This section provides an introduction to the project, New Designs for the Two-Year Institution of Higher Education (NDTYI), conducted during calendar years 1995 and 1996. Sections of the introduction will address the purpose of the project, its focus in terms of institutions and motivations, and the research and development process used to achieve its purpose.
NDTYI had three purposes. The first was to develop a design process that was sufficiently powerful to overcome traditional approaches and responses to designing two-year institutions of higher education. Two-year institutions (TYIs) face serious threats to standard operating procedures as will be evident later in this report. A way was needed to jar institutional planning out of its current ruts and create "new space" within which to think about institutional purposes, structures, and operations.
The second purpose was to develop a set of design specifications for an effective 21st century TYI. The challenge first was voiced by those involved in implementing concepts from an earlier National Center for Research in Vocational Education project, New Designs for the Comprehensive High School. High school stakeholders were asking what college should be like in view of the proposed design specifications for the 21st century high school. We decided to focus on only the first two years of college, particularly in the context of TYIs. The design specifications for future TYIs were to be built on best knowledge we could find to support effective educational practice. We proposed to start from scratch with few assumptions about what was needed and how needs should be met, always questioning conventional thinking and practice. The resulting design specifications were to serve as the criteria for an alternative model of TYIs--a way to stretch thinking and stimulate responsible critique of current practice.
The third purpose was to develop and/or identify and describe new designs for TYIs that met the design specifications referred to above. The new designs were to make the design specifications very real and concrete for use in dissemination, training, and implementation. In some elements of the design process, the project was used to develop actual new designs for institutional practice as will be illustrated in later sections of this report. For other design process elements, the project used a different route--identifying and describing actual institutional practices that met the proposed design specifications.
The work of the project was focused in two different ways--by type of institution and by motivation for considering new designs. First, the project focused only on TYIs and not four-year colleges and universities. TYIs included technical institutes and colleges, community colleges, and private proprietary schools. TYIs offer a wide variety of programs culminating in certificates, diplomas, and associate degrees. As shown in Table 1, there were 7,638 public and private postsecondary institutions offering less than four-year programs in the United States in 1994. Of this total, 2,010 offered less than one year of instruction; 3,038 offered at least one year but less than two years of instruction; 1,144 offered the associate degree, and 1,446 offered two years but less than four years of instruction. Only 1,534 of the 7,638 institutions offering less than four-year programs were public institutions. When only the institutions that are accredited at the higher education level by an agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education were counted, the total number of less than four-year institutions dropped from 7,638 to 1,443 institutions (U.S. Department of Education, 1994). Of the 1,443 accredited postsecondary institutions, 99% are those that offer the associate degree or two years, but less than four years of instruction. From another source, there were 1,472 community colleges in 1991 of which 1,291 were public institutions (Vaughan, 1995). Therefore, we estimate that there are about 1,500 accredited public and private TYIs in the United States. In 1992, community colleges enrolled more than 5.7 million students in credit courses (p. 1). Vaughan goes on to state, "More than 50 percent of all first-time college students in the United States attended a community college, and more than 45 percent of all minority students enrolled in higher education in America attended a community college" (p. 2). The general educational structure of the United States is shown in Figure 1. The figure depicts the place of the TYI in relation to secondary education and other forms of higher education. Comparable European educational institutions comprise the later years in higher level vocational schools and the earlier years in polytechnic institutions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Highest
Level of Offering*
|
Total
|
Public
|
Nonprofit
|
For-Profit
|
|
All
institutions
|
10,369
|
2,152
|
2,890
|
5,327
|
|
Less
than one year
|
2,010
|
40
|
157
|
1,813
|
|
One
but less than two years
|
3,038
|
237
|
175
|
2,626
|
|
Associate's
degree
|
1,144
|
628
|
147
|
367
|
|
Two
but less than four years
|
1,446
|
629
|
467
|
350
|
|
Bachelor's
degree
|
790
|
96
|
631
|
63
|
|
Postbaccalaureate
certificate
|
160
|
11
|
125
|
24
|
|
Master's
degree
|
830
|
178
|
602
|
50
|
|
Post-master's
certificate
|
188
|
99
|
87
|
2
|
|
Doctor's
degree
|
675
|
228
|
427
|
20
|
|
Other/did
not respond
|
88
|
6
|
70
|
12
|
* In addition to the highest levels of offering shown here, first-professional degrees or certificates were offered by 150 public institutions, 505 nonprofit schools, and 21 institutions classified as for-profit.
Sources: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (PEDS), Institutional Characteristics Survey, 1993-94 ; U.S. Department of Education (1994).
The project also focused on a particular target audience in terms of motivations for considering major changes in the above-mentioned institutions. Three specific groups were of interest: (1) administrative leaders responsible for designing entirely new institutions (e.g., the Homestead campus in Florida, which was destroyed by a hurricane; the two new campuses to be built by the Maricopa Community College district in Phoenix, Arizona), (2) administrative leadership responsible for major restructuring (merger, re-engineering, downsizing) of institutions (e.g., merger of technical and community colleges in Connecticut and Minnesota), and (3) policymakers at the local, state, and federal levels responsible for policy, regulations, and funding for TYIs. Care was taken in the project development and operation to involve these target groups and ensure that they are a part of reporting and dissemination plans.
This section of the report will describe the design process used in developing specifications for a future-oriented TYI, the sources of information used as ingredients to the process, and the way in which the design process was implemented. Each of these components is a product of the project in the sense of providing a strategy or "roadmap" for design in a particular institutional setting.
The design process was made up of ten elements, executed in a particular order, referred to as "designing-down." The design process is shown in Figure 2. The elements were addressed in a particular order so as to get careful alignment among the elements and to get "first questions first." The idea is to ensure that the design fits the needs of the situation and proceeds in a logical order from aims to actions to supporting structure, culture, and environment. Each of the design elements will now be described.
Learning Context Learning Signature Learning Outcomes Learning Process Learning Organization Learning Partnerships Learning Staff and Staff Development Learning Environment Learning Finance Learning Celebration |
Each design for a TYI must meet the needs of a particular context or situation. The context is described in terms of problems with current institutional operation, opportunities to be taken advantage of with a new institution, and goals to be accomplished by the new institution. Studying and analyzing the learning context results in a set of design criteria for use in guiding and monitoring the accomplishments of the other design process elements.
Learning enterprise designs are given direction and energy by the symbols and metaphors representing the hopes and expectations of policymakers, educators, and their students. An effective design process must first try to elicit and understand these hopes and expectations as a way to give coherence and focus to learning design. Often, the signature takes form through symbols and metaphors (e.g., words, pictures, people, stories, objects) representing a deeply shared perspective on the learning enterprise.
Globalization and its associated complexity demands that TYIs have a clear idea of the value to be added by the learning enterprise as a starting point for program improvement. In short, TYI leaders must clearly know the competencies, standards, or results they want to produce for and through the learners. At the same time, students must be able to see what TYIs can do for them in terms of their personal development.
Learning outcomes are accomplished through the design of an appropriate learning process, traditionally viewed in terms of the language of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Too often, the attention in higher education is to teaching in contrast to learning and to subject matter (curriculum) at the expense of instruction and assessment. Most faculty in higher education are not required to study the learning process; instead, they center almost solely on subject matter. If TYIs are to address the learning design challenges and opportunities of the future, they must have a working language and knowledge of the learning process with foundations in human development.
For the learning process to be successful in reaching the learning outcomes in a manner called for by the learning signature, a learning infrastructure or organization must be put into place and continually improved. The learning infrastructure is made up of the organization of learners, learning time, learning settings, subject matter, staff, technology, and learning environment. It is here that new designs for TYIs are most clearly visible. Familiar physical and organizational forms of higher education are unlikely to be responsive to the needs of students and the changing nature of society and its lifeplaces (e.g., work, family, community).
The link between higher education institutions and their communities takes the form of learning partnerships between public and private sector organizations. TYIs can no longer "go it alone"; they have neither the resources nor the knowledge to be set apart from their surroundings. Instead of the "ivory tower" of the past, higher education institutions of the future will be ever more closely integrated with their communities and will bear increasing responsibilities for the quality of life of those who support and benefit from their work.
The changed perspective suggested above mandates parallel development of teachers, administrators, and support personnel ready to adapt TYIs to new realities. Higher education will need to identify, train, and support leaders who can shape curricula and student experience in forms indicated by ever-changing learning expectations and processes.
The driving force for higher education has shifted from the traditional--static--subject matters to a dynamic view of knowledge and its use. Information technology has been and will continue to be a pivotal force in this development; it has redefined the process of knowledge creation, transmission, and application. Learning technology has become one of the major considerations in any new design for the learning environment for TYIs. After noting the design elements above, consideration should shift to the physical and social environment of the institution. New designs will not be constrained by architectural forms nor will they be limited to traditional educational practices; they will be motivated by the dynamic integration of higher education institutions with their students and communities. Learning environments will include consideration of settings such as home, workplace, community, and school.
This element of the New Designs process concerns both the cost and revenues for higher education. Key strategies concerning cost include cost containment, improved efficiency, re-engineering, and privatization. On the revenue side, strategies include institutional development, new products and services, partnerships, and new markets.
The New Designs process is integrated by the cultural symbols and practices of all those associated with TYIs. Learning experiences and their applications are continually reinforced through celebrations whereby the community confirms the relevance of the work of higher education.
While the elements are presented in linear, downward order, the process also involves moving upward and among the design process elements to ensure close alignment and internal consistency and coherence. Close alignment of the elements is needed to realize quality and efficiency in operation of the TYI.
The design process is envisioned as being like a seminar, where knowledge and experiences are shared among a design group with the purpose of mutually "learning their way into" new designs for a higher education institution that meet the needs of the context they have at hand. The knowledge and experience include that possessed by the group itself as well as what can be brought to the group from others. In NDTYI, several sources of information served as ingredients for the design process.
Care was taken to scan professional practices nationally and internationally to identify the best used by TYIs. We looked for effective and innovative places, leadership, and concepts for possible use in developing New Designs specifications for each of the elements of the design as described above. At each design element, we also looked for professional practices outside of public higher education for ways to improve the design process and specifications.
We also searched for the latest research on higher education relating to each of the design components. As with the scan for best practice, we searched for ideas and concepts from outside of higher education that might prove worthy of adaptation. We particularly examined NCRVE's past and present research and development work for study findings and recommendations that were appropriate to include in New Designs specifications.
We examined several of the reports advocating revision and reform of TYIs for recommendations and supporting rationale that deserved consideration in the design process. We wanted to ensure that we were making use of previous studies and planning of TYIs and were not merely reinventing what had already been reported. Sometimes these reports addressed only certain elements of the design process. Our contribution was unique in addressing the full range of elements and striving for alignment in the recommendations among all of the elements.
Group interviews were used in the design process in order to get first-hand views of many of the design elements. Interviews were held with groups of students, faculty, administrators, and external institutional partners. The group interviews held for each of the selected design elements were as follows:
Each of the group interviews was tape recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for implications for the design specifications and discussion by the National Design Group.
The National Design Group was selected to give broad representation by the leadership and stakeholders in the future of TYIs. They were also selected to give diverse perspectives in terms of gender, ethnicity, and geographic location. The following individuals were the members of the National Design Group:
The National Design Group provided guidance on important issues needing attention, the resolution of issues, and the development of design specifications for NDTYI. They played a very significant role in forming the institutional design recommended in this report.
The process used in the project to work through the design elements occurred as a series of interactive steps. The meetings of the National Design Group served as a major organizer for the project. The agendas for the meetings are shown in Appendix 2 of this report. Each meeting was preceded by the project staff's development of a draft paper on the design elements to be addressed at the meeting. The draft paper was sent to the National Design Group just prior to the meeting for its review and discussion at the meeting. Following discussion at the meeting, the draft paper was revised and a set of design specifications for the element was put forth. Where focus group interviews were conducted on a design element, the results were presented to the National Design Group for its consideration. The meetings of the National Design Group were held in the following sites:
At each of the meetings, we invited several individuals from local TYIs to serve as resource persons. The list of resource persons is presented in Appendix 1 of this report. As part of the Miami, Florida, meeting, we visited three of the campuses of Miami-Dade Community College. The project staff was responsible for the final form of the report and for the wording of design specifications.
Development of an appropriate set of design criteria for NDTYI was a significant element in the design process. These criteria guided the response to design specifications and the selection or development of exemplary new designs for the remaining elements of the design process. The resulting design criteria are grounded in a close examination of the context of TYIs in the United States--their problems, assets, opportunities, and aspirations. The selected criteria are that new designs be imaginative, directional, responsive, collaborative, accountable, and resourced. In the view of the NDTYI staff, if new institutional designs are responsive to these criteria in all of the criteria's dimensionality, the resulting institutions will have good assurance of being successful (perceived as doing a good job), valued (perceived as doing a job worth doing), and used (perceived as a good investment by individuals and community).
The major limitations of the project were in funding to support the review of research and best practices (we wanted to be even more thorough in identification of research and best practices), commissioning papers from experts on high-profile topics (as it was, the project staff wrote most papers), and meetings of the National Design Group (we wanted at least two more meetings at sites permitting visits to institutions exhibiting best practices). While additional resources would have permitted the development of an even better product, we appreciated the resources we did have and used them effectively.
The major products of this project are a design process, design specifications, and illustrative new designs for the TYI in the United States. Each can be used by a particular institution in its design or redesign for the 21st century. Our focus was on technical colleges and institutes, community colleges, and private, proprietary schools. We targeted the leadership of places that are building new institutions or undergoing significant institutional restructuring. We also targeted policymakers at the state and federal levels who are directing and funding TYIs. A ten-element design process was used to develop the design specifications for a 21st century, TYI using information about best practices, research, reform reports, focus-group interviews, and the National Design Group. The key limitation was funding for more extensive and enhanced design support and analysis.
[*] This section was written by George Copa.