Recently in blog entry Category

The Higher Ed Redesign Initiative--a developing collaborative venture of the Midwestern Higher Education Compact (MHEC), the Jandris Center for Innovative Higher Education, and the College of Design--explores ways to transform higher education to meet the needs of students, the workforce, and society. The project is founded on "design thinking for social innovation," which employs design tools to create new prototypes to address persistent problems in higher education.

A hands-on design thinking workshop was held on October 11, 2012 where participants learned about the design process and applying it to create more equitable, affordable, and high quality higher education. The following article was posted in the MN Daily highlighting this event.

Design thinking re-envisions higher education
Students and faculty collaborate to fix issues in higher education
by Emma Nelson

"There's pretty strong interest in the idea that this old order is ending here in terms of what higher ed looks like," said David Weerts, co-director of the University's Jandris Center for Innovative Higher Education

The center -- part of the College of Education and Human Development -- spearheaded the initiative and is partnering with the College of Design and the Midwestern Higher Education Compact.

The initiative is an effort to use design thinking to re-imagine different aspects of higher education that are often taken for granted.

One-hundred people attended the event and more than 50 were on the waiting list, Weerts said. Participants split into 12 groups, and each worked on one of four challenges.

Read full MN Daily article.

Leading Change in Turbulent Times

The higher education landscape is changing rapidly as economic, political, and technological forces reshape purposes, policies, and practices in higher education. University of Minnesota students and alumni reflected upon their past and current experiences in leading change in higher education. The panelist: Geraldine Evans, Lisa Helmin Foss, Thomas Ries, Donovan Schwichtenberg also provided their perspectives on the future of higher education and what leaders can do to guide colleges and universities through these turbulent times.

To listen to the webinar please click here.

Strengthening the University of Minnesota as an Engaged University: Community Perspectives by Brynja Gudjonsson.

Yesterday the Office for Public Engagement hosted an event focused on bringing together a panel of community experts at the University of Minnesota McNamara Alumni Center to discuss ways that we can encourage and foster stronger partnerships between local community organizations and the University. Present were community specialists from around the city of Minneapolis. The five community experts were Elder Atum Azzahir of Cultural Wellness Center, Dr. Eleanor Coleman, Board Chair of the University YMCA, Ms. Amy Libman Director of Support Services, Minnesota Internship Center Charter High School, Ms. Haila Maze, Principal Planner for the City of Minneapolis, and Ms. Susan Gust, Community Activist and Small Business Owner. All of these women have extensive experience in working collaboratively with the University on projects that have long term benefit to Minneapolis communities. Their projects have encompassed such things as creation of the ReUse Center, developing teaching and tutoring opportunities for college students to work with high school students, developing leadership and coaching programs that strengthen partnerships between parents, students and educators for academic success, and the Cultural Wellness & Community Health. The panel was moderated by Dr. Heidi Barajas the Executive Director for Urban Research and Outreach Engagement Center & Associate Dean for Engagement, Diversity and Undergraduate Programs in the College of Education and Human Development.

One of the most striking topics during the conversations was the distance that the community representatives felt from the University faculty and project managers. Often when the University engages in research partnering with communities it is for a limited time and the needs of the community may be overlooked. The presenters noted that at times they felt overwhelmed and underprepared to advocate and interact with faculty. They further noted that they often had the feeling of being studied without the ability to share input. There was some discussion of the difference between community engagement and outreach, where outreach was provider directed and unidirectional, and engagement points to a collaborative process.

All presenters noted that the successful partnerships brought the communities and the University into mutually rewarding collaborations. The ability to work in the community is a unique and valuable part of the the land grant university mission that helps to strengthen research and teaching at the University. The value added to the undergraduates who enter into the surrounding environment is to not only help the neighborhoods, but also provide experiences for students who may have previously had cloistered cultural and academic experiences.

For more information on public engagement at the University of Minnesota, please go to www.engagement.umn.edu

Friday, March 23rd, Noon to 1:30 p.m. This webinar helps participants prepare submissions to the Department of Education for their programs and strategies leading to college completion. Hosted by the Jandris Center for Innovative Higher Education. Register for the free event at http://collegecompletion2012.eventbrite.com

The Jandris Center for Innovative Higher Education presented a webinar on December 3rd, 2011 featuring Mitch Pearlstein of the American Experiment and Harry Boyte of the Center for Democracy and Citizenship The event was facilitated by Dr. David Weerts of the Jandris Center for Innovative Higher Education. The webinar addressed the question, "What is the role of higher education in a thriving democracy?" University of Minnesota graduate students in Dr. Weerts' Public Policy and Higher Education class attending in person and participants attending virtually were able to interact with the presenters and pose questions.

The dialogue between the presenters was of particular interest because of the different lenses through which Mitch and Harry approached the topic of higher education and democracy. Mitch spoke of the need for higher education to respond to globalization, family collapse and market forces. Globalization requires every individual to bring some skill to the table, so education should be equipping each student with a skill that is in demand in the marketplace so our democracy can be economically competitive on a global scale. Conversely, Harry talked about the politics of knowledge and detached versus engaged teaching pedagogy. For Harry, both what we teach and the way we teach must be addressed in order to free the powers and talents of everyone and help them develop into engaged citizens.

Toward the close of the conversation, I was thinking about the many different approaches to changing higher education so as to better serve our democracy, which seemed to fall in to two categories. In my notes I wrote in large bold print, "Change the Students OR Change the System." Put that way, it seems obvious which category of solutions should be preferable - change the system to better serve the needs of both the students and the democracy.

A perfect opportunity has been created by the Department of Education to share promising and practical strategies to increase postsecondary success, transfer, and college graduation. The U.S. Department of Education announced at its College Completion Symposium I was attending in DC and posted to the Federal Register on January 30, 2012 a Request for Information (RFI) for any person or organization to share with them strategies for increasing college completion that may then be made available through a special web site created by the Department. Submissions received by April 30, 2012 receive priority consideration for dissemination. Click on the following web link for the complete announcement published in the Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/01/30/2012-1963/promising-and-practical-strategies-to-increase-postsecondary-success#p-3

It is important in the submission to stress the unique features of your activity or program. For example, while many schools have a tutoring or mentoring program, what is novel about yours? How are your credit-hour courses different than others? These are some of the questions the RFI asks for the submissions to address.

The Jandris Center for Innovative Higher Education (http://cehd.umn.edu/jandris/) based at the University of Minnesota has volunteered to provide several free hour-long webinars in the near future to share suggestions for completing a submission with examples from others that have already have or in process of completing their document. Announcements about these webinars will be posted to this Jandris Center blog and website. Based on the regulations from the published announcement in the Federal Register, click on the following web link for suggestions by a Jandris Center staff member for the submission: http://www.besteducationpractices.org/storage/pdf-documents/Summarized%20RFI%20Announcement.pdf

For more official information and technical assistance with the submission, contact Dr. David Soo at the Department of Education, (202) 502-7742, david.soo@ed.gov Information about the Jandris Center is available at http://cehd.umn.edu/jandris/

By David Weerts, Jandris Center Co-Director.
The other night I had the President Obama's State of the Union speech in the background as I got our kids ready for bed. The phrase that jumped out and took my attention away from putting pajamas on a two-year old was, "Let me put colleges and universities on notice. If you can't stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down." A very bold (some may say refreshing?) and aggressive statement I thought. President Obama's words referenced his points about higher education as an economic imperative, and that college and universities have an important role to play in the future of the country. In short, he argued that colleges and universities must do their part to keep college affordable rather than the government simply "subsidizing skyrocketing tuition."

So what should college and university leaders do with the President's warning?

It seems that the narratives about college costs are set in stone and may change little given the entrenched thinking about higher education among key stakeholders. The basic dilemma is what the former National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education called the "Iron Triangle" (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2008). In short, college leaders argue that reducing tuition (without increases in appropriations) will diminish quality and access. From this vantage point, legislators are the villains keeping higher education out of reach. But state officials disagree, providing new evidence about institutions that are making gains in cutting costs while improving learning.

On top of these challenges is the issue of demand elasticity. Flagship institutions like the University of Minnesota have enormous demand which makes tackling the cost issue more difficult. If nearly 40,000 applicants apply for 5,000 undergraduate seats, some would say, "Why not charge what the market will bear?" With prestige maximization being the goal for many institutions, being a "bargain college" is not at the top of the list for most college and university presidents.

So what can be done to influence institutional behavior?

It seems that what President Obama might have added is that higher education is in a crisis-- a "lack of imagination crisis." Had Henry Ford thought about transportation like college leaders think about higher education, he likely would have focused on creating faster horses rather than revolutionizing the transportation industry. Higher education could take a lesson from Ford. All higher education stakeholders--state leaders, presidents, faculty, and students--must first disrupt their current mental models about forms and structure of higher education. Instead, attention must be paid to envisioning preferred outcomes for the country (economic, civic etc.) and how higher education can become an instrument to achieving these outcomes. It is through this lens that innovative solutions about financing higher education may emerge.

Here at the Jandris Center we hope to create a community of "Henry Fords"-- an imaginative, dynamic community of problem solvers committed to designing a high quality, affordable, and accessible system of higher education for future generations. In the years to come, the focus of our work will be on challenging participants to think differently about long-standing higher education problems such as college affordability. The emphasis will be on building new prototypes that could be tested in policy and practice. There are plenty of challenges ahead and we hope you will join us in this endeavor. Stay tuned for more updates!

Suggested readings:
Archibald, R. B & Feldman, D., H, (2008). Explaining increases in higher education costs. Journal of Higher Education, 79, 3 268-295.
Ehrenberg, R. G., (2002). Tuition rising: Why college costs so much. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mumper, M. (2001) The paradox of college prices: Five stories with no clear lesson, In Heller, D. E., (ed). The States and Public Higher Education Policy: Affordability, Access, and Accountability. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
Winston, G. C., (1999). Subsidies, hierarchy, and peers: The awkward economics of higher education. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 13(1), 13-36.
The Iron Triangle: College presidents talk about costs, access, and quality. (2008) National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education: San Jose, CA http://www.highereducation.org/reports/iron_triangle/IronTriangle.pdf

There has been an explosion of mobile tablet computers over the past few years. Whether it be the Kindle, Android, or the Apple iPad, never has it been so easy and accessible to read and consume media through such a light-weight and heavy-featured device. Many of the devices will be given during this holiday season. I have compiled my favorite 300 apps for the Apple iPad.

You are welcome to view the short annotated directory by clicking on this link.

They are a mix between ones for personal enjoyment as well as those directly tied to learning technology for the classroom. With the iPad2, everything that can be viewed on the iPad2 can now be seen by the entire class through a video projector.

I am using the iPad not only for personal use, but also as an enhancement for classroom learning with my introductory global history device. During spring term, everyone in my global history course will have an iPad and we will use it in a variety of ways. I will make more reports on its uses and limitations through this blog as well as through reports released through the Jandris Center website section on mobile learning.

There has been considerable conversation on the Internet recently about the decision of Ohio to eliminate most or all developmental-level (they use the outdated term "remedial"). The state hopes students will take the necessary courses at a (hopefully) nearby community college. Listening to the leaders in Ohio and other states talk, you would get the impression that the offering of developmental-level courses is a rather recent invention. Actually, tutorial programs have existed on the college campuses when they began as early as the 1700s. Harvard University was the first institution to offer developmental-level courses in the late 1800s and other colleges -- public and private -- quickly followed suit. While the White students attending college in the 1800s might have been coming from families of wealth and influence, their academic preparation was weak in English, math, reading, or some combination of the three. Colleges had to offer developmental-level courses to provide a chance for success for these students.

Although learning assistance has been a significant and sometimes controversial element in higher education, it is underreported by many historians of postsecondary education. Developmenatl-level courses are just one example of learning assistance. Others would be tutoring, mentoring, drop-in learning centers, study skill workshops, and the like.

A review of the professional literature demonstrates that some higher education historians ignore and others lightly record histor­ical events concerning learning assistance in U.S. postsecondary education. Although the learning assistance community has published numerous articles, dissertations, and monographs (Lundell and Higbee, 2002), those writing broad histories of higher education in the United States have paid little atten­tion to this area and the students involved (Arendale, 2001, 2002a, 2002b; Brubacher and Rudy, 1976; Lucas, 2006; Jeynas, 2007; Rudy, 1996; Stahl and King, 2009).

A review of this component of higher edu­cation documented that many students throughout U.S. history were involved with learning assistance activities such as academic tutoring, enrollment in remedial or developmental courses, and participation in learning assistance cen­ter services. At times, learning assistance programs involved more than half of all college students at an institution (Canfield, 1889; Ignash, 1997; Maxwell, 1997; Shedd, 1932). The lines become blurred as students simultaneously enroll in courses at the developmental and college level in different academic subjects. Academic preparedness is not a characteristic of the student; rather, it is a condition relative to a particular academic course during the same academic term. It is inaccurate to designate students as "remedial" or "developmental," for they may be competent or expert in one academic content area and need­ing learning assistance credit and noncredit services in another.

Kammen (1997) provides an explanation for underreporting the history of learning assistance, identifying "historical amnesia" as a potential cause. Quoting Ralph Ellison, he says, "Perhaps this is why we possess two basic ver­sions of American history: one [that] is written and as neatly stylized as ancient myth, the other unwritten and as chaotic and full of contradictions, changes of pace, and surprises as life itself" (p. 164). Distortions of memory occur for a variety of reasons, not only for cynical or manipulative motives (Kammen, 1997). The researcher engages in a long discussion concerning the similarities and differences between the "heritage syndrome" and true history: "The her­itage syndrome, if I may call it that, almost seems to be a predictable but cer­tainly nonconspiratorial response--an impulse to remember what is attractive or flattering and to ignore all the rest. Heritage is comprised of those aspects of history that we cherish and affirm. As an alternative to history, heritage accen­tuates the positive but sifts away what is problematic. One consequence is that the very pervasiveness of heritage as a phenomenon produces a beguiling sense of serenity about the well being of history" (p. 220).

Acknowledging the role and importance of learning assistance presents uncomfortable statements about higher education:

1. Academic bridge programs are necessary for many students to adjust to a college environment for which few are prepared academically or emotionally.


2. Developmental-level courses were necessary for the White students from priveledged families in the 1800s due to poor academic preparation.


3. Student subpopulations today other than the most privileged often need academic support systems to increase their chances for success resulting from dis­advantaged and deprived backgrounds. The same reason developmental-level courses were offered to White students of affluence in the 1800s is now denied to underrepresented and first-generation college students.


4. The need for learning assistance indicts the efficacy and effectiveness of ele­mentary and secondary education, especially in under-funded public schools in rural or urban areas..

Scarce financial resources and personnel are necessary to meet the needs of students who are academically underprepared. Some students who drop out of college could have been retained through an effective learning assistance program.

Lack of knowledge about the history of learning assistance also contributes to current challenges for the field. For example, it is easier to curtail or eliminate learning assistance activities (especially developmental-level courses) if its historic importance for support and access to postsecondary education is not understood. As explored in the next chapter, learning assistance was an essential asset for colleges to support student achieve­ment and persistence. During the current period of financial emergency con­fronting many institutions, nonessential services are subject to reduction or elimination. It is not a surprise what Ohio higher education is doing since half a dozen other states have already enacted similar policies. Access to college just became that much more difficult for the "new" students to higher education.

• Arendale, D. R. (2002). A memory sometimes ignored: The history of developmental edu­cation. Learning Assistance Review, 7(1), 5-13.
• Arendale, D. R. (2002). Then and now: The early history of developmental education. Research & Teaching in Developmental Education, 18(2), 3-26.
• Kammen, M. (1997). In the past lane: Historical perspectives on American culture. New York: Oxford University Press. Keeling, R. P. (Ed.). (2004).

The Hamilton Journal-News reported by 2015 nearly all remedial (also called developmental level) courses would be eliminated at public four-year colleges in Ohio. "The nearly 40 percent of college freshmen in Ohio who are not ready for college-level work will take most of their remedial courses at community colleges under a statewide plan that dramatically changes how four-year schools provide instruction to those needing extra help." The newspaper reporter stated, "Ohio is following a national trend that critics say could limit access to the four-year degrees many need for high-paying jobs. Some fear it may discourage some students from attending college at all." State education leaders, at least those at the four-year institutions, said the long-term solution was for elementary and secondary education to do a better job. "By the end of 2012, university and college presidents must develop standards of what it means for a student to be "remediation free."

Critics of the plan said "A lot of the students who need remediation are the same students who have already been marginalized by the system because they attended the worst high schools and are the least prepared," said Tara L. Parker, a University of Massachusetts professor who studies developmental education. "There is no evidence community colleges do remedial courses any better or cheaper."

The "Ohio Solution" is the same one that has been talked about since the mid 1970s with the "Nation At Risk" report. Elementary and secondary education must do a better job. Better articulation agreements need to be developed between secondary and postsecondary education. An endless number of education commissions made up of leaders from K-12 education, postsecondary education, corporate world, public advocacy groups, and the rest have been talking and experimenting for years to make "this problem" go away.

It appears the intense fiscal pressures facing public four-year colleges due to decreasing financial support from state government has renewed the desire to "save costs" and eliminate remedial or developmental-level courses. State officials claim offering these courses at the four-year public four-year colleges costs $130 million annually. While to the average taxpayer this seems considerable, what is the combined budget for these public colleges? National studies on this issue report the funds devoted to offering these courses is between one and five percent. Most faculty who teach these courses are part-time and paid considerably less than full-time and especially tenured faculty members at the same four-year institution.

The "Ohio Solution" has been implemented previously in many other places. They all share the same problems with achieving their stated goals:

1. Changing K-12 education curriculum does nothing to meet the needs of returning adults to education. While their exit from high school might have given them adequate skills for immediate entry to college, the long period out of school has led to atrophy of their skills and need for basic level instruction to bring them back to college-readiness.


2. Even if a school district wanted to change its curriculum, if it has less economic resources and located in a poverty zone, how can it be expected to do the same level of quality as the better-funded suburban schools?


3. Changing K-12 education curriculum does nothing for the students who are not enrolled in rigorous college-bound curriculum. Some students and their parents have other future plans that initially do not include college. Maybe they plan to begin a family. Maybe attend a trade school or continue in the family business. Do we want to only have one track choice for students in high school?


4. Changing K-12 education curriculum does nothing for the students who do not fully focus on their classes, read their textbooks with great intensity, and complete all homework to perfection. If everyone earned A's in their classes, achieved to highest level of proficiency with all high risks tests, and in general, were "on task" all the time, they might not need the developmental-level courses. Assuming that they immediately enter postsecondary education immediately after successful completion of high school. With skyrocketing tuition costs, family members out of work or working low-wage jobs, and difficulty for high-school students to earn much at part-time jobs that now are sought by the out-of-work adults, it is not so easy to immediately attend college. Some have to earn some money first.

A wise person once said, "complex problems require complex solutions." The "Ohio Solution" fails on this account.

David Arendale, Associate Professor and Co-Director of the Jandris Center for Innovative Higher Education, University of Minnesota. Post comments to this blog or contact the author directly at arendale@umn.edu

A recent blog posting from "College Bound", reported some familiar statistics, while 84 percent of high-income students enroll in college in the fall after high school, just 54 percent of those from low-income families go on to college, according to 2009 National Center for Education Statistics data. Poor students go to college at lower rates than wealthy students did 30 years ago. By age 24, young adults from high-income families are 10 times more likely to earn a bachelor's degree than those from low-income households. The authors asked, "What changes should be made to improve the landscape?"

The logical response, that it is mostly about increasing financial aid (more grants than loans), diverts from the bigger issue of the social capital these low-income students lack. Probing further reveals that a large percentage of these "low-income" students are first-generation college, students of color, attended rural or urban school districts, and a variety of other factors. The answer to the question "what changes should be made...?" leads to a larger critique of higher education beyond just making some more money available. What changes do higher education institutions need to make to become more welcoming learning environments rather than focusing on the "deficits" of money. All institutions need to have a welcoming and supportive environment: trade school, community college, four-year liberal arts, and research-intensive universities.

Questions to ask of all institutions include:

• What sorts of faculty development programs do they have that provide comprehensive and ongoing efforts to enable them to embed best practices of Universal Instructional Design into their courses? How are they building in academic supports in the class rather than just passing them off to someone else?


• How high of a priority has the institution placed on raising more funds for grants targeted for students from low SES backgrounds? Are these funds keeping up with the dramatic increases in tuition and other costs associated with college?


• How comprehensive are learning assistance activities for students? Are these provided through both credit and noncredit venues? Are exit competencies in developmental-level courses articulated with entry level expectations for college-level courses that they take next? What efforts are being made to take academic-term length developmental-level courses and turn them into a series of modules that can be taken independent of one another to quicken time for completion and less use of Pell grant money to pay for the tuition?

This is just scratching the surface of the issue for what are the challenges for "low-income" students. It is not just about the money.

[Click here to read entire entry from the College Bound blog.]

Governor Pat Quinn of Illinois signed a bill establishing performance-based measures to determine funding for public universities, community colleges and other state education agencies. Metrics such as student success in degree and certificate completion will be developed to influence a portion of state funding for higher education institutions. "This matches our approach this year to budget for results for all appropriations in the Illinois Senate and extends it to Illinois universities," Maloney said. "Officials from WIU and other state institutions have been involved in setting the parameters for our initial measures. This has been a priority for me as Chairman of the Senate Higher Education Committee, and the opportunity to improve academic results and ensure funds are spent most efficiently make it one of the most important bills passed this year." House Bill 1503 will take effect in 2013 and begin with metrics to affect a small percentage of funding that would increase over time. Allocations would be based on academic milestones, retention, and time to completion. Statistics on students who are academically or financially at-risk, first-generation students, low-income students, and those traditionally underrepresented in higher education will also be measured to affect funding. [Click to read the entire press release.]

This provides a great opportunity for leaders in college access and student success programs to highlight their activities, approaches, and services increasing positive outcomes for students. Colleges in Illinois will be redoubling their efforts to increase access and college completion. The answers can come from their own college TRIO, learning assistance, and developmental education programs. They have solutions that could be scaled up for wider implementation.

I just read an announcement about the University of Southern Mississippi was handing out 1,000 slate computers to their "outstanding" students. [Click to read the online article.] The curious thing about the plan was to only share them with "outstanding" students defined as those from the Honors College, McNair Scholars Program, and Southern Style leadership group.

The article states "Tablets are like the Swiss Army Knife to academic excellence. By leveraging this new technology, we are committed to transforming the way students interact, engage and learn in the classrooms," said Homer Coffman, CIO at Southern Miss, in a statement released today. "The iTech department at Southern Miss is continually challenging itself to support emerging technology and find new ways to put information into the students' hands."

With such a great technology, why not the "average" students or targeting those that are facing academic challenges in a class or two? Why not for students who do not have a mobile device, perhaps due to low income? The college I work at provides an iPad for all first-year students enrolled in the College of Education and Human Development. [Click to read the press release.\ Results look promising. We are repeating the distribution this year at no cost to the students. Preliminary from the instructors in more than 30 classes report favorable positive resutls from the students and the faculty members who enhanced their classroom learning enviroinment. It was also good to know that everyone in the classroom had an effective mobile computer and bridged the "digital divide" due to income restrictions and social capital that some students have and others do not.

Congrats to the University of Southern Mississippi for their bold decision to distribute the 1,000 tablet computers. Please consider more inclusion with next year's program to those who are not quite as outstanding as others (yet). Maybe the mobile devices could help propel more students to that category. Outstanding students probably have more social capital than others. Let's see what happens when more resources are provided to those who might need the resource more.

Take care,
David Arendale
Co-director, Jandris Center for Innovative Higher Education
Associate Professor, History and Higher Education
arendale@umn.edu