"integrating genAI into education will result in commercialization of a collective responsibility: fostering & cultivating the coming generation"

and this responsibility can't be left to an industry that has aligned with authoritarian regimes, prioritises profit at any cost, and is powering fascism

among the things we apparently need to do a better job of going forward - as a society, it seems - is communicating the basic conceit of what learning is and why we value it. a problem that we in higher ed share with our K-12 colleagues

And because I mentioned a new baby... here's a photo of little Charlotte, the sweetest, most chill baby you’ve ever met. 💜

As always, it was a pleasure to work with Maithreyi Gopalan (@maithgopalan.bsky.social), Kathy Emerson, and Greg Walton! Grateful as well to Carlton Fong (@carltonfong.bsky.social‬) and Chris Rozek (@chrisrozek.bsky.social‬) for their thoughtful and sharp editorial guidance throughout the process.

Read the full paper here:

📄 doi.org/10.1007/s106...

📄 drive.google.com/file/d/1md8M...

We hope this work can help institutional leaders identify the students they’re serving well—and who is not YET well-served—and take evidence-based steps to expand belonging opportunities for all students.

And Kathy Emerson (a coauthor on this paper) wrote a fantastic summary here:

🔗 theequityaccelerator.substack.com/p/new-resear...

I talk more about all these ideas in this Chronicle of Evidence-Based Mentoring interview:

🔗 www.evidencebasedmentoring.org/profiles-in-...

Through regular surveys, interviews, and focus groups with a cross-section of your students, you can learn who is well-served—and who is NOT well-served YET—and why.

This listening is essential for taking steps that reflect the experiences of students on YOUR campus.

So, what’s a good starting point for institutional leaders?

LISTEN to YOUR students. Don’t assume you already know which student groups feel greater or lesser belonging on your campus—or which opportunities are equitably available across groups. Ask!

We also tested the four institutional factors identified above. Each one predicted belonging affordances—even when considered simultaneously.

These factors may serve as levers of change at your institution—areas where colleges and universities can intervene to expand belonging opportunities.

But we also found hopeful variation: some institutions are doing a good job supporting students from these same groups.

So, a big takeaway is that there’s no single outcome tied to identity—simply put, campus context matters.

Some student groups—esp. Black, Asian, and first-gen students—were systematically less well-served by institutions. That is, they were less likely to have what we call “minimally adequate” belonging affordances: the baseline level of opportunities needed to benefit from belonging interventions.

We found wide variation in belonging opportunities—across and within universities, and across and within identity groups.

Then we analyzed data from over 15,000 students at 22 colleges—a nationally representative sample collected by the College Transition Collaborative—to map the landscape of belonging opportunities in U.S. higher education.

3. Opportunities for strong relationships – Are there real chances for me to form close connections with peers and faculty?

4. Opportunities for productive learning – Do I feel supported in developing a sense of purpose? Do I get the message that I—and people like me—can grow and thrive here?