Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
What must we invent for tomorrow?
Five critical forces that will challengethe U.S. learning community (and perhaps
yours) to innovate for the future
EDEN 2009 Annual Conference10-13 June 2009Gdansk, Poland
Nicholas H. Allen, DPAProvost Emeritus & Collegiate ProfessorUniversity of Maryland University College
A Changing World
What will shape U.S. Higher Education in the next 10 to 15 years?
What will be the impact on our Higher Education Institutions: Especially those serving “non-traditional” students?
What must we invent to meet these challenges?
Forces of Change in the U.S.
1. Acute national need2. Critical demographic shifts3. Continued, rapid change in technology4. Intense competition5. Growing regulatory pressure for
accountability and results
1. National Need
Demand for tertiary education in the U.S. will come from four sources: Traditional baseline growth patternsThe shift to non-traditional studentsNational goals in response to global
competitionRising social expectations: tertiary
education will be a universal requirement
*IES National Center for Educational Statistics, Sep 2008
Baseline Growth Patterns
Baseline enrollment growth at U.S. post-secondary, degree-granting institutions will continue over 2006-2017: Projected: +13% (20.1M students)Average annual growth: 1.18%Down from 1.64% over 1992-2006But still healthy based on historical patterns
of attendance
*IES National Center for Educational Statistics, Sep 2008
National Need: 2006-2017
The Baby-Boom Echo Generation moves on: Age: 18-24 +10% 25-34 +27% 35+ + 8%
Level: UG + 12% G + 18% Prof + 22%
*IES National Center for Educational Statistics, Sep 2008
Shift to Non-traditional StudentsTraditional students get the attention:
18-22 years oldFull-timeResiding on campus
But, of 17 million students enrolled in post-secondary education in 2006: Only 16% fit the definition for traditional
students*
*Stokes, Peter J.; Hidden in Plain Sight, Eduventures Issue Paper to The Commission on the Future of Higher Education, 2006.
Shift to Non-traditional
Real change has already taken place:58% aged 22 +40% 25 or older40% studying part-time40% at 2 year schools*
Future growth will continue to be driven by non-traditional student patterns
*Stokes, Peter J.; Hidden in Plain Sight, Eduventures Issue Paper to The Commission on the Future of Higher Education, 2006.
National Attainment Goals60-75% of fastest growing jobs in US
require education at associate level or higher*
Yet compared to other OECD nations, the U.S. ranks:11th in entry rate to a tertiary degree15th in tertiary graduation rates (1st in 1995)18th in tertiary science graduates per
100,000 employed 25-34 year olds**
*US BLS, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008-2009**OECD, Education at a Glance, September 2008
National Attainment Goals
Fewer than 40% of U.S. working age adults (25-65) have a tertiary degree (2006)
Nine OECD nations have set attainment goals of 55% by 2025
The President and national foundations have called for the U.S. to meet or exceed this goal
To match 55% attainment, U.S. degree production must increase by 40% (16M graduates) over the period 2005-2025.*
*NCHE, Adding it up: State Challenges for Increasing College Access and Success, November 2007.
Rising Expectations
Cross cultural belief: education offers hope for a better job, life, and role in society.
Education is becoming accepted as a human right (Spellings Commission: Every citizen shall have the opportunity to earn a degree.)
Universal participation in a post-secondary degree will become a 21st century requirement
National Need: Impact
The U.S. faces unprecedented need to expand capacity and raise attainment rates of a tertiary degree
Opportunities will abound for both for-profit and not-for-profit providers to fulfill this need
Cutbacks in public funding may limit expansion in traditional public institutions
This need cannot be fulfilled through traditional bricks and mortar expansion
2. Major Demographic Shifts (U.S.)
The emerging Hispanic & immigrant population
The arrival of “The Third Age” (55-79) and “Encore Careers”
Hispanic & Immigrant GrowthProjected U.S. population growth between
2005 and 2050:* 296 to 438 millionForeign born residents will double to 1in 5Whites drop to 47%Blacks remain at 13%Asians grow to nearly 10%Hispanics will represent nearly a third
*Pew Research Center, 2008
Hispanic & Immigrant Growth
By 2022 half public high school graduates will be minorities with Hispanics making up a fourth:*
*Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education
Impact
Projected Enrollment Increases in Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions 2006-2017Whites 5%Blacks 26%Asian 26%Hispanic 39%
*IES National Center for Educational Statistics, Sep 2008
The Third Age: Tsunami
Over 80 million “Boomers” born between 1945-1965 reach retirement in next 20.First to reach partial retirement (62): 2008First to reach full Social Security ret.: 2012Last Boomers to reach age 85: 2051
By 2030, over 20% of the U.S. will be 65 or older (70 million).*
*ACE, Older Adults & Higher Education, 2007
Third Age: Longevity Revolution
1950 2001
Average Retirement Age: 68Life Expectancy: 68
62
78+
The Third Age Will Continue to Work
In 2004, 54.2 million adults in the U.S. were between 55-79.
By 2014, 41% of those ≥ 55 will still be in the work force.*
66% of those now 50-59 plan to keep working
70% of those 50-70 plan to work at least part time**
*Met Life Foundation & Civic Ventures survey,2005; **Merrill Lynch Survey
Why They Won’t Retire?
Fear of outliving incomesUnable or don’t want to continue current
careers, but want or need to workNew career interests; desire to
contribute to something of value; new directions
Self fulfillment.
Changing Demographics: Impact
No industry ignores demographic shifts that each represent 20% of the national population.
Future tertiary student populations will be highly diverse in terms of: Age Ethnic/cultural background Previous educational experience Degree of preparation Economic status Technology fluency
Changing Demographics: Impact Additional pressures will be placed on HE to
respond with programs and services that help these students succeedMany will come underprepared from
previous educational experiencesMany will be F-Gen learnersThird Agers will need support services and
programs tailored to their needs No one-size approach in delivery format,
support services, or pedagogy will fit all.
3. Technology Shift:
Pervasive growth of online education, especially in the non-traditional market
Interoperability revolutionBreakthrough innovations in key
educational applications and hardware, especially mobile devices.
Impact of Web 2.0+ technologies on pedagogy, access to content, & services
The Online Delivery Revolution
From 2002 to 2007 online enrollment grew at an annual compound rate of 19.7 % (versus 1.6% for all HE)
By fall 2007, 21.9% (3.9 million) of all HE students took at least one online course*
By 2020, half of all learning may be online**
*SLOAN-C, Staying the Course, Nov. 2008; **Draves & Coates, Nine Shift (2004)
Interoperability Revolution
Increasing importance and use of standards so different technology systems, sites, and widgets can interact
Quiet but pervasive change in way that different technologies now fit together invisibly at the user level
Unparalleled access to micro and meta content and immediate functionality
Breakthroughs in Key Applications
E-reader technology (e-paper and e-plastic)
iPhone Web-in-the-hand connectivityWithin 5 years the typical mobile will
have the computing power of today’s PC Impact: M-learning explosion:
E-reader ApplicationsMay 6, 2009 7:46 AM PDT Amazon's big-screen Kindle DX
makes its debut
E-reader Applications
Wednesday, May 27, 2009Plastic Logic's Touch-Screen E-
Reader
The Web 2.0 Revolution
Internet: evolving from two dimensional theatre to a multidimensional cyber sphereThe network IS the platformUsers add valueDatabase gets better the more people use itNetwork is about getting the right
information when you need it
Web 2.0 Culture:
Openness as hallmark
Open source and open content
Micro content Metadata Users in charge Cloud compting
Collaboration Swarm intelligence Social networking Networks of
networks Spontaneity Dynamic,
continuous change
Traditional Delivery Models
Transition
Asynchronous
Different
Synchronous
• ITV• Live Telecourses• IVN• Audio/Video Conferencing
• Correspondence -Print Based -Audio/Video Tapes• Voice Mail• Online/WWW
Time• Classroom • Face to face (f2f)
Same• Computer Lab• Libraries
Place
Same
Different
TimeThe Future
Technology ImpactTechnology systems will enable HE
institutions to provide mass access to quality education at affordable costs
Web 2.0+ technologies have the potential to change the classroom and learning opportunities as never before imagined
Open content offers access to rich learning resources not before available to many institutions and students
But:
Institutions will need to carefully assess which of these new technologies and approaches will be effective as opposed to fads
Faculty will need to master basic Web 2.0+ technologies or become irrelevant
Faculty roles in the classroom must change from transferring content to transferring wisdom.
4. Competitive PressuresCompetition for the non-traditional
student will intensify from both for-profit and not-for-profit sectors Supply may actually outpace demandOnline delivery will enable competitors to
leap over geographic/regulatory boundaries Online growth will come from schools that
are well established and fully engaged*
*SLOAN-C, Online Nation, October 2007
Increasing Competition
Private for-profit institutions are growing online enrollments 5 times the rate of public and private non-profit schools (2002 – fall 2006)* Public: 59%Private NFP: 49%Private FP: 340%
*SLOAN-C, Online Nation, October, 2007
Competitive Pressures
Earlier approaches to positioning and differentiation based on convenience and scheduling alone will not be enough
Higher education institutions will need to take a “student centric” approach to attract and keep more students
Institutions will need to move from “rhetoric toward evidence based marketing”*
*Eduventures, February 2006.
Competitive Impact Front door recruiting and admissions systems
will become integrated with other institutional systems to reach prospective students
Student success may become a competitive differentiator
Student retention and persistence programs will take on strategic importance
Early warning systems will become critical tools of retention
Competitive ImpactHigher education institutions will need to
use the new technologies combined with process re-engineering principles to:Wrap student support and engagement
systems around academic programsGather critical operating metricsScale delivery of programs and servicesMass customize
5. Regulatory Pressures
Issues of cost and accountability will continue to demand attention
Higher education will need to take charge of these issues or other interests will.
AccountabilityHigher education: an industry focused
too much on inputs and process, and too little on results
Rising costs, public pressure, and increasing political concerns over “value for the money” will continue to push institutions toward a focus on results especially mastery of basic skills.
Increasing costs
Note: % growth in current dollars
Source: CNNMoney.com Aug 22, 2008 from Bureau of Labor Statistics
Accountability
Little more than half of all students enrolled in four years programs will graduate in 6 years*
Student Retention if not addressed will become an explosive issue
Large numbers of F-Gen and low income students will accentuate the problem
Solutions will require “intentional” interventions designed into new student and enrollment management systems
*American Enterprise Institute, 2009
Higher Education Opp. Act 2008Increased regulation & reportingAssessment of student achievement
remains with institutions and accreditors:But will not go away
Continued focus on: accessibility, affordability, accountability
Renewal in 5 years; renewed attention in two depending on progress
Regulatory Impact
Retention and persistence strategies will take on critical importance with increasing numbers of low income and first degree seekers
Non-traditional education programs will need to be creative in designing front door systems that help students stay connected and succeed
If higher education does not address this problem others will solve it for us
What Must We Invent for the Future
1. Scalable distance education programs that use technology and systems tools wisely to:
Dramatically expand capacity Increase access Reduce per student costs
[Now is the time for ODL to fulfill its potential and its promise in the U.S.]
What Must We Invent:
2. Technology driven, scalable support systems, wrapped around academic programs and mass customized to:
Make students part of the learning community
Address individual student needs Enable students to succeed
What Must We Invent3. “Intentional” persistence programs
designed around academic programs and services to address the needs of high risk students:Front door systems that focus on individual
students early in their academic experience Early warning systems that intervene before
too lateClear paths through the curriculum
What Must We Invent
4. Data-driven research that enables institutions and faculty to assess the impact of new educational technologies, Web 2.0+ tools, OER, & delivery formats on: CostsEfficiency of learningStudent learning outcomesFaculty productivity Institutional effectiveness
What Must We Invent?
5. OER tracking systems that help faculty (and students) become aware of high quality resources that are appropriate to:The subject and pedagogical context of a
particular course or programAn individual student’s needs
What Must We Invent?
6. Professional development as a condition of employment for faculty to: Enable mastery of Web 2.0+ technologiesFacilitate moving from roles of transferring
content to ones of transferring wisdom
What Must We Invent?
7. Technology driven processes that reengineer and integrate institutional academic and administrative systems effectively to:Raise institutional productivityLower the cost per student Support delivery of high quality programs
What Must We invent
8. Realistic and systemic approaches to learning outcomes assessment: to assure students achieve or exceed
baseline knowledge and skills in core areas necessary for employment and responsible citizenship in the 21st century.
Relevance to EDEN Members?
U.S. EUR
National Need Y ?Demographic Shifts Y ?Rapid Change in Tech Y ?Increasing Competition Y ?Demand for Accountability Y ?
Much Work to Be Done
Distance learning institutions will need to be front and center to lead the
changes that must take place
Now is the time to fulfill the promise!
