What's Next?

Practical_Leadership_in_Community_Colleges_Navigat..._----_Chapter_7_Organizational_Change_to_Promote_Student_Success.pdf

Home >Education homework help >What's Next?

137

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE TO PROMOTE

STUDENT SUCCESS

Leading Organizational Change

Community colleges have a proud history of serving their communities, but they are in the midst of an evolution that will more clearly focus increas- ingly limited resources on the success of their students. Like many institu- tions that have several years of history, the policies, practices, and structures that may have worked in an earlier time no longer make sense in an era of constrained resources, increased accountability for student success, and the demand to close achievement gaps. Leaders frequently encounter practices that are historically based and perhaps memorialized in college policies or union contracts that prove to be hindrances to effective management of the colleges and their ability to serve students and their communities.

Leaders are often selected for their positions with a mandate to imple- ment changes in their institutions. Both new and existing leaders might be asked to deal with institutional problems that include financial or accounting issues, low employee morale, enrollment decline, poor community relations, or a need to improve student success rates. However, changing higher educational institutions is rarely an easy task, and it can be risky. Leaders invariably encounter resistance and, sometimes, hostility, and they may even lose support for needed changes and perhaps even their jobs if changes are not approached carefully. It is wise to approach change cautiously and gradually. Leaders should not try to initiate too much change at once. When George Boggs was a new college president, a seasoned leader cautioned him to “pick your battles.” There are always a great many practices, procedures, and policies that need to be revised, but a wise leader should focus on the most important ones and those that are possible to change first.

Boggs, George R., and Christine J. McPhail. Practical Leadership in Community Colleges : Navigating Today's Challenges, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4560554. Created from capella on 2020-09-15 20:10:02.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

138 practical leadership in community colleges

Daniel Phelan, President of Jackson College in Michigan, points out how important it is for a college president to have the full support of the board of trustees before initiating significant institutional change. He relates a particularly meaningful interaction he had at a retreat with the seven‐member board of trustees at Jackson College about driving institu- tional change through the collective bargaining contract negotiations process. He said to the board members, “If I am going to deal with this issue, I want to know that when things get rough—and they will—that when I am pushed back one step, I will feel fourteen hands on my back.” The board members all agreed and lived up to that commitment (Phelan, 2016, p. 84). Although top‐down directives can work in private businesses, they do not often succeed in public higher education. A more appropriate approach for higher education might be to follow the example of the leaders who facilitated social change, leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr., who, standing in the shadows of the symbols of our nation, pointed out that our country was not living up to its own democratic ideals while he described a vision of a better future for all of our people.

People are often less resistant to change when there is a clear need, especially during times of significant challenge to the institution. When Rahm Emanuel was chief of staff in the White House, he was famously quoted as saying, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” It is often much easier to implement organizational change during a recog- nized crisis. Recommendations from outside groups, especially accredit- ing agencies or consultants who are recognized authorities, can also help leaders bring about change. Affiliation with nationally recognized pro- jects, such as Achieving the Dream or Completion by Design that intend to bring about improvement in outcomes, can be effective in getting the necessary internal support for change. The models described in this chapter can be utilized for any desired organizational change. For illus- tration, one of today’s most urgent challenges—improving student suc- cess rates—is the change described in this chapter.

Policy makers, researchers, and educators are in the midst of an extended national debate about the very future of community colleges. The narrative not only challenges programs and services offered by the community college sector but also the policies and practices that imple- ment them. The demand to improve college completion rates is at the center of the current call for change, one that both critics and advocates label the “Completion Agenda” (American Association of Community Colleges [AACC], 2010; Complete College America, 2014; MDRC, 2013). The core concern is that students are not completing what they start, and

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

organizational change to promote student success 139

community colleges can and must do better. To advance the Completion Agenda, institutions must change.

The Completion Agenda

The focus of the debate about student success is on organizational change, the need for it, and whether community colleges are up to the challenges. Although access to higher education is still an issue for some populations, the concern most commonly expressed today is that not enough students are progressing through the institution and attaining degrees or certifi- cates or transferring to four‐year colleges and universities. Traditionally, community colleges have stressed access, especially for underrepresented students. Community colleges enroll large numbers of low‐income, adult, and minority students, providing educational opportunities that were not available to these students at other institutions. The access to education and training and the opportunities provided by community colleges are the reasons they are referred to as the “open‐door” colleges. As important as access and opportunity are, however, they are not sufficient. As early as 2000, Robert McCabe, president emeritus of Miami Dade College, argued that it was necessary to guarantee quality in order to keep the “open door” open. McCabe observed that, even though hundreds of underprepared college students enter community colleges, many of these students successfully complete remediation and go on to do as well in standard college courses as those students who begin academically pre- pared (Callan, 2000; McCabe, 2000). Leaders of the community college movement are often asked, “How can community colleges respond to the Completion Agenda without sacrificing either the open‐door mission or academic rigor?” As educational reform and accountability efforts— especially since 2010—have placed an increasing number of demands on community colleges nationwide, the leaders of local institutions have been forced to reevaluate their commitment to both access and student success. There are a number of ways community colleges can improve student success rates while maintaining or even improving access and quality, and all of them require a commitment to organizational change and to thinking differently about how to use resources to educate, train, and support students (Alfred & Carter, 1999; AACC, 2013).

As a first step, community college leaders must acknowledge that existing policies, practices, programs, and services are not producing the desired results. It is important to set appropriate goals for improvement before developing corresponding change strategies to achieve them. Leaders need to identify the key stakeholders and their roles in realizing

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

140 practical leadership in community colleges

the vision of the future of the institution (AACC, 2012). Finally, in imple- menting change, community college leaders will need to more effectively utilize resources and the skill sets of employees to produce desired results. In short, organizational change must go beyond changes in strategic planning models or changes in job descriptions, as important as they are. Effective organizational change must involve all constituent groups: boards of trustees, administrators, faculty, staff, students, and community partners (AACC, 2012; Kotter, 2008). Essentially, colleges will have to make necessary adjustments in the way they conduct the business of the institution in order to produce the desired results (AACC, 2012).

Leaders need to create an environment in which the college community can work collaboratively to define the changes needed and to develop strategies to respond to the diverse learning needs of students. Active leadership support to incorporate a variety of innovative strategies and new policies and procedures is necessary to improve student pathways to learning that stimulate, bring to scale, and institutionalize an effective array of learning experiences (Jacobs & Dougherty, 2006; Watson, Williams, & Derby, 2005).

Models for Change

There are many ways of thinking about organizational change that can apply to community colleges (Kotter, 2008; Maginn, 2005; Weick, 1995). As colleges struggle with the challenges of the Completion Agenda, leaders need to undertake a careful review of the role and purpose of the institution (AACC, 2012). At the same time, leaders must define the pro- cess by which the college should determine changes in structure, strat- egies, operational methods, technologies, or organizational culture and assess the effects of those changes on the organization (AACC, 2014; Floyd, Haley, Eddy, & Antczak, 2009). Leaders must always be aware of the fact that organizational change can be contentious, time-consuming, highly political, and, at times, risky to the career of a leader.

Van de Ven and Poole (1995) argued that change is measured by the observation of difference over time in one or more dimensions of an insti- tution. Burnes (1996) noted that organizational change requires under- standing alterations within organizations at the broadest level among individuals and groups and at the collective level across the entire orga- nization. However, these general descriptions of change do not entirely capture factors inherent in community colleges such as the demographics of stakeholders and their values. It can be informative to think of change

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

organizational change to promote student success 141

through a cultural or social‐cognition lens, focusing on values and beliefs of the stakeholders within the organization. Although there is no single model for organizational change, certain concepts are common across change models, such as the overlap between elements of the Kotter (2008) and Lewin (2007) models. For example, Kurt Lewin’s model proposed a straightforward change management process consisting of a three‐stage theory of change commonly referred to as unfreeze, change, freeze (or refreeze). Kotter (2008) believed that change followed a process consist- ing of eight sequential phases:

1. A sense of urgency

2. The guiding team

3. Visions and strategies

4. Communication

5. Empowerment

6. Celebrating short‐term wins

7. Never letting up

8. Making change stick

Both models examine why change happens and refer to outcomes of the change process. Based in observational theory, these models can assist leaders as they prepare to chart a course for change in their col- leges. In particular, when colleges engage in a change process, constituent groups need to know why change is important, how much change is needed, and what might be the best approach to implement the change (Gumport, 2000).

Resistance to Change

Community college leaders who want to improve their institutions must carefully determine the changes that will move their institutions toward desired goals (AACC, 2012). The changes that community colleges will need to make should align with the core values of the institution (Alfred et al., 2009; Erwin, 1997; Kim & Mauborgne, 2003). However, institu- tional leadership is embedded in a network of influence and power that comes from a variety of sources. Leaders cannot assume that all of the sources will even agree that change is necessary. Even if they do, they may not agree on what needs to be changed or what strategies to use. Leadership within this context calls for an effective analysis of stakeholder

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

142 practical leadership in community colleges

values and resistance to change. What does resistance to change look like? What are its causes, and where does it come from? Resistance to change can emerge from both internal and external sources and can be viewed as the act of opposing or struggling with modifications or trans- formations that alter the status quo in the workplace (Kotter, 1998).

Overcoming resistance to change is often extremely challenging. Although Burke (2008) argued that organizations strive to succeed in an increasingly complex global, political, and economic environment that requires change to remain viable, he noted that organizations experience different types of change, and some changes are more difficult than others. Resistance to change can emerge from internal or external groups or individuals. It can be covert or overt, organized or spontaneous. In some instances, resistance emerges when there is a threat to something the individual values. For example, Evans (2001), in discussing the human side of school change, noted that resistance may arise either from a gen- uine understanding of the change or from a misunderstanding of the issues. Failure to adequately consider the complexity of the resistance can compromise the implementation of the change or even stop it. Viable change requires the involvement of the entire campus community. Resistance to change can affect the entire institution in areas such as the feelings, opinions, and work habits of employees at all stages of imple- mentation of the change process.

If community college leaders are to be successful in implementing change, they must first examine the key reasons people might resist it. Implementing change involves altering human behavior and the acceptance of change. According to John Tagg (2012), one of the leading spokespersons for the Learning Paradigm:

The key to designing and executing productive institutional change is not simply to build a better academic mousetrap. Faculty will not beat a path to the doors of those with the best arguments. We need to not only design change for our institutions but also redesign our institutions for change. At base, we must recognize that we can’t change without changing. We cannot create a better future unless we are willing to embrace a future that is different from the past. (p. 6)

There are a number of reasons people resist change: a lack of clarity of the rationale for the change, a lack of appropriate consultation and com- munication, a perceived threat caused by the change, or weak perceived benefits and rewards for making the change (Demers, 2007; Erwin, 2009; Kotter 2008).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

organizational change to promote student success 143

Resistance Management

Strebel (2006) observed that the reason for the less than favorable success rate in leading change is differences between the perceptions of leader- ship and employees. It is necessary to develop a distinctive approach that bridges these perceptions in order to change higher education (Hearn, 1996). Hearn noted that overlooking these factors may result in mistakes in analysis and strategy, and using concepts foreign to the values of the academy will most likely fail to engage the very people who must bring about the change.

The leader must be able to identify and manage resistance at different levels of the organization (Benjamin & Carroll, 1996; Maginn, 2005). In an organization that has a culture of trust, transparent communication, involvement, engaged employees, and positive interpersonal relation- ships, resistance to change is easy to see—and also much less likely to occur (Kotter, 2008). In this type of environment, employees feel free to tell the leadership team what they think and to have open exchanges with unit administrators. When a change is introduced in institutions in which people feel engaged, the resistance to change is decreased. Resistance is also minimized if there is a widespread belief that a change is needed. The president and leadership team must communicate the need for change and must highlight the consequences that may develop if the change is delayed. Kotter (1995) recommended that effective com- munication should be used to promote or market the proposed changes, while at the same time demonstrating the shortcomings of the old way of doing business.

One of the key factors in reducing resistance to change is widespread acceptance that a change is needed. So, one of the first tasks for the leader is to build the case for the reasons for change (Amey, VanDerLinden, & Brown, 2002). Specifically, the leader must first inform the college community about the need for change. But it does not stop with an information session. The leader must engage the campus community in active dialogue and spend time discussing the urgency for change, how to implement the change, and how to make it work. Among the major rea- sons for engaging the campus community in conversations about change is that leaders can share their vision for a better future and personally identify the benefits of change to individuals, departments, and the orga- nization. Further, stakeholders must feel that the time, energy, commit- ment, and focus necessary to implement the change are compensated by the benefits they, the institution, and students will attain from making the change.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

144 practical leadership in community colleges

Employee Pride as Motivation for Change

Most community college educators and staff members are proud of their colleges and the work they do, but these are challenging times for community colleges as pressure builds to improve the ways they meet the needs of the students and communities they serve. Leaders interested in facilitating organizational change must understand the critical link bet- ween the employee’s pride in the institution and willingness to support organizational changes. Jon Katzenbach (2003) recommended that senior management sponsor and support activities to inspire employees to take pride in the organization. Katzenback made the point that “pride is more powerful than money. Employee pride—the admiration of co‐workers as well as family and friends, the spirit of teams in pursuit of a dream, and the high that comes from having done a job well—is the powerful moti- vational force that compels individuals and companies to excel” (p. 24).

Community college leaders can build upon employees’ pride in the organization by ensuring that the mission, vision, and institutional goals are made clear to all employees and to let them know how their work supports the college mission. Leaders must strive to help all employees take pride in their work and to understand how their work contributes to institutional excellence. Helping employees to take pride in their jobs takes time and effort. Individual pride in the organization and the buy‐in to overall instructional excellence cannot be mandated. Leaders must make pride‐building a continuing part of their leadership agenda.

We have visited a great many community college campuses and are often told by faculty and administrators, “Our college is the best community college in the country.” It is always rewarding to hear the sense of pride that employees have, but we often wonder what data the colleges have to back up the claims. Leaders should recognize and cele- brate the pride that employees have in their college and then use outcome data to show that the college can help more students to succeed. Then, leaders should ask for recommendations from the employees about how to improve.

Organizational Change and Classroom Practice

Community colleges have made some meaningful changes in the teaching and learning environment to help more students experience success (Achieving the Dream, 2012). The following teaching and learning prac- tices illustrate some of the most promising strategies that have been shown to be beneficial for community college students from a variety of

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

organizational change to promote student success 145

backgrounds. These practices can take many different forms, depending on learner characteristics and on institutional priorities and contexts.

1. Guided Pathways

As mentioned in chapter 2, in October 2015, AACC announced a national partnership to build capacity for community colleges to implement a pathways approach to student success and college completion (Bailey, Jaggers, & Jenkins, 2015). There is almost universal agreement that giving entering students more guidance is necessary if we are to improve rates of student success. Davis Jenkins, senior researcher at the Community College Research Center (CCRC) at Columbia University and an early proponent of guided pathways for students, has identified key compo- nents of the Guided Pathway model:

❍ Clear road maps to success are provided and academic programs are clearly defined.

❍ Exploratory majors are designed for students who do not have majors when they enter the college.

❍ Contextualized instruction in foundation skills are linked to the student’s field of interest.

❍ Predictable schedules provide a defined program of study on a full‐time and part‐time basis.

❍ Students are provided frequent feedback on how they are doing.

❍ Colleges use early alert systems to keep students informed about their progress so that they can stay on track.

2. Flipped Classrooms

The flipped classroom is a pedagogical model in which the typical lecture and homework elements of a course are reversed. Students view short video lectures at home and read supporting text before the class session, and in‐class time is devoted to exercises, projects, debates, or discussions. The video lecture is often seen as the key ingredient to the flipped approach; the instructor or guest presenters create the lectures that are posted online or selected from an online repository. The notion of a flipped classroom draws on such concepts as active learning, student engagement, hybrid course design, and course podcasting. The value of a flipped class is in the repurposing of in‐class time into an active work- shop in which students can inquire about course content, test their skills

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

146 practical leadership in community colleges

in applying knowledge, and interact with one another in hands‐on activ- ities. During class sessions, instructors act as facilitators, moderators, coaches, or advisors, encouraging students in individual inquiry and col- laborative effort (Bichsel, 2012).

3. Online Classes

The convenience of online education has attracted working adult stu- dents who benefit from education delivered in ways that meet their schedules and the demands of working, family obligations, and social lives. However, learning under these circumstances is not easy. Major problems reported by students are feelings of isolation, lack of self‐ direction, time management, and eventual decrease in motivation (Ludwig‐Hardman & Dunlap, 2003). Faculty who teach online courses must find ways to engage students, to keep them motivated, and to encourage them not to fall behind in their assignments.

4. Blended Classes/Learning

The traditional learning environment, especially lectures in which stu- dents are passive, simply does not engage most students. “Blended classes” utilize both the classroom environment and technology to meet the learning and motivational needs of students. Ideally, a blended classroom offers deeper content online, gives students the ability to master basic skills, and grants them more autonomy (Bonk & Graham, 2006).

5. Project‐Based Learning

Project‐based learning, focused on learning through engagement in individual or group assignments, is a meaning‐oriented and student‐ centered instructional approach that allows students to discover content, engage in higher‐level thinking, make personal connections, construct their own meaning, and reflect on what they have learned (Savage, 2007).

6. First‐Year Seminars and Experiences

Many schools now build into the curriculum first‐year seminars or other programs that bring small groups of students together with faculty or staff on a regular basis. First‐year experiences place a strong emphasis on critical inquiry, frequent writing, information literacy, collaborative learning, and other skills that develop students’ intellectual and practical competencies (Franklin, 2000; Gardner & Barefoot, 2011).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

organizational change to promote student success 147

7. Learning Communities

The key goals for learning communities are to encourage integration of learning across courses and to involve students with “big questions” that matter beyond the classroom. Students take two or more linked courses as a group and work closely with one another and with their professors. Many learning communities explore a common topic and/or common readings through the lenses of different disciplines (Levine & Shapiro, 2004).

8. Collaborative Assignments and Projects

Collaborative learning combines two key goals: learning to work and solve problems in the company of others; and sharpening one’s own understanding by listening seriously to the insights of others, especially those with different backgrounds and life experiences. Approaches range from study groups within a course, to team‐based assignments and writing, to cooperative projects and research (Gabriel, 2004).

9. Service Learning and Community‐Based Learning

Field‐based “experiential learning” with community partners is an instructional strategy—and can be a required part of a course. The idea is to give students direct experience with issues they are studying in the cur- riculum and with ongoing efforts to analyze and solve problems in the community. A key element in these programs is the opportunity students have both to apply what they are learning in real‐world settings and to reflect in a classroom setting on their service experiences (Hatcher, Bringle, & Muthiah, 2004).

10. Cooperative Work Experience

Internships, cooperative work experience, and apprenticeships are included in a wide range of integrated work and education strategies. Typically, institutions use an external worksite as a source to provide the skills training required for the program of study. Participating students earn college credit for their work experience attaining the skills and knowledge related to the program of study. Institutions use the coopera- tive work experience programs to bridge the gap between the institution and business and industry. Collaborative work experience programs also contribute to local economic development efforts by providing a flow of qualified and skilled employees for local business and industry partners (Cates & Cedercreutz, 2008).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

148 practical leadership in community colleges

11. Supplemental Instruction

Academic assistance programs that utilize peer‐assisted study sessions are classified as supplemental instruction (SI). SI sessions are regularly sched- uled, informal review sessions in which students compare notes, discuss readings, develop organizational tools, and work on predicted test items. Students learn how to integrate course content and study skills while working together. The sessions are facilitated by “SI leaders,” students who have previously done well in the course and who attend all class lec- tures, take notes, and act as model students (Stone & Jacobs, 2008).

Organizational Change and Student Support Services

Simpson (2002) defined student support in the broadest terms as all activities beyond the production and delivery of course materials that assist in the progress of students in their studies. Support systems include tutorials, technical support, library resources and information services, advising or counseling, and peer support. According to Simpson (2002), there is clearly little point in providing a student service without connecting it to a demonstrated student need. In an attempt to better serve the contemporary student, community colleges have made changes in the types of support services offered. The following list highlights some of the key enhancements to student support programs offered to provide services aligned with the mission of the college.

1. Electronic Tutorial Support

Since distance education students often report a feeling of isolation, it is crucial to have online problem and discussion sessions, known as tuto- rials. According to Vincent and Eisenstadt (1998), the benefit of tutorials is only partly academic; the tutorial is an important social support system that allows students to build relationships with their instructors and other students (Garrison & Anderston, 2003).

2. Virtual Office Hours

Within an online course, instructors may be perceived as inaccessible when they do not respond in a timely fashion (Howland & Moore, 2002). One solution is to schedule online virtual hours (e-office hours) (prefer- ably after 6:00 p.m.) and days for students to contact the instructor via email, telephone, and/or chat rooms.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

organizational change to promote student success 149

3. Help Desks and Technical Support

The most common practice is to have an online help desk available to students at all times, during which support personnel can reply through email or chat to assist with issues like password and access problems.

4. Online Counseling (or Personal Tutor)

Counseling services, like tutoring and technical support, can be scheduled to give advice and information to students on a wide range of educational, financial, and practical issues (Mallen,Vogel, Rochlen, & Day, 2005).

5. Online One‐Stop Centers

“One‐stop” is a student services model that relies heavily on highly devel- oped and intuitive online portals, sophisticated transaction‐enabling self‐service, cross‐trained staff, and thorough integration of “traditional” services such as registration, financial aid, and billing all under one roof (or two roofs really: one digital and one physical). This model is student- centered and technologically rich, and, from a student’s perspective, simple. It aims also to liberate institutions from archaic, inefficient, often redundant models suited for a bygone era (Burnett & Oblinger, 2002).

6. Learning Analytics

Learning analytics emerged from the business sector and are designed to help institutions learn more about student trends and, to some extent, predict behavior patterns of students. Learning analytics enhance the institution’s capacity to build large data bases that can be used to improve teaching and learning effectiveness. For example, learning analytics are the foundation for early alert programs that signal when a student is struggling, allowing instructors and advisors to intervene in time to assist students before they fail (Gonzalez, 2012).

7. Gaming

The games culture has grown to include a substantial proportion of the world’s population, with the age of the average gamer increasing with each passing year. Community college educators have discovered that games can be used to teach cross‐curricular concepts that touch on many subjects in a more engaging way than traditional teaching methods.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

150 practical leadership in community colleges

For example, Cuyahoga Community College implemented a project called Edugaming Positively that has improved college completion rates. The college also established the Gaming Incubation Group that creates games and encourages their use in both face‐to‐face and online learning: go.nmc.org/games (Wu, 2012).

8. Social Media

Many community college educators are attracted to social media because it enables institutions to employ two‐way communication between exist- ing and prospective students. Using such tools as Facebook and Twitter, instructors can establish and maintain interactions with students that were not possible in traditional teaching and learning environments. For example, educators can use video platforms such as YouTube and Vimeo to reach students and share lectures and other classrooms activities that students can access from anywhere and at any time (Gesser, 2013).

A Time for Change: AACC’s Reclaiming the American Dream

Community college leaders have two choices: they can change the stu- dents they serve or they can change their support services and teaching and learning approaches to accommodate the students they have. In the first instance, community colleges can require that students who enroll must possess demonstrated college‐level skill sets. This approach would likely increase college completion rates, but it would also result in dimin- ished access to higher education for a high percentage of low‐income and minority students. In the second scenario, community colleges are con- fronted with the challenge of making changes in the manner in which they accommodate the diverse learning and support needs of their stu- dents (DeMers, 2007).

The reform initiatives, including those advocated by AACC, call for community colleges leaders to understand the change process. Calls for change are not new for higher education. In 1996, Barrow encouraged higher education institutions to look at strategies for selective excellence that could better position American higher education institutions for global competiveness. The recent reform initiatives that are focused on changing community colleges to promote higher levels of student success are, in many ways, a continuation of work to address long‐term challenges. Bailey and colleagues (2015) make a persuasive argument for the type of changes that are needed to help more community college students succeed.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http://go.nmc.org/games

organizational change to promote student success 151

In AACC’s 2012 Reclaiming the American Dream, Walter G. Bumphus, President and CEO of the American Association of Community Colleges, challenges community colleges to “redesign, reinvent, and reset (The 3 Rs). We need to completely reimagine community colleges for today and the future” (AACC, 2012, p. VI).

The 3 Rs consist of the following: redesign students’ educational expe- riences, reinvent institutional roles, and reset the system to create incen- tives for student and institutional success. The specific recommendations of the 3 Rs can serve as both motivation and guidance for a change agenda for community colleges.

1. Increase completion rates of students earning community college credentials (certificates and associate’s degrees) by 50 percent by 2020, while preserving access, enhancing quality, and eradicating attainment gaps associated with income, race, ethnicity, and gender.

2. Dramatically improve college readiness. By 2020, reduce by half the number of students entering college unprepared for rigorous college‐level work and double the number of students who complete developmental education programs and progress to successful completion of related freshman‐level courses.

3. Close the American skills gaps by sharply focusing career and technical education on preparing students with the knowledge and skills required for existing and future jobs in regional and global economies.

4. Refocus the community college mission and redefine institutional roles to meet twenty‐first‐century education and employment needs.

5. Invest in support structures to serve multiple community colleges through collaboration among institutions and with partners in philanthropy, government, and the private sector.

6. Strategically target public and private investments to create new incentives for institutions to educate and train their students and to support community college efforts to reclaim the American Dream.

7. Implement policies and practices that promote rigor, transparency, and accountability for results in community colleges.

If implementing the organizational changes recommended by AACC’s Reclaiming the American Dream report is considered a prescription for

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

152 practical leadership in community colleges

changing the community college, what actions can leaders take to realize the expected outcomes? Only time will tell if community colleges have the capacity to meet the challenges, but community colleges have evolved throughout their history to respond to the needs of society. Today’s chal- lenges will require them to shift some basic assumptions and long‐held traditions about the support they should provide to students and the need to raise expectations for student performance. Some community college educators will need to open their minds to serve learners through a differ- ent array of programs and delivery systems. It will not be enough for community colleges to continue making changes through collections of scattered pilot interventions (MDRC, 2013). Far too often, reform efforts have focused on starting pilot program after pilot program. While the pilots unleash a lot of small and often positive interventions, they are usu- ally isolated and do not lead to sustained or scalable outcomes. Community colleges must find ways to stimulate and bring to scale changes across the institutions—as well as to sustain those changes—if they are to create models that can serve the expanding needs of twenty‐ first‐century learners.

Sustaining Momentum: Managing the Change

Often, the most difficult period in managing change is the final phase, when leaders work to adjust plans and sustain the momentum of imple- mentation. Change efforts often encounter a wide variety of obstacles— for example, strong resistance from members of the organization, untimely departure of a key leader in the organization, or a dramatic and sudden reduction in finances (Aune, 1995).

Stober (2008) suggested that coaching could be used as a tool to sus- tain change. He points out that coaching can guide employees through the change process. Leaders are encouraged to provide clear messages to achieve organizational acceptance of the process. Internal and external environmental pressures that influence institutional effective- ness; organizational inefficiency; and student, faculty, and staff dissatis- faction are additional issues that can impede the change process (Burke, 2011). In fact, most change initiatives do not succeed and last (Senge et al., 2008). Strong, visible, ongoing support from top leader- ship is critically important to show overall credibility and account- ability in the change effort. How the leader communicates the change process to the stakeholders has an important impact on how much resistance there will be to the changes (Kotter, 2008). Everyone in an organization has a role to play in a performance transformation of the magnitude envisioned by the Completion Agenda. The role of CEOs is

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

organizational change to promote student success 153

unique in that they stand at the top of the pyramid, and all the other members of the organization take cues from them. It is up to the leader to ensure that the right people spend the right amount of time driving the necessary changes.

Community college leaders can use technology as a vehicle for respond- ing to societal changes (Waters, 2014). The NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Higher Education Edition, in partnership with the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI), stated that improving digital literacy is considered one of the solvable challenges facing higher education. The report also identi- fied two long‐term objectives: (1) advancing learning environments that are flexible and drive innovation and (2) increasing the collaboration that takes place between higher education institutions. Organizational changes and enhanced technological developments can support innova- tion and improved outcomes in community colleges. The ELI report can serve as a planning guide for technology for community college educa- tors (Waters, 2014). Those participating in change efforts often need training and coaching on how to implement change. The role of targeted professional development cannot be overstated when launching a change agenda.

It is important for leaders to use a change model or process that people can understand and follow. Kotter’s (1997) change model, employing an eight‐step process, is a good one to consider. His eight‐phase model is summarized as follows:

1. Establish a Sense of Urgency. President Barack Obama’s college completion challenge, the five national associations’ call to action, the visibility of recent reform initiatives, and AACC’s Reclaiming the American Dream all outline a sense of urgency for community colleges and can be used by leaders to launch a change effort to better serve students.

2. Form a Powerful Guiding Coalition. Kotter suggests that, during Phase 2, it is important to identify three to five people to lead the change effort. Involving respected leaders from key areas of the institution is critical to success of the change effort. Some leaders have found that an existing committee, such as a curriculum committee or a task force, can serve as a guiding coalition to launch a particular change effort.

3. Create a Vision. According to Kotter, “Vision helps clarify the direction in which an organization must pass in order to arrive at the desired future.” One or more of AACC’s 3 Rs can serve as an excellent platform to advance a vision and a meaningful agenda to improve student success.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

154 practical leadership in community colleges

4. Communicate That Vision. Kotter suggests that communicating the vision is needed and ongoing. It is not a single event. The principle is simple: use existing communication channels and identify opportunities to speak to the campus community on a regular basis about the change effort and its progress.

5. Remove Obstacles. Continually check for barriers to the change effort. The president and the leadership team can identify or hire change leaders whose main roles are to implement the change, identify people who are resisting the change, and help them see what’s needed.

6. Create Short‐Term Wins. Nothing motivates people more than success. Thoroughly analyze the progress toward meeting the change goals. If the process doesn’t succeed with an early goal, it can hurt the entire change initiative. The people who help the institution meet the change targets can be rewarded on a routine and consistent basis.

7. Build on the Change. Kotter argues that many change projects fail because victory is declared too early. Real change runs deep. After every win, analyze what went right and what needs improving. The engagement of institutional research professionals can be useful by providing data and reports to support data‐informed decision making to facilitate needed changes in administrative, academic, and support services.

8. Anchor the Changes in the College’s Culture. Finally, to make any change stick, make it part of the college’s mission. A first step is to place the change initiative into the institution’s strategic plan. The president must talk about progress often. Create plans to replace key leaders of change if they move on. This will help ensure that their legacy is not lost or forgotten.

If community college leaders are to embark on a change initiative that is truly transformative, it is essential that all stakeholders get engaged in the process. Facilitating dialogue about the impact of organizational change is a major undertaking for the president and the senior leader- ship team. They must ensure that all stakeholders are appropriately included in the decision‐making and change process. To engage stake- holders in organizational change conversations, leaders can arrange meetings in which stakeholders can come together to discuss the organi- zational challenges they face, while at the same time looking for sustain- able solutions. The issues below are intended to stimulate discussions

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

organizational change to promote student success 155

designed to provide an opportunity for the college community leaders to gather feedback and to review the perspectives of stakeholders by orga- nizational changes.

Issues to Consider

A. How should a college leader instill pride in employees while also challenging them to improve outcomes?

B. A community college was placed on warning status by its regional accreditor for not having specified student‐learning outcomes (SLOs) on file. The faculty association has taken the position that developing SLOs is not within the scope of faculty job descriptions, and that faculty should be paid extra for writing them. How should the college leadership deal with this issue?

C. Complete College America has called developmental education “the bridge to nowhere” because of its low success rates and the fact that very few students progress from developmental education to college‐level coursework. Some states are limiting the number of developmental education courses that students can take. Other states are giving students the option of taking developmental education courses. Should community colleges admit students who have very low basic skills abilities? What can be done to improve student success rates in developmental education courses? Are there better ways to remediate basic skills weaknesses?

D. Major funding foundations are now supporting community college reform efforts. In the past, foundations, with a few exceptions, generally did not fund community colleges. What has caused this change? Is the foundation support helping or hindering the colleges? Can community colleges meet the goals set by President Obama, foundations, and community college associations?

E. Evaluations of the Achieving the Dream initiative have shown mixed results. What do you think are the factors that determine whether a college is going to be successful or not in improving student success rates?

F. AACC encourages community colleges to “redesign, reinvent, and reset (The 3 Rs).” Further, in the book, Redesigning America’s Community Colleges: A Clearer Path to Student Success (Bailey et al., 2015), the authors suggest ways that community colleges should redesign academic programs for student success. How do

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

156 practical leadership in community colleges

you envision making the organizational changes at your college to respond to these challenges? What factors will need to be taken into consideration to make the changes? Which constituent groups will need to be engaged? What steps will need to be taken to engage them?

R E F E R E N C E S

Achieving the Dream. (2012). Building Institutional Capacity For Data‐Informed Decision Making (Cutting Edge Series, No. 3). Retrieved from http://www.achievingthedream.org/_images/_index03/ ukperfaccnt.pdf.

Alfred, R. L., & Carter, P. (1999). New Colleges for a New Century: Organizational Change and Development in Community Colleges. In J. Smart, (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (Vol. 14, pp. 240–286). Bronx, NY: Agathon Press.

Alfred, R. L., Shults, C., Jaquette, O., & Strickland, S. (2009). Community Colleges on the Horizon: Challenge, Choice, or Abundance? American Council on Education Series on Higher Education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

American Association of Community Colleges. (2010). College Completion Challenge: A Call to Action. Retrieved from: http://www.aacc.nche.edu/ About/completionchallenge/Pages/default.aspx.

American Association of Community Colleges. (2012). Reclaiming the American Dream: Community Colleges and the Nation’s Future. A report of the

21st‐Century Commission on the Future of Community Colleges. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from: http://aacc.wpengine.com/ wp‐content/uploads/2014/03/21stCenturyReport.pdf.

Case Scenario

You receive a memorandum from the chair of your college’s English department informing you that the department faculty members have voted against scheduling classes at a neighboring military base because of the transient nature of the students, many of whom are deployed during the term. What issues does the scenario create? What leader- ship competencies are involved? Who should be involved in address- ing this situation? What actions would you take? Are there lessons to be learned?

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http://www.achievingthedream.org/_images/_index03/ukperfaccnt.pdf

http://www.aacc.nche.edu/About/completionchallenge/Pages/default.aspx

http://aacc.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/21stCenturyReport.pdf

organizational change to promote student success 157

American Association of Community Colleges. (2013). AACC Competencies for Community College Leaders, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from: http://www.aacc.nche.edu/newsevents/Events/leadershipsuite/ Documents/AACC_Core_Competencies_web.pdf.

American Association of Community Colleges. (2014). Empowering Community Colleges to Build the Nation’s Future: An Implementation Guide. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from: http://www.aacc21stcenturycenter. org/wp‐content/uploads/2014/04/EmpoweringCommunityColleges_final.pdf.

Amey, M. J., VanDerLinden, K. E., & Brown, D. F. (2002). Perspectives on Community College Leadership: Twenty Years in the Making. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 26, 573–589.

Aune, B. P. (1995). The Human Dimension of Organizational Change. Review of Higher Education, 18(2), 149–173.

Bailey, T., Jaggars, S., & Jenkins, D. (2015). Redesigning America’s Community Colleges: A Clearer Path to Student Success. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.

Barrow, C. W. (1996). The Strategy of Selective Excellence: Redesigning Higher Education for Global Competition in a Postindustrial Society. Higher Education, 31(4), 447–469.

Benjamin, R., & Carroll, S. J. (1996). Impediments and Imperatives in Restruc- turing Higher Education. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32, 705–719.

Bichsel, J. (2012). Analytics in Higher Education: Benefits, Barriers, Progress, and Recommendations (Research Report). Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research.

Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (2006). The Handbook of Blended Learning Environments: Global Perspectives, Local Designs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass/Pfeiffer.

Burke, W. W. (2011). Organization Change: Theory and Practice (3d ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Burnes, B. (1996). Managing Change: A Strategic Approach to Organizational Dynamics. London: Pitman.

Burnett, D. J., & Oblinger, D. G. (Eds.). (2002). Innovation in Student Services: Planning for Models Blending High Touch/High Tech. Ann Arbor, MI: Society for College and University Planning.

Callan, P. (2006, Fall). Interview: Robert McCabe. National Cross Talk. National Center for Public Policy. Retrieved from: http://www.highereducation.org/ crosstalk/ct1000/interview1000.shtml.

Cates, C., & Cedercreutz, K. (Eds.). (2008). Leveraging Cooperative Education to Guide Curricular Innovation: The Development of a Corporate

Feedback System for Continuous Improvement. Cincinnati, OH: Center for Cooperative Education Research and Innovation.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http://www.aacc.nche.edu/newsevents/Events/leadershipsuite/Documents/AACC_Core_Competencies_web.pdf

http://www.aacc21stcenturycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/EmpoweringCommunityColleges_final.pdf

http://www.highereducation.org/crosstalk/ct1000/interview1000.shtml

158 practical leadership in community colleges

Chermak, G. L. D. (1990). Cultural Dynamics: Principles to Guide Change in Higher Education. College and University Professional Association for Human Resources, 41(3), 25–27.

DeMers, C. (2007). Organizational Change Theories: A Synthesis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Vincent, M., & Eisenstadt, T. (1998). The Knowledge Web: Learning and Collaborating on the net, First Edition (Open and Flexible Learning Series). New York, NY: Routledge.

Erwin, D. (1997). Developing Strategies and Policies for Changing Universities. In S. Armstrong, G. Thompson, & S. Brown (Eds.). Facing Up to Radical Changes in Universities and Colleges (pp. 64–73). London, UK: Kogan Press.

Floyd, D.L., Haley, A., Eddy, P.L. & Antczak, L. (2009). Celebrating the Past, Creating the Future: 50 Years of Community College Research. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33(3–4), 216–237.

Franklin, K. K. (2000). Shared and Connected Learning in a Freshman Learning Community. Journal of First‐Year Experience 12(2), 33–63.

Gabriel, M. A. (2004). Learning Together: Exploring Group Interactions Online. Journal of Distance Education 19(1), 54–72.

Gardner, J. N., & Barefoot, B. O. (2011), Your College Experience. Strategies for Success. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Garrison, D. R., & Anderston, T. (2003). E‐learning in the 21st Century: Framework for Research and Practice. London, UK: Rutledge Flamer.

Gesser, C. M. (2013). Using social media in the classroom: A community college perspective. American Sociological Association Footnotes, 41(1). Retrieved from http:// www.asanet.org/footnotes/jan13/ social_media_0113.html.

Gonzales, J. (2012, August 13). Real‐Time Jobs Data Show Community College What Employers Need Now. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from: go.nmc.org/realda.

Gumport, P. J. (2000). Academic Restructuring: Organizational Change and Institutional Imperatives. Higher Education, 39, 67–91.

Hatcher, J. A., Bringle, R. G., & Muthiah, R. (2004). Designing Effective Reflection: What Matters to Service Learning? Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 11(1), 38–46. Retrieved from: http://quod. lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer‐idx?c=mjcsl;cc=mjcsl;rgn=full%20text; idno=3239521.0011.104;didno=3239521.0011.104;view=image; seq=00000001.

Hearn, J. C. (1996). Transforming U.S. Higher Education: An Organizational Perspective. Innovative Higher Education, 21(2), 141–154.

Howland, J. L., & Moore, J. (2002). Student Perceptions as Distance Learners in Internet‐Based Courses. Distance Education, 23(2), 183–196.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http:// www.asanet.org/footnotes/jan13/social_media_0113.html

http://go.nmc.org/realda

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=mjcsl;cc=mjcsl;rgn=full%20text;idno=3239521.0011.104;didno=3239521.0011.104;view=image;seq=00000001

organizational change to promote student success 159

Jacobs, J., & Dougherty, K. J. (2006). The Uncertain Future of the Community College Workforce Development Mission. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2006, 53–62. doi: 10.1002/cc.259.

Katzenbach, J. (2003). Why Pride Matters More Than Money. New York, NY: Crown Business.

Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. (2003). Tipping Point Leadership. Harvard Business Review, 81(4), 60–69.

Kotter, J. P. (1995). The New Rules: How to Succeed in Today’s Post‐corporate World. New York, NY: Free Press.

Kotter, J. P. (1997). Leading Change: A Conversation with John P. Kotter. Strategy & Leadership, 25(1), 18–23.

Kotter, J. (2008). A Sense of Urgency. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Levine L. J., & Shapiro, N. (2004). Sustaining and Improving Learning

Communities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass Lewin, K. M. (2007, June). Improving Access, Equity and Transitions in

Education: Creating a Research Agenda (Create Pathways to Access Research Monograph No. 1). Retrieved from http://www.create‐rpc.org/ pdf_documents/PTA1.pdf.

Ludwig‐Hardman, S., & Dunlap, J. (2003). Learner Support Services for Online Students: Scaffolding for Success. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 4(1). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl. org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/131/602.

Maginn, M. (2005). Managing in Times of Change. San Francisco, CA: McGraw‐Hill.

Mallen, M. J., Vogel, D. L., Rochlen, A. B., & Day, S. X. (2005). Online counseling: Reviewing the literature from a counseling psychology framework. The counseling Pychologist. 33(6), 819–871.

McCabe, R. (2000). Underprepared Students. Measuring Up 2000: The State by State Report Card for Higher Education. Retrieved from: http://measuringup.highereducation.org/2000/articles/ UnderpreparedStudents.cfm.

MDRC. (2013). Developmental Education: A Barrier to a Postsecondary Credential for Millions of Americans. Retrieved from http://www.mdrc. org/sites/default/files/Dev%20Ed_020113.pdf.

Phelan, D. J. (2016). Unrelenting Change, Disruptive Innovation and Risk: Forging the Next Generation of Community Colleges. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Savage, R. N. (2007, June 24–27). A Design Methodology for Empowering Project‐Based Learning (AC2007–3119). Proceedings of the 2007 ASEE Annual Conference “Riding the Wave to Excellence in Engineering Education.” Honolulu, HI.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http://www.create-rpc.org/pdf_documents/PTA1.pdf

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/131/602

http://measuringup.highereducation.org/2000/articles/UnderpreparedStudents.cfm

http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/Dev%20Ed_020113.pdf

160 practical leadership in community colleges

Senge, P. (2008). The Necessary Revolution: How Individuals and Organizations Are Working Together to Create a Sustainable World. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Simpson, O. (2002). Supporting Students in Open and Distance Learning (2nd ed.). London, UK: Kogan.

Stober, D. (2008). Making It Stick: Coaching as a Tool for Organizational Change. Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 1(1), 71–80.

Stone, M. E., & Jacobs, G. (Eds.). (2008). Supplemental Instruction: Improving First‐Year Student Success in High‐Risk Courses (Monograph No. 7, 3rd ed.). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First‐Year Experience and Students in Transition.

Strebel, P. (2006). Why Do Employees Resist Change? Harvard Business Press Review, 11(1), 45–62.

Tagg, J. (2012). Why Does the Faculty Resist Change? Change, 44(1), 6–15. Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. (1995). Explaining Development and Change in

Organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 510–540. Vincent, M., & Eisenstadt, T. (1998). The Knowledge Web: Learning and

Collaborating on the Net, First Edition (Open and Flexible Learning Series). New York, NY: Routledge.

Waters, J. K. (2014, April 14). The Great Adaptive Learning Experiment. (1105 Media Inc.) Retrieved from http://campustechnology.com/Articles/ 2014/04/16/The‐Great‐Adaptive‐Learning‐Experiment.aspx.

Watson, L. W., Williams, F. K., & Derby, D. C. (2005, Spring). Contemporary Multicultural Issues: Student, Faculty, and Administrator Perceptions. Community College Enterprise, 11(1), 79–92.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sense Making in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wu, M. (2012, October 9). Gamification 101: The Psychology of Motivation.

Retrieved from http://lithosphere.lithium.com/t5/science‐of‐social‐blog/ Gamification‐101‐The‐Psychology‐of‐Motivation/ba‐p/21864.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http://campustechnology.com/Articles/2014/04/16/The-Great-Adaptive-Learning-Experiment.aspx

http://lithosphere.lithium.com/t5/science-of-social-blog/Gamification-101-The-Psychology-of-Motivation/ba-p/21864