VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 23 POSTED ON: 4/18/2014
F OR SU CC G E 7, 2013 IN N IN ANGUS GT2 IO S CH N, AU IT S F TIO S E O C O SENTA P C E PRE SU TIMCULTY A CSU FA C Higher education is feeling good about itself these days because it remains in demand. Why offer classes at more convenient times when you’re getting a record number of applicants? Why hold the line on rising costs when students are willing to take on more debt? Why collect better job-placement data to provide to prospective students when they’re still flocking to mediocre graduate programs? As Brian Kelly, the editor of the much-maligned rankings at U.S. News, put it that day, “colleges seem immune to the pressures facing every other sector of the economy.” Jeffrey Selingo, College (Un) Bound RESPONDING TO DECLINING ENROLLMENTS Investing in Programs with Strong Student Demand § Design § Counseling § Social Work § Engineering and Robotics § Criminology Exploring Alternative Delivery Modes § Weekend Marriage and Family Therapy § Off-site Criminology Program RESPONDING TO DECLINING ENROLLMENTS Redesigning Existing Programs § MS in STEM Education § Exercise Science § Early Childhood Developing New Programs § DNAP § MS in Gerontology Developing Five-year Enrollment Management Plan IMPROVING STUDENT SUCCESS RATES Increase use of data analytics § Expand use of Early Alert and mid-term grades § Expand use of BlueTrack card swipe technology § Expand analysis of BlackBoard Learn data § Establish electronic record of student advising Align work study employment with learning outcomes Promote efforts to graduate students in four years IMPROVING MINORITY STUDENT SUCCESS RATES Increase number of students served by cultural centers Support students who are not served by dedicated programs Increase support for students through junior and senior years Engage more students in high impact practices Connect with students in the classroom OF ON TI L UP NA S SR TIO IE I C G D U O HE TR OL T S N IN CH TE Indeed, few other issues in higher education have sparked as much heated debate in recent years as those surrounding the quality and rigor of courses delivered digitally. Professors who have spent their whole lives teaching in a classroom think the face-to-face method is the established and verified mode of instruction and any other way depersonalizes education, is uncontrolled, and most of all, ineffective. . . . Despite their scholarly credentials, a vocal slice of professors and administrators remain skeptical of the research into the strength of online programs. This persists even as every new study of online learning arrives at essentially the same conclusion: Students who take all or part of their classes online perform better than those who take the same course through traditional instruction. Jeffrey Selingo, College (Un) Bound Integrating technology into education requires a new approach to educational change that infuses new technologies with teaching and learning. How can any educator not be inspired to develop new and exciting ways to bring learning to life and connect the classroom with a whole world of knowledge? Educators must understand the power of this technological transformation and apply it in redesigning institutions that meet the needs of today's learners for tomorrow's technological workforce. Dr. Robbie Melton, Appologist, Tennessee Board of Regents http://emergingtech.tbr.edu/ Navigation is the literacy of the twenty-first century. John Seely Brown THE CHANGING PARADIGM OF INSTRUCTION Meeting the learning needs of “digital natives” § Expect immediate feedback and frequent rewards § Accustomed to multimedia-rich environments § Eager to engage with material—hands on Mobilization—Apps as the new academic content Differentiated instruction § Out-of-class learning as “warm ups” § Just-in-Time teaching Free online instruction (MOOCs) Gamification of Learning Experience ENHANCING STUDENT SUPPORT AND SERVICE THROUGH TECHNOLOGY ConnectEDU Degree Compass, Phase II, Austin Peay ASU’s eAdvisor (https ://eadvisor.asu.edu /) OF S A RD D AN Y ST LIT I NG ABI RG NT E U EM CO AC METRICS OF THE CONNECTICUT BOARD OF REGENTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Successful First Year § One-year retention § Completion of college-level English and math Student Success § Completions § Graduation rates § Time to degree and post-graduation outcomes Affordability and Sustainability Innovation and Economic Growth § Faculty and student research § Completions in STEM, health, and education Equity § Eliminate achievement disparities FEDERAL STANDARDS OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND AFFORDABILITY Tie financial aid to institutional performance—College Scorecard • Access • Affordability • Outcomes (graduation rates, earnings, advanced degrees) Paying for “value” (versus enrollment and seat time) § Accelerated learning opportunities & degree paths § Smooth transitions among high school, community college, 4-year college § Students must complete % of classes to receive continued funding Foster innovation and competition § MOOCs, hybrid & flipped courses § Prior Assessment of Learning (PAL/CAEL) § Dual enrollment A credit system based on seat time was adequate when there were few alternatives to classroom learning, when most college students were eighteen- to twenty-two year olds who had plenty of time on their hands, when the price tag of a degree was a lot smaller, and we trusted the rigor of courses offered on most campuses. None of those principles holds true today. . . . The competency-based model allows students to demonstrate mastery of a subject through a series of assessment tools, instead of following a prescribed set of courses Jeffrey Selingo COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION Competency-based programs traditionally linked to credit hour (Western Governors University) NEASC approved Southern New Hampshire University competency-based associates degree in general studies § Direct assessment (ETS Proficiency Profile) § 120 competencies in 20 task families (modeled on Lumina DQP) § Online instruction supported by tutors § Primarily geared to adult learners § Support from employers (ConAgra, City of Memphis) § Plans to launch bachelors degrees: College for America RLD R WO FO W NG NE RI VE A A EP BR PR E TH WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Prepare for implementation of Common Core State Standards Consider online credentials for remediation and general education Individualize instruction Educate students for mastery Collaborate with employers in developing alternative models of certification Consider alternative academic timelines Unbundle institutional services A ROADMAP TO THE FUTURE FOR CCSU Instill financial and information literacy Explore course redesign to incorporate online component § Flipped classroom project at CCSU § Instructional design and digital resources support Implement measures to ensure quality § Quality Matters certifications § Pittsburg State Univ. eLearning Academy Institute ePortfolios to assess student learning Increase number of online courses Explore feasibility of developing more wholly online programs Despite the evidence to the contrary, some colleges still think the tough times are a temporary inconvenience—that eventually they will again be able to pass on their additional costs to students or get more money from the state and federal governments. But the most informed and realistic of higher- education leaders realize they are now living in a new normal. Jeffrey Selingo PURSUE OPPORTUNITIES FOR INNOVATION Ways to attract new students Ways to improve student success Ways to reduce the time to degree Ways to reduce expenses Ways to generate new revenue REFERENCES John Seely Brown, “Growing Up Digital: How the Web Changes Work, Education, and the Ways People Learn,” USDLA Journal, Vol. 16, No. 2), February 2002, cited in Selingo, 174. Paul Fain, “Competency-based education may get a boost.” Inside Higher Ed (www.insidehighered.com), October 1, 2012. Jeffrey J. Selingo, College (Un)Bound. The Future of Higher Education and What it Means to Students. Boston/NewYork: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2013.
Pages to are hidden for
"ppt - Central Connecticut State University"Please download to view full document