and scott evenbeck -...
TRANSCRIPT
ContactScott E. EvenbeckPresident, Stella and Charles Guttman Community CollegeTel: (646) 313‐8020E‐mail: [email protected]
Barbara D. WrightVice President, WASC Senior College and University CommissionTel: (510) 851‐0998E‐mail: [email protected]
Goals for this seminar:
Participants will be able to do the following:
● Describe the changing nature of faculty work.● Consider alternatives for professional development and contexts for faculty to implement and celebrate this transition.
Outline
• The National Context• From Teaching to Learning• From Solitary Activity to Public Activity and Collaboration
• From Context to Learning Outcomes• Do We Really Need Courses?• Doing the Work Differently• Discussion
The national context for change in HE...
• Rising costs – for students, states, feds• Rising debt• Dissatisfaction with quality of learning• Difficulty of transfer, wasted time, money• Concern about economic competitiveness• Overbuilt, overextended institutions• Diluted mission, “arms race”• Potential for a populist backlash
Why now? A convergence . . .
• Demographics• Disruptive technologies• Tech‐savvy students • Availability of learning resources• Student‐ and learning‐centeredness• Outcomes assessment• Alternatives to traditional degrees• The Degree Qualifications Profile
The old business model of college and “the great unbundling” (Anya Kamenetz) ‐
• Knowledge• Instruction• Validation of learning• Degrees• Social networking• Cultural opportunities• Personal development
COMPARING EDUCATIONAL PARADIGMSThe Instruction ParadigmMission and Purposes
The Learning ParadigmMission and Purposes
Provide/deliver instruction Produce learning
Transfer knowledge from faculty to students Elicit students discovery and construction of knowledge
Offer courses and programs Create powerful learning environments
Improve the quality of instruction Improve the quality of learning
Achieve access for diverse students Achieve success for diverse students
Barr and Tagg, From Teaching to Learning (1995)
Comparing Educational ParadigmsCriteria for Success Criteria for Success
Learning variesInputs, resources
Learning variesLearning & student‐success outcomes
Quality of entering students Quality of exiting students
Curriculum development, expansion Learning technologies development
Quantity and quality of resources Quantity and quality of outcomes
Enrollment, revenue growth Aggregate learning growth, efficiency
Quality of faculty, instruction Quality of students, learning
Barr and Tagg, From Teaching to Learning (1995)
Comparing Educational ParadigmsTeaching/ Learning Structures Teaching/ Learning Structures
Atomistic; parts prior to whole Holistic; whole prior to parts
Time held constant, learning varies Learning held constant, time varies
50‐minute lecture,3‐unit course Learning environments
Classes start/end at same time Environment ready when student is
One teacher, one classroom Whatever learning experience works
Independent disciplines, departments Cross discipline/department
Covering material Specified learning results
End‐of‐course assessment Pre/during/post assessments
Grading within classes by instructors External evaluations of learning
Private assessment Public assessment
Degree equals accumulated credit hours Degree equals demonstrated knowledge and skills
Comparing Educational ParadigmsLearning Theory Learning Theory
Knowledge exists "out there" Knowledge exists in each person's mind and is shaped by individual experience
Knowledge comes in chunks and bits; delivered by instructors and gotten by students
Knowledge is constructed, created
Learning is cumulative and linear Learning is a nesting and interacting of frameworks
Fits the storehouse of knowledge metaphor Fits learning how to ride a bicycle metaphor
Learning is teacher centered and controlled Learning is student centered & controlled
"Live" teacher, "live" students required "Active" learner required, but not "live" students required
The classroom and learning are competitive and individualistic
Learning environments and learning are cooperative, collaborative, & supportive
Talent and ability are rare Talent and ability are abundant
Comparing Educational ParadigmsProductivity/Funding Productivity/Funding
Definition of productivity: cost per hour of instruction per student
Definition of productivity: cost per unit of learning per student
Funding for hours of instruction Funding for learning outcomes
Barr and Tagg, From Teaching to Learning (1995)
Comparing Educational ParadigmsNature of Roles Nature of Roles
Faculty are primarily lecturers Faculty are primarily designers of learning methods and environments
Faculty and students act independently and in isolation
Faculty and students work in teams with each other and other staff
Teachers classify and sort students Teachers develop every student's competencies and talents
Staff serve/support faculty and the process of instruction
All staff are educators who produce student learning and success
Any expert can teach Empowering learning is challenging and complex
Line governance; independent actors Shared governance; teamwork independent actors
Barr and Tagg, From Teaching to Learning (1995)
“Scholarship Reconsidered”Ernest Boyer
• The scholarship of discovery: original research that advances knowledge;
• The scholarship of integration: synthesis across disciplines, across topics within a discipline, or across time;
• The scholarship of application (also called engagement): rigorous application of disciplinary expertise with results that can be shared with and/or evaluated by peers; and
• The scholarship of teaching and learning: systematic study of teaching and learning. Goes beyond scholarly teaching; requires public sharing and the opportunity for application and evaluation by others.
ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF “LEARNING COMMUNITIES”
Common cohort of students who attend two or moreclasses together
Robust partnerships between academic affairs and student support services
Explicitly designed opportunities for integrative learning
supported by an ongoing professional development program
Instructional Teams1. Faculty Roles
Faculty . . .• shape the learning environment • serve as the human bond to the academic dimension of the
university. • model the scholarly enterprise, commitment to both learning in
general and disciplines in particular. • design, deliver, and assess each first‐year seminar • work collaboratively with other members of the instructional team
to ensure a quality experience. • meet in a 25‐student section for all contact hours and serve as
mentor.
A Template for First‐Year Seminars at IUPUI
2. Advisor RolesAcademic advisors . . . • are integral to the first‐year seminar instructional team. • allow students to develop an ongoing relationship with an
academic advisor• help students learn more about value of University College
academic advisors as well as advisors in their majors. • teach student about academic planning, registration, schedule
adjustments, admission to the major, academic policies. • with first‐semester students develop a program plan, schedule
courses for the following semester, define goals.• coordinate personal development plan (PDP) process, follow‐up
with students in subsequent semesters. • work with students who receive warnings
A Template for First‐Year Seminars at IUPUI
2. Advisor Roles, cont.
Advisors’ assets . . . • active listening skills • knowledge of student development theory, • ability to help students develop their academic and career goals
• familiarity with degree requirements, university procedures and resources
• ability to instruct students in basic study skills.
A Template for First‐Year Seminars at IUPUI
3. Librarian RolesLibrarians . . . • are also an essential component of the first‐year seminar
instructional team• introduce students to information literacy concepts, e.g.,
information credibility, source evaluation, and plagiarism. • teach the “culture of the academy,” e.g., honesty in scholarship • introduce academic information resources, library services
Assigned subject librarians . . .• Work with specific units, schools, and departments • Contribute to the first‐year seminars for their disciplines • Share knowledge of the research process and experience with first‐
year students.
A Template for First‐Year Seminars at IUPUI
4. Student Mentor Roles
The student mentor . . . • offers an academic role model • shares personal experiences, e.g., in use of campus resources,
time management, development of study habits, and navigating the campus.
• Serves as information channel to the instructional team and advocate for interests, needs, and concerns of the first‐year students.
A Template for First‐Year Seminars at IUPUI
The Essential Learning Outcomes, LEAP• Knowledge of Human Cultures and the Physical and Natural World
– Through study in the sciences and mathematics, social sciences, humanities, histories, languages, and the arts
• Intellectual and Practical Skills– Inquiry and analysis– Critical and creative thinking– Written and oral communication– Quantitative literacy– Information literacy– Teamwork and problem solving
• Personal and Social responsibility, including– Civic knowledge and engagement – local and global– Intercultural knowledge and competence– Ethical reasoning and action– Foundations and skills for lifelong ;earning
• Integrative learning , including– Synthesis and advanced accomplishment across general and special studies
Degree Qualifications Profile (DQP)Student Learning Outcomes
1. Broad, Integrative Knowledge: General education
2. Specialized Knowledge: The Majors3. Intellectual Skills for Life‐Long Learning4. Civic Learning, Engagement & Social
Responsibility5. Applied Learning
If we focus on outcomes, do we really need courses? • A student‐centered institution
– shifts the emphasis from teaching to learning– provides flexible timeframes, multiple pathways– aims for “mastery learning”
• Learning is the end, courses a means• Other paths can lead to learning, too, e.g.,
– Open courseware– Independent study– Job training– Avocations
• Assessment can validate learning from any source
What if . . .• the business model for HE is no longer sale of courses and credit hours but validation of learning?
• What are the implications for– Students?– Faculty?– The curriculum?– Administration?– The public?
Assessment becomes the key to
• Diagnosing students’ strengths, weaknesses, levels of proficiency
• Validating acquisition of knowledge and skills• Confirming fulfillment of degree requirements defined as outcomes
• Substantive communication • Safeguarding quality
The student’s role changes . . .
• Greater freedom of choice• Prior knowledge validated• Fewer courses needed• Swifter degree completion• Greater personal responsibility • Discipline, engagement required• New skills essential
The faculty’s work changes . . .• Less focus on curriculum, courses: flipping the faculty role
• Less classroom teaching• More
– Advising, creating degree blueprints– Diagnosing gaps in skills, knowledge– Guiding study groups– Devising tutorials, identifying resources– Developing assessments– Administering assessments – Faculty development
The administrator’s role ...• Courage, leadership required: flipping the university
• Refocused mission, emphasis on learning• Planning, budgeting, revenue affected • Robust assessment infrastructure• Collaboration with other institutions• Transparency, accountability• Engagement with public, policy makers
Cautions and questions . . .• Can students assume this responsibility? Will some be
left behind?• Will institutions be willing, able to change?• Will departments and faculty be able to change?• Can faculty acquire new skills fast enough?• How can administrators support faculty
development?• What happens to the social role of HE – social justice,
equity, civic engagement?
Assessment is the linchpin
• In the 20th century –– Improvement of learning– Accountability
• In the 21th century –– Improvement & accountability plus
– Institutional transformation– Institutional & national survival
CATALYST PAPER
Sturm, S., Eatman, T., Saltmarsh, J., & Bush, A. (2011). Full participation:Building the architecture for diversity and public engagement in highereducation (White paper). Columbia University Law School: Center forInstitutional and Social Change.
1. Increasing student access and success, particularly for underrepresented, first-generation,and low-income students;
2. Diversifying higher education faculties, often with separate projects for hiring, retention, andclimate;
3. Promoting community, civic, or public engagement for students; and,
4. Increasing support for faculty‘s public or engaged scholarship.
At: http://imaginingamerica.org/fg-item/full-participation-building-the-architecture-for-diversity-and-community-engagement-in-higher-education/
Faculty Roles and Rewards
• Work in isolation• Know‐how assumed• Provide/deliver instruction• Transfer knowledge from faculty
to students• Offer courses and programs
• Improve the quality of instruction• Access for diverse students• Limited view of “educator”• Low prestige, little reward
• Work in teams• Educator role learned• Produce learning• Elicit students discovery and
construction of knowledge• Create powerful learning
environments• Improve the quality of learning• Success for diverse students• “Educator” multi‐dimensional• High prestige, high rewards
Old Paradigm New Paradigm
Faculty craft courses Faculty craft assessments
Questions to consider:‐‐How might likely changes in faculty roles impact the implementation of your project? What will your project look like in five years? What will faculty be doing?
‐‐How do we support faculty commitment to student‐centered institutional change? To what extent are faculty commitment to the institution and faculty commitment to the discipline/department in opposition? Complementary?
‐‐What single change in your reward structure would most benefit your GE program?