Abstract
The goal of the preceding chapters has been to make a case for a different kind of university, one that can self-organize to act upon the quality of learning and teaching at scale. Each chapter has engaged in strong critique of the status quo of learning and teaching in pre-contextual universities followed by the description of an alternative approach—the self-organizing university (SOU). In this chapter, we describe the forces that drive change in higher education and those that sustain the status quo. We then take up the shifts in thought and action required to create a self-organizing university. We introduce nine shifts required to build a new schema that migrates the conversation about change in higher education from the pre-contextual to the SOU.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
From the title of the book by Lewis (1999), The new new thing: A Silicon Valley story.
- 2.
PowerPoint [Computer Software]. (2015). Microsoft Corporation.
- 3.
These are titles of popular films that depict the role of teachers.
- 4.
A highly dangerous ocean condition where waves can come from all sides because of a cross-sea state.
- 5.
A term coined by Doyne Framer and described by Mitchell Waldrop in the 1993 book Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos.
- 6.
An earlier exposure to this idea came from Edward Hooper a former Director of Learning Skills at Brewster Academy, Wolfeboro New Hampshire.
References
ACT (2009). ACT report: Voluntary system of accountability learning gains methodology. Retrieved from https://cp-files.s3.amazonaws.com/22/ACTReport_LearningGainsMethodology.pdf.
Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2012). A stupidity-based theory of organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 49(7), 1194–1220. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01072.x.
Bain, A., & Drengenberg, N. (2016). Transforming the measurement of learning and teaching in higher education. New York: Routledge.
Berends, M., Nataraj Kirby, S. N., Naftel, S., & McKelvey, C. (2001). Implementation and performance in New American Schools: Three Years into Scale-Up. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
Bowker, G., & Star, S. (2000). Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Fuller, B., & Kuromiya, K. (1982). Critical path. New York: St Martins Griffin.
Harden, N. (2012, December 11). The end of the university as we know it. Retrieved from http://www.the-american-interest.com/2012/12/11/the-end-of-the-university-as-we-know-it/.
Hil, R. (2015). Selling students short. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Jarvis, D. (2014). Regulating higher education: Quality assurance and neo-liberal managerialism in higher education: A critical introduction. Policy and Society, 33, 155–166.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: IL, University of Chicago Press.
Latour, B. (1996). On actor-network theory. A few clarifications plus more than a few complications. Soziale Welt, 47, 369–381.
Lewis, M. (1999). The new new thing: A Silicon Valley story. New York: W.W. Norton.
Liu, O. (2008). Measuring learning outcomes in higher education using the measure of academic proficiency and progress (MAPP). Retrieved from https://cp-files.s3.amazonaws.com/23/RR-0847MeasuringLearningOutcomesUsingMAPP.pdf.
Loudon, I. (1997). Western Medicine: An illustrated history. New York: Oxford University Press.
McCloskey, G. C., & Bulechek, G. M. (1994). Standardizing the Language for Nursing Treatments: An Overview of the Issues. Nursing Outlook, 42(2), 56–63.
Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects students (Vol. 2): A third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
PowerPoint [Computer Software]. (2015). Microsoft Corporation.
Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order Out of Chaos: Man’s New Dialogue with Nature. New York: Bantam Books.
Scott, D., & Scott, S. (2015). Leadership for quality university teaching: How bottom-up academic insights can inform top-down leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(3), 511–531. doi:10.1177/1741143214549970.
Sullivan, T., Mackie, C., Massy, W., & Sinha, E. (2012). Improving measurement of productivity in higher education. Panel on measuring higher education productivity: Conceptual framework and data needs. Committee on National Statistics and Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Surowiecki, J. (2015, November 2). The rise and fall of for-profit schools. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/02/the-rise-and-fall-of-for-profit-schools.
The Economist (2012). Not what it used to be. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21567373-american-universities-represent-declining-value-money-their-students-not-what-it.
Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Verbeek, P. P. (2006). ‘Materializing Morality – design ethics and technological mediation. Retrieved from https://www.utwente.nl/bms/wijsb/organization/verbeek/materializing-morality.pdf.
Waldrop, M. M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York: Touchstone, Simon and Schuster.
Wong, A. (2015, February, 23). The downfall of for-profit colleges. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/02/the-downfall-of-for-profit-colleges/385810/.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bain, A., Zundans-Fraser, L. (2017). Moving Forward with the Self-organizing University. In: The Self-organizing University. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4917-0_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4917-0_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-4916-3
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-4917-0
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)