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

Thoughts on Faculty Innovation

Posted on April 1, 2019 by admin

This afternoon I read a blog post on InsideHigherEd by Steve Mintz titled “Faculty as Drivers of Innovation.” Steve’s blog post delves into the role of faculty and ways in which faculty are valued on campus. He recommends three ways in which faculty can be empowered to drive innovation including considering new ways for faculty and support units to collaborate, creating low risk zones for faculty experimentation, and incentivizing innovative work. I appreciate ongoing dialogue around innovation in higher ed and focus a large portion of each day trying to build processes and structures to support innovation at my institution. I work at American College of Education (ACE). We are a nontraditional, primarily graduate, entirely online college. We have a faculty recognition and promotion system, but we do not have tenure. We highly value our faculty. Not only are faculty central to achieving fundamental aims of our mission, but they bring a wealth of diverse knowledge that can stimulate innovation in teaching and learning, student support, and college operations.

In January 2019, we implemented a system similar to what Steve described by creating intentional space for innovation. We employ a PROPEL model, structured as reflective action learning groups, that connects faculty and staff to collaborate across departments to develop innovations. Incentive for participation primarily hinges on the understanding that most of us, faculty and staff alike, crave connection and enjoy the act of creating something new. While we pay a small stipend to adjunct faculty for their work in PROPEL, this is an add on for others. Again, I recognize we have a nontraditional model, but there is plenty to be said for drawing on one’s internal desire to develop something innovative while being part of a team. This approach was built on research we conducted including interviews, focus groups, and surveys to capture what motivates our faculty and staff. PROPEL is in an early stage, but we’ve had over 30 volunteers, including faculty, department chairs, and front line staff. It’s exciting to see what people will do when given the opportunity and a little support.

I believe PROPEL provides a systematic model for organizations of all sizes to continually innovate, and I will share more about PROPEL here in future posts.

Posted in Organizational Learning, PROPEL | Comments Off on Thoughts on Faculty Innovation

Finding and Sharing Meaning: Developing a Community of Practice

Posted on March 27, 2019 by admin

I lead a mindfulness group at my institution. I’ve led this group since April 2017. I can’t believe it has been two years!!! As I reflect on what this group is and could be, I wonder, is this group a Community of Practice? I believe this comes down to engagement by group members.

When I launched the group, I was lucky to have the support of my HR department and executive leadership. I kicked off a series of mindfulness virtual meet-ups including office yoga and meditation. Although no one from HR or executive leadership has attended my mindfulness meet-ups, they at least support the concept in theory. Contemplating who attends group meet-ups and who does not has left me wondering what it would take for skeptics of mindfulness to give it a shot. I used to be a skeptic. (I even rolled my eyes at the word “mindfulness”). That is until I began experiencing chronic tension headaches and migraines daily. I saw a variety of doctors, but none could provide a resolution aside from medication to manage the pain. During this time, a friend suggested I try physical therapy. The physical therapy helped me significantly reduce the frequency of migraines and helped me stop them when they started. Why hadn’t even one out of the six doctors I had seen suggested physical therapy? What other treatments might I benefit from that I hadn’t considered?

This lead me to research mindfulness and meditation. I started meditating daily and began feeling fewer symptoms of stress. I became a convert. Mindfulness has merit! I was shocked at my own evolution. But I was also thankful because it opened by eyes to an additional way of considering the world and another way of being. I started the mindfulness group for three reasons. First, I wanted to encourage others to consider new approaches including meditation and help them find relief. Second, I could see that my colleagues needed time to pause and reflect. Their work was hurried, and I felt they missed opportunities to draw meaningful insights from important processes. Finally, I wanted support. I wanted to be part of a team that would support the further development of my new found practice.

Over the past two years my mindfulness group has gathered online to meditate together more than 100 times. We’ve written monthly newsletter  content, shared research, and discussed ways to improve our practice. I believe we are a Community of Practice. Not everyone participates every week. We have a core group and many other members who come and go. We support each other in our practice. I will occasionally share information from this group here, and you can decide for yourself if our engagement meets the mark. I can at least say that I have met my original goals when starting this group, and I could not have done it without my community.

Posted in Leadership, Mindfulness | Comments Off on Finding and Sharing Meaning: Developing a Community of Practice