An Instagram post caught my attention this week. A University of Alberta student described being phished through a fake accusation of academic misconduct.
The scam did not rely on advanced technology. It did not require artificial intelligence or an elaborate hacking scheme. The scammer needed one thing: a strong feeling, delivered before the target had time to think.
That should concern anyone who works with students.
The Emotional Attack
Cybersecurity training focuses on information, such as:
Do not click unfamiliar links.
Check the sender’s address.
Watch for unexpected attachments.
These are important tips that everyone should follow.
Fear produces urgency. Sympathy produces a desire to help. Excitement makes a person overlook details they would otherwise catch. Embarrassment stops a person from asking a friend or colleague whether something looks right.
None of this requires a scammer to outsmart the target’s technical knowledge. The scammer only needs to get past the target’s pause button, and feelings do that work quickly.
Once a person thinks, ‘I need to do this right now,’ the scammer has already won half the exchange.
Why This Matters for Students
Consider the situations a university student faces in a given semester. Tuition deadlines. Financial aid. Scholarships. Housing applications. Job offers. Academic standing. A friend who needs help fast. None of these topics is suspicious on its own. Students encounter them constantly, which is exactly why a scammer can use any one of them as a disguise.
A student who reads a message claiming that something important is at risk rarely stops to ask, ‘Is this a phishing attempt?’ The more immediate question is, ‘How do I fix this?’ That question is the trap. The scammer counts on the student staying inside it.
Urgency as a Weapon
Fraudsters have relied on manufactured urgency for a long time. Consider these common tactics: You have only a few minutes. Your account will close. Pay immediately. A friend needs help right now.
Urgency changes the question a person asks. Instead of ‘Is this legitimate?’, the target asks ‘How fast can I resolve this?’ The scammer controls that shift, and once it happens, careful judgment tends to disappear.
Students cannot reasonably treat every email or text with suspicion. That approach is not realistic, and it is not sustainable. What do to instead: when a message produces a strong emotional reaction, pause. The stronger the reaction, the more the pause matters.
Where Colleges and Universities Fit In
This is not only a student problem. Universities invest in cybersecurity training. Students learn about phishing, password hygiene, and multifactor authentication. That training is necessary, but it does not address scams built specifically to manipulate emotion.
When we teach cybersecuirty, we must include an emotional literacy component. Students should learn to notice when a message is working to make them afraid, guilty, excited, embarrassed, or suddenly responsible for solving an urgent problem. Orientation sessions, residence programming, and digital literacy initiatives are reasonable places to build this in.
The guidance itself is simple. If a message makes a person feel they must act immediately, they should stop. Then they should verify the request through a channel they already know is legitimate, not the phone number or link the message provides. The university website, the student portal, the bank, the employer: these sources exist independently of the suspicious message, and they are the ones worth contacting.
One extra minute, spent verifying, separates a student who avoids a scam from a student who becomes its next case study.
Rethinking Phishing Awareness
Fraud prevention cannot stop at spotting suspicious technology. The scammers doing the most damage right now often look ordinary. Scams arrive through platforms students already trust and tell a believable story. They contain no typos, no broken links, nothing that trips a spam filter.
The strength of the scam comes from something else entirely: an accurate read of how people behave under emotional pressure.
When considering cybersecurity we must account for psychology, as well as technology. Students do not need a degree in information security to protect themselves. They need the instinct to notice the feeling first and pay attention to it before acting. Panic, urgency, fear, excitement, guilt, an overwhelming pull to help someone right away. Any of these is reason enough to stop.
Step back. Verify independently. Then decide.
The scam rarely starts the moment someone clicks a link. It starts the moment a message succeeds in making a person react before they think.
Closing Remarks
An allegation of academic misconduct can cause students to panic and feel all kinds of emotions, including anxiety and terror. Those of us who work in education need to attend as much to our students’ well being, dignity and humanity as much as holding them accountable for their behaviour.
Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a Professor and Research Chair in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.
On April 1, 2026, Justice Meaghan M. Conroy of the Federal Court of Canada issued a consent judgment confirming that the Easy EDU tutoring companies infringed the copyright of the University of Toronto and three named professors: Robert Gazzale, Lisa Kramer, and Ai Taniguchi. Joe Friesen covered the story for The Globe and Mail (paywalled, but worth tracking down). The settlement requires Easy EDU to pay $1 million in damages, plus HST and interest. A counterclaim by Easy EDU against the university was dismissed without costs. The case had been before the courts since 2022.
Friesen reported that Easy EDU reproduced course outlines, slide presentations, lecture notes, and assignments without authorization. In some instances, the company provided tests written by faculty with answers included, placing students at direct risk of academic misconduct violations. One published adjudication described how 180 students received a study package containing 22 questions that corresponded directly to questions a professor had written for an assessment. The student named in that case received a grade of zero and a 28-month suspension.
This case matters beyond copyright law and anyone who works in academic integrity in Canada should be paying attention Why? Because the case could set a precedent for how Canadian institutions respond when students use file-sharing services, term paper mills, or engage so-called academic consultants.
What the Settlement Exposes
Let’s be clear: the Easy EDU case did not emerge in isolation. The case reflects a pattern I and others have documented extensively. In Academic Integrity in Canada: An Enduring and Essential Challenge, which Julia Christensen Hughes and I edited and published with Springer in 2022, our contributors wrote about contract cheating in Canada in a number of chapters. Collectively, we traced the commercialization of academic support services as part of a broader commodification of higher education. The volume includes chapters on contract cheating in Canada and on EdTech-enabled contract cheating, both of which point to the same structural condition that made Easy EDU possible: a market for services that operates in parallel to formal education, targeting students under pressure, with few regulatory constraints.
Canada has no legislation against contract cheating companies. The U of T settlement is a copyright remedy, not a criminal one. Easy EDU was not shut down because what it did was illegal under a contract cheating statute. It was held responsible for reproducing materials that belonged to the university and its faculty. This distinction is important here because copyright law filled a gap that academic integrity policy could not.
The Platformization of Academic Misconduct
A recent 2026 study published in the British Educational Research Journal adds another dimension to this picture. My PhD student Gengyan Tang led this study, with Wei Cai and me as co-authors. Tang, Cai, and I examined commercial academic misconduct appeal services operating in China’s digital marketplace and found that these agencies target Chinese international students through platforms such as Xiaohongshu (RED). These services operate in a regulatory and ethical grey zone, packaging appeal support as a marketable product and translating case outcomes into metrics like success rates.
Tang, Cai, and I conceptualize this process as self-platformization: commercial actors reorganizing educational assistance in alignment with platform economies. The same logic applies to tutoring services like Easy EDU. These are not tutoring companies in any traditional sense. They are platform-aware businesses that use algorithms, social media, and scale to insert themselves into students’ academic lives at precisely the moments when students are most vulnerable.
The students in the U of T case were not, for the most part, bad actors. Many were international students navigating unfamiliar institutional systems, in some cases at risk of losing their study permits. Easy EDU identified that vulnerability and built a business model around it. One student, identified only by initials in the published adjudication, faced a 28-month suspension, not because they set out to deceive, but because a commercial service supplied unauthorized materials and they used them.
In our study, Tang, Cai, and I argue that institutions have invested heavily in prevention and detection but have largely ignored the post-violation stage. That gap is where commercial services can operate with relative ease because there is nothing stopping them from doing so. Universities focus on catching misconduct. Academic consulting services (i.e., contract cheating companies) profit from what happens next, whether that means supplying unauthorized test answers before an assessment or, as we found in our research, or coaching students through misconduct hearings afterward.
So What’s Next?
The U of T injunction permanently restrains Easy EDU from making further use of the university’s course materials. The university has committed to directing settlement proceeds toward student academic supports. These are constructive outcomes, and also insufficient on their own.
In Academic Integrity in Canada: An Enduring and Essential Challenge, I, together with other contributors, called for legislation that would deter contract cheating firms from operating in Canada. That call has gone largely unanswered. The U of T case demonstrates that copyright enforcement can achieve results where academic integrity policy alone cannot, but copyright litigation is expensive, slow, and available only to institutions with the resources to pursue it. The case took four years to resolve, an in the financial climate we are in today, many institutions simply cannot absorb that kind of cost.
What the settlement does accomplish is normative because it establishes, through a federal court consent judgment, that reproducing course materials for commercial tutoring purposes constitutes copyright infringement. It names the professors whose intellectual property was taken and affirms, as U of T vice-provost Heather Boon stated, in Friesen’s article, that faculty own the copyright in their course materials and the university will support them in protecting it. That is a meaningful public statement. It signals that institutions are prepared to act, and that the legal tools to do so exist.
The Bigger Picture
Academic integrity is not simply a student conduct problem, but rather a structural problem shaped by institutional design, assessment practice, resource inequity, and the commercialization of educational support. The Easy EDU case sits at the intersection of all of these.
The students who attended those tutoring sessions needed academic support. Easy EDU positioned itself as that help, at a price, with materials it had no right to distribute. The university’s commitment to redirecting settlement funds to student supports is the right response. It will not be enough without sustained investment and clearer procedural guidance for students facing misconduct allegations. Institutions across our country happily received international student tuition fees, on the assumption that students are admitted have the academic skills and preparation they need to succeed. By and large, we still tend to blame the students if they lack academic skills or knowledge of how to navigate the higher education system. When the students turn to third parties whom they believe can help them fill their skills gap, historically, it is the students who are held responsible while companies operating in the background simply line their pockets with profits without any repercussions. This is the first time, to my knowledge, that a commercial supplier of academic services operating in Canada has faced a monetary penalty for facilitating academic misconduct.
Better institutional supports, clearer procedural guidance for students facing misconduct allegations, and platform-aware integrity education are not peripheral concerns. They are the conditions under which commercial exploitation becomes less attractive. In our study, Tang, Cai, and I call for a post-violation framework that attends to digital infrastructures and addresses students during crisis moments, not only before them. I continue to believe that work is overdue.
Kudos to the team at U of T for pursuing this case. You’ve now set a precedent that others can follow.
References
Eaton, S. E., & Christensen Hughes, J. (Eds.). (2022). Academic integrity in Canada: An enduring and essential challenge. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1
Tang, G., Eaton, S. E., & Cai, W. (2026). Academic misconduct appeal services in China: Platform logics, self-platformization and implications for integrity education. British Educational Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.70130
Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a Professor and Research Chair in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.
When we talk about academic integrity in universities, we often focus on preventing plagiarism and cheating. But what if our very approach to enforcing these standards is unintentionally creating barriers for some of our most vulnerable students?
My recent research explores how current academic integrity policies and practices can negatively affect neurodivergent students—those with conditions like ADHD, dyslexia, Autism, and other learning differences. Our existing systems, structures, and policies can further marginalize students with cognitive differences.
The Problem with One-Size-Fits-All
Neurodivergent students face unique challenges that can be misunderstood or ignored. A dyslexic student who struggles with citation formatting isn’t necessarily being dishonest. They may be dealing with cognitive processing differences that make these tasks genuinely difficult. A student with ADHD who has trouble managing deadlines and tracking sources is not necessarily lazy or unethical. They may be navigating executive function challenges that affect time management and organization. Yet our policies frequently treat these struggles as potential misconduct rather than as differences that deserve support.
Yet our policies frequently treat these struggles as potential misconduct rather than as differences that deserve support.
The Technology Paradox for Neurodivergent Students
Technology presents a particularly thorny paradox. On one hand, AI tools such as ChatGPT and text-to-speech software can be academic lifelines for neurodivergent students, helping them organize thoughts, overcome writer’s block, and express ideas more clearly. These tools can genuinely level the playing field.
On the other hand, the same technologies designed to catch cheating—especially AI detection software—appear to disproportionately flag neurodivergent students’ work. Autistic students or those with ADHD may be at higher risk of false positives from these detection tools, potentially facing misconduct accusations even when they have done their own work. This creates an impossible situation: the tools that help are the same ones that might get students in trouble.
Moving Toward Epistemic Plurality
So what’s the solution? Epistemic plurality, or recognizing that there are multiple valid ways of knowing and expressing knowledge. Rather than demanding everyone demonstrate learning in the exact same way, we should design assessments that allow for different cognitive styles and approaches.
This means:
Rethinking assessment design to offer multiple ways for students to demonstrate knowledge
Moving away from surveillance technologies like remote proctoring that create anxiety and accessibility barriers
Building trust rather than suspicion into our academic cultures
Designing universally, so accessibility is built in from the start rather than added as an afterthought
What This Means for the Future
In the postplagiarism era, where AI and technology are seamlessly integrated into education, we move beyond viewing academic integrity purely as rule-compliance. Instead, we focus on authentic and meaningful learning and ethical engagement with knowledge.
This does not mean abandoning standards. It means recognizing that diverse minds may meet those standards through different pathways. A student who uses AI to help structure an essay outline isn’t necessarily cheating. They may be using assistive technology in much the same way another student might use spell-check or a calculator.
Call to Action
My review of existing research showed something troubling: we have remarkably little data about how neurodivergent students experience academic integrity policies. The studies that exist are small, limited to English-speaking countries, and often overlook the voices of neurodivergent individuals themselves.
We need larger-scale research, global perspectives, and most importantly, we need neurodivergent students to be co-researchers and co-authors in work about them. “Nothing about us without us” is not just a slogan, but a call to action for creating inclusive academic environments.
Key Messages
Academic integrity should support learning, not create additional barriers for students who already face challenges. By reimagining our approaches through a lens of neurodiversity and inclusion, we can create educational environments where all students can thrive while maintaining academic standards.
Academic integrity includes and extends beyond student conduct; it means that everyone in the learning system acts with integrity to support student learning. Ultimately, there can be no integrity without equity.
Read the whole article here: Eaton, S. E. (2025). Neurodiversity and academic integrity: Toward epistemic plurality in a postplagiarism era. Teaching in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2025.2583456
Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a Professor and Research Chair in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.
When I was a student, I read works by Philip Altbach and Hans de Wit. Later, I became a fan of Elena Denisova-Schmidt and her work on fraud and corruption in higher education. Something very special happens when you actualy get to work with folks whom you have admired for years or even decades. When Elena invited me to contribute to a new edited volume she was working on with Philip Altbach and Hans de Wit, I jumped at the chance.
“Introduction In this chapter, I discuss corruption in the post-plagiarism era, focusing specifically on the weaponization of plagiarism and, by extension, the manipulation of reputation by moral judgment using intentionally orchestrated campaigns or selective disclosure with a focus on higher education. I begin by defining key terms such as corruption, plagiarism, and post-plagiarism. Then, I discuss the development of corruption in the age of artificial intelligence. I explore the weaponization of reputation and morality, and consider the impact of such tactics on society and democracy. Corruption, moral grandstanding, and virtue signaling are not new; however, technologies such as social media platforms and artificial intelligence can—and have—catalyzed some forms of corruption. I conclude by considering the future of ethics and integrity in the post-plagiarism age, including a call to action to uphold and enact integrity going forward. While concerns about post-plagiarism extend to almost all areas of human life, in my chapter I deal only with the realm of higher education.”
Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a Professor and Research Chair in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.
I started my Bachelor of Arts (Honours) degree 37 years ago this September. (Gosh, that’s a long time ago!) Looking back, I was sooo excited to be a university student… and also terrified. I was the first person in my immediate family to attend university. Now, as a professor, I am committed to helping to create pathways to success for students from equity-deserving groups, those who may be from marginalized or underrepresented groups. Part of this includes academic integrity for these students, who may genuinely have no idea when they start their first year of college what is expected of them.
First-generation college students (also called “first in family” students) are those whose parents did not complete a four-year college degree. These students face unique challenges that some folks in higher education may not fully appreciate. As faculty members, we have both an opportunity and responsibility to create more inclusive and supportive learning environments for these students.
Understanding the Barriers
First-generation students often navigate college without the cultural capital and informal knowledge that their peers may take for granted. They may be unfamiliar with academic norms, unsure about when and how to seek help, or struggling to balance college demands with family obligations and work responsibilities. These students may also experience heightened anxiety about whether they belong in academic spaces.
The principles I have advocated for in academic integrity work apply directly here. Existing systems in higher education can create barriers for students who don’t arrive with certain forms of privilege. As I have argued elsewhere, there can be no integrity without equity (Eaton, 2022). When we fail to address systemic barriers, we perpetuate conditions that disadvantage particular student groups.
Practical Strategies for Faculty
These strategies may work for many different student, not just first gen ones, but I would argue that we can be especially attentive to first generation students by taking the following into account:
Make the Implicit Explicit
Academic culture is filled with unspoken rules and expectations. What seems obvious to those of us who have spent years in higher education may be completely foreign to first-generation students. As I have learned from my work on equity and academic integrity, “if the system is invisible to you, that is because it was created for you” (Eaton, 2022, p. 6).
Provide detailed rubrics and examples of successful work: Create comprehensive rubrics that clearly articulate expectations for each level of performance. Include examples of student work that demonstrate different quality levels, with annotations explaining what makes each example effective or ineffective. Consider providing both excellent examples and common mistakes to help students understand the full range of expectations.
Explain the purpose behind assignments, not just the requirements: Help students understand the learning objectives and real-world applications of their coursework. For instance, explain how a research paper develops critical thinking skills, information literacy, and written communication abilities that transfer to professional contexts. This contextual understanding helps students engage more meaningfully with their learning.
Use plain language in syllabi and course materials: Avoid unnecessary jargon and academic terminology that may be unfamiliar to first-generation students. When discipline-specific terms are essential, define them clearly. Review your syllabus annually to identify language that might be confusing or intimidating to newcomers to higher education.
Clarify expectations for participation, email communication, and office hour visits: Explicitly teach students how to write professional emails, including appropriate subject lines, greetings, and tone. Explain what constitutes meaningful class participation beyond simply speaking up. Describe what happens during office hours and provide specific examples of productive topics for discussion.
Build Genuine Relationships
Connection matters. First-generation students benefit tremendously from feeling that faculty care about them as individuals. This mirrors what we know from academic integrity research: students are less likely to engage in misconduct when they believe their instructors care about them (Eaton, 2022).
Learn students’ names and use them regularly: Make a conscious effort to learn and use student names from the first week of class. Consider using name tents, seating charts, or other strategies to help with this process. Using names creates a sense of belonging and demonstrates that you see students as individuals rather than anonymous faces in a crowd.
Share your own educational journey when appropriate: If you were a first-generation student yourself, consider sharing relevant aspects of your experience. Even if you weren’t, you can share challenges you faced and how you overcame them. This vulnerability helps normalize struggle and shows students that difficulty doesn’t indicate inadequacy.
Create opportunities for peer interaction and collaboration: Design activities that help students connect with one another, such as think-pair-share exercises, small group discussions, or collaborative projects. These connections can provide crucial academic and social support throughout their college experience.
Be approachable and normalize help-seeking behavior: Explicitly tell students that asking questions is a sign of engagement, not weakness. Share examples of productive questions from past students. Make yourself available through multiple channels and respond to student inquiries promptly and warmly.
Schedule regular check-ins, particularly with students who seem to be struggling: Proactively reach out to students who have missed classes, submitted late work, or seem disengaged. A simple email expressing concern and offering support can make a significant difference. Consider mid-semester individual conferences with all students to discuss their progress and address any concerns.
Address Financial and Time Pressures
Many first-generation students work multiple jobs or have family caregiving responsibilities. Our course design should acknowledge these realities without compromising academic rigor. In some research that I did with a graduate student on mental wellbeing and academic integrity, we found that students experiencing stress may be more vulnerable to academic misconduct (Eaton & Turner, 2020), making supportive course design even more crucial.
Avoid requiring expensive textbooks when alternatives exist: Explore open educational resources (OERs), library reserves, or older editions of textbooks. If expensive materials are necessary, provide information about rental options, used book sources, or financial aid resources that might help students afford them.
Consider the timing of assignment due dates and major exams: Avoid scheduling major assignments during times when students are likely to face additional stressors, such as midterms week or right before holidays when many students increase their work hours. Provide advance notice of all major assignments and deadlines.
Offer multiple pathways to demonstrate learning: Design assessments that allow students to showcase their knowledge in different ways. This might include options for oral presentations instead of written papers, creative projects alongside traditional exams, or multiple smaller assignments rather than a few high-stakes evaluations.
Build flexibility into attendance policies when appropriate: While maintaining reasonable expectations, consider policies that account for the realities of students who may face transportation issues, work conflicts, or family emergencies. Provide clear guidelines about how to communicate absences and make up missed work.
Connect students with campus resources for emergency financial assistance: Learn about your institution’s emergency funding programs and don’t hesitate to refer students who are struggling financially. Many students are unaware these resources exist or feel uncomfortable accessing them without encouragement from faculty.
Provide Proactive Academic Support
Don’t wait for students to ask for help. The cultural norm of self-advocacy may not be familiar to first-generation students, and they may interpret struggling as evidence that they don’t belong. As research on academic integrity and mental health during COVID-19 has shown, students may experience significant anxiety about academic expectations and performance (Eaton & Turner, 2020).
Introduce campus support services early and repeatedly: Don’t just mention writing support and student success workshops once in your syllabus. Regularly remind students about these resources and explain specifically how they can help with course assignments. Consider inviting representatives from student services to visit your class.
Provide feedback throughout the semester, not just at the end: Offer low-stakes opportunities for students to receive feedback on their work before major assignments are due. This might include draft submissions, peer review sessions, or brief conferences about work in progress.
Connect students with tutoring, writing centers, and peer support programs: Make specific referrals rather than general suggestions. For example, “Based on your draft, I think working with the writing center on thesis development would be helpful. Here’s how to make an appointment, and I recommend mentioning that you’re working on argument structure.”
Offer study strategies and time management guidance: Many first-generation students have never been taught effective study techniques. Provide concrete strategies for reading academic texts, taking notes, preparing for exams, and managing large projects over time.
Explain how to read and interpret feedback on assignments: Students may not understand how to use your comments to improve their work. Consider providing examples of how to revise based on feedback or scheduling brief meetings to discuss your comments on major assignments.
Challenge Deficit Thinking
Resist viewing first-generation students through a deficit lens. Instead, recognize the strengths, resilience, and diverse perspectives they bring to your classroom. This aligns with advocacy for decolonizing academic practices and embracing multiple ways of knowing (Eaton, 2022).
Value different forms of knowledge and experience: Acknowledge that students bring valuable perspectives from their work, family, and community experiences. Create opportunities for students to connect course content to their lived experiences and cultural backgrounds.
Incorporate diverse voices and perspectives in your curriculum: Include authors, researchers, and case studies that reflect diverse backgrounds and experiences. This helps all students see themselves reflected in the curriculum while exposing everyone to broader perspectives.
Create assignments that allow students to draw on their backgrounds: Design projects that invite students to explore topics relevant to their communities or to apply course concepts to contexts they know well. This validates their experiences while helping them see the relevance of academic content.
Resist conflating struggle with inability: Normalize the learning process and help students understand that confusion and difficulty are natural parts of intellectual growth. Share examples of how struggle leads to deeper understanding.
Advocate for institutional changes that support student success: Use your voice in departmental and institutional committees to push for policies and practices that better serve first-generation students. This might include advocating for more flexible scheduling, expanded financial aid, or improved support services.
Practice Cultural Humility
Acknowledge that our own educational experiences may differ significantly from those of our students. Be willing to learn about their perspectives and challenges.
Ask students about their needs rather than making assumptions: Use anonymous surveys or informal check-ins to understand what your students are experiencing. Their insights can help you adjust your teaching to better meet their needs.
Be open to feedback about your teaching practices: Create opportunities for students to provide honest feedback about what’s working and what isn’t. Consider mid-semester evaluations or regular pulse checks to gauge student understanding and engagement.
Recognize the limits of your own knowledge and experience: Be honest about what you don’t know about first-generation student experiences and commit to learning more. Attend professional development sessions, read relevant research, and seek out colleagues who have expertise in this area.
Collaborate with student affairs professionals who specialize in first-generation student support: Build relationships with staff in student success centers, counseling services, and first-generation student programs. They can provide valuable insights and serve as resources for your students.
Beyond Individual Action
Individual faculty efforts are essential, but systemic change is equally important. As I have argued in my work on equity in academic integrity, we must advocate for institutional transformation and systemic change (Eaton, 2022).
Within your department and institution, push for professional development focused on supporting first-generation students, policies that address food insecurity and housing instability, expanded financial aid and emergency funding programs, mentoring programs connecting students with faculty, staff, and successful peers, and recognition systems that value inclusive teaching practices.
The Mental Health Connection
There are connections between academic stress and mental health concerns (Eaton & Turner, 2020). For first-generation students, this stress may be compounded by family pressures, financial worries, and feelings of not belonging. Our rapid review of literature during COVID-19 found that students experienced “amplification of students’ anxiety and stress during the pandemic, especially for matters relating to academic integrity” (Eaton & Turner, 2020, p. 37).
Faculty should be attentive to signs of student distress and prepared to connect students with appropriate campus resources. Creating supportive classroom environments can help mitigate some of these stressors. When students feel valued and supported, they are more likely to seek help when needed rather than struggling in isolation.
A Personal Commitment
Supporting first-generation students requires ongoing commitment to equity and inclusion. It means examining our own practices and assumptions, being willing to change course when needed, and advocating for students both inside and outside our classrooms.
The work of creating equitable educational environments is never finished. As I have written elsewhere, “A commitment to allyship is a life’s work, demonstrated throughout our daily ethical practice as educators, leaders, researchers, and human beings” (Eaton, 2022, p. 6). When we commit to supporting first-generation students, we strengthen our entire academic community and move closer to the ideals of fairness and inclusion that should guide higher education.
As educators, we have the power to significantly impact student success. The question is how we use that power to dismantle existing barriers or to create pathways for all students to thrive.
References
Eaton, S. E. (2022). New priorities for academic integrity: equity, diversity, inclusion, decolonization and Indigenization. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 18(10), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-022-00105-0
Eaton, S. E., & Turner, K. L. (2020). Exploring academic integrity and mental health during COVID-19: Rapid review. Journal of Contemporary Education Theory & Research, 4(1), 35-41. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4256825
Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a Professor and Research Chair in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.
Posted by Sarah Elaine Eaton, Ph.D. 
Learning, Teaching and Leadership 
You must be logged in to post a comment.