Listening to Learners

Belonging is a measurable driver of persistence, not just a feel-good outcome:​

Students who feel like they belong are more likely to self-indicate that they will stay enrolled. While student perception of an advisor’s ability to provide personalized advice is limited, deeper student-advisor relationships support both belonging and self-indicated likelihood to persist.

Using technology to help cut through time spent in sessions discussing topics less personally important topics to students, co-locating support services, and ensuring students feel physically and emotionally safe on campus can increase feelings of belonging.

Students who feel a strong sense of belonging at their institution are far more likely to say they will re-enroll. ​

For first-year students, likelihood of re-enrollment is even more strongly correlated with feelings of belonging at their school (r(505)=.32, p<.001). This emphasizes the need for institutions to build belonging early in the student journey. ​

For international students, belonging is especially critical to re-enrollment decisions: those who strongly feel they belong at their school are +33pp more likely to say they are extremely likely to re-enroll next year as compared to those who only somewhat feel they belong.​

The relationship between belonging and likelihood of re-enrollment persists for first-generation students.

Student self-reported likelihood of re-enrollment by student sense of belonging*

• Overall
• First-year students only
• International students only
• First generation students

Students’ perception of advisor ability to provide personalized guidance remains limited: only 21% of first-year students feel their advisor knows them well enough toprovide personalized guidance. Though this does increase by student tenure, it reinforces a greater need for early supports.

Students

Advisors’ knowledge about student context*, by tenure**

• Advisor does not know my life experiences well enough to provide personalized advice
• Neutral
• Advisor knows my life experiences well enough to provide personalized advice

Building deeper student-advisor connections can bring meaningful impact. Students who feel they belong at their institution are more likely to indicate that their advisor is able to provide personalized guidance (+22pp over those unlikely or neutral), as are students who self-indicate that they are likely to persist (+23pp over those unlikely or neutral).​

Students are four times more likely than advisors to want to discuss non-degree credentials and campus safety, subjects that exceed the scope of what is typically possible in a single advising meeting. With available advisor time as a limitation and course-related topics as a “must-do” for advisors, enhanced delivery of student self-service degree audit, pathway visualization, and chatbot tools may enable students and advisors to free up time to discuss more personally compelling issues during their sessions.

Sorted by student importance

Student* and academic advisor** perspectives on essential topics to cover

• Advisors
• Students

To best enhance student belonging, institutions should align their student support co-location strategies with how learners can best access them.​​

Students who attend institutions with a “one stop shop” model for support services report the highest levels of belonging across all institution types. 4-year public institutions stand out where over half of these students say they “strongly agree” they belong. In contrast, students at institutions with more fragmented or virtual support delivery are less likely to feel connected. These findings reinforce the role of integrated, easily accessible support environments in fostering a sense of belonging.

Student sense of belonging* by student reported institution type and physical location**

• 2-year
• 4-year public​
• 4-year private​

Certain segments of students more acutely suffer from feeling a lack of belonging and resolving these disparities will require focused attention: Fully online learners and active-duty military students report lower feelings of belonging than their peers (60% vs. 68% for fully online status; 54% vs. 67% for military status). Only 62% of Hispanic students report feeling like they belong, compared to 70% of white students.​

Demographic overview of students* based on sense of belonging**

• Fully online/ remote status​
• Military status
• Race / ethnicity

Students who feel physically or emotionally safe on campus are significantly more likely to self-report that they will persist. This 48- and 30- percentage point swing between those that do not feel physically safe at their institution and those who do underscores that safety—like belonging and support awareness—is not just a wellness issue, it’s a retention driver. Fostering safe and inclusive environments must be a strategic imperative, not a side initiative.

Students don’t just need to know support exists. They need it to feel relevant, accessible, and worth their time:
​

Students aware of more support services self-indicate that they are far more likely to stay enrolled, yet awareness and use remain low. Barriers go beyond knowledge to include relevance, timing, and stigma/discomfort. Still, students who engage report positive experiences, highlighting a clear opportunity to shift from availability to intentional, student-centered connection.

Students who are aware of five or more support services are significantly more likely to self-report that they will stay enrolled and feel a sense of belonging with their institution. 71% say they are “extremely likely” to re-enroll, compared to just 43% among those aware of fewer supports. This 28-point difference highlights awareness as a critical, and often overlooked, factor in student persistence. Simply knowing what is available, not necessarily using them, is a key driver of continued enrollment: the more supports a students report awareness of, the greater their stated likelihood of re-enrollment (**R² = .17, F(11,842) = 15.25, p < .001)^^.

While most support services are widely available at institutions, student awareness and usage lag significantly. In some cases, fewer than 1 in 10 students report using services that over 90% of institutions offer. This stark disconnect suggests that availability alone is not enough; institutions must focus on visibility and communication to close the awareness-to-engagement gap.

Administrators, frontline staff/advisors, and students

Institutional availability,* student awareness,** student use^ of support services

• Institution availability
• Student awareness
• Student use

Awareness of student supports is particularly low among some students of color. Black students report the lowest awareness of every key student support service, from academic advising to mental health counseling (an average of 30% are aware of these supports). This gap is especially troubling given that awareness is a prerequisite for access and use.

By self-reported race/ethnicity

Student awareness of key supports*

• AAPI
• White
• Hispanic/Latino
• Black

Student uptake challenges extend to pre-orientation programs, a key opportunity to support the first-year experience and begin to cultivate a sense of belonging. For example, while 46% of students report being offered leadership and service programs, only 23% participated. This gap again suggests a mismatch between what is offered by institutions, what students know is offered, and what students engage with, pointing to an opportunity for improved outreach and stronger alignment to student interests.

Students

First-time/ first-year advising experiences students know are offered and participation rates* **​

• Offered (aware of)
• Participated

While awareness is a foundational barrier to engaging with student supports, students face additional challenges that go beyond simply knowing a service exists. Among those aware of supports, top reasons for non-use include inconvenient hours (30%), uncertainty about relevance (42%), and stigma (30%). Some of these barriers, like inconvenience, are underestimated by administrators and staff. To drive engagement, institutions must not only increase awareness but also ensure supports are accessible, clearly positioned, and attuned to student needs.

Top student usage barriers

• Administrators and frontline staff/advisors*
• Students**

Building on the idea that barriers extend beyond awareness, students cite a range of practical and perceptual reasons for not engaging with available supports. Many prefer to handle things on their own or question whether services are designed for “students like me.” Others report poor timing, long wait times, or inflexible formats, underscoring that even well-known supports may go unused if they feel inaccessible, irrelevant, or unwelcoming.

Student reasons for not using available student supports*

• Uncertainty about relevance
• Hours/access
• Discomfort

Some of the most impactful services, like tutoring and peer mentoring, are among the least used. These supports yield the highest persistence rates and satisfaction (NPS) among users but fall below average in utilization, signaling an untapped ROI for institutions. Bridging this gap through stronger promotion and access could drive meaningful improvements in student success with minimal new investment. This signals a clear opportunity: the issue is not necessarily service quality but rather getting students in the door.

​​Career readiness is a key bridge between student demands and institutional ROI:​

Career readiness is a broad term; this section focuses in on one aspect of it. For more information on career readiness, see Tyton Partners’ Driving Toward a Degree.​
​
Students show strong interest in non-degree credentials (NDCs), a component of broader career readiness programs/strategies that students see as a strong advancement opportunity. Yet, faculty remain hesitant or unprepared to integrate NDCs and other aspects of career readiness more holistically into the curriculum, and support providers outside of the classroom are uncertain how to answer questions about NDCs. Institutions that invest in career-aligned pathways and build confidence across stakeholders—especially faculty—can better meet student demand and strengthen long-term value.

Career readiness is tightly linked to perceptions of college value among both students and staff. Across both students and institutional stakeholders, nearly all who believecollege is worth the cost also believe it prepares students well for careers, while those who doubt career preparation are far more likely to question the ROI. Institutionslooking to reinforce value should continue elevating career outcomes as a central student success metric.

Student demand for non-degree credentials (NDCs) is strong: Half are aware of these options and nearly 90% express at least some interest, with equal student demand across community colleges and 4-year institutions. These trends point to a growing expectation that institutions need to offer flexible, career-aligned pathways beyond the traditional degree.

Available institutional NDC offerings do not reflect students’ equal demand for them by sector. Two-thirds of community colleges already offer NDCs and plan to expand, and 71% expect these offerings to become a significant revenue source in the next three years. In contrast, 4-year institutions are less likely to scale NDCs or anticipate strong financial returns. This signals an important moment for providers and institutional leaders to invest in scaling NDC infrastructure, especially at 4-year institutions where student demand is already present but institutional readiness lags behind.

Institutional student support staff confidence in referring students to NDC-related resources is mixed. Nearly half of respondents at four-year institutions report neutral or low confidence in referring students to NDC pathways. Bridging the gap between student interest in NDCs and institutional ability to offer them is essential to career-readiness strategies.

Career services staff and administrators at institutions offering NDCs

Confidence in referring students to​ NDC-related resources*

• Not at all confident
• Neutral
• Extremely confident

Instructor openness to incorporating NDCs into their courses decreases with tenure. This suggests that while enthusiasm varies, there is a baseline willingness across experience levels. To turn sentiment into action, institutions should invest in modular course design tools (potentially leveraging CBE infrastructure) and clear implementation pathways that make it easier for instructors, regardless of tenure, to integrate NDCs into their courses.

Instructor sentiments toward non-degree credentials, by tenure*

• >20 years in role
• 8-20 years in role
• <7 years in role

Generative AI is embedded in student life and is here to stay:

​
Students are using generative AI tools regularly both in and out of the classroom and often ahead of institutional adoption. However, they remain cautious about how and where genAI fits into their learning, preferring human-centered support and retaining mixed views on faculty use. As usage accelerates, institutions must respond with thoughtful, guided integration to meet students where they are. In addition, institutional policy updates should consider faculty use of generative AI tools and the student perspective, not just student use and faculty concern.

Use of generative AI tools is rising sharply across all higher education stakeholders, but students are leading the way. 42% of students now use genAI weekly or daily, 10pp more than instructors and support staff. As students normalize genAI in their academic lives, institutions must catch up to meet expectations and understand shifting behaviors.​

Time series of generative AI tool usage frequency*

• Administrators**
• Instructors
• Frontline support staff
• Students

Building on students’ leadership in genAI adoption, they are also the most willing to invest in these tools. One in three frequent student users pays for a subscription to tools,outpacing instructors (20%), administrators (22%), and support staff (16%). This signals not only higher usage but deeper commitment, underscoring a growing gapbetween student behavior and institutional response.

ChatGPT remains the dominant genAI tool among students. It is used by 65% of those who have tried generative AI, nearly three times the next-most-used tool, Gemini (25%). While students experiment with a range of tools, the concentration around ChatGPT suggests a first-mover advantage and a need for other providers to communicate their genAI features more clearly and aligned to student use cases.​

Among students who have used generative AI tools at least once**

Student use of genAI tools*

While students are the most active genAI users, they still turn to instructors and peers first when struggling in class. Use of genAI for academic support has declined among students since 2024, suggesting the potential for growing skepticism about its utility in classroom learning and/or an increase in restrictive policies. In contrast, instructors are increasingly aware of genAI’s role, though they tend to overestimate its current use among students. This disconnect reinforces the opportunity for blended support strategies that pair human guidance with AI-enabled tools.

Students are demonstrating greater AI literacy. Most learners spend over two hours per week verifying outputs, which suggests low trust but high awareness of its limitations. It also demonstrates critical thinking, long considered a concern of student genAI use and a top outcome of a college credential. In contrast, 25% of instructors don’t verify genAI outputs at all. This verification gap may reflect students’ greater familiarity with genAI use and reinforces why genAI hasn’t fully displaced human-centered supports. Alternatively, this data may point to instructors’ greater subject matter expertise—when you’re confident in the right output, checking for it takes less time.

Student and instructor time spent verifying generative AI outputs*

• Students (weighted average time spent per week 2.1 hours)
• Instructors (weighted average time spent per week 1.4 hours)

Student caution around genAI use extends to faculty use for feedback and grading. 90% of non-generative AI student users prefer that faculty not use genAI in evaluating their work. Student openness to faculty genAI use increases with student genAI use – but only to an extent as 35% of even daily student users are against it.

Students

Preference for faculty genAI use for grading*, by genAI usage frequency

• Faculty should not use GenAI to provide students feedback/grade assignments
• Neutral
• Faculty should use GenAI to provide students feedback/grade assignments

Despite student hesitancy about faculty using generative AI for grading, only ~10% of instructors report doing so. Grading use cases are less frequent than course content generation suggesting trust in genAI’s judgment is still evolving, especially in evaluative contexts. As institutions consider new genAI policies, faculty and student usage and perspectives should all be considered.​

Instructors

Current use of generative AI tools for time-savings*

While students are cautious about genAI in academic and high-touch support contexts, they’re more open to its use in more transactional areas. In services like course registration, students are just as likely as staff to prefer a mix of professionals and genAI tools. This suggests a strategic path forward: institutions can start by integrating genAI into time-intensive but less personalized tasks to meet student preferences while maintaining human touch where it matters most.

Preference for using automation & genAI tools

• Administrators and frontline staff/advisors
• Students

Optimism about genAI’s potential in learning has grown over time, especially among administrators. Between 2023 and 2025, the share of administrators who believe genAI will positively impact student learning jumped from 35% to 55%, while instructor optimism also rose from 39% to 46%. Student sentiment, while still somewhat positive overall, declined slightly, suggesting tempered expectations. These shifts point to growing institutional comfort, likely driven by increased exposure and experimentation with genAI tools.​

Sentiments regarding generative AI’s impact on student learning*

• '23 Instructors
• '25 Instructors
• '23 Administrators
• '25 Administrators
• '23 Student
• '25 Student

As institutional familiarity with genAI grows, so does belief in its long-term relevance, particularly among administrators and instructors. In 2025, more of these stakeholders view genAI as essential for student career readiness, even as student urgency has slightly declined. Support for institutional responsibility in building genAI fluency has somewhat held steady among administrators and instructors.

Instructor, administrator, and student sentiments toward generative AI*,**

• '23 Instructors
• '25 Instructors
• '23 Administrators
• '25 Administrators
• '23 Student
• '25 Student

• '23 Instructors
• '25 Instructors
• '23 Administrators
• '25 Administrators
• '23 Student
• '25 Student

Even in the face of potential institutional or instructor bans, nearly 50% of students say they are likely to continue using generative AI tools – a figure that has remained consistent in 2024 and 2025. This highlights the staying power of genAI in student workflows even if it’s not the first place students turn to when struggling with a concept in a course. To align with this reality, institutions and providers should prioritize “guardrailed” genAI integrations that promote responsible use and adapt to student use.​

​Dual enrollment is a high-impact on-ramp to postsecondary success:
​

Most dual enrollees are high school seniors taking multiple college-level courses through local institutions. Recent studies suggest this population is growing (46 percent from 2015 to 2021, and another 18 percent from 2021 to 2023) and inspired this year’s spotlight on dual enrollment. These students cite cost savings and early exposure as top motivators. Dual enrollment increases interest in attending college, but realizing its full potential requires sustained investment in tailored financial transition and academic planning supports.​

Dual enrollment learners are most often high school seniors taking multiple college-level courses. The average dual enrollment student takes nearly three courses, typically through a local college or university. While one third access opportunities online, most participate through in-person experiences, suggesting a strong local institutional role in shaping early college experiences.

Key characteristics of dually-enrolled students*

• Year
• Number of courses
• Where they took courses**

Additionally, 37% of dually enrolled students are currently pursuing natural and physical sciences in college compared to 29% of their peers who didn’t dually enroll. While this may reflect the interests of students who opt into dual enrollment, it also highlights the potential of dual enrollment pathways to attract and support learners aiming for more technical or science-focused careers. Institutions can leverage this alignment to better guide early talent into high-demand fields.

By dual enrollment history

Student field of study*

• Current students who had ever been dually enrolled in high school
• Current students who had NOT been dually enrolled in high school

Dual enrollment is more than a cost-saving measure, it’s a meaningful lever for increasing student momentum toward college. Most dually enrolled students are motivated by the opportunity to earn credits early and lower tuition, but the benefits extend beyond finances. 57% say the experience increased their desire to pursue higher education. Institutions and policymakers seeking to boost postsecondary enrollment, particularly among hesitant or cost-conscious students, should view dual enrollment as a critical on-ramp worth expanding.

CURRENTLY DUALLY-ENROLLED STUDENTS

Motivation for students to dually enroll* and impact on decision to attend college**

Most dual enrollment students feel confident in their academic progress and recognize the value of their dual enrollment experience. They see it as helping them complete credits (69%), prepare for future careers (64%), and prepare for college (64%). However, 23% have lower confidence in financial readiness, which suggests that institutions could pair the curricular experience with more robust guidance on college affordability for dual enrollment students.

Currently dually-enrolled students

Student sentiments*

• Strongly disagree
• Disagree
• Neutral
• Agree
• Strongly agree

With student interest in dual enrollment strong and its impact on college-going clear, institutions have an opportunity to sustain momentum by strengthening transition and planning supports. College transition programming and academic planning tailored to students’ future degree paths are seen as the most impactful supports, and 81% of institutions expect to sustain or grow their investment in support for dual enrollment. To unlock long-term value, institutions should continue to prioritize the programs that help dually enrolled students bridge high school and college with purpose.

Amid rising accountability pressures, institutions can improve outcomes by setting universal goals and tailoring strategies to ensure all students achieve them:

Equity strategies in higher education have often focused on targeted interventions for specific student groups—closing gaps in awareness, access, and outcomes but sometimes facing resistance. An increasingly accepted framework: targeted universalism is an approach which sets universal goals for student success, then tailors strategies so every student can achieve those goals. By optimizing existing student support investments and tracking their impact, institutions can prioritize utilization of support services to drive belonging, improve ROI, and boost outcomes for all students.

We’ve pulled together insights to help ensure all students receive the support they need both inside and outside the classroom.

• In digital learning, our exploration highlights practices such as leveraging course data analyses and connecting students’ backgrounds to content.
• In student support, we focus on strategies to strengthen engagement with academic advising and foster a stronger sense of belonging.

Despite increased attention to equity in digital learning, equity-minded practices remain limited and inconsistently adopted. For example, though 40% of instructors try to connect students’ backgrounds and identities to their assignments, an equity-minded practice that benefits all students, only 28% of institutions encourage it. Without stronger institutional accountability and support, equity efforts risk remaining peripheral rather than universal.

Over three-quarters of institutions, according to both administrators and instructors, do not report encouraging disaggregation of course-level data by student demographics. Even among those who do, there’s a gap in implementation: while 24% of administrators say their institutions promote the practice, only 16% of instructors report engaging in it. Unclear ownership may be a key barrier. There is no shared understanding of who’s responsible for disaggregated data, and nearly a quarter of instructors say they don’t know at all.

Analyzing disaggregated course-level data by student race/ethnicity or financial need*

• Yes
• No

~70% of all learners survey do not utilize academic advising. Students who don’t use academic advising are not evenly distributed: they’re more likely to be fully online (23%), first-generation (54%), and mixed-race (25%) students. This crucial information is what advisors are unable to observe and act on as the majority (58%) are not disaggregating data by student characteristics. Without intentional and tailored outreach, these learners may fall through the cracks despite the universal availability of academic advising.

Demographic overview of students who do not utilize academic advising*​

• Stopped out status
• Modality
• First-generation status​
• Race/ethnicity

When equity gaps in student awareness and support access go unaddressed, the risk to students compounds, especially as institutions cut identity-based programming. Institutions with decreased identity-based supports are less likely to rate their services as effectively creating belonging across the student body. As belonging is closely linked to persistence and perceived value, deprioritizing equity could undermine both student success and institutional outcomes. To avoid widening disparities, institutions must maintain targeted investments that build inclusive, high-impact support systems for all learners.

Administrators and frontline support staff/advisors

Letter grading for student support services’ ability to foster a sense of belonging for students* by identity-based supports status**

• No decrease in identity-based supports
• Decrease

If you would like to speak to us about this work, do not hesitate to reach out! ​​

We welcome opportunities to share this research at conferences, institutional leadership workshops, and other convenings. ​

We are proud of our impact on postsecondary education: including institutional case-making, industry media coverage, and durable thought leadership.

Authors

Listening to Learners 2025 is funded by the Gates Foundation and Macmillan Learning as our Anchor Partners.​

Our research would not be possible without our survey respondents. Thank you to all the students, instructors, and administrators who so thoughtfully shared their experiences with us to enable learning and improvement. ​

Time for Class 2025 is funded by the Gates Foundation and McGraw Hill as our Anchor Partners. We are also grateful to D2L as an additional Product Insight Partner. ​

Driving Toward a Degree 2025 is funded by Lumina Foundation as our Anchor Partner, as well as Mentor Collective, QuadC, UERU, Stellic, and NACADA as Research Partners. ​

If you are interested in sponsoring our research, please contact info@tytonpartners.com.

Sponsors 2024 – 2025

Listening to Learners 2025 Demographics

More than 1,500 students from two- and four-year private and public institutions were surveyed for Listening to Learners 2025. Student respondents represent a range of demographic backgrounds.

The Listening to Learner respondent pool focused on students whose experiences are of particular importance to understand (e.g., stopped out students) as we unpack the evolving nature of digital teaching and learning.

Student survey respondents reflect the composition of the national IPEDS universe, with overrepresentation in representation by race. This sampling was done intentionally to enable statistically significant comparisons between groups.

Driving Toward a Degree 2025’s institutional survey received over 1,500 responses, representing over 825 unique institutions…

…as well as diversity in functional area, role, and years of experience; like past years, academic advisors intentionally comprise a large portion of the sample

Institutional survey respondents are mostly white and female with advanced degrees, reflective of the corps of professional academic advisors

Institutional survey respondents generally reflect the national IPEDS universe; 4-year public institutions, large institutions, and MSIs are overrepresented

Approximately 300 administrators responded to Time for Class 2025, representing over 250 unique institutions

Approximately 1,500 instructors responded to Time for Class 2025, representing nearly 700 unique institutions

4-year public institutions are overrepresented in the administrator survey as are MSIs; small institutions are underrepresented

Large, 4-year public institutions are overrepresented in the faculty survey as are MSIs