Facilitating Student Success During an Economic and Technological Revolution Challenges,...
-
Upload
savanna-beadles -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of Facilitating Student Success During an Economic and Technological Revolution Challenges,...
Facilitating Student Success During an Economic and Technological Revolution
Challenges, opportunities, and a few ideas for your
consideration
August 6, 2012Selected slide materials from:George Mehaffy, AASCU, and
Howard Charney, CISCO systems
The Rapidly Changing Higher Education Environment
Economics– State funding support decreasing– Cost per credit hour increasing– Private sector involvement increasing
Technology and the Information Revolution– Amounts of information– Methods of information development– Methods of information dissemination
Accountability and assessment– Student learning outcomes
Smaller state appropriations
SE enrollment has increased
2006 2007 2008 2009 201010,000
10,200
10,400
10,600
10,800
11,000
11,200
Student headcount, Fall Semesters
SE State $/student declined
2001 20104,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Total state appropriation
$/studentheadcount
Price to Public Has Increased
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20080%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
Net tuition/FTE State Appropriations/FTE E&R/FTE CPI Index
Price/Cost gap
Source: Delta Cost Project IPEDS database, 1987-2008, 22-year matched set. Notes: Percent change since 1988 based on unadjusted dollar amounts. From the Delta project. Courtesy Jane Wellman
Spending v.State ap-prop
College cost - risen faster than CPI
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
350%
Public Four-YearPrivate Four-YearPublic Two-YearMedian Family IncomeCPI-UPrescription DrugsHousehold EnergyNew Vehicle
Cum
ulati
ve g
row
th s
ince
198
8
Unsustainable student debt
• Student loan debt now greater than credit card debt…
• More than $1 trillion this year…
• Average debt for those with loans is now $ 24,000.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/education/12college.html?_r=2
Private sector involvement
http://chronicle.com/article/A-Boom-Time-for-Education/131229/
Private sectors models that challenge status quo
1. The University of Phoenix - 450,000+ students.• Faculty: no tenure, Lower salaries, Lower
qualifications, No research
2. DIYU (Do It Yourself University)
3. Peer to Peer University - http://p2pu.org/en/
4. Udacity
5. EdX - http://www.edxonline.org/
6. Coursera - https://www.coursera.org/
7. Straighter line
8. Academic Partnerships – Randy Best and Associates
9. Open Learning Initiative – Carnegie Mellon University
10.Khan Academy
11.iTunes University
12.TED-ED (www.ted.com)
Rapid expansion in amount of information
More data was created during any 48 hour period last year then by all of humanity over the past 30,000 years.
By 2020, it will be every hour.
Howard Charney, Senior VP Cisco Systems, coinventor of ethernet, July 2012
Rapid expansion in data volume
If you get a person a fish….
The modern information analogy: If you give students current facts,
they know for a day If you teach students how to find,
create and manage knowledge, they know for a lifetime
Three primary information technology drivers:
Mobility of devices
Cloud storage
Video capabilities
Howard Charney, Senior VP Cisco Systems, 2012
Info is accessed by mobile devices
Source: The Economist
Exponential increase in easy & cheap data storage
1980 – 1 Gigabyte cost $200,000
2011 – 1 Terabyte (1024 GB) cost $100
Howard Charney, Senior VP Cisco Systems, 2012
Digital cameras: a lesson in technology and the information revolution
23 seconds to display the first digital photographs
Steve Sasson – inventor of the digital camera
1972 – BS; 1973 - MS; EE; Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
1975 – @ Eastman Kodak Company, assigned to build an electronic camera
1978 – granted patent for digital camera
2001 – first public disclosure of project
Eastman Kodak company
1975 – developed the digital camera
1976 – 90% market share of photographic film sales in the US
2001 – first public disclosure of digital photography project
2012 – filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy
Innovative disruptionDisruption comes from cheaper and simpler technologies that are initially of lower quality. Over time, the simpler and cheaper technology improves to a point that it displaces the incumbent.
Kodak is an example of a disrupted company.
Christiansen argues that technology, and especially the on-line course, is the disruption enabler in higher education.
Implications for faculty at Southeast
1. Facilitator of student learning vs lecturer
2. Different course delivery models
3. Changes in class configurations
4. Increased collaboration and partnership
5. Increased flexibility in course offerings
6. Increased need for measured student learning and
accountability
Changes in Course Models Cottage industry model – traditional model: everyone
designs his or her own course in isolation
Courses offered collaboratively
Private/public partnership model – universities partner with
private sector entities to jointly offer programming.
Purchased courses?– Straighter Line: $99 per course
student
Course Redesign (“Flipped courses”)
Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) – OLI, EdX, etc
Blended courses
Statewide collaboration initiativea new model for program delivery
Disciplines and Courses Teaching institution Partners Enrollment by institution
Enrollment total
Economics
Comparative economics Southeast Missouri State University (SE) 1. University of Central Missouri (UCM) 2. Northwest Missouri State University (NW) 3. Southeast Missouri State University (SE)
UCM - 10 NW - 4 SE - 10
24
Money, Credit and Banking
Northwest Missouri State University (NW)
1. University of Central Missouri (UCM) 2. Northwest Missouri State University (NW) 3. Southeast Missouri State University (SE)
UCM – 15 NW – 29 SE – 9
53
Econometrics University of Central Missouri (UCM)
1. University of Central Missouri (UCM) 2. Northwest Missouri State University (NW) 3. Southeast Missouri State University (SE)
UCM – 14 NW – 2 SE – 1
17
Environmental Science
Environmental Hydrology Lincoln University (LU) 1. Lincoln University (LU) 2. Southeast Missouri State University (SE)
LU – 10 SE – 14
24
Foreign languages
Methods for Foreign Language Teachers
University of Central Missouri (UCM)
1. University of Central Missouri (UCM) 2. Missouri Western State University (MW) 3. Southeast Missouri State University (SE)
UCM – 4 MW – 2 SE – 1
7
Survey of French Literature II
University of Central Missouri (UCM)
1. University of Central Missouri (UCM) 2. Southeast Missouri State University (SE)
UCM – 9 SE – 3
12
20th Century German Literature
Missouri State University (MSU)
1. University of Central Missouri (UCM) 2. Missouri State University (MSU) 3. Southeast Missouri State University (SE)
UCM – 5 MSU – 13 SE - 1
19
Physics
Optics Southeast Missouri State University (SE)
1. Southeast Missouri State University (SE) 2. Missouri State University (MSU) 3. University of Missouri at St. Louis (UMSL)
SE – 9 MSU – 10 UMSL – 12
31
Totals 8 courses 5 universities offering courses 7 partnering universities 187
Collaborationa new model for program delivery
Expert faculty send courses to partnering institutions
Students pay tuition at home institution
Students register at home institution
Students receive credit at home institution
Easy access to sending university instructional technology
Grades are recorded by faculty at home institutions
Faculty committees determine academic details
Increase efficiencyAverage class size
University goal: 26 by 2014
AY10 AY11 AY12
Series1 21.2 22.9 24.0
20.021.022.023.024.025.026.027.028.0
ave.
clas
s siz
e
SE Average Section Sizetrend analysis
Target SCHR - 2014(Credit Hours x Students)/Faculty FTE
College SCH
Education 307
Business 345
Health & Human Services 283
Liberal Arts 314
Science & Math 322
Polytechnic Studies 288
University 312
SCH generation per faculty FTE
University goal: 312 by 2014
AY10 AY11 AY12
Series1 82% 87% 90%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
% o
f SCH
R Go
al
SE SCHR Targettrend analysis
Winter intersessionA new model for program delivery
2011 2012
Courses 11 28
Students 262 665
Faculty 9 21
Faculty pay, average $5416 $7173
“Tuition” - salaries $122,361 $291,617
Characteristics:• One 3 credit course between fall and spring
semesters• 100% online• Managed course selection
Outcomes:• Accelerated student progress toward graduation• High degree of faculty and student satisfaction• No impact on subsequent spring enrollment• Revenue to offset appropriation declines• Increased faculty salary
Summer SessionA new emphasis
Expanded programming and offerings
72% online for 2012 Faculty salary based on enrollment No Pell funding 3 year degree plans?
Student learning outcomesassessment and accountability
Spring 2012 – written for every course
Fall 2012 – written and measured for every course
Faculty training provided this semester
2012 Financial Developments:
$750,000 addl. equipment allocation to
academics (+$250,000 college cost share)
Increased lab fee for specified courses
Increased professional development funds for
faculty
2% faculty raise (1.75%+.25%)
RNTT merit raise from $1200 to $2000
$80+ million in campus physical plant
improvements
~45 new faculty hires
Summary:
We are in a time of exciting,
revolutionary change in higher
education.
Southeast is proactively engaged in
these changes.
Faculty play a key leadership role
bringing these changes to the university
and into the classroom