There is an Alice-in-Wonderland quality to the arguments being used against the proprietary sector in recent weeks. As a founding president of a community college and a state university, I was especially disappointed to see the litany of arguments against for profit higher education paraded out in a recent article in the Huffington Post by Dr. Gail Mellow. Dr. Mellow is a strong leader and a fine president. But these arguments are infused with bias as well as being flat inaccurate. continue reading

Technology-based techniques are beginning to be applied in education, but often just for the solo learner, whether on their own at home, or to do work away from class on their own.  Nothing wrong with this - in fact, matching a challenge to student skills (”Hard but not too hard” as Vygotzky might put it, or “hard fun” as Papert would put it) can be very motivating as well as edifying.

Not so easy, though, to fully integrate teachers and an entire classroom in an adaptive process.  Just by its nature, a group is harder to adapt for than an individual.  Clickers and technology are being used in some classes (e.g., Kurt Mazur’s use of technology before, during, and after his large lecture sessions) to at least gather information about how students are understanding what’s happening, and informally use this to  alter a teachers’ approach - but that’s still not the same as using that information systematically to modify how subgroups within the class might be instructed.

Some experiments are out there, pointing the way.  An article in the July/August Atlantic by Ta-Nehisi Coates, “The Littlest Schoolhouse“, describes how New York City is running an experiment called the School of One, to see what can be done. Joel Rose who created the pilot program, had an idea for how an adaptive classroom might work:  ”The vision I had was a large open space with different modalities happening at the same time.”

As Mr. Coates describes it,

————–

[F]irst, the student and his parents and teachers are surveyed about his classroom habits. Then the student takes a diagnostic test to see how well he understands basic math. Those data are then sent to the New York Department of Education’s headquarters in Lower Manhattan, where School of One’s algorithm produces a tentative lesson plan. That lesson plan is then e-mailed to the student’s teachers, who revise it as they see fit. At the end of every day, the student takes another short diagnostic, which is used to create another tentative lesson plan that appears in the teachers’ in-boxes by eight o’clock that evening.

—————

Customized instruction, deeply involving the teacher, relying on a daily cycle of instruction, assessment, evaluation, and new instruction within the classroom, moving students between working with the teacher, working with a virtual tutor, or working with a computer program. Now that’s starting to be an interesting, integrated approach to education - embedding technology within the whole learning environment while leaving open the possibility of transforming dramatically what any one (or small groups) of students experience, if that seems to turn out to be best for them.

We need to be running these experiments all across the educational system. In higher ed, for example, the variance of student backgrounds is even wider than that in high school, middle school or certainly grade school, especially when you consider the large number of students looking for higher education after or while working. Figuring out ways to combine technology, teachers, classrooms, and the right approach to skills provides powerful potential to create engaging, effective, and efficient experiences.

Recently there has been a spate of articles in journals as diverse as Dow Jones, The New York Times, and Inside Higher Education which, when boiled down, ask about the fundamental value of a college education and raise the question of how, when we see that value, we will know what we are looking at. continue reading

 It is an undeniable fact that with the blending of economic/political spaces between countries and continued growth of international trade, the movement of people between countries is becoming more fluid. There is a steady increase in competition for talented global workforce and businesses are fast becoming increasingly aware that creating a cross cultural environment in the workplace is critical for its long-term success. As educators, it should be our goal to prepare our students to function in a multicultural world. It is important to remember that “cultural diversity” is more than just the languages spoken by our growing diverse student body. To create a better learning environment, we should develop an intellectual awareness of other cultures and how that can impact the learning process of the students.

As educators, we can incorporate global and multicultural components into course materials. As the global workforce becomes more blended, students who are sensitive to cultural diversity and global perspectives will make more valuable employees to employers.  Educational institutions need to ensure that course syllabus and materials contain more international/ globalized content.   It is essential to think global when selecting educational media/technology tools to enhance the courses as well as create the appropriate learning environments.

Educators need to consider the following components when engaging students:

•          Age

•          Gender

•          Race

•          Educational and socio-economic background

•          Work experience (for adult students)

•          Languages spoken

It is important to learn how to promote cultural diversity in a class because this will help the students learn to appreciate other cultures. Their belief in their own culture will be enriched and it will make them more open to diversity. This will also lead to less prejudice.

 With education being delivered in multiple modes i.e. face to face, blended and online, the task of promoting cultural diversity amongst the students requires different approaches. Online education can be perceived as a “detached” environment but this can be changed through more inter-active efforts by the instructors. Creating a caring and enjoyable learning environment will help keep our students motivated as well as reduce anxiety about being different or not as eloquent as the rest. We all know that being accepted has always been important in any environment, especially in an educational institution. Instructors can help reduce the student’s anxiety about being different and help “fit in”.

 USA and most nations around the World are fast becoming melting pots of cultures and it is important for educators to prepare our students to understand cultural diversity even if the students do not intend to seek employment overseas in the immediate future.

A friend once said, “Whether or not I have immediate plans to travel overseas, I always ensure that I have a valid passport”. So, whether or not our students are going to work in USA for a foreign company/workforce or work overseas, we need to prepare our students for changing times and changing workplace needs.

Last sunday’s New York Times “News of the Week in Review” had an article by Jacques Steinberg entitled “Plan B:Skip College”. He is reporting on a fairly short list of people, including Charles Murray, who are serious about capping postsecondary education opportunity for currently marginalized people — read poor and/or of color. I am always impressed when people who have a privilege, like a college education and degree, argue that those without that privilege really don’t need it. continue reading

I have been the founding president of both a community college and a state university. And in both cases, we (me, my co-workers, and the pioneering students at these schools) were subjected to the public skepticism that comes with making change.

·         It was a “waste of money”.

·         The colleges were “low quality”.

·         The learners were “not qualified to go to school.” 

This was, pure and simple, elitism masquerading as a concern for academic quality and fiscal restraint. But the naysayers were wrong. Today both institutions, and many others like them, are recognized as significant contributors to the social, civic, and economic health of their communities.  

As higher education’s private sector, flooded by hundreds of thousands of unemployed and under-employed Americans, steps up to help meet the President Obama’s educational goals, however, the naysayers are at it again, trying to scare people about the changes that are happening. Consider the recent Frontline story. If the dominant perspective lying behind this story were to prevail, the consequences would include:

·         the re-marginalization of hundreds of thousands American students,

·         the loss of a vital source of trained workers and more engaged citizens,

·         and the elimination of hundreds of thousands of jobs just when we need them the most.

But it won’t happen because, when the accurate story is told, including the contributions and the shortcomings of all higher education, including the private sector, common sense will dictate that we fix the problems and hold on to the successes. That’s the only hope we have of meeting the President’s graduation goals.

I, for one, believe that the “shock and dismay” exhibited by some about debt burdens and graduation rates is purposely slanted in an attempt to gain philosophical advantage in a political fight. Excessive debt and loan defaults are very serious problems. But, consider the following.

1.       The only way to meet President Obama’s goals is to succeed where we are currently failing, with millions of high-risk students.

·         In recessions, unemployed and underemployed people go back to school. So, millions of people have returned to school in the last three years. Most of them are, by definition, high-risk both academically and financially. 

·         At the same time, the President wants to dramatically increase college attainment. But the only way to do that is to reach out to those who have not been successful in college historically, people who are currently marginalized. They are, by definition, high-risk both academically and financially.

·         Conclusion:  the people going back to school in a recessionary environment are the newcomers the President wants us to serve.

2.       Low price public colleges are essential in the educational network, but private sector colleges have a significant contribution to make as well.

·         Public colleges receive public subsidies thus driving down their price to learners. This is a positive social benefit. But because of the recession and other constraints, most public colleges are overflowing with students and turning people away. In California alone it is estimated that more than 150,000 current students in community colleges who are nearing graduation will not get the courses they need to graduate this year.

·          Even in good economic times, the private sector’s nimbleness and service-orientation attract students who choose to pay a higher tuition because of the other services and personal attention they receive.

·         Where are these students, and the others who cannot be admitted to the state universities and community colleges, going to go? Or are we supposed to sit by and watch the “remarginalization” of hundreds of thousands of aspiring learners?

·         Conclusion: There is a huge access problem in the traditional sector.

3.       Private sector colleges are part of the solution.

·         Private sector colleges live by their tuition. Absent the huge state taxpayer subsidies received by traditional schools, they are higher cost to the students. 

·         Private sector colleges are attracting the very people who the president has targeted.

·         The Gates Foundation understands the importance of this role

·         Lumina Foundation understands the importance of this role

·         Many members of the Department of Education understand the importance of this role.

·         Conclusion: private sector colleges have the nimbleness, the quality, and the flexibility to step up and help with this critical national objective.

And that raises the point we should be focusing on. All of higher education – the private sector, community colleges, state colleges and universities, and private non-profit colleges – need to do a better job:

·         Of graduating the students who enroll.

·         Of advising students about the financial and economic consequences of the educational choices they make.

·         Of finding ways to pass more money through to reduced costs to the students, not to our bottom lines.

·         And, for obvious reasons, those of us who enroll the highest numbers of at-risk students - community colleges. Private sector institutions, and state colleges and universities - have the farthest to go.

Tainting the entire private sector with scary stories, however, while implying that the non-profit sector does a better job with the same students, is simply not accurate, by the numbers. This demonization is bad economics, bad education, and encourages an America with less educational and economic opportunity, just when we need more.

Conclusion: We are all in this fight for educational opportunity together. Let’s act that way.

In “Midnight Class Is Latest Sign of Higher Education’s Demand,” the Baltimore Sun reports on community colleges that are offering graveyard-shift classes, including a psychology class - “Midnight Madness” coming this fall from 12-3 a.m. at Anne Arundel Community College in Maryland. It certainly provides access and relieves pressure on crowded community college facilities. There’s nothing wrong with the concept and it creates some buzz. Classes in the middle of the night may be just the ticket for some. But … continue reading

A recent piece in the Los Angeles Times about three-year bachelor’s degree programs caught my eye. I recall once having computed that a law student offered a 24×7 class schedule could do all the work needed for a J.D. degree in a mere 40 days and 40 nights. Actually, it would take closer to a full six weeks. At the end of forty days, a student would be about seven class hours short, and then you’d have to factor in a little time for examinations and a midnight graduation ceremony that last night.

That was a handy factoid to know when I worked for the American Bar Association’s law school accreditation group and needed to talk with students who called to complain about the unreasonable accreditation rules, which were preventing them from taking N units in a particular semester - so they could graduate a bit early, or (more encouragingly) because there was so much to take that term. continue reading

I attended The Arizona State University (ASU) Education Innovation Summit in Scottsdale, AZ last week.  It was a bracing, mind-opening swirl of new ideas, great aspirations, serious potential, innovative applications of technology, deal-making around all of this, and a cast of remarkably productive characters working hard to alter many aspects of education across many age ranges.

While the many innovations I saw are welcome (and some may wind up ground-breaking), something was missing across all the events I attended.

I’m an M.D.-Ph.D. who’s worked in technology-enabled learning for the past fifteen years, so I often compare the health care and education ecosystems. Imagine spending two days at a conference on combating problems in cardiovascular disease. Could you imagine the two days going by without a single public mention (not to mention multiple sessions) on the evolving fundamental science behind the disorders?

It is most curious how many education conferences – even ones as up-to-the-moment as this one was – are completely devoid of references to how learning actually seems to work.  E.g. (many, many other works could be mentioned):

• No reference to the many sources of research about fundamental limitations on thinking and learning (finite working memory, for example, or the absolute requirement for new expertise to be built on fluent competencies burned in through practice) that have multiple lines of evidence behind them.
• No mentions of the great work of people like Richard Mayer, or John Sweller, or David Merrill, who’ve built up decades of understanding on fundamental limits and opportunities for media and instructional design to dramatically improve (or hinder) learning.
• No mention of the work of researchers like Jan Plass and others, directly investigating what specific design elements of simulations and games lead to better learning.
• No sighting of local empirical investigators like Kurt Van Lehn, one of the leading researchers on automated tutoring systems, who’s a faculty member at ASU.

There’s an explosion of innovation going on in education right now. Yet there’s also an explosion of understanding of how learning seems to work (just wait until the functional MRI boys and girls get traction on important cognitive tasks!).

What we’re missing is a parallel to the biotech explosion in health care: New, practical ideas (and companies) solving problems in learning that flow from fundamental understanding of how learning works (or doesn’t). In biology departments across the country, faculty members and graduate students regularly combine basic research with outside work deploying research through companies – admittedly, not always stress-free.

Not there yet in learning, are we?

Part of the problem is  we don’t yet have the equivalent of pharmaceutical companies in learning to make the “at scale” implementation of such research.

Kaplan could play that role. We have more than a million students per year around the globe across all stages of learning, from kids learning their first writing and math skills, to adult professionals continuing to perfect their own skills. We have the potential (and interest) to do randomized controlled trials to find out which well-founded research-derived interventions really work at scale.

Where are the “cogitech” companies for us to talk to?

Kaplan University has been piloting blended learning courses in Singapore since August 2009 and we have noted that–with advanced communications, business relationships, political alliances, and environmental issues–we are becoming a globally interdependent world. Foreign faculty and students need opportunities and experiences in which they can explore global realities that are shaped by both a multicultural and an interconnected world.

At Northern Arizona University, their Center for International Education helps “students to learn about the interaction among diversity, environmental sustainability, and global engagement.”

At Wichita State, their mission is to provide all students with at least one global learning experience “through modern communication technologies and interaction with learners and faculty of diverse cultures.” 

The following was noted at  http://web.uvic.ca/~sherriw/index.htm:

“An optimal learning environment reflects the diverse cultures, perspectives and experiences of students (Banks, 2004). Because the manner in which people think, reason, and view knowledge is culturally and socially determined, international students from diverse cultural backgrounds may have difficulty balancing the expectations of the traditional Western curricular perspective and pedagogical strategies with their own culturally based learning expectations and values (Mestenhauser, 2002a; Peelo & Luxon, 2007).”

Are we doing enough to prepare our students to face an increasingly global work environment?