What must we invent for tomorrow?

1. Five critical forces that will challenge the U.S. learning community (and perhaps yours) to innovate for the future EDEN 2009 Annual Conference 10-13 June 2009 Gdansk, Poland Nicholas H. Allen, DPA Provost Emeritus & Collegiate Professor University of Maryland University College nallen@umuc.edu What must we invent for tomorrow?

2. A Changing World • What will shape U.S. Higher Education in the next 10 to 15 years? • What will be the impact on our Higher Education Institutions: Especially those serving “non-traditional” students? • What must we invent to meet these challenges?

3. Forces of Change in the U.S. • Acute national need • Critical demographic shifts • Continued, rapid change in technology • Intense competition • Growing regulatory pressure for accountability and results

4. 1. National Need • Demand for tertiary education in the U.S. will come from four sources: • Traditional baseline growth patterns • The shift to non-traditional students • National goals in response to global competition • Rising social expectations: tertiary education will be a universal requirement *IES National Center for Educational Statistics, Sep 2008

5. Baseline Growth Patterns • Baseline enrollment growth at U.S. post-secondary, degree-granting institutions will continue over 2006-2017: • Projected: +13% (20.1M students) • Average annual growth: 1.18% • Down from 1.64% over 1992-2006 • But still healthy based on historical patterns of attendance *IES National Center for Educational Statistics, Sep 2008

6. National Need: 2006-2017 • The Baby-Boom Echo Generation moves on: • Age: 18-24 +10% 25-34 +27% 35+ + 8% • Level: UG + 12% G + 18% Prof + 22% *IES National Center for Educational Statistics, Sep 2008

7. Shift to Non-traditional Students • Traditional students get the attention: • 18-22 years old • Full-time • Residing on campus • But, of 17 million students enrolled in post-secondary education in 2006: • Only 16% fit the definition for traditional students* *Stokes, Peter J.; Hidden in Plain Sight, Eduventures Issue Paper to The Commission on the Future of Higher Education, 2006.

8. Shift to Non-traditional • Real change has already taken place: • 58% aged 22 + • 40% 25 or older • 40% studying part-time • 40% at 2 year schools* • Future growth will continue to be driven by non-traditional student patterns *Stokes, Peter J.; Hidden in Plain Sight, Eduventures Issue Paper to The Commission on the Future of Higher Education, 2006.

9. National Attainment Goals • 60-75% of fastest growing jobs in US require education at associate level or higher* • Yet compared to other OECD nations, the U.S. ranks: • 11th in entry rate to a tertiary degree • 15th in tertiary graduation rates (1st in 1995) • 18th in tertiary science graduates per 100,000 employed 25-34 year olds** *US BLS, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008-2009 **OECD, Education at a Glance, September 2008

10. National Attainment Goals • Fewer than 40% of U.S. working age adults (25-65) have a tertiary degree (2006) • Nine OECD nations have set attainment goals of 55% by 2025 • The President and national foundations have called for the U.S. to meet or exceed this goal • To match 55% attainment, U.S. degree production must increase by 40% (16M graduates) over the period 2005-2025.* *NCHE, Adding it up: State Challenges for Increasing College Access and Success, November 2007.

11. Rising Expectations • Cross cultural belief: education offers hope for a better job, life, and role in society. • Education is becoming accepted as a human right (Spellings Commission: Every citizen shall have the opportunity to earn a degree.) • Universal participation in a post-secondary degree will become a 21st century requirement

12. National Need: Impact • The U.S. faces unprecedented need to expand capacity and raise attainment rates of a tertiary degree • Opportunities will abound for both for-profit and not-for-profit providers to fulfill this need • Cutbacks in public funding may limit expansion in traditional public institutions • This need cannot be fulfilled through traditional bricks and mortar expansion

13. 2. Major Demographic Shifts (U.S.) • The emerging Hispanic & immigrant population • The arrival of “The Third Age” (55-79) and “Encore Careers”

14. Hispanic & Immigrant Growth • Projected U.S. population growth between 2005 and 2050:* 296 to 438 million • Foreign born residents will double to 1in 5 • Whites drop to 47% • Blacks remain at 13% • Asians grow to nearly 10% • Hispanics will represent nearly a third *Pew Research Center, 2008

15. Hispanic & Immigrant Growth • By 2022 half public high school graduates will be minorities with Hispanics making up a fourth:* *Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education

16. Impact • Projected Enrollment Increases in Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions 2006-2017 • Whites 5% • Blacks 26% • Asian 26% • Hispanic 39% *IES National Center for Educational Statistics, Sep 2008

17. The Third Age: Tsunami • Over 80 million “Boomers” born between 1945-1965 reach retirement in next 20. • First to reach partial retirement (62): 2008 • First to reach full Social Security ret.: 2012 • Last Boomers to reach age 85: 2051 • By 2030, over 20% of the U.S. will be 65 or older (70 million).* *ACE, Older Adults & Higher Education, 2007

18. Third Age: Longevity Revolution 19502001 Average Retirement Age: 68 62 Life Expectancy: 68 78+

19. The Third Age Will Continue to Work • In 2004, 54.2 million adults in the U.S. were between 55-79. • By 2014, 41% of those ≥ 55 will still be in the work force.* • 66% of those now 50-59 plan to keep working • 70% of those 50-70 plan to work at least part time** *Met Life Foundation & Civic Ventures survey,2005; **Merrill Lynch Survey

20. Why They Won’t Retire? • Fear of outliving incomes • Unable or don’t want to continue current careers, but want or need to work • New career interests; desire to contribute to something of value; new directions • Self fulfillment.

21. Changing Demographics: Impact • No industry ignores demographic shifts that each represent 20% of the national population. • Future tertiary student populations will be highly diverse in terms of: • Age • Ethnic/cultural background • Previous educational experience • Degree of preparation • Economic status • Technology fluency

22. Changing Demographics: Impact • Additional pressures will be placed on HE to respond with programs and services that help these students succeed • Many will come underprepared from previous educational experiences • Many will be F-Gen learners • Third Agers will need support services and programs tailored to their needs • No one-size approach in delivery format, support services, or pedagogy will fit all.

23. 3. Technology Shift: • Pervasive growth of online education, especially in the non-traditional market • Interoperability revolution • Breakthrough innovations in key educational applications and hardware, especially mobile devices. • Impact of Web 2.0+ technologies on pedagogy, access to content, & services

24. The Online Delivery Revolution • From 2002 to 2007 online enrollment grew at an annual compound rate of 19.7 % (versus 1.6% for all HE) • By fall 2007, 21.9% (3.9 million) of all HE students took at least one online course* • By 2020, half of all learning may be online** *SLOAN-C, Staying the Course, Nov. 2008; **Draves & Coates, Nine Shift (2004)

25. Interoperability Revolution • Increasing importance and use of standards so different technology systems, sites, and widgets can interact • Quiet but pervasive change in way that different technologies now fit together invisibly at the user level • Unparalleled access to micro and meta content and immediate functionality

26. Breakthroughs in Key Applications • E-reader technology (e-paper and e-plastic) • iPhone Web-in-the-hand connectivity • Within 5 years the typical mobile will have the computing power of today’s PC • Impact: M-learning explosion:

27. E-reader Applications • May 6, 2009 7:46 AM PDT • Amazon's big-screen Kindle DX makes its debut

28. E-reader Applications • Wednesday, May 27, 2009 • Plastic Logic's Touch-Screen E-Reader

29. The Web 2.0 Revolution • Internet: evolving from two dimensional theatre to a multidimensional cyber sphere • The network IS the platform • Users add value • Database gets better the more people use it • Network is about getting the right information when you need it

30. Openness as hallmark Open source and open content Micro content Metadata Users in charge Cloud compting Collaboration Swarm intelligence Social networking Networks of networks Spontaneity Dynamic, continuous change Web 2.0 Culture:

31. Traditional Delivery Models

32. Transition Blended

33. The Future Time Time Different Same Same • Computer Lab • Libraries • Classroom • Face to face (f2f) Wikis Place Blogs OERs Podcasts Different M-Learning Grass Roots Video PLEs • ITV • Live Telecourses • IVN • Audio/Video • Conferencing • Correspondence • -Print Based • -Audio/Video Tapes • Voice Mail • Online/WWW Social Networking Virtual Worlds Synchronous Asynchronous

34. Technology Impact • Technology systems will enable HE institutions to provide mass access to quality education at affordable costs • Web 2.0+ technologies have the potential to change the classroom and learning opportunities as never before imagined • Open content offers access to rich learning resources not before available to many institutions and students

35. But: • Institutions will need to carefully assess which of these new technologies and approaches will be effective as opposed to fads • Faculty will need to master basic Web 2.0+ technologies or become irrelevant • Faculty roles in the classroom must change from transferring content to transferring wisdom.

36. 4. Competitive Pressures • Competition for the non-traditional student will intensify from both for-profit and not-for-profit sectors • Supply may actually outpace demand • Online delivery will enable competitors to leap over geographic/regulatory boundaries • Online growth will come from schools that are well established and fully engaged* *SLOAN-C, Online Nation, October 2007

37. Increasing Competition • Private for-profit institutions are growing online enrollments 5 times the rate of public and private non-profit schools (2002 – fall 2006)* • Public: 59% • Private NFP: 49% • Private FP: 340% *SLOAN-C, Online Nation, October, 2007

38. Competitive Pressures • Earlier approaches to positioning and differentiation based on convenience and scheduling alone will not be enough • Higher education institutions will need to take a “student centric” approach to attract and keep more students • Institutions will need to move from “rhetoric toward evidence based marketing”* *Eduventures, February 2006.

39. Competitive Impact • Front door recruiting and admissions systems will become integrated with other institutional systems to reach prospective students • Student success may become a competitive differentiator • Student retention and persistence programs will take on strategic importance • Early warning systems will become critical tools of retention

40. Competitive Impact • Higher education institutions will need to use the new technologies combined with process re-engineering principles to: • Wrap student support and engagement systems around academic programs • Gather critical operating metrics • Scale delivery of programs and services • Mass customize

41. 5. Regulatory Pressures • Issues of cost and accountability will continue to demand attention • Higher education will need to take charge of these issues or other interests will.

42. Accountability • Higher education: an industry focused too much on inputs and process, and too little on results • Rising costs, public pressure, and increasing political concerns over “value for the money” will continue to push institutions toward a focus on results especially mastery of basic skills.

43. Increasing costs Note: % growth in current dollars Source: CNNMoney.com Aug 22, 2008 from Bureau of Labor Statistics

44. Accountability • Little more than half of all students enrolled in four years programs will graduate in 6 years* • Student Retention if not addressed will become an explosive issue • Large numbers of F-Gen and low income students will accentuate the problem • Solutions will require “intentional” interventions designed into new student and enrollment management systems *American Enterprise Institute, 2009

45. Higher Education Opp. Act 2008 • Increased regulation & reporting • Assessment of student achievement remains with institutions and accreditors: • But will not go away • Continued focus on: accessibility, affordability, accountability • Renewal in 5 years; renewed attention in two depending on progress

46. Regulatory Impact • Retention and persistence strategies will take on critical importance with increasing numbers of low income and first degree seekers • Non-traditional education programs will need to be creative in designing front door systems that help students stay connected and succeed • If higher education does not address this problem others will solve it for us

47. What Must We Invent for the Future 1. Scalable distance education programs that use technology and systems tools wisely to: • Dramatically expand capacity • Increase access • Reduce per student costs [Now is the time for ODL to fulfill its potential and its promise in the U.S.]

48. What Must We Invent: 2. Technology driven, scalable support systems, wrapped around academic programs and mass customized to: • Make students part of the learning community • Address individual student needs • Enable students to succeed

49. What Must We Invent 3. “Intentional” persistence programs designed around academic programs and services to address the needs of high risk students: • Front door systems that focus on individual students early in their academic experience • Early warning systems that intervene before too late • Clear paths through the curriculum

50. What Must We Invent 4. Data-driven research that enables institutions and faculty to assess the impact of new educational technologies, Web 2.0+ tools, OER, & delivery formats on: • Costs • Efficiency of learning • Student learning outcomes • Faculty productivity • Institutional effectiveness