According to a recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, new regulations are being set in place to affect tighter controls over on-line education. Since 2001, accreditation boards have made determinations based primarily on a given institution's delivery capacity. Since that time there have been a number of revisions as on-line learning has evolved. Currently there are two trends emerging:
1) There is competition in the field of accreditation which seems to be increasing. A number of organizations are emerging to provide accreditation services.
2) The Higher Education Act up for review again in 2013 and numerous suggestions are being thrown around like (for example) cutting the tie between accreditation and federal financial aid, tying accreditation to graduation rates, and bolstering expectations on the faculty facilitating on-line courses.
With accreditation officials confirming that distance learning is no more or less effective as a medium than brick-and-mortar classes, it is safe to say that on-line learning has more than sufficiently combatted the negative perceptions it was met with when it first emerged. Market forces are a key driver in this and, today, over two-thirds of institutions offer distance learning options and over a third of students have taken them up on that offer.
There are certainly some problems with the trends though. First, if the link between financial aid and accreditation is severed, the integrity of Higher Ed in America becomes a free-for-all and (granted - I doubt it would last for long if it got out of hand BUT) the damage could be devastating. Second: While the article mentions the limited resources of accreditors being problematic in the event of greater federal demands via revisions to the HEA - my concern is that increasing the demands for accreditation could raise entry-barriers in the educational marketplace making it more difficult for competing institutions (of which there are many - only the exception of which deserve negative mention) to gain purchase in the market landscape. The influence of for-profits is undeniable. They are forcing non-profit institutions to rethink their strategies of delivery (thereby expanding options for providing access - the two are intrinsically connected) and to re-examine the value they offer to students. For-profits institutions cater to the market base. The needs and interests of students are not simply a positive reflection on the institution - they are the core competence of for-profits. While they do often charge more they are forced - out of survival and sustainability - to continually expand and refine the product they offer. Non-profits have as their primary impetus regulations and federal demands - regulation takes priority over student needs and often sets the lens through which we view student need. This is, of course, my opinion. BUT if true - what are the ramifications?
David
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Monday, November 14, 2011
F*$% This!
Oberlin alumni released a website about 3 weeks ago promoting “why the fuck I should chose Oberlin?” It has had some many visitors since it went live with nearly 2,500 reasons from students and alumni.
Here are just a few examples:
“Because our bathroom fucking graffiti is intellectual and creative as shit.”
“Because we have the best fucking safer sex education out there, and that means we can have awesome fucking sex.”
“Because when America didn’t think black people and women were people, Oberlin thought they should probably fucking go to college.”
“Because they’re not afraid of words like ‘fuck.’ ”
So you guessed it, all the reasons include the f-word.
Interesting marketing for a college and it seems to be working. It reminds me of the people who use the word sexy in terrible fashion as well.
On the other hand, they are putting the institution out there and everything else to highlight what Oberlin is about and who should attend. It seems that everything at Oberlin in f-ing amazing! From using a co-op baking sheet to f-ing slide down the hill to the f-ing art.
So why would anyone want to be associated with a so f-ing happy college? Or better yet, a college that prides its students, staff, faculty, alumni on using the f-word? Well, probably to not attract stuffy people like myself who frown on the dumbing down of education to levels where people have to use the f-word to get their point across in an order to prove some witty new marketing scheme.
Here are just a few examples:
“Because our bathroom fucking graffiti is intellectual and creative as shit.”
“Because we have the best fucking safer sex education out there, and that means we can have awesome fucking sex.”
“Because when America didn’t think black people and women were people, Oberlin thought they should probably fucking go to college.”
“Because they’re not afraid of words like ‘fuck.’ ”
So you guessed it, all the reasons include the f-word.
Interesting marketing for a college and it seems to be working. It reminds me of the people who use the word sexy in terrible fashion as well.
On the other hand, they are putting the institution out there and everything else to highlight what Oberlin is about and who should attend. It seems that everything at Oberlin in f-ing amazing! From using a co-op baking sheet to f-ing slide down the hill to the f-ing art.
So why would anyone want to be associated with a so f-ing happy college? Or better yet, a college that prides its students, staff, faculty, alumni on using the f-word? Well, probably to not attract stuffy people like myself who frown on the dumbing down of education to levels where people have to use the f-word to get their point across in an order to prove some witty new marketing scheme.
Connecting Education and Technology In a Different Way
I know the hot topic right now is Penn State and this scandal. I've been glued the story but I wrote my take on the issue in response to Meloni's post and wanted to post something on a lighter note for my last blog.
So the one good thing I've learned through following Penn State is that the Huffington Post has a college new section which is where I found this article "What Higher Education Can Learn from Steve Jobs"
Now I'm not an Apple person (gasp?!- please don't stone me :-)) but I am someone who thinks taking actions, lessons, and examples from other disciplines and applying them to higher education can produce benefits we in Student Affairs cannot always think of first thing. So I was excited to find this article where author, Brian Rosenberg, applied what he learned in Jobs' autobiography to education. (Rosenberg is actually the president of Macalester College in Minnesota, which is a private liberal arts college.)
Rosenberg highlights three things from the book to apply to higher education.
1. "Deciding what not to do is as important as deciding what to do."
I had the pleasure of attending the NASPA-IV West regional conference in Denver a few weeks ago where this exact topic was brought up by Jody Donovan at CSU. I think about all the things college's are being asked to do with limited funding and resources and the one thing I've heard other leaders ask, as well as Jody, is what are we in the business of doing?
I think in higher education we take on a lot because we don't know what not to do or we have the moments of "if we don't do it, who will?" And as a culture in student affairs we are horrible at saying no. I for one have to think constantly about how much is on my plate, as an office of two professionals what are we capable of doing and doing well, and if we're doing too much does it do a disservice to our students.
Apple knows what they are good at and market themselves accordingly. They are intentional about everything they make and do from the people they hire to the products they develop. They aren't afraid to say no and that's why their products are as detailed, intricate, and rewarding to a consumer. Are we in higher ed doing the same things?
2. "Some people say, 'Give the customers what they want.' But that's not my approach. Our job is to figure out what they're going to want before they do."
3. "The creativity that can occur when a feel for both the humanities and the sciences combine in one strong personality was the topic that most interested me in the biographies of Franklin and Einstein, and I believe that it will be a key to creating innovative economies in the twenty-first century."
So the one good thing I've learned through following Penn State is that the Huffington Post has a college new section which is where I found this article "What Higher Education Can Learn from Steve Jobs"
Now I'm not an Apple person (gasp?!- please don't stone me :-)) but I am someone who thinks taking actions, lessons, and examples from other disciplines and applying them to higher education can produce benefits we in Student Affairs cannot always think of first thing. So I was excited to find this article where author, Brian Rosenberg, applied what he learned in Jobs' autobiography to education. (Rosenberg is actually the president of Macalester College in Minnesota, which is a private liberal arts college.)
Rosenberg highlights three things from the book to apply to higher education.
1. "Deciding what not to do is as important as deciding what to do."
I had the pleasure of attending the NASPA-IV West regional conference in Denver a few weeks ago where this exact topic was brought up by Jody Donovan at CSU. I think about all the things college's are being asked to do with limited funding and resources and the one thing I've heard other leaders ask, as well as Jody, is what are we in the business of doing?
I think in higher education we take on a lot because we don't know what not to do or we have the moments of "if we don't do it, who will?" And as a culture in student affairs we are horrible at saying no. I for one have to think constantly about how much is on my plate, as an office of two professionals what are we capable of doing and doing well, and if we're doing too much does it do a disservice to our students.
Apple knows what they are good at and market themselves accordingly. They are intentional about everything they make and do from the people they hire to the products they develop. They aren't afraid to say no and that's why their products are as detailed, intricate, and rewarding to a consumer. Are we in higher ed doing the same things?
2. "Some people say, 'Give the customers what they want.' But that's not my approach. Our job is to figure out what they're going to want before they do."
In 2000, no one in this world knew they would need an Ipod or Iphone. They didn't think music could make it to more than a discman and mixed tapes. No one thought Siri would be a household name or that "smartphones" would become a mini computer in your pocket. But Apple did. And they knew they could make it intuitive, market friendly and a product everyone HAD to have.
What if we asked the question, "What is it our students need from their education before they actually figure out they need it?" I think we have some old school answers to this like general education, financial aid, etc. The essence of this question is "what is the future of higher education and what do we need to do now to get people to buy in, committ, and celebrate their experience?" I rarely hear that asked in education and even more rarely, do changes actually happen. I've always struggled with the reactive nature of Student Affairs. Yes, sometimes all we can do is put procedures in place and react when needed. But there is A LOT more we can be proactive about. May be if we truly look at what we should stop doing as much as what we need to start doing, we can take a step closer to anticipating what students need.
This is a great affirmation that all branches of a university need each other to be great. How much are we actually working with our partners around an institution?
This article made me think twice about all three of these things in my own work. How can I stop doing things, get ahead of what my students need, and partner with others on campus? Leaves me a lot of complex ideas and thoughts. I am just glad that somebody else in higher education is asking the same things.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
What Digital Books Mean for Everyone in Higher Ed
As a student who dreads checking out the cost of books at the beginning of each semester New Digital Tools Let Professors Tailor Their Own Textbooks for Under $20 in the Chronicle earlier this month caught my eye. The story talks about AcademicPub, a company started in April, that customizes textbooks for professors by using book chapters, case studies and journal articles from over 75 publishers. The site tracks royalty costs and charges students for the specifically-designed textbook accordingly. One example was from a marketing professor who designed a book that students could get for $14.95 digitally, $27 in paperback or $45 in hardcover.
Of course the benefits of AcademicPub are the lower cost to students in a time of ever-growing education costs. I would also imagine that a benefit to faculty would be getting to pick and choose materials from different areas without having duplicate books. On the other hand, the article states that the “big five” publishing companies do not have agreements with AcademicPub so their materials are not available. One also has to wonder about the reading materials being considered for use if the cost becomes the number one factor.
This is a newer concept in higher education, I believe partially driven by technology and what is available in academics. The article also mentions Connexions, an online database that shares educational material for free, and Flat World which “finds scholars willing to build peer-reviewed textbooks published under a Creative Commons license, which lets others edit and customize the books and allows students free online access to them.” Furthermore, there was an article in the Chronicle just yesterday about Steve Jobs having a plan to make textbooks free on the iPad. While his concepts were supposedly geared more for K-12 education, I believe it would only be a matter of time before the notion would spread to higher ed.
I’m curious to know what other people think about all of the concepts that these articles bring up: the use of technology that replaces the need for physical books, the lower costs to students, a professor’s ability to piecemeal a book together, the repercussions of the printing and publishing companies that no longer get the business, and what it means for the authors.
Beyond the loss of money, I have no idea what this means for authors and printing/publishing companies. I see the great benefit to students because of the cost of some books these days. On the other hand, I do think the disappearance of actual books is sad. It’s just a sign of the times I suppose. If the “big five” companies aren’t involved in AcademicPub, what does that say about the materials that do get used? Are they less credible? Contain lesser information? Will faculty members feel pressure to use books and materials they don’t necessarily favor because of the cost to their students? The thought of even books in today’s world going digital is a concept that is hard for me to wrap my head around. I’d love to hear what others think about some of the questions I have!
Of course the benefits of AcademicPub are the lower cost to students in a time of ever-growing education costs. I would also imagine that a benefit to faculty would be getting to pick and choose materials from different areas without having duplicate books. On the other hand, the article states that the “big five” publishing companies do not have agreements with AcademicPub so their materials are not available. One also has to wonder about the reading materials being considered for use if the cost becomes the number one factor.
This is a newer concept in higher education, I believe partially driven by technology and what is available in academics. The article also mentions Connexions, an online database that shares educational material for free, and Flat World which “finds scholars willing to build peer-reviewed textbooks published under a Creative Commons license, which lets others edit and customize the books and allows students free online access to them.” Furthermore, there was an article in the Chronicle just yesterday about Steve Jobs having a plan to make textbooks free on the iPad. While his concepts were supposedly geared more for K-12 education, I believe it would only be a matter of time before the notion would spread to higher ed.
I’m curious to know what other people think about all of the concepts that these articles bring up: the use of technology that replaces the need for physical books, the lower costs to students, a professor’s ability to piecemeal a book together, the repercussions of the printing and publishing companies that no longer get the business, and what it means for the authors.
Beyond the loss of money, I have no idea what this means for authors and printing/publishing companies. I see the great benefit to students because of the cost of some books these days. On the other hand, I do think the disappearance of actual books is sad. It’s just a sign of the times I suppose. If the “big five” companies aren’t involved in AcademicPub, what does that say about the materials that do get used? Are they less credible? Contain lesser information? Will faculty members feel pressure to use books and materials they don’t necessarily favor because of the cost to their students? The thought of even books in today’s world going digital is a concept that is hard for me to wrap my head around. I’d love to hear what others think about some of the questions I have!
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
New blogs are open
Current Issues Students: the new blog have been created for the second half of the course. Each is based on a student recommendation. You should receive invitations to join these 5 new blogs this afternoon. If you do not (or if you need the invitation to go to a different email address), please let me know. The older blogs will remain open for students who want to post in them for this week.
The new blog titles are: Higher Education in Colorado, For Profit, International, Protest and Conflict, and Graduate Education.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Technology in Elementary Classrooms
Below are the first few sentences of an article appearing in the New York Times (NYT).
LOS ALTOS, Calif. — The chief technology officer of eBay sends his children to a nine-classroom school here. So do employees of Silicon Valley giants like Google, Apple, Yahoo and Hewlett-Packard. But the school’s chief teaching tools are anything but high-tech: pens and paper, knitting needles and, occasionally, mud. Not a computer to be found. No screens at all. They are not allowed in the classroom, and the school even frowns on their use at home. Schools nationwide have rushed to supply their classrooms with computers, and many policy makers say it is foolish to do otherwise. But the contrarian point of view can be found at the epicenter of the tech economy, where some parents and educators have a message: computers and schools don’t mix.
We would certainly want some more rigorous data about the actual number of tech-rich parents who send their kids to a Waldorf school before reaching too many conclusions. However, this does raise questions about what young kids should be learning and why people who have the money to send their kids to any elementary school have them attending a place that keeps technology out of the classroom. I don’t know anything about early childhood education and technology except that I am usually troubled to see a 5 year-old with his/her own Ipad (probably because I am jealous!). Technology is sometimes problematized as a ‘haves’ and haves-not’ situation but this situation suggests a more nuanced frame is needed. Perhaps we need to first ask, ‘technology to what end’?
A commenter on the article observed that “over the history of education we have closets and storage rooms FILLED with defunct technology—some out-dated before it was ever used. In our consumer culture, the nature of technology is to perpetuate consumerism—it isn't having the new thing but the next thing. Education is and has been wasting precious resources for a century trying to stay ahead of a technology curve, instead of putting 20 or 30 books in each child's hands every single year of school: a commitment that would dwarf any technology investment in a matter of years.” I can attest to having seen warehouses filled with 2 year old technology considered out-dated and at the same time wondering why it couldn’t be instead used in school-districts that didn’t have the resources to buy the technology when it was new.
In both course sections we spent the weekends talking about the demise of a “coherent intellectual experiences” at all but a limited number of small, liberal arts colleges. Interestingly, small liberal arts colleges are also the last type of institution to embrace on-line learning and instead have stuck primarily with small classrooms taught in-the-round. Is the general use of technology in elementary schools a new assault on the coherent experience we hope our kids have in school?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/technology/at-waldorf-school-in-silicon-valley-technology-can-wait.html?pagewanted=all%3Fsrc%3Dtp&smid=fb-share
Online Education
Having recently had a conversation with a colleague on online education this article from Inside Higher Ed caught my attention. It caught my attention for two reasons...it addressed faculty burnout in relation to online education and cheating. The article points out that the idea of faculty burnout in relation to online education is more of a fear. It suggests that faculty may be confusing burnout with the amount of time it takes to learn a new application of education.
This got me thinking...how difficult is it really to teach an online class? Is it difficult simply because many faculty have never really used this medium of instruction? Does the learning of how to teach in a different medium cause the feelings of burnout? It is hard to say I think either way.
The article goes on to address cheating. It is stated by the article to be one of the areas online education is often questioned on. The article does not directly address this issue by quoting Philip D. Long in saying "many issues endanger the integrity of online learning, such as assessing individual contributions to group projects, are not unique to online education." And he has a point. Group work, something I am sure we all enjoy, is difficult to assess in the classroom as well. Each person has an their own view of how the work went and it makes it difficult to assess. However, online education is making strides in one realm, if universities can afford it and see the value in it.
It is Proctor U. An interface via webcam that a distance education student can have for proctoring work. If a professor decides they want tests proctored, Proctor U allows for students to comply with this requirement without having to come to campus. From viewing their online videos, Proctor U seems to be fairly user friendly and effective. Student sign into their account (anytime and anywhere) pick a date and time for their exam and when the exam day arrives they log on with a Proctor U representative that verifies their ID, remotely access their screen, and double checks their work space via web cam to ensure their are no other materials out. Then the students takes the test while being viewed by the proctor and is assisted by the proctor if technical issues arise.
I see Proctor U as a successful step in response to the concern of cheating when it comes to distance education. It also seems many universities and colleges do as well. Proctor U has over one hundred universities and colleges listed as partners including Colorado State University and the University of Northern Colorado.
This got me thinking...how difficult is it really to teach an online class? Is it difficult simply because many faculty have never really used this medium of instruction? Does the learning of how to teach in a different medium cause the feelings of burnout? It is hard to say I think either way.
The article goes on to address cheating. It is stated by the article to be one of the areas online education is often questioned on. The article does not directly address this issue by quoting Philip D. Long in saying "many issues endanger the integrity of online learning, such as assessing individual contributions to group projects, are not unique to online education." And he has a point. Group work, something I am sure we all enjoy, is difficult to assess in the classroom as well. Each person has an their own view of how the work went and it makes it difficult to assess. However, online education is making strides in one realm, if universities can afford it and see the value in it.
It is Proctor U. An interface via webcam that a distance education student can have for proctoring work. If a professor decides they want tests proctored, Proctor U allows for students to comply with this requirement without having to come to campus. From viewing their online videos, Proctor U seems to be fairly user friendly and effective. Student sign into their account (anytime and anywhere) pick a date and time for their exam and when the exam day arrives they log on with a Proctor U representative that verifies their ID, remotely access their screen, and double checks their work space via web cam to ensure their are no other materials out. Then the students takes the test while being viewed by the proctor and is assisted by the proctor if technical issues arise.
I see Proctor U as a successful step in response to the concern of cheating when it comes to distance education. It also seems many universities and colleges do as well. Proctor U has over one hundred universities and colleges listed as partners including Colorado State University and the University of Northern Colorado.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)