In this technology-driven society where we are constantly bombarded with new communication devices, software, and applications, increasing use and complexity of technology in education is inevitable. It is undisputed that technology has a vital role to play in education with most scholars on the subject pointing to the fact that it promotes deeper learning and retention in a classroom. The apparent problem is that very few educators in higher education are conversant, and can really keep up, with technological advances suitable to impart learning. On the other hand this generation of students is very well versed with technological tools since they are the true digital natives and in a typical undergraduate classroom, one is bound to find scores of combined communication technology know how. Unfortunately in most cases, the instructor’s knowledge is bound to be among the bottom ranking in the class and that is understandable considering the generational gap and lack of time, let alone interest, to explore these technologies, given his or her professional and personal responsibilities. Lack of knowledge as to the extent a given technology can be used to enhance learning and/or make the instructor’s tasks easier can also affect the level of enthusiasm to learn it. Emerging technologies are a matter of not only of qualitative challenge but also of sheer quantitative overload (Alexander, 2009).
Most institutions, in the effort to boost technology in classrooms, provide resources such as workshops and online tutorials for faculty this is a positive direction except that the ability to learn an emerging technology in a couple of workshops is not uniform in all instructors. Additionally, not every tool learned is of interest and applicable to all instructors in their respective disciplines. Some may in fact see it as a waste of time to spend a faculty development session on something they consider useless and in the end, it is an institutional wasted effort.
When required to infuse technology in a classroom to improve learning outcomes, the less savvy instructors will stay within their comfort zone of PowerPoint presentations and not all of them actually do a good job of that either. In most cases the presentation is an outline version of the lecture and sometimes, as DeWinstanley and Bjork (2002) advise, modern teaching tools, such as PowerPoint and other computer-aided presentations, seem to make instructors susceptible, not less, to creating divided attention conditions for students.
In this technological age, there has never been a better opportunity for professors to make class time more interesting, than mere lectures, by providing a learning environment that spurs deeper learning and creative thinking not just for the students but also for the instructor. We, instructors, do not seem to grasp the extent of technological know how our students have that we could utilize to boost critical thinking through interpreting and elaborating information in different contexts and formats other than lectures and textbooks. Take two different history class environments, for example, covering the topic on the events that lead to the Second World War. One class covers the topic in two lecture sitting plus a reading assignment outside class time. Typical fifty-minute lectures—to say nothing of seventy-five minute or two-hour lectures—can surpass students’ ability to sustain focused attention DeWinstanley and Bjork (2002).
The other class uses the same time to work in groups to create visual presentations of the events in chronological order and in the world regions in which they happened. An instructor who is oblivious of today’s student familiarity with digital, video, and audio software would be surprised at the results produced in such a short time. More importantly, he or she would be able to learn what different tools are capable of producing. The mnemonic devices injected in the delivery of content would facilitate the embedment of information into long-term memory. More importantly, the activity would foster intrinsic motivation because students then feel that they took ownership of content and interpreted it to their understanding using the tools that they are interested in and familiar with. In such environment, students feel they have been entrusted with, and have control over their outcomes. Do not just tell students they have control, give them control over their studying, the course material, and the way it is taught (Forsyth and McMillan, 1994).
As an instructor in a technology-based discipline, I know that I am not conversant with all the tools out there and I am pleasantly surprised, on a constant basis, by the knowledge my students bring to the classroom. My job as an instructor is to guide them on how to effectively use it to convey the desired graphic message. In many cases I learn from them as much as they learn from me. I actually think this collaborative atmosphere where everyone is a learner can work in almost all disciplines. It just requires some good planning on the part of the instructor to make sure all major points in the lesson or topic are covered in the technology-based activity. It is a beneficial teaching method to both students and instructor and overall, it makes the class more enjoyable to both.
References
Alexander, B. (May/June 2009). Apprehending the future: Learning technologies from science fiction to campus reality. EDUCAUSE Review, Vo. 44, No. 3, 12-29.
DeWinstanley, P. A., & Bjork, R. A. (2002, Spring). Successful lecturing: Presenting
information in ways that engage effective processing. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 89, 19-31. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Forsyth, D. R., & McMillan, J. H. (1991, Spring). Practical proposals for motivating
students. In Menges, R. J., & Svinicki, M. D. College teaching: From theory to practice. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, No. 45. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Friday, October 8, 2010
Examining the "Cost" of Higher Education
Examining the “Cost” of Higher Education
By: Jennifer Derushia
According to the College Board, individuals who possess higher levels of education will, as a result, have higher salaries and will be more employable than others (College Board, 2010). This is a certainly a boon to higher education, particularly in the current economy. In fact, enrollments to colleges and universities have dramatically increased due to the economic downturn. Continuing education appears to be a necessity in a time when budgets are being cut and jobs are tenuous; however, there is a looming question as to the overall access of higher education. A recent article from the Chronicle of Higher Education looks at the College Board’s report—entitled Education Pays—and attempts to determine how much a college degree is worth in today’s market. Tuition for colleges and universities has risen steadily, while household incomes have either declined or gone stagnant. Students who borrow money to pay the expenses of higher education are being burdened with huge debts, and many end up not completing their degree. In addition, the job market continues to be extremely competitive and difficult to enter (Supiano, 2010).
The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education began publishing a biennial national and state “report card” on higher education beginning in 2000, entitled Measuring Up. These reports focus on many factors and issues of higher education, including affordability. Some leaders in higher education have published commentaries on the trends they observed from the past decade of these reports. James B. Hunt, currently the Chairman of the Board for the National Center, wrote an essay in 2006 based on the data published in Measuring Up 2004. He looked at national statistics on improvement of providing access to higher education—and discovered that no real progress had been made since the early 1990s. One factor was due to state budget cuts; however, even in years without major cuts, tuition for two-year and four-year institutions rose faster than both inflation and family income. Furthermore, financial aid failed to keep up with the increase in need. At the time of Hunt’s essay, it was estimated that the cost of tuition for a four-year public institution would be equal to approximately forty percent of a lower-income family’s take home salary (Hunt, 2006).
Higher education in the United States is, in fact, more expensive than any other nation. If one looks at the cost of tuition, room, board, and books, private institutions are averaging about $45,000 per year, and $15,000-$20,000 for many public universities. With these kinds of price tags, students from middle-class families are being “priced out” of higher education (Freedman, 2006). Socioeconomic diversity is being more highly represented in the “less prestigious” sectors of higher education, which also accounts for the increasing growth of for-profit institutions. For-profit colleges and universities are gaining a greater share of the market not because of price or affordability, but because it is responding directly to student needs in terms of flexibility and convenience (Zemsky, 2006). Seemingly, higher education continues to thrive with increasing enrollments without having to decrease costs or improve quality.
What is the answer, then, on how to achieve a more affordable system of higher education? From the standpoint of the institutions, do they need to make this change? Should they be concerned that the nation’s top institutions are becoming increasingly under-representative of society as a whole? The truth is that in its competitive and merit-based nature, higher education continues to privilege those with economic and social resources. One response could be to redefine merit as “the distance between the academic levels reached by students and…(their) diverse handicaps…” (Clancy & Goastellec, 2007). This type of selection would offer funding to “elite” students from all social and economic backgrounds, and create an admissions process for higher education that offered more access and equity. Perhaps changing the definitions of what higher education considers “need-based” and “merit-based” may continue the democratic opportunities and diversity that are important to the core of this nation—instead of allowing a resource as fundamental as education to become increasingly elitist and exclusionary. As it stands now, the question must be asked: At what cost is higher education worthwhile for the average American?
REFERENCES:
Callan, P.M. (2008). The 2008 National Report Card: Modest Improvements, Persistent Disparities, Eroding Global Competitiveness. Measuring Up 2008. The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Retrieved from: http://measuringup2008.highereducation.org/commentary/callan.php
Clancy, P., & Goastellec, G. (2007). Exploring Access and Equity in Higher Education: Policy and Performance in a Comparative Perspective [Electronic Version]. Higher Education Quarterly, 61(2),136-154.
College Board. (2010). Education Pays: The Benefits of Higher Education for Individuals and Society. Retrieved from: http://trends.collegeboard.org/files/Education_Pays_2010.pdf
Freedman, J. O. (2006). Prospects for Higher Education. Continuing Higher Education Review. 70, 8-24. Retrieved from: http://www.ucea.edu/pdfs/cher/2006CHER.pdf
Hunt, J.B. (2006). Educational Leadership for the 21st Century. American Higher Education: How Does It Measure Up for the 21st Century? The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Retrieved from: http://www.highereducation.org/reports/hunt_tierney/hunt.shtml
Supiano, B. (2010). Education Pays, but How Much? The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from: http://chronicle.com/article/Education-Pays-but-How-Much-/124552/
Zemsky, R. (2006). Three Challenges for Higher Education. Continuing Higher Education Review. 70, 37-46. Retrieved from: http://www.ucea.edu/pdfs/cher/2006CHER.pdf
By: Jennifer Derushia
According to the College Board, individuals who possess higher levels of education will, as a result, have higher salaries and will be more employable than others (College Board, 2010). This is a certainly a boon to higher education, particularly in the current economy. In fact, enrollments to colleges and universities have dramatically increased due to the economic downturn. Continuing education appears to be a necessity in a time when budgets are being cut and jobs are tenuous; however, there is a looming question as to the overall access of higher education. A recent article from the Chronicle of Higher Education looks at the College Board’s report—entitled Education Pays—and attempts to determine how much a college degree is worth in today’s market. Tuition for colleges and universities has risen steadily, while household incomes have either declined or gone stagnant. Students who borrow money to pay the expenses of higher education are being burdened with huge debts, and many end up not completing their degree. In addition, the job market continues to be extremely competitive and difficult to enter (Supiano, 2010).
The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education began publishing a biennial national and state “report card” on higher education beginning in 2000, entitled Measuring Up. These reports focus on many factors and issues of higher education, including affordability. Some leaders in higher education have published commentaries on the trends they observed from the past decade of these reports. James B. Hunt, currently the Chairman of the Board for the National Center, wrote an essay in 2006 based on the data published in Measuring Up 2004. He looked at national statistics on improvement of providing access to higher education—and discovered that no real progress had been made since the early 1990s. One factor was due to state budget cuts; however, even in years without major cuts, tuition for two-year and four-year institutions rose faster than both inflation and family income. Furthermore, financial aid failed to keep up with the increase in need. At the time of Hunt’s essay, it was estimated that the cost of tuition for a four-year public institution would be equal to approximately forty percent of a lower-income family’s take home salary (Hunt, 2006).
Higher education in the United States is, in fact, more expensive than any other nation. If one looks at the cost of tuition, room, board, and books, private institutions are averaging about $45,000 per year, and $15,000-$20,000 for many public universities. With these kinds of price tags, students from middle-class families are being “priced out” of higher education (Freedman, 2006). Socioeconomic diversity is being more highly represented in the “less prestigious” sectors of higher education, which also accounts for the increasing growth of for-profit institutions. For-profit colleges and universities are gaining a greater share of the market not because of price or affordability, but because it is responding directly to student needs in terms of flexibility and convenience (Zemsky, 2006). Seemingly, higher education continues to thrive with increasing enrollments without having to decrease costs or improve quality.
What is the answer, then, on how to achieve a more affordable system of higher education? From the standpoint of the institutions, do they need to make this change? Should they be concerned that the nation’s top institutions are becoming increasingly under-representative of society as a whole? The truth is that in its competitive and merit-based nature, higher education continues to privilege those with economic and social resources. One response could be to redefine merit as “the distance between the academic levels reached by students and…(their) diverse handicaps…” (Clancy & Goastellec, 2007). This type of selection would offer funding to “elite” students from all social and economic backgrounds, and create an admissions process for higher education that offered more access and equity. Perhaps changing the definitions of what higher education considers “need-based” and “merit-based” may continue the democratic opportunities and diversity that are important to the core of this nation—instead of allowing a resource as fundamental as education to become increasingly elitist and exclusionary. As it stands now, the question must be asked: At what cost is higher education worthwhile for the average American?
REFERENCES:
Callan, P.M. (2008). The 2008 National Report Card: Modest Improvements, Persistent Disparities, Eroding Global Competitiveness. Measuring Up 2008. The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Retrieved from: http://measuringup2008.highereducation.org/commentary/callan.php
Clancy, P., & Goastellec, G. (2007). Exploring Access and Equity in Higher Education: Policy and Performance in a Comparative Perspective [Electronic Version]. Higher Education Quarterly, 61(2),136-154.
College Board. (2010). Education Pays: The Benefits of Higher Education for Individuals and Society. Retrieved from: http://trends.collegeboard.org/files/Education_Pays_2010.pdf
Freedman, J. O. (2006). Prospects for Higher Education. Continuing Higher Education Review. 70, 8-24. Retrieved from: http://www.ucea.edu/pdfs/cher/2006CHER.pdf
Hunt, J.B. (2006). Educational Leadership for the 21st Century. American Higher Education: How Does It Measure Up for the 21st Century? The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Retrieved from: http://www.highereducation.org/reports/hunt_tierney/hunt.shtml
Supiano, B. (2010). Education Pays, but How Much? The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from: http://chronicle.com/article/Education-Pays-but-How-Much-/124552/
Zemsky, R. (2006). Three Challenges for Higher Education. Continuing Higher Education Review. 70, 37-46. Retrieved from: http://www.ucea.edu/pdfs/cher/2006CHER.pdf
Displaced Workers and The Higher Education Community
DISPLACED WORKERS
AND THE
HIGHER EDUCATION COMMUNITY
By: Robert Miller
The current economic downturn has caused many displaced workers to return to higher education seeking education to further existing careers or for total career changes. This has had a dramatic influence of the world of higher education due to the unique aspects of the students. (Unsworth, 2009)
The typical displaced worker/ student is often a middle aged person with primary educational levels who tends to be proficient in their chosen skills or trades. Many levels of proficiently and abilities exist within this student population and is largely due to time of practical workforce experience. These students must often balance family and school concerns with the necessity of obtaining employment to support financial responsibilities.
Many of these students will access various student aid programs to offset financial constraints, but usually this will only provide enough monetary support to cover tuition and books. This leaves the necessity of income sufficient to cover personal and household expenses while attending school. The response I have to work and take care of the family is a common reason that non-traditional students fail to finish their program of study.
These students are going to be attracted to programs which are offered both on campus and through distant education, as they attempt to determine which programs will be the best fit for their goals and needs. The student will need clear and accurate program information during this process and this requirement will fall on the shoulders of academic advisors to offer sound up to date information as the students traverse their educational pathway. (Unsworth, 2009)
The higher educational community will have to adapt to meet the many unique needs of these displaced worker/students while attempting to meet currently reduced operating budgets. This will require schools to seek new funding sources from both the public and private sectors to provide increased monetary support for students. These partnerships will foster the creation of Co-op opportunities and allow for internships and permanent placement opportunities for students. The additional funding provided by the federal government to help these types of students return to higher education will reap long term benefits due to the increased knowledge of technology and current workplace skills.("Dept. of Education, 2009")
The influence of the displaced worker/student will present a major boom to the entire educational system once the hurdles have been overcome. The trickle-down effect of the technology created to accommodate these students in the short term will have long lasting consequences for future distance educational programs. .The classroom technologies used in coursework delivery methods will serve as a bridge to the technology and skills sets required to meet the needs of tomorrow’s workplace.
References
Unsworth, J. (2009, 2/31/2009). Dislocated Workers (White paper). Retrieved from University of Illinois: https://apps.lis.illinois.edu/wiki/pages/viewinfo.action?pageID=9962131
U.S Department of Education .Working adults and displaced workers get boost with 11 million in grants to go to college. (2009, 10/04/2009). The government monitor, Retrieved from www.thegovmoniter.com
AND THE
HIGHER EDUCATION COMMUNITY
By: Robert Miller
The current economic downturn has caused many displaced workers to return to higher education seeking education to further existing careers or for total career changes. This has had a dramatic influence of the world of higher education due to the unique aspects of the students. (Unsworth, 2009)
The typical displaced worker/ student is often a middle aged person with primary educational levels who tends to be proficient in their chosen skills or trades. Many levels of proficiently and abilities exist within this student population and is largely due to time of practical workforce experience. These students must often balance family and school concerns with the necessity of obtaining employment to support financial responsibilities.
Many of these students will access various student aid programs to offset financial constraints, but usually this will only provide enough monetary support to cover tuition and books. This leaves the necessity of income sufficient to cover personal and household expenses while attending school. The response I have to work and take care of the family is a common reason that non-traditional students fail to finish their program of study.
These students are going to be attracted to programs which are offered both on campus and through distant education, as they attempt to determine which programs will be the best fit for their goals and needs. The student will need clear and accurate program information during this process and this requirement will fall on the shoulders of academic advisors to offer sound up to date information as the students traverse their educational pathway. (Unsworth, 2009)
The higher educational community will have to adapt to meet the many unique needs of these displaced worker/students while attempting to meet currently reduced operating budgets. This will require schools to seek new funding sources from both the public and private sectors to provide increased monetary support for students. These partnerships will foster the creation of Co-op opportunities and allow for internships and permanent placement opportunities for students. The additional funding provided by the federal government to help these types of students return to higher education will reap long term benefits due to the increased knowledge of technology and current workplace skills.("Dept. of Education, 2009")
The influence of the displaced worker/student will present a major boom to the entire educational system once the hurdles have been overcome. The trickle-down effect of the technology created to accommodate these students in the short term will have long lasting consequences for future distance educational programs. .The classroom technologies used in coursework delivery methods will serve as a bridge to the technology and skills sets required to meet the needs of tomorrow’s workplace.
References
Unsworth, J. (2009, 2/31/2009). Dislocated Workers (White paper). Retrieved from University of Illinois: https://apps.lis.illinois.edu/wiki/pages/viewinfo.action?pageID=9962131
U.S Department of Education .Working adults and displaced workers get boost with 11 million in grants to go to college. (2009, 10/04/2009). The government monitor, Retrieved from www.thegovmoniter.com
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Virtual Reality?
Patrick I. Romero-Aldaz
In a world that is becoming dependent on technological advancement and the use of computer aided or virtual modalities for communication, education, and relationship building it is inevitable that such advances may have positive as well as negative implications. Of those negative impacts, educators are now having to deal with the new challenge of addressing, preparing for, and safeguarding against virtual incivilities that have made their way into our classrooms and onto our campuses (Dickerson, 2005).
Kowalski, R., Limber, S., and Agatston, P. (2008) argue that since virtual incivilities like cyber-bullying and virtual assault have recently become globally pervasive, educators are just now beginning to understand the issues associated with cyber behavior and are scrambling to develop effective policies to address the activities associated with those behaviors. A problem in addressing this effectively can be the very nature of virtual worlds; they tend to operate within an arena of perceived or actual anonymity. Skillful bullies can use the technologies out there to extend that anonymity to almost untraceable fashions using multiple email addresses and screen names (Dickerson, 2005).
Another issue that arises in addressing this type of behavior is that such actions are often born of required activity in a classroom setting. In this type of situation the professor or administrator. ask or require students to join virtual arenas for the purposes of education without understanding the terms and conditions of services provided by these virtual worlds. Where this becomes a problem is that often the terms and conditions of membership may safeguard the activities taking place by securing a person’s profile, and denying any responsibility for what occurs within the realm of this alternate reality (Bugeja, 2007b).
One such situation is documented in some cases involving virtual rape or other types of sexual assault in the virtual world Second Life used by many universities and professors as a way of conducting some virtual education. Bugeja (2007a) in an article about Second Life found that by the end of 2006 Linden Labs, the creators of this virtual environment were receiving over 2000 notices of virtual abuse per month. Of the reported abuses virtual rape was the most egregious, but reports also included unwanted sexual advances, detaining avatars against their will, and use of hurtful, vulgar, and demeaning language that could be considered violent, sexist, and homophobic. Could this activity if part of a required university experience result in a violation of an institutions code of conduct? Should it?
The rub for higher education professionals to understand and embrace is that most of the research regarding virtual harassment, assault, and bullying revolve around K-12 educational arenas, but they are clearly present in higher education. How do we help students, faculty, and staff if we don’t accurately know how pervasive this activity is in higher education? These acts can lead victims to engaging in activities that include self-harm after consistently being subject to this type of behavior. In their study, Hay and Meldrum (2010) found that similar to traditional bullying and harassing behavior, cyber bullying and virtual harassment are positively related to self-harm and suicidal ideation by the recipients of the bullying. Victims reported feeling real grief, fear, anger, and hurt as a result of these virtual activities giving evidence that virtual activities can result in real harm. Another anecdotal examples occurred in September 2010, when the higher education community witnessed the use of technology as a tool of terrorism and it’s resulting tragedy when an 18-year-old student at Rutgers University committed suicide after being victimized by his roommate using such technologies as twitter and a personal web camera.
With the advance of technology and higher education using these mediums to increase access and innovation, it is important that we get on the forefront of this issue. It’s important for educators to understand all aspects of technological advancement before such fear is created that we lose out on all the positive attributes of such environments. It is essential that Administrators, faculty, and legal counsel offices begin to explore the liabilities exposed, the processes and polices that must be adhered to and how to safeguard our students, faculty, and staff as best possible. With ramifications a minor as a lawsuit for creating an environment where virtual harassment can cause real psychological harm, to something as major as the loss of life as a result of these activities. Higher education needs to take note and act.
References
Bugeja, M.J. Avatar Rape. Inside HigherEd. February 25, 2007. Available at: http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/02/25/bugeja
Bugeja, M.J. Second Thoughts About Second Life. Chronicle of Higher Education. September 14, 2007. Available at: http://chronicle.com/article/Second-Thoughts-About-Second/46636/
Dickerson, Darby, Cyberbullies on Campus. University of Toledo Law Review, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2005.
Hay, C. and Meldrum, R. (2010) Bullying Victimization and Adolescent Self-Harm: Testing Hypotheses from General Strain Theory. Journal of Youth Adolescence. 39:446–459.
Kowalski, R, Limber, S. and Agatston, P. (2008) Cyber Bullying: Bullying in the Digital Age. Victoria: Blackwell Publishing.
Faculty Development
Faculty Development in Higher Education
By: Emma R. Brown
Another “hot topic” in higher education is that of faculty development. Faculty development simply refers to faculty members keeping current in teaching in their respective fields through continuing education. This includes issues related to pedagogy, or studying ways to teach and be a teacher. Instructors often become comfortable in the material they teach and the methods they use. This can be harmful both for the instructor and the students. New methods of learning must be embraced as different generations of students enter the world of academia expecting different types of learning environments.
Fink (2003) addresses that almost half of college graduates are not learning basic levels of general knowledge because they are memorizing information for exams and do not retain any of it. Student recall of information declines steadily after the course is over. Fink’s cause for these failures is that faculty, despite their desire for the students to learn, continues to use the same methods of teaching even though it has been proven ineffective. Of course, nothing is ever black and white. Failures fall on students as well when they do not complete assignments, but there are some responsibilities on the instructor to present material in fresh ways.
It can be intimidating to have to go against what one is comfortable with. Blanton and Stylianou (2009) stress how a learners “identity” influences their openness to faculty development (p. 83-84). They go on to explain faculty consists of newcomers and the “old timers,” with newcomers often looking to those who have taught longer for input and ideas on how to teach (p. 83). The problems that can arise here are if the “oldtimers” are stuck on a specific teaching method and unwilling to allow the new faculty to institute change. Most research suggests that more often than not, this is not what halts faculty development. Instead, it is a lack of institutional or departmental support. This is especially necessary in specific fields of learning, where instructors may already feel they are an expert in their field and do not see the need to improve their teaching methods.
Kezar (2009) states in her article that it is unfair to say instructors are resistance to pedagogical changes in higher education because there are too many stakeholders involved that fight over where resources should go. Faculty become so consumed in their normal daily activities that they fail to see the connection between learning new technologies and teaching their students, or they don’t even know the options to learn it are available (Kezar, p. 19). Finding ways to engage the faculty in development, and in some cases challenge their views on teaching can be tricky at best.
Kezar (2009) also states that when faculty development initiatives are completely unconnected to university boards and mission statements, a strain can come about when those in administration feel resources or funding is not going where it “should be.”
It is the opinion of this author that continuing faculty development is crucial for both the faculty and the student population. Students need to be exposed to new methods of teaching and new technologies in the classroom. There are many ways for students to learn successfully. It is also important for faculty to keep themselves current and try new things. Good teachers know that they are always learning, just like their students.
The goal of pedagogical improvements is made easier when it is more than just a single instructor’s decision for self improvement. Kezar (2009) suggests that campuses “can and should” choose what to focus on and what they consider important priorities in campus life and curriculum (p. 21). With a campus wide encouragement and support for continuing development, it will help to motivate instructors to better themselves and possibly even be a push in that direction.
Blanton and Stylianou (2009) also emphasize the need for a “culture of professional development” and making it clear to faculty how to go about faculty development (p. 79). Maintaining improvements in teaching is an ongoing process. In many cases, there are resources available on campus for teachers. The upside is new technologies are made available and explained for use in instruction. The downside is, these centers are multidisciplinary and the focus on general issues in pedagogy can limit development for specific programs.
Stets, Coertjens and Petegem (2010) found that instructional development actually showed greater results for instructors in specific disciplines. Therefore, it is the opinion of this author that specific programs should actively research resources for teachers to study pedagogy in their respective fields, and make that knowledge readily available. If there are no resources locally available, then they should create such opportunities themselves.
Works Cited
Blanton, M. L. and Stylianou, D. A. (2009). Interpreting a Community of Practice Perspectives in Discipline-Specific Professional Development in Higher Education. Innovative Higher Education, 34(2), 79-92.
Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences. Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Kezar, A. (2009). Change in Higher Education: Not Enough, or Too Much? Change, 41 (6), 18- 23.
Stets, A., Coertjens, L., and van Petegem, P. (2010). Instructional development for teachers in higher education: an impact on teaching approach. Higher Education, 60(2), 187-204.
By: Emma R. Brown
Another “hot topic” in higher education is that of faculty development. Faculty development simply refers to faculty members keeping current in teaching in their respective fields through continuing education. This includes issues related to pedagogy, or studying ways to teach and be a teacher. Instructors often become comfortable in the material they teach and the methods they use. This can be harmful both for the instructor and the students. New methods of learning must be embraced as different generations of students enter the world of academia expecting different types of learning environments.
Fink (2003) addresses that almost half of college graduates are not learning basic levels of general knowledge because they are memorizing information for exams and do not retain any of it. Student recall of information declines steadily after the course is over. Fink’s cause for these failures is that faculty, despite their desire for the students to learn, continues to use the same methods of teaching even though it has been proven ineffective. Of course, nothing is ever black and white. Failures fall on students as well when they do not complete assignments, but there are some responsibilities on the instructor to present material in fresh ways.
It can be intimidating to have to go against what one is comfortable with. Blanton and Stylianou (2009) stress how a learners “identity” influences their openness to faculty development (p. 83-84). They go on to explain faculty consists of newcomers and the “old timers,” with newcomers often looking to those who have taught longer for input and ideas on how to teach (p. 83). The problems that can arise here are if the “oldtimers” are stuck on a specific teaching method and unwilling to allow the new faculty to institute change. Most research suggests that more often than not, this is not what halts faculty development. Instead, it is a lack of institutional or departmental support. This is especially necessary in specific fields of learning, where instructors may already feel they are an expert in their field and do not see the need to improve their teaching methods.
Kezar (2009) states in her article that it is unfair to say instructors are resistance to pedagogical changes in higher education because there are too many stakeholders involved that fight over where resources should go. Faculty become so consumed in their normal daily activities that they fail to see the connection between learning new technologies and teaching their students, or they don’t even know the options to learn it are available (Kezar, p. 19). Finding ways to engage the faculty in development, and in some cases challenge their views on teaching can be tricky at best.
Kezar (2009) also states that when faculty development initiatives are completely unconnected to university boards and mission statements, a strain can come about when those in administration feel resources or funding is not going where it “should be.”
It is the opinion of this author that continuing faculty development is crucial for both the faculty and the student population. Students need to be exposed to new methods of teaching and new technologies in the classroom. There are many ways for students to learn successfully. It is also important for faculty to keep themselves current and try new things. Good teachers know that they are always learning, just like their students.
The goal of pedagogical improvements is made easier when it is more than just a single instructor’s decision for self improvement. Kezar (2009) suggests that campuses “can and should” choose what to focus on and what they consider important priorities in campus life and curriculum (p. 21). With a campus wide encouragement and support for continuing development, it will help to motivate instructors to better themselves and possibly even be a push in that direction.
Blanton and Stylianou (2009) also emphasize the need for a “culture of professional development” and making it clear to faculty how to go about faculty development (p. 79). Maintaining improvements in teaching is an ongoing process. In many cases, there are resources available on campus for teachers. The upside is new technologies are made available and explained for use in instruction. The downside is, these centers are multidisciplinary and the focus on general issues in pedagogy can limit development for specific programs.
Stets, Coertjens and Petegem (2010) found that instructional development actually showed greater results for instructors in specific disciplines. Therefore, it is the opinion of this author that specific programs should actively research resources for teachers to study pedagogy in their respective fields, and make that knowledge readily available. If there are no resources locally available, then they should create such opportunities themselves.
Works Cited
Blanton, M. L. and Stylianou, D. A. (2009). Interpreting a Community of Practice Perspectives in Discipline-Specific Professional Development in Higher Education. Innovative Higher Education, 34(2), 79-92.
Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences. Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Kezar, A. (2009). Change in Higher Education: Not Enough, or Too Much? Change, 41 (6), 18- 23.
Stets, A., Coertjens, L., and van Petegem, P. (2010). Instructional development for teachers in higher education: an impact on teaching approach. Higher Education, 60(2), 187-204.
Service-Learning in Undergraduate Medical Education: Critical Thinking, Communication and Citizenship
By Jamie Burriss
Ongoing budget cuts and decreased government funding has resulted in elevated accountability for publicly-funded colleges and universities. Preparing graduates who will be successful in the workforce requires dedication in developing students who are critical thinkers and engaged citizens. As a response to such trends, service-learning has become increasingly popular in all aspects of education spanning from public health and social work to engineering and economics (Sedlack et al., 2010; Seifer, 1998).
While many definitions of service learning are in print, they generally encompass the principles of collaboration with the community, opportunities for critical reflection, and a balance of academic learning objectives and service contributions (Maudsley & Strivens, 2000; Sedlack et al., 2010; Seifer, 1998). Collectively, this ideology produces unparalleled experiences in comparison with the traditional classroom setting.
A plethora of encouraging outcomes are correlated to learning through service, which include the advancement of critical thinking skills, leadership development, social awareness, and continued civic engagement (Sternberger et al., 2005). When shifting the focus toward medical students, additional positive outcomes have been noted. The development of solid patient-communication skills and gaining a deeper understanding medical care with regard to financial, social and ethical aspects are some of the major benefits (Seifer, 1998).
For the purpose of this article, I will concentrate on the three C’s which are specifically beneficial to medical students who encounter service-learning as part of their educational curriculum. The three C’s include critical thinking, communication, and citizenship skills.
Critical Thinking Skills. The development of critical thinking skills is a necessity for any profession, particularly in the field of medicine. Service-learning enhances this ability through the process of reflection and problem-solving, lending way to problem-based learning in undergraduate medical education (Maudsley & Strivens, 2000).
While service alone does not ensure learning, the process of reflection cultivates critical thinking skills. A review of literature recommends a reflective component such as journaling or blogging throughout the service-learning course, which encourages analysis of critical-thinking dimensions including elements of reasoning, abilities of reasoning, and traits of reasoning (Sedlack et al., 2010; Sternberger et al., 2005; Cashman & Seifer, 2008).
Communication Skills. Developing the ability to communicate effectively with patients is essential for medical students who desire to be successful in their chosen careers. Because they will inevitably encounter individuals from various cultural and socio-economic backgrounds, learning to convey information to patients in a respectful manner is vastly important. Through service-learning, medical students can focus on the verbal and non-verbal aspects of communication in dealing with diverse populations (Cashman & Seifer, 2008). Additionally, increased levels of confidence and self-esteem have been noted as a consequence of this type of interaction (Sedlack et al., 2010). Through this type of learning, medical students connect with dissimilar individuals, which is often unachievable via traditional medical curriculum.
Citizenship Skills. Immersing medical students into their communities, whether locally, nationally, or internationally, helps them to experience the needs of fellow citizens. In turn, the meaning and significance behind the student’s education is intensified. As a primary focus of the curriculum, service-learning concentrates on bettering the quality of life for others by highlighting issues of concern and addressing them through social change (Seifer, 1998; Cashman & Seifer, 2008). Such experiences then prove beneficial for all stakeholders involved including students, faculty, community partners, community members, and the academic institution.
Conclusion and Recommendations
As for the future of service-learning, many advances are being made by universities across the world to integrate service-learning curricula into missions and course objectives (Sternberger et al., 2005). Though this type of education is judicious to implement, the benefits clearly outweigh the initial investment of time and resources. Further research should be conducted to follow medical students upon complete of their undergraduate medical education to track their commitment to civic engagement.
Ongoing budget cuts and decreased government funding has resulted in elevated accountability for publicly-funded colleges and universities. Preparing graduates who will be successful in the workforce requires dedication in developing students who are critical thinkers and engaged citizens. As a response to such trends, service-learning has become increasingly popular in all aspects of education spanning from public health and social work to engineering and economics (Sedlack et al., 2010; Seifer, 1998).
While many definitions of service learning are in print, they generally encompass the principles of collaboration with the community, opportunities for critical reflection, and a balance of academic learning objectives and service contributions (Maudsley & Strivens, 2000; Sedlack et al., 2010; Seifer, 1998). Collectively, this ideology produces unparalleled experiences in comparison with the traditional classroom setting.
A plethora of encouraging outcomes are correlated to learning through service, which include the advancement of critical thinking skills, leadership development, social awareness, and continued civic engagement (Sternberger et al., 2005). When shifting the focus toward medical students, additional positive outcomes have been noted. The development of solid patient-communication skills and gaining a deeper understanding medical care with regard to financial, social and ethical aspects are some of the major benefits (Seifer, 1998).
For the purpose of this article, I will concentrate on the three C’s which are specifically beneficial to medical students who encounter service-learning as part of their educational curriculum. The three C’s include critical thinking, communication, and citizenship skills.
Critical Thinking Skills. The development of critical thinking skills is a necessity for any profession, particularly in the field of medicine. Service-learning enhances this ability through the process of reflection and problem-solving, lending way to problem-based learning in undergraduate medical education (Maudsley & Strivens, 2000).
While service alone does not ensure learning, the process of reflection cultivates critical thinking skills. A review of literature recommends a reflective component such as journaling or blogging throughout the service-learning course, which encourages analysis of critical-thinking dimensions including elements of reasoning, abilities of reasoning, and traits of reasoning (Sedlack et al., 2010; Sternberger et al., 2005; Cashman & Seifer, 2008).
Communication Skills. Developing the ability to communicate effectively with patients is essential for medical students who desire to be successful in their chosen careers. Because they will inevitably encounter individuals from various cultural and socio-economic backgrounds, learning to convey information to patients in a respectful manner is vastly important. Through service-learning, medical students can focus on the verbal and non-verbal aspects of communication in dealing with diverse populations (Cashman & Seifer, 2008). Additionally, increased levels of confidence and self-esteem have been noted as a consequence of this type of interaction (Sedlack et al., 2010). Through this type of learning, medical students connect with dissimilar individuals, which is often unachievable via traditional medical curriculum.
Citizenship Skills. Immersing medical students into their communities, whether locally, nationally, or internationally, helps them to experience the needs of fellow citizens. In turn, the meaning and significance behind the student’s education is intensified. As a primary focus of the curriculum, service-learning concentrates on bettering the quality of life for others by highlighting issues of concern and addressing them through social change (Seifer, 1998; Cashman & Seifer, 2008). Such experiences then prove beneficial for all stakeholders involved including students, faculty, community partners, community members, and the academic institution.
Conclusion and Recommendations
As for the future of service-learning, many advances are being made by universities across the world to integrate service-learning curricula into missions and course objectives (Sternberger et al., 2005). Though this type of education is judicious to implement, the benefits clearly outweigh the initial investment of time and resources. Further research should be conducted to follow medical students upon complete of their undergraduate medical education to track their commitment to civic engagement.
The For-Profit Debate
Higher education institutions have recently come under great scrutiny from both the general public and government leaders. In particular, for-profit institutions have to defend themselves as their entire business operations are under governmental review. According to an Inside Higher Ed news release (2010), the Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) found evidence of for-profit recruiters encouraging students to commit fraud and that questionable or misleading practices were identified at all 15 for-profit colleges that investigators visited. Congress is now looking into their recruiting practices, accreditation, quality of education, and student loan issues. For-profit institutions find themselves under this examination due to their record making financial profits, while students obtain much higher federal loans to pay their tuition; therefore, it is fair to claim that these universities are benefiting from the federal government. The intent of this paper is to examine the recent trends of for-profit institutions and review some of the concerns regarding them.
Traditional higher education institutions in America have recently gone through great budget reductions. These budget restraints resulted in shrinking personnel and turning away students because they lack the resources to handle the demand. Concurrently, for-profit institutions have invested heavily into their educational programs and are enrolling a record number of students. “Enrollment in the country's nearly 3,000 career colleges has grown far faster than in the rest of higher education—by an average of 9 percent per year over the past 30 years, compared with only 1.5 percent per year for all institutions” (Wilson 2010). For-profit universities do an outstanding job focusing on students’ needs with educational programs that tailor towards non-traditional students. In comparison, they offer various degrees with flexible class schedules and many more online programs. While these business practices have unequivocally fueled their substantial growth, the concerns of their business processes are increasing as well.
A number of for-profit institutions have been accused of instituting inappropriate recruiting techniques. These institutions have placed recruitment quotas on recruiters and tied financial bonuses to the number of recruitments. These practices have caused recruiters to become more aggressive in their recruiting techniques, which lead to them to purposefully misinform potential students, and to sign up those students who obviously do not meet college standards. For-profit universities could support better recruiting practices if they advise recruiters to focus on enrolling quality students, instead of focusing on quotas and financial incentives based on the bottom line.
There are a variety of Accreditation agencies that examine and grant accreditation to for-profit institutions when minimum criteria are met. The primary reason why for-profit universities need to be accredited is because they can only receive federal financial aid, such as, student loans for their students if they have accreditation. The government is now evaluating these accreditation agencies and there seems to be an emerging trend of stricter criteria for obtaining such accreditations. Furthermore, some for-profit universities have been accused of having subpar educational programs and accreditation agencies have set out to review the quality of such programs.
For-profit institutions have relatively higher tuition rates and they can be significantly more than that of a community college or even a four-year state institution. According to the College Board (2009), the average annual tuition this year at a public, two-year college is $2,544, compared with $14,174 at a private, for-profit institution. In order to finance their education, students are taking out loans in record numbers to pay these hefty tuitions, and consequently, having difficulties paying back these loans once they have completed their degrees. Evidently, students who graduate from for-profit institutions carry a higher amount of student loans and are more likely to default in repaying them. “Forty-two percent of students who graduate with an associate degree from a for-profit college leave with more than $20,000 in debt, compared with 1 percent of those who graduate with the same degree from a community college” (Gonzalez 2009). For-profit institutions need to re-evaluate their pricing structures to make their educational degrees more affordable, and therefore lowering the amount of student loans. If they do not act immediately, they may be forced to comply with the proposed “gainful employment” rule being championed by congressional leaders. This new rule would stop federal aid to programs whose students have a substantial debt and are unlikely to make repayments.
For-profit institutions will continue to play an important role in educating American citizens. They offer an assortment of educational programs and they are a perfect match for non-traditional students due to the flexible time schedules and online courses options. However, the general public and congress cannot divert from the fact that for-profit executives are making record profits from American citizens. For-profit institutions need to focus on providing a high quality education at a more reasonable price, and they need to appropriately recruit students who can be successful. Last year, President Obama outlined a goal of having the world's highest number of college graduates by 2020, and the bottom line is that for-profit institutions will play a vital role in order for this plan to succeed.
RESOURCES
College Board. (2009). Trends in College Pricing 2009. Retrieved from
http://trends.collegeboard.org/files/2009_Trends_College_Pricing.pdf
Gonzalez, Jennifer. (2009). For-Profit Colleges, Growing Fast, Say They Are Key to Obama’s Degree Goals. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/article/For-Profit-Colleges-Say-The/49068/
Inside Higher Ed. (2010). Has the Conversation Changed? Retrieved from
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/08/09/forprofit
Wilson, Robin. (2010). For-Profit Colleges Change Higher Education’s Landscape. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/For-Profit-Colleges-Change-/64012/
Traditional higher education institutions in America have recently gone through great budget reductions. These budget restraints resulted in shrinking personnel and turning away students because they lack the resources to handle the demand. Concurrently, for-profit institutions have invested heavily into their educational programs and are enrolling a record number of students. “Enrollment in the country's nearly 3,000 career colleges has grown far faster than in the rest of higher education—by an average of 9 percent per year over the past 30 years, compared with only 1.5 percent per year for all institutions” (Wilson 2010). For-profit universities do an outstanding job focusing on students’ needs with educational programs that tailor towards non-traditional students. In comparison, they offer various degrees with flexible class schedules and many more online programs. While these business practices have unequivocally fueled their substantial growth, the concerns of their business processes are increasing as well.
A number of for-profit institutions have been accused of instituting inappropriate recruiting techniques. These institutions have placed recruitment quotas on recruiters and tied financial bonuses to the number of recruitments. These practices have caused recruiters to become more aggressive in their recruiting techniques, which lead to them to purposefully misinform potential students, and to sign up those students who obviously do not meet college standards. For-profit universities could support better recruiting practices if they advise recruiters to focus on enrolling quality students, instead of focusing on quotas and financial incentives based on the bottom line.
There are a variety of Accreditation agencies that examine and grant accreditation to for-profit institutions when minimum criteria are met. The primary reason why for-profit universities need to be accredited is because they can only receive federal financial aid, such as, student loans for their students if they have accreditation. The government is now evaluating these accreditation agencies and there seems to be an emerging trend of stricter criteria for obtaining such accreditations. Furthermore, some for-profit universities have been accused of having subpar educational programs and accreditation agencies have set out to review the quality of such programs.
For-profit institutions have relatively higher tuition rates and they can be significantly more than that of a community college or even a four-year state institution. According to the College Board (2009), the average annual tuition this year at a public, two-year college is $2,544, compared with $14,174 at a private, for-profit institution. In order to finance their education, students are taking out loans in record numbers to pay these hefty tuitions, and consequently, having difficulties paying back these loans once they have completed their degrees. Evidently, students who graduate from for-profit institutions carry a higher amount of student loans and are more likely to default in repaying them. “Forty-two percent of students who graduate with an associate degree from a for-profit college leave with more than $20,000 in debt, compared with 1 percent of those who graduate with the same degree from a community college” (Gonzalez 2009). For-profit institutions need to re-evaluate their pricing structures to make their educational degrees more affordable, and therefore lowering the amount of student loans. If they do not act immediately, they may be forced to comply with the proposed “gainful employment” rule being championed by congressional leaders. This new rule would stop federal aid to programs whose students have a substantial debt and are unlikely to make repayments.
For-profit institutions will continue to play an important role in educating American citizens. They offer an assortment of educational programs and they are a perfect match for non-traditional students due to the flexible time schedules and online courses options. However, the general public and congress cannot divert from the fact that for-profit executives are making record profits from American citizens. For-profit institutions need to focus on providing a high quality education at a more reasonable price, and they need to appropriately recruit students who can be successful. Last year, President Obama outlined a goal of having the world's highest number of college graduates by 2020, and the bottom line is that for-profit institutions will play a vital role in order for this plan to succeed.
RESOURCES
College Board. (2009). Trends in College Pricing 2009. Retrieved from
http://trends.collegeboard.org/files/2009_Trends_College_Pricing.pdf
Gonzalez, Jennifer. (2009). For-Profit Colleges, Growing Fast, Say They Are Key to Obama’s Degree Goals. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/article/For-Profit-Colleges-Say-The/49068/
Inside Higher Ed. (2010). Has the Conversation Changed? Retrieved from
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/08/09/forprofit
Wilson, Robin. (2010). For-Profit Colleges Change Higher Education’s Landscape. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/For-Profit-Colleges-Change-/64012/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)