HomeNews EDU

Texas’s Big Bet on the Future of Higher Education

Texas’s Big Bet on the Future of Higher Education
Like Tweet Pin it Share Share Email


What, then, is the best solution?

Is it add-ons, such as mandatory orientations and advising sessions, summer bridge programs, and supplemental instruction sections?

These might work if the challenge was confined to a small fraction of the student body, but not when the challenges are much more pervasive.

The ITL’s “all hands on deck” approach sought pull every lever we could think of, drawing on best practices found elsewhere:

  • A data infrastructure to identify students who were at risk of failure
  • Block scheduling
  • Bilingual content
  • Learning cohorts who took courses together
  • Structured curricular pathways
  • Academic and life coaches
  • Frequent diagnostic testing and performance based assessments

Curricular redesign was a big part of the ITL approach. It involved redesigning entire 120 credit hour pathways — bringing faculty together to align courses, map learning objectives, and provide input into the development of interactive courseware.

A substantial portion of ITL spending involved financial incentivizing faculty and departments to take part in design sessions and creating rich instructional resources that faculty across campuses could include in their courses.

But “investing in faculty” means much more than establishing a teaching center or a team of instructional designers to assist faculty members in integrating new technologies into their courses.

Faculty need tools: learning dashboards and highly interactive instructional materials, as well as coordination with colleagues and training in new pedagogies (including team-based approaches and differentiated classroom techniques).

And institutions need infrastructure. Currently, data are siloed and not readily accessible. Data-driven decisionmaking is at a rudimentary level. Because of infrastructure problems, it is often impossible to offer courses that aren’t 3 credit hours in length.

Institutions also need to build capacity. Many of our campuses were forced to rely on third party vendors, at enormous cost, in crucial areas like data analytics and distance education. Many institutions have serious problems with procurement and strategy development.

I consider development of teaching resources, dashboards, infrastructure, and institutional capacity to be investments not only in faculty, but in students and in institutions.

The problems facing the broad access institutions that educate the vast majority of students — and a grossly disproportionate percentage of low income and underrepresented students — can only be successfully addressed, I am convinced, through new models of student lifecycle management services, new curricular models, new pedagogies, and new student support structures.

The ITL’s job was to work hand-in-glove with cross-functional teams of faculty, information technologists, student service professionals, and the Registrar’s office to update incumbent practices, policies, procedures, and infrastructure.

We had to do this at not one campus but at many simultaneously — while meeting a mandate to become financially sustainable. I think we demonstrated approaches that were workable, cost-effective, and successful — but which conflict with existing ways of doing business.

The chief problems facing higher education aren’t a shortage of tested, rigorously evaluated ideas. it’s an implementation problem.

I fear that many of our best funded, most selective institutions have decided largely to wash their hands of the problems facing mass higher education. These resource-rich institutions decided to increase their student bodies only modestly, failed to enroll a student body that truly reflects this society’s diversity, and haven’t even sufficiently trained their doctoral students to teach effectively in teaching-focused institutions.

These institutions have become walled gardens.

Meanwhile, the ITL was working with the Texas Workforce Commission, the state’s leading business associations, and the public community college and university systems to create an unprecedented statewide credentials marketplace.

I personally think the sums that the UT System invested in curricular redesign, pedagogical training, infrastructure development, student service improvements, analytics, and educational research were precisely the kinds of investments that higher education needs to make if we are to truly move the needle on student success and reach the goals that then presidential candidate Barack Obama set in 2006.

There’s a lot of ferment occurring across the higher education landscape, but the pace at which we are addressing our pressing completion, learning, and equity problems remains far too slow. We need more big bets if we are to bring more students to a bright future.

Steven Mintz is Professor of History at The University of Texas at Austin.



Source link

قالب وردپرس