As we enter the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the emphasis in higher learning is less on in-depth discipline knowledge and more on agile skills in critical thinking and creative thinking. How can we more deeply integrate the development of these skills into our curricula?
Of course, the need for these skills is based upon the continuing rapid development and deployment of Artificial Intelligence (AI) across all fields of employment worldwide. In their annual survey of fastest-growing skills employers are seeking LinkedIn found “strategic thinking” and “innovative thinking” are near the top of the list around the world. AI has evergreen foundational knowledge and information of the fields. Whereas we humans can be most valuable in the critical thinking in decision making as well as the creative thinking in seeking innovative and alternative approaches.
In addressing this challenge, we are well-advised to turn to AI itself in finding methods and modes of promoting of supporting learners in these two areas.
The Foundation for Critical Thinking traces the history of teaching critical thinking back to Socrates:
The intellectual roots of critical thinking are as ancient as its etymology, traceable, ultimately, to the teaching practice and vision of Socrates 2,500 years ago who discovered by a method of probing questioning that people could not rationally justify their confident claims to knowledge…. He established the importance of seeking evidence, closely examining reasoning and assumptions, analyzing basic concepts, and tracing out implications not only of what is said but of what is done as well. His method of questioning is now known as “Socratic Questioning” and is the best-known critical thinking teaching strategy. In his mode of questioning, Socrates highlighted the need in thinking for clarity and logical consistency.
This ancient method of leading learners to deeper thought and more critical consideration of assumptions and conclusions reached by others remains a gold standard in building critical thinking. It can be applied to every discipline across the curriculum. If we had a tool to convey this mode of probing questioning to topics addressed throughout the semester, we would be able to not only build critical thinking skills, but also instantly create a record for assessment of the actual (authentic) thought process and development of critical thinking skills of the learner.
I propose that we can easily implement this in every one of our classes where we seek to develop “creative thinking” as a learning outcome.
The online periodical “There’s an AI for That” (TAAFT) provides valuable prompts for tools that can be useful in a wide variety of applications. Recently, TAAFT shared a lengthy 1,258-word prompt that can be used in most of the leading versions of AI from ChatGPT, Gemini, Anthropic and others. At no charge, you and your learners can upload the prompt to create a “Socratic Questioner.”
This prompt turns AI into an advanced, patient, and intellectually rigorous mentor whose only role is to guide users to their own clarity and insight through a structured series of targeted, open-ended questions. The Socratic Questioner never offers direct answers, advice, or opinions. Instead, it listens closely to the user’s stated situation or dilemma, restates their core question for clarity, and proceeds one question at a time, each building on the last, to help the user examine beliefs, surface assumptions, and consider new angles. The entire process is calm, empathetic, and paced to the user’s comfort, creating a safe space for deep self-reflection without judgment or pressure.
In utilizing this tool, we can give learners the opportunity to use the tool on their AI platform of choice to go through responding to a flow of custom questions designed to help them think critically about the subject they have chosen. I encourage you to try this out and identify ways you might be able to use it to assist learners in advancing their critical thinking.
How, then, can we address the need for the learning of innovative or creative thinking? Once again, AI has a role to play. There is a no-cost tool that may offer assistance. It is “Storm” which is an abbreviation of brainstorm. With it you can create a “Co-Storm” roundtable brainstorming virtual discussion. This tool is a free research preview from the Stanford University OVAL lab. What is interesting about this tool is that after you create the title and purpose of your brainstorming, the app begins building a mind map for the topic. Virtual roundtable participants with relevant expertise are created to join in the brainstorming.
For example, I started a Co-Storm to discuss the topic of whether adult learners might be well served by online classes taught by AI. A moderator appeared who then summoned virtual participants, including a General Knowledge Provider, an Education Expert, an Adult Learning Advocate, an AI Ethics Expert and more. Each offered opinions (with embedded citations) on the relevant topic of social emotional aspects of learning among adult learners. I was able to further the discussion by inquiring of the virtual panel if there was evidence that busy adult learners could benefit from asynchronous online delivery. I further inquired about the value of AI tutors.
To get to the point of innovation and creative responses, I asked “What other innovative methods and modes might we use to better serve the vast audience of adult learners?” That drew a flurry of responses including blended learning, microlearning, experiential learning, collaborative techniques, gamification, and mentorship. A virtual AI Education Expert entered the roundtable and lauded the values of adaptive learning. All of these were supported by a host of citations embedded in the responses of the virtual experts.
Encouraging your learners to utilize the Stanford Co-Storm tool can result in a virtual panel discussion with a whole host of creative solutions from a variety of perspectives to real-world or hypothetical issues in your discipline. As I did, you can ask the Co-Storm to identify innovative approaches along with supporting citations that give a fresh perspective to topics in your field.
These are just two approaches to enabling your learners to use AI tools in learning-supportive ways, rather than the oft-suggested “cheating” uses of AI. In each case, an instructor can request that learners submit the transcript of their exchanges. The transcript not only provides evidence of the learner’s engagement, but it may become a tool for the instructor to continue the discussion with the student or groups of students.
I encourage readers to experiment with these two teaching approaches. They appear to be broad enough that they can provide value in promoting creative and critical thinking across many disciplines. The Socratic Questioner and the Co-Storm Roundtable are two free tools that you can fold into your course plans for the fall that will begin to prepare your students for the AI-enhanced workplace they are about to enter.
This article was originally published in Inside Higher Ed.

By Amy Heitzman
As the future of work rapidly evolves, higher education institutions must accelerate their capacity to engage with employers—building bridges between learning and labor market relevance. At UPCEA, with support from Walmart, the world’s largest employer, we’ve undertaken two major initiatives to strengthen these bridges.
The first project provided foundational benchmarking data, a practical playbook, and a maturity index to help institutions self-assess and enhance their employer engagement strategies. What we learned? Employer engagement is universally challenging—and as complex and varied as institutional contexts themselves.
To address this, our second Walmart-supported initiative launched a Peer Learning Leader model built around human-centered design. This fall, we will release a modular training guide that institutions can use to develop deeper and more productive employer partnerships.
In a recent panel at the Canadian Association for University Continuing Education (CAUCE) conference—moderated by UPCEA Deputy CEO and Chief Learning Officer Amy Heitzman—leaders representing five remarkable institutions shared how they are navigating and innovating within this shifting terrain. Their insights illuminate the power—and necessity—of scaling employer engagement in credential innovation.
Institutional Snapshots: Distinct Contexts, Shared Mission
Each panelist brought a unique lens:
- Amrit Ahluwalia from Western University emphasized how continuing education units can build on institutional expertise to support upskilling in transforming market segments (like healthcare, tech, and advanced manufacturing).
- Juan Mavo-Navarro of the University of Toronto School of Continuing Studies (UofT SCS) highlighted a robust suite of programs supporting both corporate training and equity-deserving groups.
- Rod Lastra from the University of Manitoba shared a legacy of innovative extension work, including early involvement in MOOCs and strong Indigenous access programs.
- Lena Patterson of Toronto Metropolitan University illustrated how a continuing education unit in a downtown polytechnic evolved into a 70,000-enrollment powerhouse with microcredentials and high-impact industry engagement.
- Christie Schultz at the University of Regina reflected on the power of custom programming and the strategic use of flexible learning to extend the university’s reach.
From Labor Gaps to Learning Gains: Why Employer Engagement Matters
The conversation emphasized that employer engagement is not just a strategic goal—it’s a societal imperative. Whether addressing acute labor shortages, uplifting marginalized communities, or ensuring workforce adaptability, each institution is designing offerings that respond to real-world needs.
Juan shared how UofT SCS developed targeted upskilling programs with Porsche Cars Canada and inclusive pathways for Black Canadians and internationally educated female legal professionals.
Rod advocated for an “interoceptive” strategy: building internal alignment before engaging externally. “Scale with intention,” he noted, reminding us that sustainable growth requires internal clarity, institutional trust, and strategic positioning.
Lena echoed this, emphasizing trust-building and the transformative potential of workplace learning. She sees AI as an opportunity to spotlight the importance of higher-order thinking—if we rise to the challenge of designing and assessing within the context of its use.
Turning Engagement into Ecosystems: What’s Working?
Employer engagement, our panelists agreed, must be more than transactional. It must be relational, responsive, and rooted in shared goals. Rod called for adaptive learning ecosystems and warned against “check-the-box” programming. Christie stressed that employer consultations often spark broader offerings—showcasing the value of listening before scaling.
Lena, Juan, and Amrit described their “listening tour” approaches: showing up in employer spaces, exploring problems together, and providing visibility into university capabilities. Juan highlighted initiatives like UofT SCS’s Executive Speaker Series and Career Expo as essential touchpoints for dialogue and partnership.
Co-Creation as the Gold Standard
True innovation, our panel agreed, often begins with co-creation. Lena declared it the “gold standard,” emphasizing industry involvement in microcredential design. Christie described how a custom employer-driven program evolved into a micro-certificate in Effective Communication. Amrit underscored the practical need to adapt existing programs due to resource constraints—a reality for many.
Rod cautioned against focusing solely on the “credential” and urged institutions to prioritize how they measure and deliver value. At Manitoba, microcredential governance is structured around quality, transparency, and adaptability—not just issuing badges, but ensuring they mean something to learners and employers alike.
Rethinking Business Models: Innovation, Risk, and Resilience
Every institution is grappling with the economics of innovation. Christie put it bluntly: “Our institutions want us to make money—to support broader institutional goals.” But more than that, she emphasized aligning revenue with community impact—something enabled by high-quality, relevant programming.
Amrit acknowledged the challenge of securing grant funding without dedicated resources. Meanwhile, Juan shared how UofT is diversifying funding through government and advancement channels to reduce dependency on enrollment fees alone.
Rod urged a strategic business development mindset—pursuing partnerships that align with institutional values and generate long-term benefits. Lena emphasized how external funding can de-risk innovation, allowing universities to pilot new models without burdening their partners.
Conclusion: Building the Future, Together
From strategic alliances and co-designed credentials to workforce-responsive ecosystems, the work of employer engagement is dynamic and deeply contextual. But one truth emerges clearly: universities are uniquely positioned to lead—not just react to—the future of work.
As UPCEA continues to support institutions in this critical work, we invite all higher education leaders to see employer engagement not as a “nice to have,” but as central to our mission in a rapidly changing world. With intentionality, empathy, and innovation, we can build the infrastructure of learning for the workforce of tomorrow.
Stay tuned for the launch of our Peer Learning Leader module this fall, and explore the full benchmarking data, playbook, and maturity index available through UPCEA.
Why academic institutions are embedding IT credential content into programs far beyond computer science.
The new reality: every field is a tech field
Whether you’re studying law or logistics, public health or public policy, tech skills are no longer optional. From automation to data security to compliance, today’s workforce expects professionals to be as comfortable with technology as they are with disciplinary expertise. That’s why more forward-looking colleges and universities are embedding IT credentials, like cybersecurity, data privacy, and risk management, into non-IT programs. It’s a move that’s not just smart. It’s strategic.
Students are no longer asking if they need tech skills. They’re asking which ones, and how soon they’ll be certified. Because employers are asking them. Academic institutions that can answer that with confidence are the ones pulling ahead in the race for relevance, and enrollment.
Degrees without credentials? That’s a risk too
Let’s be honest: a traditional degree, on its own, isn’t always enough anymore. The job market is flooded with well-educated candidates. What sets students apart is proof they can apply that knowledge in the real world. Industry-recognized credentials offer that proof: validated, measurable, and immediately useful. And while LinkedIn feeds are filled with individuals promoting their new certificates or badges, if they’re not truly industry-required, they are often just nice-to-haves.
For academic institutions, not offering credentials can quietly undermine programs. It’s not just a missed opportunity, it’s a reputational risk. Students talk. Employers notice. And once the word spreads that a competing institution offers both a degree and a credentialed skillset, the comparison isn’t flattering.
Blend disciplines, unlock new doors
Adding IT credentials doesn’t mean “techifying” every degree. It means preparing students to solve today’s real-world challenges.
Imagine a criminal justice major who can investigate digital evidence. A healthcare admin student trained in HIPAA-compliant data security. A business grad who knows how to navigate governance and compliance. These are not niche combinations; they’re competitive advantages. Transdisciplinary pathways like these expand what a program can promise and who it can attract. They also create new options for returning adult learners and career-switchers looking for programs that meet them where they are and get them where they want to go.
Schools don’t have to build it themselves
Here’s the part many schools don’t realize—credential-ready content already exists. Faculty don’t have to write it. Institutions don’t have to invent it. And students don’t have to jump through extra hoops to access it.
Academic partnerships with credential-providers offer plug-and-play curriculum, assessments, and support, everything needed to embed credentials directly into existing courses. In many cases, the same professor can teach the core subject and the credential content with just a few hours of enablement. That’s how schools are launching new tech-enhanced programs in weeks—not years. That’s weeks—not years.
What’s next?
As the demand for tech-savvy graduates continues to grow, embedding IT credentials across disciplines isn’t just a nice-to-have. It’s the next logical step in keeping academic offerings aligned with the workforce and unlocking greater value for students and institutions alike.
— Jeff Angle, Head of Academic Partnerships at ISACA (Presenting at 2025 Convergence, with George Washington University & National CyberWatch Center)
About ISACA
ISACA helps colleges and universities embed globally recognized IT credential content into non-IT degree programs. With credential-ready curriculum, built-in support, and global credibility, ISACA’s academic partnerships help institutions prepare students for careers—not just graduation. Learn more at www.isaca.org/academic
Association Award Recipients Highlighted at Event
WASHINGTON (July 17, 2025) – UPCEA, the online and professional education association, is pleased to recognize the recipients of this year’s online and distance education awards.
Award recipients will be showcased at the Summit for Online Leadership and Administration (SOLAR) Conference, July 22-24 in Portland, Oregon. The annual SOLAR conference brings together leaders, practitioners, and innovators who are shaping the future of digital learning and strategic leadership in higher education.
“Each year, UPCEA has the privilege of recognizing extraordinary individuals who exemplify excellence, innovation, and impact in our field. This year’s recipients embody the spirit of our profession — advancing access, transforming teaching and learning, and leading with vision” said Julie Uranis, Senior Vice President of Online and Strategic Initiatives for UPCEA. “Their contributions reflect the best of what we strive for as a community of online leaders. We are honored to celebrate their achievements at SOLAR and are inspired by their commitment to our shared mission.”
The recipients of this year’s awards are as follows:
Ray Schroeder Leadership Award for the Advancement of Digital Learning
The Ray Schroeder Leadership Award for the Advancement of Digital Learning recognizes the lifetime achievements and professionalism of online and digital learning practitioners. Awardees have had long and distinguished careers, advancing the cause of online and digital learning in postsecondary education. Award recipients have elevated the field, advanced scholarship, demonstrated intellectual curiosity, and embodied a pioneering spirit, through both academic and more publicly available publications, research, advocacy, and mentorship. The award is not necessarily given each year.
Recipient: Marie Cini, University of the People
Phillip E. Frandson Award for Literature
The Phillip E. Frandson Award for Literature recognizes the author and publisher of an outstanding work of continuing higher education literature. It is given in memory of Phillip E. Frandson, Dean of Extension, University of California, Los Angeles, and NUEA President, 1977–78.
Recipient: High-Impact Design for Online Courses: Blueprinting Quality Digital Learning in Eight Practical Steps, Bethany Simunich, Quality Matters, and Andrea Gregg and Penny Ralston-Berg, The Pennsylvania State University
UPCEA Outstanding Service in Postsecondary Instructional Design
Instructional Design is necessary for the development of engaging quality teaching and learning experiences across a wide variety of modalities and contexts. The UPCEA Outstanding Service in Postsecondary Instructional Design Award recognizes outstanding service to the field of instructional design in one or more of the following areas: modeling and disseminating research (via workshops, webinars, conferences, papers, etc.), best practices, innovative methods, and/or mentorship, all for the betterment of the instructional design community. This award celebrates the connective power of instructional design professionals within the learning design process, chiefly their role in highlighting the critical need for educators of all roles to work in partnership in support of student success.
Recipient: Naomi Pariseault, Brown University
UPCEA Strategic Innovation in Online Education Award
The UPCEA Strategic Innovation in Online Education Award recognizes an institution of higher education (i.e. campus, system, or consortium) that has, at an institutional level, set and met innovative goals focused on online education and been strategic in the planning, development, implementation and sustainability in line with the institutional mission. Examples include authentic institutional online organizational structure, partnership models to achieve specific goals, maximizing resource efficiencies, improving the learning experience for faculty and students, or the use of technology and learning design to advance online education and address institutional goals. The award recognizes an institution (broadly defined) that has achieved excellence and innovation in strategies used to meet goals and objectives focused on online education.
Recipient: IU Online Programs of Scale, Indiana University
All four awards are part of UPCEA’s Association Awards program. Nominations for Association Awards are accepted in October/November, and recipients are selected and notified the following February.
# # #
About UPCEA
UPCEA is the online and professional education association. Our members continuously reinvent higher education, positively impacting millions of lives. We proudly lead and support them through cutting edge research, professional development, networking and mentorship, conferences and seminars, and stakeholder advocacy. Our collaborative, entrepreneurial community brings together decision makers and influencers in education, industry, research, and policy interested in improving educational access and outcomes. Learn more about us at UPCEA.edu and follow us on online @UPCEA.
CONTACT:
Jean Simmons, UPCEA Director of Marketing, [email protected]
By Chelsea Miller, UpSkill America, and Amy Heitzman, UPCEA
Partnership is a key driver to unlocking opportunity in America, which is why UPCEA and UpSkill America are so excited to come together to help academic institutions understand one particular priority for employers: leveraging tax policies to drive engagement (really!).
UpSkill America focuses on how employers who want to empower their workforce through education are a key stakeholder for academic institutions. UPCEA focuses on how academic institutions can be innovative partners for employers. Both organizations recognize that diving into the IRS tax code isn’t everyone’s idea of a good time. When we ask higher education audiences, “Do you know about Section 127?” we are normally met with blank stares. Despite this reaction, we know that for leaders in higher education, this is essential knowledge—especially when building strong partnerships with employers. It may feel like just another policy to wrap your head around in a rapidly changing landscape, but understanding this policy is a game-changer.
So, what exactly is Section 127?
In simple terms, Section 127 of the IRS code allows employees to receive up to $5,250 in tax-free educational assistance from their employers. For employers, it is a tax deduction for offering qualified education assistance programs (QEAP). It’s a win-win: employees get support for their education, and employers get a write off for investing in a skilled workforce.
This part of the code requires work from the employer – creation of a written plan determining what is included in their qualified education assistance program – in order for them to take advantage of the tax incentive. The written policy must ensure the program has explicit eligibility requirements that enable many workers to participate, not just highly-compensated employees. The $5,250 does not have to be used exclusively for tuition – it covers books, fees, and other strictly defined related expenses. During the pandemic, Section 127 was modified to include student loan repayments.
Anything over $5,250 is considered taxable income for the employee, though some employers may choose to cover those additional taxes through a “gross up” process at the end of the benefit year. It’s worth noting that in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Puerto Rico[1], tax implications start from the very first dollar for all employees.
This important piece of the tax code dates back to the 1970s and has seen infrequent updates since. It is often the guiding policy for employers looking to create an education benefit for their employees.
Are there other parts of the tax code that impact this space?
Yes, there are two other relevant pieces of the tax code employers can consider when developing their education benefit programs – Section 117 and Section 132(d) – detailed below:
Section 117 – Free or reduced tuition for employees of educational institutions may be excludable to employees. The term “qualified tuition reduction” means a tax-free reduction in tuition provided by an eligible educational institution. In plain terms, academic institutions can give reduced or free tuition to their employees without tax implication to either party.
Section 132(d) – For educational reimbursement to qualify as a working condition fringe benefit, the education must be job-related. It is not required that the employer have a written plan, and they may spend what they need for any level of employee. Said differently, if a program or training can be connected to an employee’s role, it can be covered as a fringe benefit.
What Employers Need from Higher Education
Section 127 and the other tax policies described are key drivers in the modern education benefits landscape so understanding them is critical from an employer’s point of view. Section 127 can be a crucial factor for employers when they’re deciding how to invest in their employees’ growth and success. And while other two policies impact a smaller percentage of employers (including academic institutions as employers), they are essential to sustained workforce development program efficacy.
Some key action steps that academic institutions can take include:
- Assess your catalog against these policies. How many fit employers’ desired price point? Do you have ways to manage enrollment intensity to keep within the parameters?
- Create detailed and timely invoices for employer partnerships. These are essential for an employer’s operations. Understanding how close an employee is to the funding caps and ensuring employers can pay invoices through their existing processes help build trust between the employer and academic institutions. Ensure you understand the employer’s benefit year and how it informs their needs.
- Enhance data systems to develop an ability to track student enrollment for employers. Employers want to understand what they are investing in and how an employee is progressing.
For colleges, universities, and training providers, the $5,250 threshold is vital. It’s often the financial benchmark employers keep in mind when assessing programs to address skills gaps and enhance their workforce. While more research is needed to fully understand employer willingness to exceed this cap, being aware of this amount as an all-in cost ceiling is a strong first step as institutions work to increase collaboration with employers.
For community-based organizations wanting to support learners, academic institutions, and employers, understanding these tax policies is essential to help broker the best experience possible for all stakeholders within the constraints of the tax code. Ensuring questions are asked of all parties and there is shared understanding is essential.
How do these tax codes impact partnerships with employers?
For employers with a QEAP or fringe benefit, it’s important that employers understand what they are paying for each employee and on what time frame. This is why you may have employer partners concerned about getting an invoice that clearly articulates what is being paid for each individual or tracking the amount spent for a particular learner in a twelve month period.
Additionally, these tax codes shift what the employer partner is focusing on as success – they want to ensure that students are progressing and completing as the company invests in their efforts to gain new skills, not solely on enrollment.
Real World Example from UPCEA Member Purdue Global:
Maricel Lawrence, Innovation Catalyst at Purdue Global, shared with us in a recent conversation that Purdue Global’s programs are frequently chosen by companies to fulfill their employee education benefits through the IRS Section 127.
Says Dr. Lawrence, “The direct financial advantage for employees is that this benefit allows them to pursue higher education without the burden of immediate taxation on the employer-provided assistance. This makes education more accessible and affordable. Moreover, companies can foster a more skilled, engaged, and loyal workforce. It’s an investment in employee development that can lead to improved productivity, retention, and a stronger talent pipeline.”
Dr. Lawrence outlines a few current arrangements the Purdue Global (PG) team uses to leverage Section 127 for companies’ employee tuition assistance:
- Example 1: Purdue Global provides a discounted tuition rate per credit hour to employees of partner companies. The tuition benefit covers the cost of tuition, fees, and books (undergraduate program books included in tuition) up to $5,250.00 per annum (January 1st to December 31st), to support the cost of completion of an employer-approved program at Purdue Global. Any remaining balance once the $5,250.00 is met is the student’s responsibility. The company has a series of requirements to be eligible for this benefit, including being a current employee, meeting their internal policies, and meeting PG’s standards for Satisfactory Academic Progress.
- Example 2: Purdue Global developed a tuition grant extended to a select group of partners designed to cover the difference between eligible alliance organization employee tuition assistance ($5,250/year) and the cost of completion for a Purdue Global degree. Students can take up to two courses per 10-week term unless the program’s policy specifies otherwise.
- Example 3: Purdue Global developed a micro-credential in Manufacturing that is completely flexible. Students who do not have a minimum of an associate degree must take a 2-credit foundation course before joining a 3-course micro-credential. Success in this program is not the completion of the micro-credential; instead, the completion of the individual courses. The total cost of these 4 courses is almost completely covered by the $5,250 employer assistance. Since the difference is not big, some organizations have decided to cover the 4 courses’ tuition 100%.
For more information about Purdue Global’s efforts, please contact Maricel Lawrence at [email protected]
What changes did the recent congressional budget bill have on these tax policies?
The tax reconciliation package passed in July 2025 made student loan repayments a permanent part of expenses covered under Section 127. Additionally, the $5,250 cap will be raised in accordance with cost of living adjustments (COLA) beginning in 2027. As more information becomes available regarding COLA adjustments and raises to the cap, we will share more. The effective date for these changes is December 31st, 2025.
Key Takeaways:
- Section 127 provides up to $5,250 in tax-free educational assistance for employees.
- It covers tuition, loan repayments, and education related expenses.
- Section 117 and 132(d) are also key tax policies in this space.
- These policies provide significant incentive for employers to invest in workforce education to address skill gaps in their business.
- The $5,250 threshold is a key consideration for program design.
To Conclude:
Understanding and leveraging Section 127 can unlock tremendous opportunities for both employees and employers. It’s about building a future where education and career growth go hand in hand why providing maximum incentives to all parties involved.
1. Source: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/fringe_benefit_fslg.pdf
If you want to learn more about Employer Engagement, join us at Convergence 2025: Credential Innovation in Higher Education. We will be touching on topics like this during the opening keynote featuring UpSkill America, Walmart.org, and the founder of Education Design Lab.
We are pleased to share the foreword by UPCEA CEO Bob Hansen from the newly released Chief Online Learning Officers’ Guidebook: A Framework for Strategy and Practice in Higher Education. The guidebook, now available from Routledge in paperback, hardback, and eBook formats, provides a comprehensive framework for today’s online learning leaders.
Learn more and purchase here.
I vividly recall hearing about a new addition to the president’s cabinet at my last institution. During a meeting of the academic council our provost announced that a faculty member with a strong affinity for technology was slated to become the institution’s first chief information officer. I was a bit surprised by this bold elevation of the role to a C-suite position, but in retrospect I shouldn’t have been. This was in the early 2000s, when the frenzied pace of technology had changed…well…everything. Institutions needed a CIO, both to signal the importance of the work of building the infrastructure of a modern university and to bring organizational coherence to this brave new world.
I also remember wondering (not out loud, but in time I would find my voice) why my division’s mission of serving adult and nontraditional learners was not similarly elevated to a major institutional priority. After all, the median age at many tuition-dependent institutions like mine was in the mid-twenties. A strong case could have been made that serving this population successfully should have been paramount. Yet that mission was typically an afterthought for a legacy culture almost entirely organized around serving a shrinking number of residential students. If the future of the institution depended on effectively serving nontraditional learners, what role could be more important than accommodating their complicated lives?
I thought the answer to that question should be self-evident. But it took a long time for most institutions to recognize this strategic imperative, and longer still to elevate online leaders to the level required to drive transformative change. Some have still not done so, but they are now the outliers.
Indeed, we are now witnessing a parallel development to the rise of CIOs, as more and more institutions have created chief online learning officers (COLOs). They often have titles like vice provost for online and graduate education, dean of the school for professional studies, executive director of academic innovation, or chancellor of the global campus. This is their time, their decade, just as it was for CIOs a generation ago.
A reflection on how we got here helps us to understand the special DNA of today’s COLOs. Apart from a few notable but lonely pioneers in the 1990s, the evolution of today’s COLO occurred in three distinct phases that more or less correspond to the three decades of the 2000s.
The first major cohort of online leaders came in the first decade of the new century. Few would have thought of them as chief online learning officers in the sense that we know them today. Like me, they were mostly leaders of professional continuing education looking for new and better ways to reach their core audience—adult and nontraditional learners who were unable to make it to campus for degree completion or professional master’s programs.
While those newer to online learning may not recognize the family resemblance to professional continuing education, both career orientations should be situated historically within what I call “the great tradition of expanding access to higher education.” Their common genes can be traced back more than a century to the novel idea that the benefits of the university should extend beyond the walls of campus to serve the needs of the state and nation. It was this revolutionary vision, often called The Wisconsin Idea, that fueled the founding of UPCEA in 1915. As Charles Van Hise, president of the University of Wisconsin and host of the first UPCEA conference, wrote: “This then is the purpose of University Extension–to carry light and opportunity to every human being in all parts of the nation; this is the only adequate ideal of service for the university.”
The skillset required for building online learning units was a natural fit for those working in professional continuing education. These leaders collaborated with faculty and other academic deans to bring these programs online, and with IT on enterprise solutions. They developed online student services, marketing and enrollment management strategies tailored for the adult market, and new business models that were intentionally different from the rest of the institution.
In other words, they brought the same entrepreneurial mindset to the complicated business of online learning that had long defined their mission of expanding access to higher education. In fact, a common critique of online learning was that it was a misguided attempt to generate revenue and therefore suspect when compared to the core of the institution. The reality is that online was, and remains so today, primarily a means of stabilizing overall enrollments by expanding access for underserved learners.
The next major phase of online leadership took place last decade, from roughly the end of the Great Recession in 2010 to the onset of the pandemic in 2020. This is when the elevation of online learning to a major institutional priority often led to new organizational structures designed to facilitate growth and acceptance from faculty.
While many online operations remained under schools or divisions managed by senior leaders of professional and continuing education, many others were repositioned as separate, standalone online units. Still others moved to decentralized models, in which each college or school had its own online learning staff. Apart from some variations of this last model, the common denominator was the elevation of senior leaders to champion academic innovation.
The third and most dramatic phase of development began this decade, when exposure to emergency remote instruction during the pandemic evolved into a standard expectation for learners of all kinds. This introduced a new dynamic that would forever alter the landscape of higher education. All faculty and students experienced online education for an extended period of time, and it was impossible to un-ring that bell.
This current “decade of the COLO” could not have come at a better time for higher education. We face strong headwinds: the enrollment cliff, declining financial assistance from the states, and the devaluation of a college degree in public surveys. Now the question is not whether online learning should be a major institutional priority, but how best to fulfill its potential for strategic transformation.
This expansive vision of online learning and leadership is what excited me most about my role at UPCEA. I wanted to help elevate positions like mine to where I thought they belonged: vital partners in shaping the future of their institutions. During this inflection point for higher education and its evolving place within our society, I believe an effective chief online learning officer has more potential to transform an institution than any position apart from the president.
However unorthodox this viewpoint may appear to the academic establishment, the ability to attract and retain non-residential students is the single most important differentiator between success and failure among tuition-dependent institutions. If they are not able to attract online learners, they are likely to preside over a declining number of learners with the interest and wherewithal to become full-time residential students. Even elite private and flagship public institutions, which are far less tuition-dependent, have recognized two inescapable truths: academic innovation is essential to remain competitive, and most innovation is likely to be digital.
I’m honored to have been asked to write this Foreword to The Chief Online Learning Officers’ Guidebook. The contributors to this volume include many of the greatest architects of the modern online learning enterprise. I leave you now in their very capable hands.
Robert Hansen, Ph.D.
CEO, UPCEA
The Chief Online Learning Officers’ Guidebook: A Framework for Strategy and Practice in Higher Education is available now in paperback, hardback, and eBook formats from Routledge. Learn more and purchase here.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer just a Pen Pal, or, perhaps, one should say, no longer just a “Keyboard Pal” experience.
Remember those years ago in late 2022 when ChatGPT arrived on the international scene, you communicated with AI through a simple chatbot interface. It was remarkable that you could type in relatively short prompts, and it would instantly type back directly to you; a machine with communication capability! It still is. Perhaps, for most of us, this remains the most common daily mode of accessing and utilizing AI. Many of us are using AI only as a replacement for the “old” Google Search. In fact, Google Search “AI Overviews,” are now a standard feature was announced last year for a significant portion of users and search queries. They appear at the top of the results and only after allowing you to follow-up with a deeper dive, are you taken to the old list of responses. As of mid-June 2025, the rollout of AI Overviews has progressed to the point where these overviews are a common sight at the top of search results pages. Yet, the whole world of communication is open now for most of the frontier models of AI, and, with the new communication modes, come a whole world of possibilities.
In order to more fully utilize the remarkable range of capabilities of AI today, we need to become comfortable with the many input and output modes that are available. From audio, voice, image, and stunning video to massive formally formatted documents, spreadsheets, computer code, databases and more, the potential to input and output material is beyond what most of us take for granted. That is not to mention the emerging potential of “embodied AI” (EAI) that includes all of these capabilities in a humanoid form we discussed in this column two weeks ago.
So, what can AI do with images and videos? Of course, you can import images as still photographs and instruct AI to edit the photos, adding or deleting objects within the image. Many apps do this exceptionally well. Of course, this raises questions about “deepfakes,” images that can be shared as if they were real, when actually they are altered by AI in an attempt to mislead the public. Most such images do carry a watermark which indicates the image was generated or altered by AI. However, there are “watermark removers” that will wash away those well-intended alerts that the photo has been altered by AI.
One example of using the image capability of AI is in the app PictureThis that describes itself as a “botanist in your pocket.” As one would expect, you can upload a picture from your smartphone, and it will identify the plant. It goes much further and will also provide a diagnosis of any conditions or diseases that it can determine through the image; offer care suggestions such as optimal lighting and watering; toxicity to humans and pets; and tips on how to help your plant thrive. In engaging learners, we can utilize AI to provide these kinds of services to learners who simply take a snapshot of their work.
We can build upon the “PictureThis” example to create a kind of “professor in your pocket” to offer enhanced responses to images that, for example, might include an attempt to solve a mathematical problem, develop a chemistry formula, create an outline for an essay, and much more. The student may simply take a smartphone or screen shot of their work and share it with the app which will respond with what may be right and wrong in the work, as well as give ideas of further research and context that will be helpful.
Many of us are in positions where we need to construct spreadsheets, PowerPoint presentations, and more formal reports with cover pages, tables of contents, citations and references. AI stands ready to convert data, text, and freeform writing into perfectly formatted final products. Use the upload icon that is commonly located near the prompt window in ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude or other leading models to upload your material for analysis or formatting. Gemini, a Google product, has direct connections with Google apps such as Google Sheets, Google Docs, Google Slides, Google Forms, and Google Forms.
Most of these features are available on the “free” tier of the products. Most major AI companies have a “pro” tier for around $20 per month that provides limited access to higher levels of their products. In addition, there are “business, enterprise, cloud, and API” levels that serve organizations and developers. As a senior fellow conducting research, I maintain a couple of “pro” subscriptions that enable me to seamlessly move through my work process from ideation to creation of content; then, from content creation to enhancement of research inserting creative concepts; and, finally, to develop a formal final report. Utilizing the “pro” versions, gives access to “deep research” tools in most cases. This mode provides far more “thinking” by the AI tool, that can provide more extensive web-based research, generate novel ideas, pursue alternative approaches with extensive documentation, analysis, and graphical output in the form of tables, spreadsheets, and charts. Using a combination of these approaches, one can assemble a thoughtful deep dive into a current or emerging topic.
AI can also provide effective “brainstorming” that integrates deep insights into the topics being explored. One, currently free, tool is Stanford University’s “Storm,” a research prototype that supports interactive research and creative analyses. Storm assists with article creation and development and offers an intriguing roundtable conversation that enables several virtual and human participants to join in the brainstorming from distant locations. This has tremendous potential for sparking interactive debates and discussions among learners that can include AI-generated participants. I encourage faculty to consider utilizing this tool as a developmental activity for learners to probe deeply into topics in your discipline as well as to provide experience in collaborative virtual discussions that presage experiences they may encounter when they enter or advance in the workforce.
In general, we are underutilizing not only the analytical and composition capabilities of AI, but also the wealth of multimode capabilities of these tools. Depending upon your needs, we have both input and output capabilities in audio, video, images, spreadsheets, coding, graphics, and multi-media combinations. The key to most effectively developing skill in the use of these tools is to incorporate their time-saving and illustrative capabilities into your daily work.
So, if you are writing a paper and have some data to include, try out an AI app to generate a spreadsheet and choose the best chart to further clarify and emphasize trends. If you need a modest app to perform a repetitive function for yourself or for others, for example generating mean, mode and standard deviation, you can be helped by describing the inputs/outputs to AI and prompt it to create the code for you. Perhaps you want to create a short video clip as a simulation of how a new process might work; AI can do that from a description of the scene that you provide. If you want to create a logo for a prospective project, initiative or other activity, AI will give you a variety of custom-created logos. In all cases, you can ask for revisions and alterations. Think of AI as your dedicated assistant who has multimedia skills and is eager to help you with these tasks. If you are not sure how to get started, of course just ask AI.
This column was originally published in Inside Higher Ed.

By Bruce Etter
If you’ve ever set out on a hike without a map and compass, you know the feeling: creeping uncertainty about whether you’re still on the trail, how far you’ve come, and how far you have to go. In 2017, when I was walking from Mexico to Canada, the snow level in the Sierra Mountains was particularly high. For days at a time, I would wander with my fellow hikers, not knowing if we were indeed following the trail in the vastness of the snow. In those times of uncertainty, it was my compass that provided the reassurance that I was on the right path. In the world of online and professional continuing education, navigating compensation can have that same feeling of uncertainty.
The work itself is demanding—supporting adult learners, launching innovative programs, driving enrollment. But when it comes to understanding how that work is valued, too many of us are left to rely on anecdotes, word of mouth, or outdated benchmarks. The 2024 UPCEA salary survey changes that. It provides a clear, up-to-date map of compensation across our sector—by role, by experience, by institution type, and many other factors. For early-career professionals and seasoned leaders alike, it’s a compass you can use to orient yourself, chart your progress, and advocate for fair compensation.
This year’s report draws on data from more than 1,000 professionals and shows that salaries are trending upward overall. The median salary across all respondents was just over $85,000, up nearly $8,000 from 2021 data. Regardless of position, experience in the higher education field remains a clear advantage. While those who have been in the field longer are naturally going to be more likely to hold leadership roles, those with ten years or more experience reported average salaries exceeding $111,000, compared to just under $72,000 among professionals with 3–5 years of experience. This difference is more pronounced in some positions compared to others. Directors that have been in the field for 1-2 years had an average salary of $95,283, roughly $11,000 less than those that have been in the field for 6-9 years ($106,408). However, additional years alone do not always result in higher pay. Among Directors there is no tangible increase between those that have been in the field for 6-9 years and those that have been in the field for 10 years or more (in fact, there was a modest decrease of $175).
Another critical insight is the connection between management and pay. The regression analysis found that for every additional FTE you supervise, your predicted salary increases by $1,329—a tangible reflection of how leadership responsibility translates into compensation.
While these trends are encouraging in many respects, the report also highlights important areas of tension. Fewer than half of respondents said they believe they are fairly compensated for their role, despite rising averages. And about one in three agreed that leadership expects them to routinely exceed a 40-hour workweek—a trend that has likely been exacerbated since the data was collected in the fall of 2024. These perceptions matter because they can impact morale, retention, and the willingness to take on new challenges.
If you lead a team, this report is an essential tool for understanding how your compensation practices compare to sector norms. Are your positions competitive enough to attract top talent? Are you equitably rewarding the contributions of instructional designers, coordinators, and advisors—whose work often drives both innovation and student success? The data in this survey can help you spot gaps and make informed, proactive adjustments.
If you’re an individual contributor, this is your chance to replace guesswork with evidence. When you prepare for a performance review or salary negotiation, you deserve to know how your pay aligns with that of peers in similar roles and institutions. The survey gives you credible benchmarks you can use to advocate for yourself with confidence.
And for institutions, these findings should serve as a reminder that compensation is more than a line item—it’s a statement of priorities and values. In a competitive market for skilled professionals, especially those who can build and sustain online and professional programs, fair pay is both an ethical commitment and a strategic imperative.
This is exactly the kind of insight UPCEA members have at their fingertips. It’s not just a report—it’s a resource to help you and your teams feel grounded, informed, and equipped to lead. Like a good compass, it won’t walk the trail for you—but it will help ensure you don’t lose your way. Whether you’re rethinking salary bands, designing new positions, or preparing to advocate for yourself, let this data be your guide. In a field that prizes innovation and learner success, the first step is making sure the people doing the work feel recognized and valued.
The full 2024 Salary Survey Results report is in CORe, your UPCEA Member resources library. Download it now.
Bruce Etter serves as the Senior Director of Research and Consulting at UPCEA, where he leads the development and management of research initiatives for UPCEA’s Research and Consulting division and its clients.
Consider the humble pocketknife. For most owners, it cuts a fishing line or opens a bottle. But in the right hands, it becomes a tool of precision and creativity.
Now, consider Artificial Intelligence. Vastly more complex, AI is also a tool—one that, depending on the user, can serve as a shortcut or a source of groundbreaking innovation. Learners might use it to “ghostwrite” papers or summarize notes. But in expert hands, AI can recreate ancient frescoes, improve IVF effectiveness, and even design more comfortable shoes.
To unlock AI’s true value, we must train tomorrow’s workers to be AI artisans—fluent in prompts, algorithms, and natural language processing. The only limits are imagination and skill. That’s why AI literacy must now be treated as a core competency in higher education.
Why AI Literacy Matters
AI as a Workforce Imperative
AI has been called the new skills gap. It enhances decision-making, creates new roles, and touches all sectors—from healthcare and art to law and politics. Its personal applications are also evolving, becoming our assistants, coaches, even therapists. The future of AI is one of inevitable omnipresence.
A Tool for Thinking, Not Just Searching
While AI can generate answers, its greatest value lies in collaboration. Learners who treat it as a partner in problem-solving gain deeper insights, sharper analysis, and more creative outcomes.
What Employers Expect
As with calculators and spreadsheets before it, AI fluency is becoming a baseline expectation. Institutions must respond accordingly.
Staying Relevant
AI literacy isn’t a one-and-done skill. It requires lifelong learning and a willingness to adapt, helping graduates remain competitive and avoid obsolescence.
What Constitutes AI Literacy?
AI literacy involves more than technical skill. It includes ethical awareness, critical thinking, and a practical understanding of AI’s potential and pitfalls. Though related to data literacy, AI literacy requires its own framework.
Foundational Knowledge
Students need to understand how AI sees, learns, and operates—its strengths (e.g., pattern recognition, natural language processing) and limitations (e.g., data bias, hallucinations).
Hands-On Skills
Using AI tools—such as agents, analytics platforms, or generative text—teaches students how to ask better questions, test ideas, and refine approaches.
Critical Thinking
AI must be both a tool for analysis and a subject of scrutiny. Learners should be able to challenge AI-generated content, identify bias, and verify accuracy.
Ethical Use
Understanding AI’s impact—on privacy, bias, and transparency—is critical. As outlined by UNESCO, ethical awareness builds trust and reduces risk.
Keeping Curriculum Fresh
As we explored in “From Risk to Reputation: The Hidden Cost of Outdated Curriculum,” institutions must regularly refresh course content and offer ongoing learning to keep pace with AI’s evolution.
Impact on Teaching and Learning
Beyond being a topic of study, AI plays a growing role in shaping how we teach—through personalized learning, content creation, and feedback systems.
Personalization at Scale
AI supports differentiated learning by tailoring content, activities, and pacing to individual needs—freeing faculty to spend more time on mentorship, complex instruction, and meaningful interventions. Key tools include:
- Adaptive Platforms that adjust difficulty in real time based on learner performance
- Intelligent Tutoring Systems that provide targeted support and feedback where students need it most
- Personalized Recommendations for supplemental materials that align with learner goals and gaps
- Automated Feedback and Grading – Provides timely, individualized input to help learners improve faster—while allowing faculty to focus their time and effort where it matters most.
- Predictive Analytics to flag at-risk students early, enabling timely, human-centered support
- Multimodal Experiences that blend text, video, and interactivity to match varied learning preferences
- AI Agents that offer 24/7 support and encourage learner independence, while easing faculty load on routine queries
Curriculum Support
AI can help instructors create and revise materials—text, images, simulations—streamlining course updates and enhancing relevance.
Shifting Roles
As AI handles more routine tasks, instructors take on deeper roles as facilitators, mentors, and designers of learning experiences. This shift empowers faculty to focus more on individualized feedback, formative assessment, and meaningful engagement—while also requiring fluency in AI tools and usage monitoring to uphold academic integrity.
How Higher Ed Is Doing—and Where It’s Falling Short
Major disruptions often lead to creative transformation. But AI’s rise has revealed friction between institutional inertia and the pace of change.
In a recent Chronicle of Higher Education piece, Beth McMurtrie noted that most colleges remain in “reactive mode.” While some institutions are making strides, only 22% have a campuswide strategy.
Jessica Stansbury of the University of Baltimore emphasized the importance of tailoring AI literacy efforts to each discipline. Faculty resistance, she noted, often stems from uncertainty about relevance. Collaboration is key.
How Higher Ed Must Respond
To close the skills gap and meet employer demand, institutions must rethink how they teach, train, and partner:
Adopt and Integrate Rapidly
AI, quantum computing, and digital credentials must be embedded into curricula, research, and operations. Supportive leadership and engaged faculty make the difference.
Align with Workforce Needs
Curricula should blend technical and soft skills, and be updated to reflect both social and technological change.
Build Industry Partnerships
Partnering with employers helps shape relevant content, offer real-world learning, and build a stronger talent pipeline.
Measure and Improve
Track the impact of AI integration on learning, employability, and institutional outcomes—then iterate.
Enrich the Student Experience
Tools like agents and adaptive assessments personalize learning, boost engagement, and help students perform better. For instance:
- AI-driven platforms have shown a 50% increase in math outcomes
- Personalized content boosts motivation and participation by 20%
- Adaptive assessments provide real-time feedback and optimal challenge levels
- Learning analytics allow instructors to intervene early and effectively
Examples of Success
University of Virginia
Faculty AI Guides empower instructors to explore generative AI in their disciplines. A cohort of 51 faculty meet regularly, host workshops, and support their peers with AI pedagogy and tool integration.
University of Florida
“AI Across the Curriculum” embeds AI education into every major. With 230+ courses and 100+ AI-focused faculty, the initiative offers certificates and hands-on training in four core areas: understanding, applying, evaluating, and ethics.
Georgia Tech
Jill Watson, an AI teaching assistant, answers student questions in large online courses—reducing instructor load and improving response time.
Ivy Tech Community College
Deployed AI to identify at-risk students across 45 campuses. Result: 98% of flagged students improved to at least a C grade.
Stanford University
Adaptive learning tools raised completion rates and satisfaction, especially in high-enrollment courses.
Curious how AI literacy is shaping the future of higher ed?
This article is part of Noodle’s Future-Focused University series, which explores how institutions can align with industry, modernize curriculum, and equip learners for a rapidly evolving workforce.
→ Read Part 1: Why AI Literacy Is the New Core Skill
→ Read Part 2: Where Do We Stand—and Where Do We Go?
Noodle is the leading tech-enabled strategy and services partner for higher education. A certified B corporation, Noodle (founded in 2013) has developed infrastructure and online enrollment growth for some of the best academic institutions in the world. Noodle empowers universities to transform the world through life-changing learning. It offers strategic consulting to advise partners as they navigate their futures, provides services tailored to meet their growth aspirations, and deploys technology, tools, and platforms that integrate for scale, making our partners more resilient, responsive, efficient, and interconnected.