Issues in Higher Education: Globalization, Technology, and Accountability - Literature review Example

Issues in Higher Education: Globalization, Technology and Accountability Table of Contents Introduction……………………………………………………………………..4 Literature Review………………………………………………………………..5 Globalization……………………………………………………………..5 Guruz, K. (2008) Higher Education and International Student Mobility in the Global Knowledge Economy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. This book reviews how the global knowledge economy intersects with higher education. It looks at technology, the pressures of increasing demand, and the rise of market forces, and how each of these aspects are related to globalization and higher education. Raby, R.& Valeau, E. (2009) Community College Models: Globalization and Higher Education Reform. New York: Springer. This book focuses on community colleges and how they are affected by globalization. In the part that is summarized in the literature review, the authors look at how community colleges can help with humanitarian concerns. It also looks at the neo-liberal model, which means that colleges are looked at like a commodity, and the implications of this in the global world. They also look at the “global paradox” (p. 23), which means that the needs of the local grow greater as the polity and the economy grows larger. Technology……………………………………………………………………………8 Cook, J., White, S., Sharples, M., Sclater, N. & Davis, H. (2007) The design of learning technologies. In Contemporary Perspectives in E-Learning Research: Themes, Methods and Impact on Practice. Ed. Grainne Conole and Martin Oliver. New York: Routledge. This article examines new learning technologies, focusing on technologies that encourage students to learn interactively. These technologies include interactive games, and virtual worlds. Also looks at how students may be encouraged to create their own technology. Accountability…………………………………………………………………………..10 Burke, J. (2005) The many faces of accountability. In Achieving Accountability in Higher Education. Ed. Joseph C. Burke and Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. In this article, Burke looks at what educational accountability means. He focuses on the different types of accountability, which means that universities are accountable to different stakeholders. He also looks at what the changing landscape – increasing tuition and enrollments and exploding state needs – means for accountability in higher education. Zumeta, W. (2005) Accountability and the private sector: State and federal perspectives. In Achieving Accountability in Higher Education. Ed. Joseph C. Burke and Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. In this article, the author looks at how state and federal stakeholders view higher education accountability. Erwin, T. (2005) Standardized testing and accountability: Finding the way and the will. In Achieving Accountability in Higher Education. Ed. Joseph C. Burke and Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. This article looks at the push for standardized testing in higher education, and looks at why educators are opposed to the idea. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..13 Application……………………………………………………………………………14 References………………………………………………………………………………15 Introduction In higher education today, there are a variety of challenges that educators and college and university leaders must face. One of these challenges is that the world has become increasingly globalized. The implications for the institutions of higher learning are that students must become multi-cultural, and they also must have the skills which are needed in a changing world. These skills are also constantly changing, as there are paradigm shifts in what is necessary to know to be competitive. Community colleges are particularly able to adapt to changing landscapes. Students also should be multi-cultural in that they are exposed to different people from different cultures, and these individual cultures should be celebrated and integrated into the overall university or college system. Globalization in higher education is also concerned with humanitarian goals. This means that students who are underserved in developing countries should have access to education, and it is increasingly the duty of developed countries to export their educational methods, just like goods are exported. Technological concerns intersect with the global ones, in that the world has become global because of technology, so technological proficiency is what is necessary to compete in the global society. One way of doing this is e-learning, which means not just that teachers are using the Internet to post course material, but that students are also learning through interactivity. This might be using games or virtual worlds. At the heart of all of this is accountability. Colleges must make sure that they are efficient and cutting-edge, because stakeholders, including taxpayers, students and parents, increasingly demand this from their universities and colleges. What should not be used is standardized testing, although government stakeholders often bring this up as a way to enhance accountability at the higher educational level. Accountability means that the university is providing the best quality education for the money, and accountability is becoming more important in the age of tuition increases and less public funding. If a student is going to pay a high tuition out of his or her own pocket, than that student will rightly demand that their school has the latest technology and teaching methods. This essay will examine these three issues, examining where they intersect and where they diverge, and the implications of each of these issues on higher education in general, and this institution in particular. Literature Review Globalization According to Guruz (2008), globalization in higher education, until the 1980s, meant that there was an exchange of students and scholars, foreign language was taught, and there were curricula of courses on different countries and culture. It also meant that certain disciplines, such as natural sciences, engineering and medicine, were internationalized (Guruz, 2008). When globalization became a reality, during the second half of the 20th Century, Guruz (2008) states that international organizations like the OECD, UNESCO and the World Bank, along with supranational bodies like the EU, took an interest in education. During this time, the analysis and collection of comparative educational data increased (p. 137). Because of this, there were international comparisons made, and international perspectives informed higher educational policies (Guruz, 2008). Globalization, according to Guruz (2008), is important to higher education because our society has been effectively transformed through technology into a global knowledge economy. The Internet has truly made society one that is global, in that the world economy has become globalized, and the world has also become more democratized in the past 30 years. World markets are more unified, as firms have been more concentrated on becoming privatized, and there has been an increasing emphasis upon export-competitiveness, as opposed to import-substitution. The world’s markets are concentrated in a single marketplace, which is marked by competition that is driving technological and scientific progress (Guruz, 2008). The United States is considered to be a knowledge producer, as described below – the United States is the country that is leading the way in cutting-edge technology and innovation (Guruz, 2008). As such, according to Guruz (2008), the United States, which is the leader in what Guruz (2008) refers to as a “national innovation system” (NIS) (p. 7), is the country that attracts foreign students from all over the world (p. 13). Moreover, the United States had, at the beginning of the new century, 13 hubs of innovation. A hub of innovation is a cluster where there are start-up companies, research labs, financiers and corporations converging to bring together knowledge, finance and opportunity. These hubs attract multi-national companies (Guruz, 2008). Raby (2009) sees globalization as a mechanism for imposing sameness through “The compression of the world” (p. 21). Yet, it is also important for there to be a local identity that has been preserved. Therefore, globalization builds boundaries by the reinforcement of local identities. This is known as the “global paradox” (p. 23). The “global paradox,” according to Raby (2009), is that, as the economy and polity grow larger, there is more need for the local. This means that it is important to keep preserving local stories and collective memories of the individual. How this impacts higher education is that the colleges must integrate “contradictory social wholes” (p. 23). What this means, in turn, is that the localized connections should be accentuated, which amplifies the singular experience of the individual. Raby (2009) sees globalization along two distinct spheres. One view of globalization, and its impact upon education, focuses upon how globalization has affected higher education. This takes a neo-liberal perspective to the issue, which means that it looks at colleges as suppliers of human capital, so globalization is important along those lines. This is because, since higher education is the supplier of human capital, and the students who comprise this human capital must have global skills, higher education must incorporate global premises for this reason. The other way that Raby (2009) sees how globalization and higher education intersect is through the equalization of access to higher education throughout the world. This is another concern for globalization in higher education – how can colleges reach and educate people in the world who currently do not have good access to education? When viewing the neo-liberal model with regards to globalization, Rady (2009) states that higher education serves the purposes of globalization by training and international development. With training, relevant skills are linked with lifelong learning. This is important in a globalized world, because lower-level skills are needed less with each passing year, and this has caused greater competition for higher-level postsecondary education. The post-secondary schools are providing a link between education and employment that is in demand with regards to transnational and transcultural mobility. Rady (2009) states that community colleges, in particular, are poised to capitalize upon shifting global practices, as they are able to adapt to changing demands. This is because they can quickly modify their trade credentials “to respond to the changing demands of the global economic marketplace” (p. 24). In addition to the colleges adapting to the changing world, another way that the neo-liberal model of globalization and higher education is implicated is through international development. This means, according to Rady (2009), that countries may export their community college characteristics globally. One example of this, according to Rady (2009), is the Global Corporate College, which was formed in 2006 by 11 US community colleges. This cooperative formed to share the best practices that would service the international clients, and also gave a guidance for how community colleges in the world should teach. Rady (2009) states that the other model of globalization is essentially humanitarian. This means that community colleges perform the service of advancing sociopolitical reform and opportunity throughout the world. This is especially crucial in areas where there is little social mobility, and the governments are ruled by the elites. Community colleges have served the purpose of democratization for these countries by providing education to individuals who could not get secondary education otherwise, because they were a member of a minority or do not have a high enough income. Community colleges serve these populations because they offer low tuition, no entrance exams and a local location. These educational opportunities, according to Rady (2009), are “life-transforming” (p. 25). Technology The issues of technology and globalization intersect, according to Guruz (2008). This is because technology has effectively transformed society, not just in the United States, but around the world, into a knowledge society. This represents a transformation from how society was, which was previously an industrial society. The individuals who are in demand in this world are the ones who have knowledge, because knowledge is what drives growth now, not industry. Knowledge is what gives entire nations a competitive edge, as abundant natural resources and cheap labour are no longer the drivers of growth in industry. Technological innovation and the creative use of knowledge are now what drives growth (Guruz, 2008). Guruz (2008) states that the United States is the country that is leading the advancement in new technologies. As such, the US is the knowledge hub of the world. China is the manufacturing hub, and India is the service hub. The US is thus the knowledge producer, while China and India are leaders in the countries who are knowledge users. While it is important for higher education to concentrate upon providing knowledge producers, technology has also fundamentally transformed universities in that it has provided a way for universities to provide services. What this means is that colleges and universities are increasingly using e-learning technology. Cook et al. (2007) state that there are buzz words which are associated with learning technologies, and they give an overview of these buzz words and how they relate to e-learning. They state that e-learning is independent, yet collaborative. E-learning might rely upon assessment, practices and drills. E-learning is also considered to be motivating and engaging. It can be personalized, and informal. It may also lead to discovery learning, through hypermedia, simulations and games. Cook et al. (2007) also argue that e-learning should be presented as something more than a lecturer simply providing his lecture notes on the web. E-learning should be designed for learning, and not content transmission. In other words, e-learning should lead to active learning, not passive learning. One way of doing this, according to Cook et al. (2007), is through the use of simulations and games. This is active learning, in that the learners who navigate and explore the information that is available make decisions and choices, while experimenting with how they understand space and how they build knowledge. Another powerful tool that can be used is the construction of hypertexts. This means that teachers assign their students to construct hyperspaces and blogs. They also look at multi-media, which can create a virtual chemistry lab that brings together the images, sounds, maps, videos and animation, and the user interaction is what controls this. Simulation may be use multi-media by engaging the learners to solve a particular problem. Games are another way of using e-learning, and this means that the user can test ideas in an alternate reality, and they can take control of this reality. This may lead to new cognitive literacies and abilities. Games also make the individual personally responsible for the outcome of the game (Cook et al., 2007). Cook et al. (2007) also state that mobile learning is becoming increasingly important. The goal of mobile learning is that learning services are provided to people on the move, which will help them manage personal learning projects and their individual learning activities. The authors also state that mobile technology is providing a substitute for institutionalized higher learning in developing countries, such as countries in Africa, South America and the former Soviet Union. All of these countries, according to the authors, are adopting mobile technology. Mobile technology is especially crucial in these areas, in that many rural dwellers have mobile phone networks, even if they do not have phone lines or internet connections. This means that populations that previously could not be served now have access to educational services. The longer term vision for this technology, according to the authors, is that buildings and outdoor locations may become learning enabled, so that the visitors to these locations may learn about the surroundings of the location and the location itself. Accountability Accountability is another educational buzz word, but it has profound policy implications. That said, Burke (2005), refers to the word accountability as “most advocated and least analyzed word in higher education” (p. 1). The word itself, according to Burke (2005), produces questions – the question are who is accountable to whom, for what purposes, for whose benefit, by which means, and with what consequences (p. 2). He looks at accountability from a variety of perspectives. Upward accountability means that the subordinate is accountable to the superior. Downward accountability means that the manager is accountable to the subordinates in collegial accountability in higher education. Inward accountability means that the agents act according to professional or ethical standards, and this is known in higher education as professional accountability. Outward accountability means that the university is responding to external stakeholders and clients, and to the public at large. Burke (2005) further states that in the modern world, that is, the world after the year 2000, accountability in higher education faces unique challenges. These challenges are the product of diminished taxpayer support for higher education, which has coincided with increased public demand for the same. What this means is that the students, and the parents of the students, are expected to pay an increasing share of tuition and fees. What this potentially means is that the need for accountability has grown, as the students are having to pay an increasingly higher tuition, which means that they will demand quality educational services more than if their costs are shared by society in the form of taxpayer subsidies. Moreover, as Zumeta (2005) notes, technology and globalization intersect with accountability as well. This is because, as the world becomes more global and technologically advanced, there is increasing competition all over the world for knowledge producers, as well as low-cost producers. Higher education is also becoming more competitive. The competition among higher education has become stiff and demanding, according to Zumeta (2005). This means that the colleges must be current in their programs and their technological capabilities, and they must be streamlined and efficient as well. As taxpayers pay less towards higher education, there also are pressures for higher educational institutions to become more efficient and cost-effective. In addition to the schools being accountable to their students and the public by providing the most up to date technology and efficiency, the schools also must be accountable in the area of providing academic excellence to their students. Erwin (2005) states that one way that has been used to ensure accountability has been through standardized testing. There has been an interest on the part of the government and business leaders to apply the principles of standardized testing to higher education, according to the author. This is because there has not been any standardized way of measuring what college students are learning, and academics do not cooperate in the realm of standardizing the evaluation of the knowledge and skills that the students are gaining from college. Some government officials, according to Erwin (2005), are even looking at the “No Child Left Behind”model of standardizing the testing of K-12 students as one that should be extrapolated to college students, as a way of tracking the learning during their college years. State officials, according to the author, want this kind of accountability to make sure that they are, in essence, getting what they are paying for – which means that the students are experiencing an appropriate amount of growth in their knowledge and skills. They also are interested in knowing that the colleges are producing individuals who can compete in the global workforce, while becoming informed citizens and that the schools also do a good job of preparing teachers (Erwin, 2005). That said, Erwin (2005) also states that academics are uniformly not in favor of standardized testing their students. The professors at the universities state that they do not want to “teach to the test,” and are worried that they are supplying specialized knowledge that will not show up on these examinations. This specialized knowledge might become disfavored if this information would not be used on the test. They also worry that if their university does not do well on the standardized testing, it may lose state and federal funding. The professors also worry that they will not have independence, as some other body will determine the curriculum that is being taught, and that they will lose a sense of self-determinism – it will not be their test. Conclusion The issues of globalization, technology and accountability all intersect. Universities and colleges must become more technologically savvy, because they must produce students who are technologically savvy, because the globalization of the marketplace demands these skills. This is especially true in the US, which is considered to be a knowledge producing hub. Accountability intersects with these two issues as well, because, as the world demands more technologically savvy students, colleges must provide these students, and this is an issue in accountability. These three issues also have separate realms. Technology has the realm that colleges must not only have the latest technology and produce students who are well-versed in this technology, but also technology plays a part in how students learn. E-learning is increasingly used, and Cook et al. (2007) state that e-learning should not be simply a way for professors to transmit knowledge, but also should incorporate interactivity. Students can learn through playing games or designing their own blogs. Globalization has implications in that the students who come out of universities should be well-equipped to work for multi-national companies, but it also is important in that colleges should have a humanitarian purpose. This would mean that countries that have large populations of underserved people should have access to education. Community colleges can supply this access. In a way, technology also intersects with this humanitarian concern, as students who live in rural areas in these poor countries can learn through mobile networks. Accountability has the realm that students have to be able to learn at these institutions, so the quality of the educational institution is constantly in the sights of stakeholders. Standardized testing is one way that colleges and universities may be accountable to stakeholders, but educators are against this. At any rate, universities and colleges must be accountable in that they must ensure that they are efficient and are using the very latest in technological advancements. How This Applies to the Institution The institution should evaluate its technology, and should also evaluate its e-learning program. There should be more interactive ways of learning that would involve the students. As far as accountability, while standardized testing should not be implemented, as the professors would probably protest this, the institution should ensure that it is efficient and technologically advanced, so that the needs of the stakeholders would be satisfied. For globalization, the institution should recruit students from around the world, so that all the students would have contact with individuals from different cultures. At the same time, the students should be celebrated, in that their individual culture should be honored and transmitted through the student body. This might mean that the institution may have different cultural events throughout the year that celebrate a different culture every time. Individual teachers might also encourage this through assignments that students can work on with regards to their homeland and home culture, then be encouraged to read these essays aloud to the other students. What is important is not only that students have the technological capabilities for the modern world, but that they are multi-cultural. This will help them get ahead in the globalized world. References Guruz, K. (2008) Higher Education and International Student Mobility in the Global Knowledge Economy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Raby, R.& Valeau, E. (2009) Community College Models: Globalization and Higher Education Reform. New York: Springer. Cook, J., White, S., Sharples, M., Sclater, N. & Davis, H. (2007) The design of learning technologies. In Contemporary Perspectives in E-Learning Research: Themes, Methods and Impact on Practice. Ed. Grainne Conole and Martin Oliver. New York: Routledge. Burke, J. (2005) The many faces of accountability. In Achieving Accountability in Higher Education. Ed. Joseph C. Burke and Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Zumeta, W. (2005) Accountability and the private sector: State and federal perspectives. In Achieving Accountability in Higher Education. Ed. Joseph C. Burke and Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Erwin, T. (2005) Standardized testing and accountability: Finding the way and the will. In Achieving Accountability in Higher Education. Ed. Joseph C. Burke and Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Read More