The 2007 Process Educators (PE) conference, Student Success Through Faculty Success, stayed true to the organization’s traditional approach of challenging participants to engage in new learning and to think more deeply through collective participation in problem solving. As frequently happens, participants also formed and strengthened collegial relationships as a result of their collaborative work. Throughout the conference, participants discussed and practiced ways to promote student and faculty success, but this discussion took two very different tracks. Concurrent workshops focused on methods of improving student success in the classroom, working out solutions in a hands-on manner. The three plenary sessions invited participants to look for ways to promote student and faculty success at the meta-level, focusing on the more systemic issues that interfere with student success. A satisfying outcome of the conference was a sense of increased confidence in the ability of a group of academics with shared interests and beliefs to work together to make a significant, realizable impact on the wider world.

Basic Seven-Step Problem-Solving Process

  1. Define the problem.

  2. Refine the problem.

a. Is it mine/ours to solve?

b. Is it small enough for solutions to be achieved?

  1. Brainstorm 50 potential actions for solving the problem.

    (The task of coming up with 50 options forces one to think of actions other than the obvious ones and to become creative in thinking of solutions that may not normally be considered.)

  2. Cull the list by eliminating solutions that are unrealistic or impractical; modify solutions that have potential, if clarified; cluster solutions into natural categories.

  3. Prioritize the list into a logical sequence; determine the necessary actions, including timelines and assignment of responsibilities.

  4. Implement.

  5. Periodically assess/improve/modify until the problem is solved.

It is worthwhile to report what took place at the conference because it informs the direction and immediate next steps the Academy of Process Educators could take. Conference program topics, speakers, and outcomes were selected and designed from the perspective of tackling a problem: What can faculty members do to improve student success? The three plenary sessions, which provided the backbone to the conference, were chosen with a very basic and reliable problem-solving process in mind; the conference was designed not just to discuss the problem, but to lead participants through the first few steps of a process that would lead to solutions.

Defining the Problem

The first plenary session was led by Dr. Henry (Hank) Lindborg. His purpose was to identify the top ten issues that interfere with student success—in other words, to define the problem. Dr. Lindborg humbly acknowledged that his list (below) was clearly not definitive, and he invited others to come up with their own lists.

Dr. Lindborg supported his choices with compelling data, studies, and quotes.

 

10 Common Factors that Hinder Student Success

  1. Students encounter many barriers in pursuing higher education.

  2. Definitions of what constitutes quality are flawed.

  3. Our definitions of quality and success do not focus on learning itself.

  4. Students and faculty have disparate definitions of quality and success.

  5. Different generations involved in higher education do not understand each other.

  6. We have failed to integrate values, skills, and engagement.

  7. Mentoring and support are weak.

  8. Curriculum/program design purposes are unclear.

  9. Excellence in teaching is not rewarded.

  10. The practice of "learning how to learn" is restricted to remedial education settings or schools of education.

As a follow-up, Dan Apple and Dr. Lindborg co-facilitated an activity that asked participants to compare the material presented in the talk with their own experiential evidence and perceptions. By the end of the session there was consensus that there clearly are systemic barriers to student success in higher education, and that the size and scope of the problems are daunting.

Dr. McCabe pointed out as an example that, in his home state of Florida, "Nearly half of our youth [qualify] only for the low-skilled jobs that represent only 25% of available work. As a result, Florida will not have an educated and skilled workforce to support 21st century business and industry. We are failing to develop our precious human resources."

The second plenary session, Public Policy Issues When There is No One to Waste, was led by Dr. Robert McCabe. He expanded on the characterization of the nature and scope of the problems discussed in the first plenary session, pointing out that our "21st century information-based global economy [presents] imposing problems that can only be addressed through expansion of educational opportunities and success." He offered the image of America engaged in a fiercely competitive high-stakes Global Education Olympics in which our economic future and quality of life are at stake. He referenced data that show other nations quickly catching up to or surpassing the United States in educational achievement, stressing that our educated population is aging with fewer degree earners among younger age groups.

Refining the Problem

Following Dr. McCabe’s presentation, Don Elger (an Academy member), facilitated an activity that helped participants to refine the problem. As small groups grappled with the issues that had been offered, each group identified the area in which they felt they could have the greatest impact. It became clear that educators in higher education need to do a better job of helping their colleagues in K-12 better understand the competencies and life skills needed to succeed in higher education. The group concluded that there is a need for improved communication and collaboration to build a more transparent continuum of education.

To provide an example of a situation in which such collaboration is working, Dr. McCabe shared some of the basics of the Bridge Partnership, a model in which community colleges and K-12 schools within their area partner closely to increase the number of students who successfully transition to higher education.

Finding Solutions

The third plenary session focused on beginning to find potential solutions for the problem identified. Dr. Lynne Weisenbach offered a relevant example of Transformation in Progress—Multiple Levels of Success. She shared stories related to a partnership that has been developed between the Indianapolis Mayor’s Office, the University of Indianapolis School of Education, and the Indianapolis Public Schools, which is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. She described this local partnership as an example of actions that can be taken to address the very kinds of problems articulated in the first two plenary sessions. Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS) have one of the highest dropout rates in the nation. The motto of the University of Indianapolis is "Education for Service."

These were basic ingredients that led to a natural partnership in which the respective parties were willing to honestly and aggressively address the problems. Together they are working to transform the IPS. Her personal comments and willingness to share pitfalls as well as victories in the early stages of their journey proved to be invigorating—the most difficult pitfall as she described it was the stress that comes with getting so much financial support.

Desired results of Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning grants include

  • research findings on teaching and learning

  • production of new or refined learning materials

  • development of faculty expertise

  • the implementation of teaching & learning innovations

  • improved assessment of learning

There are funding agencies that may make large amounts of money available, laying daunting responsibilities on the shoulders of project leaders. She therefore challenged the group to think carefully through the execution of projects they may want to develop.

Dr. Dan Litynski co-led this plenary session, offering suggestions for writing grants that are likely to be considered viable.

Next Steps

The Academy members now face the challenge of determining whether or not they will direct energy toward further collective work on the problems identified and refined, having already begun the process of brainstorming solutions. Individual participants certainly left the conference with an awareness of the problems and the potential for work at the local level. There is no way of knowing which, if any, of the participants will use this learning for action on the home front. It is intriguing to ponder what the collective work could lead to if the Academy chooses to take on the challenge. Prioritizing work in a fledgling organization is not easy. However, this challenge speaks to the heart of Process Education.