|
|
|
George H. Copa
William Ammentorp
University of Minnesota
National Center for Research in Vocational Education
Graduate School of Education
University of California at Berkeley
2030 Addison Street, Suite 500
Berkeley, CA 94720-1674
Supported by
The Office of Vocational and Adult Education
U.S. Department of Education
April 1998
FUNDING INFORMATION
| Project Title: | National Center for Research in Vocational Education |
|---|---|
| Grant Number: | V051A30003-98A/V051A30004-98A |
| Act under which Funds Administered: | Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act
P.L. 98-524 |
| Source of Grant: | Office of Vocational and Adult Education
U.S. Department of Education Washington, DC 20202 |
| Grantee: | The Regents of the University of California
c/o National Center for Research in Vocational Education 2030 Addison Street, Suite 500 Berkeley, CA 94720 |
| Director: | David Stern |
| Percent of Total Grant Financed by Federal Money: | 100% |
| Dollar Amount of Federal Funds for Grant: | $4,500,000 |
| Disclaimer: | This publication was prepared pursuant to a grant with the Office of Vocational and Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education. Grantees undertaking such projects under government sponsorship are encouraged to express freely their judgement in professional and technical matters. Points of view or opinions do not, therefore, necessarily represent official U.S. Department of Education position or policy. |
| Discrimination: | Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states: "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance." Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 states: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance." Therefore, the National Center for Research in Vocational Education project, like every program or activity receiving financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education, must be operated in compliance with these laws. |
The overall purpose of the New Designs for the Two-Year Institution of Higher Education (NDTYI) project is to bring the best ideas from research and practice to bear on the design of two-year institutions. In this report, we present a design process, a set of design specifications, some initial new designs for two-year institutions, and the supporting rationale that are in keeping with the vision set forth above.
We have had much help along the way and many of their names are presented in the first appendix to this report. However, we give special thanks to the following individuals:
Thank you very much to a cast of hundreds.
As this summary report is being prepared, our project work continues as we
Change is not an option--it is an inevitability. The tremendous changes in the culture that surrounds and impacts higher education have created both crisis and opportunity. As presently organized and delivered, higher education is no longer sustainable pedagogically, technologically, or economically.
The consequence of culture change is most evident in our common lifeplaces--work, family, and community. Within higher education, the two-year institution is closest to these lifeplaces and therefore to the challenges and opportunities they hold. We must begin an earnest search for the synergies that will better connect our educational institutions to our culture in ways that free and create resources and multiply desired results. This is the challenge and the opportunity of New Designs for the Two-Year Institution of Higher Education (NDTYI).
Envision . . . . .
This is the vision implicit in the NDTYI specifications.
NDTYI had three purposes. The first was to develop a design process that was sufficiently powerful to overcome traditional approaches and responses to designing two-year institutions of higher education. The second purpose was to develop a set of design specifications for an effective 21st century two-year institution of higher education. The third purpose was to develop and/or identify and describe new designs for two-year institutions that met the design specifications in order to make the specifications real and concrete for use in dissemination, training, and implementation.
NDTYI focuses on several target audiences: (1) administrative leaders responsible for designing entirely new institutions; (2) administrative leaders responsible for major restructuring through merger, re-engineering, or downsizing of institutions; and (3) policymakers at the local, state, and federal levels responsible for policy, regulations, and funding of two-year institutions of higher education. These target groups were involved in the project's development and implementation, as well as in reporting and dissemination plans.
The design process consists of ten elements, executed in a particular order, referred to as "designing down." The design elements are (1) learning context, (2) learning signature, (3) learning outcomes, (4) learning process, (5) learning organization, (6) learning partnerships, (7) learning staff and staff development, (8) learning environment, (9) learning finance, and (10) learning celebration. The elements of the design-down process follow this specified sequence so as to get careful alignment among the elements and to get "first questions first." The idea is to ensure that the design fits the needs of the local situation and proceeds in a logical order from aims to actions to supporting structure, processes, and environment. The design process is envisioned as being like a seminar where knowledge and experiences are shared among a design group. The design group is made up of representatives of all major stakeholders in the institution.
In NDTYI, several sources of information served as ingredients to the design process. These sources of information were best professional practices in two-year institutions of higher education nationally and internationally; the latest research on higher education relating to each of the design elements; reports advocating revision and reform of higher education; focus group interviews with students, faculty, administrators, other staff, and external stakeholders; and a National Design Group selected to reflect broad representation of leadership and stakeholders in the future of the two-year institution of higher education. This report is organized based on the design elements, each chapter discussing one element in the design process, with the exception of the beginning chapter, which provides the project's purpose, focus, and process, and the ending chapter, which summarizes the report and provides future direction for transitions to new designs.
NDTYI must meet the needs of a particular context or situation. Chapter Two describes the context in terms of assets to be carried forward into the future, problems with the current institutional operation, opportunities to be taken advantage of in new designs, and aspirations to be accomplished by the institution. This chapter presents the design assumptions for NDTYI, the changing context of higher education in the United States with emphasis on the two-year institution, and the design criteria for NDTYI.
The focus of Chapter Three is on the learning signature. The learning signature is a powerful shorthand way to represent the institution to its staff, students, and the public. In NDTYI, the purpose of the learning signature element is to provide explicit and early focus on the identity of the two-year institution of higher education in relation to its learning context. The following is presented in Chapter Three: the purpose of the learning signature and the process used to develop design specifications and new designs for the learning signature in NDTYI; the connection of the learning signature to the design criteria presented in the section on learning context; the design specifications for an effective learning signature; and the learning signature themes developed by the National Design Group, the resulting NDTYI learning signature, and exemplary new designs for the learning signature.
Learning outcomes is the focus of Chapter Four. Learning outcomes refer to the added competence (value) developed by a learner through a learning experience. Because of the centrality of teaching and learning to the mission of two-year institutions of higher education, the learning outcomes become a powerful force or keystone in designing the institution and its way of operation. Chapter Four presents the purpose and process of developing new designs for learning outcomes, the connection of learning outcomes to the design criteria and the learning signature, a set of design specifications for guiding and reviewing the development of learning outcomes for a specific institutions, and a set of learning outcomes developed as part of the NDTYI project and exemplary new designs for learning outcomes.
Chapter Five provides a description of the learning process for new designs for the two-year institution of higher education. The learning process needs to be designed to respond to the learning context of a two-year institution and its learning signature and learning outcomes. The prior selection of learning outcomes plays a central role in designing the institution's learning process. Chapter Five discusses the purpose and process of developing new designs for the learning process, the connection of the learning process to the previous elements in the design process, key concepts regarding the learning process, design specifications developed for learning processes for two-year institutions, and exemplary new designs for the learning process.
Chapter Six focuses on the learning organization for two-year institutions. For the learning process to be successful in reaching the learning outcomes in a manner called for by the learning signature, a learning infrastructure or organization must be put into place and continually improved upon. Chapter Six presents the purpose and process of developing new designs for the learning organization, the connection of the learning organization to the previous elements in the design process, key concepts regarding the learning organization, design specifications developed for the learning organization for two-year institutions, and exemplary new designs for the learning organization.
The purpose of Chapter Seven is to define and apply the construct, "partnership," to NDTYI. The link between higher education institutions and their communities takes the form of learning partnerships or alliances with public and private sector organizations. Research and best practices relating to partnerships in education and other inter-organizational contexts are reviewed in this chapter. In addition, the meaning of being partners, the process of partnerships, and the links between two-year institutions of higher education and various categories of partners are explored. Design specifications for learning partnerships follow from this review and exploration. Finally, examples of new designs for learning partnerships are presented.
The purpose of Chapter Eight is to describe and rationalize a set of design specifications for the learning staff and staff development for NDTYI. The purpose of learning staff and staff development as an element of the design-down process is to underscore the importance of the staff to NDTYI. The attitude and competence of staff with regard to NDTYI are central to feasible implementation. The purpose and process of developing new designs for the learning staff and staff development are discussed in Chapter Eight. Following this discussion, the connections between the learning staff and staff development and the previous elements in the design process are presented. Then the key concepts and the design specifications for staff and staff development resulting from focus group interviews and discussions of the National Design Group are described. Last, exemplary new designs for staff and staff development are recommended.
The focus of Chapter Nine, the learning environment, includes attention to both technology and facilities needed to support the design specifications recommended in the previous elements of the design process. Key questions addressed in this chapter concern the desired nature of the relationship between learning experiences and the learning environment, design specifications for the environment, and exemplary new designs for the learning environment of two-year institutions.
Chapter Ten centers on learning finance for NDTYI. Learning finance is critical to the implementation of NDTYI recommendations. Chapter Ten outlines an approach to financial management that links institutional resources to NDTYI and its work, identifies key concepts and design specifications for learning finance for NDTYI, and provides examples of exemplary practice regarding learning finance.
The final element in NDTYI, learning celebration, is presented in Chapter Eleven. Learning celebrations have to be designed in consideration of all of the processes and steps involved in the redesign of the whole institution. In addition to discussing the purpose and process of learning celebrations and connecting celebrations to the previous elements in the design process, Chapter Eleven also presents key concepts and design specifications for learning celebrations and exemplary new designs focused on learning celebrations.
The final chapter of the report offers a perspective on and strategies for organizational change that show how current practices and structures can be modified to move toward NDTYI. Putting new designs to work in the two-year institution is a major undertaking. Old paradigms and their associated practices must be challenged and, in many cases, fundamentally changed. As we look to the next century, it is clear that higher education will experience a host of new challenges and opportunities. These will result in pressures on institutions that cannot easily be countered by conventional organizations and educational practices. Instead, new designs will be required and institutional forms will need to be invented to enable institutions to adapt to their environments and to assist stakeholders in dealing with change.
Two-year institutions are at the center of change in higher education. They are the linking organization that helps people of all ages connect to our common lifeplaces in work, family, and the community. Furthermore, they are the pathway whereby access to opportunity is afforded to many otherwise excluded from higher education. The new designs envisioned in NDTYI "dance with change," seek out and use interdependencies, and lead the way to higher education that is excellent and sustainably so--pedagogically, technologically, and economically.
This section provides an introduction to the project, New Designs for the Two-Year Institution of Higher Education (NDTYI), conducted during calendar years 1995 and 1996. Sections of the introduction will address the purpose of the project, its focus in terms of institutions and motivations, and the research and development process used to achieve its purpose.
NDTYI had three purposes. The first was to develop a design process that was sufficiently powerful to overcome traditional approaches and responses to designing two-year institutions of higher education. Two-year institutions (TYIs) face serious threats to standard operating procedures as will be evident later in this report. A way was needed to jar institutional planning out of its current ruts and create "new space" within which to think about institutional purposes, structures, and operations.
The second purpose was to develop a set of design specifications for an effective 21st century TYI. The challenge first was voiced by those involved in implementing concepts from an earlier National Center for Research in Vocational Education project, New Designs for the Comprehensive High School. High school stakeholders were asking what college should be like in view of the proposed design specifications for the 21st century high school. We decided to focus on only the first two years of college, particularly in the context of TYIs. The design specifications for future TYIs were to be built on best knowledge we could find to support effective educational practice. We proposed to start from scratch with few assumptions about what was needed and how needs should be met, always questioning conventional thinking and practice. The resulting design specifications were to serve as the criteria for an alternative model of TYIs--a way to stretch thinking and stimulate responsible critique of current practice.
The third purpose was to develop and/or identify and describe new designs for TYIs that met the design specifications referred to above. The new designs were to make the design specifications very real and concrete for use in dissemination, training, and implementation. In some elements of the design process, the project was used to develop actual new designs for institutional practice as will be illustrated in later sections of this report. For other design process elements, the project used a different route--identifying and describing actual institutional practices that met the proposed design specifications.
The work of the project was focused in two different ways--by type of institution and by motivation for considering new designs. First, the project focused only on TYIs and not four-year colleges and universities. TYIs included technical institutes and colleges, community colleges, and private proprietary schools. TYIs offer a wide variety of programs culminating in certificates, diplomas, and associate degrees. As shown in Table 1, there were 7,638 public and private postsecondary institutions offering less than four-year programs in the United States in 1994. Of this total, 2,010 offered less than one year of instruction; 3,038 offered at least one year but less than two years of instruction; 1,144 offered the associate degree, and 1,446 offered two years but less than four years of instruction. Only 1,534 of the 7,638 institutions offering less than four-year programs were public institutions. When only the institutions that are accredited at the higher education level by an agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education were counted, the total number of less than four-year institutions dropped from 7,638 to 1,443 institutions (U.S. Department of Education, 1994). Of the 1,443 accredited postsecondary institutions, 99% are those that offer the associate degree or two years, but less than four years of instruction. From another source, there were 1,472 community colleges in 1991 of which 1,291 were public institutions (Vaughan, 1995). Therefore, we estimate that there are about 1,500 accredited public and private TYIs in the United States. In 1992, community colleges enrolled more than 5.7 million students in credit courses (p. 1). Vaughan goes on to state, "More than 50 percent of all first-time college students in the United States attended a community college, and more than 45 percent of all minority students enrolled in higher education in America attended a community college" (p. 2). The general educational structure of the United States is shown in Figure 1. The figure depicts the place of the TYI in relation to secondary education and other forms of higher education. Comparable European educational institutions comprise the later years in higher level vocational schools and the earlier years in polytechnic institutions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Highest
Level of Offering*
|
Total
|
Public
|
Nonprofit
|
For-Profit
|
|
All
institutions
|
10,369
|
2,152
|
2,890
|
5,327
|
|
Less
than one year
|
2,010
|
40
|
157
|
1,813
|
|
One
but less than two years
|
3,038
|
237
|
175
|
2,626
|
|
Associate's
degree
|
1,144
|
628
|
147
|
367
|
|
Two
but less than four years
|
1,446
|
629
|
467
|
350
|
|
Bachelor's
degree
|
790
|
96
|
631
|
63
|
|
Postbaccalaureate
certificate
|
160
|
11
|
125
|
24
|
|
Master's
degree
|
830
|
178
|
602
|
50
|
|
Post-master's
certificate
|
188
|
99
|
87
|
2
|
|
Doctor's
degree
|
675
|
228
|
427
|
20
|
|
Other/did
not respond
|
88
|
6
|
70
|
12
|
* In addition to the highest levels of offering shown here, first-professional degrees or certificates were offered by 150 public institutions, 505 nonprofit schools, and 21 institutions classified as for-profit.
Sources: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (PEDS), Institutional Characteristics Survey, 1993-94 ; U.S. Department of Education (1994).
The project also focused on a particular target audience in terms of motivations for considering major changes in the above-mentioned institutions. Three specific groups were of interest: (1) administrative leaders responsible for designing entirely new institutions (e.g., the Homestead campus in Florida, which was destroyed by a hurricane; the two new campuses to be built by the Maricopa Community College district in Phoenix, Arizona), (2) administrative leadership responsible for major restructuring (merger, re-engineering, downsizing) of institutions (e.g., merger of technical and community colleges in Connecticut and Minnesota), and (3) policymakers at the local, state, and federal levels responsible for policy, regulations, and funding for TYIs. Care was taken in the project development and operation to involve these target groups and ensure that they are a part of reporting and dissemination plans.
This section of the report will describe the design process used in developing specifications for a future-oriented TYI, the sources of information used as ingredients to the process, and the way in which the design process was implemented. Each of these components is a product of the project in the sense of providing a strategy or "roadmap" for design in a particular institutional setting.
The design process was made up of ten elements, executed in a particular order, referred to as "designing-down." The design process is shown in Figure 2. The elements were addressed in a particular order so as to get careful alignment among the elements and to get "first questions first." The idea is to ensure that the design fits the needs of the situation and proceeds in a logical order from aims to actions to supporting structure, culture, and environment. Each of the design elements will now be described.
Learning Context Learning Signature Learning Outcomes Learning Process Learning Organization Learning Partnerships Learning Staff and Staff Development Learning Environment Learning Finance Learning Celebration |
Each design for a TYI must meet the needs of a particular context or situation. The context is described in terms of problems with current institutional operation, opportunities to be taken advantage of with a new institution, and goals to be accomplished by the new institution. Studying and analyzing the learning context results in a set of design criteria for use in guiding and monitoring the accomplishments of the other design process elements.
Learning enterprise designs are given direction and energy by the symbols and metaphors representing the hopes and expectations of policymakers, educators, and their students. An effective design process must first try to elicit and understand these hopes and expectations as a way to give coherence and focus to learning design. Often, the signature takes form through symbols and metaphors (e.g., words, pictures, people, stories, objects) representing a deeply shared perspective on the learning enterprise.
Globalization and its associated complexity demands that TYIs have a clear idea of the value to be added by the learning enterprise as a starting point for program improvement. In short, TYI leaders must clearly know the competencies, standards, or results they want to produce for and through the learners. At the same time, students must be able to see what TYIs can do for them in terms of their personal development.
Learning outcomes are accomplished through the design of an appropriate learning process, traditionally viewed in terms of the language of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Too often, the attention in higher education is to teaching in contrast to learning and to subject matter (curriculum) at the expense of instruction and assessment. Most faculty in higher education are not required to study the learning process; instead, they center almost solely on subject matter. If TYIs are to address the learning design challenges and opportunities of the future, they must have a working language and knowledge of the learning process with foundations in human development.
For the learning process to be successful in reaching the learning outcomes in a manner called for by the learning signature, a learning infrastructure or organization must be put into place and continually improved. The learning infrastructure is made up of the organization of learners, learning time, learning settings, subject matter, staff, technology, and learning environment. It is here that new designs for TYIs are most clearly visible. Familiar physical and organizational forms of higher education are unlikely to be responsive to the needs of students and the changing nature of society and its lifeplaces (e.g., work, family, community).
The link between higher education institutions and their communities takes the form of learning partnerships between public and private sector organizations. TYIs can no longer "go it alone"; they have neither the resources nor the knowledge to be set apart from their surroundings. Instead of the "ivory tower" of the past, higher education institutions of the future will be ever more closely integrated with their communities and will bear increasing responsibilities for the quality of life of those who support and benefit from their work.
The changed perspective suggested above mandates parallel development of teachers, administrators, and support personnel ready to adapt TYIs to new realities. Higher education will need to identify, train, and support leaders who can shape curricula and student experience in forms indicated by ever-changing learning expectations and processes.
The driving force for higher education has shifted from the traditional--static--subject matters to a dynamic view of knowledge and its use. Information technology has been and will continue to be a pivotal force in this development; it has redefined the process of knowledge creation, transmission, and application. Learning technology has become one of the major considerations in any new design for the learning environment for TYIs. After noting the design elements above, consideration should shift to the physical and social environment of the institution. New designs will not be constrained by architectural forms nor will they be limited to traditional educational practices; they will be motivated by the dynamic integration of higher education institutions with their students and communities. Learning environments will include consideration of settings such as home, workplace, community, and school.
This element of the New Designs process concerns both the cost and revenues for higher education. Key strategies concerning cost include cost containment, improved efficiency, re-engineering, and privatization. On the revenue side, strategies include institutional development, new products and services, partnerships, and new markets.
The New Designs process is integrated by the cultural symbols and practices of all those associated with TYIs. Learning experiences and their applications are continually reinforced through celebrations whereby the community confirms the relevance of the work of higher education.
While the elements are presented in linear, downward order, the process also involves moving upward and among the design process elements to ensure close alignment and internal consistency and coherence. Close alignment of the elements is needed to realize quality and efficiency in operation of the TYI.
The design process is envisioned as being like a seminar, where knowledge and experiences are shared among a design group with the purpose of mutually "learning their way into" new designs for a higher education institution that meet the needs of the context they have at hand. The knowledge and experience include that possessed by the group itself as well as what can be brought to the group from others. In NDTYI, several sources of information served as ingredients for the design process.
Care was taken to scan professional practices nationally and internationally to identify the best used by TYIs. We looked for effective and innovative places, leadership, and concepts for possible use in developing New Designs specifications for each of the elements of the design as described above. At each design element, we also looked for professional practices outside of public higher education for ways to improve the design process and specifications.
We also searched for the latest research on higher education relating to each of the design components. As with the scan for best practice, we searched for ideas and concepts from outside of higher education that might prove worthy of adaptation. We particularly examined NCRVE's past and present research and development work for study findings and recommendations that were appropriate to include in New Designs specifications.
We examined several of the reports advocating revision and reform of TYIs for recommendations and supporting rationale that deserved consideration in the design process. We wanted to ensure that we were making use of previous studies and planning of TYIs and were not merely reinventing what had already been reported. Sometimes these reports addressed only certain elements of the design process. Our contribution was unique in addressing the full range of elements and striving for alignment in the recommendations among all of the elements.
Group interviews were used in the design process in order to get first-hand views of many of the design elements. Interviews were held with groups of students, faculty, administrators, and external institutional partners. The group interviews held for each of the selected design elements were as follows:
Each of the group interviews was tape recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for implications for the design specifications and discussion by the National Design Group.
The National Design Group was selected to give broad representation by the leadership and stakeholders in the future of TYIs. They were also selected to give diverse perspectives in terms of gender, ethnicity, and geographic location. The following individuals were the members of the National Design Group:
The National Design Group provided guidance on important issues needing attention, the resolution of issues, and the development of design specifications for NDTYI. They played a very significant role in forming the institutional design recommended in this report.
The process used in the project to work through the design elements occurred as a series of interactive steps. The meetings of the National Design Group served as a major organizer for the project. The agendas for the meetings are shown in Appendix 2 of this report. Each meeting was preceded by the project staff's development of a draft paper on the design elements to be addressed at the meeting. The draft paper was sent to the National Design Group just prior to the meeting for its review and discussion at the meeting. Following discussion at the meeting, the draft paper was revised and a set of design specifications for the element was put forth. Where focus group interviews were conducted on a design element, the results were presented to the National Design Group for its consideration. The meetings of the National Design Group were held in the following sites:
At each of the meetings, we invited several individuals from local TYIs to serve as resource persons. The list of resource persons is presented in Appendix 1 of this report. As part of the Miami, Florida, meeting, we visited three of the campuses of Miami-Dade Community College. The project staff was responsible for the final form of the report and for the wording of design specifications.
Development of an appropriate set of design criteria for NDTYI was a significant element in the design process. These criteria guided the response to design specifications and the selection or development of exemplary new designs for the remaining elements of the design process. The resulting design criteria are grounded in a close examination of the context of TYIs in the United States--their problems, assets, opportunities, and aspirations. The selected criteria are that new designs be imaginative, directional, responsive, collaborative, accountable, and resourced. In the view of the NDTYI staff, if new institutional designs are responsive to these criteria in all of the criteria's dimensionality, the resulting institutions will have good assurance of being successful (perceived as doing a good job), valued (perceived as doing a job worth doing), and used (perceived as a good investment by individuals and community).
The major limitations of the project were in funding to support the review of research and best practices (we wanted to be even more thorough in identification of research and best practices), commissioning papers from experts on high-profile topics (as it was, the project staff wrote most papers), and meetings of the National Design Group (we wanted at least two more meetings at sites permitting visits to institutions exhibiting best practices). While additional resources would have permitted the development of an even better product, we appreciated the resources we did have and used them effectively.
The major products of this project are a design process, design specifications, and illustrative new designs for the TYI in the United States. Each can be used by a particular institution in its design or redesign for the 21st century. Our focus was on technical colleges and institutes, community colleges, and private, proprietary schools. We targeted the leadership of places that are building new institutions or undergoing significant institutional restructuring. We also targeted policymakers at the state and federal levels who are directing and funding TYIs. A ten-element design process was used to develop the design specifications for a 21st century, TYI using information about best practices, research, reform reports, focus-group interviews, and the National Design Group. The key limitation was funding for more extensive and enhanced design support and analysis.
The first element in the design process focuses on learning context and results in a set of design criteria to guide and monitor the development of design specifications and new designs in the elements to follow. As such, the description of learning context is arguably the most important element of the design process. It provides overall direction and ensures that the resulting design is tailored to the needs of a particular situation. The design criteria can be used as a "report card" to assess how the rest of the design process is progressing and to indicate needed adjustments.
This section is organized into the following parts: (1) the design assumptions for NDTYI, (2) the changing context of higher education in the United States with emphasis on the TYI, and (3) the design criteria for NDTYI. Before moving forward with these parts, an explanation is provided of how the learning context of TYIs was addressed for the purposes of NDTYI.
The process of work used to develop what is reported in this section started with a review of literature on the context of the TYI and discussions by the NDTYI Work Group. Work on the design assumptions was begun in preparation for a graduate course dealing with planning and evaluating TYIs, taught at the University of Minnesota during the spring of 1995 by George Copa. At about the same time, the NDTYI Work Group developed a preliminary set of characteristics of the context faced by TYIs on entering the 21st century and a preliminary set of design criteria that could be use to ensure that the NDTYI design specification and new designs were responsive and effective in addressing the context characteristics. A similar effort was undertaken as a class project in the graduate course noted above. The 21 participants in the graduate course were practicing administrators on TYI campuses or at the state system offices in Minnesota and Wisconsin. As a strategy for use in identifying the context of TYIs, each group was asked to first identify and prioritize the problems to be faced, the opportunities to be explored, and the goals to be sought by effective TYIs on entering the 21st century.
At the first meeting of the National Design Group, members were asked to undergo the same activity of identifying problems, opportunities, and goals in view of the conclusions of major reports addressing the context of TYIs (provided by the project staff), other reports with which they were familiar, and their own experiences. The NDTYI Work Group then presented the preliminary design criteria it had developed from its efforts at describing the learning context. The strategy used in the project was aimed at getting the original thoughts of the National Design Group, but also benefiting from more extensive work by the NDTYI Work Group and the graduate class. Following the presentation to the National Design Group by the NDTYI Work Group, the National Design Group was asked to prioritize the problems, opportunities, and goals of TYIs that most needed attention in new designs for these institutions. The results of these efforts were used to revise the recommendations of the NDTYI Work Group regarding design criteria, and the revisions are presented below as the NDTYI's design criteria. This set of criteria was reviewed several times by the National Design Group at subsequent meetings. As a result of the review by the National Design Group, another section was added to the learning context description presented in this report. The added section focuses on the key dimensions of the changing context of TYIs--changes which must be faced and serve as a basis for interest in and real concern about new designs for these institutions. The design criteria serve as a response to the dimensions of change, providing strategic clues about how to proceed in the NDTYI.
As will be apparent later in this section, a key part of new designs for the TYI on entering the 21st century will be dealing with a changing context on several dimensions at the same time. With this in mind, we wanted to formulate a few assumptions that would capture the essence of the strategy that we felt would lead to an appropriate design stance or posture for effective TYIs in the future.
The first assumption we selected is shown in Exhibit 1. The assumption brings attention to the idea of viewing change as a friend rather than an enemy, and letting change assist in finding a productive, satisfying way into the future for higher education. In "dancing with change," the question arises, "Is the higher education institution or some outside organization or force leading the dance process?" Our answer is that perhaps the leadership changes from time to time, and that the study of dance from a multicultural perspective suggested that there are many forms of dance where there is no one leader. A whole community may be involved in an integrated way in the whole dance process. The same might be the case for TYIs--at times follower, at other times leader, and at times both or neither. Another characteristic of dance is that there are many unique in forms and manners, yet there are often clear patterns that identify particular dances, one from another. The agile and effective TYIs of the future will need to be astute in ascertaining patterns in complex and turbulent change as guides to mission, vision, and effective responses.
|
"What
is required now is a purposeful consideration of the alternatives an
institution can imagine itself making, as well as a real discussion of the
consequences of not changing at all. To convene such a conversation is to dance
with change." Pew Higher Education Roundtable, 1994, p. 12A
|
The Pew report (Pew Higher Education Roundtable, 1994), from which the first design assumption is taken, goes on to note that convening the "conversation with change" is "to enter into a relation with a future not yet fully imagined. To demur, . . . is to let someone else choose your partner as well as call the tune" (p. 12A). They advise that the conversations emanate from "a strong collective sense of an institution's identity" (p. 12A). They must balance faculty collegiality with recognition that postponing painful steps is not an option, and draw on the best ideas of faculty for maintaining institutional energy and responsiveness.
The second design assumption is captured by Wheatley and Kellner-Rogers (1996) in a book entitled, A Simpler Way , and shown in Exhibit 2. Higher education must more clearly recognize and make use of its interdependencies with many individuals, organizations, associations, agencies, and communities. The challenge for TYIs that aspire to be really effective is to continuously seek and find many (large and small) synergies with other entities where resources can be leveraged and multiplied with positive, catalytic, and symbiotic impacts for all those involved. In the language of the Internet, institutions must be effective at "surfing for synergies" to improve their quality and effectiveness in the context of the problems, opportunities, and goals that they face with increasingly scarce resources.
|
"Everything
participates in the creation and evolution of its neighbors. There are no
unaffected outsiders. No one system dictates conditions to another. All
participate together in creating the conditions of their interdependence."
Wheatley & Kellner-Rogers, 1996, p. 14
|
As background for this section, several different reports will be reviewed that present descriptions of the changing context of higher education and, more particularly, TYIs. As noted above in the section on Process of Work in describing the learning context, except for the most recent reports, these are the materials that were presented to the NDTYI Work Group and National Design Group for their consideration in identifying the problems, opportunities, and goals to be addressed in NDTYI. The reports are presented in chronological order.
In this report published by the National Center for Research in Vocational Education and authored by Wardlow, Swanson, and Migler (1992), the focus was on the essential elements that characterize exemplary vocational education institutions. This report is included here because vocational education institutions (e.g., technical institutes and colleges, private proprietary institutions) are an important form of the TYI, and vocational education programs are a major component of comprehensive community colleges, another form of the TYI. The fourteen institutions selected for study through a nomination process included six secondary and eight postsecondary (four technical colleges, one proprietary technical institute, and three community colleges) institutions scattered across the United States. The themes associated with effective institutions were categorized under the following headings: (1) School Climate, (2) Administration, (3) Teacher Attributes, (4) Student Attributes, (5) Vocational-Student Organization, (6) Curriculum, (7) Support Services, and (8) Institutional Marketing. Within this framework the following characteristics were described as being associated with institutional excellence:
These themes were found to be consistent across institutions that were studied, both secondary and postsecondary. Wardlow et al. (1992) suggest that
there is likelihood that the most effective way to develop these characteristics in an institution is for that institution to participate in a mentoring process with an exemplary institution, in which participants in the aspiring institution gain a holistic view of the concept of institutional excellence. (p. 42)
This set of discussions and report focused on the question, "What does society need from higher education?" It was sponsored by four foundations--The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; The Johnson Foundation, Inc.; Lilly Endowment, Inc.; and The Pew Charitable Trusts. The preface to the report of the prestigious group, chaired by former U.S. Secretary of Labor William Brock, states,
An increasingly open, global economy requires--absolutely requires--that all of us be better educated, more skilled, more adaptable, and more capable of working collaboratively. These economic considerations alone mean that we must change the ways we teach and learn. But, an increasingly diverse society, battered (and that is not too strong a term) by accelerating change, requires more than workplace competence. It also requires that we do a better job of passing on to the next generation a sense of the value of diversity and the critical importance of honesty, decency, integrity, compassion, and personal responsibility in a democratic society. Above all, we must get across the idea that the individual flourishes best in a genuine community to which the individual in turn has an obligation to contribute. (p. i)
The report notes that there is no single "silver bullet cure" for higher education in the United States; rather, improvements will come campus by campus with discussion and action requiring, "honest introspection and some very hard and even controversial new thinking about its roles and responsibilities, principles, and priorities" (p. ii).
In challenging higher education to raise its learning outcome standards, the report states, "A disturbing and dangerous mismatch exists between what American society needs of higher education and what it is receiving" (p. 1). Citing changes in the economy, demography, culture, technology, and globalization, the challenge for institutions of higher education is to prepare individuals to "learn their way through life" (p. 2). The response to the question of what does society need from higher education advocated in the report, particularly as relates to TYIs, is as follows:
The report issues three major challenges to higher education institutions:
In
the Wingspread Group's words, "Putting learning at the heart of the academic
enterprise will mean overhauling the conceptual, procedural, curricular, and
other architecture of postsecondary education on most campuses" (p. 14). And
the overall response may need to be different for different students depending
on their ability to handle independence, support, and challenging standards.
With respect to financing these changes, the report is straightforward and again challenging in stating,
higher education's best financial hope rests on helping itself by helping expand the nation's wealth, by providing the knowledgeable and highly skilled workforce that can enhance our productivity, revitalize our communities, and rebuild our sense of "we". . . . We also believe that institutions that defer change until new resources are available will find themselves waiting for a very long time. Financial salvation will begin on the campus, or it will probably not begin at all. (p. 25)
The contribution of this report, authored by Banach and Lorenzo (1993) and published by Institute for Future Studies at Macomb Community College in Warren, Michigan, is in describing succinctly the radical changes emerging in America at the end of the 20th century as a backdrop for design and/or redesign of TYIs. These changes in context, generating both challenges and opportunities, are expected to dictate the need for bold new strategies in design and operation of TYIs. The key dimensions of the emerging context resulting from their environmental scanning are as follows:
In the context of these changes, Banach and Lorenzo (1993) recommend the following changes in the planning (design) process:
At the time NDTYI was initiated, the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (1994) published a list of the ten most significant public policy issues in higher education for 1994. The issues were developed by a group of higher education policy experts who gathered together in October 1993. The "front burner" issues, which provide a sense of the challenges facing governing boards, trustees, presidents, and chancellors responsible for higher education systems and campuses, including TYIs, were the following (not listed in priority order):
This report, published by The Institute for Future Studies (1994) of Macomb Community College, describes the most important issues facing community colleges in 1994-1995, the time period at which NDTYI was just beginning. Presumably, a new design for the TYI will have to effectively deal with these issues if it is to be successful. The issues described in the report are as follows:
This report was authored by Lorenzo and LeCroy (1994) and published by The Institute for Future Studies at Macomb Community College. The subtitle to the report is "Creating a Culture of Responsiveness." Lorenzo and LeCroy's operating assumption was that community colleges need to change in fundamental ways, meeting new needs more precisely and working from a more cohesive structure. The key assumptions they set forth to undergird their framework for fundamental change were as follows:
Ten elements make up the proposed framework for change:
In this report published by the Miami-Dade Community College Foundation, McCabe (1995) addresses four major issues facing community colleges: "the demand for more highly educated workers is increasing and will continue to increase; more undereducated and underskilled workers are attempting to enter the workforce; there is an ever expanding dependent underclass; and in most cases community colleges are receiving less financial support" (p. 1). By not providing adequate resources to community colleges, legislators are "starving the most promising solution" to resolving the first three issues noted above. McCabe goes on to document the positive effects of community colleges on worker training, addressing the needs of the undereducated and underskilled, and developing economic independence. He concludes that community colleges are "undervalued, under-appreciated, and underfunded" (p. 10). Major symptoms of the underfunding include "a rapid increase in sections taught by part-time faculty, a decrease in support personnel, inadequate funds to stay current with technical equipment and library materials, and non-competitive salaries" (p. 11).
The National Assessment of Vocational Education was mandated by the U.S. Congress as a part of the 1990 Perkins Act. The Office of Educational Research and Improvement in the U.S. Department of Education was assigned the task of conducting the assessment. Its purpose was to examine the outcomes of the 1990 Perkins Act and make recommendations concerning future reauthorization. A major component of the assessment was the examination of postsecondary vocational education, which largely occurs and is a significant purpose of TYIs.
On examining participation in postsecondary vocational education, the assessment resulted in the following conclusions (Boesel, Hudson, Deich, and Masten, 1994):
With these conclusions in mind, the assessment makes the following recommendations for reauthorization of the Perkins Act to improve postsecondary vocational education:
Important themes in the assessment's summary report (Boesel & McFarland, 1994) as it relates to postsecondary vocational education include (1) closer linkage of secondary and postsecondary programs (Tech Prep); (2) better integration of occupational and academic programs; (3) more accessible and responsive to a wide range of learners, particularly those with special needs; and (4) increased use of occupational and industrial standards as benchmarks for program quality and ensuring being up-to-date.
Nearing the completion of NDTYI, the Society for College and University Planning published the report entitled Transforming Higher Education: A Vision for Learning in the 21st Century (Dolence & Norris, 1995). The authors call for major transformation in higher education as society changes paradigms from the industrial age to the information age. In their vision, higher education must realign with the needs of its stakeholders, clients, customers, and beneficiaries. The transformation of higher education is addressed in four phases: (1) realign, (2) redesign, (3) redefine, and (4) re-engineer. Key concepts in the transformation from industrial age to information age include changing from . . .
In making the transformation, higher education will need to realign with the changing nature of information, knowledge, and scholarship; needs of individual learners; and the changing nature of work and learning. Redesigning higher education to integrate these new concepts will include changes such as creating barrier-free, perpetual learning; offering high-quality, flexible enabling services; reconceptualizing around essential outcomes; and pushing out organizational boundaries using technology. Redefining roles in higher education will include faculty playing a variety of roles: "researcher, synthesizer, mentor, evaluator and certifier of mastery, architect, and navigator" (p. 61). The transformation will involve re-engineering around performance measures such as the following:
The authors of this report are clear in their admonition about the choice available to higher education institutions: "Accept the risks of pursuing the transformation of higher education to an Information Age model, or the certainty of stagnation and decline as Industrial Age colleges and universities fall further and further from favor" (p. 94).
A well-known leader in the field of community colleges, George B. Vaughan (1995), was commissioned by the American Community College Association to prepare this concise description of the community college movement in the United States. Since the community colleges represent the most numerous form of public, TYIs, the report was included in developing design criteria for NDTYI. Vaughan reports that there were 1,472 public community colleges, technical colleges, two-year branch colleges, and independent junior colleges in the United States in 1990, and they enrolled more than 5.7 million students in credit courses. This number amounts to about 38% of all students enrolled in community colleges and four-year institutions (p. 10).
Vaughan summarizes the mission of community colleges as a series of precepts or basic commitments:
The community college's mission is usually achieved through the following traditional categories of programs, activities, and services:
With regard to the description of community college students, Vaughan contrasts traditional four-year institutions with "student-as-citizen" to the community college, where the norm is "citizen-as-student." The citizen-as-student is described as, "concerned with paying taxes, working full-time, supporting a family, paying a mortgage, and with other responsibilities associated with the everyday role of a full-time citizen" (p. 17). The change in role has many implications for student needs in terms of how, when, and by whom courses are taught.
In terms of funding, community colleges are primarily supported by local and state taxes. According to Vaughan, "On average, nationally, community colleges receive approximately 50 percent of their funds from state taxes, 21 percent from local government, 20 percent from tuition and fees, 4 percent from the federal government and 5 percent from other sources" (p. 22).
In view of the positions, findings, and recommendations of the reports described above and intensive deliberations in the NDTYI Work Group and National Design Group, a set of key changes in the context of higher education was selected for attention in NDTYI:
These are the changes that challenge new designs for the TYI. They form the basis for the design criteria that were used to guide the development of NDTYI.
Given the design assumptions and the changing context of the TYI in the United States, the work of the NDTYI Work Group and the National Design Group, in combination and interaction, resulted in a set of design criteria to guide and monitor the next elements in the design process. This section of the report will give an overview of the design criteria followed by a more detailed treatment of each criterion in terms of the questions it suggests for each element in the design process.
By way of overview, the criteria for the exemplary design of a 21st century TYI were formulated as follows:
The following section of the report focuses more in-depth on each of the design criteria in terms of what the design criteria mean in action (e.g., on being imaginative, on being directional). For each of the design criteria, attention is given to a brief description of the concept underlying the criterion and then raising questions relating the criterion to each of the elements in the design process (e.g., signature, outcomes, process, organization).
Imagination involves exploration of the possible. It questions the beliefs and myths that underlie current activities and organizations. Imagination creates metaphors that help people visualize productive futures. And, it facilitates the design of models of systems and behaviors that give creative shape to the future. Being imaginative raises the following questions for each design element:
Signature
Outcomes
Process
Organization
Partnerships
Staff and Staff Development
Environment
Finance
Celebration
The metaphor for direction of the TYI is a camera with the ability to change the lenses of its organizational procedures to focus the resources of the institution and diffuse information to make impressions--wide angle to get a broader view of the context and environment, telescope for the future or to view other organizations, snapshot to take stock, and video to function in an ongoing environment. Each member of the learning community should have the same camera capacity. Being directive raises the following questions for each of the design elements:
Signature
Outcomes
Process
Organization
Partnerships
Staff and Staff Development
Environment
Finance
Celebration
The amount of information is doubling currently at about a rate of every 18-24 months. By the year 2010, that rate may be every three to five days (Noam, 1995). With extraordinary growth in information, institutions of higher education need to be able to respond quickly. How does an institution of higher education position itself to be responsive in the 21st century, moving from the Information Age into the Knowledge Age? Being responsive raises the following questions for each element in the design process:
Signature
Outcomes
Process
Organization
Partnerships
Staff and Staff Development
Environment
Finance
Celebration
Collaboration is a dynamic, mutually beneficial, and well-defined relationship entered into by two or more individuals or organizations to achieve common goals. The relationship includes a commitment to a definition of mutual relationships and goals, a jointly developed structure and shared responsibility, mutual authority and accountability for success, and sharing of resources and rewards. Collaboration results in easier, faster, and more coherent access to services and benefits and in greater effects on systems. Working together is not a substitute for adequate resources, although the synergistic efforts of the collaborating partners often result in creative ways to overcome obstacles. Being collaborative raises the following questions about each element of the design process:
Signature
Outcomes
Process
Organization
Partnerships
Staff and Staff Development
Environment
Finance
Celebration
Accountability involves meeting responsibilities and includes nuances that range from the explicit, but usually quite narrow, demands for specific accomplishments of goals or objectives as might be expressed in a planning document or contract to the implicit, diffuse, and usually unarticulated expectations that have their foundations in cultural traditions and mores that truly determine parameters for institutions and individuals. A metaphor that reflects the range of meanings for accountability may then be that of the iceberg with a tip visible on the surface that ostensibly can be approached in a straightforward manner, and a great hulk of the hidden, treacherous mass underlying the seemingly benign portion. Many a ship has been wrecked because it has not paid attention to or has misjudged the degree of danger lurking beneath the waves. Likewise, being accountable demands attention not only to explicit, but also to implicit expectations. Being accountable raises the following questions for each element of the design process:
Signature
Outcomes
Process
Organization
Partnerships
Staff and Staff Development
Environment
Finance
Celebration
Being resourced means ensuring that there are adequate financial resources to provide the desired characteristic for each element of the design of a TYI. It means that lack of funding is never the reason for not doing what is in the best interest of providing a quality learning experience. Financial resources are soon converted into the people, learning materials, equipment, and settings needed to create the desired learning experience. Resourcing has short- and long-term considerations and a revenue and cost side to the ledger. Being responsive demands a balance of prudence and risk taking, making the best of what is in place and having an entrepreneurial spirit to develop new ventures, making wise use and the best case for existing financial sources, continually seeking new sources, honing the efficiency of present systems and ways of doing business, and asking tough questions regarding entirely new approaches. Being resourced raises the following questions about each element of the design process:
Signature
Outcomes
Process
Organization
Partnerships
Staff and Staff Development
Environment
Finance
Celebration
Development of an appropriate set of design criteria for NDTYI was a significant element in the design process. These criteria guided the response to design specifications and the selection or development of exemplary new designs for the remaining elements of the design process. The resulting design criteria are grounded in a close examination of the context of TYIs in the United States--their problems, assets, opportunities, and aspirations. The selected criteria are that new designs be imaginative, directional, responsive, collaborative, accountable, and resourced. In the view of the NDTYI staff, if new institutional designs are responsive to these criteria in all of the criteria's dimensionality, the resulting institutions will have good assurance of being successful (perceived as doing a good job), valued (perceived as doing a job very worth doing), and used (perceived as a good investment by individuals and community).
Signature communicates our unique identity. Personal signatures are used when we take ownership and make promises. Institutional signatures come in the form of logos, seals, shields, and mascots. Signatures have been visible on the educational landscape since the Middle Ages (Barnard & Shepard, 1929). The seals associated with the ancient European colleges captured an identity that was rooted in the histories of these institutions (Lockmiller, 1969). We see the same pattern in the United States where institutional shields are used as symbols that connect modern institutions with their European past. The shield of the University of Chicago, shown in Figure 3, is but one of many examples of these academic signatures.
Those who know the history of the University of Chicago will be quick to point out that the Latin inscription, "Cres-Cat. Sci Entia Vita Exco-Latur," can be loosely translated as "science is the escalator to life" and that the true University signature is that of the Maroons--the fabled "Monsters of the Midway" of athletic fame.
In countless examples like that of the University of Chicago, we see the tension between a historical signature and the popular imagery that inspires the loyalty of students and alumni (Lee, 1992). In this tension, we see the signature's essence--an attempt to symbolically visualize an institution's unique identity. In its best form, the signature promotes identification with the aims, history, and culture of the institution. Signature is a powerful shorthand way to represent the college to its staff, students, and the public.
Signatures are not limited to seals and shields. They can also be bound up with the physical environment of the college. Location, architecture, and the built environment constitute anchors for perceptions of individuals and groups. The environment has durable connotations for individuals who have lived and/or worked in the institution (Thelin & Yankovich, 1987). The sum of their experiences is tied to settings, buildings, and rooms in ways that prompt instant recall of that aspect of signature. Much of the buil