Signature communicates our unique identity. Personal signatures are used when we take ownership and make promises. Institutional signatures come in the form of logos, seals, shields, and mascots. Signatures have been visible on the educational landscape since the Middle Ages (Barnard & Shepard, 1929). The seals associated with the ancient European colleges captured an identity that was rooted in the histories of these institutions (Lockmiller, 1969). We see the same pattern in the United States where institutional shields are used as symbols that connect modern institutions with their European past. The shield of the University of Chicago, shown in Figure 3, is but one of many examples of these academic signatures.
Those who know the history of the University of Chicago will be quick to point out that the Latin inscription, "Cres-Cat. Sci Entia Vita Exco-Latur," can be loosely translated as "science is the escalator to life" and that the true University signature is that of the Maroons--the fabled "Monsters of the Midway" of athletic fame.
In countless examples like that of the University of Chicago, we see the tension between a historical signature and the popular imagery that inspires the loyalty of students and alumni (Lee, 1992). In this tension, we see the signature's essence--an attempt to symbolically visualize an institution's unique identity. In its best form, the signature promotes identification with the aims, history, and culture of the institution. Signature is a powerful shorthand way to represent the college to its staff, students, and the public.
Signatures are not limited to seals and shields. They can also be bound up with the physical environment of the college. Location, architecture, and the built environment constitute anchors for perceptions of individuals and groups. The environment has durable connotations for individuals who have lived and/or worked in the institution (Thelin & Yankovich, 1987). The sum of their experiences is tied to settings, buildings, and rooms in ways that prompt instant recall of that aspect of signature. Much of the built environment has been shaped by forms taken from ancient designs. It is not uncommon to find Grecian temples on many campuses; what is not so obvious is that designs of this sort bring a large repertory of rituals and behaviors with them, which may or may not be appropriate for the future (Williams, 1985).
In the contemporary college, signature is increasingly associated with marketing and institutional development efforts. Signature is the public face of the college--a means of communication with the public. According to Topor (1986), "The collective image of your institution, or global institutional image, is the total of many audience members' perceptions. This global image should contain some recurring components, the key ideas you want to communicate to each target audience" (p. 5). In a sense, this view of signature is in line with corporate images and the logos that anchor commercial marketing.
Educational institutions have many interrelated dimensions to their identity. They are, to be sure, located in physical space; they worry about marketing, and they have no end of visual images and rituals. These attributes of signature are the tangibles that speak of the underlying identity of the institution. And, it is the identity that is expressed eloquently by effective signatures. They empower the organization to realize its potential; as Gareth Morgan (1986) has stated, "The images or metaphors through which we read organizational situations help us to describe the way organizations are, and offer clear ideas and options as to how they could be" (p. 331).
Here, the key word is metaphor--the shorthand expression that makes it possible for all members of the organization to understand history, present action, and future possibilities (Sackmann, 1989). Organizational metaphors gain their usefulness to the extent that they incorporate the stories or myths that people use to tell others about the history of the institution (Westerlund & Sjostrand, 1979). Finally, myths and metaphors are translated into models, which depict the flow of events at the core of the organization (deThomasis, Ammentorp, & Fox, 1991).
This section is organized into the following major sections: (1) an introduction that addresses the purpose of the learning signature and the process used to develop design specifications and new designs for learning signature in NDTYI; (2) a section describing the connection of learning signature to the design criteria presented in the section on learning context; (3) a section presenting the design specifications for an effective learning signature; (4) a section describing the learning signature themes developed by the National Design Group, the resulting NDTYI learning signature, and exemplary new designs for learning signature selected from existing TYIs; and (5) a summary to the section.
In NDTYI, the purpose of the learning signature element in the design process is to provide explicit and early focus on the identity of the TYI in its learning context. The learning signature element forces discussion of past identity and how that identity needs to change for future viability of the institution. The learning signature serves as a way to bring coherence and focus to multiple dimensions of an institution's identity, including (1) mission--what activity is the institution about (e.g., key products and services), (2) vision--where does the institution want to go with the activity, (3) values--what gives the institution its meaning, (4) assumptions--what is the institution's context/reality, and (5) major purposes--what are the institution's major functions.
Wheatley and Kellner-Rogers (1996) are particularly insightful on the crucial role that learning signature, as identity, plays in institutional design in a context of need for change and transformation. One of their guiding principles for thinking about how to organize human activities is
Life organizes around identity. Every living thing acts to develop and preserve itself. Identity is the filter that every organism or system uses to make sense of the world. New information, new relationships, changing environment--all are interpreted through a sense of self. This tendency toward self-creation is so strong that it creates a seeming paradox. An organism will change to maintain its identity. (p. 14, bolding is in original)
They go on to describe identity (signature) as the "most compelling organizing energy available" (p. 58). In questioning how to think about organizational identity, they suggest:
In organizations, as in people, identity has many dimensions. Each illustrates some aspect of who the organization is. Identity includes such dimensions as history, values, actions, core beliefs, competencies, principles, purpose, mission. None of these alone tells who the organization is. Some are statements about who it would like to be. Some are revealing of who it really is. But together they tell the story of self and its sojourn in a world it has created.
Identity is the source of organization. Every organization is an identity in motion, moving through the world, trying to make a difference. Therefore, the most important work we can do at the beginning of an organizing effort is to engage one another in exploring our purpose. We need to explore why we have come together. (p. 58)
These remarks reinforce the need for attention to learning signature very early in the design process. For the learning signature provides a way of bringing coherence and alignment to the rest of the design. Wheatley and Kellner-Rogers (1996) clarify this point:
We can't resolve organizational incoherence with training programs about values, or with beautiful reports that explain the company's way, or by the charisma of any leader. We can resolve it only with coherence--fundamental integrity about who we are.
With coherence, comes the capacity to create organizations that are both free and effective. They are effective because they support people's abilities to self-organize. They are free because they know who they are. (p. 60)
They conclude with a compelling reason for attention to learning signature as an early and significant design element in NDTYI, "In organizations, clear identity is an unmistakable and certain call" (p. 61).
The process of developing the design specifications (the desired features or characteristics to be effective) for learning signature involved a review of the literature and practice on developing organizational identity and ways to communicate the identity visually. Resulting from this review was a preliminary set of design specifications for the learning signature of TYIs. The preliminary design specifications were reviewed by the NDTYI Work Group and the National Design Group and then brought into final form.
The process used to develop actual new designs for the learning signature involved both the NDTYI Work Group and the National Design Group. The NDTYI Work Group was used to try out a process of developing a learning signature for NDTYI. Based on this experience, the process was revised and used with the National Design Group. The final process was set up in several steps: (1) review and discussion of the purpose of the learning signature (i.e., its relationship to communicating a unique institutional identity); (2) review and discussion of the design specifications for an effective learning signature; (3) development of proposed learning signature for an effective TYI in the 21st century by each National Design Group member; (4) discussion among the National Design Group of their learning signature proposals; (5) based on the proposed signatures and resulting discussion, identifying and prioritizing a set of common themes among the proposed signatures; (6) contracting with a graphic artist to use the proposed signatures and common themes as a basis for developing learning signature options for NDTYI; (7) review of the learning signature options by the National Design Group; and (8) development of a final learning signature by the graphic artist in consultation with the NDTYI staff. Each of these steps will be presented in greater detail later in this section.
In addition to developing a generic signature for the TYI in the United States on entering the 21st century, we also spent a very limited amount of time searching for exemplary learning signatures among TYIs that we knew about. This process resulted in selecting two additional signatures to illustrate the idea and power of learning signature as a part of the NDTYI design process. These signatures are presented later in this section.
If the design process is to produce an effective new design for the TYI, it must be coherent, one design element with another. For the learning signature, the greatest challenge is with the first element of the design process--the learning context. In the previous section, the learning context for the TYI was described in some detail and then attention was turned to the development of a set of design criteria as a way to bring focus and priority to the contextual analysis. As a result, NDTYI decided on six design criteria to guide and monitor the design specifications and new designs for the remaining nine elements of the NDTYI design process. The design criteria are that new designs for TYIs should be imaginative, directional, responsive, collaborative, accountable, and resourced.
The imaginative criterion suggests that the learning signature specifications and designs be willing to break with traditional boundaries for higher education and encourage an entrepreneurial stance in searching for a future identity. The directional design criterion suggests that the institution needs to focus--institutional focus is a very powerful strategy to deal with a turbulent and challenging context. The discussion of the directional criterion implies that the learning signature should point the institution in a direction that may be different from other TYIs as it tunes into its unique learning context and situation--its problems, opportunities, assets, and goals. Being responsive means that the learning signature must communicate attention to people and communities, lifelong commitment, diversity, flexibility, quickness, and top-notch service. The collaborative criterion necessitates that the learning signature cannot be the product of one small group (e.g., the institution's central administration)--rather, it will need to involve and be owned by all of the institution's stakeholders--staff, students, partners, community, and state. Being accountable brings attention to developing a learning signature that communicates an institutional promise that will be taken seriously in terms of quality assurance and continuous quality improvement; effectiveness in terms of the signature will be monitored, publicly disclosed, and acted upon. In turn, being resourced means that there are or will be adequate resources to deliver on the signature's promise--it is naive to become carried away by grandiose ideas in the development of a leaning signature, only to find that the promise is hollow in practice. There is much strategic foresight and energy in designing a learning signature that carefully develops/finds a challenging and yet comfortable institutional identity.
The review of literature and good practice on developing design specifications for effective learning signatures focused on the concepts of organizational identity and image. Napoles (1988), in a book entitled Corporation Identity Design , draws a contrast between identity and image as follows:
Understanding the difference between the concepts of corporate image and corporate identity is the first step toward closing the gap between the two. The corporate image is the way in which a company is perceived by the public--consumers, competitors, suppliers, the government, and the general public. Corporate identity, on the other hand, is a symbol that reflects the way in which the company wants to be perceived. It is the ideal situation, and can be created; whereas image is always earned. (p. 20)
According to Napoles, a healthy corporate image will have the following characteristics:
The corporate identity is the visual presentation of the corporate image. Napoles (1988) notes that effective corporate identities have the following common characteristics:
Napoles (1988) claims that a favorable corporate image "is one of the most important assets a business can have" (p. 32). Another author, Schmittel (1984), in a book entitled Corporate Design International , presents the following criteria for an effective trademark: "unique, memorable, flexible, strong, and enduring" (p. 110). He notes the three key image words are "high quality, progressiveness, and smartness" (p. 136). Interestingly, one of his basic rules for designing corporate identity is, "A clear identity is not the result of many individuals--and/or of manifold single activities! Uniformity and conformity come into existence through consistency and responsible competence of one decisive (!) central authority" (p. 22).
Napoles (1988) cites the following benefits to developing an effective image:
Henrion (1990) in his chapter on design coordination and visual identity in the book entitled Managing the Corporate Image portrays the benefits as follows: "Increased recognisability, increased memorability, increased employee confidence, greater attraction for potential employees, cost savings through standardization, a stronger presence in the market, more confidence among sources of finance, increased public awareness, and, in short, a more appropriate image" (p. 22).
Symbols are the medium used to communicate an organization's identity--the visualized representation of the signature. Napoles distinguished several different types of symbols, "linguistic, mathematical, scientific, and graphic" (p. 43). Symbols in turn have their power on the subconscious mind and the meaning can be positive or negative. Some symbols are easy to interpret in particular ways and are called "symbolic metaphors" or "archetypes" (Napoles, 1988, pp. 44-45), such as a bolt of lighting for speedy delivery or an oak tree for soundness and stability. A key point in designing an effective signature is being aware of the associations triggered by a symbol. The phenomenon of transfer of meaning from a symbol to an organization is referred to as "sensation transference" (p. 47). The basic symbol categories developed by Napoles are as follows:
Often these categories of symbols are used in combination. Napoles notes that the determining factor, "should be the ability of the symbol to communicate the company's objectives to its target market" (p. 49).
With respect to the process of designing an identity or signature, Napoles (1988) proposes the following steps:
An impressive presentation of an organizational identity manual is the 3M Corporation's (n.d.) The Corporate Identification System , which presents five basic design elements for the 3M Corporation: (1) corporate symbol, (2) typeface, (3) color, (4) grid system, and (5) signature system. Henrion (1990) proposes a similar set of steps to the signature creation process: "analysis, briefing, concept, development, design guidelines, motivation, and implementation" (p. 16). The "motivation" step is unique and addresses the need to involve staff early on in the development process and communicate widely to gain acceptance and understanding of the signature.
In thinking about the organizational identity, Turner (1990) suggests starting utilizing four different points of view:
As should now be clear, the signature of an organization is significant to its effectiveness and requires a thoughtful process to develop and implement. The reality is that the signature portrays the organization's strengths, weaknesses, capabilities, and approach to a project (Boemer, 1986).
Key concepts regarding the learning signature for NDTYI, based on the review of literature and practice and the design context described in the previous section, include identity, image, uniqueness, focus, coherence, promise, and ownership. Each of these concepts is important to the lexicon or language of NDTYI:
Based on the process outlined earlier in this section involving the NDTYI Work Group and National Design Group, the design specifications for an effective learning signature for a TYI are as shown in Exhibit 3.
|
In addition to the design specifications for this and each of the remaining elements of the New Designs process, exemplary new designs for TYIs that are responsive to the proposed design specifications and illustrate the specifications in practice will be presented. In some cases, an illustrative new design will be developed as part of NDTYI; in other elements, we will select exemplary new designs from the good practice of institutions with which we are familiar, and for some elements of the design process both strategies will be used--that is, we will develop new designs as part of the project and also select new designs from existing institutions. Learning signature is one of the design elements where both approaches were used.
As described above in the section on process, we used both the NDTYI Work Group and National Design Group to assist the project staff in developing an illustrative learning signature for NDTYI. The NDTYI Work Group assisted in developing and pilot-testing the process used with the National Design Group in creating an effective learning signature for the project.
The process used with the National Design Group was to ask them to first consider the design criteria and design specifications for an effective learning signature and then propose a learning signature for a future-oriented, TYI. More specifically, they were asked individually to respond to the question, "What picture, words or phrase, object, person, or music should be used to characterize an effective 21st century TYI?" The National Design Group members each developed a learning signature and presented it to other members of the group and the project staff. The signature proposals included the following:
While these learning signatures were being presented to and discussed with other members of the National Design Group, a record was kept of the concepts used to describe and explain the signatures. The National Design Group was then asked to help refine the list, and then the concepts were prioritized by group-voting procedures. The themes identified as most important in the learning signature presentations were as follows:
In subsequent meetings of the National Design Group, these themes were further refined. The following concepts are central to the learning signature for NDTYI:
In addition, the project staff wanted to keep a connection between NDTYI and the previous design effort which focused on the comprehensive high school and used a bird as part of its learning signature.
With this information in hand, a graphic artist was contracted to develop the learning signature. After several options were reviewed by the National Design Group at its last meeting, the final developments and selection was left to the NDTYI staff. The learning signature selected for NDTYI is as shown in Figure 4.
The bird, with the attributes of both eagle and dove, represents the learner on leaving the TYI. Under its wing, the learner carries the learning experience which has been transformational and synergistic. The learner has changed in some very meaningful ways, and connections have been made, internally and externally, which prepare the person to have a better life and contribute to a better society. At the same time, the learning signature symbolizes the desired identity and image of the TYI--moving forward, transforming as it "dances with change" and responds to a dynamically changing context, and improving through webs of relationships and connections that produce synergies in accomplishment and use of resources.
As a part of NDTYI relating to the learning signature, the project staff also remained on the outlook for learning signatures that were already in use by TYIs and represented the NDTYI design specifications for a learning signature. The signatures of two institutions were selected for illustration--each representing a different use of symbols.
This tribal and community college is located in Cloquet, Minnesota. It is one of the Native American Tribal Colleges and was recently constructed to provide higher education opportunities for the Ojibwa.
Fond du Lac Community College is found on land of traditional significance to the Tribe. It is in--and of--the surrounding second-growth forest. Trees removed from the site were preserved and used in rough form as interior posts for the main campus building. The common space of the campus center is open to the outdoors so that one gets a sense of the interdependence of the people and nature.
The site plan for the college is where its learning signature is most apparent. The traditional symbols of the tribe are the bear's paw and the thunderbird. The site and the buildings express this learning signature as shown in Figure 5. Each of the bear's claws will soon be represented by a residential building (see Figure 6), showing that the educational experience and life experience come together at Fond du Lac. Housing units are open to all ages and the college takes care to see that elders of the tribe are in residence to provide a cultural foundation to contemporary learning. In fact, the conscious attempt to integrate traditional and current values is the fundamental goal of the college--to apply what is unique to the Ojibwa culture to the realities faced by students.
Kirkwood Community College is located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The college was visited just as NDTYI was coming to a close. The purpose of the visit was to study its use of learning technology. While on the campus, it was very evident that a new learning signature was being implemented for the college. Banners with the learning signature were evident throughout the campus and in its written materials. For example, a huge banner proclaiming the learning signature hung above the entrance to the main student building. The learning signature, as shown in Figure 7, responded in direct ways to many of the design specifications we had set for an effective learning signature.
The incorporation of a learning signature is about finding/developing institutional identity and then symbolizing it--usually in a visual form. Developing the learning signature for a TYI is one of the most important early steps in the design process. The process requires serious attention to the learning context of the institution and the need for the institution to change or transform, perhaps in some drastic ways. Once set, the learning signature provides the starting point for aligning all other elements in the design process. If it is off-base, it will lead the rest of the design process further off-base.
Important concepts to be understood and considered in designing a learning signature include identity, image, uniqueness, focus, coherence, promise, and ownership. From a NDTYI perspective, the design specifications for an effective signature are as follows:
In developing a learning signature to be used for the TYI across the United States, NDTYI selected a core identity that emphasized the concepts of transformation and synergy for the institution and its effects on learners.
[*] This section was written by George Copa with some assistance from William Ammentorp regarding related literature.