Strengths and Mindset

In terms of human development, I have gravitated toward the strengths-based approach over the last few years. Based in positive psychology, the strengths-based approach channels our energy and efforts through our natural ways of thinking, feeling, and doing (our "talents"). In short, the strengths-based approach is about authenticity: be who you are. I have found such an approach to be effective in developing potential, ours and our students.

But there is a certain dark side to the strengths-based approach, which I have come to better conceptualize through the excellent book Mindset by Carol Dweck. Dweck proposes a simple but effective model of human development. On the one hand, we may develop through the fixed mindset. The fixed mindset focuses on natural ability and talent; these fixed capacities by in large determine outcomes. On the other hand, we may develop through the growth mindset. The growth mindset focuses on learning and evolution; these growth-oriented activities by in large determine outcomes.

According to Dweck, the fixed mindset approaches intelligence as static and "leads to a desire to look smart and therefore a tendency to avoid challenges, get defensive or give up easily when facing obstacles, see effort as fruitless or worthless [since ability is inherent], ignore useful negative feedback, and feel threatened by the success of others” (245).

In contrast, the growth-mindset approaches intelligence as developmental and "leads to a desire to learn and therefore a tendency to embrace challenges, persist in the face of setbacks, see effort as the path to mastery, learn from criticism, and find lessons and inspiration in the success of others" (245).

In my conception, the strengths-based approach must be integrated with the growth-mindset in order to maximize both strategies. The dark side of the strengths-based approach is a fixed mindset that validates our worth and potential by compartmentalizing our strengths versus our weaknesses. In this scenario, the strengths-based approach will lead to limited human development, constrained by a fear of failure and an incessant need for affirmation of natural strengths and talents. In contrast, a strengths-based approach grounded in an active mindset sees our strengths as tools for growth, as opposed to natural abilities. In this alternative scenario, we become who we are through constant growth, challenge, and a positive response to failure and criticism. In my view, this paradigmatic shift creates a huge difference in the development of human potential.

Success or failure: which is the enemy? How we conceptualize our response to this question goes a long way in determing whether our development is fixed or growing.

Further Reading
Dweck, C. (2008). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Ballantine Books.
Clifton, D., Anderson, E., & Schreiner, L. (2006). Strengthsquest. New York: Gallup Press.

The "T-Shaped" Professional

I recently attended a presentation by Rich Feller PhD, current president of the National Career Development Association. While both provocative and entertaining, Dr. Feller’s presentation revolved around the necessity of developing quality career and technical educational programs to serve the so-called “forgotten half”, the more than 60 percent of adults who do not obtain a 4 year degree. Rich sited a 2009 Harvard Study entitled “Pathways to Prosperity” that articulated a greater emphasis on career and technical education, as well as, technical job training and apprenticeships would better serve America’s youth.  Doctor Feller contextualized the report by emphasizing that the enduring “college for all” mantra should be expanded to a more explicit, albeit less alliterate, mantra of “meaningful post secondary credential, regardless of level of degree or certificate, for all”.

Those of us who work in higher education, particularly at the community college level, are very well aware of the importance of career and technical education. The jobs of the 21st century require higher skilled workers who not only possess strong technical skills, but also well-developed critical thinking and quantitative reasoning abilities, to mention a few.  At the K-12 level, most states have adopted a set of common core standards that are the foundational metrics for defining the somewhat esoteric definition of “post-secondary and workforce ready”.  Additionally, Colorado has developed initiatives such as the Colorado Workforce Development Council (CWDC) to better “align the efforts of economic development, education/training, workforce development, government and business stakeholders at the local, regional and state levels”.  While I agree that students need to be proficient and well versed in industry and business related skills, I fear that the importance of a more traditional liberal arts pathway could become further eroded and deemphasizing, or at the very least reserved for the more socio-economically advantaged student. 

The Colorado career cluster model attempts to convey the relevance and importance of having career and post secondary skills (read: qualities of liberal arts classes / programs) at a person’s core. However, another model I was introduced to a few years back has proven helpful to me in conveying to students what an effective worker will need to look like and what skills they will need to acquire in order to stay relevant in a rapidly changing world. Dr. Phil Gardner, who directs Michigan State University’s College Employment Research Institute (CERI), has been developing and expanding on the concept of the “T-Shaped Professional.” While this concept was originally pioneered in the business and engineering fields, Dr. Gardner believes that all professions require “T-shaped” professionals.  He also links the concept of the “T-shaped” professional with the larger idea of the idea of the “adaptive innovator”. What energizes me most about this particular model is the inclusion of traditional liberal arts programs or classes that complement the technical proficiency aspects of the “T-Shaped" professional.

So what is a “T-shaped” professional exactly? Simply put the student, worker, professional, employee and employer is someone who has deep content knowledge and, hopefully, passion in one particular discipline or “system”. Examples of systems include food production, water security, education, health, etc.  This deep system or disciplinary / technical knowledge represents the “I”, or stem of the "T". The top bar of the "T" represents trans-disciplinary knowledge or what I construe to be the traditional liberal arts qualities that enhances a student's ability to critically think, communicate and develop creatively.   By acquiring both the stem and the top bar, a "T-shaped" professional (adaptive innovator) can then apply this deep knowledge across multiple systems effectively; thereby, being better poised to create solutions, or at minimum, help to better define a problem. This "T-shaped” professional model has continued to resonate strongly with me and, I believe, is a helpful visual model that represents and expresses why both  technical and liberal arts education are both important in the 21st century workplace.

Postmodernism, Heuristics, and Administration

"The feminist theorists had a great point when they noted that we’re all embodied, and flawed, and, in some sense, blinkered. The lesson I drew from that was a need for humility in the face of complicated, messy realities. But the humility isn’t in the service of fatalism or a flight to innocence and virtue.  It’s in the service of making changes that aren’t doomed from the outset," writes Dean Dad on The Confessions of a Community College Dean blog.

For those with a background or interest in philosophy now hunkered down in the trenches of day to day reality as a higher ed professional, this is great stuff! It is insightful, relevant - and here I am speaking specifically to the armchair philosophers out there - fun to apply the theories and concepts of particular philosophies to the tasks and issues facing our contingent realities (that was a bit of a rhetorical flourish, I will admit).

"I was reminded of that this week in a discussion about a proposed program.  When I raised a series of questions about the practicality of it, I was hit with the concept/implementation distinction.  And I realized that from the perspective of someone responsible for budgeting and staffing, the distinction is false.  A concept that can’t be implemented is a flawed concept," Dean Dad muses.

Who doesn't love to "spend time in the weeds of postmodernism"?!?

If the excerpts above at all capture your intrigue, I suggest you read the whole post, where Dean Dad uses basic concepts of feminist theory, postmodernism, and pragmatism to frame his view of best practices when managing the relationship (dare I say dialect?) between a strong conception and its realistic implementation (definitely a thesis-antithesis-synthesis thing!).

Anyways...Dean Dad's blog post brings to mind parallels with another book I am currently reading: Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. In this tome of contemporary psychology by one of its current stars, Kahneman talks a lot about heuristics. In short, a heuristic is a mental shortcut our mind takes - often automatically - to make quick and short work of the deluge of information constantly being hurled at it. For the most part, the use of heuristics is an effective and amazing ability of the mind. allowing us to adapt and thrive without getting mired in information overload, just as pragmatism prevents a postmodernist from getting "lost and paralyzed in an infinite regression of what’s already implicated in what" (Dean Dad).

The challenge, however, is that heuristics - as a necessity - tend to (over)simplify situations and can produce inaccurate judgments as a result. And thus we have biases. 

This is an important consideration to make when we are involved in the fast-paced world of making administrative judgments, balancing conception with implementation and the like. Postmodernism, as well as the psychology of biases, reminds us that our judgments and intuitions are anything but clean cut objective assessments of the world. Whether or not we care to admit it, our thoughts are mired in conditions of emergence and heuristics. As Dean Dad states, this does not mean that we need to be fatalistic and throw our hands up. But it does mean that when making decisions, we should be mindful of the perspective and bias integral to our judgment. In this situation, a bit of humility mixed with time out for critical reflection and gathering the views of others can at least move us in the direction of a rational assessment befitting an effective action-outcome response to the contingencies that we face.

Chronicle Article: Community Colleges for the Students They Actually Have

Excerpts from the Chronicle article, Community Colleges for the Students They Actually Have,

by Josh Wyner

"[W]hat if community colleges were organized to achieve success for the students they have, not for students like those who attend four-year residential colleges? First, such a re-envisioned community college would offer far greater numbers of block-scheduled programs. Rather than selecting courses, most students would be directed to enter comprehensive programs built around specific degree goals and schedules.

Up to two-thirds of community-college students need remedial education.

So students would choose (1) a program such as an associate of science or arts aimed at eventually transferring to a four-year institution or a vocational program like welding; and (2) a block of time to attend full or part time (mornings, full days, or evenings/weekends). Blocks would include homework time, when students would practice what they learn with the help of tutors and technology rather than squeezing it between class and work.

This system would also be geared to serve students who begin in remedial education, to allow them to see the length of time and the cost associated with various degree and certificate options. Instead of the uncertainty of many years of semester-by-semester course selection and scheduling, students would know that if they showed up and did their work well, they would earn a degree in a specific period of time.

The community colleges, too, would benefit. Once students began programs, colleges could plan to staff the specific number of courses in each block through the end of that program. At the beginning of each semester, only entering students would make choices, so community colleges would have greater clarity—well before the year began—about what courses and professors would be needed for returning students."

Applying Learning Theory to Student Work Experiences

Applying Learning Theory to Student Work Experiences

Ari Senghor Rosner-Salazar

EDHE 673 Student Development Theory

November 5, 2008

Colorado State University – Fort Collins

Introduction

Student workers play a critical role in helping to run institutions of higher education, including community colleges. The labor that students provide can shore up staffing levels in departments facing periodic surges in customer volume and personnel cuts that threaten service levels. Unfortunately, institutions facing such pressures may tend to focus too much on departments’ needs. Student affairs professionals unaccustomed to the pedagogical and assessment concerns related to traditional classroom teaching may overlook the learning opportunities in student employment. Others, including some faculty, may assert that learning is the sole responsibility of faculty in an academic course setting.

How can learning theory inform this topic? In order to analyze what constitutes learning, I will discuss the definitions of formal, nonformal, and informal learning. I will then explore the theory of the learning organization and the concept of the learning paradigm. Finally, I will outline some recommendations for organizations to support student affairs professionals in the design of workplace learning environments based on learning objectives and the assessment of learning.

Literature Review & Analysis

Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner (2007) provided an excellent discussion of the various ways adults learn, using Coomb’s (1985) model: formal, non-formal, and informal settings. In regard to formal education, the authors wrote: “For most people, learning in adulthood brings to mind classroom settings… Formal education is highly institutionalized, bureaucratic, curriculum driven, and formally recognized with grades, diplomas or certificates.” (p. 29). As the authors described, many individuals think of the classroom, curriculum, and diplomas when they think about learning in college. This conceptualization does a disservice to the holistic concept of learning because learning can occur in other contexts. The authors defined nonformal education as “organized learning opportunities outside the formal educational system.” (p. 30). Unlike formal learning, nonformal learning tended to be community-based. Like formal learning, nonformal educational options had a curriculum and usually a facilitator: “Instructors… emphasized the informality, compressed time, and hands-on interactive nature of the learning in which the needs and interests of the participants are paramount in the encounter.” (p. 30). An example of nonformal learning would be a person learning how to use concrete during a class at a hardware store. The authors described informal learning as the most ubiquitous form of learning but also the least recognition: “Embedded as it is in our everyday activities, whether we are at work, at home, or in the community, and lacking institutional sponsorship, adults rarely label these activities as learning.” (p. 35). The authors cited studies that estimated more than 90% of adults participating in informal learning (especially self-directed learning) and 70% of learning in the workplace being classified as informal. (p. 35).

So how do such theories apply in a community college setting? The concept of the learning organization is critical in this regard.

Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner (2007) invoked the work of several theorists in order to better define the learning organization:

Senge defined it as ‘a place where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to act together’ (p. 3). (p. 43).

In using Senge’s quote, the authors revealed the important facets of the learning organization: empowered employees, new thinking, support for learning, and free-sharing of information. According to the authors’ discussion of Marsick and Watkins (2005), learning organizations supported employees’ efforts to continually improve themselves: “The first imperative is to create continuous learning opportunities at all levels of the organization…. With the goal that learning becomes an integral part of the everyday work life.” (p. 44). By empowering employees to become learners for the organization, the organization’s goals are further advanced.

Barr and Tagg (1995) introduced the concept of the “Learning” paradigm in opposition to the “Instruction” paradigm. In doing so, they revealed an early conception of the learning organization: “In other words, the Learning Paradigm envisions the institution itself as a learner--over time, it continuously learns how to produce more learning with each graduating class, each entering student.” (first section, seventh paragraph). How do these concepts specifically relate to the student worker at a community college? Barr and Tagg asserted that lecturing, a staple of the Instruction paradigm, did not necessarily produce student learning. They argued that institutions should shift to the Learning paradigm, as when institutions focused on student learning, the classroom lecture would no longer be the only method for producing learning. In this regard, Barr and Tagg intersected with Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner’s (2007) concept of informal learning.

By decoupling learning from an exclusive connection with the classroom (and faculty), institutions can provide student affairs professionals with the opportunity to develop learning experiences for student workers. Barr and Tagg (1995) supported this concept:

In the Instruction Paradigm, teaching is judged on its own terms; in the Learning Paradigm, the power of an environment or approach is judged in terms of its impact on learning. If learning occurs, then the environment has power. If students learn more in environment A than in environment B, then A is more powerful than B. To know this in the Learning Paradigm we would assess student learning routinely and constantly…. While teachers will have designed the learning experiences and environments students use—often through teamwork with each other and other staff—they need not be present for or participate in every structured learning activity. (Criteria for success section, fifth paragraph)

The previous quote even accepts that faculty do not have to be present for learning to take place so long as they have collaborated on its design. Many student affairs professionals could benefit from professional development and faculty mentorship on learning outcomes and assessment in the educational workplace. Barr and Tagg advocated for an outwardly growing scope of such assessment and alluded to non-academic departments:

The place to start the assessment of learning outcomes is in the conventional classroom; from there, let the practice grow to the program and institutional levels. (Meeting the challenge section, eleventh paragraph)

As discussed at the end of the above quote, Barr and Tagg recommended a clear focus on student learning as measured by proper assessment, even outside of the classroom. By focusing on results, the authors argued that institutions would be more willing to innovate to improve learning: “You are free to organize the environment in any way you like. The only thing you are required to do is to produce the desired result--student learning.” Barr and Tagg (Meeting the challenge section, thirteenth paragraph). By focusing on results, student affairs professionals have the opportunity to complement the work of faculty with increased student learning in the academic workplace.

           

Other theorists discussed student learning outside of the classroom. Lewis (2008) studied five areas of learning among student workers: leadership, career development, civic engagement, ethics and values development, and responsible independence. In interviewing both students and their supervisors, he found, “The results showed that both student employees and their supervisors believed that work tasks and behavioral components encountered during the students’ jobs produced learning in those five key areas.” (p. A56). Lewis recommended that supervisors provide planned and structured learning opportunities for students in the work environment. He advocated for the pairing of faculty and staff members in “learning-focused research teams,” to encourage learning experiences in the workplace (p. A56).

           

Bonfiglio, Hanson, Fried, et al. (2006) discussed the readiness of specific institutions to include non-academic learning environments and student affairs professionals in a culture of assessment: “Some of the work of the division was already oriented toward student learning…. It also identified a number of areas where the staff felt it was deficient…” (p. 45). The results indicated more work needed to be done to promote the following: (a) collaboration between faculty and student affairs members, (b) engagement of student affairs professionals in research on learning outcomes, (c) inclusion of student affairs-specific research priorities in institutional research, (d) regular communication of research implications to student affairs professionals, (e) staff development programs, (f) staff involvement in professional associations, and (g) involvement of other divisions in student affairs meetings to discuss campus issues. The language used in the case institute’s new mission and vision statements indicated a shift to Barr and Tagg’s (1995) learning paradigm in the student work environment:

Students will take full advantage of the opportunities both inside and outside of the classroom to learn from every member of the campus community.” (Bonfiglio, Hanson, Fried, et al., 2006, p. 47).

The authors discussed the centrality of learning as a measurement of institutional productivity, even when assessing non-academic units:

The authors of the Student Learning Imperative stated, ‘…if learning is the primary measure of institutional productivity by which the quality of undergraduate education is determined, what and how much students learn also must be the criterion by which the value of student affairs is judged.’ (American College Personnel Association, 1994, p. 2). (Bonfiglio, Hanson, Fried, et al., 2006, p. 48

As a result of this divisional assessment, the student affairs professionals committed to identifying learning outcomes, collaborating outside the division, and investigating assessment instruments to measure learning.

           

In regard to such collaborations, Steffes and Keeling (2006) discussed the importance of institution-wide reconceptualization of learning a joint faculty and student affairs venture that includes learning outside of the classroom setting:

Given our current understanding of learning, collaboration between faculty and student affairs educators is not simply an intelligent option; it is a core requirement for the effective development and achievement of desired student learning outcomes (see Kellogg, 1999)…. Both the unconscious processing of new material and the intentional or happenstance application and testing of knowledge will, more likely than not, occur outside the classroom and laboratory, in the active context of students’ lives. Thinking separately of curriculum and co-curriculum has only administrative value; it is, in fact, counterproductive to continue working with those terms and the assumptions that underlie them.

Specific to student employment, Dungy and Keeling (2006) revealed a University of North Dakota program that trained staff on how to better assess student learning on the job.  Through its actions, UND appeared to have championed learning organization culture:

The course also benefits staff members by helping them to better understand what a learning outcomes-based environment is and how students can benefit from this type of experience and provides staff with supervisory techniques that they can use to help students learn and develop beyond the practical aspects of their jobs. (p. 77).

UND modeled the learning organization by training on learning outcomes design.

In this paper, I have applied learning theory to the domain of the student worker. By employing a more sophisticated definition of learning (formal, informal, and nonformal), I expanded the more traditional understanding of learning as a classroom-only activity. I supported this analysis by discussing the learning paradigm and discussed ways that learning organizations can better prepare student affairs professionals to contribute to student learning.

References

Barr, R., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning--a new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27, 12-25. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ516385) Retrieved November 2, 2008, from ERIC database.

Bonfiglio, Hansen & Fried (2006). Assessing internal environments. In Keeling, R. P. & Associates. Eds. Learning reconsidered 2: a practical guide to implementing a campus wide focus on the student experience. Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association, Association of College and University Housing Officers—International, Association of College Unions—International, National Academic Advisors Association, national Associatino for Campus Activities, National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, National Intramural-Recreation Sports Association.

Dungy and Keeling (2006). Implementing promising practices. In Keeling, R. P. & Associates. Eds. Learning reconsidered 2: a practical guide to implementing a campus wide focus on the student experience. Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association, Association of College and University Housing Officers—International, Association of College Unions—International, National Academic Advisors Association, national Associatino for Campus Activities, National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, National Intramural-Recreation Sports Association.

Lewis, J. S. (2008). Student workers can learn more on the job. Chronicle of higher education. 54(41), A56. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ803908) Retrieved November 2, 2008, from ERIC database.

Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, (2007). L. M. Learning in adulthood: a comprehensive guide. 3^rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Steffes, J. & Keeling, R. P. (2006). Creating strategies for collaboration. In Keeling, R. P. & Associates. Eds. Learning reconsidered 2: a practical guide to implementing a campus wide focus on the student experience. Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association, Association of College and University Housing Officers—International, Association of College Unions—International, National Academic Advisors Association, national Associatino for Campus Activities, National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, National Intramural-Recreation Sports Association.

Discussion Paper of Barr & Tagg 1995

“From Teaching to Learning—A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education.”

HE 702 Community College Curriculum

September 4, 2007

Ari Senghor Rosner-Salazar

Objective of the Reading

Barr and Tagg introduce the idea of a paradigm shift in higher education in the United States.  The Instruction Model is introduced as the current paradigm, whereby institutions are aligned to teach or deliver instruction through the traditional lecture.  This model locates the responsibility for learning squarely on the shoulders of the individual student.  It also fails to assess how much learning is occurring:  “…under the Instruction Paradigm, student outcomes are simply irrelevant to the successful functioning and funding of a college.” (page 5)

The new paradigm, which according to the authors has not yet come into existence, is the Learning Model.  In the Learning Model, students, faculty, and the institution are all responsible for learning success.  The institution holds responsibility for independently measuring student learning (outside of course grades or faculty feedback) and then focusing on innovative techniques (such as small group work) which will increase student learning.  Through continuous re-evaluation of efforts and change of such endeavors, institutions using the Learning Model should see continuously rising success rates.  The authors raise a few points about resistance to the Learning Model:  1) The “atomistic” nature of the traditional lecture with one teacher in one room; 2) The defensiveness of departments which focus solely on maintaining fiscal, enrollment, and employee stability; and, 3) The conflict the faculty must face in regard to presenting approved course material as opposed to helping students learn.

Analysis

Barr and Tagg make a strong logical argument against the Instruction Model and in favor of the Learning Model.  Higher education’s reliance on instruction as an end in itself is derided by viewing instruction’s parallel in an automobile assembly plant (running the assembly line regardless of whether cars are being produced) and a hospital (just filling beds regardless of whether patients are being healed).  The authors’ cavalier and improper usage of sources hurts their argument.  No interviews or sources are cited when quoting those who appear to be experts, so it is unclear whether the authors interviewed the sources themselves or obtained the quotes elsewhere.  There are historical anecdotes about the Swiss watch-making industry, Galileo, and Stravinsky that should be easily cited, but because there are none, the strength of the argument suffers.

Synthesis

As mentioned above, the authors refer to five scholarly works but do not properly cite them.  Also, five sources (Schaefer, Sweeting, Gardner, Johnstone and Fuller) are quoted anecdotally, but only some of their credentials of expertise are identified.  The authors discuss the National Commission on Time and Learning while admitting that this commission does not focus on the higher education environment.  I sense that research focusing on higher education could be obtained to strengthen the points.  Finally Barr refers to his own personal experience with re-learning Calculus.  This and others are descriptive anecdotes, but more research would have made the argument more effective.

Implications for the Community College

           

Community colleges will have a much harder time using learning outcomes to justify their funding because they are open-admissions institutions.  Unlike their selective 4-year counterparts, community colleges must accept all who seek to learn.  Many of these students come with more economic, cultural, and developmental challenges to learning.  As a result, community colleges have lower retention and graduation rates than four-year colleges because their pool of students is not pre-selected.  Reorienting a community college towards trying unconventional ideas to increase student learning will be difficult considering that academic legitimacy is already in question.  There is also the concern that an additional graduation requirement (exit exam) would be yet another obstacle to students struggling toward graduation.

Discussion Questions

1.      The idea of “exit standards,” as advocated by the authors, might help further shift institutional and student focus away from amassing credits toward true learning.  However, would such exit exams serve as an additional “Cooling Out” mechanism as discussed by Clark?

2.      If students are held accountable for learning under both the Teaching and the Learning Paradigms, how can K-12 educational institutions better prepare students for college-level learning?

3.      Would learning modules that, while designed by faculty, only require intermittent student-faculty contact yield increased learning?  If so, how would that be received by academics and proponents of the importance of increased faculty-student contact?

Reference

Barr, R., & Tagg, J. (1995, November).  From teaching to learning—a new paradigm for undergraduate education. (Cover story). Change, 27(6), 12. Retrieved August 19, 2007, from Academic Search Premier database.

Code of Conduct and Ethical Statements

So, I saw this article in the Chronicle, "Year-Old Code of Conduct Makes Slow Progress Among For-Profit Colleges " (Ask me or your supervisor for the division's access code.)  Their “Standards of Responsible Conduct and Transparency” webpage is a dead link.  I guess they have never heard of the National Association of College Admission Counseling which has a very strong ethical statement.  Recruitment and Student Outreach relied on this Statement for its Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) Admissions Program Self-Assessment Guide (SAG).  I'm curious to know where other professionals get their ethical statements.

CCD Conference on Poverty - Summary

Last Friday, I attended the Conference on Poverty facilitated by Dr. Donna Beegle. It was very good, and appropriate to the work that we do at Community College of Denver. Here are my three main takeaways.

1. The American ideal – implicitly if not explicitly – asserts that poverty is the result of personal failings (lack of work ethic, addictions, immorality). However, the greater contributor to poverty, in particular generational poverty (cyclical), is inequality in social systems (education, criminal justice) and inequality in networks (mentors, stable support systems).

2. Universally for humans, geography (our environment and stimuli) shapes perspective (what we see), and perspective shapes how we process experience (how we interpret and respond). Confirmation bias (seeing what we want to see in order to support our view of the world) often leads to faulty attribution of motives and behaviors (making judgment based on what we see, not the objective situation of the other).

3. Categorically speaking, there are different types of poverty (different geographies), which tend to shape and shift perspective differently, thereby producing different interpretations and responses. For example, an immigrant living in poverty may very well be hopeful because they see temporary hardship as a ticket to a better life in a new country. You could apply a similar model to a poor graduate student. Alternatively, a person coming from generational poverty, in which a family has been living in poverty for many years, may not be anywhere near as hopeful as their lived experience has demonstrated few ways out. 

Further Research

- Beegle, Donna, See Poverty, Be the Difference (2007).

- Beegle, Donna, An Action Approach to Educating Students Who Live in the Crisis of Poverty (2012).

- Gans, H. The War Against the Poor (1995).

- Invisible Nation, PBS Documentary, in production

- http://www.combarriers.com/Home

Student Affairs: Deep Versus Strategic Learning

I recently read What the Best College Teachers Do by Ken Bain. The book got me thinking about how to facilitate deep learning, as opposed to strategic learning, when working with students within Student Affairs.

Strategic learning, or what Paulo Freire called the banking model of education, basically assumes that teachers tell students something and when students can tell it back, they have learned. In contrast, deep learning assumes that teachers facilitate the process of students putting facts and figures into context – the process of making meaning. Deeper learning aims to ascend students through Bloom’s taxonomy of thought, toward application, analysis, and synthesis.

As Bain asserts, “The most successful teachers expect the highest levels of development from their students. They reject the view of teaching as nothing more than delivering correct answers to students and learning as simply remembering those deliveries. They expect their students to rise above the category of received knowers, something they reflect in the way they teach and assess their students” (45).

In my mind, I see no distinction between the traditional division of student affairs and academic affairs when it comes to teaching. If our primary focus is student learning – in particular the development of knowledge and skills relevant to self, workforce, and civic development – why do we limit this enterprise to only part of the student experience? And so, as a student advisor and coordinator of student development activities, I firmly claim my ground as a teacher, just as a staff member in financial aid or career development or records should.

So, then, I am accepting responsibility for the question: When I look at my own practice with Student Affairs, how often do I focus on delivering the correct answer (so that the student can complete their FAFSA or register for the right course or turn in their transfer application on time)? Probably more than I would like to admit in light of deep versus strategic learning.

Bain then adds, “Rather than just thinking in terms of teaching history, biology, chemistry, or other topics, they [the best teachers] talked about teaching students to understand, apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate evidence and conclusions” (46).

Certainly,  it takes more time and more scaffolding to change from service delivery (of correct answers) to student learning. But, if you step back, does it really? Because how many times will a student return for the correct answer? Alternatively, what is our future interaction with a student if we expend the time and effort to facilitate deep learning?

I will conclude with Bain: “Highly effective teachers design better learning experiences for their students in part because they conceive of teaching as fostering learning. Everything they do stems from their strong concern for and understanding of the development of their students. They follow few traditions blindly and recognize when change in the conventional course is both necessary and possible” (67).  

Bibliography

Bain, K. (2004). What the Best College Teachers Do. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Barriers to Adoption of Online Learning Systems

Among the many sea changes reshaping higher education these days, the opportunities and pitfalls present in the use of online learning systems may be amongst the greatest. I read an interesting report - Barriers to the Adoption of Online Learning Systems in U.S. Higher Education - that is worth considering. As the title implies, this report comes from organization that supports the use of online learning systems and pursues the "promise of adaptive learning technologies...to educate more students at lower cost with similar or even better learning outcomes."

Some of the main points that I took from the report include:

• a wide range of systems and models of online learning currently exist and are of varying quality
• a number of software companies are pushing into new developments the report calls Interactive Online Learning, which is adaptive and "machine-driven"
• the use of learning analytics (data mining embedded within the online learning system) has the potential to support individualized student-centered learning based on proficiency
• the report asserts that cost considerations (and - by implication - market share) are the primary drivers for the implementation of online learning at most institutions, at the moment
• the report concedes that there is limited data on student learning outcomes, at the moment
• the report also concedes that there is limited data on student success and persistence, especially research that controls for the self-selecting variables that shape the demographic enrolling in online courses (older, motivated, self-organizing)
• if "machine-based" online learning systems free faculty from the tasks of content delivery, grading, and tracking, then such systems - in a hybrid environment - may allow for more productive and optimized use of faculty talents and knowledge (mentoring, research, feedback, et cetera)

I came across the Barriers report in the article Elitism, Equality, and MOOCS, which raises one point, in particular, that I find interesting, especially in light of the Barriers report. In sum: online education may lead to better access to high quality education for more students, or it may lead to further bifurcation of higher education whereby the elite institutions maintain (expensive) faculty-driven relationship-based education whereas (public open access) institutions under greater financial stress (and political pressures for numbers and efficiency) pursue machine-driven online learning disconnected from significant faculty guidance.

In Student Affairs, I see great potential for utilizing online learning as a pedagogical tool embedded in a relationship-based student development program (such as TRIO). There is merit, in my mind, to many of the strengths proffered in the Barriers report (increased access to services, student-centered proficiency-based learning, technology and the millennial generation, cost and time efficiencies). Yet, I am concerned about overreach and pursuing online learning as our primary pedagogy, as opposed to a pedagogical tool. There is much research (e.g. Tinto) and many anecdotes that affirm the significance of a caring, mentoring human relationship when viewing education through a student (human) development lens.

A few questions now on my mind after reading the above report and article:

•  How does online learning support (or not) creativity, critical thinking and other higher capacities of the human mind (that, to here, we have not extended to artificial intelligence)?
• How do changing social norms regarding human interaction change learning?
• How well can online learning adapt to multiple learning styles and diversified delivery? 
• Is tech savvy the new variable of inequality?