| Prof.
William Barba, Timothy Murphy, Daniel Shelley, and Sara Stensgaard,
"The Importance of College Level Learning in America's
High Schools: A View from the Principal's Desk".
James E. Groccia and Judith E. Miller, Editors (1998). Enhancing Productivity: Administrative, Instructional, and Technological Strategies. [A brief summary.] Prof. Bruce Johnstone and Patricia Maloney, "Enhancing the Productivity of Learning: Curricular Implications." "A Very Public Agenda" excerpt from Policy Perspectives, the newsletter of the Pew Higher Education Roundtable, based at the University of Pennsylvania, September, 1998. Kimberly Crooks, Ph.D, "State Sponsored College-level Learning for High School Students: Selected Findings from a National Policy Study." |
About the Learning Productivity Network...
The Learning Productivity Network, supported by foundation grants, began in the summer of 1995 at the University at Buffalo under the direction of D. Bruce Johnstone, former SUNY Chancellor and University Professor of Higher and Comparative Education. The Network includes individuals involved in programs, research or advocacy related to the concept of learning productivity.
This concept begins by acknowledging that higher education must become more productive, for the sake of students, parents, and taxpayers alike. But the core assumption of learning productivity is that enhancements in productivity will increasingly have to come not from lessening or cheapening the inputs (mainly faculty and staff) but from increasing the outputs-mainly learning-in a way that delivers the same or more higher educational quality, but for less money.
The premise of learning productivity is that higher education, in addition to its roles as guardian of culture, creator of knowledge, and engine of economic growth and social mobility, must also be affordable-and to continue to be affordable, it must become more efficient and productive (Prof. D. Bruce Johnstone).
"The Importance of College
Level Learning in America's High Schools:
A View from the Principal's Desk"
Authors: William C. Barba, Assistant Professor of Higher Education Administration, SUNY Buffalo; Timothy L. Murphy, Higher Education Administration Ph.D. student, SUNY Buffalo; Daniel R. Shelley, Higher Education Administration Ph.D. student, SUNY Buffalo; Sara L. Stensgaard, Higher Education Administration Ed.M. student, SUNY Buffalo.
The advantages most often claimed for college-level learning in high school are three. First, it can strengthen the high school curriculum and raise expectations for high school students, regardless of the use to which such credits so earned may be put in college. Second, it can reduce the total number of credits that need to be earned in college and thus reduce, at least potentially, both the time required for the baccalaureate as well as the costs to parents, students, and taxpayers. Finally, it can enrich the undergraduate college curriculum by lessening the need to retake some introductory courses and allow earlier entry into more advanced courses, facilitate double majors, or permit a more enriched array of electives (Johnstone, 1993).
College-level learning in high school offers profound implications to high school curricular reform, to the college undergraduate curriculum, and to the increasing interest in learning productivity, time-to-degree and the lessening of duplication between the high school and college curricula. The purpose of this study is to determine the availability and types of college-level course work in high schools throughout the United States, and also to examine the perceptions of high school principals toward college-level learning in their schools.
College-level learning in the United States is a growing phenomenon (Crooks, 1997), and, while not exclusively for academically gifted or talented students, has taken on many forms. Advanced Placement has been the most common in terms of both institutional acceptance (i.e., secondary and postsecondary) and number of participating high school students in this form of advanced learning (Crooks, 1997). Other forms of college level learning include the International Baccalaureate (IB) and the College Level Examination Program (CLEP), as well as opportunities for dual enrollment and school-based between secondary and post-secondary educational institutions.
For purposes of this study, AP will be defined as learning certified as worthy of college credit through the examinations given by the Advanced Placement Program of the College Board (although the granting of credit remains up to the matriculating postsecondary institution). The International Baccalaureate, a less common form of college-level learning, is designed as a complete curriculum modeled on the most rigorous European academic secondary school diplomas, generally considered roughly equivalent to a year of an American college.
Dual enrollment shall be characterized by high school students enrolling in college classes, taught by college faculty, generally at the college campus (but occasionally in the high school, sometimes via distance education), while continuing to be enrolled in high school. The credits often apply to the high school diploma as well as to a college degree.
School-based, as it is defined in this study, shall be characterized by the college-level course being taught by high school faculty, usually in the high school, but validated by the sponsoring college or university as equivalent in content and rigor to its regular courses.
The study also assesses the perceptions held by principals toward college-level learning. Attitudes and perceptions shall be defined by how respondents (high school principals) perceive and respond to college-level course work (i.e., AP, IB, dual enrollment, school-based) in their schools.
Finally, enhancing the productivity of learning seeks to lessen the current "lost learning" in the transition between high school and college, enhance student learning during the critical last year of high school, minimize curricular redundancy, and maximize the potential for collegiate-level learning during the high school years (Johnstone, 1993).
The study surveyed 715 high school principals throughout the United States. In this study, the following questions are examined:
Of principals questioned, 69 percent report that their high school
offers AP courses with the top AP courses distributed as follows:
Dual Enrollment
With regard to dual enrollment the results of the questionnaire indicate that:
School-Based
College School-based responses offered the following information:
With regard to the International Baccalaureate, it should be noted that only 2 percent of principals responding to the questionnaire report that their high school offers an IB program.
Conclusions
While principal's perceptions of college-level learning in their high schools vary widely, one overarching trend in this section of the data is clear:
In spite of the scarcity of information on School-Based, Dual Enrollment, and the International Baccalaureate, these college-level learning initiatives raise a number of questions. The questions include: (1) time-to-degree; (2) cost of obtaining a degree; (3) academic preparedness for college-level study; (4) and the "perceptions" among secondary and postsecondary faculty regarding the "importance" and academic rigor of college-level learning generally. In addition, stretching curricula to address a broader range of student needs including academic preparedness is a costly venture for secondary school systems. College-level learning, like dual enrollment initiatives potentially offer schools an opportunity to expand their breadth of curricular offerings.
Whether college-level learning in the high school merely enriches the upper high school years, or whether it further enriches the postsecondary curriculum, or whether it permits college graduation after less than the traditional four-year baccalaureate curriculum, college-level learning in the high school almost certainly increases education's output, i.e., learning and thus enhances the productivity of the total educational enterprise.
Enhancing Productivity: Administrative, Instructional, and Technological Strategies
Book excerpt: James E. Groccia and Judith E. Miller, Editors (Number 103, Fall 1998). Enhancing Productivity: Administrative, Instructional, and Technological Strategies, Jossey-Bass: CA.
A Brief Summary
Financial viability, credibility, and for some institutions, survival may depend on developing a reasoned approach to increasing productivity. As higher education moves into the next millennium, the costs of remaining stagnant - of doing educational "business as usual" - may lead to literal and figurative bankruptcy. Higher education must creatively seek methods to reduce costs, increase productivity, and recapture the public interest.
The first chapter entitled, "Administrative Approaches to Educational Productivity," the authors present an institutional framework for raising productivity in higher education through consideration of theory and policy in explaining rising costs in higher education. They also consider the role of the administrative process for improving productivity that focuses on organizational goals, incentives, and accountability. The second chapter, "Enhancing the Productivity of Learning: Curricular Implications," D. Bruce Johnstone and Patricia Maloney discuss the enhancement of learning productivity through curricular reform. (The following article in the Newsletter is an excerpt from this chapter). The learning productivity perspective examines the content, structure, and instructional methodology of the curriculum to identify features that are inhibiting greater learning. Building from the theme of curricular reform, "Enhancing Pedagogical Productivity," addresses the role of faculty in enhancing pedagogical productivity. The outcomes of this faculty-driven strategy include increased student learning, satisfaction, and retention.
In the following chapter, "Technology's Contribution to Higher Education Productivity," Mussy and Wilier discuss the cost of technology in contrast to potential increases in educational outputs. The authors contend technology allows faculty to accommodate individual differences in student goals, learning styles, and abilities, with unlimited access, therefore contributing to increasing learning productivity. The final chapter, "A Cost-Effectiveness Model for the Assessment of Educational Productivity," James Caterwaul describes and illustrates techniques used to assess productivity in colleges and universities. The main goal of the chapter is to frame and asses the degree to which new instructional design had an impact on educational productivity.
Each author in this volume describes an approach to transform higher education into a more effective and efficient learning environment. These approaches address productivity from many perspectives, those of the student, the faculty, the institution, state and national governments, and society as a whole. Although the authors in this volume take diverse approaches to educational productivity and its improvement, a core unifies their approaches. The common theme is the creation of student-centered, active learning environments and the reemphasis of traditional lecture-oriented teaching and learning structures. Increasing productivity in higher education is inextricably intertwined with giving students responsibility for their own learning, devising instructional supports to empower students, becoming responsive to individual student needs in the creation of flexible administrative and bureaucratic policies and procedures, and providing individualized resources (technology) to expand the learning field beyond traditional physical locales. These approaches integrate educational quality with educational productivity.
"Enhancing the Productivity of Learning: Curricular Implications"
Authors: D. Bruce Johnstone, University Professor of Higher and Comparative Education, State University of New York at Buffalo and Patricia A. Maloney, Doctoral Candidate, Higher Education, State University of New York at Buffalo. Excerpt from Enhancing Productivity: Administrative, Instructional, and Technological Strategies, Chapter 2. Editors, James E. Groccia and Judith E. Miller, Jossey-Bass, 1998.
Learning Productivity is an approach toward the need for higher education to become more productive. This productivity imperative, although pressing unequally upon colleges and universities of differing prestige, market position, and wealth, is evidenced by declining public sector appropriations, increasing tuition price resistance, and a widespread public conviction, whether warranted or not (and much is almost certainly not), that most institutions of higher education are profligate.
The learning productivity approach attempts to achieve the necessary productivity gains less through reducing or cheapening inputs (e.g., cutting faculty and staff, substituting cheaper part-time faculty for more costly full-time faculty, adding to faculty workloads, or deferring necessary maintenance), and more through enhancing higher education's major real output, which is student learning.
Learning Productivity and the Curriculum
A different approach to the enhancement of productivity, given a particular curricular content, is to look for variations in either the structure of the curriculum or the method of instruction that promise to provide more for less money.
In a 1971 report prepared for the Carnegie Commission in Higher Education, Howard Bowmen and Gordon Douglas called attention to the inefficiencies of what they termed, "the conventional plan of lecture-discussion," which dominated then as it does today. This plan, they wrote:
The many proposals for increasing the productivity of the curriculum, most of them developed with the small, private liberal arts college in mind, are of two general forms. First are proposals to alter the mix of large and small classes. This is accomplished generally by increasing the number of large classes (shown to be less costly but no less effective than small or medium size classes). Also by, keeping the small classes that are critical to particular learning goals (for example, the kinds of learning that depend on a seminar setting). And lastly by reducing the number of medium-size classes that are costly, but demonstrably no more effective than the larger ones, or that serve only the interests of individual faculty rather than the needs of the student or curriculum. This approach was the thrust of Beardsley Romulus 1959 classic, Memo to a College Trustee (Rum, 1959)."...confronts students with redesigned syllabi, packaged lectures, detailed assignments in textbooks, frequent quizzes, and the like, leaving them little incentive to discover how to learn by themselves...A typical student's program is a semester-long series of often unrelated 50-minute classes distributed unevenly in time...He is rarely permitted to direct his efforts selectively, taking certain related courses in direct succession or simultaneously in clusters so as to maximize learning momentum. Nor is he normally allowed to speed up or slow down from the pace of the rest of a class to allow for his special starting point and capacity. Instead, a uniform pace is determined by the instructor, based somehow on his sense of class capacity to make collective progressive, leaving good students bored and slower students anxious" (Bowmen and Douglas, 1971, pp. 9-10).
A second approach, with many variations, is to make better use of the student's own time and capacity for self-paced and/or peer assisted learning. Therefore freeing more of the time of the faculty to plan and manage the learning process and to assist more students, but only when and where necessary. In 1971--well before the ubiquitous and affordable personal computers, videocassette players, and internee accessibility--Bowmen and Douglas described programmed independent study that would "...harvest savings primarily by reducing the amount of instructor labor used in the educational process (per course). So long as students and instructors alike would discipline themselves to husband instructor's time, the time saved by the plan could be spent assigning more courses (but not heavier work loads) to instructors." (1971, p. 12).
The idea of greater individualization and self-pacing is pedagogically attractive. However, as any faculty knows who has ever monitored "independent study" or dissertation research, such "self-pacing" usually takes up far more faculty time per-student than teaching via conventional didactic lectures and discussion. Self-paced learning that is both more effective and cheaper per student (or at least not more costly) requires, following Buoyancy admonition of discipline on the part of both student and instructor. The discipline is needed to restrain the natural impulses of the instructor to intervene, and of the student to return too quickly for help. More productive self-paced learning also requires substantial capital in the form of technology: video- and audio cassettes, personal computers, electronic mail, access to the internee, and instructional software. Without the declared purpose of enhancing productivity, both technology and self-pacing will almost certainly increase per-student costs, perhaps enriching the learning, but doing little or nothing to respond to the challenge outlined at the start, which was to restrain the cost of higher education to parent, student, and taxpayer alike.
Advancing the Learner-Centered Curriculum
A final link between the curriculum and productivity lies in the many studies showing learning to be more effective--more learned by more students--when the students are involved. Learners become more than passive recipients (or, in too many cases, non-recipients) of the wisdom of the teacher, transmitted by lectures and teacher-dominated discussions. Love and Love (1995) summarize many of the theories, prescriptions, and underlying research associated with figures such as Astir (1993), Brooks and Brooks (1993), Chickening and Gammon (1987), Kuhn et Al (1991), Tint (1993), and many others. These deal with structure and method, but not for the most part with the content, of the curriculum except insofar as the content should deal with things real and able to engage the student. While there are important (and many more subtle) differences among theories and models, for example, of alternative pedagogies, collaborative learning, or learning communities, most stress academically and intellectually-oriented peer activities, often in association with the world of student affairs and the extra-curriculum. Most emphasize working in groups, self (or group)-paced learning, a more integrated, or "linked," curriculum, and extensive faculty-student interaction both in and out of the classroom.
Such theories or models of the undergraduate experience, while promising more learning, do so for the most part without regard to cost or to the practicality or likelihood of getting the very great changes in both institutional and faculty behavior needed to teach with such alternative curricular structures and pedagogues. If the term learning productivity means enhancing student learning without adding cost or adding to the burden or the workload of the faculty, these theories probably do not come under the learning productivity rubric.
However, to the extent that some faculty in some colleges are willing and able to teach in these radically different ways, given only the appropriate alterations in rewards, academic calendars, and curricular structures, but with no more resources, it would be appropriate to include such measures as collaborative learning and learning communities among the enhancements to the productivity of learning. Unfortunately, there is no indication that there are such significant numbers of such receptive faculty in the right institutions. Although this conclusion could be viewed as defeatist, or at least as insufficiently ambitious and certainly as conservative, the profound alterations to content, method, and curricular structure necessary to enhance learning significantly through these new models will almost certainly require more resources, and possibly even new institutions--neither of which are likely in our foreseeable future.
Conclusion
As overall resources available to higher education decline, legislatures and oversight bodies will pay increasing attention to its costs and benefits. Evidence at the federal and state level shows that unfocused academic exploration and credits lost through transfer, at times exacerbated by unarticulated curricular requirements and poor advisement, contribute to excessive time and credits required for the baccalaureate.
Instructional technology is discussed frequently as a mediator and partial solution for the degree completion problem. As more faculty comfortable with various forms of IT enter the academy, new methods of teaching and learning will become common, but will still not eliminate the dominance of the more familiar forms of knowledge delivery. Technology-mediated education is not intended to cut costs, but it can clearly enhance higher education productivity as it adds value to student learning.
Educators, including faculty as well as administrators and members of governing and coordinating boards, need to appreciate their contributions to the problems of excess course-taking, lost credits, and other forms of curricular inefficiency , as well as the ways they can enhance learning productivity, in part through modifications to the curriculum. They need to be mindful of the potential curricular misfit and lost learning arising from a plurality of first-time students entering community colleges, many planning to transfer to a four-year college. They need to be mindful of the potential productivity gains from college-level learning in high school. They need to balance the precious tradition of faculty and departmental authority over curriculum and standards. As well as the unqualified virtue ascribed to students' unlimited curricular exploration, with a recognition of the costs of such traditions and of the increasing likelihood that governors, legislatures, and boards are going to impose their own changes if they perceive colleges and universities to be unresponsive to the imperative for some kind of productivity gain in higher education.
Governors, legislatures, and members of governing and coordinating boards, meanwhile, need to temper their quest for restructuring and cost-cutting with an appreciation of the difference between "enhancing learning" and "cutting costs." They need to be aware of the unlikelihood of instructional technology yielding actual cost savings. And, they need to be aware of the appropriate differences between the high school and the college learning environments, and between the missions of two- and four-year colleges. Seamless webs, the erasure of boundaries, and faster time to degree all make good copy for educational policy-makers. But neither high schools nor community colleges nor four-year colleges (nor especially their students nor the public) will be well served by obliterating altogether these different missions and learning environments to the mere end of foreshortening the students' formal education and saving public money.
Authors: Excerpt from Policy Perspectives, the newsletter of the Pew Higher Education Roundtable, based at the University of Pennsylvania, September, 1998.
Probably the most important revolution on higher education's horizon is the shifting from processes to outcomes - from asking "What courses did you take and pass when you were in college?" to asking, "What do you know and what can you do?" For most of this century, seat time - the accumulation of academic credits through the taking and passing of courses - has served higher education well. It has been simple, quantifiable, and largely uncontroversial.
The credit hour model, however, does not measure what the student can do, with or without the benefit of instruction. Seat time does not have much meaning for self-paced distance learning in which the student first learns and then demonstrates his or her newly acquired competency. More generally, the focus on the accumulation of course credits contributes to the fragmentation of the curriculum and the discontinuity of elements even within individual courses. This focus reinforces the notion that it is teaching rather than learning that matters, placing the emphasis on how well the instructor performs as opposed to the process by which the student acquires, tests, and applies knowledge.
Here it is helpful to think back to an old model: Oxford's and Cambridge's use of external examiners raises the question of having a body or mechanism external to the institution certify student learning and performance. Systems employing external examiners and examinations forge partnerships between students and instructors, sharing the risks and penalties associated with failure. When the process of learning is separated from its certification, the instructor becomes more of an advocate than a judge-indeed, he or she becomes something of a co-conspirator in the student's search for academic mastery.
What a system of external examination accomplishes, as well, is a renewed focus on outcomes or on what the student is supposed to do. External examination can only proceed if the aims of the learning experience are well specified and if the goals of the course are known in advance. Not so coincidentally, specifying the outcomes is what distance and self-paced learning require.
Administratively, it is certainly easier to leave the certification of learning to the instructor - it becomes part of his or her workload, thus avoiding the problems inherent in establishing and managing any system of external examination. Those who like the present system the best, or so it seems, are actually those responsible for funding public institutions: it provides a simple, convenient, easily quantified way of distributing money. The more students an institution enrolls in its courses, the more money it gets - regardless of what the student learns.
Would changing the mechanisms by which pubic funds are distributed be that difficult? If what the public wants are results, why not make funding more dependent on demonstrated outcomes? What would happen if an institution were reimbursed for its costs only to the degree that the student had demonstrated mastery of the subject? Such a reimbursement system would require that a state or some other agency establish the necessary mechanisms of external examination. We suspect, however, that most states - or more likely, regional consortia - will find themselves in that business as they come to certify or credit courses taught on the Web or other forms of mediated learning that physically separate student and instructor. In this connection, the experience of the fledgling Western Governors University will supply important lessons to Al of higher education.
Ultimately, higher education's success requires students to take more responsibility for their own learning. Students may avail themselves to the most dedicated and skillful instructors, the most carefully wrought and effective curricula, the most sophisticated learning environments and technology - and yet the learning that occurs will be minimal without a commitment to expand their own knowledge and abilities. The truth is that today too many students are minimalists in this regard. They are likely to be more aggressive, even litigious, in the search for easier courses and better grades than they are in the quest for learning itself.
Several factors have contributed to the lengthening of average "time to degree":
"State Sponsored College-level
Learning for High School Students:
Selected Findings from a National Policy Study"
Author: Kimberly A. Crooks, Ph.D., Assistant Dean, School of Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, State University of New York at Buffalo.
The Issue of Collaborative Education
Reevaluation of the norms and traditions associated with the K-16 education continuum continues to be a significant policy topic for education in the United States. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching began directing attention to the importance of greater collaboration between the secondary and postsecondary sectors in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Subsequently, the release of A Nation at Risk in 1983 sparked widespread public attention and concern regarding the quality of education in the United States. School and college collaboration makes even more sense as the fiscal resources available for education become scarcer in the 1990's.
Although widely debated, the movement to increase collaboration between the secondary and higher education sectors has been positively received by many educators, policymakers, parents and students. The opportunity for flexible, rather than time- or grade level-specific, learning experiences is viewed as an attractive alternative for educational reform. Students presented with the challenge of postsecondary courses can make better use of their academic time in the secondary years by preparing for the rigor of postsecondary curriculum, and possibly accumulating credits to be applied toward the baccalaureate degree. One visible and well-established outcome of the interest in collaboration has been the heightened student participation in programs to earn college credit prior to college matriculation. Many states have responded to the quality concerns by offering opportunities for college-level learning. While opportunities to begin college ahead of the traditional timeframe are not new; policy formulation and the proliferation of options is a relatively recent trend.
Models of Delivery
The extent, patterns, and purposes of state policies directed at college-level learning were documented through a survey of the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEOs) conducted in spring 1997. The survey responses were supplemented by document analysis of data supplied by state departments of education and state higher education coordinating boards or councils throughout the country.
State-enhanced college-level learning was delivered via three primary models.
1) The College Board's Advanced Placement Program;
2) Dual Enrollment (college-based) with students taking college courses taught by college faculty; and
3) School-Based (secondary school-based) that allows specifically qualified high school instructors to teach college courses--usually within the confines of the high school campus.
The most rapid growth in college-level learning policies and the development of new partnerships between educational sectors has occurred in since the mid-eighties. Many states' policies have been drafted in the nineties. State configurations differed in terms of funding sources (parents and students, state governments--either through separate budget appropriations or redirected school base-aid), site of instruction, faculty, class composition (mixing models within the classroom), and the use of technology.
National Participation Numbers
The numbers of high school students engaged in college-level learning options were previously unavailable, with the exception of Advanced Placement courses. The SHEEOs reported the following estimates:
High School Students Pursuing College-level Learning in the 1995-96 Academic Year
| Advanced Placement Courses | 523,537 |
| Dual Enrollment (College-Based) & School-Based (School Based) Courses | 204,790 |
| Total | 728,327 |
Reasons and Reactions
Evaluating alternatives to ensure wise use of available tax dollars has been a common theme in today's era of increased public accountability. Given the intense taxpayer demand for down-sized government, redefinition of the traditional boundaries between secondary and postsecondary systems has surfaced as a matter of public importance for many states.
According to the SHEEOs:
The popularity of college-level learning opportunities is causing, or has already forced, state policymakers to carefully examine the issue of how these opportunities are financed. Traditionally, funding allocations to the secondary and higher education sectors have remained separate. College-level learning breaks the barrier separating high school from college. The two no longer remain mutually exclusive as the student possesses the option to begin college early, or to float between sectors. State efforts in this arena require a new, and in most instances, unprecedented level of cooperation between sectors to hammer out the details of policy formulation.
State Encouragement of College-level Learning Outcomes
The clear winners appear to be the students and their parents, particularly when these courses are offered at reduced, or no-cost. Although the concept of tuition cost savings only truly applies if the student graduates early, he or she may benefit from increased academic rigor.
On the surface, college-level learning involves significantly more work on the part of the higher education institutions, as well as the faculty. Proper monitoring of school-based courses and evaluation of specific AP grades (for general or specific courses) requires considerable effort. As a result, some institutions have not wholeheartedly supported this format. Highly competitive colleges have been less likely to embrace the notion while institutions eager for enrollment, and the accompanying state aid, are attracted to the college-level learning's value as a recruitment tool. The results for secondary schools are mixed as well; college-level learning offers more curricular options yet may change the funding assistance that these institutions have come to expect.
States have instituted policies for a variety of reasons including: retaining the best and brightest in their own systems of higher education and to improving the college bound rates of high school graduates.
Future Trends in College-level Learning as Reported by State Higher Education Executive Officers
According to the SHEEOs, the college-level learning phenomenon shows no signs of decreasing its momentum.
Those seeking additional information may contact the author at kcrooks@acsu.buffalo.edu.
Higher Education Resources on the Internet
 |
is published by The
Learning Productivity Network
University at Buffalo
e-mail: learning-product-center@acsu.buffalo.edu D. Bruce Johnstone, Director
|
Learning Productivity Network List Update
Since we opened our doors in 1995, the Learning Productivity Network has developed a list of nearly 1000 faculty, administrators, foundation leaders, and others interested in the application of learning productivity to higher education. We publish this electronic newsletter several times a year, and also have a web-site and a moderated on-line discussion group.
If you have changed addresses, or know someone who would like to be added to our list, please complete the following form and e-mail to Beth Del Genio, the Learning Productivity Network.
Name: Title: Department: Institution: Address: City/State/Zip Telephone/Fax E-Mail: Primary Role: Check here if you would like your name added to the LPN Listserv.