Policy implications for educational communications and technology programs in a digital age

Volume 57, Number 5 TechTrends • September/October 2013 47

W

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ellen S. Hoffman, Educational Technology, University of Hawai’I at Mānoa, E-mail: [email protected]

AbstractAt a time when higher education is being

pushed not only to increase efficiencies to pro-vide greater value and to innovate to meet new global challenges, processes of accountability and accreditation to demonstrate quality may be leading to conformance and a one-size-fits-all model of what institutions and programs should be. Further, in the public marketplace, rankings are increasingly viewed as key quality indicators not only for students and their par-ents in making educational choices, but to ad-ministrators who perceive these as important for their institutions’ futures and funding. The in-fluence of markets and accountability policy as increasingly major drivers of change impacting the field of educational technology are reviewed from historical and current perspectives. Lead-ership roles that the Association for Education-al Communications and Technology (AECT) and its members might develop in response to these expanding pressures are proposed which may lead to higher visibility for the field, greater policy advocacy, and new research agendas. In particular, the issues of quality assessments and

Ratings, Quality, and Accreditation:

Policy Implications for Educational Communications and Technology Programs in a Digital AgeBy Ellen S. Hoffman, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa

visibility are viewed for ensuring higher educa-tion programs in the educational technology field continue to provide excellence and value to future professionals.

Keywords: AECT, accreditation, account-ability, educational technology, futures, higher education, innovation, policy

Introductionith all the headlines in the popular press declaring the death of formal higher education institutions due to the rise of

e-learning and particularly freely available open courses, commonly called MOOCs, it might appear the future of traditional academic pro-grams is in jeopardy. If you accept that prem-ise, read no further. An article about where educational communications and technology (ECT)1 programs are headed probably has little relevance. According to the pundits, anyone will be able to learn anything at anytime with no college or formal classrooms needed (Barber, Donnelly, Rizvi, & Summers, 2013). Why leave

1 At least one of the problems we face is that we can’t even agree on the name of our discipline. This article uses one variant (educational communications and technology) to meet the needs of having a topic to discuss but does not make the claim this is the best or even most widely accepted. The intent is to cover the broad field represented by AECT.

48 TechTrends • September/October 2013 Volume 57, Number 5

home when top ranked universities are putting their courses online for free, even if that doesn’t earn you credit towards a degree? The whole concept of tuition, courses, credit hours and possibly even degrees will be something talked about fondly as the way it was “back in the good old days,” rather like dial telephones and vinyl phonograph albums. Unlike such out-of-date technologies, it would be hard to argue that education will disappear as learning can be argued to be a hard-wired hu-man imperative. Further, the need to ensure the socialization of individuals is a public necessity which in complex societies requires some level of formality and continuity, and the demand for higher education has been increasing globally (Altbach, Reisberg, & Rumbley, 2010; Sanyal & Martin, 2007). Yet, while the predicted total dis-ruption of formal education as we know it today may not be what happens. Are there consider-ations that the designers of academic programs should consider to be successful in a future heav-ily inundated with e-learning of all types? What will be the impacts of policy, accreditation, qual-ity indicators, and other external pressures not only on higher education institutions in general, but specifically on existing and planned pro-grams in our field? What have we learned about technology and education that may help us navi-gate these new conditions? What role should the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT)—the publisher of this journal—play in leading the efforts to meet this indefinable future?

Beyond the Disruption Hype If you are a regular reader of TechTrends, you are probably someone who recognizes that simplistic forecasts of severe disruption and technological determinism are implausible out-comes (Ceruzzi, 2005; Dawes, 1993; Geels & Smit, 2000). While extreme projections of aca-demic collapse may get a few futurists attention by the media and even big speaking fees, we are fully aware that education is a complex system and change is rarely straightforward, particularly where technology is concerned. As educational technology historians have pointed out, despite every claim in the past that some new technol-ogy, from film to television to computers, would revolutionize the way education is done, no tech-nology upstart has significantly changed the par-adigm of teacher and students within a formal learning setting covering what at least someone considers key content (Cuban, 2001). Even those arguing for major changes and cost reductions admit to the stability of higher education. “It is

easy, and wrong, to underplay the staying power and resiliency of colleges and universities—a les-son that history teaches us. We should avoid that mistake” (Bowen, 2012, p. p. 15).

A Brief History of Higher Education ChangeJust because formal higher education has

survived for centuries doesn’t mean it will per-sist unaltered. It is easy to look at recent decades of enrollment growths and continual capital improvements at many campuses to believe in the strengths and stability of the higher educa-tion enterprise (Cohen, 1998). A popular man-tra suggests that a teacher from 100 years ago could enter today’s classroom and not even no-tice change, although the ubiquitous presence of mobile digital technologies belies such an as-sertion. Further, it is little surprise that claims of disruption are marginalized in the ivory tower when these directly challenge the future jobs of faculty and persistence of higher education in-stitutions (DeMillo, 2011; Josephson, 2013).

But a longer review of higher education his-tory discloses major changes in disciplines, cli-entele, and the underlying technologies that sup-port our pedagogies (Altbach, Berdahl, & Gum-port, 1996; DeMillo, 2011). Outside pressures continually promote modification, including those based on federal legislation such as the U.S. Morrill Act of 1862, which pushed institutions from the classics to more pragmatic concerns in agriculture and the sciences, or the U.S. GI Bill of 1944, which led to massive new enrollments and opened institutions to a less elite student body. The push for greater scientific and technical ex-pertise in the mid-century twentieth century led to federal research funding through such agen-cies as the National Science Foundation and the rise of the great research institutions. Social pres-sures in the 1960s opened academia to new dis-ciplines with greater concerns for diversity and multiculturalism in both curriculum and per-sonnel. More recent trends may be less clear, but at least one that has impacted most institutions is the growth of databases and data management for administration and an accompanying growth in non-teaching personnel, including IT and data managers required by the ever-growing presence of technology in all facets of campus life and the globalization of information availability (Altbach, Berdahl, & Gumport, 2011). Rather than trying to predict the future, this article will examine some of the environmental pressures facing higher education now and po-tential areas for focusing response, with the em-phasis on impacts on ECT programs and leader-ship by AECT. The spotlight is on the U.S. policy


environment with the recognition that there are both similarities and differences in other coun-tries, but that change in higher education will ultimately result in global impacts (Altbach, et al., 2010; Sanyal & Martin, 2007).

Environmental Setting for Change While the upsurge of social changes that have arisen in the 21st century are beyond the scope of a short article such as this, one possible way to provide perspective is through the views of au-thor Douglas Rushkoff (2013), who refers to the current situation as “Present Shock,” the title of his recent book. He argues that we have shifted from a culture focused on trying to understand the future as we faced the new millennium at the end of 20th century, to one immersed in infor-mation and the now. He suggests this has led to a focus on instant results, impatience with long-terms plans, and even the decline of the narra-tives that are the glue for our institutions and values. Immediate profits are more valued than long-term growth and sustainability, complex scenarios are ignored (i.e., evidence of climate change), and the constant data flow inhibits the ability to make connections and deeper analyses.

Within this focus on the present, media at-tention has been drawn to such questions as the more immediate return on investment of a col-lege education that may no longer ensure life-long, high salary jobs, particularly as the aver-age student debt from college loans has climbed (Altbach, et al., 2011; Altbach, et al., 2010; Bowen, 2012). Since the late twentieth century, multiple reports and shifting requirements for accountability have placed growth of the nation-al economy and job readiness as a central value in the role of higher education. This economic concern has been exacerbated by the recent re-cession in which colleges have been pushed to examine issues of efficiency and the bottom line as funding growth not only slowed but in gen-eral declined.

While higher education may always have been a source of intellectual know-how for society, this was usually indi-rect; walled campuses express this sense of distance. Today, for better or worse, the inter-relationship between higher education and society, but more par-ticularly the economy, is direct. (Hazel-korn, 2012b, p. 9)

Academia continues to argue for the impor-tance of educational values beyond the econom-

ic, holding on to the narratives of the impor-tance of a well-educated populace for democrat-ic functioning in the Jeffersonian tradition and the importance of higher education in bringing individuals in contact with other cultures and ideas. However, in recent years these values have received far less public acknowledgement than the economic ones. Further, the public invest-ments in higher education are being reviewed with new pressures for efficiency, accountability and control to justify public spending and trust.

The focus on present is also impacting stu-dent and parent choices in college selection. These choices are made within an information network that is rich on instant data but not nec-essarily strong on suitable indicators for deci-sion-making and often influenced by the most recent trend-setting report, the catchiest adver-tising, or the most up-to-date rankings based on measures that may be unclear to the consumer. “Students are now much more focused on em-ployability as opposed to employment. They as-sess their choice of an institution and education programmes as an opportunity-cost – balancing the cost of tuition fee and/or cost-of-living and the career and salary opportunities” (Hazelkorn, 2013, p. 3).

Within these frameworks, and accompa-nied by rapid growth in ubiquitous and instant communications technologies that are expand-ing the reach of traditional academic programs, those disciplines that cannot show “relevance” and ability to bring in students are potentially at risk (Barber, et al., 2013).

Approaches to Accountability, Quality and Accreditation

In an era of increasing education account-ability and concerns with the value of higher education, institutions and academic programs are under pressure to ensure they deliver a qual-ity product. As outlined by Sanyal and Martin (2007), formal quality assurance in higher edu-cation today comes in the form of accreditation, quality audit, and quality assessment, with ac-creditation the most familiar and the focus of the U.S. policy model.

Formal Approaches: Accreditation and Assessment According to Sanyal and Martin (2007), ac-creditation is “the outcome of a process by which a governmental, parastatal or private body (ac-creditation agency) evaluates the quality of a higher education institution as a whole, or a specific higher education programme/course,


in order to formally recognize it as having met certain predetermined criteria or standards and award a quality label” (p. 6). This is most familiar as it is exercised by the six U.S. regional accred-iting agencies, empowered and loosely regu-lated by the federal government that determine which higher education institutions can legally award degrees (Council for Higher Education Accreditation, 2012). Accreditation can also oc-cur at the program level by designated profes-sional organizations such as the American Bar Association (ABA), Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), or the one most familiar to ECT programs, the Na-tional Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). Until 2010, AECT was an authorized specialized accreditor for programs in educational technology and media specialists within the NCATE arena (Hoffman, 2013; Per-sichitte, 2008). As with other quality assurance mechanisms, accreditation is meant to ensure social account-ability, academic improvement, institutional performance efficiency and effectiveness, value for money, and consumer protection (Singh, 2010). Singh further notes that accreditation less commonly deals with values, such as so-cial purposes like equity, social justice, and de-mocracy. Recent writings on accreditation note shifting emphases related to economic concerns, including recognition of the political nature of the process accompanied by competing concep-tions of quality, and power differentials among stakeholders who may hold these differing views of quality (Skolnik, 2010).

Quality assurance has become a rapidly growing concern in a context of ongoing change in higher education around the world. At the same time, defining and measuring quality usefully has become more difficult…. Today, “customers” or “stakeholders” have a considerable in-fluence in determining the perception and measures of quality. Fee-paying stu-dents, professional bodies, employers, politicians, and funding agencies are all voicing their particular expectations of what a degree or diploma should repre-sent. (Altbach, et al., 2010, p. 51)

Although accreditation historically focused on processes, inputs, and resources until the end of the 20th century, more recent trends are towards outputs, value added, mission ap-propriateness, improvement, relevance to the labor market, and a culture of quantitatively

data-driven assessment (Altbach, et al., 2010; Bardo, 2009; Brittingham, 2009; Skolnik, 2010). Accreditation is facing more policy scrutiny and increasing federal guidelines on reporting and conformance. And with these newer emphases have come revised definitions of the purposes with economic emphases, such as that by Mur-ray (2012). He proposed that the role of ac-creditation “is to assure that the standards that uniquely define institutions and programs are adhered to so that their increasingly high costs produce solid value” (p. 52). At the same time that accreditation and the accompanying assessment culture is pushed as a means of certifying quality, its critics have ar-gued that accreditation “may be unprecedented in its power to discourage innovation in higher education” (Skolnik, 2010, p. 12) at a time when rapid change may be needed. Christenson, best known for his writings on how technology will disrupt the existing higher educational model, argues against the conformance pressures of the accreditation model and the stability it creates because of the difficulties in measuring quality of higher education’s “product” (Christensen & Eyring, 2011). In a 2012 speech on “The Uses and Misuses of Accreditation,” Princeton President Shirley M. Tilghman focused on the issue of a narrow definition of assessment that relies on overly proscriptive measures of student learning. She pointed to an increasingly adversarial and ex-pensive process of documentation that insuf-ficiently acknowledges differing institutional missions, incorporates a limited view of higher education’s goals, and that constrains “innova-tion, creativity and improvement, even among institutions with a proven record of excellence in learning and teaching” (Tilghman, 2012). She raised the specter of a narrowly defined standard of learning outcomes that could become one-size-fits all following the “No Child Left Behind” approach of standardized testing now facing the nation’s public schools.

The Role of the Market The culture of assessment and accreditation plays an increasingly important role internally for institutions seeking to demonstrate quality as well as an unavoidable process given increased policy attention in the early 21st century. How-ever, for the public, accreditation is generally assumed as a given for higher education rather than a primary means for selecting institutions or programs. In a media-rich world, such formal mechanisms of evaluation may provide a basis for asserting higher education quality, at least at present in the U.S., but increasingly market


forces are playing an intensified role in higher education (Hansmann, 2012). What was once a market that had predomi-nantly relied on regional strengths and the pri-marily non-profit and public nature of its insti-tutions has shifted with the entry of new players at a national level and the growth of profit-mak-ing higher education using business models of advertising and branding along with technology as a driver for expanded mechanisms of instruc-tional design and delivery (Altbach, et al., 2010). In a world of intensifying social media and viral videos, attention focuses on the headlines about the newest online courses delivered through new partnerships between existing institutions and start-up high-tech businesses, the ever-present advertising by for-profit institutions operating at a national or even trans-national level promising student success, or the college ratings promoted by the national media, such as the U.S. News and World Report “best of ” series (colleges, pro-grams, graduate schools, etc.). Public attention in the present becomes focused on the continual barrage of “information” on higher education that may have limited relation to quality or out-comes. Rankings are used in many ways:

Politicians regularly refer to rankings as a measure of their nation’s economic strengths and aspirations, universities use them to help set or define targets mapping their performance against the various metrics, academics use rankings to bolster their own professional reputa-tion and status, and students use them to help them make choices about where to study (Hazelkorn, 2012a).

Recent revelations of gaming the data to in-crease rankings indicate these are having more impact than higher education might desire. Fur-ther, even in formal research studies attempting to show limited influence of ratings, findings in-dicate increased admission applications related to an increase in rankings (Bowman & Bastedo, 2009) and effects on the views of senior admin-istrators at other institutions based on these rankings regardless of other quality indicators (Bastedo & Bowman, 2010; Hazelkorn, 2012a). The importance of rankings has increased with the more recent annual international best uni-versities lists developed by such institutions as Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s Academic Rank-ing of World Universities (ARWU) beginning in 2003 or Thompson-Reuters Times Higher Edu-cation Times QS World University (THE-QS) in 2004 (Hazelkorn, 2011). As Hazelkorn (2012b) notes, the world-class research university is in-

creasingly the model by which all institutions are judged despite a recognition that diverse missions are required to support different stu-dent needs, equality of access, varied disciplin-ary foci, and issues of life-long learning ignored in the focus on completion rates.

The policy tension arises because the pressures of and responses to globalisa-tion and rankings are emphasizing elite forms of higher education, while the demands and needs of society and the economy are urging horizontal differ-entiation with wider participation and diversified opportunities (p. 4).

Considerations for Response – Four New Roles for Leading Forward In an education world caught between the requirements for conforming with accreditation pressures while also needing to be innovative to meet new market imperatives and competition, traditional higher education and the programs within it face competing challenges to maintain stability while rapidly innovating not previously encountered. Emerging and ubiquitous tech-nologies, new expectations for learning, and increased pressure for value have the potential to disrupt the system. As suggested by many of the authors examining the current change envi-ronment of higher education, the one thing that faculty cannot afford to do in this rapidly chang-ing higher education environment is nothing (DeMillo, 2011; Josephson, 2013). Action is re-quired both in terms of professional roles and in relation to the programs they manage. The challenge is deciding what actions to pursue when change is rapid and the future uncertain, and how to establish the leadership required to promote quality education. As a response to such competing demands, Christensen and Eyring (2011) proposed that success will require programs to seek continu-ous innovation within their unique mission. Many thoughtful proposals have been made with practical recommendations for innova-tion and about how technology and related new designs for learning can improve higher edu-cation, and ideally, lower costs while retaining value (some recent examples: i.e., Barber, et al., 2013; Bates, 2011; Bowen, 2012; Christensen & Eyring, 2011; DeMillo, 2011; Josephson, 2013; McCluskey, 2012; Salmi, 2009). Given the many recommendations for change and leadership, the remainder of the paper will avoid the sug-gestions made repeatedly by others and focus on


those that can be influenced directly by AECT and its members working individually and for collective action.

Program Quality and Assessment Accreditation and program review. Re-jecting the costs, time-consuming reporting and review, and proscriptive requirements of the formal accreditation process formerly used in NCATE reviews, AECT has shown leadership in developing new standards that allow institu-tions greater leeway to apply these within the diverse missions of their programs. Further, the standards not only reflect knowledge and skills expected from program completers but incor-porate the values and ethics that are key to pro-fessional success (Hoffman, 2013).

AECT has developed a formal endorse-ment process for higher education certificate programs to recognize their application of the AECT standards (Hoffman, 2013). A second program for graduate program recognition should come online this year. The requirements are designed to promote innovation and self-study rather than setting highly proscriptive protocols or arduous evidence requirements for applying. Programs are reviewed by peers with the intent of both receiving recognition as well as feedback for future efforts. Ideally the AECT standards can also be used by programs need-ing to meet formal accreditation or institutional review to show alignment, benchmarking, and program self-improvement.

Recognizing InnovationAlthough these standards-based awards ad-

dress a foundational level of accountability and outcomes, AECT members may consider future actions to examine other forms of recognition that are more focused on innovation and excel-lence. This could be something equivalent to the well-known Baldridge Awards in which pro-grams could apply but the focus is on evidence of quality, innovation, and continuous program improvement rather than a competition among member programs. This conforms well with rec-ommendations that higher education should set its own criteria rather than accept the rankings by outsiders such as U.S. News and World Re-ports (Hazelkorn, 2011). Such a process within AECT could be an alternative to rankings with greater emphasis on self-determined criteria that allow awards to reflect differing missions and goals for each program applying rather than set-ting the elite institutions as a standard for all.

New Roles for Research and DesignAECT distinguishes itself from other tech-

nology professional organizations by its particu-lar focus on research on educational technology and learning design and theory as that serves pre school, school, university, college, government, industry and all levels of learning. What makes this emphasis important at present are the many calls for new research to support the changing designs of instruction and the most effective and compelling uses of technology. What innova-tions in educational environments, particularly those in terms of design and technology sup-port, are working, and what should we mea-sure to ensure we understand why these work? For example, a recent white paper developed as the result of a national workshop sponsored by NSF made a series of recommendations on new models for post-secondary learning required to meet the challenges of the changing education environment, not only in higher education but all adult education settings (Josephson, 2013). This proposal, as well as others similar ones, not only align well with the general areas of interest to members, but could also serve as a focus for research and development for the field. While reporting and sharing research results by individuals has been the norm, the collec-tive of specializations and divisions of historical and emerging knowledge represented by AECT and its diverse global membership offer excit-ing opportunities to bring together researchers to pursue some of the proposed agendas, high-light and critique such white papers, and even to create new collaborations. Beyond encouraging research collaborations and perhaps new meth-odologies, AECT should also find ways to syn-thesize research findings in ways that appeal to practitioners and policy makers so those results have wider impacts. This could extend to hav-ing workshops that create the next generation of research recommendations or bring together practitioners and researchers to examine how research might be applied and scaled.

AECT and Public Advocacy In a higher education world increasingly im-pacted by market forces, AECT can add value to membership by being a public advocate for the field and its important contributions. As Daniel Willingham noted in his keynote speech at the 2012 AECT Annual Convention, the organiza-tion is well poised to contribute to important policy discussions and make significant con-tributions to the future directions of education


through its members’ programs and research. AECT has the potential to help enable a large-scale and highly public responses to current ed-ucational issues that are not possible by individ-ual faculty or departments alone. This involves a more concerted effort at marketing and brand-ing for the good of the whole, and a more visible public presence in social and political contexts. The promotions could involve more publicity for recognized programs, highlighting impacts of individual members who make significant con-tributions to society, spotlights on research and best practices, as well as the overall accomplish-ments of AECT. All the tools of marketing and outreach need to be explored and appropriately applied to gain greater visibility. Such visibility can also be applied to ensure the accomplish-ments and knowledge base are clear to policy makers and other public opinion leaders. This is a new kind of integrative leadership for our profession. Such promotional activities have not previously been a focus for the organization but other professional associations have begun to explore such directions. Beginning examina-tions of such outreach could be as simple as a se-ries of working groups to propose new outreach directions and could lead to a re-examination of the organization’s staffing and structures, but will also require discussions about strategic di-rections to obtain member support for such far-reaching redirections. Recent efforts to update the AECT web site, an increase the presence in social networking venues, and expanded pub-lic webinars are a step in the right direction but should be part of a more coordinated and more outward-looking campaign.

ConclusionsEven though we would like the serenity of

knowing, we can’t predict the future accurately which leaves gaping questions about appropriate actions and efforts. Even within AECT there is no consensus among members about where we are headed other than that change is inevitable and will impact us all.

Ultimately, the changes impact more than individual institutions; they will likely reshape the entire ecology of post-secondary learning. Like any ecological disruptions, not all species will survive, as new niches in the ecosystem are filled by species better suited to new condi-tions. (Josephson, 2013, p. 6)

While the proposals for evolving and defin-ing strong leadership for the field, for our pro-grams, and how we value them in society are included here are a start, it should be clear there is no consensus that these are the best directions or even indications these could get a majority of AECT members to support, but as change con-tinues we may need to be open to more extreme ideas and proponents of innovation both within and beyond the organization. Within the context of innovation impera-tives, ECT programs have potential to not only be survivors but become exemplars for what it possible. As noted by Persichitte (2008) in her examination of the history of ECT programs, “systemic change is inherent in the field” (p. 328). “Our field is a moving target and most of us, practitioners and academics, embrace this environment of continuous change” (p. 327). Design of effective and engaging learn-ing environments, a focus on outcomes in hu-man performance, and a deep understanding of technology for learning make ECT a stand-out for leadership in the coming higher education world. Given this historical foundation, AECT as an association which brings together the pro-fessionals and students who make up these pro-grams has the potential to have a deep impact on the future of the programs as well as higher education more broadly. A good start would be evolving the capacity of our future leaders and graduate students to: embrace program inno-vation within a quality paradigm; realize new roles in research and development; increase awareness of market forces; and work together in a concerted effort to raise the visibility of our contributions to influence policy-makers as well as education’s stakeholders more broadly.

Ellen Hoffman is a Professor and Chair of the Department of Educational Technology in the College of Education at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa and a member of the AECT Board. She has done extensive work converting older policy ideas about accreditation to a new process of endorsement for Knowledge Age educational technology program leadership in the world. In this article she lays out historical, economic, policy and innovation literature as foundations for an exploration of ‘quality control’ gestures in contemporary higher education systems through ac-creditation policy making and implementations designed for popular market thinking. She goes on to identify the knowledge, skills, values, and ethics underpinning a new AECT endorsement processes for higher education pro-grams, urging our profession to develop new roles for education technology-integrated leaders in innovation, research and design, and advocacy efforts.


ReferencesAltbach, P. G., Berdahl, R. O., & Gumport,

P. J. (1996). Higher education in Ameri-can society. New York, NY: Prometheus Books.

Altbach, P. G., Berdahl, R. O., & Gumport, P. J. (Eds.). (2011). American higher educa-tion in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges. Bal-timore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. (2010). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. Paris, FR: UNESCO & Sense Publishers.

Barber, M., Donnelly, K., Rizvi, S., & Sum-mers, L. (2013). An avalanche is coming: Higher education and the revolution ahead. London, UK: Institute for Public Policy Research. Retrieved from http://www.ippr.org/publication/55/10432/an-avalanche-is-coming-higher-education-and-the-revolution-ahead

Bardo, J. W. (2009). The impact of the chang-ing climate for accreditation on the indi-vidual college or university: Five trends and their implications. New Directions for Higher Education, 2009(145), 47-58. doi: 10.1002/he.334

Bastedo, M., & Bowman, N. (2010). U.S. News & World Report college rankings: Modeling institutional effects on orga-nizational reputation. American Journal of Education, 116(2), 163-183. doi: 10.1086/649437

Bates, T., & Sangra, A. (2011). Managing tech-nology in higher education: Strategies for transforming teaching and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bowen, W. G. (2012). The “cost disease” in higher education: Is technology the an-swer? The Tanner Lectures, Stanford University. New York, NY: ITHAKA. Retrieved from http://www.ithaka.org/sites/default/files/files/ITHAKA-The-CostDiseaseinHigherEducation.pdf

Bowman, N., & Bastedo, M. (2009). Getting on the front page: Organizational reputa-tion, status signals, and the impact of U.S. News and World Report on student decisions. Research in Higher Education, 50(5), 415-436. doi: 10.1007/s11162-009-9129-8

Brittingham, B. (2009). Accreditation in the United States: How did we get to where we are? New Directions for Higher Educa-tion, 2009(145), 7-27. doi: 10.1002/he.331

Ceruzzi, P. E. (2005). Moore’s Law and tech-nological determinism: Reflections on the history of technology. Technology and Culture 46(3), 584-593. doi: 10.1353/tech.2005.0116

Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of higher education from the inside out. Forum for the Future of Higher Education, 2012, 47-53. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ff1207s.pdf

Cohen, A. M. (1998). The shaping of American higher education: Emergence and growth of the contemporary system. San Fran-cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2012). 2012-2013 Directory of CHEA-Recognized Organizations. Washington, DC: CHEA. Retrieved from http://www.chea.org/pdf/2012-2013_Directory_of_CHEA_Recognized_Organizations.pdf

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Dawes, R. M. (1993). Prediction of the fu-ture versus an understanding of the past: A basic asymmetry. The American Journal of Psychology, 106(1), 1-24. doi: 10.2307/1422863

DeMillo, R. A. (2011). Abelard to Apple: The fate of American colleges and universities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Geels, F. W., & Smit, W. A. (2000). Failed technology futures: Pitfalls and les-sons from a historical survey. Futures, 32(9–10), 867-885. doi: 10.1016/S0016-3287(00)00036-7

Hansmann, H. (2012). The evolving economic structure of higher education. University of Chicago Law Review, 79(1), 159-183. Retrieved from http://lawreview.uchica-go.edu/page/vol-79-issue-1-winter-2011

Hazelkorn, E. (2011). Rankings and the re-shaping of higher education: The battle for world-class excellence. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hazelkorn, E. (2012a). The effects of rank-ings on student choices and institutional selection. In B. W. A. Jongbloed & J. J. Vossensteyn (Eds.), Access and expansion post-massification opportunities and bar-riers to further growth in higher education participation. London, UK: Routledge, forthcoming.

Hazelkorn, E. (2012b). Everyone wants to be like Harvard – or do they? Cherishing all missions equally. In A. Curaj, P. Scott, L. Vlasceanu & L. Wilson (Eds.), Euro-pean higher education at the crossroads between the Bologna process and national reforms (pp. 837-862). New York, NY: Springer.

Hazelkorn, E. (2013). How rankings are re-shaping higher education. In V. Climent, F. Michavila & Y. M. Ripolles (Eds.), Los rankings univeritarios: Mitos y realidades. Madrid, Spain: Editorial Tecnos.

Hoffman, E. S. (2013). 2012 AECT committee and division reports: Standards Commit-tee. TechTrends, 57(2), 18. doi: 10.1007/s11528-013-0640-6

Josephson, A. (2013). New technology-based models for postsecondary learning: Conceptual frameworks and research agendas: Report of a National Science Foundation-sponsored Computing Re-search Association Workshop held at MIT on January 9-11, 2013. Washington, DC: Computing Research Association. Retrieved from http://www.cra.org/uploads/documents/resources/rissues/Postseconday_Learning_NSF-CRA_re-port.pdf

McCluskey, F. B. W. M. L. (2012). The idea of the digital university: Ancient traditions, disruptive technologies and the battle for the soul of higher education. Washington, DC: Westphalia Press.

Murray, F. B. (2012). Six misconcep-tions about accreditation in higher education: Lessons from teacher education. Change, 44(4), 52-58. doi: 10.1080/00091383.2012.691866

Persichitte, K. A. (2008). Implications for aca-demic programs. In A. Januszewski, M. Molenda & P. Harris (Eds.), Educational technology: A definition with commentary (2nd ed., pp. 327-339). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rushkoff, D. (2013). Present shock: When everything happens now. New York, NY: Current.

Salmi, J. (2009). The challenge of establishing world-class universities. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Sanyal, B. C., & Martin, M. (2007). Quality as-surance and the role of accreditation: An overview. In J. Tres & Global University Network for Innovation (Eds.), Higher education in the world 2007: Accredita-tion for quality assurance: What is at stake? (2nd ed., pp. 3-17). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Singh, M. (2010). Quality assurance in higher education: Which pasts to build on, what futures to contemplate? Quality in Higher Education, 16(2), 189-194. doi: 10.1080/13538322.2010.485735

Skolnik, M. L. (2010). Quality assurance in higher education as a political process. Higher Education Management and Pol-icy, 22(1), 67-86. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/imhe/50310012.pdf

Tilghman, S. M. (2012). The uses and misuses of accreditation: Speech presented to the Reinvention Center Conference on Nov. 9, 2012. Retrieved April 10, 2013, Re-trieved from http://www.princeton.edu/president/speeches/20121109

Copyright of TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning is the propertyof Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed tomultiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Policy implications for educational communications and technology programs in a digital age

Education

Transcript of Policy implications for educational communications and technology programs in a digital age