Comparisons in Higher Education: Contextual Attributes

Posted on July 3, 2019 by admin

In my last post, I described the benefits of secondary data in formalized research and in practical application.  I primarily focused on how the use of government data available through IPEDS facilitates peer comparisons by enabling faculty and academic leaders to compare institutions on key characteristics.  A number of sources for identifying peer institutions exist beyond IPEDS including a network mapping tool from the Chronicle of Higher Education, Carnegie Classifications Look Up, and U.S. News & World Reports. Additionally, many tools, such as Gray Associates and Emsi, have been created from a marketing and program development perspective to provide valuable data to guide institutional program investment decisions.  Where does one begin? First, it is important to recognize that each source has a unique method for gathering data and using that data to profile institutions.  Acknowledge that the source is presenting one way of conceptualizing the criteria at hand, and these systems do not proclaim what is empirically best (McCormick & Mei, 2005).

Next, consider the purpose of why you are comparing institutions.  In my example from last week, faculty were comparing institutions to identify peer programs to facilitate and peer comparison as part of an evaluation of program effectiveness.  The sources you use may differ based on your purpose.  Are you comparing and contrasting institutions for research purposes?  If so, you may want to consider attributes such as level/degree levels offered, size of student population, and enrollment profile to ensure you are comparing data across similar institutions.  From there, your sources and attributes will vary based on your research question.  If researching culture, for example, the size of the institution, number of employees, proportion of tenure track faculty, mission, and type of control (e.g., for-profit, private, public) would provide valuable context for understanding the cultural differences between institutions.  Finding sources with the desired data is key, and Carnegie Classifications would be a valuable source for many of these attributes.  Are you comparing and contrasting for purposes of benchmarking and strategic planning?  If so, you may want to consider attributes such as level, enrollment profile, and type of control if benchmarking against similar institutions (e.g., Carnegie Classifications would again be useful); however, when strategic planning, you may want to examine aspirational peers, which would enable you to conduct a gap analysis to see how your institution compares to one which you strive to be or surpass. Attributes such as graduation rate, satisfaction scores, licensure pass rates, and gainful employment may be more important to drive strategic planning.  

Finally, when using the data from your selected sources, you will want to include relevant definitions and factors that are necessary for your audience to understand the data as you are using them.  I’m a big fan of using footnotes to include these contextual definitions because they detract less from the narrative while providing the important information all readers need.

Through my current research, I am exploring organizational learning at colleges and universities.  After compiling a list of all colleges and universities cited in the literature for having organizational learning models, I could use peer comparison tools and secondary data sources to explore institutions of higher education with organizational learning models and compare them to my own institution based on type of control, enrollment size, and employee counts. These factors may significantly impact an organization’s ability to implement organizational learning initiatives. A comparison of this type would be a solid base to understanding what models for organizational learning exist in what types of institutions.  This would inform considerations as to how generalizable my model, if effective, might be to other institutions of differing types.  An entire study could focus on analyzing the types of institutions with organizational learning models and the differing characteristics between the models and institutions.  This could reveal areas in which certain characteristics are more well-suited for specific types of universities and colleges compared to others.

Reference

McCormick, A. & Mei, C. (2005). Rethinking and reframing the Carnegie Classification. Change, 51-57. 

Posted in Organizational Learning, TEL780 | Comments Off on Comparisons in Higher Education: Contextual Attributes

Secondary Data Sources in Higher Education

Posted on June 29, 2019 by admin

As higher education researchers strive to better understand the ways in which educational programs and institutions can better meet evolving needs of students and employers, secondary data sources are an increasingly useful resources.  Secondary data sources are previously collected data that another researcher can access and reanalyze to address a new research question (Elliot, 2016).  Using government data (e.g., IPEDS), national data (e.g., NASSGAP), and/or institutional data, such as those generated by institutional research offices), is often more realistic than trying to gather similar data for an isolated study.  Not only can these sources be useful in formalized research, but they have practical value as well.  Let’s take an example from the college where I work. 

Each year, 4-6 academic programs complete a comprehensive program review process.  During this process, faculty and student support staff review the program to evaluate effectiveness.  Faculty committees and program leadership gathers institutional data on student satisfaction, retention and completion rates, enrollment rates, student learning outcomes, and more.  One component is a peer comparison.  Faculty identify other programs they consider peers and research those programs to determine how our program compares.  This is a useful approach for identifying gaps in our programs and ensuring our programs stay current in a rapidly changing market.  While some program-specific data can be found on institutional websites, key performance indicators are not always easy to find.  Data available through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (e.g. IPEDS) may provide a place to start.  While IPEDS houses a massive amount of data on higher education institutions, an easy place to start is reviewing institutional profiles for peer schools.  The institutional profile provides basic characteristics such as location, type of organizational control, award levels, % of students receiving financial aid, enrollment and completions by degree level and race/ethnicity, and HR data such as the number of faculty and staff in various positions. During the peer comparison part of  comprehensive program review, faculty may first identify an institution they believe is a peer and then check IPEDS to compare similarities to ensure they select peer programs from an appropriately comparable institution.

But how do we identify which attributes to use to identify a peer? Stay tuned for my next blog post in which I will review some of the sources for comparing institutions and programs, as well as relevant contextual attributes.           

Reference

Elliott, D. (2016). Secondary data analysis. In F. Stage & K. Manning (Eds.), Research in the college context, 2nd edition (pp. 175-184). Routledge. 

Posted in TEL780 | Comments Off on Secondary Data Sources in Higher Education

Attention Economy

Posted on June 26, 2019 by admin

Meetings, emails, texts, calls, and many other forms of “connecting” combine to reduce our attention and challenge our ability to focus.  According to research reported by The Harvard Gazette (2010), we spend 47% of waking hours thinking about something other than what is happening in the present moment.  The resulting scarcity of attention means we have less and less time to pay attention to each competing demand. I have personally faced this challenge at work in what some may call an email addiction.  Emails flood our inboxes and clearing them may feel like we’re getting things done, but hours later nothing is crossed off the to do list.  Hougaard and Carter (2016) suggest a few strategies for helping regain attention and focus for what is happening in the moment. Applying these tips requires intentional practice to retrain the way we respond to stimuli. Try a few and see what works for you:

  • Before getting out of bed in the morning, lay still and focus on your breathing for two minutes.      
  • When you begin work and sit down to tackle the daily to do list, take 10 minutes to complete a mindfulness practice such as focusing on your breathing.   If 10 minutes seems like too long, try 5 minutes. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
  • Avoid multitasking by focusing your energy on the task at hand. Often this may seem counter-productive, but by focusing on each task fully we are more likely to execute well the first time and maintain energy for the next task.
  • Recognize when you are prioritizing low priority tasks because they are easier to accomplish and counter this by setting yourself up to focus on higher priority tasks that may be more complex. Turn off your email for one hour to focus. Put your cell phone in a drawer. Be conscious of how you are working and try a new approach to improve your focus.
  • Schedule an afternoon mindfulness break for a brief breathing exercise or quiet moment of reflection.  This may re-energize you when you feel the need for an afternoon nap.

References

Bradt., S. (2010, November 11). Wandering mind not a happy mind. The Harvard Gazette. Retrieved from https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/11/wandering-mind-not-a-happy-mind/

Hougaard, R, & Carter, J. (2016, March 4). How to practice mindfulness throughout your work day. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/03/how-to-practice-mindfulness-throughout-your-work-day

Posted in Mindfulness | Comments Off on Attention Economy

Research Design

Posted on June 23, 2019 by admin

I used to describe myself as someone who hated theory. I found theory too abstract, and when I dug in to understand more, I found myself confused by contradicting definitions and seemingly endless terminology lacking clear explanations. Through several years of doctoral study, I can finally say I see the value in theory and strive to demonstrate this value in my own research. In this post, I will review a research question I am currently exploring and how that aligns with research paradigms and methodologies. I will also explore how my understanding of theory might be applied to this research.

As part of my doctoral work, I am considering the following research question: What impact does the design, delivery, and leadership of the PROPEL model have on teams and innovation at the American College of Education?

The constructivist paradigm, which is “concerned with meaning, researcher-respondent rapport, co-construction of the research findings…, practical application of research findings, and reciprocity between and among researcher and respondents” (Manning & Stage, 2014, p. 22), best aligns with my research question.  This alignment reflects my desire to expose the multiple perspectives of teams and how the varying team contexts relate to innovation.  I also work closely with team members who are research participants, and my role as researcher in this work regularly changes from participant to participant-observer to observer.  By studying the phenomenon of team innovation development, I hope to generate themes from data that can be used to expand knowledge and create a model for an active learning organization. These goals align with key components of the constructivist paradigm including inductive meaning development, socially constructed context specific meaning, theory creation through interpretation, and close co-constructed researcher-participant relationships.  Two major challenges relate to this paradigm including how I, as a researcher, separate my own values from the meaning I derive from the data. Countering this challenge requires acknowledging my own assumptions and values and using validation methods during data collection and analysis.  Another challenge is that due to the context-specific nature of my work, the results will have limited generalizability.

As a counter point to how well suited the constructivist paradigm is for my work, the positivist paradigm is an approach that would not fit well with my research.  The positivist paradigm is a scientific-based approach used to collect data to verify hypotheses (Manning & Stage, 2014).  Common features include explanation, prediction, and control, and it is best used with a phenomenon viewed as having a singular reality that is not context-specific. Researcher-participant relationships should be independent, objective, or separate, and the researcher should isolate their values and the values of respondents from the research.  Additionally, research based on the positivist paradigm is based on existing theory.  Compared to the details of my research described above, these features that distinguish positivist from other research paradigms would make it a poor choice for my exploration of my research question.

Based in a constructivist paradigm, my research will follow an action research approach including primarily qualitative methods such as interviews, document analysis, and observations. These methods will enable me to explore my research questions through the experiences of participants, which will enable me to generate themes to interpret and explain innovation development in higher education.  Unlike a quantitative method such as experimental research, which would require random sampling and a control group, primarily qualitative methods fit well with my setting and lack of complete control of who participates (Manning & Stage, 2014).

My research paradigm and methods align with my research question to enable me to meet my goals related to theory development. But what do I mean by theory and theory development?  Let me break down what this means in my work.  Kezar (2006) does an excellent job of explaining the confusion around theory I mentioned previously.  She provides a thorough overview of the challenges and benefits of using theory and how it relates to the field of education.  She also presents questions researchers should consider to determine how theory fits into their work.  After reviewing this work and considering existing theories related to my research, I considered what my own definition of theory would look like based on my understanding of theory.  My work follows a combination of the interpretive and participatory paradigms. I seek to explain something in order to better understand it so that I may provide a guide to facilitate change. The phenomenon I study is innovation development in organizations, a phenomenon that includes poorly defined human and organizational processes that are socially constructed and context specific. Thus, my work will likely not yield a universal theory. 

The goal of my work is to understand the role of various processes, structures, and characteristics on innovation development in higher education. I believe theory has value and is interpreted differently based on the individual and context. Therefore, I seek to generate theory within my context that may provide new knowledge, expanded from existing theories and based in experience, of how organizations, teams, and individuals engage to sustain innovation.  From this theory development, I hope to provide a model for others to consider in their own unique contexts. For theory to emerge from my research, a scholarly approach is required following a combination of inductive and deductive approaches. A deductive review of existing literature enables me to use my prior knowledge to explore alternatives to existing theories to inductively derive meaning through original research. Therefore, my past personal and professional experience is relevant and must be acknowledged in my work. Considering these reflections, I define theory as an interpretation of an observed or experienced phenomenon that has practical value in certain contexts.  I must acknowledge that this definition will likely change as my work and context changes.

Research outcomes are only as valid as the underlying foundations that support each step of the work.  Defining and aligning research questions, paradigms, and methods is critical to a well-planned study. Articulating the role and purpose of theory in one’s research clarifies how meaning is derived and understood. Kezar (2006) is a source worth exploring if you wish to deepen your own understanding of the role of theory in research in education.

References

Kezar, A. (2006). To use or not to use theory: Is that the question? In J. Smart (ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, Volume XXI (pp. 283-344). Springer. 

Manning, K. & Stage, F. (2014). What is your research approach? In F. Stage & K. Manning (eds.), Research in the college context (pp. 19-44). Routledge. 

Posted in Education, TEL780 | Comments Off on Research Design

Content in the Field of Higher Education

Posted on June 22, 2019 by admin

Higher education, as a field, gained steam in the 1960s and has continued to grow (Hendrickson, 2014).  Data from the National Center for Education Statistics reveal and increase of 26% in master’s and doctoral degrees conferred in the area of higher education or higher education administration between 2011-2012 and 2015-2016. (NCES, 2013; NCES, 2017).  The majority of these degrees are master’s level with over 3,000 master’s degrees awarded in 2015-2016.  While scholars debate the classification of higher education as a discipline, the increasing pursuit of degrees in this area exemplifies the demand and raises questions about expected outcomes (Hendrickson, 2014; Wright, 2007).

The study of the field of higher education is complex and continually evolving (Wright, 2007).  Scholars have proposed core domains of knowledge that should be integrated into program curriculum and reflected in expected program outcomes (Hendrickson, 2014; Goodchild, 2014).  Hendrickson (2014) suggests five core domains (p. 233):

  1. History and evolution of higher education institutions and systems
  2. Structure and functions of higher education organizations and the interplay with the external environment
  3. Organizational theory applied to higher education organizations
  4. Development of curriculum to foster learning
  5. Students and their development

Research advancing knowledge in these domains is supported by a host of professional associations including the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE).  The theme of the 2018 ASHE annual conference was “envisioning the woke academy” with program sections in seven areas aligning closely with relevant research cited above:

  1.  Students
  2.  Organization, administration, and leadership 
  3.  Faculty
  4. Contexts, methods, and foundations
  5.  Policy, finance, and economics
  6.  International
  7. Community-engaged research

Education research such as that supported by ASHE must focus on complex issues within education in order to advance the field. Ball and Forzani (2007) describe this as focusing on instructional dynamics, which requires researchers to consider the interactions between learners, teachers, and environmental contexts.  The research presented at the 2018 ASHE conference exemplifies this exact focus by challenging higher education administrators and faculty to critically consider the history and ongoing oppression and its impact on teaching and learning.  Individual sessions align well with the overall theme as exemplified by session titles such as “Mystery of Iniquity: Exploring the Career Advancement of Minoritized Faculty” and “Addressing Power in Data Collection by Incorporating Participant-Generated Visual Methods into Research Designs: A Woke Workshop.”  The conference provides a well-rounded program covering major domains related to the study of higher education as highlighted in the literature.  From a review of the program, it does not appear that any gaps exist in the topics presented at the conference.

Reviewing literature and conference proceedings in this area revealed a possible outlet for my own research on organizational learning to facilitate ongoing innovation at colleges and universities.  My research directly aligns with the topical programs at the 2018 ASHE conference, specifically with the organization, administration, and leadership area including sessions such as “In the News: Public Perception Influences on Higher Education,” “Networks and New Approaches,” and “Institutional Agents and Power Dynamics.”  Additionally, one session “Beyond Main Hall: Collaboration and Community Engagement” includes numerous presenters with research on institutional decisions and processes as well as promoting cross-departmental collaboration for innovation.  This exploration into the study of higher education has provided sources from which I can gain new insights and connect with potential future collaborators. I share this in hopes that others may find similar pathways to sharing ideas and collaborating with colleagues.

References

Ball, D. & Forzani, F. (2007). What makes educational research “educational”? Educational Researcher, 36(9), 529-540. 

Goodchild, L. (2014). Higher education as a field of study: Its history, degree programs, associations, and national guidelines. In S. Freeman, L. Hagedorn, L. Goodchild & D. Wright (Eds.), Advancing higher education as a field of study: In quest of doctoral degree guidelines (pp. 13-50). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Hendrickson, R. (2014). The core knowledge of higher education. In S. Freeman, L. Hagedorn, L. Goodchild & D. Wright (Eds.), Advancing higher education as a field of study: In quest of doctoral degree guidelines (pp. 229-240). Sterling, VA: Stylus. 

NCES. (2013). Digest of education statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_318.30.asp.

NCES. (2017). Digest of education statistics Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_318.30.asp.

Wright, D. (2007). Progress in the development of higher education as a specialized field of study. In D. Wright & M. Miller (Eds.), Training higher education policy makers and leaders (pp. 19-34). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. 

Posted in Education, TEL780 | Comments Off on Content in the Field of Higher Education

Just in Time Education

Posted on May 11, 2019 by admin

In my first post in this series on the future of education, I highlighted four notable themes from the ASU GSV Summit related to the need for a universal learning system.  This week I explore “just in time” (JIT) education.  While you may be familiar with “just in time” teaching, a more common concept for a teaching strategy that facilitates more active learning during class time, “just in time” education is something different.  JIT teaching strategies rely on using a feedback loop to enhance learning during class.  Student are provided with assignments to complete prior to class, typically online, that enable to teacher to review student performance and questions prior to class.  Thus enabling class time to be used to target learning in areas directly related to student needs (Brame, n.d.).  JIT education, on the other hand, is a strategy for providing the education individuals need exactly when they need to apply in it.  JIT is not a novel concept.  Developed in the 1970s as a management strategy and referred to as JIT training, early adoption occurred in manufacturing as the accelerating pace of change created a need for access to the latest information and technology paired with training for employees to ensure effective, timely application (Jones, 2001; Andriotis, n.d.). 

Adapting this concept to higher education, Salomonsson, Franci, Lieblein, and Furufren (2005) call for JIT education to provide a more relevant education for students that provides the concepts and tools students need, exactly when they need them.  This approach differs from a traditional method of teaching that provides a wide range of skills and knowledge intending to equip a student with a toolbox that they will later draw on to enhance future learning.  While there is certainly value to general education and a strong foundation to support learning, when we apply JIT education to degree programs and graduate level learning, this approach is used to identify those foundational concepts truly needed by students for the specific degree they are pursuing.  Additionally, this method includes identifying intended use of the concepts and then weaving application into the learning process so students learning from doing and can connect the concepts to past and present experiences.  As Vest (2013) recognizes, this framework for education extends beyond degree programs.  Advances in technology occur so frequently that lifelong learning is necessary to maintain effectiveness of professionals across disciplines. 

When Michael Crow, President of Arizona State University, gave his key note speech at the ASU SGV Summit and discussed the need for JITE, he made a call for businesses and education to collaborate to meet this need.  This requires applying technology to make education accessible to all, anywhere, and anytime (Cho, Schmelzer, & McMahon, 2002).  It also warrants more flexible ways of providing education such as through micro-credentials that build towards a larger degree, executive and professional education with value to employers and employees, and policies that support ongoing learning through accelerated learning such as shorter and more frequent term starts, a wider variety of payment options, and learning environments that suit the needs of the increasing diverse population that stands to benefit from JIT education (Vest, 2013; IBL News, 2019; CAEL, n.d.).

At American College of Education, we strive to serve all learners online through accessible affordable high-quality programs.  A typical term is five-weeks, applications are accepted right up until the term start, and we have adapted our entire student support model to meet a range of needs such as flexible hours of availability, varying familiarity with technology, and more (this could be an entire post by itself).  But there is more we can do. The future of employer – college partnerships, micro-credentials, and executive education hold exciting possibilities.

In the next post in this series, I’ll explore the concept of boundary spanning organizations, another key component of sustaining higher education and meeting the evolving needs of students and employers.

References

Andriotis, N. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.efrontlearning.com/blog/2017/10/just-time-training-best-practices-adopt-business.html

Brames, C. (n.d.). Just-in-time teaching. Retrieved from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/just-in-time-teaching-jitt/

CAEL. (n.d.). Ten principles for effectively serving adults. Retrieved from https://www.cael.org/higher-education-ten-principles

Cho, W., Schmelzer, C., & Mcmahon, P. (2002). Preparing Hospitality Managers for the 21st Century: The Merging of Just-in-Time Education, Criticalthinking, and Collaborative Learning. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 26(1), 23-37.

IBL News. (2019, April 9). Michael Crow at ASU GSV: Technologies andpolicies we need to transform education. Retrieved from https://iblnews.org/2019/04/09/michael-crow-at-asu-gsv-technologies-we-need-to-transform-education/

Jones, M. (2001). Just-in-time Training. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 3(4), 480-487.

Salomonsson, L., Francis, C., Lieblein, G., & Furugren, B. (2005). Just in Time Education. NACTA Journal, 49(4), 5-13. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43765992

Vest, C. (2013). Just-in-Time Education. ASEE Prism, 22(5), 52.

Posted in Education | Comments Off on Just in Time Education

PROPEL – Part II: The Case for Developing an Organizational Change Initiative

Posted on May 4, 2019 by admin

As described in Part I of this series, the changing environment of higher education requires that colleges and universities adapt. One time adaptations will not suffice as technology, diverse student bodies, and societal needs continue to evolve more rapidly than before. Therefore, what colleges and universities need is a systematic approach to organizational learning that facilitates ongoing change. Grounding organizational change in theory is a good place to start, but beyond theory, change must be rooted in practical needs of those most impacted.  The PROPEL model for organizational learning and change is supported by a web of existing theoretical perspectives including experiential learning theory, theories of organizational learning, reflective practice, change theory, and design thinking. Each of these perspectives builds on the others and each one offers a unique component to guide the development, implementation, and evaluation of PROPEL. In addition to a strong theoretical base, PROPEL is rooted in research conducted in two phases to ensure the initiative meets practical needs and is anchored in the college culture.

The first phase of research included one-on-one interviews with four employees.  This small sample allowed me to dip my toes in the water to get a sense for how receptive college leadership and employees would be to my conducting further research. It also enabled me to begin evaluating the best approach for a targeted, systematic change initiative. This round of research focused on the perception of support for reflective practice within the college at the individual, group, and organizational levels.  Semi-structured interview questions were based on Hilden and Tikkamaki’s (2013) four constructs for fostering organizational learning through reflective practices.  Results revealed that employees feel supported in reflective practice at the individual and group levels, but support was not consistent across departments and improved support could be provided at the organizational level.  Employee comments highlighted the desire to collaborate across departments and support each other in continuous improvement efforts. Think about that for a minute. In a fast-paced environment with high competition and slim resources, employees wanted to spend more time working across department to help each other. (I truly feel lucky to work with these people!)

We needed to develop a systematic approach for collaboration across departments that would facilitate change and enable the college to proactively address evolving needs of society. My personal mission was clear. I set out to develop a change initiative grounded in best practice, theory, and the wants and needs of faculty, staff, and students.  In Part III of this series, I elaborate on the path to obtaining executive level approval and conducting expanded research used to gather broad employee input.

Before wrapping up this post, I must highlight the leadership and culture within the college that made these initial findings possible. My context is unique. American College of Education is entirely online and 99% of faculty and staff work remotely at least one day/week. We have a distributed leadership model within a relatively young college (est. 2005). Thriving within a culture that supports inquiry for improvement is only possible because of the authentic leaders dedicated to achieving the college mission. While this initiative and my research focuses on employees and organizations, I agree with my HR dept that happy faculty and staff = happy students. Supporting innovation means valuing, respecting, and including all employees in creating opportunities to enhance student learning and support. 

Reference

Hilden,S., & Tikkamaki, K. (2013). Reflective practice as a fuel for organizational learning. Administrative Sciences, 3, 76-95. DOI:10.3390/admsci3030076

Posted in Education, Leadership, Organizational Learning, PROPEL | Comments Off on PROPEL – Part II: The Case for Developing an Organizational Change Initiative

A Universal Learning System

Posted on April 11, 2019 by admin

For the last three days, I’ve had the privilege of attending the ASU GSV Summit in San Diego. The ASU GSV Summit brings together educators, entrepreneurs, funders, and corporations to discuss, reflect on, and propose innovative approaches to improving educational opportunities for all. The thread running through the summit was that the future of education requires a lifelong universal system for learning from early childhood through elder years. Four notable themes emerged to support the development and delivery of this vision of a universal learning system for all.

1) “Just in time” education – This is a term I’ve heard a lot in the last few months in my own doctoral program at Arizona State University. What is “just in time” education? How do we provide this to learners of all ages?

2) Boundary spanning organizations – What is a boundary spanning organization? Why do we need them?

3) Relationships matter – Why do relationships matter? What kinds of relationship have value? How does this relate to a universal learning system for all?

4) Strategic leadership for an ever changing future – What does strategic leadership really mean in this context? How do we train others to be strategic leaders and how do we embody this ourselves?

I will elaborate on each of these points and how they relate to expanding equity in education in upcoming posts as a series on the future of education, with a specific focus on higher ed. I look forward to sharing the journey with you over the coming weeks!

Posted in Education, Leadership, Organizational Learning | Comments Off on A Universal Learning System

PROPEL – Part I: An Overview of a Model for Organizational Change

Posted on April 4, 2019 by admin

In my first blog post, Finding and Sharing Meaning: Developing a Community of Practice, I describe how my colleagues frequently seemed hurried and opportunities to pause and reflect before taking action seemed to be lacking. As I was contemplating this challenge of daily work, I was regularly seeing headlines about the changing landscape of higher education. Books like Breakpoint: The Changing Marketplace for Higher Education (McGee, 2015) and There is Life After College (Selingo, 2016) were making news, and it seemed like every other day a new article would come through my email highlighting the evolution of student and employer needs. How could my colleagues and I respond, or even better, proactively adapt, to the new needs of society if we couldn’t consistently make time to reflect on every day tasks? We needed some intentional, systematic opportunities to reflect and engage with others to plan and implement innovations.

Research suggests learning in higher education institutions is supported by providing spaces designated for learning, incorporating diverse voices representing unique experiences, facilitating dialogue, building skills, encouraging reflection, and legitimizing learning activities (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). Based on these conditions, I began researching existing models for organizational change in practice and found that reflective action learning groups (Yeo, 2006) provide a base from which I could build an organizational change initiative at my college. This process led to the development of PROPEL. The goal of PROPEL is to institutionalize a process and structure to enable groups to reflect, learning, stimulate development of innovative ideas, and put those ideas into action.   The title of this innovation, PROPEL, encompasses the process team members engage in to develop proposals for innovations in teaching, learning, and supporting students by: preparing through an in-house training in Canvas, reflecting on college and market needs as well as their own individual and team strengths, originating an idea for improvement, planning a proposal for pilot implementation, engaging with all stakeholders and industry experts, and then leading their initiative if approved.

Development and implementation of PROPEL was and continues to be informed by ongoing research to integrate employee concerns, interests, and experiences. In Part II of this series on PROPEL, I will explain the initial phase of research I conducted to ensure this model of organizational change was relevant and meaningful to my colleagues and for our students.

References

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193-212. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40214287

McGee, J. (2015). Breakpoint: The changing marketplace for higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Selingo, J. J. (2016). There is life after college. New York: HarperCollins.

Yeo, R. K. (2006). Learning institution to learning organization: Kudos to reflective practitioners. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30(5), 396-419. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090590610677944

Posted in Organizational Learning, PROPEL | Comments Off on PROPEL – Part I: An Overview of a Model for Organizational Change

Positive Relationship with Stress

Posted on April 2, 2019 by admin

Last fall, my mindfulness group exchanged ideas about the benefits of mindfulness. I like to share research that suggests mindfulness practice can positively impact health. Occasionally, someone will mention that being overly aware of stress can have a negative impact. This makes sense, but I wanted to understand more so I reviewed a few research articles. What I found indicates that research supports the use of mindfulness practices for stress reduction. This may take several forms. How we think about stress can impact its effects on our bodies. If we view stress in a positive light rather than negatively, it may improve performance and reduce physical side effects often associated with stress (Jamieson, Nock, & Mendes, 2012). Reframing stress may be easier said than done. While working towards developing a positive relationship with stress, consider other ways in which mindfulness could help mitigate the harmful impact of stress on our bodies. Research supports the use of progressive muscle relaxation, guided imagery, breathing exercises, mediation, and other mindfulness-based practices to improve outcomes for patients with conditions ranging from headaches and pregnancy to cancer and cardiovascular disease (Varvogli, L., & Darviri, C., 2011). Why not give it a shot?

References

Jamieson, J. P., Nock, M. K., & Mendes, W. B. (2012). Mind over matter: Reappraising arousal improves cardiovascular and cognitive responses to stress. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 141(3), 417-422. Retrieved from http://nocklab.fas.harvard.edu/files/nocklab/files/jamieson_2012_mindovermatter_reappraisingarounsal_cardiocog_stress_jepg.pdf

Varvogli, L., & Darviri, C. (2011). Stress management techniques: Evidence-based procedures that reduce stress and promote health. Health Science Journal, 5(2), 74-89. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.851.7680&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Posted in Mindfulness | Comments Off on Positive Relationship with Stress