 |
| |
Market forces are the lifeline for community colleges. The mission
of the community college is to provide student access to higher
educa- tion. Our heart is to respond to continually changing
market forces, or student and workforce demands. Our soul is
to give students every opportunity to succeed academically.
We thrive on these constant challenges because they contribute
to an extremely dynamic, innovative, and diverse academic environment.
Community colleges can pro- vide innovative leadership in teaching,
learning, and educational delivery systems. At the same time,
community colleges have some diametrically opposite challenges.
We are driven by market forces to be leaders in career education
and the use of technology in the classroom, and on another front,
we are driven by social forces to reduce the achievement gap
that exists for black and Hispanic students, as com- pared with
the college majority.
|
|
|
Bernadine
Chuck Fong
President, Foothill College
SUSE PhD.’83 fongb@fhda.edu
|
|
Foothill College was one of the first
to offer online classes for credit. We developed our own course
delivery system before commercial products were on the market.
We currently have four A.A. degrees and 150 courses totally
online, in a web-based format. We also have online counseling
and tutoring. Foothill has a team approach to learning for students
in math and English, in which students work with fellow student
team leaders to improve their performance. The majority of these
students are black and Hispanics. The program has had remarkable
success in helping us reduce the achievement gap.
We foresaw the convergence of biotechnology and information
technology and we started a bioinformatics program, one of the
first in the country to do so. Changing market forces have stimulated
our ability to innovate and create and have made for an extremely
dynamic learning environment, not only for students, but for
our faculty as well.
|
Market forces are providing
a wakeup call for America’s colleges and universities.
Traditional institutions compete vigorously with each other
and extend their reach via joint ventures and distance learning.
For-profit universities erode margins in profitable market niches.
The monopolies previously afforded place-based faculty, libraries,
and facilities no longer forfend competition, and they will
never do so again.
The new competition will force changes in how departments approach
teaching and learning. For example, the idea that excellence
in research implies excellence in undergraduate education will
not stand the test of the marketplace. Already the distance
education and joint venture arms of traditional universities,
and all for-profit universities, are demonstrating that research
is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for educational
prowess. While research can be helpful, such prowess requires
an organized and comprehensive set of activities dedicated to
improving and assuring educational quality. |
|
|
William
F. Massy
Professor Emeritus,
SUSE & GSB
Former Director of Stanford Institute on Higher
Education Research (SIHER) massy@stanford.edu
|
|
|
My research for the National Center for Postsecondary Improvement
(NCPI) shows that traditional departments fall short on these
"education quality processes." They address curriculum
design and course development but shortchange the determination
of educational purpose, the design of teaching and learning
processes and student assessment measures, and the assurance
of implementation quality in the face of countervailing priorities
and distractions.
My research also describes how the maturity of a department’s
education quality processes can be audited. Experience outside
the United States shows that such audits can be effective tools
for quality improvement as well as accountability—and thus
a powerful competitive weapon in higher education’s global
marketplace.
|
Market forces have changed
the organizational context of teaching and learning. Over the
past three decades, higher education has experienced successive
waves of resource constraint, increased accountability demands,
and elevated expectations to meet diverse student needs. Research
universities and community colleges alike have been challenged
to reshape their academic landscapes. Among the more visible
responses, they have eliminated or merged programs, and they
have launched new academic ventures that promise to improve
their competitive position in specific student, faculty, or
research funding markets. Wherever they focus, generating revenue
and cultivating new revenue sources are priorities. Although
this has been unsettling for some traditional academics, the
institutional payoff has been substantial, yielding increased
discretionary resources that can be used for innovative projects
or existing programs that have little currency in today's marketplace.
Perennial questions about undergraduate education occupy center
stage: What range of academic programs is desirable and sustainable
given shifts in consumer demand? What models of general education
are effective in an era of resistance to a pre-selected sampling
of knowledge? What experiences enable students to be thoughtful
and critical in encountering new subject matters and contemporary
issues? |
|
|
Patricia
J. Gumport
Associate Professor, SUSE Director
of Stanford Institute of Higher Education Research
(SIHER)
Executive Director of National Center for Postsecondary
Improvement (NCPI)
SUSE Ph.D. ‘87 gumport@stanford.edu
|
|
| Campuses are considering alternatives
for what and who will teach against the backdrop of new enrollment
patterns. Nationwide, students are choosing discrete courses
and certificates and even enrolling at more than one institution
at a time, resulting in transcripts with lit tle to no coherence.
Rather than bemoaning this state of affairs as a less than optimal
learning experience, academic professionals need to pro- vide
information and incentives to help students achieve their short-
term earnings goals while enhancing their longer-term development
as intellectually and socially productive citizens. |
