learning

Working at Wise Owl Animal Hospital is difficult but enjoyable after being there for three months. Ktanaw, the Human Resources Manager, scheduled a Skype meeting with her for my training performance review. When it was finally the day to meet, I started to feel anxious as the time comes closer. The more I think about it, the more nervous I become.My heart would feel constrained and it would be very hard to breath. I would take deep, slow breaths to calm my nerves. I am usually a overly critical person and I tend to overanalyze the little things. I focus on the negative things rather than the positive things. So I began thinking about all the negative things, such as my careless mistakes, that the management team and my trainer would say about me.

When it started, my nerves slowing faded away. After my training performance review, I asked her about the transition from a Kennel Assistant to a Vet Technician. She gave me advice by asking other Vet Techs and their stories. All stories had common motive, which was creating a plan and follow it. Some would stay as Kennel Assistant for a few months or years until they are ready to take up the position of a Vet Technician. When the meeting finally ended, I began thinking about a certain question:” What is MY plan?” I would have to think about getting out of my comfort zone, the essentials to become a Vet Technician, and finally formulating a plan. I took the first step of getting of the comfort zone by becoming a Kennel Assistant but now I want to take a step further. In “Comfort zone: Model or metaphor”, Mike Brown discusses how to “provide students with favorable conditions for authentic and meaningful experiences where they are challenged in an appropriate manner and suitably supported by those with a genuine interest in their learning informed by sound educational principles.”

This emphasizes the idea of the comfort zone should be about learning and growth through meaningful involvement with genuine interest rather than executing doubtful learning and practices. When working at Wise Owl Animal Hospital, the training for a Kennel Assistant takes practical involvement for certain tasks for most of the time. Each task I do is certainly more interesting to do and learn about. I learned more through interesting hands-on experiences , such as restraining aggressive dogs and cats, rather than watching videos or reading from the book. The training for a Vet Technician is more elaborate than the Kennel Assistant training. Practical involvement will be more included when becoming a Vet Tech. The challenges will break my mold to be able to reach to higher levels in my professional and personal life. It might be “chaotic” but it is the only way to get things done.

In “Comfort zone: Model or metaphor?”,Mike Brown discusses “if you are in your comfort zone you are not learning, if you are out of your comfort zone you are learning. “ (2008, p.2) If I want to learn of what’s beyond then I want to be out of my comfort zone. It is up to me to push the boundaries of my comfort zone to become the person I want to be . By learning to grow out of the comfort zone, I need to start thinking about what is necessary to become a Vet Technician. In “Veterinary technician assistant curriculum guideline”, Mickey E. Rash discusses “the ultimate goal when developing any vocational/technical curriculum is to prepare a student for a position in the workplace.” (2000, p.53) It emphasizes the goals to prepare someone for a position at Wise Owl Animal Hospital by learning about animal medicine, medical knowledge,zone and practical skills. If I want to become a Vet Tech, I need to prepare what going to happen and what I would expect.

I will need to learn how to face certain challenges when becoming a Vet Tech, such as dealing with angry customers, aggressive or uncooperative animals, euthanasia, and seeing severe injuries caused by trauma or neglect. Every day is always different and full of surprises. This leads to stress, which is one of the biggest factor why people quit. However, I must not give up even if the challenge is hard for me. I want to prepare myself first before taking on the challenge. In “Veterinary technician assistant curriculum guideline”, Mickey E. Rash discusses “every member of the animal health care team must win the trust of his community to care for their sick animals and maintain a good moral character.”(2000, p. 54) This emphasizes that each member must care for the sick animal needs to help win the trust of his clients and animals. However, a Vet Tech job is not about playing with little kittens and puppies.

It is a hard job and isn’t always about playing. In the end, it is about veterinary medicine, and to pursue this you must really want to make a difference In order to be successful, I must be require a true love for animals but it must be coupled with aptitude and skill. As I gain more information of what I need, I can finally formulate a plan that I use and follow. Developing a plan is a way to focus the efforts and figure out how you’re going to get things done. This plan would take time and commitment if I want to make it into a reality. I must manage my own career path at my own pace. By doing this, I would be able to take advantage of the resources and opportunities surrounding me, such as asking questions to certified Vet Techs when needed, and having my continuing education online.

I need to make sure that my plan are aligned with my goals by reviewing your mission, vision, and objectives. The plan is continue being a Kennel Assistant for the next two years or less depending whether I’m ready to move up or not. I could do this by continuing my education, and practicing my skills that will be needed in the hospital. The information I should know before moving up are the parasites, parasites preventions, vaccines, and their costs. Each week, I would review this information and I would ask Ton, my supervisor, to test me.The skills I need to work on are nail grinding, checking for vitals, checking for respiratory rate, and handling aggressive dogs. I would practice on the dogs and cats when I’m free to check their vitals and respiratory rate. I could take each opportunity to do a nail grind and handling aggressive dogs. It is important to start thinking about my future to be able to prepare myself. This plan would be a useful guide to help evaluate my progress and change any approaches as time go on.

All things considered, if I want to move closer to my dream then I need to get out of my expand my boundaries. Getting outside your comfort zone helps me be more productive, creative, more flexible and even contributes to my happiness. By becoming a technician, I would have the academic training and knowledge that other vet assistants might not. Techs really learn about the bodies and functions of animals and learn to understand the reasoning behind measures and practices. By achieving my dream , I could find many opportunities that are out there

I’m writing to endorse Ms. Ankita Rani for admission in your taught master’s program in Urban Planning/Design based on her extraordinary performance in academics. In her academic program, she consistently maintained her position among top ranked in the class. I have known her for four years as a thesis guide and mentor, and she remains one of my best students for her excellence in academics and consistency throughout her undergraduate Ankita is a perceptive, logical, and intuitive individual with a high aptitude toward sustainability planning, and solving any design problem. She has immense working efficiency and competitive knowledge and skills. In the third year, I guided her through the Architectural Design studio and I could spot the traits of strong prerequisite research skills in her.

She enthusiastically diagnoses the problem and, subsequently, solves it in a greater depth within her full capabilities. So, I opine with great certainty, that to unfold any practical problem she can progress to an extent of studying another major. Besides that, Ankita possesses remarkable writing skills and influential communications skills too, an excerpt of which she demonstrated in discussions related to her studio exercises and dissertations over Indian Architecture. Recently, one of her eloquent writings was considered in the ‘National Symposium: Confluence 18- Architecture and Healthcare magazine. Such qualities add to my confidence in her surviving excellently in the academic settings of the master’s program.

In my experience, Ankita believes passionately in social progress and working for the common good. Her embedded desire to create an environment in bringing humankind to their full potential (through a stress-free environment) was quite evident in her final year thesis project- ‘Neuro-Psychiatry Hospital with rehabilitation facilities for Dementia’, which I evaluated and help her improvise on many stages. She immensely researched psychological issues, its growing trends, ways to curb and create a better environment through successfully integrating architecture and landscape. Her performance rewarded her with honors in Architecture degree. Along with academics, Ankita has shown notable preparedness and skill in handling competitions too, some of which include, ‘The south Asian Student Design Competition’ and the ‘University of Westminster Competition’, which brought immense pride to our institution in the form of awards

Ankita has my highest recommendation for admission in the Master’s Program at your esteemed institution. She has shown her excellence in every field she puts her mind to, whether it’s Sustainability, Urban design/planning, or Vernacular Architecture. Her endless curiosity in learning and integrating various majors have made her an all-rounder student. I believe there will be no limit to her growth and achievements in any major she chooses to pursue for Master’s program and even beyond that. Please feel free to contact for further assistance or information.

Why would we ever set back a generation of potential? We have come so far over the years. Why stop now? Technology is like a dose of fertilizer. It fuels our growth and development in the real world. Throughout life there is an abundance of challenges and tribulations. Our children may need help along the way. Help, that we can provide. Technology can not only be their supportive base, but give them access to a collection of tools. From the following policy, I hope to create a better learning environment, that will benefit, the children of the future. Policy 254 includes, but does not limit, the following claims. All grades are allowed to use their personal technology, as well as school provided technology, inside and outside of the classroom. The amount of time and specific classes are unlimited.

Any websites, and or apps, that are seen as distracting or useless to a students education, will be blocked. If this occurs modifications will be made. Some are blind to realize that technology satisfies different types of learners. The three most common kinds of learners are, visual learners, auditory learners, and kinesthetic learners. Charts, maps, graphs, and diagrams tend to help visual learners process information. One way teachers can explain their lesson for visual learners is by using graphic organizers to teach a lesson. For example, a flow chart created on google sheets might be used to explain a scientific process. Auditory learners learn best when information is heard or spoken. They benefit from lectures, group discussion, and other strategies that involve talking things through.

To help auditory learners, teachers can present videos from youtube to explain lessons. Kinesthetic learners, learn best when they can use tactile experiences and carry out a physical activity to practice applying new information. “People who prefer this mode are connected to reality, ‘either through concrete personal experiences, examples, practice or simulation,’” VARK Learn Limited explains. The advantages of technology are endless. The use of technology in each classroom varies, but its importance per class shines throughout. Some classes, such as photography and media arts wouldn’t even exist without technology. Art is very important to many individuals. It’s therapeutic and allows for someone to express themselves. With the works of photoshop and indesign, students in media arts are able to create unique masterpieces. In photography students are able to take photos with the use of their cameras and or phones. Images help us learn, grab attention, explain tough concepts, and inspire. Additionally in language classes, technology can be incredibly helpful.

Many apps like duolingo, help many people learn new languages with approachable creative animations and techniques. There is an extensive index of vocab that one must learn when first introduced to a new language. It can be frustrating to figure out how to study the loads of vocab. Apps, such as quizlet create new innovative ways to study for vocab. As you study with quizlet, the app will organize vocab you have mastered and repeat ones answered wrong until you master them. For each class communication between parent, teacher, and student is very important. Technology enables an easy way to communicate within a matter of seconds. For instance, if a student is working on an essay and needs to ask their teacher a question they can just quickly email them.

Contrast to my belief, many people argue that the whole existence of technology is atrocious. I’m not here to criticize or abolish opposing views. I’m here to enlighten those who may be confused or distraught over this important issue. Those in the crowd, who don’t understand why someone would oppose the use of technology, let me have your attention as well. Technology can be seen like a world wide virus. Changing our minds, and the way we think. Everytime we choose to open up our eyes, to the bright, intelligent object. We subject ourselves to an inter-changing ability. According to Nicholas Carr, the brain, “has the ability to reprogram itself on the fly, altering the way it functions.” In other words, our brain’s plasticity has the capability to change the way we process things.

Media theorist Marshall McLuhan argues that, “the net seems to be … chipping away… [his] capacity for concentration and contemplation.” Basically Marshall believes that the internet is making us lose concentration and contemplation. For those who are sitting in their seats starting to worry about the negative impact of technology, fear no more. Many companies are providing new technology that battles the technology that is negatively impacting our concentration. As you may know, the most useful sense when it comes to concentration, is vision. Many companies have created glasses that can monitor your eyes that act accordingly to improve your concentration. One pair of glasses have three built-in sensors that will touch your skin when you put them on. The sensors will then measure your brain waves and darken the lenses when you lose concentration and lighten them when you regain focus so that you can re-adjust.

I will order glasses like these such, so the problem will be non-existent within our school. The fact is we need to include technology in our school. Let’s say hypothetically if we were to ban technology. Four years would go by with no technology. But what about after? What if someone wanted to be a doctor? The medical field in our current society is very advanced. This technology could help find cures to deadly diseases. But because, that individuals high school decided to ban technology, that student would be set back from others. They might not even be able to achieve their dream career. The truth is, it just wouldn’t be logical to exclude technology from our school. Without it, we would be stuck floating with no occurrence of change. The world is advancing. We need to make sure were on the same ground as the world around us. Our students have the potential to be great. Let’s not be cruel and deprive them of success.

In discussing the relationship between state governments and higher education, Hearn & Holdsworth (2002) acknowledge that within the United States, responsibility for quality and outcomes within education has historically been decentralized to the local level. Therefore, it remains possible, and is still quite common, for educational experiences to differ vastly. For example, the syllabus, outcomes, and educational experiences of students enrolled in an introductory class in college writing, perhaps English 101, at a community college are probably different from the English 101 course offered at a public land grant institution within the same state.

While both courses are offered at public institutions and arguably have similar objectives, student learning and achievement potentially differs, creating a problematic situation for legislators and higher education administrators alike. This notion, coupled with growing demands for greater accountability within higher education, especially as the cost of attendance continues to rise, served as the impetus for a change in roles among elected state officials. In this significant shift, state legislators along with governors are now serving as ‘interveners’ as opposed to ‘encouragers’ when creating and implementing policy impacting higher education; this is observable when reviewing both contemporary and older legislation (McGuinness, 1994).

Before addressing both the historical foundations as well as the contemporary issues within higher education policy, one needs to understand the different policy instruments used by policymakers. Common instruments include mandates and inducements, and often target the larger ‘system’ while focusing on building capacity in specific institutions of higher learning (Hearn & Holdsworth, 2002). In analyzing higher education policy, it is important to consider both the state-level influences such as economic, political, social and cultural characteristics, in addition to institutional level characteristics such as institutional mission, type, and governance structure (Hearn & Holdsworth, 2002). Over the past few decades, legislation was enacted which directly influenced academic programming, staffing, and accountability structures.

These policies codified the state’s role in developing performance-funding structures; dictating mission development and differentiation; offering remedial education; fostering transfer and articulation; managing online and distance learning; as well as developing admissions requirements and processes. Faculty workload, administrator and employee salaries, and reward structures including merit and sabbatical leaves have also been of interest amongst state policymakers (Hearn & Holdsworth, 2002). In reviewing this laundry list of legislative priorities and administrative policy areas, it is clear that policymakers and state coordinating bodies have previously, and continue to, focus their attention on areas that directly or indirectly affect student learning.

Despite an increased interest in higher education, is it important to situate these efforts within the larger context of state policy making. State legislators are faced with a myriad of social, political and economic issues to address; therefore, higher education policy must compete with other legislative efforts focused on criminal justice, healthcare, finance, elections, citizen behaviors and expectations, as well as K-12 education. This is good and bad for the academy; the good news is other crises are more likely to consume the attention of political leaders, often removing higher education from the ‘spotlight;’ however, the bad news is that these multiple competing legislative priorities also affect state allocations for higher education, a trend not new to the academy (McGuinness, 1994).

State Involvement & Policy-Making:

Historical Foundations and Contemporary Issues

In a report for the National Governors Association, Hersh & Benjamin (2001) provided a detailed historical analysis of state higher education policy. This report proposed that traditionally state policy focused on access within higher education, which some believe was to the detriment of quality (McGuinness, 1994). This focus on increasing access consumed the attention of state elected officials in the 1960’s and 1970’s; Clark Kerr forecast, “the 1980’s as the “Decade of the States,” a decade where policy leadership would be dominated by governors, and when higher education could expect far more aggressive efforts aimed at connecting it to the states’ social and economic agendas” (McGuinness, 1994, p. 7). The 1980’s, and after, were characterized by limited federal oversight, as the role and involvement of the state in higher education policy would increase substantially. With constant calls for greater accountability and the rising cost of attendance, legislative priorities shifted again and began targeting the ‘return on investment’ of higher education in the 1990’s, as opposed to increasing access and strategic funding during the previous decades (Hersh & Benjamin, 2002).

In addressing this shift in priorities over time, Hersh & Benjamin (2002) argue that state policy should consider and speak to both ‘access’ and ‘quality’ if meaningful improvement to public higher education is to occur in the 21st century. In discussing the ongoing deterioration of higher education, Hersh & Benjamin (2002) provide evidence such as minimal skill development in mathematics and graduates’ lack of coursework in literature to substantiate this claim. The competence of recent graduates remains a primary concern of both corporate and civic leaders, as these graduates will be required to navigate an ever-changing and complex global marketplace (Hersh & Benjamin, 2002). Even as enrollments continue to grow, the report for the National Governors Association suggests that quality assessment remains the key to improving higher education and ultimately to enhancing student outcomes.

Furthermore, when considering the effect of state policy on student learning, it is important to note that low retention rates and early institutional assessment data does not predict flawed policy. Additionally, while prospective students and their families often rely on external rankings to portray excellence or quality within higher education, these rankings also do not adequately depict the impact of public policy on access or quality, much less on student learning and achievement. By shifting the policy agenda to focus on the measurement of the “value added” or how an institution fosters the growth of its students from entrance to exit, Hersh & Benjamin (2002) postulate that a culture of meaningful assessment would follow. The benefits of utilizing a value-added assessment approach are plentiful; however, they are also countered by several barriers, most notably; the challenge of violating ‘academic freedom.’

An earlier report, authored by McGuinness (1994) and published by the Education Commission of the States as part of the State Policy and College Learning (SPCL) project, detail the ever-changing role of the state in enacting policy that fosters or affects student learning at the undergraduate level. The SPCL project aimed to connect policy with undergraduate learning in five states; in exploring these policies further, the researchers attempted to identify the barriers that prohibited institutional change.

McGuinness (1994) acknowledged the influence of state policy on undergraduate education is largely indirect; however, he does suggest that undergraduate learning is impacted most by institutional influences. The five states considered were geographically diverse and featured different higher education governance structures; the states were Colorado, Maine, Vermont, New Jersey, and Washington. In creating a self-assessment guide, McGuinness (1994) noted that ‘good practices’ related to undergraduate learning were well-researched; however, were not practiced commonly. These practices often take place at the institutional, or grass roots level, and were typically not influenced by state policy (McGuiness, 1994).

There were two stages within the SPCL project. The first stage consisted of a self-study of the impact of state policy on undergraduate learning; this ‘study’ relied on responses from various actors, both those within higher education and those that were political, relating to the impact of state-level policy changes. In preparing for the second phase, the project leaders adjusted their plan and chose to review relevant state policy and then convene policy and higher education leaders for discussion. The findings of these dialogues suggest that the culture of every state, with regard to its history, economic and political environments, influenced the ways in which state governments interact with institutions of higher education. Furthermore, these dialogues also suggested that the role, work, and authority of state coordinating boards is in flux and ultimately affects student learning.

In a recent report, published by the Institute for Research on Higher Education at the University of Pennsylvania, Finney, Perna & Callan (2014) examined the impact of state-led higher education efforts and policy across five similar states: Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Texas and Washington. The report exposed that states often experience difficulty in allocating resources strategically; leveraging educational opportunities to meet student needs; and successfully transitioning students between various educational institutions in the higher education stratosphere (Finney, Perna & Callan, 2014).

To address these challenges, the report offered six strategic recommendations pertaining to equity; political consensus; addressing institutional performance; developing pathways to degrees and certificates; alignment between regional needs and public institutions; and using financial incentives and finance policy to influence institutional behavior (Finney, Perna & Callan, 2014). These strategic recommendations address both institutional and state characteristics affecting student learning while offering insight into actionable steps for progress.

Following review of the historical foundations and the debates to date centered on higher education policy, this paper will now identify and analyze several contemporary higher education policy areas, each aimed at enhancing student learning. These contemporary issues include performance funding; transfer and articulation; remedial education; and faculty workload, each of which has been researched by higher education scholars. Before discussing the implications of such policies, I will introduce a contemporary case study to demonstrate how innovative state policy can be leveraged to not only increase access, but to also enhance quality and advance the discourse surrounding student achievement.

Performance Funding

According to Obergfell (2018), 37 states currently utilize some type of performance based funding, also known as PBF. Due to its popularity, performance funding remains one of the most common higher education legislative policies. The intent of this inducement is to enhance student learning or achievement by incentivizing institutional behavior (Hearn & Holdsworth, 2002). As interest in this funding mechanism, or the use of incentives, among state legislators continues to grow, so does the body of literature focused on public perception as well as its impact or effectiveness (Burke & Modarresi, 2000; Colbeck, 2002; Hearn & Holdsworth, 2002; Banta, Rudolph, Van Dyke, & Fisher, 1996). The primary goal of PBF is to allocate limited state funding to the public institutions that are most cost effective and/or actively working to advance state goals (Obergfell, 2018). When designing these funding models, states often use metrics such as time to degree, retention and graduation rates, especially relying on the rates of Pell-eligible and diverse student populations (Obergfell, 2018).

The range of performance funding models is large and constantly evolving due to changes in state funding and desires; however, two common models are the formula-based and target/recapture models. Yet, it can be difficult for a state to create a model or formula that supports the diverse range of institutional types and missions. This challenge in designing an appropriate model does affect outcomes and student success; this is clear when reviewing the scholarship detailing the mixed results of these initiatives (Obergfell, 2018). Regardless of these critiques, this funding mechanism has endured and remains popular nationally; Obergfell (2018) suggests “as state policymakers continue looking for ways to stretch tight budgets, in the midst of increased scrutiny on the value of higher education and the need for a more developed workforce, it is clear that PBF models are here to stay” (p. 2).

In an early study, Banta, Rudolph, Van Dyke, & Fisher (1996) investigated the effectiveness of performance funding within Tennessee, the first state to implement this type of policy. In surveying campus-based performance funding coordinators from 23 public institutions, the researchers sought to understand if the Tennessee model appropriately measured the quality of higher education within the state; if it promoted improvement; and what the most helpful features of the funding model were. The findings demonstrated positive outcomes regarding institutional and state use of this funding mechanism, particularly around the use of assessment to foster institutional improvements. However, this study only considered the insight of campus coordinators, not other academic administrators or faculty.

Banta, Rudolph, Van Dyke, & Fisher (1996) did acknowledge that while faculty and others across Tennessee might have a negative view of this policy, the statewide committee responsible for evaluating the performance funding model metrics and providing recommendations regarding the future of the program has decided every year to continue with the performance-funding model. It is also important to note that this committee is comprised solely of university administrators. The reason why, the researchers submit, is that the performance funding in Tennessee is in addition to the state allocation for higher education; therefore, institutions can earn significantly more by working to address the PBF standards and aligning their work with state goals (Banta, Rudolph, Van Dyke, & Fisher, 1996).

In building on the research of Banta et al, Colbeck (2002) also sought to investigate perceptions and effectiveness surrounding the Tennessee performance funding initiative, albeit two decades after its implementation. Colbeck (2002) found that the length of time since policy implementation does affect popularity and perception. Interviews with faculty and administrators occurred almost 20 years after the implementation of this performance-funding model; therefore, respondents occasionally could not differentiate between institutional changes that were a result of this policy and the current day-to-day operations of the university. In discussing the implications of this study, Colbeck (2002) suggests that this state policy and others would be more effective if policymakers leveraged both professional and democratic controls, and involved faculty in the planning and implementation.

While the previous two studies focused solely on the Tennessee performance-funding model, Burke & Modarresi (2000) sought to define the characteristics of successful PBFs by analyzing nine different programs. To collect data, both political and institutional representatives in nine states were surveyed. Burke & Modarresi (2000) found that stable programs necessitate continued collaboration between political and higher education representatives, as well as connect institutional effectiveness efforts to increased state funding. Additionally, successful programs arise from policy goals that value quality, and provide ample time for planning and implementation. Substantial yet restricted funding is also critical for success, and programs that garner additional funding as opposed to reallocating existing state funds also tend to be more successful. Stability with state priorities and a focus to the future amongst campus based professional are also important when determining which performance-funding programs endure versus those that do not.

Transfer & Articulation

In a 2005 Policy Brief, the American Association of State Colleges & Universities (AASCU) shared an alarming statistic; 71% of students entering community college intend on earning a four-year degree; however, only 25% transfer to a four-year institution. With statistics like these, it remains obvious that barriers like the inability to transfer credits or move between institutions inhibit student learning. In discussing the significance of this issue and its impact on student learning and achievement, AASCU (2005) writes, “… given that community colleges increasingly serve as the entry point into higher education for baccalaureate degree seekers, particularly low-income and minority students. The ability to transfer and complete a bachelor’s degree, a critical requirement for middle-class status, has become a key access and equity issue” (p. 1).

These barriers have attracted the attention of state legislators and coordinating bodies, both of which are demonstrating a deep interest in this policy area, partly due to the economic impact. The AASCU policy brief acknowledged four challenges inherit within transfer and articulation: overcoming the elitism of the academy and removing the stigma associated with attending a “lesser” institution; transfer universities not accepting credits taken at trade, vocational or even accredited for-profit institutions; a guarantee that students whom complete general education requirements can transition into third-year major specific coursework easily; and the lack of advisement and support for students throughout this transition (AASCU, 2005).

In an earlier publication, Robertson & Frier (1996) reviewed a joint statement from the American Council on Education and American Association of Junior and Community Colleges, and provided three recommendations for how states can best manage transfer and articulation. The first relates to policy; the recommendation is that state governments provide broad policies on transfer and articulation, but not mandate specific regulations relating to admissions or enrollment. The second recommendation suggests that states implement special programs or services to support transfer students, and provide sustainable funding for these initiatives.

Lastly, states should collect and disseminate data and information relating to transfer students; by doing so, states can benchmark and ultimately enhance this experience for students as well as the increase the rates of transfer and number of credits accepted. Robertson & Frier (1996) also advise that states should offer financial aid for transfer students, use state budget allocations to influence institutional behaviors, leverage technology, and aid in developing, although not dictate, admissions standards. Similarly, articulation agreements should be drafted free of legislative intervention; instead, states can assist with these efforts by managing course equivalencies (Robertson & Frier, 1996).

In alignment with this earlier publication, AASCU (2005) offered similar strategies for enhancing transfer and articulation. These include the development of statewide standards including cooperative agreements, common course numbering systems, and a common core, as well as the use of state dollars and student financial aid to entice institutions as well as students. Due to the growing interest of policymakers, state involvement in articulation and transfer is rapidly expanding. In 2005, at least 30 states utilized a statewide common core; this initiative allows a student whom completes the general education core at one institution the ability to transfer to another within the same state and count these credits towards the transfer institution’s general education requirements (AASCU, 2005). Furthermore, at least 14 states use a common course numbering system; this program allows credits to transfer between institutions using a common course number assigned based upon course content and rigor (AASCU, 2005).

Remedial Education

Remedial education remains a contentious topic within the academy; faculty and administrators have long engaged in the debate of its role, place, and relevance within higher education. Yet, within the recent past, legislators and government oversight agencies have also intervened making it a popular topic within higher education policy, one that directly influences student learning. Despite differing opinions, the reality is troubling especially for students. In further elaborating on this juxtaposition, Jimenez (2018) eloquently writes, “remedial education held real promise at its origin. It served as an on-ramp to college for students who were underprepared in the subjects of reading, writing, and mathematics. In the present day, however, remedial education often acts as an exit ramp, derailing many students in need of additional academic support from ever enrolling in college courses or completing their undergraduate degree” (p.2).

Remedial education remains costly, both for the student and for the institution (Jimenez, 2018). Typically, students are charged a fee to participate in these mandatory courses; however, often they do not receive college credit for successful completion ultimately hindering their trajectory within the academy. Low retention rates coupled with the student populations typically targeted for remedial education poses significant concern; as most often, it is students from under-represented populations enrolling in these courses (Jimenez, 2018). Another challenge facing remedial education lies with whom or how students are selected for these programs. Critical questions surrounding the legitimacy and appropriateness of using a student’s standardized test scores or relying on faculty recommendations remain unanswered (Jimenez, 2018). In looking ahead and discussing how to reform remedial education, Jimenez (2018) offers two bold suggestions; first, significantly better coordination between K-12 and higher education, and next, the improvement of all areas within, or a total redesign of, remedial education.

Mills (1998) studied the effects of an early state policy focused on remediation coursework. This policy was authored and enacted by the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education (OSHRE); the coordinating body for public colleges and universities in Oklahoma. The policy mandated that degree-seeking ‘traditionally-aged’ students take remedial coursework if they scored below 19 on any of the ACT sub-tests (Mills, 1998). Yet, students would not receive college credit for completion of these remedial courses and were charged a fee to participate. Mills (1998) explored how representatives from three public institutions not only understood this policy, but also how they reconciled their own beliefs with the policy mandate.

The three institutions included a state-funded HBCU, a metropolitan community college, and a public comprehensive university, each boasting a different mission and serving a different student population. Mills (1998) found that university officials had minimal to no respect for the coordinating body with regard to policymaking, and that they were not supportive of the mandates within the policy. The study participants were also not in support of the surcharge assigned to students whom were mandated to enroll in this coursework due to their ACT scores. However, Mills (1998) did note that representatives from each of the three institutions acknowledged an unintended yet positive consequence of this policy; institutions were forced to examine their role in providing remedial education and how this service or mandate ultimately advanced their university’s mission.

Faculty Workload

As state policymakers continue to advance legislative platforms that enhance undergraduate learning, faculty workload becomes a viable mechanism for review and action. Using data from the 1992-1993 National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty, Fairweather & Beach (2002) reported that the time faculty spent teaching ranged from 32.2% in the health sciences disciplines to 52.8% in the fine arts. Furthermore, the hours’ faculty spent in class weekly ranged from 5.3 hours for engineering faculty to 8 hours for health sciences faculty. This type of data frequently alarms lawmakers whom believe these numbers should be dramatically higher and as a result, undergraduate student learning and achievement would increase.

However, allocating more effort or workload to undergraduate education is costly for an institution; faculty then have less time to conduct research as well as teach, mentor, and advise graduate students, two areas that also generate significant funding and prestige for a university. In discussing the intent behind state legislation mandating changes in faculty workload, Fairweather & Beach (2002) suggest, “Although rarely stated openly, the principal targets of these public policies and proposed strategies are the major research universities. Explicit or not, many state higher education policies are meant to redress the common perception that teaching – especially undergraduate teaching – is underappreciated in universities with a purportedly unfettered commitment to scholarship” (p. 98).

In a study published the same year, Colbeck (2002) explored the effects of two state policies that shared the goal of enhancing undergraduate learning. One of the two policies was the Ohio faculty workload mandate. Due to declining state budgets and lawmaker concerns about faculty disregard for undergraduate teaching, grounded in the minimal time spent in the classroom, the Ohio workload mandate required faculty employed at public institutions in Ohio to increase the time spent teaching by 10%. Additionally, the mandate required all public institutions to develop workload standards, which must include an expectation for time-spent teaching in alignment with departmental mission. The goal of this legislation was to enhance the quality of undergraduate learning by increasing the energy faculty allocated to teaching activities.

In considering the perceptions of faculty and administrators, Colbeck (2002) found that the length of time since policy implementation affected popularity or perception. At the time of study, the Ohio mandate was fairly new and fresh in the minds of the respondents. Yet, it was also clear that university administrators worked to limit the burden or impact of state policies on faculty. For example, academic administrators in Ohio did not expect faculty to spend more teaching; therefore, university staff altered the way they reported faculty time to the state to ensure compliance with this mandate. Additionally, when developing departmental workload expectations, academic administrators did not connect the development of this document to the Ohio workload mandate. Interestingly enough, this mandate also did nothing to impact faculty’s view of their teaching. While faculty members acknowledged their teaching had changed over the previous five years, they noted several other reasons but none were due to this mandate.

Fairweather & Beach (2002) also explored faculty work behaviors and the impact of state policies on teaching. Using a case study approach, researchers interviewed academic administrators as well as faculty at three institutions; a public research I institution, a public masters-level university, and a private liberal arts college, in three different states with differing policies relating to faculty workload. Fairweather & Beach (2002) found that the variation of practice within a specific institution is dependent on departmental external funding and resource development. More specifically, teaching expectations and the behaviors of faculty within academic departments that generated significant external funding was very different from departments with no external grants, even within the same institution (Fairweather & Beach, 2002). There are also inter-departmental differences; undergraduate teaching was occasionally viewed as a punishment for non-productive faculty or as a service to other faculty who are highly productive in their research. At these institutions, it was clear that research was valued most, and therefore, rewards were allocated accordingly.

Contemporary Case Study: The VA Restructuring Act of 2005

Unlike most other states, the Commonwealth of Virginia has begun to address the issue of greater calls for accountability and decreased state financial support through formal legislation. In 2004 three institutions in Virginia, the University of Virginia, Virginia Tech, and the College of William and Mary, drafted and presented a joint proposal to the General Assembly to receive a state-granted “charter.” This proposed legislation, known as the Commonwealth Chartered Universities and Colleges Act, limited state financial support in exchange for the ability of these institutions to set their own tuition and self-regulate, as long as there was also a commitment to advance the state’s performance standards for higher education (University of Virginia, 2018). While this act ultimately failed, this proposal served as the conduit for new legislation that would address this complex yet common issue. The following year, the Restructured Higher Education Financial and Administrative Operations Act, also known as the Virginia Restructuring Act of 2005, was passed by the General Assembly and signed into law by the Governor (University of Virginia, 2018).

This legislation explicitly required each institution’s Board of Visitors (BOV), the governing body, to commit to the following twelve state goals: access, affordability, academic offerings, academic standards, student progress and success, articulation and dual enrollment, economic development, research, enhancing K-12 education, six-year planning, finance and administrative operations, and campus safety and security (State Council of Higher Education for Virginia, 2017). In return for committing to these state goals and meeting certain metrics, public institutions would receive financial incentives and be subject to decreased state oversight (State Council of Higher Education for Virginia, 2017). This legislation acknowledged the difference and diversity of institutional type and resources; institutions were provided the opportunity to “self-select” their involvement based upon the perceived benefits combined with the aligned expectations (Spigel, 2005). Institutions that met the annual performance standards outlined by the State Council for Higher Education in Virginia (SCHEV), and received approval of their six-year plan with academic, financial, and enrollment metrics, could participate in the three-level system (Spigel, 2005).

Level One, or the level with the least institutional autonomy, provides financial and administrative benefits when the institution’s BOV commits to the state’s higher education goals mentioned above. These benefits include receiving interest earned on tuition and fees, exemptions from select fees and reporting requirements, and additional authority in managing property and construction projects (Spigel, 2005). Level Two allows public institutions to enter into a MOU with the Commonwealth that outlines areas for which additional authority will be given to the institution as well as defining the criteria for this shift in responsibility (Spigel, 2005). Level Three, or the level with the most institutional autonomy, is characterized by a decentralization of authority from the state to the institution in six areas including capital projects, property leases, information technology, procurement, human resources, and financial operations (University of Virginia, 2018). In order to obtain this designation, institutions must enter into a Management Agreement with the Governor, which is then approved by the General Assembly (Spigel, 2005).

There is limited evidence, either through scholarly research or formal reports, detailing the short and long term effectiveness of this legislation. However, the notoriety of the benefits associated with the second and third levels has spread; within one decade of this legislation passing, there are now four public institutions to hold the level-three designation and receive the accompanying benefits. Virginia Commonwealth University joined the University of Virginia, Virginia Tech and the College of William & Mary in 2008 as a level-three institution. Additionally, between the reporting periods of 2014 and 2016, there was a change of one additional level-two institution, the University of Mary Washington.

The Auditor of Public Accounts within the Commonwealth of Virginia found that 17 public institutions, including the Virginia Community College System, received over $38 million in financial incentives from interest earnings, credit card rebates, sole source procurement rebates, and in retaining unused state appropriations during FY 2009 (Auditor of Public Accounts, 2009). In reality, this dollar amount is higher; the level-three institutions invest their tuition and fee revenue dollars based upon their annual certification so these funds do not earn interest in the State Treasury as the revenue for other institutions does (Auditor of Public Accounts, 2009). Despite the lack of assessment data or research available pertaining to the effectiveness or impact of this legislation, there were several early publications, which reviewed the intended and unintended consequences of this policy.

In a case study depicting the journey of this legislation, Leslie & Berdahl (2008) offer a brief description of several immediate outcomes along with considerations. Leslie & Berdahl (2008) suggested that additional funding would flow from the state to institutions; while they estimated that between $25-30 million would be allocated, latter evidence by the Auditor of Public Accounts confirmed this hypothesis and demonstrated even larger financial benefits. Furthermore, Leslie & Berdahl (2008) also referenced an earlier report which suggested that with fewer state restrictions, public institutions might be able to secure more external funding to support critical needs including infrastructure and personnel, ultimately enhancing institutional effectiveness (Breneman & Kneedler, 2006, as cited in Leslie & Berdahl, 2008). This speculation has already proven to be true for at least one institution; in 2017, the University of Virginia was on track to raise more through private donors than it received from the Commonwealth in state appropriations (Quizon, 2017).

Analysis

There is no denying that this innovative legislation fundamentally reformed the relationship between the state and public higher education within the Commonwealth of Virginia; and in doing so, the state’s commitment to fostering excellence within student learning and achievement became clearer. This commitment is demonstrated through a change in the role of state’s higher education coordinating agency, the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia. The Code of Virginia states “[The Council shall…] in cooperation with public institutions of higher education, develop guidelines for the assessment of student achievement. Each such institution shall use an approved program that complies with the guidelines of the Council and is consistent with the institutions mission and education objectives in the development of such assessment. The Council shall report each institutions assessment of student achievement in the revisions to the Commonwealth’s statewide strategic plan for higher education” (SCHEV, 2017).

As depicted throughout the case study above, great emphasis within the scholarship and media is often given to acknowledging the substantial financial benefit and limited oversight of the state in institutional operational matters when discussing this legislation; however, there seems to be a significant part of the narrative missing. By limiting oversight responsibilities and decentralizing certain financial processes, elected officials and SCHEV can now devote their attention to assessing and enhancing student learning across the state and within various institutions. In reviewing the twelve components of the act, it is clear that this legislation made assessment and quality assurance a priority. Each public institution is required to submit an assessment plan outlining specific competencies, outcomes, and evaluation strategies. In closing the loop, each institution must then submit a report detailing their success and challenges in advancing each of these efforts; and both reports are publically available. Within the assessment plan, each institution must assess student achievement in six areas; four areas are dictated by SCHEV and include critical thinking, written communication, quantitative reasoning, and civic engagement; and the institution selects two other competency areas (SCHEV, 2017).

Furthermore, following the passage of this legislation, it appears that state lawmakers have remain interested in moving the needle and advancing the conversation relating to student success. In reviewing the Virginia Plan for Higher Education, the second goal reads to “optimize student success for work and life” and a 2016 priority was to “strengthen curricular options to ensure that graduates are prepared with the competencies necessary for employment and civic engagement” (SCHEV, 2017). In reviewing SCHEV’s Policy on Student Learning & Quality in Undergraduate Education, one will quickly note that the first principle in the Principles Guiding Assessment and Quality Assurance section is “Student Learning is the core mission of higher education” (SCHEV, 2017).

These bold statements not only demonstrate a sustained commitment to excellence within student learning, but are also in alignment with the current trends in state higher education policy. SCHEV’s goals and efforts focus on the ‘return on investment’ of higher education to the Commonwealth. By increasing access for under-represented populations and elevating the quality of the educational experience by responding to five of the ‘state asks’ (institutional academic offerings; academic standards; student progress and success articulation and dual enrollment; and campus safety and security), institutions are able to demonstrate their contributions to the economic, social, and culture advancement of the Commonwealth.

Implications & Considerations

The discourse surrounding higher education policy and its impact on student learning within the academy has evolved significantly over the last 50 years. In review of scholarly articles, academic book chapters, as well as multiple reports and policy briefs produced by professional organizations, think tanks and research centers, many of which are referenced throughout this paper, I am reminded of several considerations and implications for future research and practice. These considerations are both practical and philosophical in nature; some offer hope, while others create a space for pause and reflection.

In discussing the implications of his study, Colbeck (2002) poses a deeply philosophical yet important question: should higher education be subject to professional or democratic control? Colbeck (2002) argued that state policies would be more effective if they leveraged both controls and involved relevant stakeholders in the planning, implementation, and ongoing management. Similarly, Mills (1998) explores this idea when discussing the negative impact of ‘top down’ policymaking as opposed to ‘bottom up’ within the context of the Oklahoma remedial education mandate. In alignment with Colbeck’s position, Mills (1998) believes the Oklahoma Regents policy would have been more effective if multiple stakeholders including faculty were engaged throughout the process.

However, the reality is that the ‘top-down’ or democratic approach to policymaking is evident across most of the contemporary issues introduced within this paper, especially those which use a mandate as the policy instrument. The literature, along with these examples, demonstrate this change in orientation over time with state elected officials more apt to act and legislate as opposed to partner with university leadership and faculty, as they did when policymakers first begun shaping higher education legislation. This could be due to the mistrust of lawmakers or perhaps the academy’s inability to change fast enough, or perhaps a combination of both. This change in orientation also aligns with the notion that state elected officials are now serving as ‘interveners’ rather than ‘encouragers’ when advancing higher education policy.

Another important consideration and with a potential glimpse of optimism, McGuinness (1994) offers two projections that could alter future higher education policy efforts as well as shift the research agendas of higher education scholars. First, he postulates that the need for change in higher education might not be as significant as what is needed in K-12 education (McGuinness, 1994). His argument relies on the public perception that K-12 education is deeply and systemically flawed; and therefore, in need of greater involvement from state officials. This proposition combined with a proposed paradigm shift that as funding for higher education increases, the urgency for change amongst elected state leaders will also decrease signals a new day for higher education (McGuinness, 1994). This shift in state priorities would not only alter the current relationship between institutions of higher learning and state leaders, but also influence the philosophical underpinnings driving policy development. Furthermore, if these two items were to be true, one could see a renewed emphasis on secondary and post-secondary partnerships, both within research and state education policy.

McGuinness (1994) also suggested that the role, work, and authority of state coordinating boards is in flux. This perception, introduced in the Education Commission of the States report, is validated in recent literature and offers insight into larger shifts occurring within higher education governance. In review of the contemporary case study, the Virginia Code authorized SCHEV to exercise greater power in mandating student and institutional outcomes but also in ensuring institutional compliance. Previously, coordinating agencies, including SCHEV, were tasked with collaborating with institutions to advance public education generally; today, it seems their role and locus of responsibility is growing. This shift in power dynamic also aligns with trends in higher education policy, most notably with policy makers, regardless of type, shifting their orientation from an ‘encourager’ to an ‘intervener.’ Furthermore, with coordinating bodies exercising greater authority and power, legislators committed to reform within higher education, can begin to step back and focus on other economic, financial, social, and political issues, while allowing these agencies to take on a role they held in the not too recent past. With this transition, one might expect to see administrative policy, focused on student learning and achievement, issued from these agencies or bodies as opposed to legislation from state houses.

Conclusion

In a report published at the turn of the century, Hersh & Benjamin (2001) suggest that by leveraging “value-added” measurement as a signature policy approach, student learning would improve, as it would then be at the center of all public higher education policymaking. By using this approach and focusing on the holistic development of each student, future policies, relying on inducements and rewards to encourage institutional behavior, would be more effective. It is now known that the influence of state policy in fostering student achievement is largely indirect; however, institutional characteristics and grassroots ‘best practices’ are most impactful in fostering student growth, learning and achievement. This concept explains the increased emphasis on institutional effectiveness within recent higher education policies, and suggests that scholars and policymakers alike further explore how states can reward institutions for becoming more effective, not only in conducting undergraduate education, but also financially and operationally. In reviewing the scholarship detailed throughout this paper, it is clear that higher education representatives view inducements as more effective than mandates. This is seen in the tenure and popularity of performance-based funding as well as the widespread support for addressing issues around transfer and articulation. Perhaps, the answer

References

American Association of State Colleges and Universities. (2005). Developing transfer and articulation policies that make a difference. Policy Matters, 2(7). Retrieved from http://www.aascu.org/uploadedFiles/AASCU/Content/Root/PolicyAndAdvocacy/PolicyPublications/Transfer%20and%20Articulation.pdf.
Auditor of Public Accounts: Commonwealth of Virginia. (2009). Review of data collection and process over institutional performance standards. Retrieved from http://www.apa.virginia.gov/reports/SCHEV_IPS09.pdf.
Banta, T.W., Rudolph, L.B., Van Dyke, J., & Fisher, H.S. (1996). Performance funding comes of age in Tennessee. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 23-45.
Burke, J. C., & Modarresi, S. (2000). To keep or not to keep performance funding: Signals from stakeholders. Journal of Higher Education, 71, 432–453.
Colbeck, C. L. (2002). State policies to improve undergraduate teaching. The Journal of Higher Education, 73, 4–25
Fairweather, J. & Beach, A. (2002). Variations in faculty work at research universities: Implications for state and institutional policy. The Review of Higher Education, 26(1), 97-115.
Finney, J., Perna, L., & Callan, P. (2014). Renewing the Promise: State Policies to Improve Higher Education Performance. Institute for Research on Higher Education. University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved from http://www.sheeo.org/resources/publications/renewing-promise-state-policies-improve-higher-education-performance
Jiminez, L. (2018). How to Reform Remedial Education. Center for American Progress. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-k-12/news/2018/01/09/444582/reform-remedial-education/
Hebel, S. (2005, February 10). Virginia lawmakers approve plan to give public colleges more autonomy. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/Virginia-Lawmakers-Approve/120601
Hersh, R. H., & Benjamin, R. (2001). Assessing the quality of student learning: An imperative for state policy and practice. Washington, DC: National Governor’s Association, Center
for Best Practices.
Hearn, J.C., & Holdsworth, J.M. (2002) Influences of state-level policies and practices on college students’ learning. Peabody Journal of Education, 77:3, 6-39. DOI: 10.1207/S15327930PJE7703_2
Leslie, D.W., & Berdahl, R.O. (2008). The politics of restructuring higher education in Virginia: A case study. The Review of Higher Education, 31(3), 309-323.
McGuinness, A. C., Jr. (1994). A Framework for Evaluating State Policy Roles in Improving Undergraduate Education: Stimulating Long-Term Systemic Change. Boulder, CO: Education Commission of the States.
Mills, M. (1998). From coordinating board to campus: Implementation of a policy mandate on remedial education. Journal of Higher Education, 69, 672-697.
Obergfell, M. (2018). Performance based funding is here to stay. Blog. New America. Retrieved from https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/performance-based-funding-here-stay/
Quizon, B. (2017, June 17). A new way for UVA? Rise in private donations could change how the university makes decisions. The Daily Progress. Retrieved from http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/uva/a-new-way-for-uva-rise-in-private-donations-could/article_fa678bef-3504-52a1-9073-b68820c542a6.html
Robertson, P. F., & Frier, T. (1996). The role of the state in transfer and articulation. New Directions for Community Colleges, 96, 15–24.
Spigel, S. (2005). Virginia Higher Education Restructuring Law. Retrieved from https://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0773.html
State Council of Higher Education for Virginia. (2017). Policy on Student Learning Assessment and Quality in Undergraduate Education. Retrieved from http://www.schev.edu/docs/default-source/institution-section/GuidancePolicy/assessment/policy-on-student-learning-assessment-and-quality-in-undergraduate-education.pdf.
University of Virginia. (2018). Higher Education Restructuring: History. Retrieved from http://www.virginia.edu/restructuring/background.html.
University of Virginia. (2018). Higher Education Restructuring: Timeline. Retrieved from http://www.virginia.edu/restructuring/timeline.html.

In every culture and in all parts of the world, getting an education is significant to a person’s future. Individuals in the past did not stress over the benefit of receiving education because it was not as indispensable as it is today. Now, individuals see others by their achievements. Businesses quite enlist individuals with the most training and experience.

A majority of students are concerned about getting a higher education throughout the years. Nevertheless, some people question the value of being educated, and consider it meaningless. What is it that makes education so valuable?

The purpose of a higher education provides a person the opportunity to be prosperous in life, either financially or ethically reliant on the desires that they set for their life. It opens doors for individuals to broaden an advanced knowledge base, have financial stability, and become more productive members of society.

College is a place where learning is empowered and students have the time and resources to absorb as much as possible. It is full of surprises, most of which come from your own realizations of what you are capable of achieving, and the things you need to improve on.

In my college graduate interview, my interviewee admits, “One of the huge benefits of going to college is the tackling of classes you would never imagine enjoying and finding out that you do enjoy them, appreciate the exposure, and finding new things you both wind up intrigued by and excel at.”

Getting the necessary skills students need will assure the prosperity on anything they choose to do. Students learn to test their mental limits and think outside the box. They also figure out how to become independent when they start managing their time according to their own capabilities.

There’s always teachers who offer guidance to interested students. When else in life will you have someone whose job is it to try to make you a more intelligent and cultured human being? You will learn from professors intellectually and learn a lot about your chosen major and about life. College is more of life preparation course that will help ensure a successful career.

Students learn about respect, communication, and how to be a leader. Another way to look at it is self-development. In college, some people are closed minded and can only gain a limited meaning from an experience which often times makes them anguished and agitated.

In his “Kenyon Commencement Speech”, David Foster Wallace explains “Learning how to think really means learning how to exercise some control over how and what you think. It means being conscious and aware enough to choose what you pay attention to and to choose how you construct meaning from experience.”

Wallace gives a realistic look at life after college, along with how it tends to drain students physically and emotionally. This awareness is essential to keeping your sanity, how not to succumb to your everyday routine and to appreciate life a somewhat more.

It’s important to overcome the incessant thought that our own identity, our own triumphs and our own failures are the most important thing in the world. Only you have the power to choose what you acknowledge and how it will influence you for the duration of your life.

Each generation has something valuable to offer within the scope of education in society. While past generations have done their best to improve education within the ealm of their society our generation through the use of modern technology will be able to change it, not only for our society, but for the whole world. We seem so dependent on technology that it is hard to imagine life without it, but there is no doubt that the education and the learning process have changed since the introduction of the technology. Todayāls world has been divided into developing and industrialized countries where the main differences between them is the amount of money the government apply in important sector such as education and technology.

Firstly, there have been immense advances in technology in most aspects of peopleâlls lives, especially in the fields of education. In increasing number of students rely on computers to do research for information and to produce a perfect paper for school. Others have decided to leave the original way of learning to get knowledge through online schooling. These changes in our learning process have brought a special concern regarding the possible decrease of importance of the teachers in the classrooms.

Today some people believe the roles of the teachers are starting to fade because computers have been helping some students to progress in their studies quicker than when compared with original classroom. For instance, in the same classroom, students have different intellectual capacities. Thus some would be slow to advance in their studies because of the others in capacity of understanding. On the other hand; pupils could progress in their acquisition of knowledge at their own place using computers instead of learning from the teacher.

However, the presence of a teacher is essential for students because the human contact influences them in positive ways. Firstly, students realize that they are not dealing with a machine but with a human being who deserve attention and respects. They also learn the importance of studying in groups and respect other students, which helps them to improve their social skills. Moreover teachers are required in the learning process because they acknowledge some students deficiencies and help them to solve their problems by repeating the same explanation giving extra exercise or even suggesting a private tutor.

Hence students have a bigger chance not to fail in subjects. Nobody can argue that the acquisition of knowledge is more fun and easier with computers. The mere activity of touching and exploring this device constitutes an enjoyable task for kids. This accompanied with the relaxing attitude and software inveracity, usually conduce to a better grasping of new knowledge. As in role for the teacher in the learning process is still very modern and important and it will continue to be in the future because no machine can replace the human interaction and its consequences.

Secondly, the mass media has a powerful influence in shaping our lives. We have come to depend on them for information and entertainment, in doing so; we let them affect important aspects of our lives. The undeniable usefulness of the media in almost instantly providing information about events around the world is largely taken for granted. But in our dependence on the media we have allowed them to mould our nations and opinions of events, places and people. Though few of us think about it, our conceptions, Say our elected officials spring from television images and newspaper stories. Most of us will never meet prime ministers or presidents, but anyone who is regularly exposed to media will have an option of them. When it is time to cast our vote, we will make our decision based on how the media portray the candidate. We are similarly swayed by coverage of wars.

The media representing the values of their ownerals societies and governments tend to report wars with a bias; which is good side and which the bad is determined for us by reporters editors and commentators, and sure enough the public begins to form opinions that reflects the coverage they see, hear and read in the major media. The media are also influential in the way they facilities the spread of culture and lifestyle. The so called a global youth culturea in which one finds young people around the world displaying a common interest in music, clothing style and films, is an example of the mediaâlls enormous sway in this regard.

A popular figure such as Michael Jackson would never be so well known were it not for the mediaãs extensive reach into every society on the globe. Thus I would agree that the mass mediaalls influence is certainly great. Indeed with technological advancements such as the internet brining even more forms of electronic media to our homes and workplaces, it is likely the mediaâs influence will grow even stronger.

In conclusion, Education could not be limited within teacher and taught without social environment. Mass media is one such potent force in the social environment of education. Through modern electronic techniques and technologies, mass media prove that education is, really comprehensive not confined within four walls of the classroom. Irrespective of caste, color, geographical, sociological, economical diversities mass media prove as an important means for the education to all. Mankind gets a great deal of information from the widespread mass media i.e. newspaper, TV, radio, magazines, journals, films, etc. It is estimated that mass media may substitute the real classroom teaching in future.

The coronavirus does not discriminate between countries or philosophies. Many countries across the world have worked together to find solutions to control and mitigate the danger to our public wellbeing, protection, and stability. The community seeks to grasp what is functioning, what is not coming from the struggles and disbursements of someone who has been seriously impacted. Zoom has gained a lot of media coverage since the COVID-19 pandemic caused a spike in homework and a subsequent surge in the use of the video conferencing app. Zoom’s unexpected rise in success has not flown under the radar, and cybercriminals are steadily targeting app users (Solid Space, 2005-2020).

Explain the types of crime the organization addresses

Recently, outsiders have been participating in the zoom bombing where these online gatherings have been interrupted by hateful and inappropriate remarks. They’re still trying to hack their way into the forums. Cybercrime is the use of a computer for illicit acts such as fraud, trading in intellectual property, stealing identities, or breaching privacy. Cybercrime, specifically across the Internet has increased in importance as computers have become integral to business, culture, and government.

Many devices belonging to the academic system have also been the victims of cybercrime in recent years. Thanks to the global pandemic of COVID-19, schools, and institutions around the world have been infected (Yar. M, 2019). Schools to Graduate Institutes have closed their campuses to ensure the safety of students and faculty and to avoid the potential dissemination of the pandemic across these campuses.

The number of working days is reduced by Workplaces. However, with recent developments in technology and connectivity, schooling and some kind of office work can be provided over the Phone. Classrooms will also use interactive forums to communicate with students and teachers. Offices may also hold their meetings online. Online forums help teachers exchange lesson plans and social media help students work together through classrooms. Web-based apps help teachers tailor the instructional environment of each pupil to achieve higher learning outcomes.

Describe the technical approach the organization uses to address cybercrimes

Several blogs and conversations explored the various approaches to attacking Zoom’s conferencing facilities, some of which centered on Zoom checkers and credential stuffing. Tracking services are popular in credit card fraud-the concept is to verify if a compromised credit card is fresh by making a micro-donation. If the donation is made, the card is new and can be used for fraudulent purchases. Credentials are a type of hacking attempt in which login credentials are checked against a website or program to obtain access to and take over an account.

A few of the participants mentioned using the Open Bullet Zoom-specific setup. Although it’s not a function of the framework, the last suggestions go without saying stay clear of Zoom ransomware scams. Hackers will use fraudulent connections that have bogus Zoom domains and look-alike URLs that ask for authentication. The company Zoom asks that all employees take extra care when clicking on links and make sure to enter the Zoom page using the normal system rather than the connection that someone may have sent (Wiederhold, B. K., 2020). Each consumer has a Special Meeting visibly with their account. Using a per-meeting Identifier, unique to a particular session, exclusive to a specific meeting. The Zoom help page provides a video on how to create a random meeting ID for extra protection.

Identify Vulnerable Areas

Zoom is now becoming famous all over the world in the Covid 19 Pandemic since it has been commonly chosen as one of the useful education platforms based on its ability to provide smoothly responsive video conferencing. But it has emerged along with its array of issues. The improvement makes it possible for users to prevent and redress cyber-bullying events. Conversely, Zoom has put in place several steps to discourage this including monitoring screen sharing, which hosts could get complete control of what can be shared on screens through ongoing sessions, restricting invaders and cyberbullies.

Around the same time, moderators can shut out personnel who are not permitted to simulated conferences and can only admit unique individuals. Around the same time, the Zoom Waiting Room allows people the discretion to validate persons before they are admitted to sessions. This functionality can be activated for each session. At the same time, users can also limit chats to discourage those attending sessions from sending private messages to each other. The zoom program also helps hosts to delete any individuals they choose. This functionality makes it easy for them to delete any alleged cyberbullies.

Prevention Methods

Zoom allows its customers to use a program and system that has been upgraded with new security settings. Besides, it is preferable to have more than one co-host to monitor those who attend the session while setting up a Zoom conference. Zoom also advises that an entity can never use their Meeting ID (PMI) to hold public meetings since this would allow everyone to access their private digital space. Zoom urges its users to disallow the exchange of screens with non-hosts during sessions as this will discourage non-participants from entering the conference.

Zoom advises that hosts make it a requirement for other members to enter the rooms using a password. This helps to track the involvement of the participants. Hosts and co-hosts should forbid or regulate the sharing of files in Zoom Rooms. Finally, hosts and co-hosts are instructed to exclude all guests that have suspicious activity and further prohibit them from reconnecting to the session by shutting off the segment that allows the excluded participants to reconnect.