could be a reason for limited integration of CCE [ 46 ]. Accordingly, developing platforms for sharing successful experiences is necessary.

Finally, the presence of terms such as curriculum and students in the last cluster (yellow) is also noteworthy. Curriculum reform is essential since it may not be easy to integrate topics related to climate change into curricula that are traditionally developed along disciplinary lines [ 20 ]. Successful reform of curricula may, however, be challenging as not all students/teachers may favor it [ 25 ]. Therefore, overcoming such challenges is also essential.

b. Results of the survey

A total of 45 developed and developing countries represent the sample of the survey: Australia (3.9%), Bangladesh (2.4%), Brazil (0.8%), Bulgaria (0.8%), Cameroon (0.8%), Canada (1.6%), China (1.6%), Côte d'Ivoire (0.8%), Cyprus (0.8%), Denmark (0.8%), Ethiopia (4.7%), Fiji (0.8%), Finland (0.8%), France (3.1%), Gambia (0.8%), Germany (2.4%), Ghana (4.7%), Guatemala (0.8%), India (4.7%), Iraq (0.8%), Ireland (1.6%), Italy (0.8%), Kenya (1.6%), Malta (0.8%), Mexico (0.8%), Mozambique (0.8%), Niger (0.8%), Nigeria (6.3%), Norway (1.6%), Pakistan (0.8%), Philippines (3.1%), Poland (0.8%), Portugal (3.9%), South Africa (2.4%), Spain (3.1%), Sri Lanka (1.6%), Switzerland (1.6%), Tanzania (0.8%), Thailand (1.6%), Tunisia (0.8%), Uganda (1.6%), United Kingdom (8.7%), United States (15.0%), Uruguay (0.8%), Vietnam (0.8%). Figure  3 presents the worldwide distribution of responses.

Participating countries in the survey

Table ​ Table2 2 presents the sample characteristics. Most participants were male (63.6%), and the dominant knowledge areas were Social Sciences (31.8%) and Environmental and Earth Sciences (28.7%). Almost all age groups had rather balanced participation (between 20 and 27%), except for the youngest group (21 to 30 years old), which had the lowest participation. In terms of role, the permanent positions mainly involved in postgraduate and undergraduate teaching and research were the main ones indicated by the sample (40.3% and 24.8%, respectively). Regarding the university profile and institutional involvement in external climate change projects, research was the most important type of involvement observed (76.7%). Lower levels of responses were provided for community-related programs (45.0%) and teaching/training programs (36.4%). Other types of involvement mentioned were consultancy projects and events open to the public. No involvement was reported by 12.4% of the respondents, and even when the engagement was reported, they generally tend to occur to a moderate extent (41.9%) ( M  = 2.9520, SD = 0.99).

Sample characteristics

a Other include: Agricultural Economics; Agroforestry and Forestry; Architecture and Urban Studies; Climate and Society; Climate Variability and Change; Coping/Adaptation Strategies, Modeling; Consulting; Education; Education for Sustainable Development; Energy science; Entrepreneurship Education; Environmental and Resource Economics; Environmental Economics; Environmental Health Science; Environmental Law; Environmental Sociology; Environmental studies (not science; studies in interdisciplinary); Student's Union; Sustainable Development and Business; Urban Planning

When asked if they teach climate change-related aspects in a course at the university, 77.5% responded positively (Additional file 2 : Appendix S2 presents the list of courses taught as indicated by the sample). On the other hand, only 58.1% of the respondents indicated that climate change-related aspects are included in the course guidelines. The others either do not teach the topic (16.3%) or include these aspects in the teaching, even though not having the course guidelines (24.8%).

Table ​ Table3 3 presents a comparison between aspects of climate change mostly addressed by the courses taught by the sample and their training needs. The same list of aspects was presented and assessed in two different questions. As expected, the aspects of climate change mitigation and adaptation, and social and environmental impacts were addressed mainly by the courses, while the lowest rates were observed for ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) reporting, climate diplomacy and climate leadership. In terms of more training needed by the educators, around one third of the sample indicated topics as projections of future climate change, the economics of climate change and climate governance. The least indicated topics include climate change mitigation and SDG 13.

Table 3

Comparison between aspects of climate change mostly addressed by the courses taught by the sample and their training needs

Other aspects listed by the sample in the additional open option as already being included in teaching cover a wide range of perspectives and topics: carbon trading, carbon footprinting, greenhouse gas inventorying, climate change impacts, climate and gender, climate change communication, climate finance, climate justice, leadership in sustainability, among others. In terms of the areas where the respondents need further training, the listed topics include: communication strategy, health impacts, history of climate change, how to educate in response to climate change, justice and equity impacts of climate change, keep on track with various information bases, public engagement, countering climate change denialism.

Figure  4 presents the responses for two of the survey questions: “Do you feel prepared to teach climate change-related concepts?” and “Have you received or pursued training on matters related to climate change?”. More than half of the participants indicated that they feel prepared to teach the topic to a great or very great extent. Similarly, around 53% of the respondents said they already received or pursued training on climate change.

Sample perceived preparation to teach climate change-related concepts ( left ) and received/pursued training on climate change ( right ) (in percentage of responses)

The questionnaire also focused on the primary sources the academic staff rely on to develop the content of courses. Scientific articles were the most indicated option (85.5%), followed by Internet-based resources (69.8%), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment reports (68.2%), own research (62.0%) and reports elaborated by other global organizations (58.1%). Printed books were also in the list (39.5%). Almost 10% of the respondents used the additional option to include other sources, such as national assessments of climate change projections and impacts, findings from other project research, the course textbook, workshops, conferences, and webinars.

Table ​ Table4 4 points out the efficiency of the means to promote CCE as stated by the respondents. The highest mean is observed for problem-based learning, followed by experiential learning and fieldwork. Online courses received the lowest mean, indicating probably the need for more developments in this area to support efficiency towards teaching and learning. In courses on climate change, the sample supported the need for placing specific emphasis on problem-based learning (48.1%), behavior change (37.2%), nature-based learning (36.4%), experiential learning (36.4%), cognitive learning (30.2%), and Socio-emotional aspects (30.2%).

Perceived efficiency of the most important means to promote CCE (1—not efficient, 2—somewhat efficient, 3—efficient, 4—very efficient, 5—extremely efficient) ( N  = number,  M  = mean, SD  = standard deviation)

When focusing on climate change and several aspects in the training process involving the universities, the academic staff generally showed a high level of agreement with the presented statements (Table ​ (Table5). 5 ). Based on the Likert scale used (from 1 'strongly disagree' to 5 'strongly agree’), respondents in both identified clusters agree that universities should offer space for climate change education, that climate change is a real concern for the country and that there is a growing demand for experts and professionals in climate change (Table ​ (Table5, 5 , scores above 4). On the other side, respondents have a neutral opinion with the statements referring that the university has properly embedded climate change into teaching and learning activities and offers nature-based/nature-immersive courses to cultivate care for the environment (Table ​ (Table5, 5 , scores around 3). Finally, the sample of respondents does not agree whether there is lot of skepticism related to climate change among students, as this topic had the lowest agreement mean (Table ​ (Table5, 5 , scores below 3).

Description of the two clusters in terms of country/continent, gender, age, staff role and knowledge area ( N  = 129)

The mean ± standard deviations (M ± SD) values 1 were obtained from the raw data. Note: Items denoted with different letters are significantly different at the level of 5%

Likert scale: (1) “Strongly disagree”, (2) “Disagree”, (3) “No opinion”, (4) “Agree”, (5) “Strongly agree”

The cluster analysis revealed two clusters, based on the scores presented in Table ​ Table5, 5 , that can be identified as “climate active universities” and “less climate active universities”. The first cluster mainly consists of respondents/universities from Asia, Africa, Americas and Australia and some western and Northern European countries, of higher ages (above 50 years of age), mainly engaged in teaching and research. Opposed to them, the demographic structure of “less climate active universities” are mainly from Europe (mainly from Central, Eastern and Southern Europe) and some institutions in Africa, with an age below 50 and respondents that are engaged either only as teachers or only as researchers. Out of 13 statements, for nine there are statistically significant differences between the clusters ( p  < 0.05, denoted with different letters in Table ​ Table5 5 ).

While the respondents in both clusters scored almost equally for the first two statements (climate change is a real concern for the country and that the university should offer space for CC, p  > 0.05), the first group of “climate active universities” showed a higher agreement (scores around 4) with the statements referring to the awareness in terms of climate-related initiatives (research units, programs) undertaken by the university, but also with the statements that there is a growing demand for experts and professionals in climate change, thus climate change is likely to increase in the future and to the fact that students are keen to receive training on CC. For the same statements, there is a low agreement (scores around 2) for the group named “less climate active universities”. Both clusters express the same level of disagreement associated with skepticism related to climate change among students ( p  > 0.05) and the same level of agreement that climate change literacy enables better career pathways ( p  > 0.05).

As far as challenges and drivers to implementing CCE are concerned, Fig.  5 summarizes the sample views. Lack of funding for climate-related research was the most indicated challenge (by roughly 63% of the sample—of this number, two-thirds from developing countries). Lack of staff expertise had also a high response (over 50%), supporting the need for further climate change training. On the other hand, lack of students’ interest does not seem to be a considerable challenge (15.5%). Other challenges mentioned by the sample (11%) in the open space consist of lack of internal resources for scientific development, lack of leadership from highest campus officials, lack of progression between climate-related courses, lack of diversity in faculty expertise, lack of targeted on-job short to medium term trainings on climate change and related issues, lack of internship opportunities for students to develop their practical skills on climate change solutions, lack of will to pursue CCE against all odds, and religious or political perspectives.

Challenges ( above ) and Drivers ( below ) to implementing CCE at the respondents ‘ universities (in percentage of responses)

As for drivers, additional resources dedicated to CCE (selected by 71.3% of the sample) were perceived as fundamental for improvements in this area, followed by national guidelines to address climate change in the curricula (63.6%) and the increased attractiveness to students (62.8%). Pressure from stakeholders and/or local communities does not seem to be an essential driver, as it was indicated by around half of the respondents. Other drivers were indicated by less than 7% of the respondents, and include being relevant in global discourse on climate issues, competition among universities in terms of courses offered to their graduates, increased job opportunities directly arising from climate change concerns in businesses and communities, organized faculty support, personal motivation, potential national and international collaborations with research institutions and academic institutes, as well as any non-governmental organizations, and the existence of local (e.g., state) guidelines to address climate change in the curricula.

The last survey questions referred to the perceived potential for CCE in the following years and how it could be addressed. In general, the sample saw potential on the topic ( M  = 3.8281; SD = 0.89715), with over 90% of the respondents spread around the positive response options (26.4% to a moderate extent, 43.4% to a great extent, and 23.3% to a very great extent). A total of 93 respondents (out of 129) used the open space (response was not mandatory) to describe how training needs on CCE can be addressed at the university level.

By coding the responses against the major themes, several aspects were identified as having the highest frequency (proportionally represented in Fig.  6 ), being the significant needs in terms of climate change at universities. The main one identified by the respondents is related to the courses, either by introducing climate change aspects in the existing courses, or designing new interdisciplinary courses. Even the importance of online courses was raised in this respect. Another main need was the curriculum in terms of introducing a flexible and interdisciplinary curriculum, embedding deeply the climate change aspects and allocating more time for them, following by the need to increase staff training and capacity. With a lower frequency, research in terms of funding projects related to climate change was mentioned by the respondents, but also the need to enhance the partnership, collaboration and exchange between the universities, to design specialized university programs, and to organize various events as workshops, seminars and conferences. Some respondents also mentioned community outreach activities, the involvement of students and creating special departments on climate change as being relevant actions to address the climate change needs at universities.

The major themes for training needs in terms of CCE at universities identified by the participants in the survey

These identified needs are also the main instruments used by the 12 selected universities analyzed in the paper to develop climate change actions. The results of the survey are also in line with the challenges to CCE identified in the literature review part of the paper: the strong need identified in the previous publication for institutional support to integrate CCE into the university programs [ 32 ], but also the curriculum reform to overcome the disciplinary perspective by introducing interdisciplinary courses [ 20 ]. This emphazizes the role of the institutional support to CCE by developing specialized training programs and reforming the curricula, raising the competencies of teaching staff being another theme identified in the literature [ 1 , 29 ]. This is in line with the strong need perceived by the respondents of the survey regarding staff training and increasing the capacity of staff to teach the climate change aspects along various courses.

c. Case-studies analysis

Table ​ Table6 6 summarizes the approach used by 12 universities around the world in terms of developing climate-related actions. It is obvious that development of at least one curriculum at one of the three levels of studies is mostly the first step. Also, universities within their different research projects and activities produce graduate theses (mostly PhDs) that have climate change in focus. As a result of these research activities, universities also organize conferences/workshops and have a growing publication record dedicated to climate change.

Examples of means used by 12 universities around the world in terms of developing climate-related actions

In parallel with teaching and research activities, some universities observe climate change from a wider perspective, providing voluntary training for their staff and students, life-learning and other types of courses to the public, or organizing public activities raising awareness to climate change challenges. In this context, the cases presented in this section have been grouped based on how the selected universities have been addressing the needs for increased and advanced climate change education, as identified in the previous methodological step: (i) accredited teaching programs of all levels of studies and research activities; (ii) various training events focused on staff and/or students; (iii) public initiatives; and (iv) other climate change-related activities.

Accredited teaching programs of all levels of studies and research activities

One of the goals at KTH Royal Institute of Technology [ 31 ] is that all educational programs at all levels should integrated climate action in their curricula so that students after graduation can contribute to achievement of a climate neutral society. The university has an active collaboration with the KTH Student Union and student associations to support them in their work to monitor issues that concern sustainability and climate, among others, within education. Staff in leading teaching roles, such as the Director of First and Second Cycle Education, the Director of Third Cycle Education, program coordinators and individuals on the education committee and the equivalent should undergo training in how sustainable development (including climate issues) can be integrated in educational programs. Currently, in the first, second and third cycle, there are educational programs that have a focus on sustainable development and climate transformation.

At the University of Campinas, there are courses in undergraduate and graduate programs focusing on climate change issues (Geographic Climatology; Climate changes; Global Ecology and Climate Change). Among the topics addressed in these courses, it can be mentioned: effects of climate change on plants, analysis of climate changes, and to analyze at global scale the planet’s system, predicting and understanding environmental changes [ 63 ]. At the University, there are 100 documents presented in the online academic repository focusing on climate change. From them, 11 are PhD thesis and 35 are master dissertation [ 63 ]. Besides, the university has the Center for Meteorological and Climate Research Applied to Agriculture (CEPAGRI). Founded in 1983, the Center performs research on agroclimatology, agrometeorology, ecophysiology, and geotechnologies and provide several information about these themes for population. Studies on climate change are an important focus of CEPAGRI [ 9 ].

In the University of British Columbia (Canada) repository, 85 thesis and dissertations are focused on climate change issues, with 36 PhD thesis and 49 master dissertations. Among these documents, the oldest one was published in 1994: a master dissertation about sea level rising. In 2021, the two PhD thesis published (until April, 2021) were related to the impact of climate change on fish stock/supply [ 56 ].

Starting from 2012, the University of Latvia [ 65 ] has been engaged on climate change and sustainable development which has been advanced since 2014 by the development of a study course "Climate change and sustainable development" offered as elective with over 500 students having these lectures. Since 2018 another course is delivered, entitled "Management of Climate Change". At this institution, over 20 BSC, 8 MSc and one PhD theses have analyzed climate change. Impact of such an initiative has been observed by inviting academics to participate in drafting "Climate Law" (in progress) and National climate policy. In 2021, an international conference on Climate change in teacher education is planned.

Climate change is being addressed at the University Fernando Pessoa [ 59 ] within its PhD program in Earth Sciences, comprising the research branches, Oil Systems and Energy Problems, and Geo-risks, Gas Emissions and Geological Sequestration of CO2, through a specialized Isotherm Laboratory (measuring the capacity of coal as non-conventional reservoir to safety store CO2) to study CO2 sequestration in coal, aiming to contribute to Climate Change minimization. In 2008, a Workshop on “Energy, Greenhouse Gases and Environment” was held in Porto. Actions are being developed since the PhD program in Earth Sciences was officially implemented, in 2009. Until now, four PhD theses associated with climate change have been defended, and 12 peer-reviewed publications.

Similar can be seen at University of Colombo [ 64 ] with climate change courses for students at various levels of studies (Climate Change, Adapting businesses for climate change) and a postgraduate program on 'Climate Change and Environmental Management'. This University was the hosting partner of the International Climate Change Conference 2017 and 2018. Over 500 students have been included in various climate change lectures, with 1 PhD and 13 MSc/BSc (Honors) theses defended, and 12 articles related to climate change published in peer-reviewed journals within the last 5 years.

Within the Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee [ 27 ], specific research has targeted climate vulnerability based on land use, soil and climate, temperature and rainfall with urban civic labs incorporating relevant SDGs. Outcome comprises over 20 theses from different levels of studies covering climate change with several publications.

Within its curriculum, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences covers climate change as a topic included in Bachelors and Masters degree programs [ 22 ]. Within the scientific community, research group at Hamburg University of Applied Sciences is editing the world's leading peer-reviewed book series on climate change (the 'Climate Change Management' series) published by Springer which has produced various volumes such as 'Water, Energy and Food Nexus in the Context of Strategies for Climate Change Mitigation', 'Climate Change and the Role of Education or Climate Change, Hazards and Adaptation Options', among others.

Various training events focused on staff and/or students

Hamburg University of Applied Sciences is an example of successful delivering training on climate change for over 3.000 academic staff [ 17 ]. It was organized by the research group “Research and Technology Transfer Sustainability and Climate Change Management” which launched in 2021 a new research on UN SDG13 “The Climate Change and SDG 13 Academic Research and Publications Initiative” [ 22 ].

Ranked in the first position of the [ 51 ] Ranking regarding universities activities related to climate action (SDG 13) [ 52 ], the University of British Columbia (Canada) established a plan to address climate change through actions within their campuses (Climate Action Plan 2030-CAP 2030). Through this plan, the university is engaging its staff and students in the process, providing a channel for them to ask questions, give feedback and actively engage in the actions conducted [ 55 ].

Nottingham Trent University [ 44 ] has run a 'Carbon Literacy Training' supporting staff and students with carbon literacy. It is an offer by the Green Academy at Nottingham Trent University that designed this Climate Education Course and in parallel designed one of the two open-source Carbon Literacy Toolkits for Higher Education (HE) and Universities funded by BEIS for the HE sector in the UK [ 41 ]. In total 13 internal courses have been organized in the last 2 years, with over 250 students and 120 staff participating. Also, this university has offered an online course 'Sustainability in Practice Certificate' (SiP) to all 34.000 students at NTU since 2013, covering all SDGs with a stronger focus on SDG13 added in 2019; 6233 students have completed SiP to date.

In December 2019, KTH Royal Institute of Technology [ 31 ] decided on university-wide climate goals for education, research, collaboration and campus activities. As one of initiatives—all employees at KTH need to have knowledge of climate challenges and actively work to reduce the climate impact based on their role and function at KTH.

Public initiatives

Nottingham Business School, a faculty within Nottingham Trent University, has led the design and distribution of the 'Carbon Literacy Training for Business Schools', which over 400 Academics representing more than 100 business schools in 42 countries worldwide have completed successfully during 2019 and 2020 [ 50 ].

At University of Colombo [ 64 ], awareness programs on climate change have also been conducted for school children, employees at certain institutions, and public (i.e., through public lectures). At campus, awareness is raised by reducing carbon footprint over time, and better waste management.

As a result of an action initiated by administration and students at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) associated with the impact of fossil fuels on climate change [ 10 ], this institution is divesting by the endowment from companies that are developing fossil fuel resources, spreading various types of climate change disinformation and performing anti-climate lobbying by promoting their divestment and organizing Fossil Fuel divestment days [ 37 ].

University of Toronto within its School of Continuing studies (part of a life-learning program) is another example since they launched the course 'Climate Change Policy and Practice' associated with learning the methodology for calculating GHG emissions, GHG reporting and risk management [ 66 ].

The COVID-19 pandemic has provided an additional impulse to new events and activities at universities [ 19 ].

Other climate change-related activities

The University of Fort Hare [ 58 ] has a research center 'Risk & Vulnerability Science Centre' strategically established in 2011 by South Africa’s Department of Science & Innovation. Its main goal is to cope and adapt capacities of rural communities to climate change by improving scientific understanding and developing technologies and innovations to respond to challenges induced by climate change. As a scientific center it has an annual budget to conduct climate change research and since its inception, the budget has been increasing every year. Due to the climate change catastrophes (droughts and floods) experienced in South Africa with more effects being felt within the municipality since 2019, the Centre has performed research collaborations from external local and international funders to tackle climate change issues facing the province. The Centre was selected to conduct climate change awareness workshops for the 2019 National Science Week by the South African Agency for Science and Technology Advancement (SAASTA), entitled 'Facing the Harsh Realities of Climate Change'. It also trained 60 unemployed youths on Household Food Security (including growing of climate resilient crops) in the face of climate change through a short learning program, assisted 15 unemployed youths to establish and register 2 cooperatives on crop production of climate resilient crops in South Africa and trained 25 unemployed youths on climate risks and environmental education.

The University of Colombo [ 64 ] applied for the Green Metric award in 2020, and was ranked fourth among the other universities in the country, however, the University of Colombo earned the highest marks for the Energy and Climate Change category. Currently, several climate change-related research projects involving local and international collaborators are underway.

This paper has presented an overview of the extent to which matters related to climate change are tackled within the teaching and research practices at universities, with a focus on the training needs. There is a perceived need for this climate change-related research, since climate change is a major global problem, and knowledge about it is becoming increasingly important for future professionals, who need to be made familiar with strategies for its mitigation and adaptation as part of their university studies. Through a mixed research strategy, which entailed a bibliometric research, a worldwide online survey and case studies, the study shed some light on various aspects related to teaching and further needs on climate change within university programs.

In general, considering the great diversity of results presented in section three, one of the conclusions that can be drawn is that due considerations to CCE in HE courses are perceived by universities as important, since strategies to promote mitigation and adaptation demand multidisciplinary approaches. Also, as highlighted in the survey results, respondents in general reported that in their countries climate change is perceived as a matter of genuine concern, acknowledging that there is a growing demand for professionals with training in this area.

It is a matter of fact that not all universities are fully prepared for addressing climate change in their curricula and further, thus improvements are needed. One of the areas to be improved is in respect of curriculum innovations, i.e., making provisions to include climate change in teaching programs, and in various courses across the spectrum of academic disciplines. To do so, some of the barriers identified in this paper need to be overcome, and one of such barriers is the limitation in the training of teaching staff. In addition, international partnerships for CCE promotion and more opportunities for exchange of experiences among institutions can be highlighted as one of the steps that should be taken, to facilitate curricular innovations.

This study has some limitations. For instance, in the bibliometric analysis, the studied documents were collected via the WoS database and analyzed using the VOSviewer software. Even though the WoS database is one of the most relevant scientific databases in the world, there are others that could have also been used, to offer a comparison. Regarding the VOSviewer software, the parameters used in the analysis, and chosen by the researchers had their scope limited to the main focus of the study, namely on levels of emphasis to CCE. Regarding the survey, the size sample is too small to allow a great generalization of the results. Finally, regarding the case studies, even though 12 of them were analyzed, a greater diversity could provide a wider range of results.

Despite these constraints, the study provides a welcome addition to the literature, since it offers an overview of the training needs related to sustainable development in HE. The sample of 45 countries offers a rough profile of the trends seen today, whereas the case studies illustrate some of the potentials seen in this rapidly growing field.

The implications of this paper and the research performed are threefold. Firstly, it reiterates the growing emphasis universities give to climate change, as documented in the literature. Secondly, it outlines the key role played by training provisions in this process. Thirdly, it showcases examples of successful inclusion of matters related to climate change in university programs, and how some of the challenges may be overcome. Based on the lessons learned, some of the actions universities may adopt to better take into account matters related to climate change are:

• i. A cross-cutting emphasis to climate change, across courses and disciplines;
• ii. Identification of specific strengths and weaknesses in the curriculum for further improvement;
• iii. Greater provisions for training programs for academic staff, so as to encourage them for a greater engagement in this area;
• iv. Build a bridge between climate change teaching and research to maximize the synergies.

As to future studies, it is suggested that further works documenting experiences of curricular innovations for CCE in HEIs in different regions are undertaken, especially in respect of achieving synergies among disciplines.

Due to the urgency of the climate challenges seen today—and expected in the future—this paper argues that no university can afford to ignore this topic. As seen in the results and discussion section, there are many on-going initiatives in respect of climate change teaching, which show it is perfectly feasible to engage in them. Teaching initiatives, combined with climate change research programmes, can make sure that universities are able to make their contribution towards addressing a problem, which is global in nature but whose impacts are mostly felt at the local level.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Authors' contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design, more specifically: conceptualization: WLF; Methodology: AS, MS, ALS, MM, ID, ISR. Formal analysis and investigation: AS, MS, ALS, MM, ID, ISR. Writing—original draft preparation: WLF, MS, AS, JML, ALS, MM, FMO, ID, RA, IR, FD, MAPD, MK, GF, MMC, AM, PM-H, SKS and EL. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

There is no external funding received for the research included in the manuscript.

Availability of data and materials

Declarations.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher's Note

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

Contributor Information

Walter Leal Filho, Email: [email protected] .

Mihaela Sima, Email: moc.oohay@kimamis .

Ayyoob Sharifi, Email: pj.ca.u-amihsorih@ifirahS .

Johannes M. Luetz, Email: ua.ude.chc@zteulj .

Amanda Lange Salvia, Email: moc.liamg@aivlasadnama .

Mark Mifsud, Email: [email protected] .

Felicia Motunrayo Olooto, Email: moc.liamg@otoolomaicilef .

Ilija Djekic, Email: sr.ca.gb.firga@cikejdi .

Rosley Anholon, Email: rb.pmacinu@yelsor .

Izabela Rampasso, Email: moc.liamg@ossapmarazi .

Felix Kwabena Donkor, Email: ku.oc.oohay@2002roknodxilef .

Maria Alzira Pimenta Dinis, Email: tp.ude.pfu@sinidam .

Maris Klavins, Email: [email protected] .

Göran Finnveden, Email: es.htk@ifnarog .

Martin Munashe Chari, Email: az.ca.hfu@irahcm .

Petra Molthan-Hill, Email: [email protected] .

Alexandra Mifsud, Email: [email protected] .

Salil K. Sen, Email: gs.ude.sidm.rerutcel@sk_lilas , Email: [email protected] .

Erandathie Lokupitiya, Email: kl.ca.bmc.ics@idnare .

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Americans and affirmative action: How the public sees the consideration of race in college admissions, hiring

The term “affirmative action” has a long history in the United States. One early reference appears in an executive order that President John F. Kennedy signed in 1961 , directing federal contractors to “take affirmative action” to prevent discrimination against job applicants and employees on the basis of race or other factors.

Today, affirmative action generally refers to programs aimed at boosting educational or employment opportunities for racial and ethnic minority groups that historically have faced discrimination. But the idea has sparked many debates in recent years . Some Americans see these programs as an effective way to address past wrongs and increase racial and ethnic diversity in higher education and the workplace. Others view them as discriminatory in their own right.

Here’s a closer look at what recent surveys have found about Americans’ views of affirmative action, both in a broad sense and in specific settings.

Pew Research Center published this backgrounder about affirmative action in the United States because the issue is currently in the news. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide a high-profile case in the weeks ahead about the consideration of race and ethnicity in college admissions decisions.

All public opinion findings cited here come from surveys conducted by the Center or Gallup. Information about the field dates and sample sizes of each survey, as well as additional methodological details, are available by following the links in the text.

For more detailed information about how Americans see the consideration of race and ethnicity in college admissions decisions, read our recent reports: “More Americans Disapprove Than Approve of Colleges Considering Race, Ethnicity in Admissions Decisions” and “Asian Americans Hold Mixed Views Around Affirmative Action.”

How familiar is the public with affirmative action?

In a December 2022 Pew Research Center survey, around eight-in-ten U.S. adults (79%) said they had ever heard the phrase “affirmative action.”

College graduates, those with higher incomes and older people were among the groups most likely have heard the term. For instance, 90% of Americans 65 and older said they had heard the phrase, compared with 65% of those ages 18 to 29. White and Black adults were also more likely than Asian or Hispanic adults to have heard the phrase.

How do Americans feel about affirmative action?

Public attitudes about affirmative action depend on how Americans are asked about it.

Americans who had heard the phrase affirmative action in the Center’s December survey were asked whether they saw it as a good or a bad thing. Among those who had ever heard the term, 36% said affirmative action is a good thing, 29% said it is a bad thing and a third weren’t sure.

By comparison, Gallup has asked U.S. adults whether they “generally favor or oppose affirmative action programs for racial minorities.” In 2021, the last time Gallup asked this question, a 62% majority of Americans favored such programs .

Public attitudes about affirmative action can also vary depending on the specific context in which it is being discussed, such as in higher education or the workplace.

How do Americans view race and ethnicity as a factor in college admissions?

A larger share of Americans disapprove than approve of higher education institutions taking race and ethnicity into account when admitting students, according to several recent Center surveys.

In a survey conducted in spring 2023 , half of U.S. adults said they disapprove of selective colleges and universities taking race and ethnicity into account in admissions decisions in order to increase racial and ethnic diversity. A third of adults approved of this, while 16% were not sure.

In the same survey, 49% of Americans said the consideration of race and ethnicity makes the overall admissions process less fair, while only 20% said it makes the process fairer. Another 17% said it does not affect the fairness of the admissions process, while 13% said they weren’t sure.

Other Center surveys have also found more opposition than support for the consideration of race and ethnicity in college admissions decisions.

In the December 2022 survey, for example, 82% of U.S. adults said colleges should not consider race or ethnicity when deciding which students to accept, while only 17% said colleges should take this into account. Americans were far more likely to say that colleges should consider other factors, particularly high school grades and standardized test scores.

How do Americans view race and ethnicity as a factor in hiring?

Most Americans say companies should not take race and ethnicity into account when hiring or promoting workers, according to a 2019 Center survey .

In that survey, 74% of U.S. adults said that, when making decisions about hiring and promotions, companies and organizations should take only a person’s qualifications into account, even if it results in less diversity. Around a quarter (24%) said companies and organizations should take a person’s race and ethnicity into account – in addition to qualifications – to increase diversity.

While most Americans disapprove of the consideration of race and ethnicity in hiring and promotion decisions, they still see value in a diverse workplace. Three-quarters of adults said in the 2019 survey that it was very or somewhat important for companies and organizations to promote racial and ethnic diversity in their workplace. Around a quarter (24%) said this was not too or not at all important.

How do Americans view recent efforts related to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in the workplace? While public attitudes on DEI efforts in the workplace are much more positive than negative, a sizeable share of Americans say it is neither good nor bad, according to a February 2023 Center survey of employed Americans .

In the survey, 56% of workers said that, in general, focusing on increasing diversity, equity and inclusion at work is mainly a good thing, while far fewer (16%) said it is a bad thing. Another 28% said it is neither good nor bad.

Still, relatively few workers attached a great deal of importance to diversity in their workplace. Only about a third (32%) said it’s extremely or very important to them to work somewhere with a mix of employees of different races and ethnicities.

How do attitudes on these topics vary by race and ethnicity? Racial and ethnic minorities – especially Black Americans – are more likely than White Americans to support the consideration of race and ethnicity in college admissions and hiring decisions.

In the Center’s spring 2023 survey, around half of Black adults (47%) approved of selective colleges considering race and ethnicity in their admissions decisions, compared with 39% of Hispanic adults, 37% of Asian adults and 29% of White adults. In fact, Black adults were the only racial or ethnic group more likely to approve than disapprove of such efforts. Hispanic adults were evenly divided, while Asian and White adults were more likely to disapprove than approve. (These figures refer only to English-speaking Asian adults. For a closer look at views among Asian Americans – including those who do not speak English – read our recent report, “Asian Americans Hold Mixed Views Around Affirmative Action.” )

When it comes to hiring and promotion decisions in the workplace, about four-in-ten Black adults (37%) said in the Center’s 2019 survey that companies and organizations should take a person’s race and ethnicity into account – in addition to their qualifications – in order to increase diversity. Hispanic (27%) and White (21%) adults were less likely to express this view. (There were not enough Asian adults in the survey sample to report their results separately.) Are there partisan differences on these issues?

Yes. Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to approve of colleges and employers considering race and ethnicity.

In the Center’s spring 2023 survey, more than half of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (54%) approved of selective colleges and universities taking race and ethnicity into account when making admissions decisions. Roughly three-quarters of Republicans and Republican leaners (74%) disapproved.

There were also wide partisan differences over how the consideration of race and ethnicity affects the college admissions process. Democrats were divided over whether it makes the overall admissions process fairer or less fair (33% and 30%, respectively, held these views). But by a margin of 70% to 7%, Republicans said it makes the process less fair.

In the 2019 survey about hiring and promotion decisions, majorities of Democrats and Republicans alike said companies and organizations should take only a person’s qualifications into account, even if it results in less diversity. But Republicans were far more likely than Democrats to express this view (90% vs. 62%).

• Affirmative Action
• Business & Workplace
• Higher Education

John Gramlich is an associate director at Pew Research Center

Striking findings from 2023

Private, selective colleges are most likely to use race, ethnicity as a factor in admissions decisions, asian americans hold mixed views around affirmative action, more americans disapprove than approve of colleges considering race, ethnicity in admissions decisions, hispanic enrollment reaches new high at four-year colleges in the u.s., but affordability remains an obstacle, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

• COVID-19 Full Coverage
• Cover Stories
• Ulat Filipino
• Special Reports
• Personal Finance
• Other sports
• Pinoy Achievers
• Immigration Guide
• Science and Research
• Technology, Gadgets and Gaming
• Chika Minute
• Showbiz Abroad
• Family and Relationships
• Art and Culture
• Health and Wellness
• Shopping and Fashion
• Hobbies and Activities
• News Hardcore
• Walang Pasok
• Transportation
• Missing Persons
• Community Bulletin Board
• GMA Public Affairs
• State of the Nation
• Unang Balita
• Balitanghali
• News TV Live

Cagayan colleges, universities dismiss reports on influx of Chinese students

Private higher education institutions in Cagayan have denied reports on the supposed influx of Chinese students in the province.

In a joint statement, the concerned colleges and universities said there are only 486 foreign students at St. Paul University Philippines in Tuguegarao City.

“Contrary to what is reported by various media agencies, the 4,600 reported enrolled number of students is not only grossly overstated but completely baseless,” they said.

“The current foreign student enrollment at St Paul University Philippines (SPUP) in Tuguegarao City is 486 graduate students as of April 17, 2024, which consists of various nationalities (Americans, Chinese, Indonesians, Japanese, and Vietnamese),” they added.

Other institutions, including University of Cagayan Valley, University of St Louis Tuguegarao, and Medical Colleges of Northern Philippines, currently do not have foreign students, they said.

For the concerned colleges and universities, the insinuation that the presence of Chinese students in the province poses a threat to national security is “deeply offensive” and “a blatant display of racism and Sinophobia.”

“The insinuation that the presence of Chinese students in the City's Universities poses a threat to national security is not only baseless but also deeply offensive,” they said.

“It is a blatant display of racism and Sinophobia that has no place in our society, especially within the realm of education.” 

The Commission on Higher Education (CHED) earlier said there are no Chinese students enrolled in local public colleges and universities in Cagayan apart from St. Paul University – Tuguegarao, the only school that has the proper authority to accept international students.

According to CHED, it has not received complaints of violation of St. Paul University Philippines. But in case one if filed, CHED said it will forward it to the inter-agency committee for appropriate action.

“On the security aspect, we leave the matter to the expertise of our security agencies to investigate and recommend appropriate actions,” CHED said.

“We will support and attend congressional investigations and other inter-agency meetings concerning these allegations. We welcome and shall cooperate should any investigation be required,” it added.

Cagayan 3rd District Representative Joseph "Jojo" Lara is seeking a House inquiry into an apparent increase in Chinese students in the province.

He said the presence of Chinese students could put the country’s security at risk amid China's aggression in the West Philippine Sea.

The Chinese Embassy in the Philippines belied the 'malicious' accusations.

“The unfounded accusation of our educational exchanges is yet another malicious sleight of hand to incite suspicion and hatred of China. Insightful people in the Philippines have not lost sight of this tendency by calling it ‘McCarthyism’ resurrecting in the Philippines,” the Embassy said

McCarthyism was the political repression and persecution of left-wing individuals and a campaign that spread fear of alleged communist influence on American institutions and of Soviet espionage in the United States during the late 1940s through the 1950s.

“This deserves high vigilance and must be resolutely opposed,” the Chinese Embassy said. —KBK, GMA Integrated News 

• India Today
• Business Today
• Reader’s Digest
• Harper's Bazaar
• Brides Today
• Cosmopolitan
• Aaj Tak Campus
• India Today Hindi

Indian students are choosing Canada over US for education. Here's why

A study by the national foundation for american policy (nfap) shows a significant shift in the destination indian students are choosing for education. canada saw an increase of 5,800% in the number of indian students, while it was 45% in the case of the us..

Listen to Story

• After studies, international students gain permanent residency in Canada in a few years
• US has limits on employment-based green cards, and Indians have to wait for decades
• The pandemic hit enrolment numbers in the US, but Indian student numbers have bounced back

Recent years have witnessed a surge in enrolment by Indian students at Canadian universities, according to a study by the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP). The report highlights a remarkable increase in the number of Indian students opting for Canada over the United States for higher education.

Indian enrolment at Canadian universities rose more than 5,800% in the last two decades, according to the NFAP. The number of Indian students in the US, in comparison, grew by just 45% between 2000 and 2021.

The NFAP is a non-profit policy think tank.

The NFAP study says that after finishing studies, international students in Canada can become permanent residents in a few years.

But in the US, there are limits on employment-based green cards, meaning educated people from India might wait decades for permanent residency.

The Trump administration made getting H-1B status harder and talked about adding new restrictions or removing Optional Practical Training for students, which might have discouraged international students from going to US universities, according to NFAP.

In January, Canada announced a two-year cap for international students , which was later expanded.

For the first time, starting in September, Canada will limit the number of 'temporary residents' it will admit.

This includes temporary foreign workers, those admitted under humanitarian and asylum programmes.

Before this, only annual targets were set for permanent residents.

Additionally, there might be a short-term impact on Indian student applications due to diplomatic issues between India and Canada.

PATHWAY TO PERMANENT RESIDENCY

The research underscores the attractiveness of Canada's immigration policies for international students. Graduates in Canada have the opportunity to gain permanent residency within a few years after graduation, unlike the US, where the process can entail long waiting periods, according to NFAP.

The number of Indians moving to Canada has gone up a lot since 2013. Between 2013 and 2023, the number rose from 32,828 to 139,715, a 326% increase. This increase was fuelled by more Indian students going to Canadian universities.

The number of international students at Canadian universities went up from 62,223 in 2000 to 400,521 in 2021, a 544% increase. International students have been really important for Canadian universities. Since 2000, 45% of the growth in enrolment at Canadian universities is because of international students.

The increase in Indian students has played a big role in the rise of international students coming to Canada. Over the last two decades, the number of Indian students at Canadian universities went up by over 5,000%.

Specifically, Indian enrolment went from 2,181 in 2000 to 128,928 in 2021, an increase of 126,747 or 5,811%. This increase accounts for 37% of the overall rise in international students at Canadian universities from 2000 to 2021. However, there might be fewer visas issued to Indian students in the short term due to a diplomatic issue.

Over the same period, the number of international students in the US also went up, but at a slower rate compared to Canada. Between 2000 and 2021, the number of international students in US universities increased from 526,809 to 763,760, a rise of 236,951 or 45%. This is less than the over 500% increase seen in international students at Canadian universities during the same time.

In January 2015, Canada started the Express Entry program, which gives preference to skilled professionals who have studied in Canada or worked there temporarily. Then, in June 2017, Canada launched its Global Skills Strategy to attract top foreign talent and encourage foreign investment by making it easier for companies to set up offices in Canada.

LONG WAITS FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCY

Highly skilled Indians often face long waits for employment-based immigrant visas, sometimes lasting decades. More than 1.2 million Indians, including their families, are waiting in line for these visas, as the annual limit of 140,000 green cards and the per-country limit have led to these lengthy waits. These limits have not changed since 1990.

The pandemic affected enrolment numbers in the US, but Indian student numbers might have bounced back somewhat. In 2021, there were around 130,994 Indian students, similar to the 129,135 in 2016. In 2022, Indian student enrolment (excluding OPT) was 199,861, likely due to lower enrollment during the pandemic. The average enrolment for Indian students during the fall from 2020 to 2022 was 141,612, which was 29,661 or 26% higher than in fall 2019.

Indian graduate students at US universities saw a decline of 28% in computer science and 35% in engineering between 2016-17 and 2019-20.

In 2020, Indian graduate students in engineering and computer science continued to decline. In 2022, Indian student graduate-level enrolment in engineering was 33,820, lower than the 39,470 in 2016 but much higher than the levels in 2019 (25,470) and 2020 (18,390).

Indian enrolment at Canadian universities went up a lot from 2,181 in 2000 to 128,928 in 2021, a big increase of 126,747 or 5,811%. This rise in Indian students makes up 37% of the total increase in international students at Canadian universities from 2000 to 2021, according to NFAP. Published By: Girish Kumar Anshul Published On: Apr 25, 2024