November 23, 2015

I’ve been reading several articles that discuss the pros and cons of the new College Scorecard, developed by the federal government as a way to help parents and students make better decisions on the choice of a college education. Most of the articles I read note that while the Scorecard offers a vast amount of information, it has some limitations (Rothwell, 2015; Nichols & Santos, 2015). The data only cover students who received federal aid, which tends toward those who come from less advantaged backgrounds. This has been linked to future salaries. Another limitation is that the data is for an entire college system, thus, limiting its use for determining the performance of branches. Other limitations are that some salary data could be the result of institutional influence (Stewart, 2015), that data exclude institutions that do not accept federal aid (Chiaramonte, 2015) and data exclude students who do not receive federal funding. Considering these limitations, it would appear that only students who seek federal funding at the specified schools would benefit from including this data among other data in selecting a college or university to attend. I had to wonder if the Occupational Outlook Handbook had gone out of print. This book, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/ooh/), lists salary data for career fields and predicts the hiring climate. I highly recommend it as a resource.

When I heard about the federal government’s intention to publish a scorecard on our nation’s colleges and universities, I had to wonder if it was not only getting information into the hands of those who need it, but also a way for the government to say, “I’ll show you I mean business, so get your act together or I’ll shame you!” We know that the financial loans that student take out are causing a burden on them because they cannot afford to pay them back without depriving themselves of participation in their American dream of owning a home, car, enjoying a prosperous life, etc. We also know that this came to a head after we were plummeted into a recession that affected many people and caused hiring freezes and layoffs. So, the combination of these factors figure into the picture.

I’ve been wondering for a long time if the federal government would like to choose the careers of students for them so that they can go out and earn the kind of salary that would be acceptable to them. Is this a way, among others, of doing that? We’ve heard about the prospects for graduates in certain fields of study. The question becomes, should students choose a career based on how much money they will make or on how much passion they have for it? Take teaching, for example. Teachers do not get paid well, but may collect benefits that grow as their time in that field increases. Should we discourage students from wanting to be teachers by not funding that area of study? Should someone treat teaching like a regular job by firing underperformers and making room for potential good performers? Should someone breakdown career data – salary, tenure, college background, etc. – and present this to students as well? Should information on the potential influences be provided? We know that we can throw out data by itself, but that leaves out the proper context in which to view it. Is that fair?

If we were to list the most profitable careers for students, how long would it take that field to become saturated so that difficulty in hiring yet again surfaces? What do we do then? This is extreme, of course, and it’s meant to be. We have to ask ourselves if we are looking at the whole picture. Or are we looking at selective data and handicapping ourselves to yet another inadequate way of measuring college performance?

When I mentioned that I had done a dissertation on “tuning” early on, I knew that it would continue to be an important asset for colleges and universities. But not all of them have adopted this way of developing learning outcomes for their academic programs. The effort continues, however. This might not answer the salary debate, especially when it comes to choosing a career, but it helps answer the quality question. Are students receiving a quality education? What will they be able to do, understand, and know upon exiting college with their specific degree? While the learning outcomes are subject-specific, there are valuable transferable skills that students gain. So, just because a student studies subject A does not mean that she cannot follow a career in subject B, utilizing her knowledge and following her interests. She might decide to put off working in her field for now and pick it up later. There are too many scenarios to capture.

We can’t know every story that contributes to the data collected. So, sometimes we miss the hidden facts. Colleges and universities should focus primarily on educating students to the highest level. And they should help students understand the chosen field, what it has to offer, the positives, and potential drawbacks. This is probably the same old tune, sung by a new singer, but it bears repeating. Most of all, colleges are where students learn to become better thinkers and doers. They get to interact with a host of individuals who they might otherwise never meet. We could turn them into bare career colleges, but life is more than waking up and going to work. It is about opening ourselves to what we don’t know and didn’t know was possible. It is about exploring boundaries. Students learn how to learn. So, any attempt to shrink the experience down to money to be made should be resisted. Use as many sources of information as possible regarding career choice, with individual interest being an equal factor.

Resources

Chiaramonte, P. (2015, September 22). White House ‘College Scorecard’ shuts out conservative schools. Fox News. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/22/white-house-college-scorecard-pitches-shutout-conservative-schools/

Nichols, A. and Santos, J. L. (2015, September 29). Obama’s College Scorecard: Too little, too late? The Hechinger Report. http://hechingerreport.org/obamas-college-scorecard-too-little-too-late/

Rothwell, J. (2015, September 28). Understanding the College Scorecard. Bookings Institution. http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/09/28-understanding-the-college-scorecard-rothwell

Stewart, J. B. (2015, October 1). College rankings fail to measure the influence of the institution. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/business/new-college-rankings-dont-show-how-alma-mater-affects-earnings.html?_r=0

U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Education department updates college affordability and transparency lists. USDOE http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/education-department-updates-college-affordability-and-transparency-lists

Whitehurst, G. J. and Chingos, M. (2015, October 15). Deconstructing and reconstructing the College Scorecard. Brookings Institution. Evidence Speaks Reports, Vol. 1, #5. http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2015/10/15-deconstructing-reconstructing-college-scorecard-whitehurst-chingos

September 20, 2015

I’ve been hearing a lot about the federal government wanting to make community college free for students. The thought behind that is that education costs too much and leaves people deep in debt, so helping them get at least a 2-year degree or certificate would help them afford college. Federal money (translation: our money) would provide the funds to make this happen. Sounds like a good idea, right? This would help those who are struggling financially not struggle quite as much. Who could really argue with this idea?

Currently, a coalition is focusing on building the necessary momentum to make this goal a reality (Smith, 2015). Closing the skills gap by helping “Americans sharpen their skills and get credentials” would benefit the country and help it become the leader it once was in the world of education. However, according to this article, a survey of community college presidents showed that “39 percent felt their legislatures would back Obama’s free community college tuition plan with federal support. That number decreases to 13 percent without federal support.” So, if the federal government does not pitch in, where are these funds supposed to come from? Are the states, already strapped and cutting back higher education funding, expected to find the funds to make this a reality? Are the citizens of those states expected to step up and donate to the cause? Would private funds help make it a reality? Would all of the above combine to send more and more people to community colleges to obtain post-secondary training?

Let’s say that community college becomes free. Now what? Have we considered the high school graduation rate and how that will impact higher education? While it would be great to have free community college, not everyone will go that route. Some will want to go straight into a 4-year program or a different type of post-secondary institution (art and design schools, for example). Some might forgo college altogether and start working. Add this to the goal of trying to increase the number of college graduates as a whole and we have to consider the number of eligible high school graduates. Although 81% of high school seniors actually graduated in 2013, the college enrollment rate dipped to 66% (Roberts, 2015). The question is why? This article shows the graduation rates for high school and college that rank in the highest percentages and lowest percentages. The conclusion is that technology is not being harvested as well as it could be. The author focused on a speech given by Arne Duncan, who made several comments about higher education, mentioning “low completion rates and a lack of accountability.” He also spoke about utilizing technology. For this reason, the writer honed in on technology as “the best way to reach [] students, recruit new ones and consistently hit enrollment goals.” I’m not sure that is a legitimate leap. There is no one cure-all for what ails higher education. And technology can go but so far in reaching out to students. We need to make sure students have the thinking skills they need to survive in the world. Technology is only part of it; it would be one tool in a box of many tools.

Sometimes I wonder if we aren’t trying to make everyone want what “we” want, instead of accepting that some people do not want a college education and may not think that it would serve them any purpose, especially those who are fine where they are. A report published by the Center of Higher Education Reform at the American Enterprise Institute (2015) pointed out that while most of the survey respondents (1584 respondents reflective of the American population) said they thought “some education after high school was necessary today” and cited cost as a top reason for people not going to college. About 51% of the high school graduates in the sample and about 33% of those who had some college were satisfied with where they stood in terms of their education level. So, would there be an effort to help these folks see that college is worthwhile and push them toward something better than what they have now? Again, respect for a person’s choices is needed. But, showing them options is always a good idea. Then, they can make their own educated decisions.

I think it’s admirable to want to help people get an education so that they won’t be left behind in this increasingly technology-filled global marketplace. But we have to remember the individual and not just the lofty goals we want for everyone. In our race to take back the lead in terms of number of college graduates, let’s make sure we don’t head everyone down one path and forget that other paths are still necessary to have a balance. We still need mechanics to fix cars, plumbers to unclog sinks, farmers to grow our food, and countless others with skills that fill out society’s needs. Artists, writers, dreamers, and others also might not possess college degrees, but they still enrich our society with valuable contributions. Of course, technology can be harnessed in just about any field to improve efficiency, so some knowledge of technology might be necessary. So, I’m all for free community college and more affordable education as a whole, as long as we don’t get locked into a one-size fits all mentality that would put a damper on these efforts.

Sources:

Kelly, A. P. (2015, April). High costs, uncertain benefits: What do Americans without a college degree think about postsecondary education? American Enterprise Institute. https://www.aei.org/publication/high-costs-uncertain-benefits/

Roberts, J. (2015, March 31). America’s high school graduation rate and its impact on higher education. Collegis Education. http://collegiseduation.com/

Smith, A. A. (2015, May 1). Coalition emerges to help promote free community college plan. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com

One of the things I’ve heard about MOOCs, those free massively open online courses, is that they can help students obtain their degrees for much less money than from traditional means. They can use these courses to supplement ones they would take at an established college or university. Even the American Council on Education, a highly respected educational organization, has given its blessing to some of the courses it deems worthy of full credit. Here’s a question? It’s great that so many people are able to learn about a variety of topics for free, and even some can get a certificate for their efforts, but how exactly would these courses fit into a traditional program of study? Another question is Could enough of these courses be combined in order to constitute a full degree in a particular topic area? If so, how? These and other questions are being raised as the dive into MOOC-dom continues.

Bill Gates thinks that MOOCs could be good for students at 2-year colleges (Mangan, 2013). One thing Gates supports is the so-called flipped classroom, where students watch videotapes outside of class and do their homework in class, where the instructor can be there to help. Another suggestion is to use the MOOCs to free up space for more and more students to enroll and be served. He sees the MOOCs as freeing up time for professors to concentrate on more personalized teaching. That assumes that the majority of instruction is still lecture-based. Of course, we know that not every subject or every professor follows the same format. The freeing up of space for more students sounds good, as long as more students actually want to come and are not scared away by the prospect of taking on too much debt or have other reservations.

Where do students who want to follow a Catholic education fit in? Malesic (2013) writes in a commentary that MOOCs undermine a Catholic education because they do not “develop[] human dignity and promote[] social justice”. If the desire is to reach the poor, then “you have to go to them”, Malesic writes. “To educate anyone fully – addressing their moral and spiritual development as well as their intellect – teachers and students must be present to each other”. He also brings up how the personal connection helps students fit in their learning with the rest of their lives. A MOOC is seen as impersonal and there is no way to truly connect to it without some form of guidance.

It seems that many universities and their professors were eager to get on board with MOOCs. They saw this as a great way to reach hundreds and thousands of prospective students at a time. Of course, one question I have is – Who grades those papers, if there are exams and such? One professor who wrote an article on her early experiences into teaching a MOOC (when I find the reference, I’ll put it here) stated that the students are the graders. Apparently, students have to prove that they can peer evaluate by putting their skills to the test. They get a set number of chances to show that they are capable of this. But one glitch is that after so many tries, a student who is not capable can still be put into the peer evaluator pool. Hmmm. So, one of your peers is evaluating your work and that person hasn’t successfully proven that s/he is up to the task but you are supposed to trust that his/her evaluation in on the mark anyway? Hmmm. Questionable, right?

A question from the teaching side, besides not feeling confident that a real teacher is evaluating my work from an expertise point-of-view, is whether professors who contribute their work for free to this effort are undermining their own institution’s efforts. Sure, many institutions are on board with this effort. Students definitely win by being able to access lectures and such from professors who know their fields. They can get an awesome amount of knowledge at no cost. But does this “free for all” eat into their college’s or university’s bottom line? Could giving away for free what an institution pays you for and paying students pay for somehow cheapen your work? Of course, if the course in the MOOC world is accepted at the same institution where the professor teaches and students pay for that teaching, is it fair to make the students continue to pay for it when they can go online and pay nothing? Or maybe they’d have to pay a slight fee, a fraction of their tuition costs.

Will enrollments eventually be affected at traditional brick-and-mortar institutions if MOOCs can be assembled coherently to make up more and more of a “real” degree?

One of the topics that came up during the Tuning Symposium I attended in June 2013 in Indianapolis, IN was how MOOCs fit into Tuning or vice versa. After some debate, someone stated that perhaps they should be viewed as a resource. This seemed logical. They could be treated like other resources that professors find to help their students learn the subject matter. The professor of the course would have to ensure that the material from the MOOC met the requirements and criteria for the course, the tuned course, that is. And this makes sense.

But what if an entire course is accepted at a particular institution? And what if that institution’s program is tuned? Who decides whether the MOOC is a proper fit? Could a MOOC be tuned? That one is easy to answer. Yes, it could be tuned. But, the creator of the MOOC would need to be on board with tuning. And would s/he be willing to do such a thing? The goal of the Lumina Foundation and IEBC is to help more and more colleges and universities tune their academic programs. These MOOCs could be brought in line with tuning as long as the professors who provide these materials join the effort. But what’s the incentive to do so? The great thing about tuning is that the learning outcomes for a particular academic discipline are established.

What about students of these MOOCs who could not care less about getting credit? And who will assess the knowledge that would be decided from such a course? A fellow student who is not trained on the use of a learning outcome rubric? A student who has no degree in the field but has passed an evaluation test online so that s/he can grade papers? This is an area that might be undergoing some discussion or it might be premature at this point.

If students could eventually get a degree solely from piecing together MOOCs, where does that degree come from? Which institution of higher learning? Can any institution claim it since the courses come from several different institutions? Would a diploma just state “Coursera University”? Would this domain have to remain with the brick and mortar institutions? Probably so. Only a certain amount of the courses would be accepted into a program, just as if the student were transferring from another institution. This makes sense. But to know that fellow students judged the work instead of fellow professors who are experts in the area…would that change they way the course is viewed. I don’t know about you, but when I sign up for a course, I want to get the wisdom and evaluation from a person who has studied the area and knows a heck of a lot more about it than I do. If my fellow student is judging me and me her/him, which of us has that expertise the real professor has? Answer: neither of us does. That’s why we’re in the class in the first place. This obviously works for some courses and not others.

And then there is the actual evaluation. Essays. Multiple choice. Short answer. A variety of assessment techniques target different learning and expression styles. But what helps students understand material better? Choosing a, b, c or d? Or actually having the student write about the topic? Or a combination? Again, it depends on the subject area. Chemistry might lend itself better to multiple-choice questions, while English literature could have a written evaluation.

In my doctorate program, we wrote many papers. Most of our courses had a final project/paper that demonstrated to the professor that we understood the material we had learned. We analyzed, synthesized, integrated, and compiled coherent arguments. We posted answers to discussion questions to get our intellectual juices flowing and gain the perspectives of others in the class. We opened each other’s minds. We had small classes. They had to be. I could not see these as having thousands of students. It would be unwieldy, to say the least. Doctorate and master program courses are designed to challenge students beyond a multiple choice answer set. Otherwise, how do we know that they have a good understanding of what they are studying?

The saga continues.

References

Malesic, J. (2013, September 16). A Catholic case against MOOCs. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Mangan, K. (2013, October 3). MOOCs could help 2-year colleges and their students, says Bill Gates. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

In an article by John F. Ebersole, president of Excelsior College in Albany, NY, he brings out the difference between measuring mastery versus competency, especially needed now since more competency-based programs are popping up. Ebersole describes competency as what a person can do rather than what a person knows (mastery). Because a large number of employers have been underwhelmed by incoming new hires that seem to lack competency, they are dissatisfied with the academic programs from which these hires come. Understandable.

One of the strengths of Tuning is to ensure that students are assessed on the skills of their chosen field. The learning outcomes that are developed through this process include this aspect. So, competency-based programs could certainly be served by Tuning.

I recall a question posed to a representative of Western Governor’s University at the Tuning Symposium that was held in June 2013 in Indianapolis, IN. He was asked about the lack of disclosure on the school’s programs’ competencies. From the information provided on the school’s website, graduates seem to do pretty well after they are hired. So, the school must be doing something right. Perhaps the person who questioned the representative wanted to know what they were doing so that it could potentially be incorporated or at least compared to Tuning. Learning from others’ success is a good thing.

Whether more institutions actually demonstrate competency of their students remains to be seen. But having the definition of competency versus mastery clear for everyone is the important point that Ebersole is making. If you cannot reach a consensus on the definition, then the results cannot be expected to be comparable.

Reference:
Ebersole, J. F. (2014, July 25). Let’s differentiate between ‘competency’ and ‘mastery’ in higher ed. Inside Higher Ed.
http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2014/07/25/lets-differentiate-between-competency-and-mastery-higher-ed-essay?width=775&height=500&iframe=true