The Changing Structure of Higher Education

1. The Changing Structure of Higher Education The Challenges We Face

2. Three forces at work Cost vs. Access: Can students afford to attend college? Learning Outcomes: Are our students learning what they need to know for the world of work? Are they learning what they need to know for their personal development? Are they learning what they need to know to be productive citizens in our society. Technology: What do the new and very rapid developments in information technology mean for the way higher education is organized? The way it functions?

3. Three forces at work Cost vs. Access: There is great concern nationally, and within public higher education, that we are pricing students out of an education. We must, somehow, control costs, and permit wide access to our offerings.

4. Three forces at work Learning Outcomes: Those that hire our students complain that they do not possess the right combination of skills, or the right level of skill in some very basic areas: Reading, Writing, Mathematical ability.

5. Three forces at work In addition, employers are asking that students have increased knowledge of the world, better foreign language skills, better understanding of other cultures. Employers also want students to have experience in collaborative efforts, working in teams, and solving problems.

6. Three forces at work Technology: New information technologies may permit new ways of teaching and learning to occur: Enhance residentially based undergraduate and graduate instruction. Reach new audiences off-site. Improve communications between faculty, staff, and students.

7. Creation of a new competitive environment The three forces have combined to create a new wave of change, competition for higher education. From traditional sources. From private firms building internal structures. From private, for profit, teaching institutions. From state-industry partnerships. From new state initiatives.

8. Creation of a new competitive environment Traditional Sources: All higher ed institutions face competition for students from each other. In the state sector, there are many sources of competition, internal and from nearby states. [The main competitor for Rutgers is the University of Delaware.]

9. Creation of a new competitive environment Private firms build internal structures: Originally designed to train employees for specific tasks, firm-based instructional entities are now teaching writing, problem solving, etc. (Fed in NYC, Motorola, GM, etc.)

10. Creation of a new competitive environment Private for-profit higher ed institutions: These institutions, like UPhoenix, are searching for profitable sectors of higher ed, and offering courses to meet the needs of the students there. Both in continuing ed and in basic core teaching at colleges and universities. Also, many private for-profit and non-profit entities are trying to establish the infrastructure for course distribution and design on the web. {World Lecture Hall, Global Network Academy, Virtual University Enterprises, etc.}

11. Creation of a new competitive environment State and Industry Partnerships: States are willing to use state resources to assist industry to meet its educational needs. Many examples. Focus on Michigan Virtual Automotive College, a collaboration of Ford, GM,Chrysler, Michigan and Michigan State. President is former president of Michigan, J. Duderstadt.

12. Creation of a new competitive environment “In its first 16 months of operation, it (MVAC) has put together some 115 courses with professors or units from 27 universities (including Phoenix); 300 students are now enrolled, 2000 set for Fall. When suppliers, dealers, repair shops and retail outlets are taken as part of the auto industry, enrollment projections soar to six and seven figures.” Marchese,T., “Not-do-distant Competitors”, AAHE Bulletin, May 1998, V.50, No. 9, p. 3-7

13. Creation of a new competitive environment “The essential idea behind MVAC-that an industry group can combine to produce its own education enterprise, entry-level through lifelong learning, and cease reliance of a “cottage industry” of existing campuses-has strong appeal among corporate executives, especially where dissatisfaction with traditional higher education is high.” Marchese,T., “Not-do-distant Competitors”, AAHE Bulletin, May 1998, V.50, No. 9, p. 3-7

14. Creation of a new competitive environment New creations by traditional insitutions: UNEXT, Columbia’s Morningside Associates. These new entreprenurial enterprises allow traditional Institutions to experiment in the new technological environment Without changing their basic structure.

15. Creation of a new competitive environment New State Initiatives: States are experimenting with higher ed institutions. Asking for articulation with community colleges, promoting competition within state funded college and university structure. States are also working to integrate higher ed activities across state lines: Western Governors is prime example.

16. New structures for higher education. As the economy continues to develop and change around the new information technology, and more and more sophisticated forms of organization are developed, the possibility that higher ed functions will be “unbundled” is high. This is similar to what has happened in the medical sector, with the rise of HMOs. For example: The certification of degrees The accreditation of courses The residential experience are three such bundles.

17. New structures for higher education Again from Marchese,T., “Not-do-distant Competitors”, AAHE Bulletin, May 1998, V.50, No. 9, p. 3-7 “To Wall Street and entrepreneurs-at-large, the post- secondary education and training market looks huge and ripe for the picking..an “addressable market opportunity at the dawn of a new paradigm” in the breathless words of Morgan Stanley Dean Witter…Several Wall Street houses have set up “education industry” practices to attract investors.

18. New structures for higher education One vision of the future is this: Groups of faculty, call them departments, contract themselves to accrediting bodies, EMOs or educational management organizations. The EMO guarantees the quality of the courses. A separate body, a certification agency, examines collections of courses and curricula, and certifies them as degree worthy. A hotel and food service operation, like Marriott or Del Webb, runs a residential site, restricted to the appropriate age group, Sun City College.

19. New structures for higher education This may seem farfetched to some, but ETS is actively trying to become such a certification agency. Sylvan Learning Centers seeks serve the curricular accreditation function, and to coordinate the activities of groups of instructors. Caliber Learning Network has had an ipo of $80 million. It now operates learning centers in shopping malls. It works with Johns Hopkins, Wharton, etc., to offer “brand name” education in locations around the country and world. How soon till groups of faculty, like md’s, opt to set up private practice as educators?

20. We can be sure tomorrow will be different than today Institutions like Western Governors University, Uphoenix, MVAC are not creatures of mere technology. They are new types of educational organizations, moving higher ed away from a real-estate based enterprise, to a customer driven system, with serious assessment of learning outcomes. The best teaching and best curriculum design can be purchased from anywhere, and delivered anywhere.

21. We can be sure tomorrow will be different from today Large accumulations of capital will be brought to bear to achieve new and innovative ways of teaching and learning. The issue facing today’s faculty is how we will deal with the tidal wave of change that is coming. It will not simply go away. We hide our head in the sand at our own peril, and at the peril of the values as educators that we hold dear.

22. Evolution to a new model of higher education. Modern universities are organized on a geographic model, with classes scheduled for a time and place. A “Course of study” has become a meeting with Students and faculty at a specific place and time. The ‘course of study’ has been segmented into ‘courses’ that are often disconnected though included in a major curriculum.

23. Evolution to a new model of higher education. Modern information technology permits a return to a ‘course of study that can be accessed across time and place, at the convenience of the student. But, modern universities cannot simply ‘paste on’ modern technology. To use it effectively, they must restructure themselves in a way that challenges their major function. [Icarus fell from the sky because one can’t paste wings on a human and fly. A whole new approach is needed.]

24. Evolution to a new model of higher education Evolution to a new model of higher education We have a duty to our students to use technology to enhance teaching and research. We have a duty to ensure that all of our students have an appropriate familiarity with the technology that is so rapidly remaking the world.

25. How do we use technology to enhance teaching and learning. By using technology to enhance teaching and learning, we improve our core function as a University, and give our students the skills they need to function effectively in the world of work.

26. Characteristics of good teaching : • Instructors are well prepared. • Instructors excite and motivate students • Instructors communicate effectively • with their students. • Instructors bring latest information to • students

27. Characteristics of successful learning: • Students gain and retain knowledge of the content of the course. • Students develop critical thinking skills. • Students integrate knowledge within and across disciplines. • Students develop the ability to work in a team to solve a problem.

28. Using technology to enhance education The use of modern instructional technologies enhances teaching, and learning, by promoting all of these characteristics.

29. Enhances how we teach • New instructional tools: • Require that instructors are • well-organized and adaptable.

30. Enhances how we teach • New instructional tools: • Require that instructors are well organized and adaptable. • Bring text, sounds and images to enrich and enliven the classroom.

31. Enhances how we teach • New instructional tools: • Require that instructors are well organized and adaptable. • Bring text, sounds and images to enrich and enliven the classroom. • Improve communications between instructor and student.

32. Enhances how we teach • New instructional tools: • Require that instructors are well organized • and adaptable. • Bring text, sounds and images to enrich • and enliven the classroom. • Improve communications between • instructor and student. • Bring up-to-date content into classroom or lab.

33. Further enhancements • More content available outside the • classroom, asynchronously. • More interaction in the classroom • Increased use of research methods in • undergraduate courses.

34. Enhancements to learning • New instructional tools: • Assist in the delivery of content knowledge • to students. • Availability of electronic data resources • and the web

35. Enhancements to learning • New instructional tools: • Improve retention • Increased interaction improves retention • Empower students who find communication in traditional lecture to be intimidating.

36. Enhancements to learning • New instructional tools: • Improve students’ integration of knowledge within and across disciplines. • Research projects can become part of the standard course • Students can bring ideas to some stage of completion, integrating knowledge more effectively.

37. Enhancements to learning • New instructional tools: • Improve and encourage teamwork • and problem-solving. • Email and WWW applications enable • group activities, even in large courses • Conferencing and chat facilities • promote discussion

38. Enhancements to learning • New instructional tools: • Improve the development of critical • thinking skills. • Students engage content in a mode suited to their preferred learning style.

39. Enhancing Education It is incumbent upon the faculties of research universities to think carefully and systematically not only about how to make the most effective use of existing technologies but also how to create new ones that will enhance their own teaching and that of their colleagues. Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities.

40. Enhancing Education The best teachers and researchers should be thinking about how to design courses in which technology enriches teaching rather than substitutes for it. Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities.

41. Evolution to a new model of higher education. Evolution: Most universities are not willing to challenge the concept of a course as the unit of instruction. But, just how a course is organized is undergoing fundamental change. If the method of instruction continues to evolve, new institutional structures will be needed to support them.

42. Evolution to a new model of higher education Modes of Instruction On campus Web enhanced Interactive web tools Hybrid: on campus for only part of a term, asynchronous otherwise. Fully Asynchronous (distance education)

43. Evolution to a new model of higher education. A continuum of course structures: On campus: Traditional lecture or seminar format. Class meets regularly, at a fixed time and place. Web Enhanced: Static web page, including syllabi, notes, homework, links to informative sites, and email or listserv addresses. This material can be retrieved asynchronously.

44. Evolution to a new model of higher education. Interactive web tools: The use of listservs and threaded discussions permits asynchronous participation in the course, and permits discussion, whether synchronous or asynchronous, to continue and expand outside the classroom in a very organized and directed manner. It also permits student to student discussion to continue under the course structure itself.

45. Evolution to a new model of higher education. Hybrid course structure: As interactive discussion tools, web sites, and the instructor’s skill at using them improve, faculty will begin to eliminate many class meetings, and instead conduct the class, either synchronously or asynchronously, in virtual space. Course meets: 5 September to 20 September. Meets virtually: 1 October to 31 October. Course meets: 1 November til the term ends.

46. Evolution to a new model of higher education. Hybrid course structure is very attractive to faculty and students since it permits more control over their time,without giving up the traditional teaching model. Fully asynchronous: Courses are offered online only, never meet on campus. This model is not embraced by most faculty, unless it is the only way to teach the intended audience.

47. Evolution to a new model of higher education. Can we have a hybrid model? The hybrid model requires an institutional infrastructure that can manage course servers, listservs, threaded discussion, chat rooms, and large web sites that must be updated frequently. The current infrastructure of most universities cannot support this kind of structure without moving resources from the traditional model. New managerial matters arise, too, since rooms once scheduled for class are now empty. How will these be managed? .

48. Evolution to a new model of higher education What is a course, anyway? Course of instruction: 1. Can be any path to learning. 2. Can be personalized to meet a student’s needs 3. Can occur anywhere, inside or outside of a classroom.

49. Evolution to a new model of higher education • Infrastructure: To support new modes of teaching, • Universities must build a new infrastructure. • Technological: Networks, servers, video servers, enhanced and networked classrooms. Who will manage them? What kinds of technologies work best? • Staff positions: New types of highly skilled and well paid staff are needed to support new teaching and learning technologies and new administrative structures. (Instructional designers) Old positions will be phased out.

50. Evolution to a new model of higher education • Administrative roles: Administrators will be asked to take on new tasks and transform old ones. Training is key. • Faculty roles: Just what a faculty members does as a teacher, will change substantially. • Intellectual property: Who owns a course? Who can market it?Teaching as a profit center is a new concept.