NCRVE Home | Site Search | Product Search

CHAPTER SEVEN:
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS

Summary
Implications

Two-year institutions which plan to use benchmark processes to facilitate change are faced with significant choices. They must select features exemplified in the benchmark processes that have a high potential for cost-effective quality improvement. If these choices are to be successful, they must represent an integrated perspective on the work of the TYI--a perspective which puts the learning process at the center of organizational change.

Summary

The design process described in NDTYI provides a helpful framework for assessing the utility and value of benchmarked processes. Each of the design specifications can be viewed as a standard against which the potential contributions of a benchmark can be evaluated. By reviewing these specifications for each design element, the TYI can make informed decisions concerning organizational change and innovation. Benchmark decisions, as viewed through the lens of NDTYI, take all design elements into account. However, the focus of the decision is on the learning process, the learning outcomes it sets out to achieve, and the learning organization that supports learning and links its results to the community.

In the NDTYI final report, these design elements are arranged in a three-dimensional space as shown on the next page (Copa & Ammentorp, in press). Each TYI has a location in the "space" of Figure 2 which defines the current configuration of learning process, learning outcomes, and learning organization. From this point of view, a benchmark opportunity represents a movement of the TYI from one point in "space" to another.

Figure 2
Positioning the Educational Organization

To evaluate a benchmark opportunity, it is necessary to consider how it positions the TYI on each axis of Figure 2. This means that each axis must be dimensioned so that features of the benchmark can be located appropriately. In the following discussion, we take four of the benchmark studies in this report (all except Learning Staff and Staff Development) and chart their position in our three-dimensional "space."

Benchmark Learning Outcomes

Although none of the four studies was directed at the learning outcomes design element, each made explicit references to outcomes either in the form of student learning, community benefits, or organizational vitality. These outcomes fall along the dimension shown below:

Subject	Basic Skills	Team	Knowledge	Comprehensive

Matter	Development	Building	Production	Functioning

At the left-hand end of this continuum, the TYI would focus its learning outcomes on the various subject matters taught. At the right-hand end, outcomes would be related to the comprehensive functioning of the learner. In using this continuum, it is important to note that there are no special values assigned to positions--a TYI can be effective at any of the points--so long as the outcomes are at the center of the learning process and supported by an appropriate learning organization. Program/organizational locations are determined by the following definitions:

Subject Matter: Curricula founded on the subject matter erect barriers that prevent the integration of knowledge needed by students. These curricula also foster the academic-vocational division found in many colleges (Lewis, 1994).
Basic Skills Development: These skills are drawn from studies of the workplace and projections of future occupational demand. They lend precision to educational outcomes and draw the academy into the world of work (SCANS, 1992).
Team Building: Outcomes associated with team functioning and the role of the individual in organizations adds a social dimension to the educational agenda. Such outcomes are expressive of life in global organizations where collaborative action is the only effective way to deal with complexity.
Knowledge Production: Modern organizations are increasingly dependent on creating and applying new knowledge. Individuals at all levels of the organization require knowledge production competencies that build on a foundation of basic skills and team participation (Gibbons et al., 1994).
Comprehensive Functioning: These outcomes recognize the social context of work and the realities of organizational, family, and community life. They focus on the competencies needed for life in a complex, global society (Hart-Landsberg, 1992).

The four benchmarked processes described in this report are located on this continuum in respect to how each sees learning outcomes. The coding scheme used is as follows: CWELL = Consortium for Workforce Education and Lifelong Learning; FVTC = Fox Valley Technical College; HEAT = Higher Education and Advanced Technology Center; SVCC = Sauk Valley Community College.

Subject	SVCC		CWELL		Comprehensive

Matter		FVTC		HEAT	Functioning

These locations are selected based on observations recorded in the four benchmark studies as follows:

CWELL: The research orientation of CWELL is clearly documented in the benchmark study. In fact, the central purpose of this program is to generate new approaches to education and to include students in knowledge production (McDonald, Huie, & Sticht, 1995).
FVTC: Fox Valley Technical College strives for learning outcomes that are located between basic skills and team building. This reflects the strong emphasis on training defined by the many learning partnerships between the college and area businesses.
HEAT: The significant benchmark observation here is, "From a student perspective, the HEAT Center provides the WEB . . . (where) . . . the student operates in multiple environments continuously during the learning process." This facilitates outcomes at the comprehensive functioning level.
SVCC: The PQP Report concerning college programs shows a strong disciplinary emphasis and program evaluation is focused on traditionally defined measures of academic productivity. These point to learning outcomes on the subject matter end of this continuum (Sauk Valley Community College, 1997).

Benchmarking Learning Process

The learning process is dimensioned on the continuum shown below:

Instruction	Work-Based Learning	Team Learning	Goal Directed Learning	Construction

Here, the range of options suggests alternative approaches to teaching and learning. Again, there is no "best location"; the TYI must find the point best suited to the learning outcomes it has selected according to these definitions:

Instruction: Lectures and other didactic teaching practices are at the center of instruction-based learning processes. These approaches grow out of the subject matters to define the traditional academy.
Work-Based Learning: On-the-job training, apprenticeships, and the like are used to give the student a hands-on learning experience. It is a key component of School-to-Work models an important step in "unfreezing" instructional systems (Bragg, Hamm, & Trinkle, 1995).
Team Learning: Collaboration is an emerging theme in all aspects of organizational life. It is no less so in learning where team efforts have been shown to be highly effective in improving student engagement in the learning process and in connecting learning to the external environment (Mathews, 1994).
Goal Directed Learning: For the individual student to become adept at directing her or his own learning, each needs to develop a goal and a plan for its attainment. Goal directed learning articulates the goals of the student with the objectives of the college (Ram & Leake, 1995).
Construction: All of the above learning modalities come together as students work in teams, pursuing their personal goals through collective construction of products and new knowledge. The shift in learning from instruction to construction is the fundamental change proposed in the NDTYI model (Harel & Papert, 1993).

In our four benchmark studies we find evidence to suggest the positions shown below:

Instruction	SVCC		HEAT		Construction

		FVTC		CWELL

CWELL: New knowledge is being constructed in this program for students, teachers, and university educators. This approach is the focus of the conference planned for the spring of 1998 where the results of CWELL are to be shared with those interested in lifelong learning.
FVTC: This college is definitely work-centered in its learning partnerships. It uses both work-based learning and team learning as it strives to meet the needs of business and industry.
HEAT: The center promotes goal directed learning. As Goodwin (1997) states,

The benefit is to make students successful. Through quick and easy transitions, students migrate from a two-year manufacturing curriculum into an applied engineering program. Or, a student that is not being successful in engineering is allowed to stop out with a two-year degree or transfer down to a related, less-aggressive academic program.
SVCC: Teaching and learning at SVCC lie somewhere between instruction and work-based learning. This reflects the college's academic mission as well as its link to the world of work

Benchmarking the Learning Organization

The learning organization element of NDTYI was not directly under examination in the four benchmark studies in this paper. Nevertheless, it is possible to array the findings of these studies on the following organization continuum:

Collegiate Academic-Vocational Team Enterprise Learning

Integration Organization

These concepts are defined as follows:

Collegiate: This is a pattern of organization based on subject matter where organizational units are derived from the curriculum--it is a mirror to the model of the traditional academy (Eaton, 1994).
Academic-Vocational Integration: Here we have an evolution of the collegiate mode of organization that essentially builds alliances across the traditional divisions in TYIs. It is a softening of familiar organizational schema to permit the formation of new fields of study and/or programs (Grubb & Kraskouskas, 1992).
Team: In moving to this model, the college draws students and staff into affinity groups where common interests take the place of individual goals and traditional organization structure. Teams build learning communities that cut across inter- and intra-institutional boundaries (Smith & Hunter, 1988).
Enterprise: As teams take full responsibility for educational inputs and outcomes, they become enterprises. These entities rise and fall in response to changes in the environment, market demand, and evolution of knowledge (Alfred & Carter, 1995).
Learning Organization: All members of the organization and their various enterprises enter into dynamic relationships which foster learning for students and for the organization (Senge, 1990).

The four benchmark studies take the positions shown below:

Collegiate HEAT FVTC Learning

SVCC CWELL Organization

The rationale for each college's location is as follows:

CWELL: Due to the research emphasis of CWELL, it exemplifies the learning organization--experimentation and innovation are the driving forces which define organization structure and operations.
FVTC: In its approach to customized training, FVTC is following the enterprise model where each "tub is on its own bottom."
HEAT: The center attempts academic and vocational integration as it links college programs and business/industry activities.
SVCC: The college is structured around academic disciplines and has a parallel administrative organization that is very much in the collegiate model.

Implications

The above studies and their locations in the TYI "space" show that there is no preferred location for the TYI of the future. In fact, we see SVCC and the San Diego CWELL Project at the opposite "corners" of Figure 2. And, both of these benchmarks are quite successful. What this tells us is that any TYI looking to benchmark studies has the option to consider which features (if any) of the benchmark it wishes to implement.

Our analysis of these studies has not, however, shown the TYI how to make decisions about new ideas and/or processes. What we have done is to create a set of concepts and exemplars which can be used to contrast benchmarks with the present state of affairs in the TYI (Alfred & Carter, 1995). Thus, we have the ingredients for thoughtful consideration of alternative paradigms for the TYI (Barr, 1993; Boggs, 1993). And, through the process of benchmarking, the TYI might be able to ensure its future vitality (Commission on Innovation, 1993).

The above benchmark studies also illustrate the interrelationships or synergies among the design elements. For instance, the focus on staff and staff development at Miami-Dade Community College influenced, especially, how finances were spent, and also the learning process and the learning outcomes. And the focus on the learning environment at the Higher Education and Advanced Technology Center at Lowry specifically affected the partnerships that were formed, the learning process, and the learning outcomes. These studies indicate that change in one design element will have an influence on all of the other design elements. The design elements need to work in concert with each other for the institution to be viable in the 21st century.

Another implication of the studies in this report is that in order to implement and maintain innovative designs in TYIs, support for the new designs is needed from a number of fronts. It is important to receive support from within the institution--administration, staff, and students. Equally important is community support. Connections to the community and support from the community allow TYIs to leverage resources; keep abreast of changes in work, family, and community; and provide relevant learning experiences for students.

The benchmark studies presented here show how external changes can guide organizational transformation in a positive direction. That is, change is being viewed as a "friend" rather than an "enemy" to be resisted. And, by responding thoughtfully and sensitively to changes, the organization is improving at being true to its learning signature. At the same time, the benchmark studies illustrate the power of synergy to leverage resources and organizational improvements. For example, attention to partnerships brings staff development opportunities at the same time as important contributions to improving the learning process and sharing learning finance.

The important point to remember is that benchmarking is only the starting point for organizational change. It opens the door to considering something other than "business as usual" by showing the TYI how other institutions serve their stakeholders in unique ways. Benchmarking marks the baseline for authentic change in that it defines processes that "work." They are not exercises in "what might be"; they are real activities that deliver outcomes demanded by students and the larger community.