By Alan Guskin
There is growing public acceptance that colleges and universities are not cost-effective, that tuition is too high, and that academic institutions must therefore restructure their operations, much as has happened in other sectors of American society. Within the higher education community itself, there is a new awareness of our inability to understand how to do more with less, especially in the delivery of education. What we know is how to do more with more and less with less. Yet doing more with less is what we must do.
At the same time, the emphasis on the accountability for student learning outcomes is growing. Whether from employers or state governments, parents, accrediting associations, or students themselves, people want to know they are getting a good return on their own society's investment in undergraduate education. Higher education can no longer avoid demonstrating to professional and political audiences, as well as the general public, the appropriate levels and forms of student learning that occur as a result of the undergraduate education we offer. Of course, reducing institutional costs and at the same time increasing our responsibilities for student learning outcomes may seem to be competing goals. But this is exactly what is meant by doing more with less. In this article I discuss how we can begin what will certainly be a monumental effort to restructure our institutions so that we spend less while students learn more.
Redefining Academic Quality: Output Verses Input
For decades, the universities and colleges have defined academic quality in terms of input resources: the scholarship and degrees of faculty, the depth and breadth of curricular offerings, and the presence of topflight laboratories, library resources, and facilities. More recently, many institutions-and many parents and students-have come to define institutional quality in terms of faculty reputational rankings, campus beauty, and the range of recreational and support services offered students.
It is these definitions of quality that have led to, among other things, the proliferation of disciplinary programs based on the interests of faculty members, elaborate-even exquisite-facilities, and the significant increase in availability of and expenses for student support services over the last fifteen years. Magazines comparing colleges and universities have come to focus on all these resource issues rather than on what is happening to students. These definitions of quality are just beginning to be questioned on a grand scale-and I'm afraid we are not ready with answers. We are so wedded to a definition of quality based on resources that we find it extremely difficult to deal with the results of our work, namely student learning.
While the preparation of faculty members and character of institutional facilities are important resources for student learning, it is far from clear that there is a straight-line relationship between them and the fact of student learning. Indeed, the contribution of faculty teaching to student learning is for the most part unexamined. the (false) notion that all the fuss about them will soon pass away. But it won't. Lion Gardiner, in a recent review of the literature on student learning, indicates that when faculty teaching has been examined, lecturing-the most common type of instruction-turns out to yield only modest learning. That is, students retain less than 20 percent of what they were taught one week after the lecture.
The truth about our present arrangements is that for the most part we do not know how well students have learned what they have studied, or whether they know and can do what their baccalaureate implies. For now, most institutions and their faculties continue to avoid public and professional questions about student learning outcomes, perhaps on the (false( notion that all the fuss about them will soon pass away. But it won't.
Enhancing Faculty Productivity and Student Learning: An Alternative View
For over three decades faculty have been trained, encouraged, and rewarded for reducing their teaching load in order to do their own work-namely, research, writing, consulting, and so on. During this same period, university governance structures have shifted powerfully to emphasize the primacy of faculty, and individual faculty members themselves, in determining the nature of the curriculum and the nature of faculty work and faculty workload. Attempts to increase faculty productivity run counter to the personal and professional interests of faculty and the way faculty (and almost everyone else in university life) have come to define a meaningful faculty role in educating students.
Further, the effort to think about how the role of faculty will change in order to increase faculty productivity and accountability for student learning is undermined by unexamined assumptions of how faculty members influence student learning. Questions about the relationship between teaching methods and student learning are rarely raised because most faculty can only conceive of one teaching method-primarily lecturing-and, therefore, assume that it is best for student learning. Even creative faculty, and there are many, assume that it is essential for students to congregate in class and for faculty to teach them in one way or another. In Redesigning Higher Education, Gardiner quotes Pat Cross, who sums up the problem: "It is nice to have faculty enthusiastic about updating their lecture notes and keeping abreast of their field, but there is not much evidence that lecturing is related in important ways to (students) learning."
In effect, our common conceptions about faculty work and productivity are based on two overarching global assumptions:
- Faculty members teaching groups of students in a classroom setting are essential for effective student learning.
- Increasing the productivity of faculty members requires increasing the number of classes taught or the number of students taught in a particular class.
Some productivity gains can no doubt be produced by faculty just teaching more, that is, doing more of what they do now. But a few more faculty members teaching more courses will not significantly reduce institutional expenses. And such increases in faculty teaching load will likely decrease rather than enhance student learning.
Moreover, reducing expenses by cutting departments or even schools won't solve the financial problem. We could do all these things and possibly survive in the short run, but the reality would be an ever-increasing downhill struggle. Survive we may, but at an enormous cost in the quality of faculty life and in reduced student learning.
An alternative is to create a learning environment that focuses directly on those activities that enhance student learning. The real problem and challenge is to do this by restructuring the role of the faculty to maximize essential faculty-student interaction by integrating new technologies fully into the student learning process, by making use of peer interaction and collaborative learning strategies, and by substantially increasing the amount of time and effort students spend learning.
In focusing on human and technological learning strategies that could help us think through alternative ways for faculty to practice their profession, in both classroom and nonclassroom settings, I am urging that we turn the typical discussion of the role of faculty upside down:
- From faculty productivity to student productivity
- From faculty disciplinary interests to what students need to learn
- From faculty teaching styles to student learning styles
- From classroom teaching to student learning
The focus is not on how faculty teach but how students learn, and on doing whatever it takes to enhance such learning.
Student Learning and Restructuring the Role Of Faculty
Student learning at the undergraduate level is very complex, both in our aims and what is achieved, whether directly or indirectly. We want students to learn about a lot of things, to accumulate information in a host of fields, with depth in at least one. We expect students to develop skills in writing and communication, in the use of quantitative and scientific methods, in the learning of a foreign language. Even more important, we have strong expectations regarding student conceptual learning, the development of conceptual, intellectual tools that enable them to compare and contrast the material they are acquiring and to make judgements about its relevance to other issues of concern. Beyond all this academic learning, we expect or hope that students will develop as human beings and become more productive citizens of their communities.
There is ample evidence that the three types of academic learning-accumulation of information and knowledge, skill development, and conceptual development-are fostered in certain settings. Chickering and Gamson, in their influential article "Seven Principles for Good Practices in Undergraduate Education", summarize many years of research on good practice in college teaching. They conclude that good practice:
- Encourages student-faculty contact
- Encourages cooperation among students
- Encourages active learning
- Gives prompt feedback
- Emphasizes time on task
- Communicates high expectations
- Respects diverse talents and ways of learning
This list presents a clear message to almost every college and university: The primary learning environment for undergraduate students, the fairly passive lecture-discussion format where faculty talk and most students listen, is contrary to almost every principle of an optimal student learning setting. While the lecture and lecture-discussion format are overwhelmingly the common practice at most universities-where large classes, multiple-choice exams, and teaching assistants are the norm-it is also true for too much of the education that occurs in most smaller colleges. Intimate faculty-student contact that encourages feedback, that motivates students, that allows students to perform is the exception and not the norm. Direct engagement outside of class and formal settings is not common and has decreased over the years. Providing vehicles for real peer, collaborative learning with and without faculty only occasionally occurs. In fact, the basic structure of the academic calendar and time-bounded courses that group students together to listen to a faculty member is contrary to the way many students learn best.
I believe there are at least three key elements that form a context for restructuring universities if we focus on student learning rather than on faculty teaching. These conclusions are, for the most part, supported by evidence and good theory:
- There are key elements of the student learning process that can only be
accomplished effectively through the human interaction of students and faculty
members.
- There are key elements of the student learning process that can be accomplished effectively through electronics technologies, especially new information technologies.
- There are key elements of the student learning process that can be accomplished effectively through peer interaction without the presence of a faculty member and by students learning by themselves inside and outside the institution.
- There are a good many alternatives to the standard lecture and lecture-discussion methods now being explored by creative faculty throughout the country.
(For a fairly extensive discussion of the different instructional tools that could be employed in changing how faculty work, please see my article in Change Magazine on restructuring the role of faculty).
I believe that restructuring universities by rethinking what faculty do can be accomplished because so much effort is expended on methods that are not very effective in producing high levels of student learning-namely talking at students in fairly large groups and imparting information to them. And it is this function that will be most easily and effectively performed by the new computer technologies.
I also believe that faculty spend precious little time involved in activities that are unique to faculty and have major impact on student learning-namely direct, individually faculty-student interaction, intense small group discussions, mentoring, and advising-and in encouraging students to be involved in activities that are important for student learning but do not involve faculty-peer groups, team-oriented settings, peer tutoring and coaching, experiential learning outside the institution. Further, I believe faculty members can effectively and efficiently employ new technologies in a way that will enhance-and often substitute for-a good deal of their present method of teaching, thereby freeing them to spend more time with more students and have greater impact on the learning of all these students.
Implications for Academic Processes and Structures
The restructuring of the role of faculty and the integration of the new electronic technologies with these new roles will have significant impact on many aspects of academic life. I expect that the very nature of how we structure all aspects of educating students will change.
Probably the most significant implication will be in the university's expectations regarding the role of the student in the learning process. Too often students are treated as passive recipients of information and knowledge, even though we know that the most effective learning occurs when students are active learners. Restructuring the role of faculty as outlined here-or in almost any other scenario-and integrating new computer technologies into the learning process will mean that students will need not only to be active but to be more independent learners.
From passive to active learner, from an emphasis on learning primarily in larger groups to learning in smaller, more intimate groups and independently-these changes in the role of student as learner will not fall easily on students trained throughout their education to be passive learners in larger groups focused on grades.
Another implication of restructuring universities by focusing on student learning and significantly altering the role of faculty is that wholesale alterations will have to be made in the academic calendar as we now know it. The calendar will need to be more flexible to allow different subject matter to be taught and learned in different time patterns and to encourage and enhance different learning styles. Emphasizing student mastery of material based on student learning styles and abilities will mean that a block of material or subject matter will not necessarily be learned in a specified period of time-that is, quarter or semester-but in the amount of time a particular student needs to learn that material. I expect that undergraduate students would learn a great deal of subject matter by using a series of learning blocks; with different blocks focused on electronic sources, peer study groups, intensive lecture-discussion sessions, intensive short-term seminar discussion sessions led by faculty members, or off-campus learning by doing.
For the most part, the present academic calendar is built to enable faculty to teach groups of students in classroom sessions that meet two or three times a week. If the calendar becomes refocused to deal with the needs and tools of student learning, it would be very different from the one we use now.
Restructuring the faculty role over the next five to ten years will also require significant changes in assessment procedures. If our primary focus is on student learning and if such learning occurs in a number of different blocks and settings that emphasize mastery rather than time, student assessment must focus on the individual and what he or she has learned. An individually faculty member evaluating a group of students by means of grades or otherwise would be inappropriate. I expect a number of different methods might be tried with a focus on student competency that could be demonstrated in a number of different ways, some or all of which would be independent of a faculty member's dispensing information. It is also possible that there will be more focus on student learning contracts developed in close interaction with faculty.
My proposals in brief are that students will spend more time learning by themselves and with their peers and much more time engaged with powerful, interactive technologies, and will spend less actual time-but more creative, intense, and focused time-with faculty members. Faculty, in turn, will work with greater numbers of students but "teach" much less.
A focus on student learning does not turn everything upside down. It also changes our expectations of students and demands that they take responsibility for their own learning. In the table in the sidebar I have attempted to summarize the differences between a faculty-teaching-focused and a student-learning-focused educational environment.
Two Educational Environments |
|
Focus on Faculty Teaching
|
Focus on Student Learning
|
Facing the Future
We must face the future directly. Except for a precious few, colleges and universities will come under economic and social pressures that will very likely change how we practice our profession-as faculty members and as administrators in all areas. While we may want it to be otherwise, the combination of cost pressures and demands that we be accountable for student learning outcomes in the context of tremendous changes in electronic technologies will cause us to restructure our institutions.
This challenge of restructuring our institutions is a daunting, if necessary, one. The scope of this challenge is summed up in a short article by Marjorie Kelly in Business Ethics "Taming the Demons of Change". Transformation of any sort-whether human or chemical or corporate-is a perilous passage at best, calling for a radical letting go and an openness to the unknown. It's hard to imagine anything more frightening. And it's hard find a more likely route to progress-for in letting go of the old form, we create space for a new form that will work even better. It comes down to simply this: We can't advance as long as we're holding tight to what no longer works. And we have to break the mold before a new form can emerge.
As the restructuring process unfolds, many tough decisions will have to be made and some wrong turns will have to be redirected. Some technology will not work as expected, some difficult people and situations will have to be overcome, and some adjustments in the timetable will be required. And people will grieve for the loss of past-people, structures, and processes-as they enter into the future, whether leaping or crawling.
The major issue for those of us in higher education to face is whether we are going to lead these change efforts or be forced into them by external agencies and groups. We must face the future. If it wasn't necessary we shouldn't and wouldn't do it.
Some of the material in this essay has previously appeared in Change magazine ( Guskin 1994a, 1994b, 1996).
Notes
Chickering, A.W., and Gramson, Z. F. "Seven Principles of Good Practice for Undergraduate Education." In A. W. Chickering and Z.F. Gamson (eds.), Applying the Seven Principles of Good Practice for Undergraduate Education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 47. San Fransico: Jossey-Bass, 1994.
Gardiner, L. " Redesigning Higher Education: Producing Dramatic Gains in Student Learning." ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report 7. Washington, D.C.: Graduate School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University, 1994.
Guskin, A. E. " Reducing Student Costs and Enhancing Student Learning: The University Challenge of the 90's-Part 1: Restructuring the Administration." Change, 1994a 26 (4), 22-29.
Guskin, A. E. " Reducing Student Costs and Enhancing Student Learning: The University Challenge of the 90's-Part II: Restructuring the Role of Faculty." Change, 1994b, 26 (5), 16-25.
Guskin, A. E. " Facing The Future: The Change Process in Restructuring Universities." Change, 1996, 28 (4), 27-37.
Kelly, M. " Taming the Demons of Change." Business Ethics, 1993, 7 (4) 6-7.
*********
Alan Guskin is chancellor and Distinguished University Professor, Antioch University; University Professor and University President Emeritus
* Essay appeared in July-August 1997 issue of About Campus.
Back to Learner Centered Education general information page
rev. 8/2002
The
Regents |
The
Universities |
For
the Student |
For
Faculty |
For
Parents |
Media
Resource |
Business
& Community |
Special
Programs |
Administrative/Staff
|
Government/Legislative
|
FAQ |
Site
Index /
Map
Contact
us
Arizona Board of Regents
2020 N. Central Ave., Suite 230
Phoenix, AZ 85004-4593
Telephone: (602) 229-2500 / Fax: (602) 229-2555