The UNC System Quality Matters Council Summit met Friday, January 31, 2020, on the UNC Charlotte Center City Campus. With representatives from most of the UNC System institutions, themes ranged from campus implementation to course design strategies.
The day opened with a warm welcome delivered by UNC Charlotte’s Dr. Garvey Pike, Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning. He used the city of Charlotte’s recent tremendous growth as a metaphor for the Summit.
Birds of a Feather kicked off the sessions, allowing members to gather and discuss, in an unconference format, issues at their respective institutions. This was followed by two breakout sessions of five sets of presentations each, demonstrating the wealth of knowledge and interest in a variety of topics related to Quality Matters. During lunch, participants were treated to a keynote by Mr. Steve Kaufman, Quality Matters Ohio Consortium, detailing the success of Ohio’s programs. Highlights included the inter-institutional bartering system and incentives created to foster state-wide collaboration.
Recorded archive of keynote: https://tinyurl.com/UNCSystem-QMSummit2020-Keynote
After lunch, an additional breakout session offered another six presentations. Drs. Racheal Brooks and Enoch Park, co-chairs of the Council gave a few brief concluding remarks along with upcoming events. The full program and links to the presenters’ slideshow and additional resources are available at this link: https://teaching.uncc.edu/eventsworkshops/events-workshops/unc-system-quality-matters-council-annual-summit
Pictures from the Summit are available here: https://tinyurl.com/UNCSystem-QMSummit2020-Picture
(Photo Credit: Jules Keith-Le, UNC Charlotte)
Anne Ogg, UNC System QM Council Communication Coordinator
Interesting way the Wall Street Journal is trying to get their paid and proprietary content into our classrooms. It is an inspiredway to get faculty and students to become subscribers. In the past, they would simply offer limited-time free subscriptions or subscriptions at a reduced education rate. In this scenario, they are providing faculty with tools and advice to leverage WSJ Content. They have a seminar series for faculty, critical thinking resources and how to guides. While primarily seen as a tool for business schools, they appear to be going broader with a seminar on “How Non-Business Majors can use the Journal.”
This is precisely how for-profit organizations need to engage with higher education….understand our needs, understand how their products authenticallyfit into our work flows and provide resources to make integration as easy as possible (and of course at an education rate). Note: I have no relationship, or ownership, in the WSJ or related companies.
As part of the work of Faculty Fellow Ben Powell (working on licensing and shared services), we will be exploring this opportunity.
A colleague sent me this IHE article about Arizona State University shutting down its Global Freshman Academy. He suggested here was another example of an educational innovation that turned out to be a dud. But was it?
Whether it is really a dud depends on what you are looking for them to accomplish.
I would agree that as a way to pull in a segment of the population that traditionally would not have gone to college, yes, it was a dud. I think that at the core it was a problem of misalignment. They wanted to be an open access institution for the Global Freshman Academy (GFA) but a selective institution when these students wanted to transfer to ASU. That failed.
But several things did not fail.
They developed twenty general college courses that were initially for GFA but were migrated to their traditional college campus. The allure of the GFA brought many funders – Starbucks, McGraw Hill, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, to name a few. By in large, these funders paid for the (very expensive) costs of the courses used in the GFA. Many of these courses pushed the envelope in regards to quality online education. So, while as the article states, only a few of them are still being used in the GFA, they are being used on the traditional ASU campus (saving millions of development costs to ASU).
They recently launched ASU local where they are creating placed-based online education. They have opened campuses in downtown LA and Washington, D.C. They are leveraging the GFA courses.
Like most successful innovators, they are willing to go out on a limb and try many risky initiatives. Most fail but if one or two hit… This gives them significate earned media in the press resulting in such things as being called the most innovative university by U.S. News and World Report. It also brings in additional funding as well as students for their traditional campus.
So yes, for its stated purpose it was a dud. However, with ASU President Michael Crow you always have to look at second and third-tier effects. On that standard, he has created twenty courses (with other peoples’ money), significant buzz in the academic press and learned some things that can be used to be even more successful in the future.
If only we failed as well as ASU?