Higher Education
Introduction
During the speaker session on Nov. 22, Higher Education, Dean Anderson from the College of Education and Prof. Lindgren from Curriculum & Instruction discussed how the pandemic had impacted teaching, learning, and administration of universities, how our university had responded to the pandemic, and the role of technology in addressing educational problems. First, it is addressed that the experience of engaging in remote teaching before the pandemic combined with several adaptations (like approving virtual lab experiences and allowing instructor to have the autonomy in choosing instruction format) had helped the university mitigate the adverse effects of the pandemic. On-campus enrollment has not changed significantly from previous years, and the new format also allows the university to attract untraditional populations who can’t come to campus. Secondly, it is also mentioned that as part of the effort to help the region to lighten the burden, the university also prepared resources, Learn Away Education Illinois, for the k-12 system. This resource is a response to the fact that the vast majority of k-12 educators have no experience in online teaching and the alarming situation that lots of students have reported losses of achievement, especially in math and science.
The third topic discussed is the pandemic’s impact on our culture. In general, it is expected that the university will resume in-person classrooms and also continue with remote degrees (like before the pandemic). Dean Anderson pointed to the idea that education is more than the simple delivery of instructions; it is also social relationships, friendships, and in-person meetings——all of which would contribute to the overall success of one’s education. He also discussed three downsides of remote instruction: 1) factors that can lead to negative influences, including delayed graduation, loss of job/internship, and the expectation to learn less before the age of 25; 2) high level of mental stress; and 3) unequal negative impacts over minority groups. Dean Anderson further explained the third point that the unequal divisions were before the pandemic, but exacerbated the divide by the pandemic. People fall behind when they are in k-12, not in universities. One thing that I found particularly interesting is Dean Anderson’s note that we look forward to post-covid-19, not post-pandemic. There can be another pandemic or other impacts (like Katrina) that suspended school in the future. As a reflection of the pandemic, the education system needs to be more prepared to switch to online instruction for a short period. Thus the primary change in the culture should be the preparation to change into an online format.
Reflection
Overall, there are two points worth-noting in Dean Anderson’s speech:1) the pandemic proposed a chance for people to rethink the definition of education; and 2) it also pushed the development of alternative formats. He expressed a rather optimistic view regarding the pandemic’s impact, acknowledging the negative effects and underlying issues but at the same time taking them as an opportunity, through which active actions can be taken. This view is contrasted by the one of Corey Robin, a faculty member of the City University of New York (CUNY), in his article The Pandemic Is the Time to Resurrect the Public University. I believe his primary emphasis was placed on the viability of several measures. As a member of a university that suffered many deaths from the pandemic, he pointed to the dilemma of CUNY in implementing regular testing, tracing technology, and also maintaining students on campus. Throughout the article, I did not notice any clear objections from Robin toward the two points brought up by Dean Anderson. But instead of viewing it as an opportunity to improve, Robin regarded the pandemic as a force that pushed for radical reactions. He pointed to the tension within the current funding system: the generous donations to the private universities served as a tax deduction for the donors, which, in turn, can be translated into the deducted budgets for public universities (as tax income is a major source for their fundings). Such a system would ultimately shift higher education to be more centered on private sources. He described this mechanism as “the song of culture in our society. The bass line is wealth and profit; the melody is diversity and opportunity.” With that being said, Robin called for the creation of a more inclusive higher education system, which requires the allocation of resources to public institutions. He asserted that education is “a bequest of permanence from one generation to the next [...] a promise to the future that it will enjoy the learning of the present and the literature of the past.” Education should be prioritized, and student safety should not be sacrificed from monetary concerns.
As a reflection of the pandemic, Dean Anderson’s positivity leads him to rethink the definition of education to be more innovative, being ready to adapt to future changes. Robin pointed to another direction in rethinking education as a more inclusive category, making it accessible to a broader population. Robin signified the tension between private and public sources, but I think the fundamental issue is placed on the notion of inclusiveness. Combining the two viewpoints together, I don’t think they are contradictory. As a matter of fact, I believe Dean Anderson’s speech has touched on the idea of improving inclusiveness through innovation. He mentioned that virtual experiences had attracted untraditional populations, and that the university also contributed to enhancing k-12 experiences. Both of these can be a sign for a more inclusive environment, within and outside our own university. However, while this notion is not neglected, I still think it may need more attention. There are two areas I noticed in Dean Anderson’s speech that can be further addressed.
The first one is how the preparation mentioned above should be carried out. Last semester I had two older professors with no prior experience with online teaching. Both of them mentioned that they were taught by their children to use zoom (one of them even had a cheat sheet prepared by his son). Both of them found the guidelines prepared by our university to be insufficient in terms of getting them familiarized in utilizing the technology, and both of them had spent a considerable amount of time during class to deal with technical problems. Prof. Lindgren mentioned the Summer Online Teaching Academy as an effort to promote better teaching results. I appreciate the value of this resource, but, in the meantime, I would say that it would add to the efficiency if the academy (even a shorter version of it) can happen at an earlier time----during the spring break or the period when the transition first started. I agree with Dean Anderson that, as the aftermath of the pandemic, the schools need to be more prepared for future events. Still, I will take a step further that, perhaps, the most important thing is to have the ability to take our preparation and turn them into the ability to have a timely response during a quick turnaround time. The preparation needs to be preventative of potential harms at the early stage, as opposed to being simply a remedial measure (or a passive response) to an existing problem. In addition to having a system ready to face the turnaround (like equipping the educators with knowledge in using zoom, which was already done), we should also have a supporting system organized (like having technological support). The supporting system should maintain the efficiency and integrity of the “prepared” system, and it should address issues of those in need (like my elder professors).
The second one is how resources should be used efficiently. Given that this session’s topic is higher education, the speakers’ main focus is on the universities. However, as mentioned above, they did express concerns over k-12 education as well. The two speakers laid out the difficulties faced by the system, and also the importance of restoring the effectiveness of this system (given that it is the place where unequal divisions started). They also pointed to our university’s effort in changing the situation, namely the Learn Away Illinois project. I went through the website, and I can see that there are lots of resources (both videos prepared by university faculties and also external websites) for the educators to improve their teaching experience. One thing I did notice, however, is that most of the videos over specific topics have less than 40 or 50 views, including the ones on popular subjects like math and critical issues like engaging students. The ones with higher view numbers tend to be those focusing on technical issues (like making videos), and they usually have around 100 views. In either case, the number is much lower than my expectation. On the one hand, I can understand the technical hardships faced by k-12 educators in transitioning to online teaching, especially in the case that they may not have an organized supporting system like the one provided to university professors. On the other hand, I still have concerns over the quality of online education in k-12. Based on my observation, I really appreciate the resources provided. Taking the subject of English as an example, the website has a list of resources ranging from free books to tutorials in creating effective reading lists and to tips on how to engage students in a remote literature class. Valuable lessons can be drawn from these sources, but only when they are known by the educators. I would hope these sources to be more impactful, and more benefits can be realized through the proper utilization of these resources.
As a final thought, I think the university had made great efforts in mitigating the effects of the pandemic. The achievement is remarkable. Our innovation should also have a clear sense that it is for the greater good of a community. Steps have already been taken, but I believe that with an explicit goal in mind, the innovation can be of bigger success.
Comments & Responses
Comment #1
By Roman Friedman
Hi Doris,
This is a wonderful and thorough op-ed. First, you write in talking about Dean Anderson that "the pandemic proposed a chance for people to rethink the definition of education." What "education" is can be a bit of a grand debate. After all, education does not occur exclusively in schools, and education is not exclusively tied to formal and/or institutional settings. This latter point is something you allude to when you say that education consists of "social relationships, friendships, and in-person meetings." (E.g. playgrounds, bars, Thanksgiving dinners are sites of education). So for the sake of ease I wonder if we can instead talk about the definition/purpose of schooling, and maybe specifically the university. I think this is a topic that we have discussed before, but I don't think you gave your own opinion above concretely: what do you view as the purpose of the university? Some things that I have seen mentioned before: promoting democracy, helping prepare students for jobs, teaching students to socialize, promoting social justice, teaching students content knowledge, providing a space for research, promoting equity, teaching workplace-relevant skills (including technology use), teaching students to be citizens, providing an a-politicized space for the pursuit of knowledge, teaching students their own traditions (e.g. the literary canon), providing a microcosm of social life, teaching morals and ethics, and so forth. Which of those sound right to you? Are some more right than others? Is there one overarching purpose of schooling that you think is most important and that we have perhaps neglected during the time of the pandemic (whether or not it is on this list)?
You also talk in your final paragraphs about preparation and the efficient allocation of resources. This brings up the following thought for me: who shares the burdens of responsibility for preparation and who decides what constitutes the efficient allocation of resources? Just this week WaPo had an article: "‘Great unequalizer:’ Seven families sue the state of California, saying remote learning is leaving Black and Latino students behind." In terms of responsibility and preparation, I have seen all sorts of claims placing the burdens on different parties. E.g. students need to take responsibility for their own learning and their organization, this is why so many are failing. Or teachers need to take responsibility for adjusting and learning new technologies, after all, this is their job. Administrators have been failing to offer support, schools as institutions have not adjusted their priorities in an outdated system, states/governors have not organized the appropriate re-allocation of resources nor have they implemented the best COVID policies for students (e.g. as in the above article), federal government has not responded to the demands of schools (financial and otherwise) and so on. So who do we turn to, in both our blame and in our solutions? Or is that very question itself the problem, it suggest a flaw in our way of thinking? (Even within institutions, as in this universities, there are so many different communities, departments, committees, etc. which sometimes are and sometimes are not effectively communicating with one another.)
I'd love to hear your thoughts!
-Roman
Response #1
Hi Roman—
I don’t think any of the items in your list is wrong or should be weighted more than the others. I believe the fundamental purpose of schooling is dependent on individual person. My father grew up in a family that struggles financially. So part of his motivation for going to university, frankly, is to change the financial situation and perhaps to elevate his social status. With his success, these two points are no longer the primary motivation for me. I entered college mostly to explore my interest. My childhood dream is to become a biologist, but I found out during my time in high school that it is not my genuine interest. So I had struggled in finding a suitable place for myself, and that constituted a large part of my motivation in entering college. And people have very different reasons for entering college. Just to name a few: to learn traditions of other people (a friend of mine with Christian faith who studied Hinduism), to study his own tradition, to handle a crisis in faith (a professor of mine), to be prepared for her career, to satisfy his parents’ demands (sad but true story), to make a transition in her career (an MBA student with eight years of work experience before applying to the program), etc.
With all these different needs from the students, I think the university, as an institution, might situate itself as a mediator, who can appreciate and encourage diverse opinions. In my last response to you, I mentioned Adorno’s rejection of promoting collective thinking through education, and I also mentioned that I love his idea. Adorno also noted that this should be done by separating the bond between education and the state. If there is anything I disagree with this part of his argument, it would be the point that such a separation can be achieved in high schools. To achieve his projection of education, it is needed to increase salaries for teaches to attract talents, and it is also necessary to give the teaches academic freedoms to make them feel comfortable in talking about several topics. Given the “inclusiveness” of high schools, there won’t be a better funding source other than the states. And it will be very challenging, if possible at all, to achieve these goals in high schools. But universities are more likely to have the ability & resources for doing so. If a university can create an environment that teaches “how” to believe and to appreciate (as opposed to “what” to think), it would satisfy every expectation of mine. And with regard to your question on what we have fallen short of during the pandemic, I would say maybe the idea of “inclusiveness”. I mentioned in my op-ed that Dean Anderson took a quite positive view that the pandemic promoted the implementation of various innovations in our university, and Prof. Lindgren also introduced some new technologies. But, similar to the situation with the Learn Away Illinois project, I think some of them remained unknown to the students/faculties (personally I have never used/heard of them before the speaker session). So I guess more efforts can be spent on introducing the innovations to a border population.
And for your second question, I would rather take a more optimistic view. I went through the article you mentioned. On the one hand, the article itself expresses some legitimate concerns over the states. On the other hand, the comments (I read it on the Washington Post) express opposite views over the lawsuit, including that 1) it will “reinforce stereotypes for these two demographics as forever being helpless victims” and 2) WaPo needs to prove “none of the difficulties surrounding remote learning have impacted Caucasian children,” otherwise the organization will be proven “to be nothing more than an organ to stoke racial resentment and discord, in pursuit of readership at the expense of integrity.” I think both parties have a good argument, and neither of them is wrong. For your question on which party should be ultimately responsible, I would say none of them. First of all, the pandemic is not foreseeable. All of the parties you mentioned have flaws in their operation, but I don’t think any of the parties should be “blamed”. During this time, the ideology should be we as a whole (students, teachers, administrators, governments, etc.) fighting against the pandemic, and not we as individuals against each other. Surely none of the parties can offer a perfect solution, but when seeking a solution, we should turn to the collective effort. I’m actually glad that you have a list of entities, which can serve as complementaries to one another. Accusing a single party of being accountable might cause people to neglect the effectiveness of such a mutually supportive system.
And thank you for a great semester! I really appreciated your comments!
Doris