Tech-Centric Classrooms: A Discussion of Policy ...

Tech-Centric Classrooms Page 1 of 42

Tech-Centric Classrooms: A Discussion of Policy, Costs and Access By Jose Luis Santos, Ph.D. EdTrust Kenneth R. Roth, Ph.D. California State University, Dominguez Hills Adrian H. Huerta, M.A. University of California Los Angeles Zachary S. Ritter, Ph.D. University of Redlands

ABSTRACT. As demand for access to colleges and universities prompt higher education systems for creative and efficient solutions, we examine technology-centric approaches to education delivery and their implications for policy, student outcomes, and resource allocation. Modified classroom delivery approaches have the potential to satisfy expectations of multiple stakeholders. However, outcomes of increased technology-centric approaches have not been fully measured. Meeting the needs of various student populations, across age, race, ethnicity, and profession goals, is important, against a backdrop of ever-increasing costs, and wavering public support. The ability to deliver high quality education to a growing number of knowledge seekers, improve efficiencies, and student outcomes, is increasingly expected. Our work is framed by Kingdon’s adapted multiple streams theory of national policy making. However, the real elephant in the room may be the skyrocketing costs of administration that may need wrangling before resources can be directed to the future potential savings obtained through developing infrastructure for and delivery of tech-centric teaching approaches. We provide examples and strategies, policy implications, and recommendations for research and practice. Santos, J. L., Roth, K. R., Huerta, A. H., & Ritter, Z. S. (Forthcoming, 2016). Tech-Centric Classrooms: A Discussion of Policy, Costs and Access. In R. T. Teranishi, Bordoloi Pazich, L., Knobel, M., & Allen, W. (Ed.), Mitigating Inequality: Higher Education Research, Policy and Practice in an Era of Massification and Stratification United Kingdom: Emerald Publishing Group.

INTRODUCTION Before we begin a discussion of colleges and universities redesigning curricula to achieve greater access and student outcomes through tech-centric delivery, we suggest imagining the


development of a wine vineyard as an apt metaphor for this impending conversion in knowledge and skills transfer. At the beginning, there is bare farmland. The winemakers understand they must invest in the development of vines and the infrastructure to maintain them. Also required are ancillary resources such as sufficient water and the holding ponds to store it, amending the soil for optimum grape growth, the labor to plant and train the vines, and the equipment to harvest and transport the crop once the vines have sufficiently matured to produce abundant fruit. The timeline to develop a vineyard capable of a self-supporting crop is routinely thought to be about 10 years. We believe the integration of or conversion to tech-centric course delivery across the higher education curriculum and achieving the promise of greater access and student outcomes likely will follow a similar timeline. Like a vineyard, growing a coherent, selfsupporting and outcomes-rich tech-centric education brand requires planning, infrastructure development, and significant front-end investment, along with frequent assessment and revision of course content, and the adoption of emerging innovations as they show themselves useful. Of course, there are smaller, hobby-farm approaches, to maintain our metaphor, but the idiosyncrasies and economies of scale of these likely render them unfeasible over time. Within this framework, we examine what the public, politicians, and many educators already have agreed is a logical next step in education delivery. While we believe the context and caveats to transitioning to tech-centric teaching practices are similar in tertiary education systems throughout the world, and there is emerging research in agreement with our thinking (Azizan, 2010; Bañados, 2013; Birbal, 2015; LópezPérez, 2011; Page, 2008; Quinn, 2012), this chapter takes a predominantly U.S.-centric view to implementation strategies and issues, leaving the door open for comparative discussions at another point in time. However, the issues of student engagement, cost containment, access,


assessment, and cultural relevancy, as we address them here, are ubiquitous concerns and where possible we speak to a global audience rather than one interested solely in U.S. practice.

BACKGROUND The current status and direction of higher education is at a crossroad, with multiple tensions in financing, students served, and increased expectations for outcomes. Questions are raised as to what the purpose of higher education is (Lagemann & Lewis, 2012), who should assume the cost (Long & Riley, 2007; Tierney & Venegas, 2009), best practices for delivery (Mathis, 2010; Mazoué, 2012), and ultimately where do benefits accrue (Gildersleeve, Kuntz, Pasque, & Carducci, 2010). As demand for higher education has grown, so has its scrutiny by the public and government policy makers who want increased postsecondary credential completion, and in the U.S. also expect students and their families to assume a larger investment in financing education (Heller, 2005). Mazoué (2012) responded to the increased demand for higher education by suggesting the role of the traditional brick and mortar institution is irrelevant for the current student cohort seeking access. He suggested increased digital technologies serve to decentralize and displace the traditional college campus, which likely is unable to accommodate the growing number of postsecondary education seekers. Mazoué also claimed credentials through modified classroom content delivery (e.g. web, video based) is the natural evolution of higher education. While this assessment is partially correct in terms of increased capacity to serve more students, the distribution of information through technology is not always equitable for traditionally marginalized populations who may need additional support to be successful (Robinson, 2010; Venegas, 2006, 2007; Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010). Our intent here is to address the role


technology can play, but also remain mindful of the needs of underrepresented student groups, such as first-generation, low-income, racial and ethnic minorities, as well as working professionals. In under-developed nations throughout the world, the transportability of techcentric learning portends greater access for knowledge seekers limited by mobility or bound by geography. Still, some of the concerns we raise regarding student engagement, assessment, and access to robust networks for course delivery in rural and impoverished regions, remain salient well-beyond the U.S. examples provided here. The Rise of MOOCs Massive open online courses (MOOCs) have been promoted as the means to democratize postsecondary education and have seduced the public, politicians and elites into believing education seekers will be content with badges and certificates to demonstrate proficiency (Rhoads, 2013). In California, a partnership between the American Council on Education, other stakeholders, and MOOC developers sought to create and deliver remedial and developmental courses for students attending community colleges and universities (Lewin, 2012, 2013). The partnership was conceived on the belief by broadly offering students a method to complete preliminary coursework at their own pace the burden on community colleges and four-year institutions with limited resources would be reduced (Lewin, 2012, 2013). Issues of access and capacity are increasingly impacting tertiary systems throughout the world. However, students taking developmental courses are often the most in need of faculty and other support to be successful (Toyama, 2015). Venegas (2006, 2007) reported low-income, first-generation, and traditionally underrepresented students are the least likely groups to have reliable Internet access or computer equipment at home, which may result in decreased digital literacy, and lack of


reliable access to college online content. This is also true for learners in remote and underdeveloped areas. Another issue is student retention rates once they are engaged in online courses. One U.S. university reported users ranged from 13% to 39% during the first year of a multi-course rollout but only 12% of 541,576 registrants earned a final grade in the “B” range or higher (Perna et al., 2014). Further, in all of the discussion about the value and validity of tech-centric course delivery, one aspect absent from discussions is student motivation. It is clear getting access to information is less of a problem than mastery (Toyama, 2015). Toyama (2015) argues students typically seek degrees and credentials that will advance them to graduate school or into the job market, often necessitating an environment that prods them to do the necessary work. Neither of these is easily or cheaply done online (Toyama, 2015). For students taking courses primarily delivered by the Internet, Worrell (2015) raises an interesting question about the quality and effectiveness of such course delivery. Citing a web blog touting the benefits of online education as less expensive, portable, and quickly and easily updated, Worrell (2015) pointed out the misuse of the word, “effects,” in an argument about how online education “affects” students. This is a minor spelling error to be sure, but the web blog was posted in 2012 and the author, either not recognizing the misuse of his word choice, or not regularly updating the site, has left the mistake posted for nearly three years. Students who rely on a variety of methods to access learning, such as parents, teachers, books, newspapers, the Internet, and classmates, etc. likely know the difference and recognize the error, or ultimately will have it pointed out to them. But what of students whose only access to learning and information is the Internet? These students are left to independently learn the inappropriate use of the similar but very different two words. This example also challenges the notion Internet delivery is superior or even equal to


traditionally delivered instruction. If those developing courseware are not skilled and credentialed educators, who regularly revisit their online content for accuracy and completeness, tech-centric instruction delivery may do more harm than it does good. We are reminded of the early computer-programming adage of “garbage in, garbage out.” Tech-centric course delivery, then, may not be as transformational as it is evolutionary. As such, our aim here is to focus on some of the considerations requiring examination before broadly investing and implementing tech-centric approaches to education delivery.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Kingdon (1984, 1995) modified Cohen, March and Olsen’s (1972) garbage can model of organizational choice to explain the dynamics and complexities of agenda-setting processes in the creation of policy at the national level. They argued organizations do not arrive at decisions in rational ways, and quite often act haphazardly due to the convergence of multiple streams of inputs (Cohen, 1972). The outcome is a garbage can model of decision-making derived from rummaging through separate streams of problems, solutions, actors and timely opportunities. Kingdon’s (1995) adapted model of organizational decision-making is grounded in the argument decision-making relies on the coordination of three relatively autonomous streams of decision processes, namely problems, politics and policies (Robinson, 2010). Each of these streams has distinct characteristics that in specific moments interact to produce particular outcomes. The problem stream involves the recognition of an issue (Kingdon, 1995). Social conditions attract government attention through systemic indicators, focusing events or failures of existing policies (Kingdon, 1995; Young, 2010). Indicators tend to measure the prevalence or magnitude of an issue. Once a particular threshold is met, policymakers see the


issue as one needing attention. The collapse of the housing market, a hurricane causing massive flooding, an oil spill just off a coastal shore, or a personal tragedy suffered by a government official, all can be focusing events that seize the attention of policymakers. In addition, constituent feedback or evaluator reports can push an issue into focus for government. At the same time, the political stream addresses the relative prominence of an issue on the official agenda (Kingdon, 1995). As with the problem stream, there are three components to the political stream: national mood, the degree of organized political forces, and activities or events within government itself (Kingdon, 1995; Young, 2010). A change in political climate for or against an issue may be due to a swing in national mood, or the emergence of a broad social movement pushing a particular agenda. The perception by policymakers of a change in support from organized political forces also may affect the prominence of an agenda item. Further, changes within government, in terms of turnover of key personnel or realignment of an executive directive can alter the positioning or prominence of an issue. While these two streams drive agenda setting, the policy stream offers solution alternatives, usually generated and specified by the policymaking community, and often subject to elite pressures (Robinson, 2010). This community includes actors within government as well as outside, and individuals or groups who advocate for particular outcomes by investing resources, and who are viewed as policy entrepreneurs (Kingdon, 1995). Change in policy only results from the coincidental alignment of these three streams, or the intervention of a policy entrepreneur, which is in large part also a random phenomenon (Robinson, 2010). These moments are referred to as windows of opportunity that open for a short time when conditions are right. They are often unpredictable and participants may have little control over events once they are set in motion (Mucciaroni, 1992).


The randomness of this model has drawn criticism from some scholars (see Durant, 1989; King, 1985), as has its lack of predictive ability (Robinson, 2010). Yet, the model has been used in multiple education policy contexts, primarily at the state level, to examine gifted education in New Mexico (Holderness, 1990), school reform in Illinois (Lieberman, 2002), and a failed diversity initiative in Minnesota (Stout, 2000), among others. For our purposes, the model is sufficient to frame an examination of the potential of tech-centric classroom teaching modalities for addressing policy questions of student outcomes, resource allocation, and access. In the next section we discuss these questions as problems seeking remedy, while later identifying political considerations that either drive or impede them.

PROBLEM STATEMENT The problem to broad adoption of tech-centric course delivery at the tertiary level is threepronged: 1) Colleges and universities face mounting pressures to assess and demonstrate students are meeting learning objectives, 2) Due to wavering public support, colleges and universities also face calls for efficiencies to control costs, and 3) Colleges and universities are increasingly expected to broaden access and include historically underrepresented groups. In the U.S., these objectives stem from educational reform that led to the policy of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the Commission on the Future of Higher Education led by Margaret Spellings, then-U.S. Secretary of Education. We briefly discuss NCLB as an example of a failed national policy that chose as its measure of success unrealistic goals and actually may have made worse the problem it hoped to address. The NCLB Act (No Child Left Behind: Background & Analysis, 2012) is instructive on a number of fronts when considering greater assessment, cost containment, and access. This


legislation was offered as the centerpiece of federal law in pre-collegiate education, and was defended as a way to improve public schools at a time of broad public concern over the quality of elementary and secondary education [Problem]. Largely fueled by partisan efforts during the Reagan era and beyond to promote a voucher system for private schools, some researchers and educators alleged NCLB was designed to abolish the public school system (Solomon, 2004) [Politics]. Under NCLB, schools with struggling minority populations were required to furnish annual report cards showing a range of information, to include student achievement data broken down by subgroup (read: race and ethnicity). If a school failed to meet progress targets for two years in a row, attending students were given the option to transfer to another, more productive public school (No Child Left Behind, 2011). If a school persisted in underachievement, it was subject to corrective measures, including a governance overhaul, and possibly closure [Policy]. The mandated student improvements on standardized tests sought an unrealistic 100% proficiency by 2013-14. As early as 2003, school principals and superintendents viewed the legislation as politically motivated and designed to undermine public schools (Rolling up Their Sleeves: Superintendents and Principals Talk About What's Needed to Fix Public Schools, 2003). Similarly, a statewide analysis in California suggested the requirement to evaluate schools on the basis of demographic subgroups disproportionately penalized schools with diverse student populations, the very population the Act was touted to serve (Novak, 2003). Further, only limited resources were allocated to implement NCLB and those resources were intermittent and often slow in coming (Peterson & West, 2003). States were left to determine how to implement the requirements but without additional ongoing funding, few mechanisms for outcomes improvement or curricular change were available, increasing the


likelihood of school failure and closure (Goldrick-Rab, 2005). The Act also failed to address the real issues of inner-city decline, poverty, resource allocation, and remedial education to elevate competency levels already well documented and understood after years of local, state and federal neglect. Imagine a similar application of standards across a nation’s public colleges and universities. Unlike the veritable uniformity of U.S. primary and secondary institutions, colleges and universities each see themselves as unique, with differing missions, cultures, structures, power centers and resources (Chesler, 2000). The standardization required by MOOCs seems as likely to fail at the tertiary level as NCLB did at the primary and secondary levels, mostly, we believe, because learning in a tech-centric environment often is a highly individualized process. So it is likely students who succeed in traditional classrooms will succeed in tech-centric delivered courses. But students already disengaged or scholastically behind may now be doubly disadvantaged. The introduction of technology into tertiary classrooms may do little to increase student mastery and engagement, even though it likely will increase student access. However, this does not mean tech-centric learning applications are without merit, or unfeasible. What it does mean is the rubric for learning assessment must accommodate greater flexibility, not greater standardization, and this becomes even more important when and if the MOOC model transcends nations and successfully globalizes the education project. Assessing Skills Transfer Students who are engaged likely perform and learn at higher levels (Carini, Kuh, & Klein, 2006). One promise of tech-centric course delivery is its ability to provide a self-paced, independent learning environment, where students can concentrate on learning without distraction (Corey, 2005). This likely has benefits for students with mobility or other challenges


where learning can be more effectively accomplished in an environment, such as home, with more support services. Further, while these conditions may not be amenable to all students or all learning environments, Corey and Bower (2005) found a student struggling with Algebra was able to more fully concentrate, access online resources, spend as much time as needed to understand a concept, and avoid any potential stereotype threat (Steele, 1997, 2010) by meeting course requirements online. As mentioned earlier, a key to this learning approach is student motivation, and course designers must be mindful of ways to increase engagement, particularly in the design of asynchronous online course delivery. While Corey and Bower (2005) did not call for varied teaching modalities as a way to engage varied learning styles, it is our experience engaging students on multiple levels and modalities increases interest and motivation in learning (Roth, 1997, 1998). Listening, observing, exploring immersive environments, prompted writing, and timed exercises were all used in an online journalism course aimed at high school and junior college students (Roth, 1997, 1998). At the time, online courseware was novel and early efforts did not stray from static textual representation of lessons. Digital Deadlines, on the other hand, simulated the look and feel of an online newspaper – now de rigeur for news-related content – with hyperlinks to lessons represented on the “front page.” These lessons included immersive virtual reality environments, including one example depicting a small plane crash on a college campus. By navigating through the virtual environment, students found “witnesses,” who were hyperlinked to audio recordings describing what happened. Students also selected from a list of additional questions to ask witnesses, such as name, age, address, etc., and were given standard, textual answers. There also were links to police and flight reports. After completing their investigation, students wrote up their report under time limits – the text box stopped functioning


at the end of the time interval designated for the lesson, so students had to submit their work to the instructor before the visible timer expired. This example is offered to suggest traditional and standard lecture-driven pedagogy, or its online variants, may be missing opportunities to more fully engage students by not investigating new and multi-modal ways to present course content. The simulations, audio, and exploratory nature of Digital Deadlines allowed intended learning to occur in a seemingly accidental way. Students were engaged by the novelty of the exercises, and were eager to investigate the details of each news event. Further, because technology is the centerpiece of tech-centric learning, students have higher expectations for content quality (López-Pérez, 2011). In short, tech-centric learning in many ways is competing with the highly developed commercial media and gaming landscape, and adoption of this teaching modality may require a commensurate upgrade in presentation and teaching strategies, given at least one MOOC has been nominated for an EMMY Award (UVa MOOC Nominated for Emmy Award, 2015). Immersive environments and gaming-style learning are increasingly present in tech-centric pedagogy in corporate and government environments, particularly in the military (Bonk, 2005). While there are off-the-shelf templates and platforms for course development and delivery, many of these, in our opinion, fall short in engaging and motivating students. Further, using the Digital Deadlines example above, what students would you expect to do well using such courseware? As in the traditional classroom, students who engaged in discovery, who sought information in unusual places were the real benefactors, just as students who seek additional learning on their own in traditional classrooms, by using libraries, conducting Internet searches, or interviewing subject matter experts. To deliver these types of immersive or extended learning opportunities, institutions must allocate significant resources to build infrastructure, increase technology expertise among


faculty, provide release time for development of course content, and even pair faculty across disciplines for multidisciplinary outcomes. They also may need to be mindful of the game of learning in the tech-centric space. The next section addresses mounting financial pressures, and we discuss why colleges and universities should not expect tech-centric learning to be an immediate panacea for financial woes and should reevaluate current resource allocation in order to address the needs of techcentric infrastructure to realize the imagined re-tooling of traditional education delivery and to benefit long-term from savings and potential revenue streams from tech-centric pedagogies. Efficiencies and Controlling Costs Researchers, the public, and policymakers have increasingly looked to tech-centric education delivery as a potential and significant cost saving for higher education (Bartley & Golek, 2004). The advent of MOOCs and their increased capacity to serve greater numbers of students at potentially fixed costs after initial development and deployment has led to discussions and assumptions of significant savings to colleges and universities while expanding access. These savings and efficiencies are believed to be necessary because of increasing fluctuation in financial support, particularly for public institutions (Santos, 2007). But the rollout of techcentric courseware or hybrid courses should be viewed as an investment with some horizon, and not as an immediate cost-saving or revenue-generating outcome. MOOCs are not inexpensive to develop, and as already discussed they do little to increase student motivation unless they are carefully designed, incorporate multiple sensory and teaching modalities, and even lean toward some elements of entertainment value. In a recent report dealing with the expectations and realities of MOOC development, Hollands and Tirthali (2014) suggested costs of $4,300 per finished hour of video production, and the need for teams of subject matter experts,


administrators, technical personnel and others to produce a MOOC of substance. In this regard, MOOC production mirrors that of motion picture production with its layers of personnel and substantial front-end costs. So adopting MOOC technologies as a means to contain costs, at least at this juncture, seems unrealistic. However, as we have suggested, taking a longer horizon, and methodically building quality courseware likely can provide new sources of revenue, in addition to less tangible benefits such as institution and program recognition, extending reach, and creating perceptions of the institution as leading edge and innovative (Hollands, 2014). However, since 1999, Santos (2007) reported a period of retrenchment for U.S. higher education, and the 15 years prior, between the years 1985–1999, a 21% absolute decrease in state funding, from 45.1% to 35.8%. During the same time, tuition and fees rose sharply, an absolute increase of 37%, from 14.6% in 1985 to 18.5% in 1999 (NCES, 1993, 1996; Santos, 2007). In addition, contracts, grants and private gifts experienced an absolute increase of 55%, from 3.1% to 4.8% over the same roughly 15-year period (NCES, 1993, 1996; Santos, 2007). Further, institutional expenses measured in 1999 dollars increased 37% and government funding increased by only 17% for the same period (NCES, 2003; Santos, 2007). In short, government funding of public education on a per student basis has declined, and institutions have sought new ways to finance operations through grants, gifts, and contracted services to private enterprise (Ginsberg, 2011; Lindsay, 2015). However, a Pew Charitable Trust survey showed from 2000-2012 federal spending for full-time students increased 32%, while state spending dropped by 37% (Blumenstyk, 2014). Federal funding is often allocated to individuals, while state funding is allocated to institutions. The study shows in 2013, state funding for higher education was $73 billion, while the federal government provided $76 billion. Nonetheless, in states like Hawaii and California, state dollars


are still flowing. The 10 campus University of California system has utilized a $10 million earmark to launch the Innovative Learning Technologies Initiative that funds online highdemand courses such as General Psychology, Writing and Rhetoric, and other courses, allowing students the flexibility of both online and on-campus courses in their schedule (Straumheim, 2014). The initiative enrolled over 2,500 students in 2013-2014 and offered as many as 60 courses the following year (Straumheim, 2014). So while federal funding is on the rise due in large part to backfill lost institutional revenue during a deep recession begun in 2008, state funds in certain states are still making room for new initiatives. These shifts in financing, although in some cases positive, likely have implications for internal resource allocation, given some departments and disciplines are better revenue generators than others, and may also redirect institutional attention away from building teaching infrastructure toward revenue-generating infrastructure during economic downturns. Institutional resource allocation has been studied in at least three ways over three different time periods (Santos, 2007). In the 1980s, resource allocation became important due to government fiscal volatility and budget issues. In the 1990s, the analysis shifted to an emphasis on faculty performance within departments as the unit of analysis. Then, in the first decade of the new century, study focused on how scarce institutional resources were allocated due to state and institutional budget volatility, and the unit of analysis also shifted to departments and away from the productivity of faculty. Previous studies often were limited in scope and framework, in some cases examining only one institution. Santos (2007) expanded his study to examine resource allocation at the department level across a field of 10 public research institutions, focusing on returns on teaching and research productivity among departments in the science fields. The goal was to estimate the relative rate of return universities assigned to teaching and research


productivity, and findings indicated research has not displaced instruction as the chief function of public research universities (Santos, 2007). However, due to decreased appropriations from state government, public universities have come to rely more heavily on student tuition and fee revenue (Santos, 2007). But this fact package may be tainted. According to some scholars, public investment in higher education is much higher today, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than it was during the 1960s, the so-called Golden Age of U.S. Higher Education (Campos, 2015). College-going costs have increased multiple times more than the U.S. military budget, or government spending in general (Campos, 2015). While it is true per student appropriations are lower today than they were at their peak in 1990 (Lindsay, 2015), teaching costs have remained relatively static. Salaries of full-time professors are, for the most part, only slightly higher than they were in 1970 (Campos, 2015). Too, while more than three-quarters of faculty were full-time in the 1970s, at least half of today’s instructors are lower-paid, part-time adjuncts, who in many cases have no benefits, suggesting teaching costs in terms of inflation-adjusted dollars, are actually quite a bit less than they were 45 years ago (Campos, 2015). So, where is all the money going? It’s true that while the college-age cohort is no larger today than the tail end of the baby boom, a greater percentage of the cohort is choosing to go to college. Enrollment in undergraduate, graduate and professional programs has risen nearly 50% since 1995 (Campos, 2015). One could argue at least a portion of the increased cost of college is attributable to the need for institutions to increase carrying capacity. But sheer numbers of students alone cannot account for an average 440% increase in tuition costs over the past 25 years, given the increase in students also delivers an increase in revenue (Lindsay, 2015).


The real elephant in the room, then, is the constant expansion of administration and staff to support administrative functions (Campos, 2015). A study of the California State University system, arguably one of the largest education institutions in the world, found from 1975 to 2008 fulltime faculty members increased from 11,614 to 12,019, but the number of administrators expanded from 3,800 to 12,183, representing a 221% increase (Lindsay, 2015). Again, back in the 1970s, U.S. colleges and universities employed more professors than administrators. Roughly 446,830 professors were supported nationwide by some 268,952 administrators and staff (Ginsberg, 2011). Today, administrators and their staffs represent more than 50% of college personnel (Ginsberg, 2011). These include attorneys, accountants, auditors, editors and writers, development officers, alumni relations officials, human resource specialists, etc., none of which are directly engaged in the university’s primary reason for being (Ginsberg, 2011). Further, not only is more than 50% of college personnel devoted to tasks other than the institution’s primary mode of production, many of these positions are compensated at levels well beyond that of tenured professors. At the University of Maryland, which is by no means an isolated case, vice presidents earn substantially more than $200,000 annually (Ginsberg, 2011). By 2007, the average salary for a university president was $325,000, and 81 presidents earned more than $500,000, and at least 12 took home more than $1 million (Ginsberg, 2011). When universities and media portray the reasons behind escalating tuition as a result of the escalating cost of instruction, nothing could be further from the truth (Lindsay, 2015). In addition, when considering a conversion from bricks and mortar classrooms to virtual classrooms, the current allocation of scarce resources likely isn’t sustainable. Higher education


institutions will not be able to afford the transition to a tech-centric teaching environment while concurrently supporting an employed population in which less than 50% of paid personnel is engaged in the primary mode of production. To move to a tech-centric modality requires teachers, not administrators. As Ginsberg (2011) points out, when the University of Chicago medical school faced a $100 million shortfall in 2009, it did not cut teaching, research, or patient care responsibilities, but instead eliminated 15 “leadership positions” and 450 staff jobs, clearly signaling the university understood, supported, and proved adherence to its mission as a teaching hospital. While there can be significant justification for administrative positions and staff within an institution of higher education, those administrative positions cannot be preserved over pedagogical ones, especially in a tech-centric environment, where professors and technologists become increasingly important in the design and delivery of synchronous and asynchronous course delivery. Access and Inclusion Inherently there are many challenges to attaining and promoting college access, not only in the U.S. context but also throughout the world. Not all students have the information, resources, technology or necessary support to navigate the college admission process (McDonough, 1997; McDonough & Calderone, 2006; Perna, 2005; Tierney & Venegas, 2009; Venegas, 2006). Ultimately, the college search is not equitable for all students, and the increased demand for higher education credentials only intensifies competition (Allen, 2009; Mullen, 2010). Tech-centric approaches to access and completion at the postsecondary level, then, may be a potential remedy to current educational inequities for large segments of underrepresented student populations. The push for an equity minded approach to tech-centric course deployment is largely due to the expansion of the knowledge-based economy. The requirement for


postsecondary education credentials has doubled in the past 40 years due to requirements for more specialized skills in the evolving workplace (Carnevale, Smith, & Strohl, 2010). As demand for admission to selective four-year institutions has increased, access for the most marginalized students has suffered and will continue to be inequitable (Corwin, 2004; Espinoza, 2011; Huerta, 2014; Venegas, 2006, 2007). Some have suggested using technology to aid lowincome and minority students to navigate the application and college-going process. Still, the methods or the impact have yet to be confirmed (Chung, 2007; Mathis, 2010). However, the ongoing stratification in attaining postsecondary education is reason for educators and policymakers to examine the role tech-centric courses can play in creating greater access for all students seeking higher education. Still, issues remain for student engagement. It’s true, young people today are considered technology natives, but being adept at using technology is not the same as learning with technology. The question for educators and institutions amid tech-centric delivery initiatives is how to address what hardware and software versions students have? How extensive is campus connectivity and what is its carrying capacity? Do students have comparable or sufficient connectivity at home? Are there sufficient devices and connectivity in the home for multiple children to access the Internet simultaneously? Once on campus, tech-centric applications can speed students’ acclimation to campus culture and provide ways to interact with potential classmates and instructors. Collaborative learning tools, such as Adobe Connect, Blackboard, and others, allow enrolled students to engage in group chats and access video links and discussion forums, for both synchronous and asynchronous interaction (Ferrario, 2013). But to take advantage of these learning opportunities, students must have regular access to high-speed connectivity and a computing platform, such as


a desktop, laptop, or tablet, capable of processing large streams of data. For most middle to high SES students, technology and reliable Internet access likely are not an issue; however, low SES students, such as first-generation students, may encounter accumulated disadvantages from a lack of these resources. The Pew Research Center reported 75% of families who earn less than $30,000 per year typically access the Internet through mobile devices, and only 40% of those same families have a broadband connection at home (Smith, 2015). These figures raise questions as to how to make access to learning equitable across SES. One way may be to provide necessary technology as part of enrollment in a tech-centric course, or make it available through multiple labs across campus, or at a very nominal rental fee. This connected approach to course materials and faculty through technology also may provide low-income and first-generation students a way to work through their frequent apprehension to engage and seek support from teaching faculty (Pascarella, 2004). Situating these new and formal interactions within students’ already acquired competencies of texting and email may increase student engagement but this claim has not been fully examined. Warschauer and Matuchniak (2010) report low-income families have greater challenges to using digital technologies at home, in school, and within their communities. Our rationale for stressing a probable tech-centric divide results from the likelihood not all institutions will quickly adopt advanced and sophisticated learning modules or platforms for delivery of online or blended learning. As a result, some of the burden to be equipped for such courses will fall on students. There also is an assumption all college-age students are digitally savvy and able to access and produce content using the Internet, and so many institutions may be unaware of the challenges some student groups may experience. In addition, it is easy to assume selective public and private colleges and universities will possess the resources to adopt teaching modalities similar to what we are proposing here, while institutions with fewer resources may


not. However, even well funded elite public schools face obstacles to adopting tech-centric practices. The University of California, Berkeley, which has generously placed more than 4,000 hours of classroom lectures online in recent years has announced it will discontinue this public service due to cost. The university has estimated recording and posting the lectures costs about $300,000 annually (Fitzgerald, 2015). Still other issues are worthy of consideration. In a Fiscal Times article promoting the use of technology in the classroom, a reporter asked the following question: If two people walk into a seminar, and one uses technology to take video and photographs of the presentation, and another takes handwritten notes, which one leaves the presentation retaining the most information? The reporter, ignoring virtually all of the academic literature indicating handwritten notes are superior to a smart phone recorded version of the proceedings in terms of retention, due to the engagement and transformation of the material through tactile and cognitive processing, reported the tech-centric approach allowed the participant to create something new that builds on the topic, where the note taker is at a disadvantage (Worrell, 2015). This, despite copious research, including an empirically-based article in Psychological Science, at about the same time, suggesting writing notes on paper gives a person a distinct advantage in retaining content (Worrell, 2015). One might argue, then, the push to technologize the classroom is not based on the potential for increased learning outcomes but some other policy driver, in this case, possibly one that benefits technology providers over technology users. Clearly, attempts at democratization of higher education through greater access evade simple solutions, and perceptions by the public and policy makers that technology is some sort of transformative panacea are likely overstated. It may be true no technology has so altered the path


of human progress as the Internet since the advent of Gutenberg’s movable type in the 15th century. Still, as in the 15th century, and later during the advent of digital typesetting in the 1980s, there was a rush to adopt and exploit these new technologies. Post-Gutenberg, as well as post-desktop publishing, the democratization of these technologies led to the production of many inferior examples of the technology’s use. All over Europe, print shops sprang up to capitalize on Gutenberg’s technology, and many failed because these entrepreneurs were either bad at business, over-estimated the demand for services, or simply couldn’t produce a product as fast or as cheaply as the printer down the street. Likewise, during the advent of desktop publishing, the initial fear was the new technology would displace all but the largest commercial print operations, forcing small operators out of business. This proved to be untrue. Commercial printing flourished during the adoption of desktop publishing technology because any one could design a newsletter for their club or homeowner’s association or school, and if they wanted multiple copies at reasonable cost, they designed the product on their computer, printed a single copy and took it to a quick print shop to make hundreds of copies. Another outcome was the production of a lot of really unattractive newsletters and flyers and other products designed by individuals with little or no graphic design acumen. As educators and policy makers, then, we must remain mindful that new, apparently magical, and untested cures to education concerns may be just that. We turn now to the politics that are likely to shape, at least in part, where higher education and tech-centric course delivery ultimately meet. Politics and Progress The problem streams associated with the adoption of tech-centric teaching practices as outlined above all have their advocates and detractors, both within and outside of the university. Kingdon’s (1995) description of the political stream in decision-making outlines three


components: national mood, the degree of organized political forces, and activities or events within the government itself. The public sees the sticker price of a four-year degree and questions whether the investment in education might deliver greater dividends if invested elsewhere. As taxpayers, they wonder if higher education is a social good worth its escalating cost. Faculty question whether a shift to tech-centric course delivery is a way to obsolete them, and policy makers want to know whether colleges are graduating competent employees to deliver value to employers and the nation as a whole. These are only a few of the pressures that bear on the implementation of tech-centric courses. The process of development in and of itself is often cumbersome. Still, this appears the direction multiple stakeholders believe is appropriate for the evolution of higher education. To that end, we address various voices and concerns, both inside and outside of academe. For our purposes, we address Kingdon’s components of decisionmaking by alternately viewing them from the government and institution level. Brave and New The ribbon is cut and the golden spade thrust into the ground at the site of a new online learning complex co-sponsored by a tech company and a community college. While classes can be taken anywhere, the facility supports faculty development of courseware, and provides onground students a place to plug in or access their courses with college equipment. Hurray for a moment – another box checked for completion of the modern-day requirements of a higher Ed institution. But for whom will these services provide access? A Washington State Community College (WSCC) system study of 40,000 students found almost all fared poorly in online learning courses compared to on-ground classes (Xu & Jaggars, 2014). African-American students’ grades suffered by taking online courses, as did Asian students, male students, and virtually all of those students who possessed weaker academic credentials (Xu & Jaggars, 2014).


These findings are cause to pause. In the U.S., community colleges are the gateway to four-year degrees for students with weak academic skills. If these students are faring worse in online classes versus traditional courses at the community college, what are their chances to transfer to university course work if that course work also is delivered online? These students need more individualized attention, either from faculty or tutors, yet we’re plopping them down in front of computers and hoping for the best. There is a place for online learning, but when students who are doing poorly already do worse in online courses, there maybe something almost Kafkaesque underway. Still, there is a silver lining to the gathering cloudburst aimed at tech-centric course adoption in the tertiary sector: first generation and low-SES students who participate in blended or hybrid courses (part in-person, part online) have greater learning outcomes than if left only to access online learning (Lederman, 2013). So, the blended approach may be a middle ground solution to tech-centric course adoption. However, Morris and Finnegan (2008) found novice instructors play little more than a managerial role in the delivery of hybrid and online courses – giving directions on assignments and referrals for tutorial assistance. Effective classroom management techniques are even more vital in a blended classroom than in a traditional one, since students typically have less in-person contact with the instructor and printed instructions and email exchanges may be interpreted differently on a student-by-student basis. Experienced instructors not only serve in managerial roles, they also play a social role in welcoming students and encouraging them to engage and share experiences with the class (Young, Cantrell, & Shaw, 2001). Effective instructors also potentially assume a greater pedagogical role, developing unique teaching tools and anticipating what student needs are and then finding ways to address them (Morris & Finnegan, 2008).


Then there’s the issue of assessment. Traditional assessment has been by test, written or oral examination. In online or hybrid courses, all three of these traditional methods can be used if sufficient thought is placed in course design. Still, in a traditional first year classroom, there can be up to 600 students bunched together to learn Renaissance Art History. Not every student will grasp the intricacies of Titian’s work, and if the professor or TA does not catch on to a struggling student, then they may fail the class. Course Management Systems (CMS) software has been implemented to address student assessment in traditional and blended classroom settings. CMS software can target students who are likely to fail; by measuring how much time they are devoting to course assignments outside of class meetings. Other behavioral analytics can be created by CMS software to inform professors what level of attention a student needs, based on traffic signals: red, yellow, or green lights, reflecting the students’ academic performance (Arnold, 2012). A study at University of Maryland, Baltimore found students earning a D or F used CMS software platforms nearly 40% less frequently than students earning a grade of C or higher (Prineas, 2011). In other words, students who monitor their own progress are more likely to do better and be more engaged in their learning. However, CMS software is an incomplete solution for student engagement, especially in reaching already-disadvantaged student populations. Still, learning analytics are one way to inform instructors how students perceive lessons at every stage of the course rather than waiting for student evaluations at the end of the course (Prineas, 2011). Now, a professor can learn if their material is flat and incomprehensible beginning with the first lecture, and if so, make modifications moving forward. But this assumes the instructor has both the time and inclination to devote to real-time updates to more fully


engage students. Low-paid contingent faculty that may be teaching on multiple campuses and usually must rush out the door and to their car to get to their next teaching assignment may not be situated to devote the time or thought to needed updates. Given more than half of instructors on many U.S. campuses are adjunct faculty, especially at two-year community colleges (Jacoby, 2006; Jaeger, 2009, 2008; Umbach, 2007), this factor alone may be sufficient to mitigate successful outcomes of online and hybrid initiatives. In addition, educational technology is most effective when coupled with a conceptual learning model (Alonso, 2005). These universal best practices regarding what types of interventions have the greatest impact on student outcomes must be seamlessly interwoven throughout the tech-centric course, meaning each discussion forum, instructional activity, online essay, and exam requires an assessment rubric informing the student what is expected, and also identifying the tangible skills students gain from completing the assignment (Prineas, 2011). Millennial students have been socialized in an economic downturn to view college as a practical move in positively shaping their future, and they want actionable items they can take from college to apply to a career (Eagan, 2014). Once again, we stress the success of online and hybrid course delivery is in its design and frequent evaluation by students and instructors alike. Students need rock solid road maps to navigate an online course, and instructors must have the time and support outside of class to devote to course refinements and upgrades. The current potentiality of a majority of contingent, low-paid instructors on campuses helming online and blended learning courses is neither sustainable nor effective. Show us the Money The politics of resource allocation for tech-centric initiatives have not been fully explored. Barr (2003), and Wolff (2005) stress each college and university functions


independently, although they have similar purposes and accreditation expectations, and recent efforts toward online and blended learning have not been devised on a national or international scale. Barr and Golseth (1990) assert some of the challenges of resource allocation are related to “determining issues of agreement and commonality, demonstrating integrity, and demonstrating utility” (pp. 209-210). This is most visible in the multiple opinion pieces in newspapers from faculty who disagree with how college administrators have approached tech-centric efforts with little or no input from faculty. The mutual understanding between stakeholders on how to reorganize an institutional budget or organizational unit may pose challenges in resource allocation, especially considering new tech-centric efforts may require startup costs in the multimillions for infrastructure, technology expertise, release time for faculty, and support staff. For small colleges, the issue of support and buy-in from faculty requires patience and political knowledge of the organization (Kezar, 2004; Tierney, 2004). These considerations likely require examining performance-based metrics tied to institutional mission and goals. Administrators constantly stress the importance of evaluating performance of faculty; yet, typically, this same scrutiny is not aimed at their own ranks. To tout the importance and inevitability of tech-centric learning solutions and then not allocate resources to the necessary components of faculty, teaching and technology support, is not a recipe for success. Schoorman and Acker-Hocevar (2010) highlight the tensions between faculty and administration’s separate visions on institutional direction assessed through market-based rationales. Kezar and Eckel (2004) suggest various conditions influence whether a governance structure will be effective, including “clarification of roles, redundancy of function, trust and accountability, norms and values, composition of the governance groups, and leadership” (p. 386). The conditions listed by Kezar and Eckel illuminate factors that can affect institutional


relationships and challenge college faculty and administration. Tierney (2004) questions whether universities, in particular faculty and administration, are prepared for the conditions to compete in the 21st century. The market-based tensions experienced by colleges and universities throughout the world do not seem to be abating, especially in light of constant demand for increases in college ranking and prestige, particularly in the U.S. (Sweitzer & Volkwein, 2009; Volkwein & Sweitzer, 2006). The following example of a California tech-centric initiative speaks to both the need for transparency among policymakers and elites when proposing such initiatives, as well as the recognition of the very real, institutional-changing costs that can result from tech-centric implementations. In 2013, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Board authorized a $30 million contract with Apple, Inc. that was expected to balloon to $500 million for the purchase of iPad tablets and software for every one of LAUSD’s 650,000 students (Blume, 2014). LAUSD officials stressed the importance of supplying technology to students from lower-income families and first generation students, asserting in this regard technology might very well assist in leveling the playing field. Critics, however, felt the single standardized solution, like other standardized solutions across heterogeneous communities, individuals, and institutions discussed here, might create more problems than it solved. While the idea of supplying every student with personal technology and software had its merits, the execution of delivering the technology proved far less stellar. Not only did costs mushroom well-beyond the $500 million estimate to more than $1 billion, allegations surfaced the district’s Superintendent John Deasy had personal connections with Apple, and the software provider, Pearson. Deasy admitted to owning Apple stock and recused himself from the board’s vote on whether to proceed with the iPad implementation. But there were other problems. Schools lacked the infrastructure to allow


multiple classrooms of students simultaneous Internet access. Students hacked their way through security filters designed to limit use to onboard software, and many of the tablets were recalled, never to return (Pickert, 2014). When Deasy and other district executives’ relationships with vendors became known, the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Public Integrity Division launched an investigation and found no criminal charges were warranted (Pickert, 2014). When the program began to unravel, Deasy admitted the technology acquisition should have gone to competitive bid, but his admission was too little too late, and the failed initiative led to Deasy’s resignation, replete with severance package, from the second largest school district in the U.S. This is an example of how seriously awry a technology implementation can go when the details and processes of such a large-scale undertaking are not conducted in the light of day. It also illuminates the specious nature of one-size-fits-all solutions, and the importance of buy-in well beyond administrators and third party vendors. This is clearly an example of policy implementation failure. Technology can support classroom learning, but it is not a solution to poverty and underfunded schools. It also is not a solution for faculty without technology skills, or the perception they are not being valued as subject matter experts. The real asset of techcentric learning is its ubiquity of access, from anywhere, at any time. It can be compelling and engaging, with significant forethought and resources. It also may prove to provide efficiencies over time with judicious and committed application. But it also likely calls for the shift away from burgeoning administrative power structures and a return to a shared governance model and the centrality of the instructor to the education project. Access for the few and the fortunate


While the demand for increased postsecondary degrees and credentials is touted as the necessary ticket to social mobility and career preparation throughout the world, competition to access selective schools has magnified, with families seeking any possible advantage to gain admission for their children to top school brands (Espinoza, 2011; McDonough, 1997, 1998). But access to college continues to be influenced by students’ race and ethnicity, SES, and college knowledge (Astin, 2004; Lloyd, 2008; McDonough, 1997; Perna, 2000). This combination of individual and social factors contributes to high school graduate pressures to try to align with the current admission formula that mirrors the national mood in terms of equity and meritocracy (Nieli, 2004)(Sanders, 2004). The importance of individual merit is an argument used in some conservative circles to devalue race-based admission considerations to address historic and systematic disenfranchisement in the U.S. (Nieli, 2004). The value of Affirmative Action, despite state and federal judicial decisions to the contrary, is worthy of discussion, but given space limitations here, we recommend reading the growing body of literature (see Allen, 2000; Chang, 2013; Garces, 2012; Garces & Jayakumar, 2014) for a thorough understanding of the evolution and effects of the current reversal of Affirmative Action practices on access to U.S. colleges and universities by historically underrepresented groups. So, why are the politics of access important in considering the design and implementation of tech-centric learning? The answer is quite simple: For students who are not admitted to top tier colleges and universities – many of whom already are members of underrepresented groups – they are likely to experience added disadvantage in life opportunities by not having access to leading edge blended and online education that prepares the next generation for entry into the increasingly technical global workplace. Carnevale and Strohl (2013) found the racial and ethnic segregation in U.S. education opportunity that begins in the K-12 system has been efficiently


reproduced on the nation’s best college and university campuses. White and Asian students are increasingly concentrated in the nation’s 468 best-funded and selective four-year institutions while African-American and Hispanic students are increasingly concentrated in the least-funded, less selective two- and four-year colleges and universities (Carnevale, 2013). The result is the emergence of a dual system of racially separate and unequal higher education opportunities, despite greater access to college systems by minority populations (Carnevale, 2013). In addition, this combination of less funding and less selectivity places students studying at less selective and underfunded schools at greater risk of dropping out, due in large part to structural characteristics of fewer resources and greater demands of larger student bodies (Hoxby, 2012). Students need access to classes and services to complete certificates and degrees and if these are unavailable, student success suffers (Hoxby, 2012). This is nowhere more apparent than in tech-centric learning. We have already touched on the often-limited education and technology resources in low-SES homes, and this absence magnifies disadvantage as higher Ed institutions transfer more curricula to tech-centric delivery. We believe the most marginalized students likely will not have access to cutting edge tech-centric learning modules and may not be prepared to compete in the global tech-centric workplace. Existing social policies promote college going in the U.S. through financial support, such as Pell Grants, which allow low-income students to freely select a college or university that admits them. But, the most disadvantaged students often stay close to home and attend the local and regional college or university, and do not have access to college counselors or personnel to facilitate the needed strategies to prepare for transfer to a selective institution. These realities are influenced by current national mood and perceptions by state and federal policymakers, who believe U.S. college students and their families should be primarily responsible for financing postsecondary education. This policy has


resulted in a U.S. student loan debt in excess of $1.2 trillion (Lindsay, 2015). While we cannot predict how the next generation of tech-centric education delivery will impact student loan debt, this outsized debt should be a concern for all stakeholders when evaluating cost, delivery methods, and access to higher education as the demand and struggle for admission to top institutions increases for students in the future.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH Given the likelihood many future jobs and professions have not been conceived of as yet, the need for increased cooperation across continents, culture, and color has never been greater. The skills of collaboration, then, are really the assessment rubric tech-centric courses and courseware may need to address. This is not to say reading, writing and STEM competencies are not important, but clearly collaboration will be an ever-increasing characteristic required from workers in the global workplace. Further, because technology is changing the way education is delivered, as-yet unrealized opportunities may present themselves to mitigate outlined problems. These opportunities are consistent with Kingdon’s windows of opportunity that arise from competing policy alternatives. We believe the key to the success of tech-centric learning solutions rely heavily on policymakers and administrators choosing other than single or standardized solutions. Having varied approaches may be initially more cost intensive, but these variations also provide opportunities to research best practices and compare outcomes. As online courseware and delivery mature, insights into best practice may emerge. Hybrid approaches, such as blended or flipped practices can be compared with maturing online delivery, though early evaluation already shows the blended approach to be a more successful one with certain student groups in terms of learning


outcomes. The importance of making learning mobile, more engaging and individualized, while improving outcomes, are policy drivers for increased return on investment of higher education, not only in the U.S., but throughout the world. While some have been skeptical of the viability of online learning, online homework has been shown to be just as effective as paper homework (Day & Foley, 2006) and online tutors have been shown, at times, to be as effective as in-person tutoring (VanLehn, 2011). One of the most successful online tutoring programs has been the Khan Academy (khanacademy.org), which launched in 2006. Salman Khan, an alumnus of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, grew the non-profit organization from a series of YouTube video tutorials he designed for a cousin struggling with math. The site now offers hundreds of tutorials in a variety of categories and has been translated into 23 languages. More than 570 million lessons have been viewed, according to the web site. In 2012, Khan Academy had revenue of just over $15 million and expenses just under $8 million. Khan describes his efforts as a democratization of learning, proclaiming “a free world-class education to anyone, anywhere” (Khan Academy, 2015). The site also has integrated achievement badges, practice lessons, and assessment tools to direct users to lessons in their chosen category where they need improvement and can expand their learning. The success of Khan Academy may be instructive in the build out of institutional approaches to tech-centric course development. One of the teaching concepts Khan Academy has brought to the fore is the notion of the flipped or inverted classroom. A flipped classroom is a form of blended learning in which students learn new content online by watching prepared course modules at home, or anywhere outside the classroom (Saban, 2013). Instead of students sitting through a lecture, class time is devoted to assignments the instructor can assist with, offering more personalized guidance and interaction. A flipped


classroom transforms the instructor from a “sage on stage” to a “guide on the side,” allowing them to work with individuals or groups who may need additional help, potentially lessening the disengagement that may occur when students are not thrilled by particular lecture content (Mazzolini & Maddison, 2003). The theoretical underpinnings of the flipped classroom are derived primarily from Piaget’s (1967) theory of cognitive conflict (disequilibrium, or challenging held knowledge), from which peer-assisted, collaborative learning emerged. In addition, Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development (what a learner can do with help versus what a learner can do without help) was the basis for a cooperative learning modality and guided the concept of a flipped classroom. Students collaborate online or elsewhere to complete projects, and meet with instructors for assistance during class time or during virtual office hours. While students don’t seem to use virtual office hours any more frequently than actual office hours, there appears to be a greater sense of ease and satisfaction on the part of students, given the computer interface may mute any student anxiety when engaging professors (Li & Pitts, 2009). Further, even in blended approaches, instructors often incorporate technology in lectures, class assignments and student interaction.

CONCLUSION For now, we believe the blended or flipped approach to tech-centric learning holds the most promise in terms of greater learning outcomes, as well as cost containment. The flipped approach also may allay faculty fears of being supplanted by asynchronous online courseware, as well as some of the equity issues raised here for underrepresented populations. Still, institutions


must increase technology infrastructure, find ways to incentivize instructors to adopt blended formats, and provide them the necessary release time to develop courses and find new ways to assess learning. Institutions must also do some soul searching around current resource allocation, and seek ways to slow the burgeoning growth of the administrative sector at the expense of education delivery. For a tech-centric transition to be successful, institutions also must consider returning to decades-old models of staffing, where the professoriate accounts for a larger portion of the human resources of an institution. This professoriate also must be incentivized to embrace tech-centric teaching modalities, and in instances where aging faculties are disinclined, they should be encouraged to consider retirement. This latter concern also would go a long way in addressing much more than the adoption of tech-centric teaching modalities. As with other areas of the economy, where longtime workers are postponing retirement, colleges and universities are producing younger, talented and technically adept educators that far outnumber the availability of tenure track position openings. This is quickly becoming an ancillary issue of equity, and should be considered when longtime faculty are disinclined to update their teaching and technical skills. This is certainly not to call for any age “ceilings,” but rather for both the professoriate and institutions alike to examine their efficacy and service to students if some sectors within the institution choose not to evolve. Such a choice does not assist students to prepare for employment in a technology-based global economy, and those institutions that do not address this disconnect may also suffer in terms of their own prestige and viability.


REFERENCES Allen, W. R., & Solorzano, Daniel. (2000). Affirmative Action, Educational Equity and Campus Racial Climate: A Case Study of the University of Michigan Law School. Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, 12, 237. Allen, W. R., Jayakumar, U. M., & Franke, R. (2009). Till Victory Is Won: The African American Struggle for Higher Education in California: CHOICES, UCLA. Alonso, F., López, G., Manrique, D., & Viñes, J. M. (2005). An Instructional Model for WedBased E-Learning Education with a Blended Learning Process Approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 217-235. Arnold, S. D. (2012). Assessing Student Learning Online: Overcoming Reliability Issues. Paper presented at the International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA), Madrid, Spain. Astin, A. W., & Oseguera, Leticia. (2004). The Declining "Equity" of American Higher Education. The Review of Higher Education, 27(3), 321-341. Azizan, F. Z. (2010). Blended Learning in Higher Education Institution in Malaysia. Presented at Proceedings of Regional Conference on Knowledge Integration in Information and Communication Technology. Bañados, E. (2013). A Blended-Learning Pedagogical Model for Teaching and Learning ESL Successfully Througn an Online Interactive Multimedia Environment. Calico Journal, 23(3), 533-500. Barr, M. J. (2003). The Jossey-Bass Academic Administrator's Guide to Budgets and Financial Management: John Wiley & Sons. Barr, M. J., & Golseth, A. E. (1990). Managing Change in a Paradoxical Environment. In M. J. Barr, & M.L. Upcraft and Associates (Ed.), New Futures for Student Affairs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bartley, S. J., & Golek, J. H. (2004). Evaluating the Cost Effectiveness of Online and Face-toFace Instruction. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 7(4), 167-175. Birbal, R., & Hewitt-Bradshaw, I. (2015). Flipped or Flopped? First Year University Students' Perspectives and Experiences of the Flipped Classroom Strategy. Paper presented at the The Biennial Conference of the UWI Schools of Education, Cave Hill Campus, Barbados, West Indies. Blume, H. (2014). LAUSD Shifts Gears on Technology for Students. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from latimes.com website: http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-melausd-laptops-20140630-story.html Blumenstyk, G. (2014). American Higher Education in Crisis?: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. Bonk, C. J., & Dennen, V. P. (2005). Massive Multiplayer Online Gaming: A Research Framework for Military Training and Education. Washington, DC: Department of Defense. Campos, P. A. (2015). The Real Reason College Tuition Costs So Much. The New York Times. Retrieved from nytimes.com website: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/the-real-reason-college-tuitioncosts-so-much.html?referrer&_r=0


Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student Engagement and Student Learning: Testing the Linkages*. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1-32. doi: 10.1007/s11162005-8150-9 Carnevale, A. P., & Strohl, J. (2013). Separate and Unequal: How Higher Education Reinforces the Intergenerational Reproduction of White Racial Privilege. Washington, D.C.: Center on Education and the Workplace, Georgetown University. Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Strohl, J. (2010). Help Wanted: Projections of Job and Education Requirements through 2018: Lumina Foundation. Chang, M. J. (2013). Post-Fisher the Unfinished Research Agenda on Student Diversity in Higher Education. Educational Researcher, 42(3), 172-173. Chesler, M. A., & Crowfoot, J. (2000). An Organizational Analysis of Racism in Higher Education. In M. C. Brown (Ed.), Organizational Governance in Higher Education (pp. 436-469). Boston, MA: Pearson. Chung, J. S., & Neuman, D. (2007). High School Students' Information Seeking and Use for Class Projects. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(10), 1503-1517. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1-25. Corey, D. L., & Bower, B. L. (2005). The Experiences of an African American Male Learning Mathematics in the Traditional and the Online Classroom – a Case Study. The Journal of Negro Education, 74(4), 321-331. doi: 10.2307/40026732 Corwin, Z. B., Venegas, K. M., Oliverez, P. M., & Colyar, J. E. (2004). School Counsel How Appropriate Guidance Affects Educational Equity. Urban Education, 39(4), 442-457. Day, J., & Foley, J. D. (2006). Evaluating a Web Lecture Intervention in a Human–Computer Interaction Course. Education, IEEE Transactions on, 49(4), 420-431. Durant, R. F., & Diehl, Paul F. (1989). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policy: Lessons from the Foreign Policy Arena. Journal of Public Policy, 9(2), 179-205. Eagan, K., Stolzenberg, E. B., Ramirez, J. J., Aragon, M. C., Suchard, M. R., & Hurtado, S. (2014). The American Freshman: National Norms Fall 2014. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute (HERI), UCLA. Espinoza, R. (2011). Pivotal Moments: How Educators Can Put All Students on the Path to College: ERIC. Ferrario, K., Hyde, C., Martinez, B., & Sundt, M. (2013). An Honest Account of the Humbling Experience of Learning to Teach Online. Learning Landscapes, 6(2), 85-95. Fitzgerald, F. (2015). Online Webcasts May Be Restricted to UC Berkeley Students, Campus Tech Service Says. The Daily Californian. Retrieved from dailycal.org website: http://www.dailycal.org/2015/03/20/online-webcasts-may-be-restricted-to-uc-berkeleystudents-campus-tech-service-says/ Garces, L. M. (2012). Necessary but Not Sufficient: The Impact of Grutter v. Bollinger on Student of Color Enrollment in Graduate and Professional Schools in Texas. The Journal of Higher Education, 83(4), 497-534. Garces, L. M., & Jayakumar, U. M. (2014). Dynamic Diversity toward a Contextual Understanding of Critical Mass. Educational Researcher, 43(3), 115-124. Gildersleeve, R. E., Kuntz, A. M., Pasque, P. A., & Carducci, R. (2010). The Role of Critical Inquiry in (Re) Constructing the Public Agenda for Higher Education: Confronting the


Conservative Modernization of the Academy. The Review of Higher Education, 34(1), 85-121. Ginsberg, B. (2011). Administrators Ate My Tuition. Washington Monthly. Retrieved from washingtonmonthly.com website: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/septemberoctober_2011/features/administ rators_ate_my_tuition031641.php?page=all Goldrick-Rab, S., & Shaw, Kathleen M. (2005). Racial and Ethnic Differences in the Impact of Work-First Policies on College Access. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(4), 291-307. Heller, D. E. (2005). Can Minority Students Afford College in an Era of Skyrocketing Tuition? In G. Orfield, P. Marin, & C. L. Horn (Ed.), Higher Education and the Color Line (pp. 83-106). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Holderness, S. T. (1990). The Politics of State Educational Policymaking: Usefulness of the Kingdon Model. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Pittsburgh, PA. Hollands, F. M., & Tirthali, D. (2014). MOOC: Expectations and Reality. New York: Center for Benefit-Cost Studies of Eduation, Teachers College, Columbia University. Hoxby, C. M., & Avery, Christopher. (2012). The Missing 'One-Offs': The Hidden Supply of High-Achieving, Low Income Students. National Bureau of Economic Research. Cambridge, MA. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w18586 Huerta, A., & Fishman, Seth. (2014). Marginality and Mattering: Urban Latino Male Undergraduates in Higher Education. Journal of The First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 26(1), 85-100. Jacoby, D. (2006). Effects of Part-Time Faculty Employment on Community College Graduation Rates. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(6), 1081-1103. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2006.0050 Jaeger, A. J., & Eagan Jr., M. K. (2009). Unintended Consequences: Examining the Efect of Part-Time Faculty Members on Associate's Degree Completion. Community College Review, 36(3), 167-194 Jaeger, A. J., & Hinz, D. (2008). The Effects of Part-Time Faculty on First-Year Freshman Retention: A Predictive Model Using Logistic Regression. Journal of College Student Retention, 10(3), 33-53. Kezar, A. J., & Eckel, Peter D. (2004). Meeting Today's Governance Challenges: A Synthesis of the Literature and Examination of a Future Agenda for Scholarship. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(4), 371-399. (2015). Khan Academy Retrieved 6/16/2015, from https://www.khanacademy.org/ King, A. (1985). Review Of: Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Journal of Public Policy, 5(2), 281-283. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Boston, MA: Little Brown. Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins. Lagemann, E. C., & Lewis, H. (2012). What Is College For?: The Public Purpose of Higher Education: Teachers College Press. Lederman, D. (2013). Who Benefits from Online Ed? Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from insidehighered.com website: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/02/25/studyfinds-some-groups-fare-worse-others-online-courses


Lewin, T. (2012). Mixed Reviews of Obama Plan to Keep Down College Costs. The New York Times. Retrieved from nytimes.com website: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/28/education/obamas-plan-to-control-college-costsgets-mixed-reviews.html Lewin, T. (2013). Financing for Colleges Declines as Costs Rise. The New York Times. Retrieved from nytimes.com website: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/education/aid-for-higher-education-declines-ascosts-rise.html?_r=0 Li, L., & Pitts, J. P. (2009). Does It Really Matter? Using Virtual Office Hours to Enhance Student-Faculty Interaction. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 175. Lieberman, J. M. (2002). Three Streams and Four Policy Entrepreneurs Converge: A Policy Window Opens. Education and Urban Society, 34(4), 438-450. Lindsay, T. (2015). The Future of an Illusion: The Higher-Ed 'Funding Cuts' Myth. Forbes. Retrieved from Forbes.com website: http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomlindsay/2015/05/11/the-future-of-an-illusion-the-highered-funding-cuts-myth/ Lloyd, K. M., Leicht, Kevin T., Sullivan, Teresa A. (2008). Minority College Aspirations, Expectations and Applications under the Texas Top 10% Law. Social Forces, 86(3), 1105-1137. Long, B. T., & Riley, E. (2007). Financial Aid: A Broken Bridge to College Access? Harvard Educational Review, 77(1), 39-63. López-Pérez, M. V., Pérez-López, M. C., & Rodríguez-Ariza, L. (2011). Blended Learning in Higher Education: Students’ Perceptions and Their Relation to Outcomes. Computers and Education, 56(3), 818-826. Mathis, J. D. (2010). Increasing the Capacity of College Counseling through Video Game Design. Journal of College Admission, 209, 14-23. Mazoué, J. G. (2012). The Deconstructed Campus. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 24(2), 74-95. Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2003). Sage, Guide or Ghost? The Effect of Instructor Intervention on Student Participation in Online Discussion Forums. Computers & Education, 40(3), 237-253. McDonough, P. M. (1997). Choosing Colleges: How Social Class and Schools Structure Opportunity. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. McDonough, P. M., Antonio, Anthony Lising, Walpole, MaryBeth, & Pérez, Leonor Xóchitl. (1998). College Rankings: Democratized College Knowledge for Whom? Research in Higher Education, 39(5), 513-537. McDonough, P. M., & Calderone, S. (2006). The Meaning of Money: Perceptual Differences between College Counselors and Low-Income Families About College Costs and Financial Aid. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(12), 1703-1718. Morris, L. V., & Finnegan, C. L. (2008). Best Practices in Predicting and Encouraging Student Persistence and Achievement Online. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 10(1), 55-64. Mucciaroni, G. (1992). The Garbage Can Model and the Study of Policy Making: A Critique. Polity, 24(3), 459-482.


Mullen, A. L. (2010). Degrees of Inequality: Culture, Class, and Gender in American Higher Education. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. NCES. (1993). Digest of Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. NCES. (1996). Digest of Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. NCES. (2003). Digest of Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Nieli, R. K. (2004). The Changing Shape of the River: Affirmative Action and Recent Social Science Research. Academic Questions, 17(4), 7-59. No Child Left Behind. (2011). Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/no-child-left-behind/ No Child Left Behind: Background & Analysis. (2012). Retrieved from Federal Education Budget Project website: http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/no-child-leftbehind-funding Novak, J. R., & Bruce Fuller. (2003). Policy Analysis for California Education, "Penalizing Diverse Schools?". Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/penalizingdiverse-schools Page, T., & Thorstenisson, G. (2008). A Blended Learning Route to Improving Innovation Education in Europe. i-Manager's Journal on School Educational Technology, 4(1), 18. Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, Christopher T., Wolniak, Gregory C., & Terenzini, Patrick T. (2004). First-Generation College Students: Additional Evidence on College Experiences and Outcomes. Journal of Higher Education, 249-284. Perna, L. W. (2000). Differences in the Decision to Attend College among African Americans, Hispanics, and Whites. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(2), 117-141. Perna, L. W. (2005). The Benefits of Higher Education: Sex, Racial/Ethnic, and Socioeconomic Group Differences. The Review of Higher Education, 29(1), 23-52. Perna, L. W., Ruby, A., Boruch, R. F., Wang, N., Scull, J., Ahmad, S., & Evans, C. (2014). Moving through MOOCs Understanding the Progression of Users in Massive Open Online Courses. Educational Researcher, 0013189X14562423. Peterson, P. E., & West, M. R. (2003). No Child Left Behind?: The Politics and Practice of School Accountability: Brookings Institution Press. Piaget, J. (1967). The Mental Development of the Child. Six psychological studies, 10-17. Pickert, K. (2014). How the iPad Helped Bring Down the Los Angeles Schools Chief. Time. Retrieved from time.com website: http://time.com/3514155/ipad-john-deasy-lausdsuperintendent-resigns/ Prineas, M., Cini, Marie. (2011). Assessing Learning in Online Education: The Role of Technology in Improving Student Outcomes. Occasional Paper #12. Retrieved from learningoutcomesassessment.org Quinn, D., Amer, Y., Lonie, A., Blackmore, K., Thompson, L., & Pettigrove, M. (2012). Leading Change: Applying Change Management Apporahces to Engage Students in Blended Learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(1), 16-29. Rhoads, R. A., Berdan, J., & Toven-Lindsey, B. (2013). The Open Courseware Movement in Higher Education: Unmasking Power and Raising Questions About the Movement's Democratic Potential. Education Theory, 63(1), 87-110. Robinson, S. E., Eller, W. S. (2010). Participation in Policy Streams: Testing the Separation of Problems and Solutions in Subnational Policy Systems. Policy Studies Journal, 38(2), 199-215.


Rolling up Their Sleeves: Superintendents and Principals Talk About What's Needed to Fix Public Schools. (2003). Retrieved from http://wallacefoundation.org/knowledgecenter/school-leadership/district-policy-and-practice/Pages/Rolling-Up-Their-SleevesWhats-Needed-to-Fix-Public-Schools.aspx Roth, K., & Vogt, L. (1997). Digital Deadlines, a Multi-Modal Online Journalism Course. Presented at Oregon Student Success Conference, Bend, OR. Roth, K., & Vogt, L. (1998, Oct. 14-17). Digital Deadlines: Multi-Modal Online Journalism Course. Presented at Telelearning '98: Riding the Winds of Change, Portland, OR. Saban, Y. (2013). The Flipped Classroom Instructional Module. Retrieved from http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/27174 Santos, J. L. (2007). Resource Allocation in Public Research Universities. The Review of Higher Education, 30(2), 125-144. Schoorman, D., & Acker-Hocevar, Michele. (2010). Viewing Faculty Governance within a Social Justice Framework: Struggles and Possibilities for Democratic Decision-Making in Higher Education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 43(3), 310-325. Smith, A. (2015). U.S. Smartphone Use in 2015. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. Solomon, M. (2004). The Real Rationale Behind No Child Left Behind. Education News. Retrieved from EducationNews.org website: http://www.educationnews.org/articles/thereal-rationale-behind-no-child-left-behind.html Steele, C. M. (1997). A Threat in the Air: Stereotypes Shape Intellectual Identity and Performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613-629. Steele, C. M. (2010). Whistling Vivaldi: How Stereotypes Affect Us and What We Can Do. New York; London: W. W. Norton and Company Stout, K. E., & Stevens, B. (2000). The Case of the Failed Diversity Rule: A Multiple Streams Analysis. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(4), 341-355. Straumheim, C. (2014). It Takes Time. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from insiderhighered.com website: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/08/13/changing-economy-changesonline-education-priorities-u-california Sweitzer, K., & Volkwein, J. F. (2009). Prestige among Graduate and Professional Schools: Comparing the U.S. News’ Graduate School Reputation Ratings between Disciplines. Research in Higher Education, 50(8), 812-836. Tierney, W. G. (2004). Improving Academic Governance: Utilizing a Cultural Framework to Improve Organizational Perfomance. Competing Conceptions of Academic Governance: Negotiating the Perfect Storm, 200-216. Tierney, W. G., & Venegas, K. M. (2009). Finding Money on the Table: Information, Financial Aid, and Access to College. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(4), 363-388. Toyama, K. (2015). Why Technology Will Never Fix Education. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from The Chronicle of Higher Education website: http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Technology-Will-NeverFix/230185/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en Umbach, P. D. (2007). How Effective Are They? Exploring the Impact of Contingent Faculty on Undergraduate Education. Review of Higher Education, 30, 91-124. UVa MOOC Nominated for Emmy Award. (2015). Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from insidehighered.com website:


https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2015/06/03/uva-mooc-nominated-emmyaward VanLehn, K. (2011). The Relative Effectiveness of Human Tutoring, Intelligent Tutoring Systems, and Other Tutoring Systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197-221. Venegas, K. M. (2006). Internet Inequalities Financial Aid, the Internet, and Low-Income Students. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(12), 1652-1669. Venegas, K. M. (2007). The Internet and College Access: Challenges for Low-Income Students. American Academic, 3(1), 141-154. Volkwein, J. F., & Sweitzer, K. V. (2006). Institutional Prestige and Reputation among Research Universities and Liberal Arts Colleges*. Research in Higher Education, 47(2), 129-148. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between Learning and Development. Readings on the development of children, 23(3), 34-41. Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New Technology and Digital Worlds: Analyzing Evidence of Equity in Access, Use, and Outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179-225. Wolff, R. A. (2005). Accountability and Accreditation: Can Reforms Match Increasing Demands? Achieving Accountability in Higher Education: Balancing Public, Academic, and Market Demands. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 37-67. Worrell, F. C. (2015). Transforming Education in the Digital Age: Where Do I Want to Go and with Whom? UWI Schools of Education Biennial Conference. Keynote Address. Barbados, West Indies. Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2014). Performance Gaps between Online and Face-to-Face Courses: Differences across Types of Students and Academic Subject Areas. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(5), 633-659. Young, S., Cantrell, P. P., & Shaw, D. G. (2001). Online Instruction: New Roles for Teachers and Students. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 5(4), 11. Young, T. V., Shepley, T. V., & Song, M. (2010). Understanding Agenda Setting in State Educational Policy: An Application of Kingdon's Multiple Streams Model to the Formation of State Reading Policy. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 18(15). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/771

Tech-Centric Classrooms: A Discussion of Policy ...

Tech-Centric Classrooms: A Discussion of Policy ...

Suggest Documents

Virtual Classrooms and the Discussion Forum: A Net Benefit for ...

Policy Discussion Paper - CiteSeerX

A Discussion on Policy-based Management using

From Classrooms to Cell Blocks: A National ... - Justice Policy Institute

From Classrooms to Cell Blocks: A National ... - Justice Policy Institute

Policy Discussion Paper - Semantic Scholar

Discussion Paper - Public Policy Forum

A discussion of the key elements of OECD policy regarding

Policy Discussion Paper - The University of Adelaide

Discussion of "Like a Good Neighbor: Monetary Policy, Financial ...

A cursory discussion of policy alternatives for addressing ... - Cogent OA

Wellesley Central Policy Governance Models Discussion Papeâ¦

Wellesley Central Policy Governance Models Discussion Papeâ¦

a discussion about culture and information security policy compliance

Malnutrition and Infection - A review - Nutrition policy discussion paper ...

Trading Classrooms for Cell Blocks - Justice Policy Institute

DISPOSAL OF PORTABLE CLASSROOMS

Classrooms - Grou.ps

Classrooms

flipped classrooms

Discussion of Stock Market Volatility and Monetary Policy: What the

The Influence of Political Discussion on Policy ... - Pace University

Discussion of Monetary Policy Under Uncertainty in Micro-Founded ...

Discussion of The Debate on Alternatives for Monetary Policy in ...

Tech-Centric Classrooms: A Discussion of Policy ...