Learning Resources

Abstract: California Community Colleges, since 2014, have explicitly targeted retention, transfer, and completion outcomes through a mandated planning process supported by newly-allocated fiscal resources. The policy focuses on equity-driven institutional planning that identifies and addresses disparities for specific groups (e.g., Latinx students, foster youths, veterans). This article shares insight from five years of case study research, exploring how senior administrators address Latinx student transfer inequity through new culturally-relevant strategies. Within California, Latinx students comprise the largest share of transfer-aspirants, but they have significantly lower rates of academic success. Key lessons are shared to leverage planning efforts to improve outcomes for underrepresented minority students.

Abstract: In difficult times, planning and the successful implementation of that planning require the buy-in and support of a whole range of stakeholders–but particularly the faculty, since they carry out the institution’s teaching and research missions.

Faculty can make or break successful planning.

An institution must be very circumspect in their choice of representative faculty for planning groups, how they are engaged in the planning process, and how they interact with other campus constituencies for maximum buy-in. This endeavor is particularly difficult when the new planning process follows previous attempts that have failed because of faculty resistance or lack of meaningful involvement. This session details successful planning initiatives at two regional universities, one in the Midwest and one in the southern Northeast, where earlier planning efforts failed because of “the faculty factor.”

Join us to explore the successes and failures involved in these two planning initiatives that required broad-based faculty support in order to reverse issues with programmatic quality, student success, and institutional accreditation.

Abstract: Historic separations that defined higher education are dissolving: research is more interdisciplinary, online and on-campus learning are converging, wet and dry labs are blending, teaching and research overlap, and academia forges relationships with corporate partners. Institutions, by improving how they connect what they offer, how they are organized, and how they operate, can build value and agility to better assist their people on campus. Real-world examples in this white paper from Knoll and brightspot strategy discuss how campus spaces support student success, including how to fully use the campus; creating spaces that sustain diverse and flexible ways of working; thinking phygitally; and creating environments where today’s purpose-driven and entrepreneurial students (Gen Z) will thrive as they prepare to enter the workforce.

Abstract: Having been on both the inside of regional accreditation and outside looking back on it, Lynn Priddy knows that accreditation has long tried to revolutionize itself, while at the same time increasingly becoming subject to federal regulatory burdens and expectations from the Department of Education. That has backed it into becoming a bureaucracy at the very time it needed to break out to focus on innovation, learning, and student success.

Abstract: The consolidation of administrative services into a centralized shared services model is increasingly common. Unfortunately, this move can be a rocky one, often encountering resistance and skepticism. Our session will focus on the implementation and optimization of a shared services model for academic services from both sides of the change—a person on the team leading the change and a key stakeholder undergoing the change. This session will provide you with information, skills, and approaches to ensure a pain-free implementation of a shared services model.

Abstract: FLEXSpace—The Flexible Learning Environments eXchange—and the Learning Space Rating System (LSRS) are tools that can help you plan, design, assess, and improve learning spaces on your campus. In this session, you will learn about the newly released FLEXspace 2.0 along with the LSRS. We'll cover the features and benefits of both tools and how they can be incorporated into the planning process. Come learn how to use these tools to inform designs and support end users from planning through post occupancy.

Abstract: A sharp, perhaps permanent contraction in the pool of college-aged students has become inescapable. Nearly all institutions could confront wrenching losses in competitiveness, revenue, or both. Yet despite advance warning, few institutions understand what they must do now to remain viable. We will go over two sets of tools that are critical for preparing for the upcoming demographic changes: 1) conducting analyses of institutional vulnerability; and 2) modeling what-if scenarios to shape strategy.

Abstract: Higher education institutions, across nearly all socio-cultural cross-sections, are more diverse today than ever before. This evolution in campus demographics also coincides with the changing values, priorities, and needs of students. The bottom line for many of today’s students is clear: now more than ever, values matter when selecting a school. This article explores the programmatic and administrative responses as well as the physical planning and design opportunities associated with creating and sustaining more diverse and inclusive campus environments.

Abstract: For most institutions of higher learning to thrive amid the shifting demographics, financial outlooks, and value propositions of the 21st century, they must design and implement change that is comprehensive rather than compartmental. Since such change comes hard to institutions steeped in century-old traditions, there are few colleges or universities that have undertaken it. Hiram College (OH) is an exception. Given the dearth of lessons from the field, the Hiram College president offers this constructive and realistic example of systemic change and the five possible steps that academic leaders and trustees elsewhere might consider before triggering it.

Abstract: This article applies the three stages of change (mobilization, implementation, and institutionalization) to the academic curricular process change that occurred during the 2014–2015 academic year at the Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Reflecting on the manner in which this major initiative was conceptualized and executed has revealed an inadvertent yet seamless application of Curry’s (1992) organizational change model. Throughout each stage of this organizational change, some inherent principles were maintained while balancing the required condensed timeline for completion. These principles included consistent and transparent consultation with many branches of the university community and revision of proposed processes based on feedback from community members. The goal of the authors in sharing the change process at IUP is to provide potential insights for others on recognizing a need for organizational process revision. The authors highlight the actions taken at IUP, offer recommendations, and identify potential hazards to institutions contemplating organizational change.