{"id":7006,"date":"2016-08-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2016-08-16T04:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/aurora-institute.org\/blog\/cw_post\/operationalizing-paradigm-shifts-in-highered\/"},"modified":"2020-02-05T12:59:19","modified_gmt":"2020-02-05T17:59:19","slug":"operationalizing-paradigm-shifts-in-highered","status":"publish","type":"cw_post","link":"https:\/\/aurora-institute.org\/cw_post\/operationalizing-paradigm-shifts-in-highered\/","title":{"rendered":"Operationalizing Paradigm Shifts in HigherEd"},"content":{"rendered":"
At the beginning of this series, Tom Vander Ark described his college experience<\/a>\u00a0to illustrate the profound impact relationships can have on students. He described the iterative process of discovering his Purpose, finding aPathway\u00a0to that purpose, and then building a network of People\u00a0to help him stay on track.<\/p>\n I\u2019m sure most readers can connect personally with his story\u2013in fact, you\u2019ve probably heard some variant of it in every commencement you\u2019ve attended. But despite the ubiquity of our sentiment as educators regarding the importance of these relationships to learning,\u00a0few colleges attempt to systematically harness these powerful relationships to support student success.<\/p>\n Why is this the case?<\/p>\n To explore why colleges struggled to systematize learning relationships, we need to consider the environment of a typical college (complex at best) and a collection of warring fiefdoms (at worst). Colleges typically offer services in silos, focusing on specific aspects of a student\u2019s path to success such as academic advising, career services, developmental education, etc.<\/p>\n Communication channels are also siloed, with student communication getting trapped in email accounts, text messages, face-to-face conversations and even social media accounts. The departmental structure and communication technology together prevents colleges from institutionalizing the kind of gestalt approach to student success that Tom Vander Ark needed and that all students can benefit from.<\/p>\n These silos are particularly troublesome when trying to serve the incredibly diverse students we see today.\u00a0Fidelis<\/a>\u00a0argues that the best way to empathize with students is via thoughtful application of student personas<\/a>. And the best way to measure our success with these students is not with the trailing indicators of value, like retention\u2013after all, when they\u2019ve dropped out it\u2019s too late\u2013but with a direct measure of value based on their willingness to repeat their decision via the\u00a0Net Outcomes Score<\/a>.<\/p>\n Change is always hard, but this concept of transformation to a relationship driven organization can feel a bit like mission impossible. Most universities don\u2019t even seriously ask their students what their long-term goals (purpose) are beyond the application, much less help the student to construct a personalized pathway of courses, credentials, non-academic experiences and mentors. Just writing that sentence leaves me thinking \u201cYou\u2019ve got to be kidding, right?\u201d<\/p>\n As an educator I can attest that it\u2019s work that we should be doing but, as a former Associate Provost at the University of Mary Hardin\u2013Baylor, I also know how hard it is.\u00a0My friend and now colleague at Fidelis Gunnar Counselman<\/a> wrote,\u00a0\u201cany organizational redesign must be done slowly and with care<\/a>.\u201d However, he may have underestimated\u00a0what we are proposing.<\/p>\n I\u2019d argue that this effort to align schools around people, path and purpose is nothing short of a paradigm shift. Consider these changes:<\/p>\nThis post originally appeared at Getting Smart<\/a> on August 11, 2016.<\/em><\/p>\n
Letting A Thousand Silos Bloom<\/h2>\n
Mission Improbable<\/h2>\n